Iowa is Key

Dear Marriage Supporter,

Hopefully by now you have read NOM's five-point plan to protect supporters of traditional marriage from being punished by the government while we work to reverse the illegitimate and outrageous decision of the US Supreme Court redefining marriage.

The first point of our Plan is arguably the most important one — to elect a pro-marriage champion as President of the United States — and we are hard at work to do so. Iowa is key to our strategy.

Please help us ensure that the next president is a pro-marriage champion by making a donation of $10, $20, $50, $100 or $250 or more.

Donate Today for a Pro-Marriage Champion President

Iowa is a small state where politicians are expected to actively seek votes through personal campaigning. In 2012, Sen. Rick Santorum won the state in part because he personally campaigned in every one of the 99 counties in Iowa. Because Iowa's citizens are able to approach the candidates directly to ask questions and look them in the eye, the state is the preeminent example of the importance of "retail politics." And since it is the first state in the nation to vote it holds enormous importance in the nominating process.

NOM has thousands of supporters in Iowa with whom we are in communication to ensure that they are actively pressing the candidates on their positions regarding marriage, and asking for specifics of what they would do as president.

That is also the purpose of the Presidential Marriage Pledge that we have asked each Republican candidate for president to sign. The pledge is not just a philosophical statement, but a promise to the American people about specific actions they will take as president to restore marriage in the law and to protect supporters of natural marriage from punishment and retaliation for holding true to marriage.

We're also mobilizing thousands of supporters to sign The People's Marriage Pledge so that the candidates know that the American people have their back when it comes to marriage.

But our plan includes much more, including making a very substantial investment in Iowa to educate voters about which candidates will be pro-marriage champions, and identify those who cannot be counted upon to fight to restore marriage. We are planning on running television, radio, newspaper and online ads across the state and also communicating with voters through direct mail and other means.

We need to raise several hundred thousand dollars to implement our plan in Iowa, and we need your support for this critical undertaking. Can we count on you?

Count on me for a critical donation of $10

Count on me for a critical donation of $20

Count on me for a critical donation of $50

Count on me for a critical donation of $100

Count on me for a critical donation of $250

Another important element in our plan is to rebuild a thriving marriage culture in America through grassroots education and engagement. In that regard, an important new book has been published today that we highly recommend to you. Authored by Ryan Anderson, a great friend of NOM's and a scholar at The Heritage Foundation, the book "Truth Overruled: The Future of Marriage and Religious Freedom" is a tour-de-force examination of the issues in the marriage debate and an enlightening reflection on what is at stake. Please consider purchasing a copy today. And if you agree with us that the book is extraordinary, please write a favorable review. As you might imagine, the "haters" among our opponents are busy trolling the Internet to criticize the book because they realize that it is a powerful, principled witness to the truth of preserving marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

Thank you for all you are doing to advance the cause of marriage. We are grateful for your prayers, words of encouragement and of course for your financial support, which is vital to our work.


Brian S Brown

PS — NOM is co-sponsoring a major pro-family forum this coming Saturday in Ames, Iowa. The Family Leadership Summit on July 18th will feature remarks by many prominent conservative leaders including Dr. Ben Carson, Sen. Ted Cruz, Sen. Lindsey Graham, Governor Mike Huckabee, Governor Bobby Jindal, Governor Rick Perry, Sen. Marco Rubio, Sen. Rick Santorum, Governor Scott Walker and businessman Donald Trump. I will be appearing as a speaker and look forward to interacting with the 2,500 activists who are expected to attend.

Donate Today

We Must Fight Back Together

Dear Marriage Supporter,

The Supreme Court has issued its ruling on same-sex marriage, but our resolve HAS NOT lessened one iota. Despite the dreadful blow the Court dealt to traditional marriage, it is not time to panic. Instead, we must massively expand our efforts to restore marriage in America as the union between one man and one woman.

We must take action! We must fight back! This is not just about marriage — it is about protecting the rights of people of faith, houses of worship and religious institutions — the very foundation of our nation.

