Category Archives: Utah

Vote Cruz In Arizona and Utah

Dear Marriage Supporter,

Voters go to the polls today in Arizona and Utah to make their selection in the GOP primary race for president. It's the first balloting since Sen. Marco Rubio left the race. If you live in either Arizona or Utah, please cast your ballot for Sen. Ted Cruz, a man you can trust on all the issues, and especially in the fight to restore marriage to our laws. And if you have family or friends in one of these states, please urge them to vote for Senator Cruz.

The polls show Senator Cruz with a huge lead in Utah and Donald Trump leading in Arizona but Cruz within striking distance. The lone remaining establishment candidate, Ohio Governor John Kasich, has no chance to win either state but his presence is taking votes from Cruz in Arizona. A vote for Kasich in Arizona is a vote for Donald Trump, the one candidate most likely to lose to Hilary Clinton and someone who abandoned the fight for marriage at the moment we needed leadership the most.

In addition to working hard to promote candidates who will champion the cause of marriage, NOM is fighting hard to win legal protections so that people who believe in marriage are not punished by government for living out their beliefs in their daily lives. We've all seen countless individuals and small businesses be targeted — bakers, florists, innkeepers, photographers, etc. — and threatened with financial ruin simply because they did not want to personally participate in a same-sex ceremony in violation of their deeply-held beliefs.

In order for us to continue to fight discrimination against marriage supporters, we must count on our members to renew their membership with a minimum gift of $35. If our members continue to stand with us, we will be able to continue to fight for you and every other American who knows the truth of marriage is a gift from God, one that blesses children and families, and society as a whole.

Your membership in NOM is our lifeblood. It's what allows us to fight in Congress, state legislatures, in court and in the court of public opinion. Please act today to renew your membership with a minimum $35 contribution. If you can give more than $35, I ask you to do so. Right now we are battling on your behalf in Congress and in numerous state legislatures and we need your financial support today.

Thank you for all you are doing to restore true marriage to our law and culture.


Brian S Brown

PS — Please keep in your prayers all those people who were killed or injured today in the terrorist attack in Brussels. This tragedy serves as an important reminder that the selection of the next US president is a critical choice. We need a serious candidate who will protect our nation from the scourge of Islamic extremism.

Donate Today

Not Just Same-sex Marriage: Other Unions Will Be Imposed Upon the American People

Now that the definition of marriage as the union between one man and one woman has been arrogantly dismissed by the Supreme Court, other groups are looking to have their unions included in the “marriage” category. One such example is polygamists, led by the reality stars from the series ‘Sister Wives.’ The Blaze reports that these ‘Sister Wives’ stars are invoking same-sex marriage legalization in an attempt to overturn Utah’s polygamy ban.

ThinkstockPhotos-147042664Kody Brown and his wives, Robyn, Christine, Janelle and Meri — the stars of “Sister Wives” — are asking judges to reject an appeal by Utah of a judge’s 2013 decision to strike a portion of the state’s ban on polyamorous relationships, KSTU-TV reported.

U.S. District Judge Clark Waddoups ruled that the law’s ban on cohabitation among individuals who are not married runs in contrast to the First and 14th Amendments, and essentially violates Brown’s religious freedom.

. . .

“From the rejection of morality legislation in Lawrence to the expansion of the protections of liberty interests in Obergefell, it is clear that states can no longer use criminal codes to coerce or punish those who choose to live in consensual but unpopular unions,” Jonathan Turley, an attorney for Brown, wrote to the 10th U.S. Circuit Court in Denver. ”This case is about criminalization of consensual relations and there are 21st century cases rather than 19th century cases that control.”

. . .

Brown has maintained that the legal battle is not about forcing acceptance of bigamy or challenging the rights of states to preclude individuals from holding multiple marriage licenses, but that it is, instead, about battling back against criminalization.

The state, though, maintains that polyamorous relationships are harmful to women and children.

“By only striking the cohabitation provision, the District Court left Utah with the same law maintained by most states in the Union prohibiting bigamy,” Turley wrote. “What was lost to the state is precisely what is denied to all states: the right to impose criminal morality codes on citizens, compelling them to live their lives in accordance with the religious or social values of the majority of citizens.”

