NOM BLOG

A Hopeful Outlook

National Organization for Marriage

Dear Marriage Supporter,

In this week's marriage news, the big story is a big win from the courts in Tennessee.

A Tennessee state judge has ruled that the state's constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman—which was passed by an 81 percent majority of voters in 2006—does not violate the United States Constitution.

In his ruling, Judge Russell Simmons found (correctly) that the Windsor decision from the Supreme Court does not demand that states' marriage laws be overturned:

The Supreme Court [did] not go the final step [in Windsor] and find that a state that defines marriage as a union of one man and one woman is unconstitutional. Further, the Supreme Court does not find that one state's refusal to accept another state's valid same-sex marriage to be in violation of the U.S. Constitution.

Very significantly, the Judge also agreed with the arguments by the State of Tennessee that the state's marriage amendment does not violate equal protection, quoting the following from the State's brief:

Tennessee's Marriage Laws have a rational basis in law and thus do not violate equal protection. [...] Marriage can simply not be divorced from its traditional procreative purpose. [...] The promotion of family continuity and stability is certainly a legitimate state interest, [...] Tennessee's Marriage Laws expressly recognize the family "as the fundamental building block of our society." [...] [T]here is nothing irrational about limiting the institution of marriage to the purpose for which it was created, by embracing its traditional definition [emphasis added].

As I said in a statement on Tuesday, it is refreshing to find a judge who is willing to apply the federal constitution as it is and not reinterpret it so as to redefine marriage.

It is also refreshing to find a judge who gets the point about what marriage is, in its essential meaning and purpose. This should add hope to our outlook in the courts going forward.

They Can Read the Writing on the Wall

Last week, I highlighted the news about the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals hearing of challenges to the marriage laws of Ohio, Michigan, Tennessee, and Kentucky.

You'll recall that even the biased Washington Post admitted about the hearings that, "It became clear after three hours of arguments that the [three judge] panel could become the first roadblock for proponents of same-sex marriage."

For all our opponents' insistence that same-sex marriage is "inevitable," the truth of the matter couldn't be clearer: they know, just as well as we, that the future of marriage in the courts is still very much up for grabs.

We are confident, based on the rationale of the Windsor decision and other key rulings—like the affirmative action case out of Michigan—that the Supreme Court will find in favor of states' rights to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

And I'll let you in on a secret: many of our opponents think so, too!

Back in May, the national pro-same-sex-marriage group Freedom to Marry announced that they were opening new field offices and media operations in Ohio, Michigan and Indiana, spending over $1 million to prepare for future campaigns in those states.

Ask yourself: why, if they were confident that the 6th Circuit or the Supreme Court would find in favor of redefining marriage, would they be pouring these kinds of resources into these Midwest states?

An article in POLITICO last week gives an indication of the answer. The article quotes the national campaign director for Freedom to Marry, Marc Solomon, saying:

If the issue's not resolved [by the courts] we are preparing to go to the ballot in five key states — Ohio, Arizona, Nevada, Michigan and Colorado. We are doing this because those are the places where we think we have the best chances of prevailing ... pretty much all of them are right-down-the-middle, swing states [emphasis added].

In other words: they're hedging their bets.

They know, as we do, that it is far from certain that the Supreme Court will impose a radical redefinition of marriage nationwide. And so, they know they will need to pony up for campaigns to redefine marriage on a state-by-state basis.

And I promise you this: NOM will be there, every step of the way, fighting to preserve and protect marriage and to safeguard the voices of millions of voters in these targeted states who have made clear that they believe in the TRUE definition of marriage!

The Importance of Marital Witness

We are confident that the debate over marriage will not be cut short by the Supreme Court, and that our work will continue. That makes one thing perfectly clear: we need marriage champions now more than ever, and we will continue to need them going forward.

Yet, I know it isn't always easy to stand on the front lines of what NOM's founding Chairman, Professor Robert P. George, has called a "civilization-defining battle."

We need to have courage and the right arsenal of arguments, sure. But we also need inspiration and edification, and examples of the joy of marriage: for this, really, is why we fight. On the NOMblog we now have a new category that we will be posting to from time to time called "Married Joy." I encourage you to check it out today, and bookmark it. There are only two posts so far, but we will be adding more in the days and weeks ahead, and maintaining it as a regular feature.

It is important to see heartwarming stories like that of Zelmyra and Herbert Fisher who, in 2008, broke the Guinness World Record for longest married living couple. By the time of their deaths (both at age 105), they had been married for nearly 90 years!

Fortunately for us, before they passed away, Zelmyra and Herbert gave some advice to all of us about how to make married joy last so long and so well, including this great tip: "[P]ray with and for each other every day." Read the rest of their advice here.

