NOM BLOG

Purple Penguins and Blue Republicans

National Organization for Marriage

Dear Marriage Supporter,

This week has seen a flurry of news activity following the Supreme Court’s shameful decision on Monday. The Justices dodges the marriage question and allowed standing several lower court rulings that trample the will of tens of millions of voters who worked to define marriage in their state constitutions as the union of one man and one woman.

But an overlooked aspect of the present state of the marriage debate in America is how it is revealing folks’ true colors. And that’s the topic I want to expound upon today.

"Boys will be... penguins?"

The first story I want to look at this week comes from a school district in Nebraska. The news would be funny, if it wasn’t so sad.

Katherine Timpf at National Review Online gives the details. I’m going to quote at length, because Timpf does a masterful job capturing the full extent of the lunacy involved in this story. The emphasis is my own:

A Nebraska school district has instructed its teachers to stop referring to students by "gendered expressions" such as "boys and girls," and use "gender inclusive" ones such as "purple penguins" instead.

"Don’t use phrases such as 'boys and girls,’ 'you guys,’ 'ladies and gentlemen,’ and similarly gendered expressions to get kids’ attention," instructs a training document given to middle-school teachers at the Lincoln Public Schools.

"Create classroom names and then ask all of the 'purple penguins’ to meet on the rug," it advises.

[...]

"Always ask yourself . . . 'Will this configuration create a gendered space?’" the document says.

[...]

Other items on the list include asking all students about their preferred pronouns and decorating the classroom with "all genders welcome" door hangers.

If teachers still find it "necessary" to mention that genders exist at all, the document states, they must list them as "boy, girl, both or neither."

Furthermore, it instructs teachers to interfere and interrupt if they ever hear a student talking about gender in terms of "boys and girls" so the student can learn that this is wrong.

The real absurdity here is that the very directives are internally inconsistent and illogical. The directives warn about creating a "gendered space" — but then propose decorating with signs that say "all genders welcome." Yet, if the boys and girls—and, let’s be frank, that’s what they all are—dare to speak in terms of "boys and girls," teachers are called upon to interfere and interrupt. So are all genders truly "welcome"?

Timpf reveals another absurdity when she quotes from the school Superintendent who defended the directives in a radio interview by saying, "We don’t get involved with politics." Talk about double-speak!

Make no mistake, this absolutely is "get[ting] involved with politics," and it is unmistakably of a piece with the drive to redefine marriage and family as a genderless institution.

As same-sex 'marriage’ advocates nationwide continue to have their way in the courts and have their radical agenda imposed on unwilling Americans in state after state, they’ve already accomplished the elimination of such "gendered" terms as "mom" and "dad" from our schools in many places. Wasn’t it only a matter of time after "mom and dad" were stricken from school-room vocabulary that "boys and girls" would be similarly targeted to be expunged?

So now we see the tragic absurdity of a situation wherein, in response to gender dysphoria and confused sexual identities that may be conditions suffered by a certain number of kids, we confuse all kids by chiding them for calling themselves "boys and girls" and name them instead after an imaginary creature, "purple penguins." (I suppose "purple penguins," unlike the black and white ones that live in Antarctica, don’t have biological sexes.)

This is why this indoctrination in the public schools is such a travesty and will be hard on our children: because, as you know, boys and girls actually really do exist, and purple penguins do not; and being a girl is a very good thing, as is being a boy.

An Even More Fantastic Creature

But purple penguins aren’t the only wild figments we’re asked to accept nowadays. No; there is another, even more unimaginable creature that we’re being asked to give credence to in recent days and weeks: the same-sex 'marriage’ 'conservative’!

It isn’t too flippant to say that if Richard Tisei (MA-6), Carl DeMaio (CA-52), and Monica Wehby (OR)—Republican candidates for Congress who favor same-sex 'marriage’ and abortion—are truly "conservatives," then I won’t be surprised next time I visit the zoo to really encounter a purple animal in the polar exhibit!

Yet these anti-marriage candidates are not only being bankrolled by major Republican donors, they are also being supported by leadership in the GOP—a party whose platform states unambiguously that marriage is the union of one man and one woman!

That’s why I say that the recent developments of the marriage debate are revealing folks’ true colors. And that’s why NOM is sending the message loud and clear to the Republican party: candidates who abandon marriage will be abandoned by conservative voters. And we’ll remember who in office tried to prop up the untenable myth of an anti-marriage 'conservative’ when the next election cycle comes around.

