Speech by NOM's Brian Brown during SCOTUS Oral Arguments on Marriage

On the morning that the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments on the case that could become the Roe v. Wade of marriage, a crowd of marriage supporters and those seeking to redefine marriage gathered on the steps of the Court. Ironically, as lawyers for same-sex couples were calmly assuring the justices that redefining marriage would not cause problems in society, protestors outside the court proved that the reality is very different as they attempted to loudly shout down anyone who dared to stand for the truth of marriage.

These are the same activists who want any disagreement or contrary voice crushed, with marriage supporters pushed to the edges of society, our voices silenced, and our views besmirched. We commend Brian Brown for wading into this chaos with courage and good cheer to remind everyone, especially the protestors, that we will always stand for the truth of marriage. Here is a video of his remarks:

Parents Shouldn't Provide What is Best for Their Children?

There are proponents in academia who have suggested that parents who educate their children to the best of their ability, is “unfair” to other children who do not receive the same opportunity. As ridiculous as this idea seems, it is an honest, though outlandish, theory that some want put into practice. Adam Swift (Prof. at University of Warwick) is a key proponent of this theory, and he seems to have backing from other academics such as Peter Singer (Ethics Prof. at University of Princeton) as well as public figures such as Pres. Barack Obama:

Parents Helping Their Children With Their Homework

President Obama used language of inequality to critique parents who send their kids to private schools and health clubs just this week.

“Kids start going to private schools, kids start working out at private clubs instead of the public parks, an anti-government ideology then disinvests from those common goods and those things that draw us together,” he said.

“One way philosophers might think about solving the social-justice problem would be by simply abolishing the family,” he (Adam Swift) continues, cheerfully. “If the family is this source of unfairness in society, then it looks plausible to think that if we were to abolish the family, we would create a more level playing field.”

The article continues to explain the folly of holding ‘equality’ as the highest good:

Sarcasm aside, we owe Swift a real debt of gratitude for demonstrating the folly of Progressive equality-worship. Although his ideas are at the extreme end of the Progressive spectrum, the language of “equality” and the decrying of “inequality” is pervading our culture.

Of course, American liberty was founded on the idea that all men are created equal. But when people speak of equality these days, they usually mean not fundamental equality before the law, but rather state-engineered equality of socioeconomic outcomes. Perhaps by seeing this ideology taken to its insane extreme, we can recognize its failings more clearly.

The idea is to take all power, even from the parents, and center it into the State (Federal Government) so that it may decide what is best in all things.

It’s hard not to see that beneath all the egalitarian language lies a bald-faced power grab. Swift—and those who share his worldview—believe they are entitled to make mandatory rules for others which they refuse to adopt for themselves… Swift is operating squarely within the tradition of all Marxist dictators past and present, who style themselves champions of the common man but never deny themselves the luxuries of the ruling class.

Full article available via The Federalist.

Mothers and Fathers Are Not Interchangeable

"If same-sex marriage is constitutionalized, the message the law will send is that the gender of parents becomes valueless, since any two adults will do." - Jenet Erickson 

In marriage and parenting, both mothers and fathers (as a couple) are necessary for the creation and rearing of a child, as well as for the health of the marital relationship. Redefining marriage to include same-sex marriage threatens to strip marriage of its two essential purposes: unity and procreation.

In the late 1970s, Azim Surani tried to create new life using two sets of genes from only a mother, or a father. Everything then known about genetics suggested that with the right number of chromosomes, life would develop normally, even if all of its genetic material came only from a female or a male. But the eggs with only the mother’s genes could not survive. A similar fate met the eggs implanted with two sets of father’s genes.”

Mixed Race Young Family with Newborn Baby

As science reporter Paul Raeburn describes, Surani discovered that mothers and fathers each contributed something in their genes that was critical to sustaining life. These “paternal” and “maternal” genes appeared completely indistinguishable in every way, yet expressed themselves differently depending on whether they came from the mother or the father. And both were essential to the survival of the egg.

