NOM BLOG

Category Archives: Supreme Court

The Next Target in the Same-sex Marriage War

Now that the Supreme Court has failed the American people and are forcing states to accept same-sex marriage, what is the next target of same-sex marriage proponents? Dominic Lynch has the answer: after Obergefell, churches are next.

ThinkstockPhotos-122468669Chief Justice Roberts's Obergefell dissent lays the stakes on the table:

Today's decision, for example, creates serious questions about religious liberty. Many good and decent people oppose same-sex marriage as a tenet of faith, and their freedom to exercise religion is -- unlike the right imagined by the majority -- actually spelled out in the Constitution. Respect for sincere religious conviction has led voters and legislators in every State that has adopted same-sex marriage democratically to include accommodations for religious practice. The majority's decision imposing same-sex marriage cannot, of course, create any such accommodations. The majority graciously suggests that religious believers may continue to "advocate" and "teach" their views of marriage. The First Amendment guarantees, however, the freedom to "exercise" religion. Ominously, that is not a word the majority uses.

How do we get from "marriage equality" to churches forced into performing weddings that violate their teachings? Lawsuits.

Imagine a same sex couple who consider themselves deeply Catholic want to get married at the Catholic church of their choice. They approach the pastor and he declines to officiate the wedding or be a party to it. The spurned couple might then file a non-discrimination lawsuit against the pastor and his parish making the simple argument that because same-sex marriage is a right protected under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, a parish cannot discriminate in who it weds and who it doesn't.

The religious liberty protections of the First Amendment can only hold up so long when put under the scrutiny that drove Burwell. Play some mental gymnastics a la Roberts and suddenly a centuries-old protection of religious liberty fades away. "Prohibiting" could be construed to mean "Congress can't prohibit except when..." And "free exercise" could take a similar meaning: "Churches can practice their faith freely except when..." It's not a far stretch to suggest this can happen. If Burwell happened, this can happen.

Advocates of same sex marriage have avoided discussing religious liberty protections outside of some editorials that scoff at the idea that the free exercise of religion would ever be threatened by the gay marriage movement. Ultimately, our society is one step away from the previously unthinkable stage of government-coerced marriages in churches.

Unless Congress, governors, and state legislatures act immediately, government-coerced weddings are a matter of when, not if.

The Marriage Debate is Far From Over

Frank Schubert, a long-time partner with NOM and an indispensable marriage champion, pens his insightful observations on how the Supreme Court’s ruling will affect our nation’s continued war on marriage:

The long-expected decision of the U.S. Supreme Court imposing same-sex marriage on the country has been issued. The obvious next question is whether this settles the matter, and there’s a one-word answer: “Hardly.”

If anything, the court’s decision is likely to roil the nation and pave a path toward more cultural conflict, not less.

I have been engaged with the American people in a robust debate on the nature of marriage and how it should be treated in the law ever since I managed the successful Proposition 8 campaign in California. I’ve been involved in legislative and electoral contests in more than a dozen states and in every region of the country.

I realize that many people disagree with the view that marriage is the union of one man and one woman. That’s what makes a debate and why we have elections. My side prevailed in four public votes and lost in four others. That is how closely divided the nation is on same-sex marriage.

The 5-4 majority on the Supreme Court has illegitimately truncated that debate. In his dissent, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote: “The majority’s decision is an act of will, not legal judgment. The right it announces has no basis in the Constitution or this Court’s precedent.”

The court’s narrow majority has substituted its views for those of countless elected officials and more than 50 million voters who decided that traditional marriage should be preserved in their respective states. In his dissent, Justice Antonin Scalia called it exercising “super legislative” authority.

In legislating from the bench, the court has deprived both sides of the satisfaction of potentially winning the public debate, while cheating the losing side of any solace that might come from being defeated in a fair fight.

This decision joins other infamous rulings that lacked constitutional legitimacy, including the Dred Scott case declaring that African Americans were not citizens but property, and Roe v. Wade mandating abortion in every state. Just as Roe did not settle the issue of abortion, Obergefell v. Hodges won’t settle the marriage debate.

The inevitable result of this ruling will be to ensure that marriage remains controversial. The most immediate political conflict concerns what actions governments might take to force acceptance of the ruling. In states with gay marriage, bakers, florists, photographers and innkeepers have been punished for refusing to participate in same-sex ceremonies. Religious groups have been forced to close ministries such as adoption agencies to avoid violating their beliefs. President Barack Obama’s top litigator has already hinted that Christian colleges could lose their tax exemptions if they do not allow gay couples to live together on campus.

