NOM BLOG

Category Archives: Supreme Court

John Eastman: Just the Facts, Ma'am

More than fifty-million people have, by their votes, demonstrated that they continue to understand the profound importance of marriage. They deserve better than to have the decision to protect or redefine marriage taken out of their hands by the Supreme Court.

ThinkstockPhotos-85447250In his most recent Public Discourse article, NOM Chairman John Eastman takes Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg to task  for her egregious declaration: the American people will accept a Supreme Court decision to redefine marriage to include same-sex couples. Justice Ginsburg believes that this decision, which would force all states to license same-sex partners as “married,” will be accepted readily by the American people because “the change in people’s attitudes on that issue has been enormous,” according to Ginsburg.

However, Justice Ginsburg’s inappropriate comments on this subject also turned out to be simply untrue:

The numbers are staggering, though you won’t see them reported in the nation’s major newspapers. The issue has been on the ballot in thirty-nine statewide elections in thirty-five different states. The cumulative total: 51,483,777 votes in favor of retaining the man-woman definition of marriage, versus 33,015,412 votes in favor of same-sex marriage. That’s a vote margin of 60.93 percent to 39.07 percent, a landslide in American politics.

In addition to disproving Justice Ginsburg’s claim, Dr. Eastman also explains why same-sex marriage is not a constitutional right:

The petitioners’ demand that the Court “find” a right to same-sex “marriage” implicit in the text of the Fourteenth Amendment threatens to drag the Supreme Court, and the country, into another such quagmire. If the Constitution clearly compelled such a result, then it would be the “painful duty” of the Court to say so, a position recognized by the Court nearly two centuries ago in the landmark case of McCulloch v. Maryland. But the Constitution’s text does not remotely compel such a result. Without such a clear command, accepting the petitioners’ arguments would more accurately be described as a “self-inflicted wound” than the exercise of a “painful duty.”

So why is it that the Constitution’s text does not mandate same-sex marriage throughout the land? It does provide that “No State shall . . . deny to any person . . . the equal protection of the law.” Hence the “marriage equality” mantra from the proponents of same-sex marriage. That mantra may be a good debating tactic, but it is not a good legal argument, for it assumes the very thing in dispute.

The real truth is that the American people value the institution of marriage, and they are willing to fight to defend it as between one man and one woman. Regardless of Justice Ginsberg's personal opinions, Americans will not passively watch their precious rights and institutions crumble. Sorry Justice Ginsburg, but those are the facts.

You can read the full article via Public Discourse.

National Organization for Marriage Files Brief With US Supreme Court Detailing Public Support for Marriage; Tells Court There Is No Federal Constitutional Right to Same-Sex Marriage

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: April 7, 2015
Contact: Elizabeth Ray or Matille Thebolt (703-683-5004)


"The notion...that the American people have significantly altered their views on same-sex marriage...is simply not true."
— Frank Schubert, NOM Political Director —

nom_logo

Washington, D.C. — The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) and its political director, Frank Schubert, have filed a joint amicus brief with the US Supreme Court contesting the notion advanced by many gay activists that the nation has undergone a rapid change of opinion and now supports same-sex marriage. They also warned the court that a decision to impose same-sex marriage on the nation despite the votes of over 50 million people in nearly three-dozen states would galvanize opposition to same-sex marriage, just like the Roe decision galvanized opposition to abortion.

"The notion advanced in some corridors that the American people have significantly altered their views on same-sex marriage in recent years to the point that large majorities now support a redefinition of marriage and therefore would readily accept a mandate from this Court imposing same-sex marriage on the nation is simply not true," said Frank Schubert, NOM's national political director.

Schubert examined more than one dozen recent public opinion surveys and found that they fell into one of four categories:

  1. Those showing majority support for traditional marriage;
  2. Those showing support for same-sex marriage dropping;
  3. Those showing plurality support for one side or another, but not majority support; and
  4. Those showing majority support for same-sex marriage.

Schubert directed the Supreme Court's attention to the results of the February 2015 survey conducted by WPA Opinion Research for the Family Research Council, showing that "53% of Americans agreed that marriage should be defined only as the union of one man and one woman." These results were consistent with two 2012 surveys conducted for NOM by The Polling Company. Schubert also pointed out two recent surveys that showed a drop in support for same-sex marriage — Rasmussen Reports (February 2015) and Pew Research Center (September 2014). Rasmussen reported that, "Support for gay marriage has fallen to its lowest level in over a year," noting that support had dropped by 6% since December 2014, "tying the low last reached in late 2013." Rasmussen found that 42% of Americans support same-sex marriage, but 44% oppose it. Pew's survey found that support for same-sex marriage had dropped by five points in the previous seven months, while opposition increased by two points.