The essential need for both a mother and a father to provide genetic material for survival parallels what social science tells us about the importance of mothers and fathers in children’s development. Fathers and mothers bring similar, even indistinguishable, capacities that enable healthy child development. But like the complementarity of the left and right halves of the brain, they also bring distinct capacities that provide complementary, irreplaceable contributions to children’s healthy development.
. . .

“In each of these developmental areas, the natural complementarity between mothers’ and fathers’ parenting strengths is surprisingly precise. Whereas mothers are biologically prepared to nurture, teach, and provide care that is especially important for foundational development, fathers are predisposed to take a facilitative approach to parenting, fostering self-reliance, achievement, and healthy peer relationships in ways that are particularly important especially as children begin to transition to adult life. Both mothers and fathers are needed to create life, and both are needed to best facilitate the nurturing of that life. Mothers do not father, and fathers do not mother. Each emerges as a unique source of distinct and critical nurturing in the development of children. Indeed, evidence of these distinct contributions confirms a long assumed proposition: namely, that the direct, continual involvement of both a mother and a father in the home is ideal for the child’s development.”

Full article is available via The Public Discourse.

Stories You Won't Hear Anywhere Else

Dear Marriage Supporter,

We've all heard over the years that the movement toward universal acceptance of same-sex 'marriage' is inevitable.

You hear on the media that attitudes are shifting toward accepting marriage redefinition as one poll after another is trotted out to prove the point they so desperately want to make.

But as we at NOM have demonstrated in our brief to the Supreme Court in the Obergfell v Hodges case, so much of the polling that "proves" that "everyone" is clamoring for same-sex 'marriage' is subject to well-documented biases and techniques designed to generate a pre-determined response. Additionally, factors such as "social desirability bias" are real issues when polling on sensitive subjects like marriage.

In that regard, an important new study was released this week by Pew Research Center that documents the extent to which the polling on gay issues could be off.

Pew found that there was a difference of 14 points on the issue of whether gays and lesbians experience "a lot of discrimination" depending on whether people were surveyed by an interviewer on the phone or whether they completed a survey on the web. In the case of giving an answer to a phone interviewer, 62% said that gays and lesbian face a lot of discrimination, but only 48% of people surveyed on the web say this. In fact, 52% of web respondents said gays do NOT receive a lot of discrimination.

The reason for this disparity, no doubt, is the "social desirability bias" factor that NOM pointed out to the Supreme Court: survey respondents are apt to give a phone interviewer the "politically correct" answer rather than risk being seen unfavorably by the interviewer. It's a key reason why polling on state marriage fights have typically understated support for traditional marriage by approximately 7 points compared to the actual outcome of the elections.

Today I want to also share some stories from people who are receiving little voice in the debate... but are courageously stepping forward to speak out and make their voices heard to the Supreme Court. In all, six children of same-sex couples filed briefs before the Supreme Court to ensure that the Court heard their story.

Heather and Katy Didn't Want Two Mommies

Heather Barwick and Katy Faust submitted a powerful amicus curiae brief to the Supreme Court outlining their story and why they support traditional marriage.

Heather Barwick was raised by a lesbian couple. She loves her two moms and respects the job they did in raising her. She was a strong advocate for gay rights and proponent of redefining marriage for years.

But recently, she has reversed her position and come to the conclusion that both mothers and fathers matter for children.

Moreover, she is speaking out on behalf of the many children she knows who are hurt by the fact that their voice and ability to be heard is being actively suppressed by the lobbying machine working to redefine marriage.

She asks the simple but heartfelt question... why can't gay people's kids be honest? And she sadly concludes:

"...Children of same-sex parents haven't been given the same voice [as kids of divorce or adoptive children]. It's not just me. There are so many of us. Many of us are too scared to speak up and tell you about our hurt and pain, because for whatever reason it feels like you're not listening. That you don't want to hear. If we say we are hurting because we were raised by same-sex parents, we are either ignored or labeled a hater."

Katy Faust was likewise raised by a lesbian couple. She similarly enjoys a close, loving relationship with her mother.

And she similarly understands the profound truth that all children, whenever and wherever possible, need both a mother and a father.

