NOM BLOG

Category Archives: Supreme Court

Why I Think We'll Win

National Organization for Marriage

Dear Marriage Supporter,

Although it has been a mild summer, things are heating up in the fight to defend marriage.

In just a few months, we will be facing a potential turning point in the political arena, as NOM will be working with many other groups to retake the United States Senate and hold politicians accountable to you, the voters, for their policy positions related to the institution of marriage.

And a few short months after that, NOM will be leading the charge to make a national statement that will be heard around the country and the world as the United States Supreme Court likely hears arguments in a case that could well become the Roe v Wade of marriage.

But here's the thing about that potential case: this time around, we have a very good chance to WIN!

Won't you please help NOM gear up for the November elections and pending litigation with a generous donation of $35, $50, $100 or even $500 right away?

Why do I think we have a very good chance of winning at the Supreme Court?

I'll refer your attention to the recent legal filings in North Dakota by the Governor and Attorney General and their powerful and compelling legal arguments in defense of marriage.

In their briefs, they point out that "this case involves two mutually exclusive and profoundly different marriage institutions, marriage institutions that serve separate, distinct, and conflicting societal purposes."

They go on to note that:

The man-woman marriage institution has uniquely provided valuable social benefits necessary to the well-being and stability of society and the development of individuals, especially children. In particular, the man-woman marriage institution's norms and other public meanings have helped a greater portion of children know and be raised by their mother and father.

Toward the end of the twentieth century, however, various individuals and groups began a campaign to use the force of law to replace the man-woman marriage (traditional marriage) institution with an institution that would still be called "marriage" but would have a very different core meaning: the union of any two persons without regard to gender (genderless marriage). This civil action is an important part of that campaign.

North Dakota can have only one social institution denominated "marriage." It cannot simultaneously provide the historically proven valuable social benefits of man-woman marriage and the asserted benefits of the new genderless marriage. One necessarily displaces or precludes the other.

This is exactly correct. Redefining marriage to include homosexual couples isn't simply adding a parallel institution that won't alter or interact with marriage — it fundamentally changes marriage and makes it an inherently genderless institution.

And that genderless institution is what will be pushed in government policy; in schools; indeed, through all mechanisms of government.

As the brief also points out, same-sex 'marriage' is based on two fundamentally flawed propositions: "First, that there is a fundamental right to marry someone of the same sex. Second, that sexual orientation is a class meriting heightened scrutiny. Both of these propositions have been rejected by the Supreme Court and the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals."

Legal precedence is on our side. Reason is on our side. History is on our side. And the vast majority of citizens in America and across the world are on our side.

All we must do now is mobilize them to ensure that the individuals in control of the levers of power in the government and society recognize and respect that fact.

Won't you please click here right away to make a generous donation of $35, $50, $100 or even $500 to help NOM fight to defend marriage and the faith communities that sustain it?

Faithfully,

Brian S Brown

Brian S. Brown
President
National Organization for Marriage

Brian Brown

PS: I'll have a lot more to say about these legal cases involving marriage making their way up to the Supreme Court in the days ahead. But I wanted to let you see how powerful and compelling the arguments supporting marriage are; and I wanted to show you that those arguments are being ably advanced in the courts. I feel very good about the legal appeals underway and am optimistic about our chances to win at the Supreme Court in the months ahead.

And NOM will be doing everything we can to assist in these pending victories by mobilizing tens of thousands of Americans to rally in defense of marriage, sending politicians and judges around the country a powerful and unequivocal message: marriage is the union of one man and one woman! Please consider partnering with us today by making a financial investment in NOM today.