Schubert also reviewed surveys that show the country split on the issue of same-sex marriage, including a poll conducted by the Associated Press/GfK (February 2015 — 35% favor same-sex marriage while 31% oppose it), Relationships in America Survey (February 2014 — 42% of adults age 18-60 support same-sex marriage while 31% oppose it) along with the February 2015 Rasmussen Report survey showing results at 42% for and 44% against same-sex marriage.

Schubert also addressed several national surveys purporting to show majority support for same-sex marriage, including the Gallup Survey (May 2014) which claims that 55% of Americans believe that "marriages between same-sex couples should be recognized as valid with the same rights as traditional marriages." 42% disagree. Schubert noted that the Gallup survey suffers from two flaws. First, it connects the marriage issue with "rights," making it difficult to separate out the issue of redefining marriage from the general issue of gay rights. Second, Gallup engages in a practice called "priming" by asking a leading question about whether gay relationships should be legal (they have been legal for decades) designed to elicit support for same-sex couples right before asking respondents about support for same-sex marriage.

Schubert said, "[T]he most accurate statement of public opinion on the issue of the definition of marriage is that Americans have conflicting viewpoints on the issue. Neither side has "won" the debate, but one thing is clear: It is a debate that should be resolved by voters and legislators through the democratic process, not one that is truncated and its outcome mandated by [the Supreme] Court.

The brief was authored by John Eastman, chairman of the National Organization for Marriage, Director of the Claremont Institute's Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence and former Dean and current constitutional law professor at the Chapman University Fowler Law School. Eastman pointed out in the brief that the definition of marriage has been on statewide ballots 39 times in 35 states and that over 84 million votes have been cast on the issue, with over $216 million raised by the competing sides. He said, "Having failed in their efforts to redefine marriage through the democratic process and to change the policy judgments of their fellow citizens by persuasion, petitioners and their supporters seek to have this Court dramatically change both the definition and the purpose of marriage by judicial decree."

Eastman argued that there is no "fundamental right" or legal basis for the Court to impose same-sex marriage on the nation. "Fundamental rights...do not simply materialize from the Hollywood set of Will and Grace or because a President has "evolved" on this issue. Were it otherwise, the result would not be a "subtle" transfer of policy-making authority from the people to the court, but a broadside against democratic self-governance. This Court has never taken such a step, and in fact declined to do so when first asked forty years ago. It should not do so now," he wrote.

To schedule an interview with Frank Schubert, political director 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, [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).

Mark Your Calendars for the 2015 March for Marriage!

"This triangle of truisms, of father, mother and child, cannot be destroyed; it can only destroy those civilizations which disregard it." - G.K. Chesterton

2015 March for Marriage

When: Saturday, April 25, 2015, at Noon ET

Where: Union Square, South of Capitol Reflecting Pool, Washington, DC

 

Who: Marriage defenders, champions, and leaders from across the nation join together to defend marriage, family, and American liberties!

Why: To defend marriage as the unique union between 1 man and 1 woman; to protect the family as the building block of society; to ensure that our children will have a future where basic American rights and liberties are honored, preserved, and protected.

Stayed tuned for more information to come!

Memo to Supreme Court: State Marriage Laws Are Constitutional

“There is nothing in the U.S. Constitution that requires all 50 states to redefine marriage.”

News stories report about one or more states’ same-sex marriage ban being declared “unconstitutional,” and the requirement for all states to redefine marriage as being simply a union between any two people, regardless of gender. There is one fact, however, that has been overlooked, ignored, and suppressed by same-sex marriage advocates: nothing in the US Constitution requires states to redefine marriage.

No one should be more aware of this fact than our Supreme Court justices. Tragically, some have already indicated that they will put their own personal preferences about same-sex marriage above their duty to uphold The Constitution.

57565279Like many of our American forefathers, there are those who refuse to remain silent while our rights - those that are actually in the Constitution - are trampled. Gene Schaerr and Ryan Anderson have written a memo to the Supreme Court, outlining cold hard facts, historical basis, and logical conclusions for why the definition of marriage as one man and one woman is in fact constitutional, and must be protected.