Chief Justice Roberts noted the court majority “ominously” gives lip service to religious liberty by saying that religious people and groups can “teach” and “advocate” for traditional marriage, but the Constitution guarantees the right to the exercise of religion.

There will be a pitched legislative battle in Congress to enact the First Amendment Defense Act (S 1598/HR 2802) to prevent any federal agency from taking adverse action against anyone based on their belief that marriage is between a man and a woman.

The court’s decision will also powerfully inject marriage into the 2016 presidential contest. The most direct course to reverse this ruling lies in the next president appointing new justices to the Supreme Court. Social conservatives will do everything possible to ensure that the Republican nominee is a strong pro-marriage champion, making this a litmus test throughout the GOP primaries and caucuses.

There will also be a strong push to amend the U.S. Constitution, not only to reverse this ruling, but to hold the Supreme Court more accountable. Is amending the constitution easy? No, but neither is recalling a governor or removing state Supreme Court justices, yet these things have been accomplished.

Liberals will bemoan these conflicts as a continuation of the “culture wars,” but they are responsible for advancing them. As long as important values are under fire, especially when they involve giving government the power to subvert unalienable rights granted by our creator, conservatives must either engage the debate or surrender. I don’t see any white flags on the horizon.

Frank Schubert is founder of Mission Public Affairs, a Sacramento political consulting firm. He ran the pro-Proposition 8 campaign in 2008 and several other campaigns around the country supporting traditional marriage.

This article originally appeared on The Sacramento Bee.

"SCOTUS is Not the Final Word on Marriage"

NOM President and co-founder Brian Brown discusses the future of marriage today in the Washington Examiner:

Words in FamilyThis not the first time that the Court has relied on its own conception of liberty to justify a decision. One of the best examples of this phenomenon was the Dred Scott v. Sandford case in which a majority of the Supreme Court ruled that restrictions on slavery were unconstitutional because of the implied right of slaveholders. African Americans were thus not people entitled to the rights of citizens, but instead property subject to the will of their masters.

In terms of its legal reasoning, the marriage case, Obergefell v. Hodges, is the Dred Scott decision of our time. It is illegitimate and completing lacking in constitutional authority. It is the product of unaccountable judges legislating from the bench, usurping the role of elected officials and voters and imposing a social policy on the nation because they think they know best.

And like Dred Scott, America need not accept it as the final word, the "law of the land" or even a decision worthy of respect.

...The decision last week is by no means the final word concerning the definition of marriage. NOM is committed to overturning this ruling and containing its effects.

This is only the beginning of the next phase in the struggle to protect marriage. Read on to learn about three major steps that NOM is taking to reverse this unjust ruling. We will not rest until the injustice of this decision is undone and marriage is restored to our nation's laws as it exists in reality — the union of one man and one woman.

 

No Longer is it US: It’s Them vs. Us

Real Clear Politics features a sharp piece by William Murchison that appraises what the recent Supreme Court ruling on marriage means for our country. With this latest turn of events, it is hard to find proof that the majority of our unelected judicial leaders fully understand what the terms “democracy,” “liberty,” and “marriage” truly mean:

ThinkstockPhotos-89614480We live at an odd and dangerous moment -- one framed only in part by the court's recent extension of marriage rights to same-sex couples. There is much else to flummox and worry us. "Consent of the governed" seems the last thing on the minds of those determined to herd the sheep -- you and me -- to supposedly brighter pastures.

"We know what's good for you!" is their loud, if unarticulated, injunction. Generally succeeded by: "Shut up -- didn't you hear what we said?"

Chief Justice John Roberts posed a broader, sounder question -- "Just who do we think we are?" -- to his colleagues in the marriage case. By a vote of 5 to 4, the court handed to Americans a new, untested definition of human domestic relationships. Old understandings of marriage were off. We needed a new one -- see? -- and we got it.

Justice Antonin Scalia, as is his wont, saw to the bottom of the matter, writing in dissent: "A system of government that makes the People subordinate to a committee of nine unelected lawyers does not deserve to be called a democracy."

You can take all this if you like as a succession of harrumphings by angry losers. Or you can consider, shall we say, the Big Picture: one bigger than the court, bigger than any wedding party, whatever its sexual composition.

The United States of America -- your country and mine -- has for several decades been unmooring itself from allegiance to truths once generally agreed on as essential to human happiness and freedom. Whether we necessarily meant to slip ancient anchors, that has been the effect. The old American vision no longer serves! A new one is wanted! That's been the consistent narrative.