Because you are reading this, I believe you are a defender of marriage. But it is not time to stay silent! Take an important step RIGHT NOW by making a gift to the National Organization for Marriage. We need your immediate contribution if we are not to lose a day in this critical fight.

We must raise $500,000 in the next 60 days — an amount that is reachable if everyone, including you, gives your best gift right now to help us restore marriage in America.

In fact, to make this goal more achievable a few donors felt so motivated with our plan to fight back that they committed to match every donation over the next 30 days up to a total of $250,000. That means if we raise $250,000 during the next 30 days these generous donors will double the amount — making it $500,000!

I'll make a quick donation of $35.00

I'll make a quick donation of $50.00

I'll make a quick donation of $100.00

I'll make a quick donation of $250.00

I'll make a quick donation of $500.00

I'll make a larger donation...

I tell you . . . I shook with anger when I read the words of the lead attorney from the Obama administration from his testimony before the Supreme Court. When pushed, Solicitor General Donald Verrilli finally conceded that yes, redefining marriage would "be an issue" for religious organizations, opening the door to removing tax-exemption from organizations that refused to sacrifice their beliefs because of the Court's ruling.

This led to one pro-marriage attorney calling the ruling an "absolute head-on collision ... with religious liberty."

But my anger — and yours — must be turned into action. That's why we launched the National Organization for Marriage's Five Point Plan to restore the historic definition of marriage:

  1. Elect a pro-marriage President of the United States in 2016.
  2. Hold the Republican Party and its representatives accountable to the American people when it comes to marriage.
  3. Ensure Congress and state Legislatures move swiftly to pass the First Amendment Defense Act to prevent any government agency from discriminating against people or institutions that believe that marriage is a union between one man and one woman.
  4. Build and strengthen a grassroots movement that is pro-marriage.
  5. Support actions to amend the Constitution to repeal this illegitimate decision by a bare majority of justices.

Yes, this is ambitious. But it is also very urgent! We cannot give up — the stakes are too high.

Your donation today of $50, $100, $250 — or whatever amount is right for you to invest in this battle — will immediately go toward advancing this Five Point Plan, including advocating for the First Amendment Defense Act to every Senator and Representative in Washington D.C. And don't forget that your gift doubles in value thanks to this generous matching grant by commitment of these heroic marriage donors.

Fight for Marriage — Make an Immediate Contribution

Take just a minute or less and read what's at stake here. The First Amendment says:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Well, you can see what the recent Supreme Court decision and the statement from the lawyer representing the current administration in Washington, D.C., thinks about that. They are prepared to shred the written guarantee contained in our constitution that we can live our lives consistent with our religious convictions in order to promote a "right" to same-sex ‘marriage' which does not appear in the constitution and in fact was simply invented by the Supreme Court's majority.

Here's what a leading conservative said about this decision: "The U.S. Supreme Court's ruling on the redefinition of marriage seals the end of America as the Founders envisioned it.... What has replaced Judaism, Christianity, Judeo-Christian values and the Bible? The answer is: feelings."

I cannot and WILL NOT stand aside while the feelings of some people destroy the roots of America. I am sure you feel the same way.

Will you fight on with me and other supporters of marriage?

Your donation today will make it loud and clear that you aren't accepting this new America that has been thrust upon us. Your gift of $50, $100, $250, or whatever amount you can give will be matched by generous donors — and will help keep the momentum moving forward toward passage of the First Amendment Defense Act and support our Five-Point Plan to Restore Marriage.

Please! It's NOT too late and it's NOT time to panic. It is time to take action and fight on together!


Brian S Brown

P.S. I promise you — I will keep fighting with every ounce of strength I have. But I need you. We cannot win this battle alone. Are you still fighting for marriage? Please say, "Yes!" and send your gift today. Don't forget your gift will be matched, up to $250,000, by generous donors that are very excited about NOM's Five Point Plan to restore marriage.