The overarching question before the Supreme Court in the four cases that were consolidated before the Sixth Circuit and for purposes of review by the Supreme Court—Obergefell v. Hodges, Tanco v. Haslam, DeBoer v. Snyder, and Bourke v. Beshear—is not whether an exclusively male–female marriage policy is the best, but only whether it is allowed by the U.S. Constitution.[4] In other words, the question is not whether government-recognized same-sex marriage is good or bad policy, but only whether it is required by the U.S. Constitution.

Schaerr and Anderson also explain why the existence of “the constitutional right to same-sex marriage” will be impossible to prove:

177319106The only way someone could succeed in such an argument is to adopt a view of marriage that sees it as an essentially genderless institution based only on the emotional needs of adults and then declare that the U.S. Constitution requires that the states (re)define marriage in such a way. Equal protection alone is not enough. To strike down marriage laws, the Court would need to say that the vision of marriage that our law has long applied equally is just wrong: that the Constitution requires a different vision entirely.

The memo goes on to explain where in the constitution marriage between one man and woman is protected, as well as rational basis for why it should be protected:

From a policy perspective, marriage is about attaching a man and a woman to each other as husband and wife to be father and mother to any children their sexual union may produce. When a baby is born, there is always a mother nearby: That is a fact of biology. The policy question is whether a father will be close by and, if so, for how long. Marriage, rightly understood, increases the odds that a man will be committed to both the children that he helps to create and to the woman with whom he does so.[44] The man–woman definition of marriage reinforces the idea—the social norm—that a man should be so committed.

The man–woman definition, moreover, is based on the anthropological truth that men and women are distinct and complementary, the biological fact that reproduction depends on a man and a woman, and the social reality that children deserve a mother and a father.

In short, fathers matter, and marriage helps to connect fathers to mothers and children. But you do not have to think this marriage policy is ideal to think it constitutionally permissible. Unless gays and lesbians are a suspect class, for an equal protection challenge to succeed, this simple analysis of the social function of marriage would have to be proved not just misguided, but positively irrational. Universal human experience, however, confirms the rationality of that policy.

87686941Marriage equality already exists in America: everyone has the freedom to marry someone of the opposite sex, or choose not to be married. As for same-sex couples, they too can choose to either marry or not marry someone of the opposite sex. Regardless of what a person might “prefer,” marriage cannot take place unless it is between a man and a woman. “Marriage” between same-sex individuals is biologically impossible, anthropologically unsustainable, and constitutionally unenforceable.

Schaerr and Anderson’s full memo can be read here. Time spent reading this memo is time invested in understanding the true argument around the constitutionality of marriage, as well as understanding just how blatantly states’ and the individual constitutional rights are being trampled. Our founding fathers were not tolerant when their innate human rights were denied, and we, the American people, will not tolerate our constitutional rights being denied.

National Organization for Marriage Commends Alabama Supreme Court For 7 - 1 Ruling Upholding Traditional Marriage

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: March 4, 2015
Contact: Elizabeth Ray or Matille Thebolt (703-683-5004)


"The Alabama Supreme Court is exactly correct that no federal judge has the power to order a state to issue illegal marriage licenses. Other states should follow suit." — Brian Brown, NOM president —

nom_logo

Washington, D.C. — The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) today commended the Alabama Supreme Court for ordering state officials to cease issuing marriage licenses that are illegal under state law, and thus defied a federal judge who is attempting to impermissibly impose her views of marriage on the people of Alabama.

"We praise the justices of the Alabama Supreme Court who have ruled in overwhelming fashion that the laws of Alabama defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman must be followed by state officials," said Brian Brown, NOM's president. "A single federal judge does not have the authority to force a state to redefine marriage and it's high time that out of control judges were put in their place. We call on other states to similarly order their state's officials to enforce state marriage laws."

Brown noted that the US Supreme Court has never ruled against traditional marriage laws and that binding Supreme Court precedence exists (Baker v Nelson) specifically upholding state laws defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

###

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).