I hope it puts a smile on your face and a song in your heart. And I hope it inspires you to keep standing up and keep fighting for marriage, because we know what it really is all about!

Faithfully,

Brian S Brown

Brian S. Brown
President
National Organization for Marriage

Brian Brown


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

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


nom_logo

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

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

###

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

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

NOM Praises Judge for Showing Deference to Voters and Upholding Tennessee Marriage Amendment

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: August 12, 2014
Contact: Elizabeth Ray or Matille Thebolt (703-683-5004)


"This important decision has largely been ignored in the media because it undercuts the narrative that same-sex marriage is inevitable. But it isn't." — Brian Brown, NOM president —

nom_logo

Washington, D.C. — The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) today praised a state judge in Tennessee who ruled last week that the Tennessee state constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman does not violate the federal constitution. He is the first judge to uphold the constitutionality of a state marriage amendment since the US Supreme Court issued their 2013 opinion striking down a section of the federal Defense of Marriage Act.

"It is refreshing to find a judge who is willing to apply the federal constitution as it is and not reinterpret the constitution so as to redefine marriage," said Brian S. Brown, NOM's president. "Judge Russell Simmons is exactly correct when he says that there is nothing about the US Supreme Court's Windsor decision that would invalidate the right of Tennessee voters to define marriage as one man and one woman or require the state to recognize a same-sex ceremony performed in another state."

The Tennessee case involved two gay men who 'married' in Iowa four years ago and now wish to force Tennessee to grant them a divorce. But Judge Simmons wrote in his ruling, "neither the Federal Government nor another state should be allowed to dictate to Tennessee what has traditionally been a state's responsibility."

A number of federal judges in recent months have misinterpreted the US Supreme Court's ruling in the Windsor case, which held that a section of DOMA was unconstitutional because it interfered with the right of New York to redefine marriage. The Court's majority held that regulating marriage has historically been a responsibility of the states and the federal government cannot substitute its judgment for that of the states.

"This important decision has largely been ignored in the media because it undercuts the narrative that same-sex marriage is inevitable. But it isn't," said Brown. "NOM is confident that when this issue reaches the US Supreme Court, likely within a few months, that the constitutionality of marriage amendments and statutes defining marriage as one man and one woman will be upheld."

###

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).

Tell Them Enough is Enough

National Organization for Marriage

Dear Marriage Supporter,

I wrote you recently about the newly introduced Child Welfare Provider Inclusion Act [S. 2706, H.R. 5258], that aims to protect child welfare providers—including private and faith-based adoption and foster care agencies—from discrimination so that they may continue providing valuable services to families and children.

If you haven't contacted Congress about this legislation yet, please do so today. Click here to express your support for this Act and to urge your Representative and Senators to support it as well.

Believing that kids need both a mom and a dad ought not to disqualify service providers from doing their great work. We cannot allow people to be penalized simply for holding to the common sense principle that children do best when raised by both a loving mother and father.

Shutting down agencies that provide for the needs of kids simply to advance a radical agenda is dirty politics at its very dirtiest, and we need this law to say enough is enough.

So please take action right now to urge your elected officials to support the important Child Welfare Provider Inclusion Act. Congress must uphold and defend the rights of religious child welfare service providers and not to allow them to be forced from the public square.

And, please, after you've taken action today, forward this message to your friends and family members using the buttons below and encourage them to do likewise.

Faithfully,

Brian S Brown

Brian S. Brown
President
National Organization for Marriage

Brian Brown

Brian Brown on FoxNews Special Report

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

Watch the clip here:


The Results Are In

National Organization for Marriage

Dear Marriage Supporter,

The results of the survey are in... and they aren't very pleasant.

I'm talking about University of Texas Professor Mark Regnerus' new study on attitudes about sexual morality.

In it, he analyzes sexual and relational attitudes of Christians and non-Christians who support—or who oppose—same-sex marriage. And what he finds is both incredibly significant and extremely disturbing. I'd encourage you to read the article linked above and review its findings here:

Activists trying to force a redefinition of marriage on America have constantly evaded the question, "what is marriage?" Meanwhile, they have insisted that gays and lesbians simply want access to the same sacred institution of marriage and that they don't intend to change anything about that institution.

But the survey responses from gay men and lesbians themselves don't support these claims.

The institution envisioned by those who want to redefine marriage isn't faithful... it isn't exclusive... it isn't permanent... put bluntly, it isn't marriage.

We must stand up for the truth about marriage—now more than ever—before it is "redefined" out of existence!

Won't you please consider making a financial investment in the National Organization for Marriage to help us defend marriage and the faith communities that sustain it?