Follow the Leader

Another of the lessons we all learned in the classroom—besides what it means to be a boy or a girl, and what it means when men and women come together in marriage—is how to recognize leadership. We learned to discern between true leaders worthy of following, and false leaders only out for their own interest.

So it has been easy to see, in contrast to the self-interested elites trying to cozy up to the same-sex 'marriage’ lobby in recent weeks, who the real leaders are in Washington who have true integrity and conviction in their principles.

I would mention first of all Representative Tim Huelskamp of Kansas, who has long been a champion for the cause of true marriage and has, since June 2013, been leading the charge in the House of Representatives to pass H.J. Res. 51, the Marriage Protection Amendment.

According to the bill summary, this act would "define marriage in the United States as consisting only of the union of a man and a woman" and "prohibit either the U.S. Constitution or the constitution of any state from being construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents of marriage be conferred upon any other union."

Earlier this week, following the Supreme Court’s refusal to right the wrongs down by lower courts to tens of millions of voters in states whose marriage amendments had been overturned, the Congressman said in a statement:

According to the majority of this very Supreme Court in the Windsor decision, states and their citizens have the right and responsibility to define their marriage laws. It is shocking that at least six Supreme Court justices would allow unelected lower court judges to simply ignore the majority decision — and the Section of DOMA upheld in the Windsor decision.

The only alternative to allowing these unelected liberal judges to impose their morality on all of America is to pass a constitutional amendment. To that end, last year I introduced the Marriage Protection Amendment (HJ Res. 51) to define marriage as only between one man and one woman.

This resonates with the words of another marriage champion who led honorably this week, Senator Ted Cruz of Texas. Senator Cruz issued his own statement following Monday’s move by the Court, in which he announced that he would be introducing his own constitutional amendment in the Senate when Congress returns to session!

Senator Cruz said:

The Supreme Court’s decision to let rulings by lower court judges stand that redefine marriage is both tragic and indefensible. By refusing to rule if the States can define marriage, the Supreme Court is abdicating its duty to uphold the Constitution. [...]

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

... And that is why, when Congress returns to session, I will be introducing a constitutional amendment to prevent the federal government or the courts from attacking or striking down state marriage laws.

I want to thank these two brave men for their indefatigable leadership on this issue, along with their many colleagues in Congress who are standing staunchly alongside them in this fight.

Please join me today in thanking Senator Cruz and Congressman Huelskamp by adding your signature to this letter of appreciation. They—and their fellow members of Congress—need to know that we stand with those who stand for marriage, and that we will support them in their cause of defending this sacred institution!

I also want to acknowledge the bold statement by another heroic member of Congress, Representative James Lankford of Oklahoma. In his statement, he had this to say:

Now, through judicial gymnastics the Supreme Court has allowed federal court decisions to stand that directly conflict with the clear will of a state on marriage. The Court should not in one year say a state can make the decision on marriage and then in the next year allow a local federal judge to reject a state's definition of marriage. The implications of forcing any state to redefine marriage have far-reaching effects on our American society, business operations and religious practice. Every person is created in God's image and has value and worth. Every person should be respected and honored. But, marriage is a unique cultural relationship that has a long-standing tradition and societal meaning, which should not be redefined by the courts.

Finally, there is one other marriage leader that deserves our acknowledgement and thanks today: former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee.

Governor Huckabee gave an interview this week in which he called out those Republicans who are betraying their party’s platform on the issues of marriage and abortion, and even pledged that he would leave the party and become an independent if the trend continues: "I’ll start finding people that have guts to stand," he said.

Governor Huckabee is right. He speaks for millions of Americans who are sick of their elected leaders remaining silent and refusing to fight for the survival of marriage. And those who do refuse to stand by their constituents’ values need to know that they will pay a political price: that they support redefining marriage only at the risk of losing elections.

The National Organization for Marriage and our allies will continue to call upon conservative leaders and voters to stake a firm position: if a candidate or elected official abandons marriage, we will abandon them!

But at the same time, we will work tirelessly to promote those who join the fight. Leaders who stand up in defense of marriage must know that they will thereby gain millions of conservatives’ votes and support.