Donate Today

The Nation Refuses to Accept Supreme Redefinition of Marriage

Marriage Supporter,

Not Accepted

Ruther Bader Ginsburg was wrong. Justice Ginsburg violated judicial ethics when she gave a media interview presaging her vote to redefine marriage (even before the case was briefed or argued) in which she outrageously predicted that the Supreme Court decision imposing same-sex 'marriage' would be readily accepted by the country. The evidence that the country is not embracing this ruling mounts every day.

A nationwide survey of voters conducted by Reuters found that only 51% of Americans support same-sex 'marriage' following the Supreme Court ruling — a considerably smaller percentage than many national polls found prior to the ruling — and nearly two thirds of Republicans oppose the Supreme Court decision. Reuters noted that this will likely ensure that opposition to the Supreme Court ruling will be a pivotal issue in the selection of the Republican presidential nominee.

GOP Presidential Hopefuls Solidly Reject SCOTUS Ruling

Almost without exception, the Republican candidates running for president have roundly criticized the Supreme Court for its ruling imposing same-sex 'marriage.' Mike Huckabee, Ted Cruz, Scott Walker and Rick Santorum have been particularly critical, and have called for a constitutional amendment to preserve traditional marriage. Even moderates like Governor Chris Christie have taken the Court to task for their illegitimate ruling imposing same-sex 'marriage' on the nation.

Santorum Keynotes NOM Gala; Signs Presidential Marriage Pledge

Sen. Rick Santorum gave the keynote address to NOM's Second Annual Marriage Gala in Washington, DC on July 2nd. Sen. Santorum ripped the US Supreme Court for their illegitimate ruling and pledged as president to work to reverse it, saying "this will not stand," bringing the crowd of nearly 400 people to their feet.

NOM's Marriage Gala is an opportunity to bring together many of our strongest supporters from throughout the country to hear from NOM's team of leaders, including our Chairman, John Eastman, and Co-Founder, Professor Robert George. In addition to hearing from Senator Santorum, who received NOM's prestigious Marriage Champion Award in recognition of his steadfast support for traditional marriage and his work helping NOM in its earliest days, NOM also honored Sherif Girgis with the Public Square Leadership Award. Mr. Girgis, a Rhodes Scholar, is the co-author (with Robby George and Ryan Anderson) of the book "What is Marriage? Man and Woman: A Defense."

It was announced at the Gala that Sen. Santorum has become the first 2016 presidential candidate to sign NOM's Presidential Marriage Pledge, promising to take specific actions as president to restore traditional marriage and protect supporters of marriage against attempts to marginalize and punish them.

Sign the People's Marriage Pledge Today!

NOM expects a number of other candidates to join Sen. Santorum as signatories of the Presidential Marriage Pledge in coming days.

NOM Unveils Five Point Plan

The Marriage Gala also served as the venue for NOM to unveil our five-part plan to mitigate the damage of the Supreme Court ruling and to work to reverse it. Our plan includes:

  1. Elect a pro-marriage President of the United States in 2016.
  2. Hold the Republican Party and its representatives accountable to the American people when it comes to marriage.
  3. Ensure Congress and state Legislatures move swiftly to pass the First Amendment Defense Act to prevent any government agency from discriminating against people or institutions that believe that marriage is a union between one man and one woman.
  4. Build and strengthen a grassroots pro-marriage movement.
  5. Support actions to amend the Constitution to repeal this illegitimate decision by a bare majority of justices.

Alabama Supreme Court Asked To Reject SCOTUS Ruling

Prior to the Supreme Court ruling imposing same-sex 'marriage,' the Alabama Supreme Court was a forceful defender of its state's citizens, refusing to permit local clerks to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples despite orders of a federal judge to do so. Lead by Chief Justice Roy Moore, the state's highest court ruled that a lower federal court judge lacked the authority to impose an order on the state since the US Supreme Court had previously ruled that there was no federal constitutional right to gay 'marriage.' Now that the SCOTUS ruling has been issued reversing their prior ruling and imposing gay 'marriage' on the nation, the Alabama Supreme Court has invited parties involved in the state marriage litigation to submit briefs advising the state how to respond.