The report documents that gays and lesbians have a very different view of the core values of marriage that we hold, and that have been at the heart of biblical marriage since the beginning. For example, over 80% of non-Christian gays and lesbians believe no strings attached sex is OK. Nearly 80% of them say viewing pornography is OK. Three-quarters say pre-marital cohabitation is a good idea. And an astonishing 37% say that marital infidelity is sometimes a good thing.

Of perhaps greater concern is the increasing acceptance of redefining marriage within Christian churches. This is especially concerning because, while the study doesn't make note of this fact, we know that membership in many mainline churches is already rapidly on the decline.

This study should sound an alarm and serve as a wake-up call to those who want to remain silent in the face of the movement to redefine marriage, because that movement seems to correlate with a push to abandon traditional sexual morality altogether.

Not only is the attitude of going-along-to-get-along deeply out of keeping with the witness of scripture; it is also sacrificing the credibility and vitality of the church in America.

As the study shows, Christians who support redefining marriage are:

  • more than seven times as likely (as Christians who don't support redefining marriage) to think pornography is OK;
  • three times as likely to think cohabiting as a good idea;
  • six times likely to say "no-strings-attached sex" is OK;
  • five times likely to be permissive of adultery;
  • six times as likely to favor abortion rights; and
  • incredibly, thirteen times as likely to have no issue with polyamorous relationships!

In many of these opinions, Christians who support redefining marriage are actually more sexually permissive than the general population! And it is to be greatly feared that this trend will only continue the more mainstreamed acceptance of same-sex marriage becomes.

We have a chance to stop the spread of this terrible social experiment in our churches and our society, but we must stand up and act before it's too late.

Won't you please join us in this fight by clicking here and making a generous donation of $35, $50, $100, $500 or more today to help NOM defend marriage and the faith communities that sustain it?

Thank you so much for all you do to defend God's truth about marriage.

Faithfully,

Brian S Brown

Brian S. Brown
President
National Organization for Marriage

Brian Brown

PS: The new research done by Professor Regnerus is a call to action. It's not too late to save our churches and our society from the radical social experiment of redefining marriage. But we have to act now. Won't you please click here to make a generous donation to support the work the National Organization for Marriage is doing throughout the country to defend marriage and the faith communities that sustain it?

Bishop Rozanski: "Family" is "the Basis of Society"

Bishop Mitchell T. Rozanski, former auxiliary bishop of the Archdiocese of Baltimore, will be installed tomorrow as the ninth bishop of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Springfield.  A Western Massachusetts news site posted a curiously-written article about the new bishop, a vocal marriage supporter.

Mitchell T. RozanskiThe article wasted no time in criticizing the sex abuse scandals of the 1990s and then went on to imply that Pope Francis somehow holds a different view on marriage than the official position of the Catholic Church:

Last September, Francis, in an interview, said abortion, contraception and gay marriage had become an "obsessed" focus in the Church. Last July, he also said, “If someone is gay and he searches for the Lord and has good will, who am I to judge."

However, Church teaching that married love is between a man and a woman, for the purpose of reproduction, as ordered by nature, that itself was ordered by God, is not likely to be modified, no matter the pastoral approach to it.

Notice how the article implies that Pope Francis's comments signify a break in Church teaching.

In reality, Pope Francis's "who am I to judge" comment was a continuation of what the Catholic Church has always taught--that those who are attracted to the same sex are called to chastity and should not be subjected to unjust discrimination.  Also notice how the article omitted the portion of the pope's quote denouncing the formation of a "gay lobby."  To include that would be an admission that Pope Francis isn't the radical doctrine reformer many want him to be (so would including anything about Pope Francis's opposition to redefining marriage when he was Cardinal Bergoglio).

The article did, however, include very wonderful comments from Bishop Rozanski on the importance of family - although it was evident that the author of the piece did not take kindly to these observations:

What we offer as Catholics is to strengthen the family as the basis of society. When there is a solid family life, there is less likelihood of crime, there is less likelihood of drug use. The children grow up with a solid foundation. And that is a foundation they can take all through their lives.  And, as a Church, what we are saying is that God made us male and female, and that the institution of marriage is so crucial. It is a sacrament of the Church, if the sacrament is well lived, then the children and future generations will benefit.

Bishop Rozanski is absolutely correct.  When children grow up with a married mother and father, they are much less likely to experience poverty, juvenile delinquency, or drop out of school.

The bishop's defense of marriage is rooted in love for all members of the human family and concern for the welfare of children and society as a whole.  His charitable, truthful comments about the family as the basis of society should inspire Catholics and non-Catholics alike, even if they do upset liberals in the media and those who wish to turn Church against itself by unfairly twisting the words of the Pope and other leaders.