Therefore, I ask you to do one more thing today. Take a moment right now to contact Congress and let them know that Senator Cruz’s and Congressman Huelskamp’s amendments need your own legislators’ support.

By demanding action right now from Congress, we will expose the true colors of our elected leaders and see whether they are real conservatives, or are playing a game of pretend like a bunch of 'purple penguins.’

Thank you for all you do in defense of marriage.

Faithfully,

Brian S Brown

Brian S. Brown
President
National Organization for Marriage

Brian Brown


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

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


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

nom_logo

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

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

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

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

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

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

###

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

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

Demand Action Now!

National Organization for Marriage

Dear Marriage Supporter, "It's not the way our system is supposed to work.... The very form of our government, a republican form of government, is at stake." I said these words in an interview with NBC this week in response to the Supreme Court's move on Monday to skirt the issue of marriage and to leave standing several egregious lower court decisions that trampled the will of tens of millions of voters and imposed a radical redefinition of marriage upon their home states. This is not democracy: it is judicial tyranny. We need to act—now! Please take a moment immediately to contact Congress and demand support for an amendment to the Constitution of the United States that will preserve and protect marriage as the union of one man and one woman! Legislative efforts to amend our Constitution to protect marriage are already underway. In the House, this initiative is being led by Representative Tim Huelskamp of Kansas. In the Senate, it is being spearheaded by Senator Ted Cruz of Texas. Passing such an amendment is the only sure way of preventing unelected, activist judges from usurping the powers that belong rightly to the people and imposing their own radical agenda across America. Take a minute right now to send a strong message to Congress demanding immediate action to curtail this judicial activism run amok. Urge them to support Congressman Huelskamp's and Senator Cruz's efforts to preserve and protect marriage! The Supreme Court's unconscionable evasion on Monday of this week is only the latest hammer to fall upon the very foundations of our system of government, and we can rest assure that the chipping away of our constitutional liberties will continue in the weeks and months to come unless action is taken right now! We have judges willfully misreading the Constitution and binding precedent to appease a radical lobby with powerful funding from Hollywood. We have states' executives abandoning their constitutional oaths and refusing to defend and uphold the law. We have legislatures pressing not only for the redefinition of marriage, but of family and of gender! It is already coming to pass that marriage between a man and a woman is being called an intrinsically unequal institution, and taught in our schools to be the equivalent of bigoted racist laws from America's dark past. It is already being urged that any restrictions upon "consenting relationships" on the part of government must be done away with—that anyone should be able to marry, in any arrangement they see fit, whether it be three or more people or even marriage to neself! Marriage Supporter, I'll say it plainly: marriage is on the ropes, and our principles of government are taking a beating as well. That's why I need you to ACT NOW and DEMAND action from Congress to put a halt to the legal chaos that has been thrust upon us by the radical same-sex ‘marriage' movement. And we need to recruit others to our work as well. So, please, after you've taken action today, click on these buttons and share this email with everyone you know who cares about the future of our great nation... who still believes that marriage is a good and wholesome thing and not a bigoted or evil institution... who acknowledges the plain truth that kids deserve a mom and dad.

Share This

Facebook This Tweet This Email This Share on LinkedIn Our resolve is not lessened by the Supreme Court's disgraceful abdication this week. We are strengthened in our determination to fight—and to win! But you are the critical asset without which we cannot do what we know must be done in this pivotal moment. Please help us by doing your part today. It is, as always, my honor and privilege to stand with you in this fight. Faithfully,
Brian S Brown
Brian S. Brown
President
National Organization for Marriage
Brian Brown

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

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


nom_logo

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

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

###

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

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

As the Dust Settles, Our Road is Clear

National Organization for Marriage

Dear Marriage Supporter,

By now you will already surely have heard the news from yesterday that the Supreme Court elected not to take any of the pending marriage cases contesting the issues of the right of self-determination in government and the purview of the states to regulate marriage.

Before I say anything more, I must be emphatic about this: we are not shaken in our resolve or diverted from our cause by this development—not one bit! Indeed, we see this as an emphatic call to action.

I am asking you today to contact Congress and urge them to act to defend marriage and to stop the lawless stampede of unelected judges over the will of the people and the right of voters to decide this important matter. Click here immediately to demand action from our leaders in Washington to stop this judicial tyranny.