National Organization for Marriage Pleased that the US Supreme Court Granted a Stay of the Decision Striking Down Virginia’s Marriage Amendment

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: August 20, 2014
Contact: Elizabeth Ray or Matille Thebolt (703-683-5004)


nom_logo

Washington, D.C. — The following statement may be attributed to Brian Brown, President of the National Organization for Marriage:

"We are pleased that the US Supreme Court has put a halt to the decision in Virginia redefining marriage in violation of the state’s marriage amendment overwhelmingly approved by voters. We had called upon the Court to take this step and are gratified that they will now be able to carefully consider the issues. This is another indication that the rush to judgment declaring marriage to be unconstitutional is not only premature, but incorrect. The US Supreme Court has determined that states have the right to define marriage and we remain confident that they will uphold all the various traditional marriage laws and constitutional amendments that have been wrongly invalidated by federal judges. We look forward to the US Supreme Court taking one or more of the three marriage cases now pending before them, and ultimately ruling that defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman is entirely constitutional."

###

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 Calls for Supreme Court Stay of Decision Striking Down Virginia's Marriage Amendment

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: August 14, 2014
Contact: Elizabeth Ray or Matille Thebolt (703-683-5004)


nom_logo

Washington, D.C. — The following statement may be attributed to Brian Brown, President of the National Organization for Marriage:

"We urge the Supreme Court to grant Prince William County Clerk Michèle McQuigg's request for a stay of the decision in Bostic v. Schaefer while the matter is appealed. The 4th Circuit has wrongly rejected the request for a stay, and now it lies with the Justices in Washington to ensure that this case can be appealed in an orderly and reasonable fashion without the spectacle of premature same-sex ‘marriages’ filling the news as an affront to the people of Virginia who voted overwhelmingly to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman. As the Court stayed a similar decision in the case coming out of Utah, we urge them to find the same good reasons for staying the present decision, maintaining the dignity and credibility of the judicial process and giving the people of Virginia the respect they deserve to defend their vote for marriage before our highest court."

###

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).

Brian Brown on FoxNews Special Report

NOM's President Brian Brown was featured in a segment of FoxNews' Special Report, saying that the right of the people of individual states "to vote on key issues and resolve them for themselves" is likely to be upheld by the Supreme Court when they take up the issue of marriage again.

Watch the clip here:


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

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: August 6, 2014
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 —

nom_logo

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).

Marriage Debate Far From Over

Kenneth D. Whitehead recently wrote in Crisis Magazine that the marriage debate is far from over.  A court-imposed redefinition of marriage will not settle the debate, he wrote, nor will government coercion of bakers, photographers, or florists who refuse to participate in same-sex "weddings."

GavelComparing the current marriage debate to the debate over abortion before Roe v. Wade, Whitehead argued:

The Supreme Court’s 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, which was supposed to have “settled” the equally contentious abortion issue, instead succeeded only in bringing about some 40-plus years of continual agitation and strife, which still goes on today. The legalization of gay marriage is going to produce the same kind of result.

Whitehead blasted the Supreme Court's lack of logic in its Windsor decision last summer:

But Justice Kennedy...blandly declared instead that unnatural same-sex relationships which are necessarily sterile were nevertheless indeed marriages, offering no sort of reason or argument for this novel, indeed revolutionary, conclusion. Even while ignoring and leaving aside essential elements of marriage (sexual complementarity, ability to conceive new life), he nevertheless effectively did redefine marriage as far as the law is concerned.

And this is the redefinition that is henceforth likely to be enshrined in our law and practice generally—at least until enough Americans wake up to what is being perversely wrought here and find the courage to work to reverse it (as the former unwise constitutional amendment that once banned alcoholic beverages eventually got reversed).

The fight to protect marriage has only just begun.  On marriage, Whitehead urged readers, "don't count it out!"  There are certainly challenges when it comes to defending marriage, particularly challenges posed by cultural elites and activist judges, but that does not mean defenders of marriage have lost our will to fight.  We are in this to win and protect marriage because we know that children do best when raised by a married mother and father!

The second annual March for Marriage is the perfect time for us to rally with other marriage supporters and show that we are in this for the long run!

Defending Marriage Tops Agenda on First Day of US Bishops Spring Meeting

At their spring meeting, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) have already begun focusing on the defense of marriage.