In response to the request, Liberty Counsel has filed a brief with the state Supreme Court suggesting that they ignore the US Supreme Court ruling because it is unlawful and lacks constitutional legitimacy. Liberty Counsel's brief points out that the Wisconsin Supreme Court refused to follow the U.S. Supreme Court opinion in the Dred Scott case, which said that blacks were not entitled to full protection as citizens. The organization asked the Alabama Supreme Court to similarly resist compliance with the Supreme Court ruling on marriage, saying "A judicial opinion without constitutional basis is not law and should not be followed by any state or citizen."

Judges, Clerks and Citizens Resist SCOTUS Ruling

State judges and clerks across the country are refusing to participate in giving legitimacy to the US Supreme Court's lawless ruling. A state judge in Ohio, C. Allen McConnell, recently refused to participate in a same-sex 'marriage' because doing so violates his personal and religious beliefs.

Meanwhile, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has said that Texas must "act on multiple levels to further protect religious liberties for all Texans" and must "immediately do anything we can to help our County Clerks and public officials who now are forced with defending their religious beliefs against the Court's ruling."

Numerous County Clerks in Kentucky and other states have refused to issue licenses to same-sex couples, saying that doing so violates their religious beliefs.

Support Grows For First Amendment Defense Act

The proposed First Amendment Defense Act is generating significant support. Yesterday the House Freedom Caucus called on the House leadership to schedule a vote on the legislation before Congress leaves on its August recess. Currently, 98 members of the House of Representatives have co-sponsored HR 2802, authored by Rep. Raul Labrador, with more representatives signing up daily. In the Senate, 25 Senators have co-sponsored S. 1598, authored by Sen. Mike Lee, including nearly all the Senators who are presidential hopefuls (Cruz, Rubio, and Graham). Rand Paul has not yet co-sponsored the legislation.

Please contact your federal representatives and ask them to co-sponsor and support the First Amendment Defense Act, which will protect supporters of marriage from being punished by the government if they do not embrace the Supreme Court's illegitimate ruling.

Help NOM Today

Many people have written me asking how they can help fight the illegitimate ruling of the Supreme Court. While there are a number of actions that we urge people to take, including supporting the First Amendment Defense Act and signing The People's Marriage Pledge, perhaps the most important thing you can do is make a donation to NOM at this critical time. We are hard at work implementing our five-point plan, but we need to raise several hundred thousand dollars in the next few weeks to keep up our momentum. Please make a gift of $25, $50, $100, or $500 or more to show your support and help us undertake all the efforts that are needed. Working together, we will be successful!


Brian S Brown

Donate Today

Alabama Supreme Court Urged to Protect Religious Liberty

In a potentially significant development, Liberty Counsel has led a brief with the Alabama Supreme Court urging it to ignore the SCOTUS ruling on marriage, citing as precedent a state Supreme Court ruling in Wisconsin where that Court refused to follow the Supreme Court’s ruling in the infamous Dred Scott case.

The Alabama Supreme Court has been a staunch advocate for the decision of their elected officials and voters who overwhelmingly desire to preserve marriage as the union of one man and one woman. They refused to allow state clerks to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples despite a federal judge’s order to do so. In the wake of the US Supreme Court’s illegitimate ruling imposing gay ‘marriage’ on the nation, the Alabama court asked for parties to their marriage litigation to file appropriate briefs advising the court what they should do in the wake of the Supreme Court decision in Obergefell v Hodges.

Liberty Counsel’s brief filed in response to the request has decried the Obergefell ruling as an unlawful and illegal federal usurpation of power that is reserved to the states. In an accompanying press release the group said, “A judicial opinion without constitutional basis is not law and should not be followed by any state or citizen.”