When marriage is no longer protected as the union between one man and one woman, society opens itself up to harmful unions that not only further damage the institution, but also work to destroy the family. Given that the family is the building block of society, our government should be looking to protect marriage and the family — not redefine and destroy it.

Senator Mike Lee: Defender of Marriage and Religious Liberty

Senator Mike Lee of Utah has become a champion for marriage and religious liberty. Last week, he gave an important speech at Hillsdale College’s Kirby Center where he laid out the history and importance of religious liberty – noting that our constitution does not merely call for religious “tolerance” where diverse viewpoints are allowed, but it requires religious “liberty” and the freedom to live your life according to those beliefs.

He also discussed how the guarantee of religious liberty is being increasingly violated in various ways, including by radical anti-marriage activists who insist that supporters of marriage as uniquely between one man and one woman be punished and marginalized. Sen. Lee will be introducing legislation very soon to protect the right of Americans to be free of government harassment and punishment, legislation that will be a high priority for NOM.

Here are excerpts from his speech, courtesy of The Federalist:

Image credit: Republican60

Image credit: Republican60

We all know – and indeed, many of us are – individuals who have personally benefited from America’s commitment to religious liberty. But those benefits extend far, far beyond individual pilgrims’ progress. Every great social reform movement in American history – from abolition and Civil Rights, to the struggles for women’s equality and labor rights, to the pro-life movement today – has grown out of individual Americans’ religious convictions, and their constitutionally protected right to live them out. All Americans of all faiths – and those of none – have benefited equally from our nation’s unique commitment to religious liberty.

Religious liberty as it has been lived in America is not an accident of history, or a quirk of the law. It is nothing less than a culture-defining human achievement.

Yet recent events suggest it could be losing ground. The great American commitment to religious liberty and diversity may still be universally successful, but it is no longer universally shared. This turn toward intolerance, tragically, has been catalyzed by the campaign for legal recognition of gay marriages.

Like many Americans, I personally do not believe same-sex marriage is a constitutional requirement, or a federal prerogative, or even good policy for that matter. But today, those of us who hold these views cannot deny that our arguments are no longer winning the public debate.

Sometimes in a democracy, the other side wins.

Yet today, at the very moment this campaign appears to be on the brink of success – having appealed to the country with the principles of justice, tolerance, and equality – many within that movement find themselves tempted to abandon the principles and the people that have made them successful.

Most advocates of marriage equality are no more radical than most advocates of traditional marriage – just as most followers of Jesus are no more radical than most followers of Moses, Mohammed, and the Buddha.

. . .

We should never lose sight of the fact that the marriage equality movement is succeeding not by focusing on marriage, but by focusing on equality. Political conservatives and religious traditionalists may not like how the gay marriage debate is going. But it is no small thing that the gay marriage movement has succeeded in recent years only by adopting our principles – of tolerance, diversity, and equal opportunity.

It is those principles – not the parties currently enjoying their political resonance – that hold the high ground in this debate. And because those of us who believe in religious freedom hold those principles in our hearts – and not just in our political quiver – that high ground remains open to us.

The opportunity exists now – and it will expand if the Court rules as most expect it to – for Americans of good-will to come together to reinforce religious liberty, and to further protect and enrich the free space it inhabits.

To read the full text, please visit The Federalist.

Religious Institutions Seek Refuge Against Discrimination

ThinkstockPhotos-482675767Leaders of religious organizations are expressing growing concern about the possible implications of the Supreme Court’s same-sex marriage decision later this month.

This week, more than 70 leaders in Christian education sent a letter to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., and House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, urging them to pass legislation that would protect schools from government discrimination based on their belief in the biblical definition of marriage.

. . .

On Wednesday, Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, announced plans to re-file a bill that provides the protection the groups seek.

“The bill simply says federal government can't take adverse action against a religious institution based on that institution's belief in natural marriage,” Lee told a group of reporters in his Capitol Hill office. “That's incompatible with our laws, that's incompatible with who we are as a people, and that's incompatible with our Constitution.”

. . .