Case Closed? Not Even Close!

National Organization for Marriage

Dear Marriage Supporter,

Emboldened by a spate of radical judicial rulings handing them untimely victories through ill-reasoned decisions, same-sex marriage activists—both here in the U.S. and abroad—have been increasingly trotting out their tired old narrative of "inevitability."

The media and the leaders of the same-sex marriage movement have been so relentless and so consistent in propagating this idea that you probably know it well enough by now to repeat each talking point word-for-word: so-called (and falsely named) 'marriage equality' is a foregone conclusion, we're told, and will soon be the law of the entire realm.

But taking one's view of the marriage debate in America from this narrative is a very narrow-sighted way of looking at things. It is not even like listening to the partisan play-by-play commentary of the home team's radio announcer; it is more like asking the captain of the cheerleading squad at halftime who is going to win.

Of course those who cheer for the goal of marriage redefinition are going to say that the case is closed, that it is inevitable that their agenda will win out in the end: what else would we expect? So in order to gain a better perspective, it is more important for us to take note not of what they are saying, but rather what they aren't saying. Because their silence can speak volumes.

The Biggest News That Wasn't News

"European Court Says No Right to Same-Sex Marriage."

That was the headline from Breitbart News on July 25th. But apart from this, the story of this monumental ruling received little to no media attention. The mainstream media, having long joined the cheerleading squad of the same-sex marriage movement, took their typical approach to stories combatting the narrative: silence.

Sure, it might have gotten some coverage: deep in a webpage side-bar, or buried on page A-17 of a print edition. But we've known for a long time about the media bias on this issue: one study showed that pro-SSM statements are reported in the press at a ratio of 5-to-1 compared with statements supporting true marriage.

Therefore, considering the complicity of the media in the cause to radically redefine marriage and family, we shouldn't take the by-the-way coverage of this case as a sign of the story's unimportance, but of its importance. They don't want you to know about this!

Joseph La Rue, writing at the Alliance Defending Freedom blog, gives a fair summary of the ruling and its importance:

As the debate over the definition of marriage rages across the states, the European Court of Human Rights (kind of like a "Supreme Court of Europe") has decided that the European Convention on Human Rights (kind of like our Constitution) does not require that nations recognize same-sex marriage [emphasis in original].

La Rue notes: "This is a monumental decision, and could have a major impact as our Supreme Court is expected to take up a marriage case in the coming term" [emphasis added].

He explains that the U.S. Supreme Court—including Justice Anthony Kenney—has looked to and cited the European Court on Human Rights in previous decisions.

La Rue gives this explanation of the present decision [emphases in original]:

The Court held by a 14-3 vote that the European Convention on Human Rights does not require countries to recognize same-sex marriages.

[...]

One reason the European Court said it reached its decision had to do with the fact that there was no 'European consensus' regarding same-sex marriage. Ten countries recognize it; 37 do not. The Court concluded that it would be better to let the debate continue than to impose a 'one size fits all' solution on all 47 countries in Europe.

Truly, as La Rue notes, it is not surprising that "this ground-breaking decision from Europe has escaped the notice of the mainstream media." But I'd say, rather, that it didn't escape their notice so much as they chose deliberately not to make note of it.

La Rue explains the potential importance of this European case for the United States this way:

[T]his decision supports our argument that same-sex marriage is not a fundamental right. It would therefore be good for our courts to do as the European Court did. Our courts should let the debate continue, and not try to impose a fifty-state solution on the American people.

Of course, our opponents will observe that our courts have shown themselves unwilling to do just that, to let the debate continue. In decision after decision, the trend has been to shut down that debate and impose a radical new orthodoxy from the bench, side-stepping the democratic and legislative processes.

But what our opponents won't make a point of saying is that this trend might be careening toward "a roadblock" and a sudden putting on of the brakes.

Far From "Case Closed"

On Wednesday, a three-judge panel of the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals heard arguments in cases challenging the legal definition of marriage in four states: Ohio, Michigan, Tennessee, and Kentucky.

It was impossible for the major media outlets to ignore such a widely-impacting story. Thus, the news was picked up, among other places, in The Washington Post and The New York Times.

I will get to what they said in a moment. I want to make note first of all of what they did NOT say.

The major stories on these historic hearings did not point out some of the essential facts that I observed on Wednesday in a statement:

  • While they are not physically present in the courtroom in Cincinnati, the votes of 8.7 million citizens are at stake in this hearing.
  • Voters passed marriage amendments by overwhelming margins in these four states — nearly 8.7 million votes were cast in support of these four amendments, amounting to a combined 65% of the vote cast.