New National Survey Shows Majority Support For Traditional Marriage; Reveals Voters Strongly Opposed To The Supreme Court Redefining Marriage

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: February 25, 2015
Contact: Elizabeth Ray or Matille Thebolt (703-683-5004)


"Contrary to the repeated assertions of the left, including incredibly inappropriate comments from Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the American people continue to believe that marriage is only the union of one man and one woman." — Brian Brown, NOM president —

nom_logo

Washington, D.C. — A new national survey of American voters shows that they continue to believe that marriage is only the union of one man and one woman and are strongly opposed to the US Supreme Court redefining marriage to accommodate the demands of gay and lesbian couples. The US Supreme Court is currently considering a case where it is being asked to find a constitutional right to gay 'marriage' in every state of the union regardless of the opinion of voters in those states.

"Contrary to the repeated assertions of the left, including incredibly inappropriate comments from Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the American people continue to believe that marriage is only the union of one man and one woman," said Brian S. Brown, president of the National Organization for Marriage (NOM). "Moreover, an overwhelming majority of voters — more than 60% — believe it would be wrong for the US Supreme Court to impose gay 'marriage' on the entire nation. We hope that the justices of the Supreme Court see this survey and come to realize that any attempt to redefine marriage will be rejected by the American people and will be considered to be illegitimate."

The firm of WPA Opinion Research released a nationwide survey of American voters yesterday containing important findings regarding the issue of marriage. Conducted for the Family Research Council during early February 2015, the survey found that 53% of voters believe that marriage is only the union of one man and one woman. It also found that 61% of voters are opposed to the idea of Supreme Court justices imposing a nationwide standard of gay marriage, and prefer for voters and states to define marriage themselves. In addition, the survey found that — by overwhelming margins (81%) — the American people believe that individuals and small businesses should be free to follow their beliefs about marriage as they live their daily lives at work and in the way they run their businesses. Increasingly, the left including Washington state Attorney General Bob Ferguson are filing lawsuits against individuals and small businesses to force them to support gay 'wedding' ceremonies even though they violate the deeply held religious beliefs of millions of Americans. Ferguson has sued Christian florist Barronelle Stuzman seeking to force her to participate in a gay 'wedding' against her beliefs, and has threatened to take her home, business, and all her personal assets as punishment for refusing to do so.

"What this survey shows is that Ruth Bader Ginsburg has not only engaged in unconscionably biased commentary about a case pending before her, but that she is dead wrong about the views of the American people," said Brown. "Contrary to Ginsburg's assertion that it won't take much for the American people to adjust to a ruling imposing gay 'marriage' on every state, this survey, consistent with other polling, shows that the American people will not accept such a ruling and, in fact, strongly oppose it. It also shows that overzealous gay activists like Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson are dead wrong and are strongly opposed by virtually all American voters. It is simply wrong of Ferguson to be seeking to force a good Christian woman like Barronelle Stutzman to participate in a gay 'wedding' ceremony that violates her deeply held religious beliefs."

###

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 Demands That Ruth Bader Ginsburg Remove Herself from Hearing Marriage Case; If She Refuses Congress Should Conduct An Investigation

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: February 13, 2015
Contact: Elizabeth Ray or Matille Thebolt (703-683-5004)


"The impartiality of judges is the very foundation of our legal system. When you have a situation where a judge has already decided how to rule on a pending case before it is even presented or argued, the integrity of the judicial system is called into question." — Brian Brown, NOM president —

nom_logo

Washington, D.C. — The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) today issued a demand that U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg recuse herself from hearing the pending same-sex marriage cases because of comments she gave in a media interview that foreshadows her ruling in the upcoming cases even before they are briefed or argued. If she fails to recuse herself, NOM will ask Congress to conduct an investigation of her conduct and to consider legislation to discipline justices who speak out publicly about pending cases.

"Justice Ginsburg has brought disrepute on the Supreme Court and eliminated any pretext that she will approach the marriage issue with an open mind when it comes before her. Because of this prejudice, federal law requires her to remove herself from hearing the cases," said Brian Brown, NOM's president. "If she does not step aside, we will ask Congress to investigate the matter and pursue legislative remedies."

Ginsburg gave a media interview this week to Bloomberg where she said "it would not take a large adjustment" for the American people to accept a ruling redefining marriage and that, "In recent years, people have said, 'This is the way I am.' And others looked around, and we discovered it's our next-door neighbor — we're very fond of them. Or it's our child's best friend, or even our child. I think that as more and more people came out and said that 'this is who I am,' the rest of us recognized that they are one of us." Ginsburg previously has presided at same-sex 'marriage' ceremonies.

Federal law (28 US Code Sec. 455) requires federal judges to disqualify themselves "in any proceeding in which [her] impartiality might reasonably be questioned."