Allow me to give you some perspective on yesterday's unfortunate and surprising move by the Supreme Court. As soon as we heard the news, NOM strongly condemned this misguided decision. As I said in a statement issued yesterday:

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

As the dust settles from yesterday's flurry of activity and the hyperbolic and misleading narrative spun instantly by the media begins to wane, I want to commend to your reading today two other commentaries on the situation that offer the clearest insights into what this decision really means for us.

But first please take a moment right now to let Congress know that this action by the Court to allow unelected judges to run roughshod over the will of the people in states across the nation must be stopped. Your voice needs to be heard in the halls of power today!

The first commentary on yesterday's move by the Court that I want to share with you is by our good friend Ryan Anderson of The Heritage Foundation, who explains how yesterday's move by the Court puts more than just marriage at stake: it calls into question the very notion of self-determination in government upon which our nation is founded!

Please read his article today. It is entitled, "Supreme Court Decision Will Lead to Gay Marriage in Five States. Why That's Wrong." Here is just a snippet:

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

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

[...]

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

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

I also want to share the powerful statement issued by Senator Ted Cruz of Texas. Apart from strongly lambasting the Court for its poor judgment in this matter, the Senator also boldly announced yesterday that he "will be introducing a constitutional amendment to prevent the federal government or the courts from attacking or striking down state marriage laws."

The Senator's statement read, in part:

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

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

Bravo, Senator Cruz!

Of course, NOM is ever grateful to our allies on Capitol Hill who stand for marriage in season and out of season, and we will be working tirelessly in the wake of this move by the Court to promote pro-marriage legislation at the Federal level.

But we are going to need your help!

Click here to contact Congress right now and let them know that it is urgent for them to take up the defense of marriage since so many of those in elected office throughout the States — and the unelected appointees to the Judiciary — are allowing the same-sex 'marriage' lobby to impose its radical agenda on millions of Americans who have voted to defend traditional marriage.

Tell your Representative and Senators that:

  • You believe marriage is the union of one man and one woman.

  • Marriage should be decided by the people through the democratic and political process—not handed down from on high by unelected activist judges.

  • In order to put an end to this corruption of our system of government, Congress should act quickly to pass an amendment to the Constitution and send it to the states for ratification.

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

Indeed, yesterday's decision is not an end to our fight by any means. It is another bend in the road, perhaps, but one that only makes our work more important and more urgent than ever.

It is a call to action and a sober reminder of the high and noble obligations which our age has placed upon us. And it is a reminder to me, personally, of how honored and humbled I am to stand in this fight with great and patriotic men and women like you.

Thank you for all you do in defense of marriage.

Faithfully,

Brian S Brown

Brian S. Brown
President
National Organization for Marriage

Brian Brown


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

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

The statement reads, in part:

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

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

[...]

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

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

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

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

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

He writes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

[SOURCE].

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

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


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

nom_logo

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

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

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

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

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

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

###

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

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

"Ruthless Misogyny" - A Glimpse at the Radical LGBT Playbook

From Public Discourse comes this hard-hitting piece which everyone should read and share.

It reveals the deplorable and unacceptable tenor of "debate" (if you can even call it that) waged by the radical activists promoting same-sex 'marriage' - a kind of bullying and harassment that has absolutely no place in the public square and should be condemned on all sides.

FemaleBut instead of condemnation, HRC and GLAAD and others meet the problem with a deafening silence that speaks louder than words - all the while throwing around invective like "hate group" to describe NOM and others, effectively throwing fuel on the fire and serves as a provocation to further attacks like the ones we see revealed in this article.

The author writes:

In the name of equality, groups such as GLAAD (which employs Jeremy Hooper) have pushed through gender identity laws that have legally erased women. The term “woman” now legally can refer to the way that a man chooses to identify himself. Once women have been erased legally as a group and as individuals, it is not hard to erase “mothers.” This lends support to the practice of using one woman’s eggs and another woman’s womb to supply children for gay male couples, obscuring the concept of motherhood and making it seem dispensable.

Share this far and wide, and help us expose where the real hatred and bigotry in the fight over marriage is coming from.

For a Strong Future, Children Deserve Committed, Married Mothers and Fathers

The importance of marriage to society is an irrevocable truth: for a society to even survive, there must be children. For children to be born, there must be fathers and mothers. For fatherhood and motherhood to exist, there must be commitment and sacrifice that will designate the male and female as a new union that will give society the needed foundation to flourish. That bond is marriage.