. . .

The victors want to sweep off the table everything that doesn't please them, replacing it with creations of their own design. What's more, by virtue of their patience and persistence, the victors run vast regions of our country, both geographical and intellectual. They'll tell you Alexander Hamilton doesn't belong on the $10 bill and that our president was right to bathe the White House -- the people's house -- in the rainbow colors of gay liberation.

There's just one trouble. Uprooting truth, or that which has historically been taken for truth, requires more than Justice Anthony Kennedy's say-so. Our elitist Supreme Court has guaranteed for us cultural and constitutional headaches for which no pharmacological remedy exists, headaches possibly of the sort that Mike Huckabee forecasts, involving defiance and division.

Listen to KQED Radio’s Forum Featuring NOM’s President, Brian Brown!

From KQED.org:

On Friday, the U.S. Supreme Court made history by ruling that the Constitution guarantees the right to same-sex marriage nationwide. Gay men and women "ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law," wrote Justice Anthony Kennedy in the majority opinion. "The Constitution grants them that right." San Franciscans waving rainbow flags outside City Hall tearfully hugged each other after hearing the news, which came right before the San Francisco Pride Celebration and Parade weekend. We discuss the 5-4 decision and what this means for the country.

We Fight On

Dear Marriage Supporter,

I've now had the chance to read through the 103 page opinion of the US Supreme Court purporting to redefine marriage, and I am even more upset to read the articulated "rationale" for this terrible decision than I was when I was on the steps of the US Supreme Court this morning and initially heard of their conclusion.

Plain and simple, what the majority has done is simply invent a constitutional right to same-sex 'marriage' out of thin air, and invalidated the decision of over 50 million voters and their elected officials in the process. It is the worst exercise of judicial activism I've ever seen. Justice John Roberts called it "an act of will, not legal judgement" and he properly compared it to other illegitimate Court decisions of history, specifically the Dred Scott decision which determined that African Americans were the mere property of their "master."

But despite this terrible blow, we will fight on. We will not accept this decision to be "the last word" about marriage in America. We have a lot of work to do now to reverse this illegitimate decision, and we have a plan ready to launch to do so. But we urgently need your financial help today to carry the fight forward. Please make an emergency contribution of $25, $50, $100 or $500 or more. Today the battle is joined and we are counting on your support.

Help Us Fight On

Not only has the Court's majority thrown the legal definition of marriage aside, they have put in the crosshairs for persecution every American and group that believes in the truth of marriage. Indeed, Justice Roberts noted that "ominously" the majority of the Court has not spoken to the right of people to exercise dissent from support for same-sex 'marriage.' Justices Scalia, Alito and Thomas all worry aloud – rightly so – that it will not be long before cases will be brought involving punishment of people and groups by the government for not agreeing to go along with the new orthodoxy of marriage.

The Obama Administration can be expected to be at the forefront of this punishment and persecution as they become a tool of gay activists to crush any dissenting view of marriage. Already a top Obama lawyer has hinted that Christian schools and other nonprofit and charitable groups that refuse to go along might lose their tax exempt status. But it won't stop there. Soon, any level of power the government can wield will be used to force compliance – whether that be the tax code, revocation of government contracts, new provisions in employment law, denial of access to services and benefits, etc. – whatever the federal government has at its disposal to force individuals and organizations to comply will be utilized.

That is why a major part of our plan going forward is to push for the First Amendment Defense Act (FADA) in Congress. This critical legislation will provide some measure of protection against governmental discrimination and punishment for people who continue to hold to the truth of marriage as one man and one woman.

But advancing this legislation in Congress will not be easy. We will need substantial resources to battle the likes of Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, who will work hand in hand with President Obama to force compliance with this new ruling.

We are asking for your immediate financial contribution today to fight to protect marriage supporters by getting Congress to pass the First Amendment Defense Act. Our plan calls for investing $150,000 in this effort over the next several months. We urgently need your help to reach this goal.

But it is not enough to only pass FADA at the federal level, we must advance it in every state in the nation. Thus, our plan includes working with allies at the state level to support state-based versions of the First Amendment Defense Act. We will work to pass this legislation through state Legislatures, and we will look to put it on the ballot directly in several states. We need your financial help for this cause. Will you consider making a gift of $100 today so that we can get started? Of course, it that is too much under your circumstances, please give what you are able. And if you can give more than that, it would be a great blessing.