Archbishop Salvatore J. Cordileone of San Francisco, chairman of the USCCB Subcommittee on the Promotion and Defense of Marriage and speaker at the March for Marriage, said that an anti-marriage decision from the Supreme Court "would undoubtedly have a profound impact on the nation."

LifeSiteNews reported:

BishopsMuch of the opening day of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops 2014 Spring General Assembly on Wednesday was devoted to the defense and promotion of marriage.

Archbishop Salvatore J. Cordileone of San Francisco, chairman of the USCCB Subcommittee on the Promotion and Defense of Marriage, led the charge by telling his brother bishops: “We are at a critical point in this country as it comes to defense of marriage in the law.

Archbishop Cordileone outlined the grave situation for the defense of traditional marriage and resulting threats to religious freedom.

During a presentation about the upcoming World Meeting of Families, Archbishop Charles J. Chaput noted that this meeting "comes at a time when,” there is a great “confusion about the nature of marriage and the family.”

Echoing Pope Francis, Archbishop Lori, the chairman of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops' Ad Hoc Committee for Religious Liberty, recently said the family is "under attack."  He also said (emphasis added):

Let’s understand that challenges to religious freedom are parallel to challenges to life and family. What is called for is not just a short-term effort, but a movement that brings together life, marriage, service to the needy and religious freedom.

We have to take the long view, as the pro-life movement did in 1973, and ask for God’s grace to keep going. We are talking about the creation of a true civilization of love that is pre-eminently a work of faith.

EWTN Covers March for Marriage

In case you missed it, on May 28 NOM President Brian Brown was on EWTN Nightly News to talk about the upcoming March for Marriage.  He also discussed the motion NOM filed with Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy asking him to stay the imposition of same-sex marriage in Oregon.

Watch him here:

Push for Racial Equality Different from Marriage Redefinition

Equating redefining marriage to civil rights is a popular tactic of the other side.  Jeff Shafer of Alliance Defending Freedom argues that the principles underlying the push for racial equality are very different from the principles behind the push to redefine marriage:

May 17 marked the sixtieth anniversary of the Supreme Court’s decision in Brown v. Board of Education, in which the Court ruled that the government-mandated racial segregation of public schools was unconstitutional. The Brown decision is an icon of American jurisprudence and justly holds a towering position in our legal history. Its ruling was a long overdue moral triumph, and a watershed moment in the elimination of state-enforced racial segregation.

Couple with Baby[...]

...though rhetorically strategic, it is deeply cynical for this late stage of the sexual revolution to congratulate itself by assuming the mantle of the black civil rights movement, a movement that drew its moral resources from Christian precept. The orthodox expression of Christian faith is the sworn enemy of the sexual adventurism juggernaut. The containment of sexuality within covenanted procreative marriage is central to the historic order of Christian civilization. Destroying that norm is both the goal of the sexual revolution and a prerequisite to its remaking of social order.

[...]

The ascendant public regime consecrates public chaos in remaking marriage to eliminate from its essence the relation of husband and wife, and in reducing the biological relation of mother and father to child to an incidental manufacturing feature with no necessary relational meaning or responsibility attending it.

Which brings us to the belligerence of United States v. Windsor. There, the Supreme Court invalidated the federal definition of marriage as a union of a man and a woman, discerning the law so stating to be but codified insult and meanness. Well, of course.

[...]

Perhaps predictably, prominent legal scholars have compared Windsor to Brown...But Windsor’s intentional obscurity and departure from governing standards make it notoriously difficult to explain the ruling as anything other than the Court using the occasion to confirm that a reimagined world is upon us, and the standards operable in the old model are no longer cognizable.

Not so Brown. Whatever the weaknesses in the Court’s rationale for the outcome, Brown’s ruling nevertheless was consonant with Fourteenth Amendment text and history, and with the normative implications of creation imago dei that the black civil rights movement pressed in its remonstrances. Windsor is not of that world.