Dr. Scott Stanley examines a recent study showing that children with married parents are better off than children with unmarried parents.

Mother-Father-ChildTheir findings show that the association between marriage and positive child outcomes may be substantially accounted for by greater income and more engaged parenting among marrieds. Based on this, they argue that intervention efforts should focus on parenting and not on marriage, per se.

But Scott Hanley points out that marriage is more than a “mere commitment device” or a superfluous relationship status:

Signals of commitment are important across a wide swath of societal life because people will often make better decisions with clearer information about the level of motivation in others,iii and signals about commitment are, arguably, of great importance in the development and maintenance of romantic and family relationships. Reeves seems to be arguing that the signal value of marriage is not as consequential as behaviors such as parenting, but what that view fails to account for is how marriage has most typically been a potent signal of commitment with a distinct placement regarding the sequence and timing of childbearing. At the root of it, what is signaled by marriage is a commitment comprised of “us with a future.”v Sure, reality has very often been messier than the tidy ordering of love, marriage, and a baby carriage; and many marriages do not go the distance. But marriage is likely, in some large respect, explanatory regarding child outcomes because marriage most often is a strong and credible signal of commitment prior to childbirth.

[. . .]

While not always, and perhaps less so now than before, marriage serves as a strong signal that two people are tacitly committed to raising a family together. Further, and for more complex reasons than I want to develop here, signals are the most informative when they are fully under the control of those sending them—by which I mean, when the behavior has Family at Coffee Shopfewer prior constraints so that it reflects something true about the individual. That means that signals about commitment are more informative before a child arrives than after because having a child increases life constraints. When marriage precedes two people having a child, the question of intention about a shared long-term time horizon was settled before things got messy with baby drool and poop. For couples with this foundation already in place, even unplanned and mistimed children are still landing in a relatively rich context regarding bi-parental commitment. One can (and should) believe that various socio-economic disadvantages govern a lot in this big lottery of life, but we should not lose sight of how sequence plays a consequential and causal role in child outcomes.

Families are the foundation of society, and the devaluing of marriage has consequences that reach every male, female, and child, as well as future generations. Without marriage, “family” becomes a simple collection of cohabitants, and couples are no longer the building blocks that create and sustain those families, but simply a joint agreement.

Marriage is, indeed, fading in front of our eyes, and with it goes a lot of signal clarity about commitment in the context of sequence. Maybe those elements can be constructed behaviorally on a broad scale, but we should recognize the difficulty we face in trying to make up for the loss of something with real explanatory power.

For a strong future, children should be provided with the best environment possible: a family, with committed, married mother and father.

Read more at family-studies.org.

One More Day

National Organization for Marriage

Dear Marriage Supporter,

We have now entered the closing hours of our unique matching gift campaign, and I want to urge all of our pro-marriage supporters to dig deep today and contribute if they haven't already, before the clock runs out on this great opportunity.

Please, if you haven't donated yet—or even if you have, but are able to make a second contribution—won't you kindly consider a gift to NOM to help us gear up for the next several months of defending marriage at the ballot box, in the courts, and throughout the public square? Every dollar you give will be matched — dollar for dollar — to support the cuase of defending marriage.

As I've said before, the next few months are a critical time for the marriage debate in America:

  • With a third of the Senate up for reelection, we have the chance to reclaim control of Congress for a pro-marriage majority.
  • With new evidence having emerged about the misdeeds of political activists within the I.R.S., we will be pressing our leaders in Washington to act on these facts and bring to justice all who have acted to silence the free speech of conservative individuals and groups.
  • With the Supreme Court having considered five pending marriage cases in conference just yesterday, we expect any day that they could announce which of these cases they will be taking up in the new year, and NOM will be ready to help give marriage the legal defense it needs and deserves.

The fourth quarter of the year is a busy time for all of us, and for NOM especially this during this election cycle under a second-term Presidential administration that has been disastrously hostile to marriage and family values.

I urge you to take stock today and to figure out what you are able to contribute to NOM for this make-or-break period in the defense of marriage in America. Don't let the opportunity to have your gift DOUBLED instantly slip away!