Help Us Fight On

It's also clear from today's ruling that we need to replace some of these justices. Thankfully, several are expected to retire soon and that is why it is critical that we elect a pro-marriage champion as President. NOM is already leading to accomplish this by issuing The People's Marriage Pledge to give voice to the millions of Americans who believe as we do that marriage must be protected.

Our national action plan includes making substantial investments of resources to promote The People's Marriage Pledge, and to engage in independent communications to educate voters about which candidates are true marriage champions. We just cannot afford to have another presidential nominee who only gives lip service to the cause of marriage – we need a champion who will act! That's why we must raise substantial resources to accomplish this task.

If you believe that our next President of the United States must be a champion for true marriage, then we ask you to donate today so that we can make this a reality in the future.

There are other elements of our plan to go forward, and I will discuss these in future communications. For now, rest assured that NOM is in this fight for the long haul, and we trust you will be there with us.

This is a dark day, but we are not defeated. Indeed, we have been reenergized and are more determined than ever to reverse this injustice and restore God's institution of marriage to its proper place in American law and culture.

Faithfully,

Brian S Brown


PS – Our opponents are now counting on you to give up, and so is a majority of the US Supreme Court. Remember it was Justice Ginsburg who violated judicial ethics to comment publicly that the American people will easily accept this illegitimate decision. Please act today to prove her wrong! Your contribution of $25, $50, $100, $500 or $1,000 or more will be an investment in the next phase of this struggle and allow us to begin to fight back and ultimately reverse this terrible decision.

How to Respond to SCOTUS Ruling on Marriage

This is judicial activism: nothing in the Constitution requires the redefinition of marriage, and the court imposed its judgment about a policy matter that should be decided by the American people and their elected representatives. The court got marriage and the Constitution wrong today just like they got abortion and the Constitution wrong 42 years ago with Roe v. Wade. Five unelected judges do not have the power to change the truth about marriage or the truth about the Constitution. - Ryan Anderson

While the decision of the Supreme Court is both tragic and unsurprising, marriage supporters should not give up hope. While the ruling is a disappointment, it is by no means the deciding outcome in the war on marriage. Marriage has always been defined by nature as between one man and one woman. No matter what laws the Supreme Court Justices change, they cannot change the truth.

Ryan Anderson offers encouraging words and advice on how marriage defenders can continue the fight to defend marriage as it has always been defined - the union between one man and one woman:

Marriage will always the union of one man and one woman

Marriage will always the union of one man and one woman.

For marriage policy to serve the common good it must reflect the truth that marriage unites a man and a woman as husband and wife so that children will have both a mother and a father. Marriage is based on the anthropological truth that men and woman 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.

The government is not in the marriage business because it’s a sucker for adult romance. No, marriage isn’t just a private affair; marriage is a matter of public policy because marriage is society’s best way to ensure the well-being of children. State recognition of marriage acts as a powerful social norm that encourages men and women to commit to each other so they will take responsibility for any children that follow.

Redefining marriage to make it a genderless institution fundamentally changes marriage: It makes the relationship more about the desires of adults than about the needs—or rights—of children. It teaches the lie that mothers and fathers are interchangeable.

Because the court has inappropriately redefined marriage everywhere, there is urgent need for policy to ensure that the government never penalizes anyone for standing up for marriage. As discussed in my new book, “Truth Overruled: The Future of Marriage and Religious Freedom,” we must work to protect the freedom of speech, association and religion of those who continue to abide by the truth of marriage as union of man and woman.

At the federal level, the First Amendment Defense Act is a good place to start. It says that the federal government cannot discriminate against people and institutions that speak and act according to their belief that marriage is a union of one man and one woman. States need similar policies.

Recognizing the truth about marriage is good public policy. Today’s decision is a significant set-back to achieving that goal. We must work to reverse it and recommit ourselves to building a strong marriage culture because so much of our future depends upon it.

You can read Anderson’s full article at The Daily Signal.

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke

National Organization for Marriage (NOM) Issues Statement Following US Supreme Court Decision on Marriage

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: June 26, 2015
Contact: Paul Bothwell (202) 457-8060 x-105 [email protected]


nom_logo

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

Though expected, today's decision is completely illegitimate. We reject it and so will the American people. It represents nothing but judicial activism, legislating from the bench, with a bare majority of the Justices on the Supreme Court exercising raw political power to impose their own preferences on marriage when they have no constitutional authority to do so. It is a lawless ruling that contravenes the decisions of over 50 million voters and their elected representatives. It is a decision that is reminiscent of other illegitimate Court rulings such as Dred Scott and Roe v Wade and will further plunge the Supreme Court into public disrepute.