Below is language from their Press Release:

ThinkstockPhotos-78632601Montgomery, AL—In a brief to the Alabama Supreme Court, Liberty Counsel presented legal arguments following the opinion in the marriage case at the U.S. Supreme Court. “When considering the Supreme Court’s Obergefell opinion, state Supreme Courts should contemplate the “decision’s substantial assault on the Rule of Law, Democracy, and Natural Law, and its necessary diminishment of the constitutional right to Free Exercise of Religion,” Liberty Counsel told the Alabama Supreme Court.

Chief Justice John Roberts said it best: “[For] those who believe in a government of laws, not of men, the majority’s approach is deeply disheartening….Five lawyers have closed the debate and enacted their own vision of marriage as a matter of constitutional law.”

The Obergefell opinion is an assault on Democracy. Justice Antonin Scalia warned, “This practice of constitutional revision by an unelected committee of nine…robs the People of the most important liberty they asserted in the Declaration of Independence and won in the Revolution of 1776: the freedom to govern themselves.”

ThinkstockPhotos-106536180The decision from five lawyers ignored the natural order of marriage: the union of a man and a woman who complement each other biologically and socially, which union produces children, creates a family, and builds society.

“Aside from undermining the political processes that protect our liberty, the majority’s decision threatens the religious liberty our Nation has long sought to protect,” Justice Clarence Thomas put forth in his dissent.

The brief by Liberty Counsel points out that the Wisconsin Supreme Court refused to follow the U.S. Supreme Court opinion in the Dred Scott case, which said that blacks were not entitled to full protection as citizens. The Liberty Counsel brief also urged the Alabama Supreme Court to protect the religious freedom of its citizens.

“There is existing precedent for a state’s highest court to reject an unlawful mandate from the U.S. Supreme Court,” said Mat Staver, Founder and Chairman of Liberty Counsel. Staver continued, “The hope of our Constitutional Republic rests upon state officials and American citizens who will refuse to allow five, black-robed judges to rob us of our free, representative form of government. A judicial opinion without constitutional basis is not law and should not be followed by any state or citizen.”

Liberty Counsel also asked Alabama’s High Court to ensure protection of the constitutional rights of Alabama probate judges and other Christian business owners. “Never before in America has a religious requirement been required to hold office or own a business, and it cannot begin now,” Staver cautioned. “To require Christians to pull out pages of their Bible in order to hold office or own a business is anti-American and it is unconstitutional, despite what any judge may say otherwise.”

Liberty Counsel is an international nonprofit, litigation, education, and policy organization dedicated to advancing religious freedom, the sanctity of life, and the family since 1989, by providing pro bono assistance and representation on these and related topics.

Our Plan Is Generating Support

Marriage Supporter,

Last week NOM unveiled our five-point plan to fight for marriage at our second annual Marriage Gala held in Washington, DC where Sen. Rick Santorum was our keynote speaker. I was very pleased with the supportive reaction from those in attendance. If you were not able to join us last week, here are the five key elements in our plan:

  1. Electing a Pro-Marriage Republican as President of the United States
  2. Holding the GOP Accountable
  3. Enacting the First Amendment Defense Act to protect the right of supporters of marriage to live their beliefs in the public square
  4. Build the grassroots through education and engagement, helping to rebuild a thriving marriage culture
  5. Lend support to other efforts to amend the constitution to repeal this decision

I am excited to announce that a number of heroic marriage supporters have committed to fight for marriage and we have combined pledges that will match every donation we receive over the next 30 days dollar for dollar up to a total of $250,000! What a great blessing this will be!

Will you please demonstrate your commitment to continue the fight for marriage by making an immediate contribution of $25, $50, $100, $500 or even $1,000 or more? We have an enormous amount of work to do over the next month and we urgently need your financial assistance today — and your donation will be matched dollar for dollar!

Fight for Marriage — Make an Immediate Contribution

Our plan has two primary objectives. First, in the short term we must protect those who believe in the truth that marriage is the union of one man and one woman from facing persecution and punishment for upholding their beliefs. Second, we must work over the longer term to reverse the illegitimate ruling of the US Supreme Court redefining marriage.