I am so grateful to those of you who have given already, and for all of your support in times past. It is my honor and humble privilege to be able to stand with you in this civilization-defining battle for such a noble cause.

Over the next few weeks, I know many of you will be contributing to campaigns financially and in other tangible ways: canvassing neighborhoods, knocking door-to-door, registering voters, cold-calling constituents.

But today is the last chance you have to give to the cause of marriage and double the impact of your gift—I can't promise that we'll have another such opportunity before the end of the year.

So please click here to contribute your most generous gift and have it instantly matched by a generous donor who stands with us in this fight. Together, we're going to make a difference in Washington and across our nation, and ensure marriage is well-represented in the political battles and public debates that are heating up.

Thank you again, for all of your kindness and support.

Faithfully,

Brian S Brown

Brian S. Brown
President
National Organization for Marriage

Brian Brown


Meese and Anderson in WaPo on Marriage Laws: "The people and their elected representatives should be making these decisions"

In the Washington Post opinion pages, former U.S. Attorney General Edwin Meese  III and his Heritage colleague Ryan Anderson have penned an important piece highlighting some too-little reported legal opinions from federal court judges that make the case for leaving determinations about marriage policy to the states and the democratic process.

The two scholars write:

Meese and Anderson Marriage LawsThis month, in a widely celebrated opinion written by Judge Richard Posner, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit declared that it had “no reason to think [the governments of Indiana and Wisconsin] have a ‘reasonable basis’ for forbidding same-sex marriage.”

This is remarkable. According to this court, the millions of citizens who passed marriage amendments in more than 30 states were all bigots acting on no reasonable basis when they supported marriage as the union of a man and woman — just as President Obama, Vice President Biden, former secretary of state Hillary Clinton and most members of Congress all did when these laws were passed.

While generating less fanfare, the day before Posner’s opinion was released, U.S. District Judge Martin L.C. Feldman upheld Louisiana’s marriage law — a constitutional amendment passed by 78 percent of the voters. Two federal appellate judges — Paul V. Niemeyer of the 4th Circuit and Paul J. Kelly Jr. of the 10th Circuit — issued strong dissenting opinions this summer on why state laws defining marriage as a male-female union are constitutional. As these marriage cases make their way to the Supreme Court, very likely during the term about to begin, the justices should heed the reasoning of these judges.

Read the rest of this excellent article today, and share it with your friends!

What I'm Up To Today

National Organization for Marriage

Dear Marriage Supporter,

I need to be brief this week, because I am in Washington, D.C. attending the Values Voter Summit and there's more to do and see here than there are hours in a day!

If you have a chance, you can tune in to watch the livestream of this great event here on our blog:

"Click here to watch live!"

I am thrilled to be at this wonderful event catching up with so many of NOM's friends and partners, like Senator Rick Santorum and Dr. Pat Fagan—and of course the event organizers from Family Research Council.

Before I get back into the action here, though, let me alert you to a few important news items this week:

NOM Announces Campaign to Oppose Pro-SSM GOP Candidates

Yesterday, NOM—along with FRC and CitizenLink—sent a letter to Capitol Hill announcing to the leadership of the Republican Party that our organizations would be actively opposing the campaigns to elect three Republican candidates—two to the House of Representatives and one to the Senate—who break ranks with the Republican platform on the important issues of the sanctity of life and the meaning of marriage.

If you want to learn to learn about this new campaign, please go read our press release from yesterday which is posted here.

New Poll Shows Support for Same-sex Marriage is Flagging

Earlier this week, Pew Research Center released the results of a new poll which — in the words of the Associated Press article about the survey — showed that "support for same-sex marriage could be leveling off."

The data shows that support for redefining marriage has dropped by five points in the past seven months, while opposition has increased by two points. This represents the biggest shift in public opinion on this issue that the Pew Center has found since 2006, and it is only the second time in the past five years that their data has shown support for the traditional marriage position gaining ground.

This shift in opinion corresponds with the rash of federal court decisions we've seen throughout the country overturning states' marriage laws, so it can be hoped that this signals that the American people are finally fed up with having their democratic authority usurped and their will as expressed through voting ignored by activist judges.

NOM Presents Evidence of Collusion in Oregon Marriage Suit

Also this week, NOM has filed an important court document in Oregon. As you know, we've been trying to get the court to grant NOM standing to intervene in the case there on behalf of our members in the state, since otherwise the marriage amendment will not receive the defense it needs and deserves.