The proactive approach represents a change in tactics for many of the leaders, who have largely taken a wait-and-see approach to shifting cultural norms on same-sex marriage. They’re now taking their case to the public, warning of “devastating” effects that could loom ahead.

“To remove tax-exempt status from faith-based educational institutions because of their commitment to their beliefs about marriage would result in severe financial distress for those institutions and their millions of students,” the leaders wrote. “It would result in millions of students losing the choice of a faith-based educational experience that has been of historic value to the country for over 150 years.”

Full article available at World Mag.

Utah Defends Anti-Polygamy Laws

A group of state attorneys in Utah are defending the state’s anti-polygamy laws, stating that the laws protect women and children from abuse:

ThinkstockPhotos-470660173The Utah Attorney General is appealing a ruling striking down key provisions of the law in the case of Kody Brown and his four wives, stars of the reality TV show "Sister Wives." The state says in newly filed court documents that monogamous marriage is an important social unit and court rulings dating back to 1878 have upheld laws against polygamy.

"The United States Constitution does not protect the practice of polygamy as a fundamental right," state attorney Parker Douglas wrote.

Utah is appealing a 2013 ruling that struck down key provisions of the state's anti-polygamy law.

U.S. District Judge Clark Waddoups decided that a provision of the state law forbidding cohabitation violated the polygamous Brown family's freedom of religion.

But Utah contends that some religious practices can be outlawed, and polygamy should be one of them, according to documents filed Friday before the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver. The state argues the practice can be associated with crimes like sexual assault, statutory rape and exploitation of government benefits. Outlawing it helps investigators gather evidence and strengthens cases against abusers, court documents say.

Full article available via AP.

Controversy in Utah: Debate About Marriage is No Longer Permissible

The “controversy” being orchestrated in Utah against those who signed onto a brief by scholars supporting marriage is indicative of the new direction of same-sex marriage activists: they are attempting to shut down debate altogether.


It’s no longer acceptable in their eyes to have a civil debate about the importance of marriage, or about the beauty of men and women coming together to have and raise children. Instead, they treat these positions as bigoted and discriminatory, akin to racism, claiming there is no room in civil discourse for them to be expressed, and certainly not anywhere near a university.

Two professors and a university president at two Utah universities are facing intense scrutiny from colleagues and students after signing a legal brief provided to the Supreme Court that defends traditional marriage.

Utah State University professors Richard Sherlock and Kay Bradford, along with Utah Valley University president Matthew Holland, were three of 100 scholars nationwide that signed an amicus curiae, or friend of the court brief, in support of traditional marriage.

Opponents of the brief allege the three, by signing the document, are perpetuating discrimination in the name of their respective universities.

The “100 scholars of marriage” brief is one of more than 140 briefs provided to the Supreme Court as it decides whether state bans on gay marriage are constitutionally legal.

Arguing in favor of gay marriage bans, the “100 scholars of marriage” brief states that “forcing a state to redefine marriage in genderless terms will seriously disserve the vast majority of the state’s children.”

The brief further argues redefining marriage will bring an increase in poverty, the number of children with emotional problems, and teenage pregnancies and abortions, among other things.

. . .

Because of the brief’s staunch defense of traditional marriage, some professors and students at Utah State and Utah Valley have gone on the offense toward the two professors and president. A contingent of students and employees at each university penned letters that express their disapproval.

In a letter sent to the Herald Journal, 250 students and professors at Utah State wrote the signatures of Sherlock and Bradford “send a clear message of intolerance to those LGBTQ students, faculty, and allies” at the university.

“Ultimately, they used their university title to perpetuate discrimination — that’s not OK, and that’s why we wrote this letter,” said Senior Bret Nielsen, who drafted the letter.

In response, Sherlock said his opposition to gay marriage is not equivalent to discrimination, especially when related to gay students.

“We all have views,” Sherlock told the Herald Journal. “Our task as teachers is not to keep those views hidden but insure that we are being fair to students who disagree.

Bradford has not commented on the controversy.