And — similarly — she has been marginalized and harassed for speaking out:

"Despite having diverse stories and voices, the six of us who filed amicus briefs with the Supreme Court have two things in common: First, we agree that it is in the best interest of children to promote marriage between one man and one woman. Second, we have all been subjected to some measure of intimidation for sharing our stories.

We've faced threats to our jobs, harassment of family and friends, and abusive language from those who espouse openness and tolerance. In our current political climate, it's easy to understand why children with gay parents might not feel comfortable voicing misgivings about their upbringings."

Kudos to both of these brave women for standing up for marriage! It's sad that such loving, well-spoken women are subject to such intense campaigns to marginalize them.

But for those of us who have been fighting this fight for so long, it comes as no surprise. The forces aligned to redefine marriage will brook no opposition and allow no free discussion on the issue. Their tactics have played out time and time again: demonize and marginalize those who disagree with the new same-sex 'marriage' orthodoxy.

Just look at the latest example to crop up: a witch-hunt taking place over some professors daring to sign on to an amicus curiae brief to the Supreme Court defending traditional marriage.

Others Who Are Speaking Out

And it's not just children of same-sex couples who are speaking out... members of the homosexual community are starting to raise their voice as well.

The author of the article is a gay man who wants nothing more in the world than to be a father. But he can't bring himself to celebrate same-sex marriage.

Why? Because, "deep down, I know that every American, gay or straight, has suffered a great loss because of this." He continues:

"I'm not alone in thinking this. The big secret in the LGBT community is that there are a significant number of gays and lesbians who oppose same-sex marriage, and an even larger number who are ambivalent. You don't hear us speak out because gay rights activists (most of whom are straight) have a history of viciously stamping out any trace of individualism within the gay community. I asked to publish this article under a pseudonym, not because I fear harassment from Christian conservatives, but because I know this article will make me a target of the Gaystapo."

How sad is it that a gay man cannot even voice his opinion to his peers for fear of retaliation?

One Week To Go In The Emerald Isle

One week from today, on May 22nd, the people of Ireland will vote on a national referendum that would redefine marriage in their Constitution.

After years of talking about the "fundamental right" of marriage not being subject to votes, advocates have organized and are going to the ballot box in an attempt to get what they want.

As you can imagine, the No (i.e. pro-marriage) campaign is receiving significant abuse and needs your help.

Here are three things you can do to help our friends in Ireland:

  1. Visit their campaign site and support them at
  2. Visit their Youtube page and like their videos.
  3. Share this mail with your friends and encourage them to follow your example!

Remember — increasingly the battle to preserve marriage is becoming a global one. While the Obama administration aggressively ties American foreign policy to advancing the gay agenda worldwide, most countries in the world strongly are opposed to redefining marriage.

If traditional marriage supporters can manage to pull off a victory in Ireland, it will be a tremendous boost to the cause of marriage worldwide. Please do what you can to bring awareness to their efforts.


Brian S Brown

PS: If you have the means to do so, please renew your commitment to marriage and to NOM by renewing your membership with a generous donation today. The next few months will be pivotal and we have just thrown everything we had into the fight — between the March for Marriage, the Supreme Court fight and our tireless efforts to communicate the truth of marriage through the media — our coffers are empty. And we have a big job ahead of us to ensure that your voice and your values are continually heard as the justices of the Supreme Court deliberate their ruling. They must be told unequivocally that any decision purporting to redefine marriage will be seen as judicial activism and be considered illegitimate. Thank you for your support.

Controversy in Utah: Debate About Marriage is No Longer Permissible

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

. . .

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

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

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

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

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

Bradford has not commented on the controversy.

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

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

You can read the full article at The College Fix.

Should We Accept the Consequences of Religious Freedom?

With any freedom, you must take the good with the bad, and religious freedom is no exception:

ThinkstockPhotos-180853230Is religious freedom desirable? Many Americans will quickly answer without thinking through the implications of their response. Respecting any type of freedom often comes with undesirable consequences.

By favoring freedom of speech, you are protecting the right of people to express themselves in many ways that you consider completely wrong. By favoring the right to keep and bear arms, you run the risk that, somewhere, someone will abuse that right and use a legally purchased handgun in a horrific crime.