With this new filing, NOM has demonstrated that from the very beginning in this case the Attorney General—sworn to uphold and defend the law!—has in fact been colluding with the plaintiffs to invalidate Oregon's marriage amendment. We've known this all along, but the collusion goes much deeper than even we ever could have imagined, and our new filing demonstrates this.

You can read more about this new development here from our Chairman, Professor John Eastman.

San Francisco Catholic Newspaper Sets the Record Straight

Finally, if you're looking for some wonderful reading today, look no further than this masterful piece published this week in Catholic San Francisco. This Special Report exposes the dishonesty and insidious manipulation involved in the use of the term "hate" by HRC and the Southern Poverty Law Center and others to describe pro-marriage individuals and groups.

The article quotes this great and succinct statement from NOM's old friend attorney Charles LiMandri, which could serve as a sort of thesis statement for the report: "Disagreement is the new litmus test to be vilified as a ‘hater.'"

I encourage you to read this special report today in its entirety, and kudos to Catholic San Francisco for a great and hard-hitting exposé.

And don't forget, when you have some free time, to tune in to the Values Voter Summit and follow this wonderful event.

Faithfully,

Brian S Brown

Brian S. Brown
President
National Organization for Marriage

Brian Brown


Prominent Pro-Family Organizations Announce Campaign To Oppose Republican Candidates In Three Top Races Because Of Their Support For Same-sex 'Marriage' and Abortion

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: September 25, 2014

Contacts:
Sue Hopkins for CitizenLink: (719) 278-4400
Darin Miller / J.P. Duffy for Family Research Council: (202) 637-4615/4679
Elizabeth Ray / Matille Thebolt for National Organization for Marriage: (703) 683-5004


citizenlinklogofrcactionlogo
nom_logo

Washington, DC — Three of the nation's top pro-family groups have announced an unprecedented campaign against three top Republican candidates for federal office because the candidates are supporters of same-sex 'marriage' and abortion. The National Organization for Marriage, Family Research Council Action and CitizenLink announced they will urge voters not to support Republican House candidates Carl DeMaio (CA-52) and Richard Tisei (MA-6), and will urge Oregon voters not to support US Senate candidate Monica Wehby.

"The Republican Party platform is a 'statement of who we are and what we believe.' Thus, the platform supports the truth of marriage as the union of husband and wife, and recognizes the sanctity and dignity of human life. This is what Republicans believe," said Brian S. Brown, president of the National Organization for Marriage (NOM). "It is extremely disappointing to see Republican leaders in Washington help push the election of candidates who reject the party's principled positions on these and other core issues. We cannot sit by when people calling themselves Republicans seek high office while espousing positions that are antithetical to the overwhelming majority of Republicans."

In a letter to top Republican leaders including House Speaker John Boehner and Senate GOP Leader Mitch McConnell, the pro-family organizations said it was a "grave error" in "advancing candidates who do not hold core Republican beliefs and, in fact, are working to actively alienate the Republican base."

The groups pledged in their letter to, "mount a concerted effort to urge voters to refuse to cast ballots for them in the November election." The two House races are considered top priorities to pick up seats for GOP House leaders, and the Oregon Senate race is one of several that could determine control of the US Senate.

"Pundits are perplexed that this isn't a wave election, but the reason seems clear," said Tom Minnery, president of CitizenLink. "Democrats are running hard on their social issue beliefs and Republicans are silent on theirs. How better to demoralize a voting bloc?"

###

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

To schedule an interview with FRCAction, please contact Darin Miller at 202-637-4615 or J.P. Duffy at 202-637-4679; by email at [email protected].

To schedule an interview with Tom Minnery, president of CitizenLink, please contact Sue Hopkins at 719-278-4400.

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).

WATCH LIVE: Values Voter Summit 2014

The Values Voter Summit is just days away! The annual Summit—which provides a forum to inform and mobilize citizens across America to preserve the bedrock values of traditional marriage, religious liberty, sanctity of life and limited government that make our nation strong—will be held from Sept. 26-28 in Washington D.C.

If you're not able to attend, you can watch the live feed all weekend right from your home or office.

Friday, Sept. 26 Live Feed:

Saturday, Sept. 27 Live Feed:

VVS copy