Make no mistake about it: The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) and countless millions of Americans do not accept this ruling. Instead, we will work at every turn to reverse it.

The US Supreme Court does not have the authority to redefine something it did not create. Marriage was created long before the United States and our constitution came into existence. Our constitution says nothing about marriage. The majority who issued today's ruling have simply made it up out of thin air with no constitutional authority.

In his "Letter from a Birmingham Jail," Dr. Martin Luther King discussed the moral importance of disobeying unjust laws, which we submit applies equally to unjust Supreme Court decisions. Dr. King evoked the teaching of St. Thomas Aquinas that an unjust law or decision is one that is "a human law that is not rooted in eternal law or natural law."

Today's decision of the Supreme Court lacks both constitutional and moral authority. There is no eternal or natural law that allows for marriage to be redefined.

This is not the first time that the Supreme Court has issued an immoral and unjust ruling. In 1857, the Court ruled in the infamous Dred Scott v Sandford case that African Americans could not become citizens of the United States and determined that the government was powerless to reject slavery. In 1927 the Court effectively endorsed eugenics by ruling that people with mental illness and other "defectives" could be sterilized against their will, saying "three generations of imbeciles are enough." And in Roe v Wade, the Court invented a constitutional right to abortion by claiming it was an integral element of the right to privacy. Over 55 million unborn babies have died as a result.

We urge the American people and future presidents to regard today's decision just as President Abraham Lincoln regarded the Dred Scott ruling when he said in his first inaugural address that "if the policy of the government upon vital questions, affecting the whole people, is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made…the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their government into the hands of that eminent tribunal."

Today's decision is by no means the final word concerning the definition of marriage; indeed it is only the beginning of the next phase in the struggle. NOM is committed to reversing this ruling over the long term and ameliorating it over the short term. Specifically:

  1. We call on Congress and state governments to move immediately to protect the rights of people who believe in the truth of marriage from being discriminated against by passing the First Amendment Defense Act through Congress, and similar legislation in the various states.
  2. We also call on Congress to advance to the states for consideration a proposed constitutional amendment defining marriage in the law as it has existed in reality for the entirety of our nation's existence – the union of one man and one woman.
  3. We call on the American people to make the definition of marriage a pivotal issue in the 2016 presidential contest and to elect a president who will be a true champion for marriage, one who is committed to taking specific steps to restoring true marriage in the law including appointing new justices to the Supreme Court who will have the opportunity to reverse this decision.
  4. NOM will work tirelessly along with allies to help change the culture so that Americans have a better understanding of the importance of marriage to children, families and society as a whole.

While today's decision of the Supreme Court is certainly disappointing, it is not demoralizing to those of us who fervently believe in the truth of marriage and its importance to societal flourishing. Indeed, the decision will be energizing. Just as the Supreme Court's decision in Roe v Wade infused the pro-life movement with new energy and commitment, so too will the decision today reawaken the American people to join the marriage movement.

Our prayer for America is that today's injustice can be corrected quickly, sparing the nation decades of anguish of the kind that has followed the Court's decision in Roe.

To schedule an interview with Brian Brown, please contact Paul Bothwell, [email protected], (202) 457-8060 x-105.

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.

Our Very Way of Life is on the Line

By now you should be prepared for the worst. There is a strong possibility (many say high likelihood) that the Supreme Court will impose same-sex ‘marriage’ on the entire nation either tomorrow or Monday. While this would be an illegitimate and lawless ruling (because there is no constitutional authority for it), we must remember that man-made law never supersedes natural law. “Marriage” will ever remain the union between a man and a woman because its unique meaning and purpose is to bring together the two halves of humanity to provide the best environment for raising children.

Conservative talk show host Steve Deace, a longtime friend of NOM’s, has penned a provocative article in Conservative Review where he points out that a negative ruling will prove to be a boon to the marriage movement over time, just as Roe v. Wade reinvigorated the pro-life movement. The first benefit, he predicts, will be to separate out the true conservatives in the field of GOP presidential candidates from those who are only pretending to be conservative:

stk308123rkn

All of our other options of faux coexistence and kicking the can down the road are over. The age of feigned tolerance is at an end and – behold! – the age of forced compliance is now at hand.