No, you won't find these wholly relevant facts in the articles from the Post and the Times. Both articles do, on the other hand, take great pains to mention the "legal landscape of the last year, in which more than two dozen lower courts and two appeals courts have ruled that gay couples have a right to marry" [SOURCE].

Both articles also trouble to focus on the "caustic questions" from the lone Clinton appointee on the panel, Judge Martha Craig Daughtrey—questions which, the New York Times says "left no doubt where she stood." (It's good to see the matter was not pre-judged or anything!)

But for all their efforts, neither of the reporters for these complicit media engines could evade the major fact about Wednesday's hearings: the case is far from closed... at least with respect to the other two judges on the panel.

The Washington Post journalist was forced to admit what seemed to be the reaction of everyone in the courtroom: "It became clear after three hours of arguments that the panel could become the first roadblock for proponents of same-sex marriage" [emphasis added].

A decision at the Circuit level favoring the right (explicitly upheld in last year's Windsor decision) of states' to define marriage would be a hugely important moment in this debate.

Our opponents have put everything they've got into these court cases, and have derailed every attempt to allow voters to have a say in the matter, because they know that they've run out of places where they can even squeak out a narrow win.

In any event, the 6th Circuit looks poised to deliver a decisive blow to the "inevitability" narrative. Even if the decision doesn't go that way, we can expect a very vigorous and important dissent. And either outcome is important, because the Supreme Court is certain to be weighing in on this matter again, and this decision could be the impetus for that eventuality being sooner rather than later.

"Both Sides Agree" — Not Everyday That Happens!

Yesterday's big headline in marriage news was from The New York Times, and the headline says it all: "Both Sides in Gay Marriage Fight in Utah Agree: Supreme Court Should Hear Case."

We at NOM have been saying that the Supreme Court should, and most certainly will, be taking up this issue in the near future, and have also noted that the Utah case seems one of the best candidates for really testing all of the parameters of the issue.

This week, as the Times explains:

Lawyers for three couples challenging Utah's ban on same-sex marriage said Thursday that they would join with their opponents to urge the Supreme Court to hear their case, even though they recently won an appeals court ruling striking down the law. [...] The unusual move could hasten a final ruling from the Supreme Court on same-sex marriage.

It isn't everyday that "both sides agree" in any legal question connected with this issue, so it is safe to say that this is an important moment in the progress of the debate.

Marriage Supporter, this matter will return before the Supreme Court—that is certain. What remains uncertain is how the Court will vote. It is obvious from the Utah plaintiffs' actions this week that they hope for a victory there. But I think we have reason to hope.

I hope that the 6th Circuit ruling comes down in favor of the millions of voters in the four states who argued their cases this week. I hope that the wisdom of the European Court of Human Rights last month be noted and respected by our own highest court's justices.

But most of all, I hope that ordinary citizens like you continue to stand up and to speak out bravely on marriage. The other side keeps claiming "inevitability" and a certain outcome. We need to show the Justices of the Supreme Court, between now and the time that they reconsider this issue, that the American people still stand divided on the issue of marriage!

Write letters to the editor.

Stage rallies in your hometown or state capitol.

Hold the gay lobby's corporate cronies accountable—(have you joined our Target boycott yet?).

Sign petitions.

Donate to defend marriage.

Get out and vote.

Pray.

Don't buy the hype of "inevitability" from the other side. Don't feel like the Supreme Court is beyond your power to influence. Each of us can do our part to show that marriage still enjoys deep and wide support throughout our land.

Let's show the American people and the Justices on the bench that there's still a debate to be had on this matter, and hopefully they will come down in favor of letting that debate continue.

Faithfully,

Brian S Brown

Brian S. Brown
President
National Organization for Marriage

Brian Brown


ICYMI: Slovakia Amends Constitution to Protect Marriage

SlovakiaThe Slovakia National Council voted June 4 to define marriage as the unique bond between one man and one woman in its Constitution. The amendment states, "it will be impossible for the rights and duties associated with marriage to be conferred in any way other than a legally recognised union between a man and a woman."

One hundred and two lawmakers supported the marriage amendment and 18 voted against it.

This should put to rest some of the silly claims that we've lost the marriage fight in the United States and abroad.  Slovakia's newest Constitutional amendment is evidence of the support that marriage enjoys.

Croatian voters similarly protected the definition of marriage back in 2013.

Who's Targeting Whom?

National Organization for Marriage

Dear Marriage Supporter,

On Tuesday, the retail giant Target signed on to an amicus brief for the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in two pending cases challenging the definition of marriage in Indiana and Wisconsin.

Target joins with a number of other companies in signing the brief, including the Starbucks Coffee Company. But it is the spirit behind the brief, and its language, which are most noteworthy.