The five pillars of our plan all tie together to create a comprehensive approach. We will be active in Congress and at the state level; in courts and in the court of public opinion; and in public and behind the scenes.

But all of this depends on you. That's why I am asking you to make an urgent financial contribution today so that we have the resources to carry our plan forward. Remember, any donation you give over the next 30 days will be matched dollar for dollar.

I'll make a quick donation of $10 which means NOM will receive $20.

I'll make a quick donation of $25 which means NOM will receive $50.

I'll make a quick donation of $50 which means NOM will receive $100.

I'll make a quick donation of $100 which means NOM will receive $200.

I'll make a quick donation of $250 which means NOM will receive $500.

I'll make a quick donation of $500 which means NOM will receive $1,000.

I'll make a quick donation of $1,000 which means NOM will receive $2,000.

We expect the First Amendment Defense Act (FADA) to come up for its first hearing in Congress within the next several weeks and we have a lot to do to push this legislation forward. We need to organize people to contact their federal representatives, aggressively promote the legislation through the media, lobby members of Congress and prepare written materials and testimony.

Why is passing FADA so important? Because now that the Supreme Court has illegitimately redefined marriage for the entire nation, there will be a tremendous push by government to force every individual, business and organization to support it and to change their practices to bow to this new illegitimate understanding of marriage. Examples include stripping churches and religious and pro-family groups of their tax exemptions; denying people and businesses tax deductions, grants and access to federal resources unless they expressly support the new marriage regime; making support of gay 'marriage' a condition of receiving federal contracts or benefits; and pursuing other points of pressure to force compliance.

The Supreme Court's marriage decision has handed the Obama administration a heavy club to pound supporters of true marriage into submission, and you can count on them to use it. In fact, a top administration lawyer has already hinted that the federal government is going to punish people and groups that refuse to embrace same-sex 'marriage.'

The First Amendment Defense Act would stop President Obama and the federal government from taking any adverse action because of an individual's beliefs in support of maintaining marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

Aaron and Melissa Klein know how the power of government can be brought to bear against supporters of marriage. When they declined to bake a cake for a same-sex 'marriage' ceremony, the state of Oregon found them guilty of discrimination and has fined them $135,000. Keep in mind that at the time the couple declined to participate in this ceremony, same-sex 'marriage' was illegal in Oregon. Now that the Supreme Court has imposed it on the entire country, imagine what will occur. This is why we need FADA to be enacted not only at the federal level but in every state as well.

Please help us protect supporters of marriage from government punishment and harassment by making an urgent financial contribution of whatever you can afford — $10, $25, $50, $100, $250 or $500 or more. And remember, your donation will be matched dollar for dollar by some of our best supporters.

Your Donation Will be Matched Dollar for Dollar!

We have already been working hard to implement our five-point plan. We're working to give presidential candidates the opportunity to sign our presidential pledge, engaging the American people in signing The People's Marriage Pledge, working behind the scenes to ensure that candidates are asked to support marriage when they campaign in key states, and pushing critical legislation in Congress and state Legislatures.

If you are like me, then your first reaction to the Supreme Court decision was probably great disappointment. But that quickly turned to anger and a renewed commitment to fight for what is just and true — preserving marriage as God designed it and as it has existed throughout the history of our nation and, indeed, civilization. I am not going to let the Supreme Court get away with what they've done and we have a plan to fix it.

I am counting on you to join me. Please make a donation today.


Brian S Brown

Donate Today

The Truth About Marriage Can't Be Changed

This past Monday, C. Allen McConnell, a Toledo judge, refused to perform a local couple’s same-sex wedding ceremony. After complaints and outcry from the both the couple and the pro-same-sex marriage community, Judge McConnell issued this statement:

ThinkstockPhotos-78026711The declination was based upon my personal and Christian beliefs established over many years. I apologize to the couple for the delay they experienced and wish them the best. The court has implemented a process whereby same-sex marriages will be accommodated. I will continue to perform traditional marriages during my duties assignment. I am also seeking advisory opinion from the Supreme Court of Ohio at this time as to whether or not I can opt out of the rotation. Upon receipt of the advisory opinion from Supreme Court, I will abide by its decision.