You may remember when former GOP Gubernatorial candidate Tom Emmer in Minnesota was stripped of a university professor post that had been awarded to him when activists complained that he supported traditional marriage. And there is the case of a tenured professor at Marquette who was terminated because he publicly objected to another teacher refusing to allow a student to express a position in support of traditional marriage in a classroom discussion. They follow the 2012 case of a high-ranking official at Gallaudet University who was suspended from her position because she signed a petition giving Maryland voters the right to vote on marriage.

We sincerely hope that the members of the US Supreme Court are watching developments like this, because if they rule (illegitimately) that defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman violates the US Constitution, the recriminations against supporters of marriage will be fast and furious.

You can read the full article at The College Fix.

National Organization for Marriage Urges Appellate High Court to Rule in Favor of Traditional Marriage; Calls on US Supreme Court to Grant Review of Utah Decision

Contact: Elizabeth Ray or Matille Thebolt (703-683-5004)

"It's time that the votes of millions of Americans be respected and upheld." — Brian Brown, NOM president —


Washington, D.C. — The following statement may be attributed to Brian S. Brown, president of the National Organization for Marriage (NOM):

"We urge the 6th Circuit Court of Appeal to issue a ruling overturning the lower courts and upholding the right of voters and legislators to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman. While they are not physically present in the courtroom in Cincinnati, the votes of 8.7 million citizens are at stake in this hearing to determine the constitutionality of traditional marriage in Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee. Voters passed marriage amendments by overwhelming margins in these four states — nearly 8.7 million votes were cast in support of these four amendments, amounting to a combined 65% of the vote cast. It's time that the votes of millions of Americans be respected and upheld.

"No matter what happens with this appeal today in the 6th Circuit, the future of marriage is headed to the US Supreme Court. NOM is optimistic about ultimate victory. We urge the Supreme Court to grant review of the Utah marriage amendment case which was filed yesterday by the state. Utah is the first of many states that will be asking the Supreme Court to reverse the lower court rulings and uphold the right of voters and their elected representatives to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman, which it is in reality and has been since the dawn of time."


To schedule an interview with Brian Brown, president of the National Organization for Marriage, please contact Elizabeth Ray, [email protected], or Matille Thebolt, [email protected], at 703-683-5004

Paid for by The National Organization for Marriage, Brian Brown, president. 2029 K Street NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20006, not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee. New § 68A.405(1)(f) & (h).

National Organization for Marriage Condemns Federal Court Decisions Invalidating Marriage in Utah and Indiana

Contact: Elizabeth Ray or Matille Thebolt (703-683-5004)


Washington, D.C. — The following should be attributed to Brian Brown, president of the National Organization for Marriage (NOM).

"Today's split decision of a panel of judges in the 10th Circuit is not surprising given that this Circuit refused to even order a stay of the district court decision when it came down during the Christmas holidays. While we strongly disagree with the two judges in the majority, we are encouraged by the strong defense of marriage articulated by Justice Paul Kelly in his dissent, and especially his defense of the sovereign right of the people of Utah to decide this issue for themselves. This principled recognition by a federal judge considering the marriage issue underscores that the people of a state are entitled to respect and deference in their desire to promote marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Indeed, the US Supreme Court decided in the Windsor case that the federal government must respect the right of states to define marriage. The majority in the Utah case engage in sophistry to attempt to argue their way around the Supreme Court's ruling that it is up to the states to define marriage. As Justice Kelly noted in his dissent, ‘If the States are the laboratories of democracy, requiring every state to recognize same-gender unions—contrary to the views of its electorate and representatives—turns the notion of a limited national government on its head.'"

Mr. Brown also commented on the decision of a federal judge in Indiana to strike down that state's laws defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

"The elected representatives of the people of Indiana have decided, for good and proper reasons, to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman. It is judicial activism for a single judge to substitute his own views on marriage for the considered opinion of the people’s representatives. This is just the latest example of activism from the federal bench, but we fully expect this decision to eventually be reversed when the US Supreme Court upholds the right of states to define marriage as a man and a woman. We call on Governor Mike Pence to immediately appeal this decision and to seek a stay of the ruling. In the meantime, it is also imperative that the state legislature move forward a state constitutional amendment preserving marriage so that the people always remain in control of the definition of marriage in Indiana."