Supreme Court

It is a notable feature of Windsor that the “dignity” the Court attributed to same-sex couples given marital status is a state-conferred dignity, not an inherent one. That’s a curious innovation, but it makes sense in context, for two reasons. First, the Court was aiming, for the moment, to formally restrict its ruling only to federal acknowledgment of a marital status given by state law.

Second, the “state as dignity-source” is probably a design feature of the replacement worldview, bereft as it is of any other source for human dignity. In the aftermath of God’s banishment, our flexibility to remake humanity and its fundamental relations is accompanied by the sort of drawbacks one might expect when the universe is up for grabs—such as the loss of justification for much of our legal tradition. But that may take a while to come into clear view. The transition will proceed acceptably in the short term so long as we remain haunted by the biblical anthropology from which came our treasured concepts of equality and human dignity. For a time, we’ll recite the old principles through habit, if not principle. But that won’t endure, for their public plausibility ultimately depends on a critical mass sharing fidelity to their Source.

Read the rest of Shafer's article at The Public Discourse.

State's Rights and the Defense of Marriage

The battle to defend marriage, and the faith communities that sustain it, is increasingly coming down to one’s view of the Constitution and particularly what the Founding Fathers intended as the balance between state’s rights and the powers of the federal government.  Activist judges and an overreaching Obama administration continue to attempt to curtail the right of states to define marriage as they see fit.

Judicial ActivismHowever, Jennifer Hickey of Newsmax wrote yesterday reminding each of us that protection of state’s rights continues to gain supporters in the US House of Representatives.  She reports on Congressman Weber’s (R-TX) “State Marriage Defense Act” and the growing number of co-sponsors the bill has.

Congressman Weber introduced the bill so that,

If state law recognizes two people as married, federal law will recognize them as married; if state law does not recognize them as married, federal law will not recognize them as married.

"We do not want to apply Massachusetts law in Texas, any more than Massachusetts wants Texas law applied there," U.S. Rep. Randy Weber, who in January introduced the State Marriage Defense Act of 2014, told Newsmax.

The Texas Republican's legislation currently has 38 co-sponsors and is supported by the Family Research Council, National Organization for Marriage, Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, Concerned Women for America, and Heritage Action.

The congressman acted in the wake of widespread confusion among states on how to react to the Supreme Court's decision last year to strike down parts of the federal Defense of Marriage Act.

Weber said his bill would "provide clarity to federal agencies seeking to determine who qualifies as a spouse for the purpose of federal law.

Congressman Randy Weber (R-TX)

"This legislation is not about denying anyone the right to marry, but it is a states' rights issue with the goal of helping to clarify the confusion among federal and state agencies."

Ryan Anderson of The Heritage Foundation told Newsmax, “[T]hat Weber's bill protects ‘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.’”

The State Marriage Defense Act will "restore proper legal order to the scene and correct the administration's unlawful practice," Notre Dame law professor Gerald Bradleywrote, saying that federal agencies "have no inherent legal authority to define marriage. Neither does the president or his attorney general, so long as Congress has exercised its paramount authority to do so."

To urge your Congressman to support the State Marriage Defense Act, follow this link and send her or him an email.

"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.

Imagine The Government Suing Phil Robertson

National Organization for Marriage

Dear Marriage Supporter,

There's a bigger picture surrounding the recent media sideshow involving Phil Robertson's unjust persecution by Hollywood liberals. A bigger threat looms on the horizon, one that impacts each one of us. And I'm asking you to join the National Organization for Marriage today in standing up to that threat by signing an important new petition we launched just yesterday.

When Phil Robertson expressed his personal religious beliefs and values in his interview with GQ, the self-appointed "thought police" of the homosexual lobby was quick to pounce and begin their "prosecution" (really, persecution).