But we as Americans have weighed the costs of free speech and the right to bear arms and determined that the desirability of those rights outweighs the negatives that accompany them.

So, is religious freedom desirable? When some people realize that this will protect the cake artist or floral artist who does not want to use their talents to help a same-sex couple celebrate their nuptials, they decide that religious freedom isn’t worth it.

But, as the Alliance Defending Freedom emphasizes:

When religious freedom is extinguished, when individuals are told to separate their faith from their work—to confine it to their home or church—our society loses something of great worth. We lose beauty, inspiration, and innovation born out of service to a higher calling.

When religious freedom is extinguished, when individuals are told to separate their faith from their work—to confine it to their home or church—our society loses something of great worth. We lose beauty, inspiration, and innovation born out of service to a higher calling.

You can read the full post at Alliance Defending Freedom.

Louisiana’s Fight for Freedom

True Americans are open to all ideas, but they are not willing to redefine society norms merely to please special interest groups. Recently, Louisiana has demonstrated that they uphold the American belief that citizens, not unelected judges, should decide the laws for themselves:

ThinkstockPhotos-176954063In Louisiana, a new bill has been proposed to protect those who have suffered unjust government discrimination. Opponents are demonizing the bill’s supporters and calling them names, misrepresenting the contents of the proposal, using scare tactics, and generally acting with fundamentalist zeal instead of dispassionate deliberation and rational discourse. They would deny to an entire class of Louisiana citizens legal protection from discriminatory acts, simply because members of that class do not share their own moral views.

Naturally, those zealous opponents are supporters of redefining marriage to include same-sex couples.

The bill is known as the Louisiana Marriage and Conscience Act. As its name suggests, it is designed to codify legal protections for those who have moral and religious convictions about the nature of marriage and whose convictions are out of favor with cultural elites and powerful political actors. Specifically, it would protect those who perceive that marriage is the union of one man and one woman. The bill is timely, necessary, and well-justified.

. . .

The truth is that Louisianans, like Americans generally, disagree about the nature of marriage and they do so because they have reasons to believe what they believe about marriage. States do not use their considerable power to prevent marriage revisionists from advocating the redefinition of marriage or from acting on their views, and states should not use their power to prevent natural marriage proponents from acting on their conviction that marriage is the union of a man and a woman.

You can read the full article via Public Discourse.

All States Should Take Texas’ Lead

Texas is taking a strong stance to protect their State’s right to define marriage, regardless of what ruling the Supreme Court issues:

State lawmakers are considering at least five bills designed to block same-sex marriages, which are currently illegal in the state, and some state leaders say they’ll battle to bar the unions regardless of any Supreme Court decision.

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott released a statement reaffirming his opposition to same-sex marriage. He said, “Texans — not unelected federal judges — should decide this important issue for their state.”

A Texas state representative backs this judicial move with several historical precedences. In addition to Texas, Alabama, Michigan, and Louisiana are also taking a stance:

ThinkstockPhotos-126425189In Louisiana, lawmakers are studying the “Marriage and Conscience Act,” which, if passed, would allow employers to deny same-sex spouses marriage benefits and give state contractors the right to refuse to hire gays and lesbians who marry.

“As the fight for religious liberty moves to Louisiana, I have a clear message for any corporation that contemplates bullying our state: Save your breath,” Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, a Republican, wrote in The New York Times.

These states are holding up the right of not only their citizens, but also the right of the State to not be dismissed by unelected officials in the federal government.

In 2005, Texas voters passed a referendum banning same-sex marriages. A federal judge last year ruled the ban unconstitutional but issued a stay on his ruling as the issue moved through higher courts.

The fact that the Supreme Court is considering cases from Ohio, Tennessee, Michigan and Kentucky but not Texas should preclude state officials here from automatically following any decision from the highest court, said Jonathan Saenz, president of Texas Values, which opposes same-sex marriages.

The people’s will, proved through the 2005 referendum, outweighs any decisions by a federal court, he said. One of his bills would bar public funding to license or recognize the marriages of gay and lesbian couples, regardless of any Supreme Court ruling. As of late Monday (May 11), the bill appeared to have a majority of support in the state House.