"Justice Ginsburg has made it crystal clear that she is going to rule in favor of redefining marriage when these cases come before her," Brown said. "We demand that she comply with federal law and disqualify herself as she is required to do. If she refuses, we will ask Congress to act."

Ginsburg's highly inappropriate media commentary is being used by advocates for same-sex marriage who also see it as a foreshadowing of her ruling. The Human Rights Campaign called her comments "taking a bold stand for progress and equality, stating that the country is ready for marriage equality." They are using her comments to recruit signers to a brief they plan to submit to the Court.

"The impartiality of judges is the very foundation of our legal system" said Brown. "When you have a situation where a judge has already decided how to rule on a pending case before it is even presented or argued, the integrity of the judicial system is called into question. This goes way beyond the issue of same-sex marriage and cuts to the heart of whether our federal judiciary can be trusted to fairly consider and adjudicate important issues. Ginsburg comments suggest they cannot."

###

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 Supreme Court For Failure To Stay Alabama Gay Marriage Ruling; Encourages Alabama Officials To Refuse To Comply

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: February 9, 2015
Contact: Elizabeth Ray or Matille Thebolt (703-683-5004)


"[A]llowing a lower court ruling that overturns a state marriage amendment adopted by over 80% of voters is reckless and undermines the integrity of the Court." — Brian Brown, NOM president —

nom_logo

Washington, D.C. — The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) today sharply condemned a majority of the US Supreme Court for failing to follow existing protocol and issue a stay of a decision redefining marriage in Alabama and called on Alabama officials to refuse to comply with the lower federal court order to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

"A majority of the Supreme Court has cast disrepute on the impartiality of the Court by refusing to follow previous protocol and issue a stay of a lower court ruling while it is being considered by the Court," said Brian Brown, NOM's president. "The issues in play are currently under review by the Supreme Court, and allowing a lower court ruling that overturns a state marriage amendment adopted by over 80% of voters is reckless and undermines the integrity of the Court. We call on the people of Alabama to continue to enforce their state marriage laws."

The people of Alabama adopted a state constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman with 81% voter support in 2006. The US Supreme Court has never ruled that such amendments are unconstitutional; in fact it has upheld traditional marriage laws as being constitutional which remains binding national precedent in Baker v Nelson.

"A single federal judge does not have the authority to overturn a state marriage amendment and the people of Alabama should refuse to go along with this order," said Brown. "We commend Alabama Supreme Court Justice Roy Moore for ordering state probate judges, who are responsible for issuing marriage licenses, to enforce state law limiting marriage to one man and one woman and to refuse to issue licenses that violate state law. These probate judges have sworn an oath to the people of Alabama and they must honor their oath to the people they serve."

###

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).

"Judicial Humility and Respect for Citizens"

Over at The Daily Signal, Ryan Anderson takes a look at the important decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit yesterday.

ScaleRyan notes that "judicial humility and respect for citizens lie at the heart of the opinion," quoting:

A dose of humility makes us hesitant to condemn as unconstitutionally irrational a view of marriage shared not long ago by every society in the world, shared by most, if not all, of our ancestors, and shared still today by a significant number of the states.

Ryan goes on to comment:

Ultimately, the 6th Circuit ruled that it would not usurp the authority of the American people to discuss, debate and make marriage policy. The ruling argued that change could come in one of two ways: through a judicial usurpation of politics or through the political process. And the court rightly refused to take the former course. It would leave to the people the question of whether to take the latter.

The court argued that it “is dangerous and demeaning to the citizenry to assume that we, and only we, can fairly understand the arguments for and against gay marriage.” No, judges alone should not have this discussion—all Americans should.

Read his whole piece for a richer understanding of this landmark ruling.

NOM in the News: Brian Brown Discusses Implications of Supreme Court Decision on C-SPAN

via C-SPAN:

Brian Brown and Evan Wolfson talked about legal and political developments in the debate over same-sex marriage, including the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to deny appeals from five states seeking to retain their bans on same-sex marriage, and a ruling overturning some bans in Western states. They also spoke about the politics and public opinions surrounding the issue. Evan Wolfson participated by video link from New York City.