To schedule an interview with Brian Brown, president of the National Organization for Marriage, please contact Elizabeth Ray, [email protected], or Matille Thebolt, [email protected], at 703-683-5004

Paid for by The National Organization for Marriage, Brian Brown, president. 2029 K Street NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20006, not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee. New § 68A.405(1)(f) & (h).

Utah's Court Filing on Marriage "All About Kids"

In The Salt Lake Tribune, Brooke Adams does a fairly good job presenting the essential arguments in the State of Utah's court filing in support of the marriage amendment which is under legal scrutiny by the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals.

The headline of the article is its weakest point, declaring "State makes it all about kids in brief against same-sex marriage." 

Baby_Wedding_RingsWe would say, rather, two things: (1) the State is recognizing that marriage is all about the kids, simply observing marriage as a given phenomenon and institution, preexisting any state -- whereas, on the other hand, it is the marriage redefinition side of the debate that seeks to "make" marriage about something which it is not; and (2) the brief should not therefore be said to be "against same-sex marriage," but instead to be for marriage --  marriage as it has come down to us through history and tradition.

Nevertheless, as we said at the outset, the article does do a rather fair job outlining the most salient points of the State's brief:

Utah has chosen a definition of marriage that is "principally a child-centered institution, one focused first and foremost on the welfare of children rather than the emotional interests of adults," the state said. "And by reinforcing that understanding, the state gently encourages parents to routinely sacrifice their own interests to the legitimate needs and interests of their children."

That definition is not designed to demean other family structures "any more than giving an ‘A’ to some students demeans others," the state said.

You should read the entire article, which has ample additional quotations from the filing.

Fast and Furious

National Organization for Marriage

Dear Marriage Supporter,

It's been another busy week in the fight to preserve marriage. There have been some fast and furious developments in the efforts to pass Indiana's marriage amendment (HJR3). And nationwide, citizens and civic leaders alike have been standing up to defend the principle of states' sovereignty against the perilous danger posed to it by the movement to redefine marriage.

First, let me catch you up on Indiana.

Indianapolis' Other Speedway

The developments in the Indiana legislature this week have been fast and furious, and our allies on the ground report changing indications by the hour. It's safe to say that the battle there has reached a crucial juncture this week.

The Indiana House of Representatives passed HJR3, but not before stripping a critical piece of the amendment language from the resolution.

Now the matter is headed into the Senate, and the matter is not as simple as just "passing HJR3." We are working to send the message to the Indiana Senate that yes — they must pass HJR3... but... they must pass it in its original form, with the language removed by the House restored to its proper place.

This way, the measure will return to the House for a vote on the original, unaltered resolution, and we can hope to pass HJR3 so that Hoosier voters can voice their values about marriage at the ballot box in November 2014.

If you know anyone who lives in Indiana, please share this critical action alert with them so that we can get as many grassroots activists as possible calling the Senate to urge support and passage of HJR3!

We need ordinary citizens to stand up in unison and in force to voice their support for marriage, and to demand their rights be respected and upheld by their elected officials!

Which, by the way, was exactly what I was privileged to witness first-hand in Utah earlier this week...

Utah Standing for Marriage

I was honored, on Tuesday, to be able to join hundreds of pro-marriage supporters at the Salt Lake City Capitol Rotunda for a wonderful rally supporting Utah's marriage amendment.

The turnout was great, and I take my hat off to the organizers who did such a fantastic job pulling the event together. But even more so, I owe high praise to the many wonderful Utah citizens I saw there who came out to express their pro-marriage views and who did so with such positivity, kindness, and dignity.

In his "State of the State" address the following day, Governor Gary Herbert stressed how important those elements are to a healthy public discourse, saying that he wished for Utah to "be a model of how to work through honest disagreements with civility and respect."

Well, of course Governor Herbert is right, and I can honestly say from what I saw on Tuesday that pro-marriage Utahans are already fulfilling that wish. Here are some pictures I took with my phone at the event and tweeted. (By the way, if you don't already, you can follow me on Twitter here.)