We all know how things unfolded from there: A&E executives caved to the pressure of Hollywood bullies; a groundswell of unprecedented support for Phil (including our own petition that you signed — thanks again!) soon flooded A&E's inboxes; and finally the network reversed course and reinstated Phil to his show. But, imagine for a moment...

...Imagine that the situation didn't involve a high-powered lobby and busy-body "thought police." Imagine instead that Phil had been up against the full force of the government and the actual police.

...Imagine that it hadn't been a network with the mere ability to hire and fire. Imagine instead that the man-in-charge was a federal judge, able to saddle Phil with criminal "hate-speech" charges, civil rights violations, and onerous fines.

...Imagine that it wasn't just a Hollywood clique and cabal disapproving of a certain celebrity's Christian values. Imagine instead a new State regime wherein those values were the legal and cultural equivalent of racism, and any citizen expressing those values was subject to punishment.

This is what our country is facing if the same-sex 'marriage' movement gets its way: a society in which not just Phil and other celebrities who voice Christian values are put in the crosshairs and targeted for persecution, but any ordinary citizen who believes in traditional values — ordinary citizens like you and me — will be liable to sanction.

We've already seen this sort of thing happen, and not even just in states where same-sex 'marriage' has been forced on the people. Even in places where true marriage is still the law, we've seen florists, bakers, photographers, bed and breakfast owners and others have found themselves facing penalizing fines and hauled into court as bigots simply for maintaining that marriage is the union of a man and a woman!

That is why we must act today, to ensure that that never comes to pass for our nation. We need to tell Congress right now to amend the US Constitution to protect the identity of marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Click here to sign our petition and send this urgently-needed message.

The stakes are truly that high. Federal judicial activism has run amok, most recently in the State of Utah where a single federal judge tried to throw out the state's marriage amendment — enacted by a strong majority of both the legislature and the citizenry. So brazen was this move that the Supreme Court — in a very rare move — decided unanimously to stay that decision while the State of Utah defends the amendment in court!

The fact is, we just cannot let something as crucial as the definition of marriage rest in the hands of an out-of-control federal judiciary. And remember, defending and defining marriage in our constitution is essential to protecting our First Amendment rights. If marriage is redefined nationwide, traditional views and values like Phil Robertson expresses will be forced from the public square and even possibly made grounds for criminal action!

So please act right now and sign this important petition. It will only take a minute of your time. Your voice is needed so that Congress hears this message loud and clear: our right to express our values is under attack, and must be protected!

Thank you for joining us in this very important fight.

Faithfully,

Brian S. Brown

P.S.: Please take a moment to sign this important petition right away. And when you've finished, please share this message via email, or post on Facebook and Twitter so that we can gain as many signatures as possible for this important cause!

National Organization for Marriage Commends US Supreme Court for Staying Utah Federal Judge's Ruling Redefining Marriage

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


"The decision by a single federal judge to redefine marriage in Utah is lawless, and we are pleased that the Supreme Court has put this decision on hold to allow the state to appeal it in an orderly fashion." — Brian Brown, NOM president —

nom_logo

Washington, D.C. — The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) today commended the US Supreme Court for staying the decision of Utah federal judge Robert Shelby which invalidated the state's definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman. The stay will prevent further same-sex 'marriages' from being performed and allows the higher courts to consider Utah's appeal of the ruling in a deliberate and thorough fashion.

"It was outrageous that this brazen judge appointed by President Obama would substitute his views for the sovereign decision made by both the Utah Legislature and the people of the state, who voted overwhelmingly in favor of defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman," said Brian Brown, NOM's president. "The decision by a single federal judge to redefine marriage in Utah is lawless, and we are pleased that the Supreme Court has put this decision on hold to allow the state to appeal it in an orderly fashion."

Judge Shelby, appointed to the bench by President Obama, issued his decision late on a Friday afternoon during the holidays, and refused to stay it to allow the state to appeal the ruling. Shelby justified his decision in part by speculating that a majority of the US Supreme Court would agree to redefine marriage, something they specifically declined to do in 2013 when they considered two cases before them on the issue. Instead, the majority in the Supreme Court ruled that states do in fact have the power to define marriage, a finding that Shelby twisted to justify his rewriting Utah's marriage laws.