National Organization for Marriage Commends Governor Mike Huckabee For Calling Republicans To Account For Failing To Adequately Fight For Marriage

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: October 10, 2014
Contact: Elizabeth Ray or Matille Thebolt (703-683-5004)


"Governor Huckabee is exactly right and is speaking for millions of Americans who are sick of Republican elitists remaining silent and refusing to fight for the survival of marriage, the principal building block of society and the foundation of civilization." — Brian Brown, NOM president —

nom_logo

Washington, D.C. — The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) today praised Governor Mike Huckabee for his comments calling out Republicans for failing to stand strong for marriage in the face of the unconscionable decision of the US Supreme Court to allow lower court decisions redefining marriage to take effect without so much as even considering their merits. Huckabee told an interviewer that if Republicans abdicate on marriage and abortion he would leave the party and become an Independent. "I'll start finding people that have guts to stand," he pledged.

"Governor Huckabee is exactly right and is speaking for millions of Americans who are sick of Republican elitists remaining silent and refusing to fight for the survival of marriage, the principal building block of society and the foundation of civilization," said Brian S. Brown, president of NOM. "Republicans who remain silent on marriage do so at their own peril and risk losing elections across the country. If conservatives see Republican candidates fail to lead on marriage — or worse, come out in favor of redefining marriage — then conservatives will abandon those candidates."

Brown said that some Republican leaders were actively supporting candidates who are not only in favor of same-sex 'marriage,' but also support abortion. House Speaker John Boehner and the National Republican Campaign Committee are actively supporting Carl DeMaio (CA-52) and Richard Tisei (MA-6), both of whom are campaigning in favor of gay 'marriage' and support abortion.

"NOM has joined with other groups to actively campaign against Carl DeMaio and Richard Tisei, along with Oregon Republican US Senate candidate Monica Wehby, because they are antithetical to the Republican platform and GOP principles," said Brown. "We refuse to follow the leaders in Washington as if we were sheep expected to dutifully support candidates whose positions are an insult to conservatives and will severely damage the nation. We are going to do our best to defeat these candidates because they are wholly unworthy of holding high office."

Brown noted that some prominent Republicans such as Sen. Ted Cruz, Sen. Mike Lee, Rep. Tim Huelskamp and others had condemned the US Supreme Court's decision to allow the redefinition of marriage to proceed apace in five states.

"We are grateful for those leaders who have spoken out to condemn the Supreme Court for their unprincipled and outrageous decision to allow the redefinition of marriage to occur in these states," Brown said. "We are prepared to work tirelessly to support them and others who lead in the fight to preserve marriage. But Governor Huckabee is right. If more Republican leaders do not speak up and join the fight, then millions of conservatives will abandon them and join with officials who will fight. Marriage is on the line in our country, and it's time for people to get off the bench and into the battle."

###

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 Encouraged by Justice Kennedy’s Ruling to Block Same-Sex Marriage in Idaho and Nevada

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: October 8, 2014
Contact: Elizabeth Ray or Matille Thebolt (703-683-5004)


nom_logo

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

"We are pleased that Justice Kennedy has ordered a stay of the ruling in the Ninth Circuit. The idea that same-sex marriage can be imposed upon the people of this country against their will is completely inconsistent with our constitutional principles and runs contrary to the very essence of a republican form of government. We once again call upon the US Supreme Court to decide this issue. They abdicated their responsibility to the American people earlier in the week and we hope that Justice Kennedy’s action will result in the Supreme Court hearing the issue and ultimately deciding that states have the right to preserve marriage in the law as it has existed in reality since long before the nation was founded – the union of one man and one woman."

###

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).

Senator Cruz: "This is Judicial Activism at its Worst."

Today Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas) released a strongly worded statement following the news of the Supreme Court's decision to deny requests from five States to review lower court decisions striking down their marriage definitions.

The statement reads, in part:

Broken Legal SystemThe Supreme Court’s decision to let rulings by lower court judges stand that redefine marriage is both tragic and indefensible. By refusing to rule if the States can define marriage, the Supreme Court is abdicating its duty to uphold the Constitution. The fact that the Supreme Court Justices, without providing any explanation whatsoever, have permitted lower courts to strike down so many state marriage laws is astonishing.

This is judicial activism at its worst. The Constitution entrusts state legislatures, elected by the People, to define marriage consistent with the values and mores of their citizens. Unelected judges should not be imposing their policy preferences to subvert the considered judgments of democratically elected legislatures.

[...]