We are about to find out why there was so much bravery at the Alamo—because there was no backdoor. There will be no fence to straddle. There will be no neutrality. There will be no polls or elections we supposedly have to win with a gutless establishment Republican we rationalize as an excuse to punt. There will only be “choose ye this day whom you will serve.”

No less than our very way of life is on the line. Such as:

-Marriage, the most fundamentally important institution of a civilized society
-Federalism, which is our most basic form of governance
-The constitutional rule of law and separation of powers
-The will of the people, as in the over 50 million Americans that voted to enshrine marriage in their state constitutions
-The Bill of Rights, with the First Amendment's religious freedom protections in clear and present danger

Any so-called Republican or religious leader that is willing to respond to such a blitzkrieg on liberty with tripe like “the courts have spoken” or “it’s time to move on” is a charlatan, and there’s no way they’d defend our liberties against any other Leftist assault, either.

You can read the full article at Conservative Review.

Jim Garlow: Marriage Leaders and Capitulators

A courageous defender of marriage and longtime friend of NOM, Jim Garlow, senior pastor at Skyline Church in San Diego, California, offers his insightful analysis on the impending Supreme Court ruling, and challenges us to think about whether we, the people, will decide to do what is right, or what is easy:

[M]y concern is less with prognosticating on what the court might do, but rather on the reaction of the Christian community to the presumed attempted destruction of marriage, specifically from its leaders. What should we expect?

It appears to me that there are some who suffer from “Tony Campolo Syndrome.” That is, they are on the verge of “stepping over” – coming out of the “one-man-one-woman marriage closet” – and a bit eager to embrace so-called same-sex “marriage.”

Why will several prominent Christian “leaders” do this? It will not be because they can biblically defend it. They cannot.

It will because – now how do I say this nicely? – they are cowardly. You see, it is now culturally chic – oh, so very cool – to affirm so called same-sex “marriage.” By doing so, one appears so “with it,” so “relevant.” And it make you appear – notice, only appear – to be so kind and grace giving.

I fully expect several high-profile pastors and Christian leaders – based on the “rumblings” – to use the Supreme Court decision as an excuse –a casuistry – to violate Scripture. The phrasing that will be used will be very similar and even more boring. Even more tragic, it will be deceptive.

One phrase that will be used repeatedly is “that ship has sailed.” It seems to ease their conscience that they can now fit in culturally with the radical homosexual agenda and not have to suffer from any of the barbs, jabs and bullying hurled at those who stand with Scripture.

. . .

While it is true that that “the ship may have sailed,” that ship will sink! It is the proverbial Titanic. (The problem is it will try to take so many of us down with it – even though we’ve been warning of the “iceberg” for some time!)

And those who stand for truth – those with titanium scriptural backbones – will face entirely new challenges in defending biblical marriage.

Christian leaders will be divided into two categories: Neville Chamberlains, that is, the compromisers, and Winston Churchills, the courageous champions.

For those whose World War II history is slipping, Neville Chamberlain compromised and set up Hitler to kill tens of millions of people. Winston Churchill knew what had to be done against Hitler, and did it.

The Chamberlain cowardly “Christian leaders” will assert that “it’s all over. There’s nothing we can do. It has been decided.”

The Churchillian ABC (Authentically Biblically Christian) leaders will rise up and say, “never give up!”

Why will they do this? Because they are dinosauric and cannot get with the times? No!

Because they have figured out that there are some things worth continuing to fight for and, if necessary, die for. Yes, it will take a long time. But one-man-one-woman marriage is such a no-brainer, it will eventually win out.

You can read Garlow’s full article at WND.com.

Marriage Poll: SCOTUS Should Not Declare a Constitutional Right to Same-sex Marriage

The definition of marriage is an issue that dissolves borders and unifies diverse groups, as has been evidenced this past year, notably at the March for Marriage.

In a fiery post, HotAir examines a YouGov Poll, whose data reveals that the majority of “whites, blacks, [and] Latinos think SCOTUS should not declare a constitutional right to same-sex marriage.”

Some YouGov poll results were as follows:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As HotAir notes, if you remove the Supreme Court from the question, the numbers tilt in the opposite direction. When asked if they support same-sex couples marrying legally:

Chart 2

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[W]hy should blacks, white, and Latinos all flip towards opposition when you refine the question further to ask whether the Supreme Court should rule that gays have a constitutional right to marry? The answer, I think, lies in another part of YouGov’s question, where they stress that if the Court rules that way, “same-sex marriages will be allowed in states whose laws currently forbid them.” There are doubtless people in all three groups who didn’t realize until that question was put to them that that’s what a SCOTUS ruling on this subject would mean on the ground. Each state’s ability to set its own law on marriage will go out the window; it’ll be one uniform rule for the entire country by judicial decree. Turns out Americans aren’t crazy about that, which may signal a backlash brewing if the Court rules as everyone expects this week.