Unfortunately, the Governor's wish for civility and respect hasn't yet been totally achieved. In the midst of the rally there was one same-sex 'marriage' protestor who decided that the fitting way to express himself was with a sign showing a Cross with a "no sign" over it.

Sadly, this kind of bigotry and intolerance toward Christians and other people of faith is something I encounter rather frequently as I travel throughout the country.

Nevertheless, in spite of that unfortunate example, the rally was a heartwarming and inspiring event overall. The people of Utah know that in addition to marriage there are other matters at stake in the legal battle over their marriage amendment — especially in light of the federal interference in the matter from Attorney General Holder who is trying to undermine Utah's own government.

What's at stake, as Governor Herbert also expressed in his address, is Utah's state sovereignty. As Governor Herbert said:

James Madison, the father of our Constitution, said: "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the state governments are numerous and indefinite."

Unfortunately, our nation has strayed from what our founding fathers intended. Whether the issue is marriage, Medicaid or management of our public lands, our right to find Utah solutions to Utah issues is being hindered by federal overreach.

In Utah, we understand state sovereignty, and we will do everything in our power to represent the will of the people while respecting the democratic and judicial processes.

Fortunately, in addition to the great and wonderful folks in Utah, other brave men and women are standing up to protect states' sovereignty as well, especially as regards the issue of marriage.

One such brave leader is Representative Randy Weber of Texas, whose recently-introduced bill, the State Marriage Defense Act, is back in the news this week.

The States of the Union

Congressman Weber's bill has garnered nearly 40 co-sponsors, and in addition to NOM's endorsement enjoys support from Family Research Council, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, Heritage Action, Concerned Women for America, and others!

The latest article on the bill quotes NOM's friend, Ryan Anderson, explaining the bill this way:

[The law would protect] the sovereign authority of states to recognize marriage as they see fit. It does not say what marriage has to be defined as in any particular state. I do think the Justice Department's decision to ignore the Utah law highlights the need for this law.

And, as the same article notes, there are other recent events that underscore why this law is important, such as Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring's recent egregious refusal to defend — and decision instead to join in attacking — that state's marriage amendment! (On the basis of which decision, NOM believes Herring should be impeached. And we're not the only ones.)

If you haven't done so yet, please take time to contact Congress today using this action center and express your support for Representative Weber's "State Marriage Defense Act."

This issue couldn't be more timely.

The same night I was in Utah rallying with the citizens there for their state sovereignty and the rights of voters, President Obama took the podium in front of Congress to deliver his State of the Union address. And the main resounding theme of that address was what might be referred to as the "pen and the phone" theme (referring to a talking point the White House had been parroting for weeks leading up to the address).

The President is willing to "use his pen and his phone" to make his agenda move, with or without Congress: to use executive powers to force by fiat the pet policies he wants to push on the nation.

Think about that, and consider: we've all seen how same-sex 'marriage' is one of those pet policies for this President (who even invited as one of his honored guests a gay athlete simply because he had "come out" last year). Therefore, we should not take it lightly that the President is expressing his willingness and desire to be even more imperious and even more overreaching in his authority for the remainder of his term!

So please contact Congress right away and urge support for Representative Weber's "State Marriage Defense Act," to protect against overreaching by the Federal government and to help ensure the rights of states and their voters to define marriage according to their values!

Thank you, as always, for continuing to stand in defense of marriage even when it is such a fast and furious affair. Together, we can run this race strong to the finish.


Brian S. Brown

P.S.: A big thanks to everyone who responded so quickly to yesterday's 24 hour opportunity of a $5,000 matching campaign! Hundreds of you responded, giving what you could, and your $5, $15, and $25 gifts made a big difference — we made our goal. With the matching gift secured, this means $10,000 to help the cause of marriage at this critical time. I can't thank you enough!

P.P.S.: It will soon be time to celebrate National Marriage Week! Click here to find out more about this great event — part of Chuck Stetson's "Let's Strengthen Marriage" campaign — and to find out how you can participate or help.

Join Brian Brown in Salt Lake City Tomorrow

National Organization for Marriage

Dear Marriage Supporter,

Tomorrow, January 28th, NOM President Brian Brown will be speaking during a rally at the Capitol Rotunda in Salt Lake City as the citizens of Utah join together to stand for marriage!