Marriage is a question for the States. That is why I have introduced legislation, S. 2024, to protect the authority of state legislatures to define marriage. And that is why, when Congress returns to session, I will be introducing a constitutional amendment to prevent the federal government or the courts from attacking or striking down state marriage laws.

Read the entire thing here at the Senator's website.

We thank Senator Cruz for his strong leadership on this issue, and we hope that he and his colleagues in Congress will continue to work to right the wrong done by activists judges and by the Supreme Court's misguided choice to ignore the issue.0

Ryan Anderson: "This is an unfortunate setback for sound Constitutional self-government"

Ryan T. Anderson at The Daily Signal comments on today's move by the Supreme Court to decline hearing appeals to cases overturning the marriage laws in several states.

He writes:

Ryan AndersonToday the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review appeals from Utah, Oklahoma, Virginia, Indiana and Wisconsin on the definition of marriage. This means that lower court rulings that struck down state marriage laws will now go into effect, forcing the redefinition of marriage in these states, and potentially in other states in the 4th, 7th, and 10th circuits.

This is an unfortunate setback for sound Constitutional self-government and a setback for a healthy marriage culture.

The truth of the matter is that the marriage laws in these five states—as in many states across our nation—are good laws that reflect the truth about marriage. Frequently they were passed with overwhelming democratic support. The Supreme Court should have reviewed these cases and should have upheld the authority of citizens and their elected representatives to make good marriage policy. Instead, the Supreme Court left standing bad rulings from lower federal courts that usurped authority from the people by striking down good laws.

Ryan ends with a call to action which we all must hear, and heed!

Declining to review these cases does not speak one way or the other to the merits of the cases. But it does leave in place bad rulings from lower courts—and it will make it harder for courts to do the right thing in the future.

Nevertheless, as citizens, we must rally in support of our constitutional authority to pass laws making marriage policy. We must insist that law and culture promote the truth about marriage [emphasis added].

[SOURCE].

National Organization for Marriage Condemns US Supreme Court for Not Reviewing Lower Court Rulings Imposing the Redefinition of Marriage

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: October 6, 2014
Contact: Elizabeth Ray or Matille Thebolt (703-683-5004)


"NOM will continue to devote all our energy and resources to stand for the truth of marriage, and to advocate the importance of preserving it." — Brian Brown, NOM president —

nom_logo

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

"We are surprised and extremely disappointed that the US Supreme Court has refused to grant review of the same-sex marriage cases pending before them. This is wrong on so many levels. First, the entire idea that marriage can be redefined from the bench is illegitimate. Marriage is the union of one man and one woman; it has been this throughout the history of civilization and will remain this no matter what unelected judges say. Second, it's mind-boggling that lower court judges would be allowed to impose the redefinition of marriage in these states, and our highest court would have nothing to say about it. Third, the effect of the lower court rulings is to say that a constitutional right to same-sex ‘marriage' has existed in every state in the union since 1868 when the 14th Amendment was ratified, but somehow nobody noticed until quite recently. That's the absurd belief we are being told to accept.

"It's possible that the Supreme Court wants to wait to take a case when a Circuit split develops so that it can rule in favor of the people's right to define marriage as it has always been defined. We're hopeful that the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals will rule in our favor and that the Supreme Court will then take that case and decide that marriage is not unconstitutional.

"At the same time, given what the Supreme Court has allowed to happen, the only alternative to letting unelected judges impose their view of marriage on Americans across the country is to pursue a process that will allow the American people to decide for themselves what is marriage. It is critical not only to marriage but to the republican form of government in this country to amend the Constitution to reaffirm the meaning of marriage. We therefore call on the US Congress to move forward immediately to send a federal marriage amendment to the states for ratification.

"We call upon Americans vigorously to contest this development by turning to the political process, starting with the upcoming mid-term elections. We urge voters to hold politicians accountable and demand to know if they will accept the illegitimate act of attempting to redefine marriage or whether they will stand with the American people to resist. In particular, we urge Republicans to hold their party leaders to account, and to demand that they remain true to their belief that marriage is the union of one man and one woman which was a pillar of the party's founding in 1856, and remains essential to society's well-being today.

"NOM will continue to devote all our energy and resources to stand for the truth of marriage, and to advocate the importance of preserving it. While we are disappointed in what has happened today, we are not defeated or dispirited. Indeed, we are determined as never before to fight for the institution that God created and humankind has proven is the best arrangement for the well-being of men and women, for children, and for society as a whole."

###

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).