The full article is available via HotAir.

The Decision on Marriage Should Not Be Rushed

"Expanding the definition of marriage away from the way cultures and civilization have always defined it can only lead to further confusion.” - Rev. Russell Moore

As the world readies for the Supreme Court’s decision on same-sex marriage, defenders of marriage are urging the justices to take into account all the known effects that redefining marriage would bring upon our nation.

Proponents of same-sex marriage are arguing that now is the time for marriage to be redefined, because the “popular opinion” promulgated by the media is that marriage should be redefined. In contrast, marriage champions are asking the Supreme Court to look at the facts, look at what is actually written in the constitution, and look at what is best for the children.

While the media may very well be against us, NOM will never give up fighting for marriage, for freedom, and for truth.

ThinkstockPhotos-494897031The idea that same-sex marriage might have uncertain effects on children is strongly contested by those who want the court to declare that same-sex couples have a right to marry in all 50 states. Among the 31 plaintiffs in the cases that will be argued at the court on April 28 are parents who have spent years seeking formal recognition on their children's birth certificates or adoption papers.

But opponents, in dozens of briefs asking the court to uphold state bans on same-sex marriage, insist they are not motivated by any prejudice toward gays and lesbians.

"This is an issue on which people of good will may reasonably disagree," lawyer John Bursch wrote in his defense of Michigan's gay-marriage ban. Bursch argued on behalf of the states that same-sex couples can claim no constitutional right to marriage.

. . .

The concern for children is among several threads that run through the legal, political, social and religious arguments being advanced in support of upholding the same-sex marriage bans.

"If children don't do as well when they are raised by same-sex parents, why would we want to establish or encourage that as a social norm?" asked the Rev. D. Paul Sullins, a Catholic University sociology professor. Sullins has analyzed data in government surveys and concluded that children brought up by two parents of the same sex have a higher rate of emotional problems than their peers raised by heterosexual parents.

Sullins has been harshly criticized by sociologists who support same-sex marriage, but he said he stands by his data. "I don't know of any Catholic way to compute the equation," he said. "The idea that there are no differences is emphatically mistaken. I don't know how else to say that."

For the full article, please visit 12NewsNow.

The Marriage Pledge: A Litmus Test

The Washington Post joins a number of other major national media in covering NOM’s Presidential Marriage Pledge launched last week. As the article notes, every major Republican candidate in 2012 signed NOM’s presidential pledge, including nominee Mitt Romney. NOM expects the Presidential Marriage Pledge to play a significant role in ensuring that marriage is a top-tier issue in the campaign, and will work to ensure that the Republican nominee is a strong marriage champion.

ThinkstockPhotos-78479938With a field of almost 20 candidates, the undercards are looking for every opportunity to stand out. Though attitudes have shifted rapidly, social conservatives who oppose same-sex unions retain the power to decide who wins Iowa’s caucuses and South Carolina’s primary. The National Organization for Marriage is determined to make support for a Constitutional amendment overturning the SCOTUS decision a litmus test. Last week, it began publicly prodding 2016 candidates to sign a pledge that they will do everything possible to “overturn” an “illegitimate” decision.

Almost all of the 2012 candidates signed the NOM “marriage pledge,” including Mitt Romney. But the atmosphere has changed substantially. The donor class is more powerful than ever because of Citizens United, and most major donors either back same-sex marriage or feel pretty agnostic about social issues. The most credible candidates also worry about turning off independents and younger voters in a general election: a CNN poll last month found that 63 percent of Americans believe gays and lesbians have a Constitutional right to marry. This will incline contenders like Jeb Bush, Chris Christie and John Kasich to say that they respect the rule of law, despite whatever their personal beliefs may be. On the other side, Ted Cruz introduced a constitutional amendment in April that would let states re-ban gay marriage. Bobby Jindal supports such an amendment; Scott Walker suggested openness to considering such an approach, but he’s also said the courts settled the issue in his home state of Wisconsin.

Full article can be found via The Washington Post.