The brief uses extremely charged language to refer to laws defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman. It calls them "the states' bans [on same-sex marriage]" and, even more radically, "marriage discrimination" laws!

Without providing any rationale at all, the brief states bluntly that "Same-sex couples should have the same right to marry as opposite-sex couples," and refers to Indiana and Wisconsin's traditional marriage laws as "an unproductive, inequitable, and unjust status quo."

Perhaps most ridiculously, the brief—while touting the benefits of pro-LGBT businesses—presents the claim that "corporate cultures that don't encourage openness and inclusiveness leave employees feeling isolated and fearful."

Well, tell that to the employees at Chase bank.

There, employees were recently asked on a survey to identify whether they were members or "allies" of the LGBT community. The spirit of "openness and inclusiveness" behind that question worked to the opposite effect from what this brief suggests.

It was this radical and intrusive question precisely that left some employees "feeling isolated and fearful." As one of them put it, "The worry among many of us is that those who didn't select that poorly placed, irrelevant option will be placed on the ‘you can fire these people first' list."

Target and other companies need to be forced to realize that it is their alignment with the radical cause of redefining marriage that is "bad for business"—not states' marriage laws that uphold and protect the common-sense idea that kids do best with a mom and a dad!

So I'm announcing a new boycott today, against Target, for insulting consumers like you and me. The brief they signed in court this week insinuates that people like you and me, who would vote to uphold traditional marriage, as akin to segregationists and racial bigots. Would you want to shop at a place that viewed you in that way?

I'm not exaggerating. Take a look at this description, from the brief, of the marriage laws in Wisconsin and Indiana:

[A law that defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman] requires that… we single out colleagues with same-sex partners and treat them as a separate and unequal class as compared to employees with heterosexual partners.

Target also complains that such a law "upsets our business philosophy and prevents [us] from reaching our full economic potential because it dissuades employees from living and working in the jurisdictions where we do, or want to do, business."

Really? I know that you, like me, don't see things this way. We'd most like to live in a land where the true and noble good of marriage is upheld and protected in law as an institution about the welfare and rights of children rather than about the capricious desires of adults.

And we'd like to live in a land where laws are determined by the people or their elected representatives, not corporate titans or unelected judges - a land where the votes of over 50 million people cast in free and fair elections across this nation are respected rather than ridiculed.

Join me in telling Target today that they are out of touch with consumers and they have insulted the millions of Americans who have voted to uphold marriage as the union of a man and a woman—tell them how much we resent being fashioned "bigots" and "haters" for doing so!

It is ironic to see Target climbing fully on board with this radical political agenda in the 7th Circuit case. In the nearby 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, Target is involved in its own legal matters for a data breach that exposed over 100 million customers to financial threat.

I think Target would be better served if it got its priorities in order. Wouldn't it be better for them to worry about protecting the personal information customers entrust to them, than to be issuing insulting and judgmental statements about beliefs deeply held by millions of their customers regarding the nature of marriage and family?

Click here to pledge to take your business elsewhere. Target and its peers in the corporate world need to realize that the countless Americans who believe in marriage as the union of a man and a woman will not stand for being insulted and demeaned.

The rash of corporate meddling in the politics of marriage and family will only continue if we do not stand up and say enough is enough. Please join me in this boycott today, and please forward this message to your family and friends urging them to do the same.

Faithfully,

Brian S Brown

Brian S. Brown
President
National Organization for Marriage

Brian Brown

National Organization for Marriage Urges Appellate High Court to Rule in Favor of Traditional Marriage; Calls on US Supreme Court to Grant Review of Utah Decision

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


"It's time that the votes of millions of Americans be respected and upheld." — Brian Brown, NOM president —

nom_logo

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

"We urge the 6th Circuit Court of Appeal to issue a ruling overturning the lower courts and upholding the right of voters and legislators to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman. While they are not physically present in the courtroom in Cincinnati, the votes of 8.7 million citizens are at stake in this hearing to determine the constitutionality of traditional marriage in Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee. Voters passed marriage amendments by overwhelming margins in these four states — nearly 8.7 million votes were cast in support of these four amendments, amounting to a combined 65% of the vote cast. It's time that the votes of millions of Americans be respected and upheld.

"No matter what happens with this appeal today in the 6th Circuit, the future of marriage is headed to the US Supreme Court. NOM is optimistic about ultimate victory. We urge the Supreme Court to grant review of the Utah marriage amendment case which was filed yesterday by the state. Utah is the first of many states that will be asking the Supreme Court to reverse the lower court rulings and uphold the right of voters and their elected representatives to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman, which it is in reality and has been since the dawn of time."

###

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

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

Are You Next?