Leading by example is one of the highest and effective forms of leadership, and Texas is proving that their ideals and their government truly are led by the people. All states and all citizens should take up the American cause to give the power back to the people, and let the states decide their own fates.

“The sovereignty of states is not something to be taken lightly,” Bell said. “It’s something intended by the framers of our Constitution.”

Source and quotes via Religion News.

There's Something Different About a Wedding: Same-sex Marriage Affects Everyone

In a recent article from The Washington Post, Barronelle Stutzman, the owner of Arlene’s Flowers in Richland, Washington, defends her decision to abstain from providing flowers for her friend’s same-sex wedding ceremony:

ThinkstockPhotos-479346023I’ve been a florist in Richmond, Wash., for more than 30 years. In that time, I’ve developed close relationships with many of my clients.

One of my favorites was Rob Ingersoll. Ingersoll came in often and we’d talk. Like me, he had an artistic eye. I’d try to create really special arrangements for him. I knew he was gay, but it didn’t matter — I enjoyed his company and his creativity.

Then he asked me to create the floral arrangements for his wedding. I love Rob, and I’d always been happy to design for his special days. But there’s something different about a wedding.

Ultimately, Stutzman decided to act according to her religious conscience, and had to turn down the offer:

When I told Rob, I felt terrible that I couldn’t share this day with him, as I’d shared so many with him before. I took his hands and said, “I’m sorry I can’t do your wedding because of my relationship with Jesus Christ.” Rob said he understood, and that he hoped his mom would walk him down the aisle, but he wasn’t sure. We talked about how he got engaged and why they decided to get married after all these years. He asked me for the names of other flower shops. I gave him the names of three floral artists that I knew would do a good job, because I knew he would want something very special. We hugged and he left.

I never imagined what would happen next. Washington State Attorney General Bob Ferguson sued me after hearing in the media what had happened. That was shocking. Even more surprising, Rob and his partner Curt, with their ACLU attorneys, filed suit shortly thereafter. A judge ruled against me, but this week, with the help of the Alliance Defending Freedom, I appealed.

We’ve always heard that same-sex marriage would never affect anyone aside from the same-sex couples who wanted to be married. But a judge recently told me that my freedom to live and work according to my beliefs about marriage expired the day same-sex marriage became the law in my state.

You can read the full article here.

Texas Bill Would Protect Local Officials From Issuing Same-sex Marriage Licenses

From The Washington Post:

ThinkstockPhotos-496264349Texas Republicans are pushing legislation to bar local officials from granting same-sex couples licenses to marry, launching a preemptive strike against a possible U.S. Supreme Court ruling next month that could declare gay marriage legal.

Supporters of the measure, which is scheduled for a vote as soon as Tuesday in the Texas House, said it would send a powerful message to the court. Taking a cue from the anti-abortion movement, they said they also hoped to keep any judicially sanctioned right to same-sex marriage tied up in legal battles for years to come.

The measure, by Rep. Cecil Bell, a Republican from the outskirts of Houston, would prohibit state and local officials from using taxpayer dollars “to issue, enforce, or recognize a marriage license . . . for a union other than a union between one man and one woman.”

Bell said the bill “simply preserves state sovereignty over marriage.”

You can read the full article here.

Mark Regnerus: The Evolution of Science on Same-Sex Households

Social science was never going to save marriage’s male-female infrastructure. What it can do—if the narrative the data reveals isn’t manipulated—is reveal what is really going on.

From Public Discourse:

croppedshadowNow that the Supreme Court’s oral arguments are behind us, and the justices have already privately cast their votes about the future (and the history) of marriage, perhaps it’s possible that the social science of marriage, sexuality, and child outcomes can catch its breath. Better yet, perhaps it can operate without the pressure-cooker of politically acceptable narratives.

But after three years, and two separate inquisitions by my own university, I’ve come to conclude that “the beatings will continue until morale improves,” as the saying goes. Or in my case, until I capitulate and admit I was wrong. I’m not above admitting mistakes, but neither am I prone to the sort of reeducation that is being pursued.