Same-sex Marriage Is Not Mandated By the 14th Amendment

The core issue being examined by the U.S. Supreme Court in the case that seeks to impose same-sex ‘marriage’ on the nation, is whether the U.S. Constitution requires that marriage laws be gender-neutral. Two constitutional scholars examine this issue, and in a powerful and thoughtful piece, conclude that the case for redefining marriage is “pathetically weak”:

The opinion by Judge Sutton of the US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit — upholding traditional marriage against five challenges in four states — begins with a remarkable observation that should have resolved the case in that once sentence, but did not. Judge Sutton points out that “[n]obody in this case ... argues that the people who adopted the Fourteenth Amendment understood it to require the States to change the definition of marriage.” DeBoer v. Snyder, 772 F.3d 388, 403 (6th Cir. 2014) (emphasis added).

ThinkstockPhotos-78811350Laymen logically deduce that if the Fourteenth Amendment as written had nothing to do with same-sex marriage, that’s the end of the matter. After all, Justice Douglas succinctly described the Amendment in his autobiography: “The Fourteenth Amendment was passed to give blacks first-class citizenship.”

But for those lawyers who want unelected judges to set the public policy of our nation, it simply doesn’t matter what the Framers intended. And neither does it matter to many judges who are all too willing to give effect to their own political views. Discovering the “authorial intent” of the Framers is only a small part of their concern — a step they sometimes skip over entirely.

Recently, Justice Alito observed that “[s]ame-sex marriage presents a highly emotional ... question ... but not a difficult question of constitutional law.” [United States v. Windsor, 570 US, 133 S.Ct. 2675, 2714 (2013) (Alito, J., dissenting)]:

The Constitution does not guarantee the right to enter into a same-sex marriage. Indeed, no provision of the Constitution speaks to the issue. It is beyond dispute that the right to same-sex marriage is not deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition. [Id. at 2714-15.]

Therefore, Justice Alito explained that challengers to traditional marriage:

seek ... not the protection of a deeply rooted right but the recognition of a very new right, and they seek this innovation not from a legislative body elected by the people, but from unelected judges. [Id. at 2715.]

If we are now considering a new right, one could legitimately ask when and where did this new right come from.

You can read the full article via Aleteia.

Marriage and The Supreme Court: Ryan Anderson’s 3 Key Points

Our friend Ryan Anderson over at The Heritage Foundation has neatly summarized some of the key issues involved in the marriage case currently pending before the U.S. Supreme Court:

200469678-0011. Whatever people may think about marriage as a policy matter, everyone should be able to recognize the U.S. Constitution does not settle this question. Unelected judges shouldn’t insert their own policy preferences about marriage and then say the Constitution requires them everywhere.

There simply is nothing in the Constitution that requires all 50 states to redefine marriage. Sen. Rob Portman, R-Ohio, represents one of the states whose law is under review by the Court. While Portman is personally in favor of same-sex marriage, Portman is against the Court unilaterally redefining marriage for the entire country. Portman rightly recognizes that marriage policy must be worked out democratically.

After all, the overarching question before the Supreme Court is not whether a male–female marriage policy is the best, but only whether it is allowed by the Constitution. Nor is it whether government-recognized same-sex marriage is good or bad policy, but only whether it is required by the Constitution.

. . .

2. The government is not in the marriage business because it’s a sucker for adult romance. No, marriage isn’t just a private affair; marriage is a matter of public policy because marriage is society’s best way to ensure the well-being of children. State recognition of marriage protects children by encouraging men and women to commit to each other—and to take responsibility for their children.

Marriage exists to bring a man and a woman together as husband and wife, as well as to be father and mother to any children their union produces. Marriage is based on the anthropological truth that men and woman 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.

Everyone in this debate favors marriage equality. Everyone wants the law to treat all marriages in the same ways. The only disagreement our nation faces is over what sort of consenting adult relationship is a marriage. Since the Constitution doesn’t answer that question, the people and their elected representatives should.

. . .

3. Whatever the Court rules about marriage, the government should not discriminate against any citizen, charity, school, business or any other institution of civil society that continues to believe that marriage is the union of husband and wife. Even if the Court issues an activist decision mandating states to recognize same-sex relationships as marriages, such a ruling does not mean that government has to force citizens and institutions of civil society to violate their beliefs. Nor should it mean that.

Again we can look to Portman. While he is personally in favor of democratically redefining marriage, he does not want the government to force his definition onto other people, coercing them into violating their consciences and penalizing them if they refuse.

Unfortunately, there have been too many cases where the government has coerced and penalized citizens simply for acting in accordance with their belief that marriage is the union of husband and wife.

This must stop.

To read the full article, please visit The Daily Signal.