National Organization for Marriage

Dear Marriage Supporter,

The ousting of Brenden Eich from Mozilla and the attempts by Chase Bank to ID employees based on whether they are "an ally of the LGBT community" were two powerful and extreme examples of efforts to marginalize and punish people who believe in a biblical or traditional view of sexual morality.

NOM is leading the charge to push back against these attempts to target ordinary citizens like you and me for simply holding to the truth about marriage.

Will you please consider standing with us today by making a gift of $35, $50, $100, $500 or whatever you can afford to provide the financial resources we need to carry out our efforts?

The latest example is found by simply looking at what's happening in the city of Houston.

The City Council (led by the city's lesbian mayor) passed an ordinance giving gays and lesbians special protections against "nondiscrimination." Citizens worried that the ordinance would become a tool to punish anyone who does not affirm the LGBT agenda have collected signatures on a referendum to put the issue on the ballot for voters to consider.

And before a single vote has been cast, the fears of opponents of the ordinance have already been realized.

Backers of the ordinance have put the names of petition signers online so that their harassment can begin immediately. They've launched a campaign called, "HEROPetition.com" that has publicly identified all the petition signers for the alleged purpose of independently verifying the validity of the petition.

But get this: the organizers of the HEROPetition.com campaign are refusing to identify themselves, claiming they must remain anonymous to "protect our personal safety."

As has been the case elsewhere, the real reason for identifying citizens who engage in the political process as is their right is to facilitate a campaign of targeting and bullying against those who defend marriage.

Won't you join us in standing up to these extreme bullies who want to marginalize and punish ordinary people of faith by making a donation to support our work today?

Such hypocrisy and ugliness has become routine for the LGBT movement. They began their movement with an appeal to the American people for "tolerance" and "diversity" but have morphed into a movement based on intimidation and bigotry.

The saddest part: they've pursued this course because it has thus far worked.

In 2012, the respected Diversity Officer at Gallaudet University was suspended from her job solely because she signed the Maryland referendum petition to allow voters to consider whether the legislature's redefinition of marriage should be permitted.

After public protests, the university eventually allowed her to return to work, but demoted her. When it comes to LGBT matters, "diversity" and "tolerance" extends only to those who agree with gay activists.

In California, gay activists pioneered the organized harassment campaign through the use of the notorious "eightmaps.com" website which allowed people to see online maps showing where donors to Prop 8 lived.

As is the case in the current Houston example, the organizers of the campaign did not identify themselves, nor did they show where donors opposing Prop 8 lived. The resulting harassment of Prop 8 donors was widespread and unrelenting.

Mozilla's Brendan Eich is only the latest person to lose a job over showing support for traditional marriage:

  • The manager of a Mexican restaurant was hounded from her family business in Los Angeles over her $100 contribution in support of Proposition 8.
  • Scott Eckern, the artistic director of the California Musical Theater in Sacramento was forced to resign over his $1,000 contribution;
  • Similarly, Richard Raddon, the director of the Los Angeles Film Festival, was forced to resign after contributing $1,500.

Others faced death threats. Catholic and Mormon Church groups were mailed packages containing white powder, feared to be anthrax.

This cannot continue! Please help us stand up to this undemocratic and unpatriotic assault on our basic civil liberties by making a generous donation today.

There are hundreds of documented cases of harassment by LGBT activists against Christians and other people of faith who support traditional values, and scant evidence of such incidents against lesbians and gays.

Yet cities like Houston pursue special "nondiscrimination" ordinances, Congress is being pressured to pass "nondiscrimination" statutes and President Obama has issued an executive order on the subject.

Meanwhile, it's indisputable that a gay activist walked into the offices of the Family Research Council with a plan to murder dozens of employees there because of their opposition to redefining marriage and the gay and lesbian agenda.

And yet, this incident has spawned no proposed "nondiscrimination" legislation to protect people of faith and religious groups, nor has President Obama issued any executive orders.

NOM opposes harassment and violence of any kind against anyone engaged in the public square. We also oppose ordinances like that passed in Houston and being advanced in Congress. The record shows that if anyone needs special protections from retaliation and punishment based on who they are, it's Christians, people of faith and religious groups, not gay and lesbian activists.

Won't you please make a generous donation today to help us carry out our mission of protecting marriage and the faith communities that sustain it?

Faithfully,

Brian S Brown

Brian S. Brown
President
National Organization for Marriage

Brian Brown

PS: What's going on in Houston — the systematic identification and targeting of citizens who support marriage as the union of one man and one woman — is reprehensible and must stop! Please help us defend the ordinary citizens who believe — just like you and me — that marriage is worth defending and fighting for. Please consider making a financial contribution right away to help us defend marriage and the rights of citizens who believe in it.