And so it is that a Washington Post blog recently covered the release of a study that re-analyzes the data I collected and described back in 2012 in my pair of studies of the adult children of parents who have had same-sex relationships, continuing a contest over the meaning of the New Family Structures Study (NFSS) that’s nearing three years in length now. Social science has become a spectator sport.

Full article available here.

Urge Congress to Act to Defend Religious Liberty Today!

Dear Marriage Supporter

In the coming weeks it is crucial for the US Congress to act to protect the religious liberty right of people to act in concert with their sincerely held belief that marriage is and can only be the union of one man and one woman.

That's why NOM has been working tirelessly to promote the Marriage and Religious Freedom Act (MARFA). We are eagerly anticipating reintroduction of MARFA, which was introduced in the last Congress, but never brought to a vote.

MARFA will prohibit the federal government from taking an adverse action against a person on the basis of that person's religious belief about marriage. It is the best firewall we have to prevent federal discrimination including, denying or revoking certain tax exemptions or disallowing a deduction of any charitable contribution made to or by such person; denying or excluding such person from receiving any federal grant, contract, cooperative agreement, loan, license, certification, accreditation, employment, or similar position or status; or denying or withholding any benefit under a federal benefit program.

Rep. Raul Labrador in the US House of Representatives and Sen. Mike Lee in the US Senate are championing this bill.

Please click here to contact you US Representative and US Senator today. Tell them to contact Rep. Labrador and Sen. Lee to become an original co-sponsor of this important legislation.

The American people want common sense and fairness. They do not want the Federal Government targeting any person for their religious beliefs, including their beliefs on marriage.

And once you've taken action, please forward this email to family and friends using the sharing buttons below, asking them to do the same.


Brian S Brown

Marriage and Religious Freedom

Dear Marriage Supporter,

The past few weeks have been a phenomenal shot in the arm for those of us who believe in marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

The March for Marriage followed by the oral arguments at the Supreme Court demonstrated incontrovertibly that the will and ability to defend marriage in America is both alive and strong.

I commented last week on the oral arguments in the Supreme Court case focusing on the definition of marriage. I touched briefly upon the answer of the Solicitor General of the United States, Donald Verrilli, to Justice Alito when the justice asked him about how changing the definition of marriage would impact the freedom of religious institutions to operate in accordance with their beliefs that marriage is the union of one man and one woman.

Justice Alito asked Verrilli whether a religious school that believed marriage was the union of husband and wife would lose their non-profit tax status.

He gave the chilling reply that, "It's certainly going to be an issue. I don't deny that. I don't deny that, Justice Alito. It is going to be an issue."

It's going to be an issue.

Pause for a moment and reflect on this. Here we have a top lawyer in the Obama Administration admitting that things like tax-exempt status for religious institutions are fair game if the definition of marriage is changed.

He's not saying "it could be an issue."

He's not saying "it might become an issue."

No. It IS going to be an issue.

And just how would it become an issue? By the Obama Administration acting unilaterally or in response to some bogus claim of "discrimination" to begin to revoke the tax exemptions of religious charities, schools and other nonprofits. So when a top Obama lawyers says it will be an issue, you can take him at his word.

The Obama Administration's War on Religion

Susan Stamper Brown recently noted that senior White House advisor Valerie Jarrett "praised President Obama for his huge part in accelerating the gay marriage cause heard by the Supreme Court of the United States last week."

At a reception hosted by the same-sex 'marriage' lobbyist group Freedom to Marry, she said that "the arc of the moral universe bent a little faster than even we thought it would."

Ms. Brown rightly notes that "the 'moral arc' regarding gay marriage cannot be bent without harmful consequence, but you'd never know that listening to Ms. Jarrett."

Isn't it ironic that the Obama administration now claims to be advancing a "moral arc." I don't know what the source of the administration's moral compass might be — it certainly doesn't seem connected to the views of marriage held by virtually every religion since the dawn of time — but I somehow suspect that the "arc" will continue to bend inexorably toward punishing those of us who hold to the age-old truth that marriage is one man and one woman, ordained by God, to bring the two halves of humanity together and to provide an ideal environment for children.