"The actions of this activist judge are an affront to the rule of law and the sovereign rights of the people of Utah to define marriage," Brown said. "Shelby has attempted to twist what the Supreme Court ruled in the Windsor decision - that states have the right to define marriage - and turn it into the exact opposite conclusion. It's gratifying that the US Supreme Court has decided to stop this nonsense and allow the state of Utah the time to reverse it on appeal."

Brown noted that no matter how this case is decided, it highlights the need to preserve marriage in the US Constitution. "Everyone in America should be concerned to see how easily activist judges can cavalierly toss out the will of overwhelming majorities of legislators and voters alike. It's becoming increasingly clear that the people of America need to reclaim their sovereignty and amend the US Constitution to protect 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 (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).

Will the American People Make 2014 the Turning Point for Marriage

The Daily Caller published NOM president Brian Brown’s end-of-the-year Op-ed, where he discusses how pivotal 2014 will be for marriage.  Brown writes:

Marriage in 2014The American people know how important marriage is to the country, and to families. We’re fed up with the elite telling us marriage must be abandoned in the name of “equality.” America needs men and women to come together, produce children, and raise those children with the love and support of both a mother and a father. That’s what marriage does, and that is profoundly good for the country.

Looking back at what the courts did in 2013, and could do again in 2014 to undermine marriage, Brian makes it clear that the only way to protect marriage from activist justices is to amend the U.S. Constitution.  He continues:

Regardless of what the Court does, the survival of marriage as the nation has always known it may well depend on whether the American people can again be roused to take action. They’d need to do more than sign a petition — they’d need to demand that their political leaders amend the US constitution to preserve marriage.

There is, of course, already a federal Marriage Protection Amendment, authored by Rep. Tim Huelskamp of Kansas, working its way through Congress. If you haven't taken action to urge your legislators to enact this important law, please do so right away!

G.K. Chesterton wrote, “The greatest political storm flutters only a fringe of humanity. But an ordinary man and an ordinary woman and their ordinary children literally alter the destiny of nations.”

In 2014, ordinary men and women across this country will need to step up and demand that their political leaders amend the Constitution to preserve marriage.  And when they do, they will alter the destiny of this nation.

 

"Just as Justice Scalia predicted..."

From Sunday, a piece by Robert Barnes at The Washington Post's Politics page is worth noting.

Barnes explains how "Justice Anthony M. Kennedy’s DOMA decision practically provided a blueprint for how [recent legal challenged to state marriage laws] might be successful," and he observes that Justice Antonin Scalia predicted this fact with stunning accuracy:

Justice ScaliaWhen the court last June struck down the federal Defense of Marriage Act [sic] and said the federal government must recognize same-sex marriages performed in those states where it was legal, Scalia sounded a loud warning.

[...]

Scalia’s words have been highlighted in the two recent decisions about same-sex marriage that will return the issue to the Supreme Court.

Barnes himself seems a more intelligent reader of Scalia's remarkable dissent in the Windsor case than the judges in the recent Utah and Ohio cases. While these judges actually cite Scalia and claim that they are simply "applying" the DOMA decision at the state level, Barnes points out that the full logic of Scalia's written opinion from June is much more complex and nuanced [emphasis added]:

Of course, Scalia did not say in his Windsor dissent that lower courts must adopt such an interpretation.

“Lower federal courts and state courts can distinguish today’s case when the issue before them is state denial of marital status to same-sex couples,” [Scalia] wrote, adding: “Lord, an opinion with such scatter-shot rationales as this one . . . can be distinguished in many ways.”

Still, as Scalia pointed out, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy’s DOMA decision practically provided a blueprint for how such challenges might be successful.

Read the entire article here.