"The Objections Aren't Trivial"

Yesterday, Rod Dreher at The American Conservative highlighted a piece written by Damon Linker at The Week. Dreher described Linker as "a progressive on matters of gay marriage and contemporary sexual mores" and quotes from his column:

[Religious traditionalists'] objections aren’t trivial. Western civilization upheld the old sexual standards for the better part of two millennia. We broke from them in the blink of an eye, figuratively speaking. The gains are pretty clear — It’s fun! It feels good! — but the losses are murkier and probably won’t be tallied for a very long time.

488610659Is the ethic of individual consent sufficient to keep people (mostly men) from acting violently on their sexual desires?

What will become of childhood if our culture continues down the road of pervasive sexualization?

Do children do best with two parents of opposite genders? Or are two parents of the same gender just as good? Or better? How about one parent of either gender? What about three, four, five, or more people in a constantly evolving polyamorous arrangement?

Can the institution of marriage survive without the ideals of fidelity and monogamy? What kind of sexual temptations and experiences will technology present us with a year — or a decade, or a century — from now? Will people be able to think of reasons or conjure up the will to resist those temptations? Will they even try? Does it even matter?

I have no idea how to answer these questions.

What I do know is that the questions are important, and that I respect those who are troubled by them.

And maybe you should, too.

Linker's longer piece contains some straw-man versions of what he calls "traditionalism" - for example, when he says that "when traditionalists try to defend their views on pre-marital sex or homosexuality" it ends up sounding something like merely, "I disapprove because it's icky."

Or when Linker says that he "vastly prefer[s] a world in which people have been liberated from sexually inspired suffering, shame, humiliation, and self-loathing," we wonder what other world he prefers this to, because this would be an unhistorical caricature of  previous centuries' sexual mores and ethics.

Nevertheless, Linker has the wisdom to see that "the questions are important." The only sad thing is that he acknowledges it so late.

Linker's cry of "hold your horses" to the marriage redefinition lobby is a cry that comes after the horses have been let out and the barn door closed in many places. But perhaps we can hope that Linker will one day become an aid in wrangling the now-wild horses and ushering them back into the corral built for them by millenia of wisdom and tradition, whence they should never have been sprung in the first place.

"One of the most radical campaigns we can do"

From our friends at The Christian Institute in the U.K. comes this story:

Ruth Hunt, the new head of homosexual lobby group Stonewall, says she wants to put pro-gay storybooks into all preschools.

In what she described as a “radical” campaign, “a suite of books that celebrates difference in all its forms” could be commissioned by the group for under-fives.

[...]

She said: “I really want to commission – and this is something we’ve got to talk about as an organisation – a suite of books that celebrates difference in all its forms for under-fives."

Read the entire thing here.

This "Common Sense Legislation" Needs Your Support

National Organization for Marriage

Dear Marriage Supporter,

Last Week, Senator Mike Enzi (R-WY) and Representative Mike Kelly (R-PA) introduced the Child Welfare Provider Inclusion Act [S. 2706, H.R. 5285] which aims to protect the right of child welfare providers—including private and faith-based adoption and foster care agencies—to continue providing valuable services to families and children.

This important law would prevent the federal government and states receiving certain federal child welfare funds from discriminating against agencies simply because those agencies decline to provide services that conflict with their religious or moral convictions.

Click here right now to find out if your Representative and Senators are co-sponsoring this critical legislation and to encourage their support for this much-needed law.

Believing that kids need both a mom and a dad should not disqualify a service provider from doing their invaluable work. They shouldn't be penalized by the revocation of aid for holding to the common sense principle that children do best when raised by both a loving mother and father.

As Representative Kelly asked rhetorically in an interview with The Daily Signal about this bill, "When did it ever get to the point that people of faith and organizations of faith should be discriminated against when it comes to adopting children or foster care?"

And yes, this kind of discrimination is already happening. In Illinois, Massachusetts, and the District of Columbia, faith-based agencies have been forced to end their adoption and foster-care programs because they refused to abandon their commitment to placing children in homes with a married mother and a father.

That's why you need to urge your own elected officials to support this bill today. Tell Congress to uphold and defend the rights of religious child welfare service providers and not to allow their liberties to be curtailed as they are forced from the public square.

Shutting these agencies down for the sake of a radical political agenda is a travesty, and only hurts the children whom these providers have served so well and for so long. At the end of the day, this is about those children and protecting their rights.

I hope you will join me in taking this important action right now. And when you've done so, please forward this message to your friends and family members using the buttons below, urging them to take action, too.

Faithfully,

Brian S Brown

Brian S. Brown
President
National Organization for Marriage

Brian Brown