Protecting The Right To Support Marriage

None of us knows how the US Supreme Court will decide the marriage issue. If they follow the Constitution, they should leave it with the states to decide as they have since the nation was founded, and that would restore traditional marriage in all those states where judges imposed same-sex 'marriage.' But whatever one's position on the definition of marriage, surely we ought to all be able to agree on this:

Nobody should be forced to abandon their beliefs about marriage.

That is why the Congress must move immediately to enact the Marriage and Religious Freedom Act (MARFA) which provides that no individual, business, minister or religious organization can be punished by the federal government for refusing to participate in the celebration of a same-sex wedding. Specifically, the law prohibits an "adverse action" by the federal government including the denial or revocation of tax exempt status, because a person, business or group believes that marriage is or should be recognized as the union of one man and one woman or that sexual relations are properly reserved to such a marriage.

What MARFA ensures is that people are not forced by the government to abandon their views of marriage and prevents the government from discriminating against people who hold conventional views on marriage and sexuality. Not only must Congress pass this important legislation, but states should do so as well to prevent citizen abuse and discrimination by officials like Washington state Attorney General Bob Ferguson who is suing a 70 year old Christian grandmother because her religious views precluded her from arranging flowers for a same-sex 'wedding.' There are plenty of florists who would happily provide flowers for a gay wedding; the government does not need to destroy a Christian grandmother because she prefers not to participate.

Please contact your state representatives to urge the introduction of MARFA in your state, and ask your member of Congress to co-sponsor the legislation. MARFA is expected to be introduced in Congress any day now.


Brian S Brown

PS: The next few months will be pivotal and we have just thrown everything we had into the fight — between the March for Marriage, the Supreme Court fight and our tireless efforts to communicate the truth of marriage through the media — our coffers are empty. It's imperative that the justices and the media hear from us loudly and regularly on behalf of the American people that we expect them to uphold our votes for marriage and the right of voters and legislators to preserve marriage. They need to know that any decision purporting to redefine marriage will be seen as judicial activism and be considered illegitimate.

We've come so far, but the next two months is critical to the fight. Won't you please recommit to the fight to defend marriage at this pivotal juncture by making a generous donation to NOM today?

The Unimaginable Dignity of Marriage

Pope Francis recently released a catechesis on the “Unimaginable Dignity” of Christian Marriage, by drawing upon the teachings of St. Paul to describe the responsibility and meaning of marriage.

“St. Paul says that Christians — all of them — are called to love one another as Christ loved them, that is, “to be subject to one another” (Eph. 5:21), which means being at the service of one another.”

croppedcouplesunrise“The husband — Paul says — is to love his wife “as his own body” (Eph. 5:28); to love her as Christ “loved the Church and gave himself up for her” (v. 25). But do you husbands who are here understand this? To love one’s wife as Christ loves the Church? This isn’t a joke, it’s a serious matter. The effect of this radical dedication required of man, for the love and dignity of the woman, after the example of Christ, must have been enormous in the Christian community.”

Marriage, the union between one man and one woman, is a statement to the world, and especially one’s own society, that one stands for human dignity and the responsibility of love. Marriage is a man and a woman continuing the human race as deigned by God, by serving each other and the human race in love and example.

“Men and women, who are brave enough to carry this treasure in the “earthen vessels” of our humanity  — these courageous men and women —  are an essential resource for the Church, and for the world. May God bless them a thousandfold for this.”

Source and quotes via Aleteia

Corrections: Where the Same-Sex Advocates Got It Wrong

In an article recently posted on The Public Discourse, James Phillips, an assistant professor of law at Brigham Young University, highlights and responds to errors made by pro-same-sex marriage justices Kennedy and Sotomayor. Phillips points out that there were 6 major errors in logic, precedent, and history made to support the passing of a same-sex marriage bill last week.

This post will outline these 6 errors, as well as the arguments against them.