The rally is scheduled to begin at 7 PM.

Please attend this great event if you are able, and show your support for marriage by wearing pink or blue!


NOM Staff

Pro-Marriage Rally Planned at Utah State Capitol

Check it out!

Stand for Marriage Flyer

Click here to read a news piece on the planned rally.

If you live in Utah, I hope to see you there! If not, please share this with your pro-marriage family and friends in Utah so that we can have a strong showing and demonstrate in a resounding way that Utah stands for marriage!


"A Thumb on the Scales"

Salvatore J. CordileoneCatholic Archbishop Salvatore J. Cordileone of San Francisco, the Chairman of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops' Subcommittee for the Promotion and Defense of Marriage, has written a piece responding to Attorney General Eric Holder's announcement that the federal government will recognize the illegal same-sex "marriages" that took place in Utah around the turn of the year.

Archbishop Cordileone's article is posted at the USCCB blog. Here's a glimpse of what he has to say [emphasis added]:

Attorney General Holder is ignoring Utah law and imposing a contrary federal definition of marriage in that state. In this, General Holder’s decision is actually contrary to the Supreme Court's decision last year in United States v. Windsor. Windsor unfortunately struck down a uniform federal definition of marriage, but it made clear that the federal government is to respect a state's definition of marriage. In particular, the Court said that the federal government is to defer to “state sovereign choices about who may be married” and furthermore criticized federal actions – like General Holder’s – that “put a thumb on the scales and influence a state’s decision as to how to shape its own marriage laws.” 

Read the rest here.

National Organization for Marriage Condemns Obama Administration for Abandoning the Rule of Law and Fundamental Constitutional Principles

Contact: Elizabeth Ray or Matille Thebolt (703-683-5004)

"With this move, the Department of Justice under this Administration signals that it simply has no regard for the Constitution and the rule of law." — Brian Brown, NOM president —


Washington, D.C. — The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) today responded to the announcement that the United States Justice Department would recognize same-sex marriages performed in Utah in violation of that state's constitution.

"It is outrageous that the Justice Department would move so brazenly and publicly to undermine Utah's standing constitutional provision regulating marriage as the union of one man and one woman" said Brian Brown, NOM's President. "It is the right of states to determine marriage, and the voters and legislature of Utah have done just that. Their right to do so is encoded in the U.S. Constitution, and was explicitly upheld by the Supreme Court this summer in the Windsor decision. But with this move, the Department of Justice under this Administration signals that it simply has no regard for the Constitution and the rule of law.

On Wednesday, the State of Utah had issued its own determination that it would not recognize the same-sex marriages which had taken place there between the decision by a federal judge to strike down Utah's marriage amendment and the Supreme Court's order to stay that decision. The Governor of Utah announced this in a letter from his Chief of Staff to cabinet officials which explained that "state recognition of same-sex marital status is ON HOLD until further notice."

"The Justice Department's edict today expressly contradicts the determination of Utah's Governor and Attorney General, and represents one of the most significant overreaches of federal authority imaginable," said Brown. "Furthermore, Attorney General Eric Holder is now doing the very thing that the Supreme Court in Windsor v. United States held the federal government could not do - use a definition of marriage for federal law purposes that did not respect the policy choices made by the individual states. This determination should be reversed if the State of Utah's sovereignty-or really any state's-is to be upheld and respected."


To schedule an interview with Brian Brown, president of the National Organization for Marriage, or John Eastman, Chairman of the National Organization for Marriage please contact Elizabeth Ray (x130), [email protected], or Matille Thebolt (x143), [email protected], at 703-683-5004.

Paid for by The National Organization for Marriage, Brian Brown, president. 2029 K Street NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20006, not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee. New § 68A.405(1)(f) & (h).

Call to Action: Let's Make the Most of this Moment!

National Organization for Marriage

Sign the Petition Today

Dear Marriage Supporter,

I write today to announce an urgent call to action: Please join the National Organization for Marriage today in petitioning Congress to amend our nation's Constitution to define marriage once and for all as the union of one man and one woman.

Why are we issuing this call today?

Well, as I'm sure you're already aware, this week saw a monumental shift in momentum for the marriage debate in our country, with the Supreme Court making an extremely rare move to grant a stay against the enforcement of a decision by a federal judge in Utah overturning that state's marriage amendment.

The initial decision by Obama-appointed District Judge Robert Shelby was passed down just a few days before Christmas. Shelby ludicrously claimed that the U.S. Supreme Court's Windsor decision this past summer had set a clear and inevitable path toward a constitutional right to same-sex 'marriage' when in fact Windsor found specifically that states have the right to define marriage. To add insult to injury, Shelby refused to stay his flawed decision even though the State of Utah was certain to appeal, and a flurry of same-sex 'marriages' began taking place throughout Utah.

But now the Supreme Court has indicated that the State of Utah's case to uphold its marriage law, passed by decisive majorities of both the legislature and the citizenry, is meritorious and their order reinstates marriage in Utah. The state can now appeal Shelby's decision to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in an orderly fashion.

Legal scholars will debate the impact of the decision. Some gay marriage advocates are very troubled by the ruling, saying the Supreme Court has hit the "pause" button on the drive to redefine marriage. Others believe the Court hit a "stop" button. This much is clear to us: there is no inevitable path toward nationwide same-sex marriage; and the legal definition of marriage is still very much up for grabs.

Other activist judges nationwide, particularly in states where same-sex 'marriage' cases are pending, should take note and think twice before trying to impose their own skewed interpretations of the law on the people of those states. But the legal drama unfolding in Utah reminds us of the danger of relying upon our federal judiciary to protect the will of the people with respect to marriage. We need to act now, and act decisively, with the time we've been granted, to ensure true marriage is protected once and for all.

Therefore, the National Organization for Marriage is issuing our petition to Congress urging that marriage be codified and defined once and for all by an amendment to Constitution of the United States. This is the surest way to protect marriage from the attacks of activist judges and out-of-control politicians, and to prevent a radical redefinition of marriage from being foisted on the whole nation.

You can be assured that the radical same-sex 'marriage' movement will not let up in its resolve to shoehorn their disastrous agenda through the legislatures and the court system in 2014, and we cannot flag in our own efforts either. This is why continuing to stand with us is so vitally important and so greatly appreciated: the attacks on marriage are more intense than ever, and we need to meet them head-on.

But we are encouraged by the Supreme Court's putting the brakes on the lawlessness in Utah this week. By its unanimous decision to grant a stay, the Supreme Court shows that the Justices recognize when the rule of law is being flouted and when judicial activism has run amok — even those liberal Justices who voted for the flawed majority decision in Windsor!

The granting of this stay changes the momentum in a very real way and slows the stampede of rabid same-sex marriage bullies who are willing to trample over the rights of everyone else in order to get their way. There's no telling how many true constitutional rights these radicals would run roughshod over to gain their prize of a faux right to genderless 'marriage' and a regime under which Christians and others are relegated to second-class citizen status.

We must take advantage of this momentum shift and petition Congress today calling for decisive action for the protection of our fundamental liberties. Surely the Justices on the Supreme Court are not the only ones in Washington who have noted the absurd arrogance and brazen overreaching of the deceptively-named "marriage equality" movement.

I predicted in the days and weeks leading up to the new year that 2014 would be an even more critical and active year for the marriage debate than the last year had been, and already with the year only a few days old we are seeing this begin to unfold.

Thank you for standing with us in this struggle. I maintain hope that 2014 will be a year of victories for us following some disheartening setbacks last year, but that prize will not be simply handed over to us — we must fight to claim it. Will you recommit to helping us do that today?

Thanks again for all you do for marriage and for our great nation!


Brian S. Brown

P.S.: Don't forget to please take a moment and add your voice to our petition, letting Congress know that the time has come to protect marriage in American once and for all with an amendment to the Constitution.

P.P.S.: And once you've taken action today, please share this message via email, or on Facebook and Twitter so that we can rally even more supporters to our cause and continue to take advantage to the momentum gained in this first full week of the new year!