Error #1: Massachusetts Marriage Rates Have Stayed the Same

Justice Sotomayor claimed that Massachusetts’ heterosexual marriage rates have remained constant since the state allowed same-sex marriage. If she had paid attention to an opposing amicus brief filed by 100 Scholars of Marriage, she would have seen that data clearly tells us otherwise, for instance:

Marriage rates have dropped by 8.9 percent since the state [MA] redefined marriage. And Massachusetts is not alone. The marriage scholars were also able to obtain data on opposite-sex marriage rates from three other states that have legalized same-sex marriage… Vermont (-5.1 percent), Connecticut (-7.3 percent), and Iowa (-9.2 percent).

ThinkstockPhotos-131579672Error #2: Because Some Men Leave Their Wives and Children, Marriage Does Not Help Keep Fathers Around

Justice Sotomayer argued that marriage between a man and a woman doesn’t actually increase the likelihood of creating a stable family life:

‘Marriage doesn’t do that on any level. How many married couples do fathers with the benefits or the requirements of marriage walk away from their children? So it’s not that the institution alone does it and that without it that father is going to stay in marriage.’

But as Phillips points out:

This is a classic example of the exception fallacy. Of course some men and women walk away from their marriage and their children. But that is the exception, not the rule, and it is certainly counter to the social norm of marriage.

Error #3: The Purpose of States’ Recognizing and Regulating Marriage is to Bestow Dignity on Couples

When Mr. Bursch brought forth the argument that the states are not in the marriage business to bestow dignity, Justice Kennedy expressed surprise at this, stating that he believed that whole purpose of “traditional marriage” was to bestow dignity on both man and woman. Now same-sex couples want that same “ennoblement.” But as Phillips explains:

Justice Kennedy was missing the point. He was confusing the reason that a couple may desire to be married with the reason that a state would want to recognize and regulate marriage. Those are distinct.

Even assuming, for the sake of argument, that states were interested in bestowing dignity on couples by allowing them to marry, that would be a means to enticing couples to marry. The end or purpose of encouraging marriage in this way would still be the fact that society—particularly children—benefits when men and women marry. It makes no sense for the state to go through the trouble and expense to regulate and subsidize marriage if the state gets nothing out of it in return—and it’s not simply about bestowing dignity on consenting adult love of all sizes and shapes.

Error #4: The Only Harm to Legalizing Same-Sex Marriage Is Making Marriage More Adult-Centered

ThinkstockPhotos-465562267When several justices struggled to comprehend how redefining marriage to genderless terms would impact and harm the institution of marriage, Mr. Bursch correctly, but incompletely, argued how it would change the focus of marriage from fulfilling the needs of children to fulfilling the desires adults. If marriage is redefined, then the norm of fulfilling a child’s need to be raised by a man and a woman in order to learn how necessary interactions from each one, would be eliminated. And this is only one effect.

Error #5: There Is a Parallel between: Brown/Loving and Lawrence/Obergefell

The time between the Supreme Court decision calling for desegregation of elementary schools, the famous Brown v. Board of Education, and the decision invalidating state laws that prohibited mixed-race marriages (Loving v. Virginia), was thirteen years.

But man-woman marriage has been the law in every state since the birth of the nation—and in every Western nation for millennia. As Justice Kennedy put it, “I don’t even know how to count the decimals when we talk about millennia.

Not all thirteen year periods are equivalent. They certainly are not here.

Error #6: Age Restrictions on Marriage Are Equivalent to the Definitional Element of One Man and One Woman

Several justices tried to form the analogy of recognizing exceptions to age restrictions to recognizing same-sex marriages. But as Phillips explained:

Not all exceptions are equal. Age has never been a part of the definition of marriage... There are two historical and universal components to the definition of marriage in the United States, and in the Western world: gender diversity and only two spouses, one man and one woman. All other features—age, race, religion, coverture, dowry—are not part of the fundamental definition.

The American people want our justices to base their decisions on facts, and not make such errors in their decision as outlined here. Since the citizens of the United States will have to live with this decision for the entirety of America’s future, it would be best if such a decision had a basis in not only what the public wants, but also the truth of such matters.

Source via The Public Discourse