Though Judge McConnell respects the Supreme Court and the United States government at large, he refuses to make decisions that he feels would transgress his moral code. By adhering to his values, he has sparked controversy among his colleagues and acquaintances, who feel that his actions call into question his credibility as a judge. The Ohio ACLU called Judge McConnell’s convictions not only intolerant, but also unlawful in the following statement:

Public servants like Judge McConnell have an obligation to families who wish to marry in their courtrooms, regardless of gender or sexual orientation. The highest Court in the land decreed that people have a right to marry who they love, and judges have taken an oath to uphold those laws.

As if that were not enough, the ACLU went on to state that no judge has the right to place their own conscience above the law:

While we respect that judges have deeply held personal and religious beliefs, they should not interfere with the oath they took to uphold our Constitution. No judge has a right to deny a consenting adult couple the right to commit to their loving relationship through marriage.

Once again, the very proponents of “equal rights” are now denying them to anyone who refuses to comply. The hypocritical message of tolerance and equality emblazons headlines while honest people are repeatedly forced to lay aside their deeply held beliefs. This insanity must not continue. Judge McConnell deserves praise for refusing to perform an act against his own will.

See Toledonewsnow for more.

The Awakening of the Silent Majority: First on Abortion, Next on Marriage

In spite of the fact that SCOTUS has failed the American people by choosing not to protect the institution of the family, marriage supporters have every reason to keep up the fight — just examine the pro-life movement.

The history of the pro-life movement demonstrates that Roe v. Wade did not at all end the war about abortion. Rather, Roe v. Wade stirred the pot, and awakened the silent pro-life majority. What is more, Roe v. Wade successfully showed apathetic civilians the true horrors of abortion, and brought more people to the pro-life movement than there had ever been before.

ThinkstockPhotos-153902795Obergefell v. Hodges is poised to do the exact same favors for the pro-marriage movement. Through a historical study of the pro-life movement, Michael J. New demonstrates why, despite popular opinion being contrariwise, the pro-marriage movement has every hope of becoming stronger:

Someone analyzing the GSS in 1975 might have gotten the impression that in the pro-choice position lay America’s future. In fact, countless surveys showed that young adults were far more likely to support legal abortion than the elderly. But someone analyzing the GSS forty years later could be excused for drawing a very different conclusion. Indeed, the GSS shows that young adults are actually the most pro-life age demographic. Supporters of traditional marriage should take comfort in this fact; it is reasonable to hope that the marriage situation—both culturally and legally—will improve, grim as the present outlook might seem.

The supporter of male-female marriage should draw three important lessons from these four decades of GSS survey data. First—and unsurprisingly—people often change their opinions over the course of their lifetimes; people become more “pro-choice” during their 30s and more “pro-life” during their 50s. This point coheres with the truism, supported by other significant research, that people often become more conservative with age.

Second, national opinion trends can change as well. For instance, one can see from the GSS that, in the 1990s, the debate over partial-birth abortion increased pro-life sentiment among nearly all demographic groups. Other surveys show that during that time period, a higher percentage of Americans came to consider abortion morally wrong, and believed that abortion should be banned in all circumstances. A September 1995 Gallup poll showed that only 33 percent of Americans identified as “pro-life.” That figure reached 51 percent in a Gallup poll taken in May 2009.

Third—and this is the most important—there can be surprising shifts in opinion even within demographic groups. Throughout the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s, the GSS survey results consistently revealed that eighteen- to twenty-nine-year-olds were more supportive of legal abortion than was any other age cohort. But starting around the year 2000, this group became the most pro-life age cohort—more pro-life, even, than senior citizens.

What caused these unexpected shifts in public opinion on the abortion issue? The political pundits of the seventies foresaw neither the reality of legal abortion in the United States nor the effectiveness of incremental pro-life legislation.

. . .

When Roe v. Wade was decided in 1973, no one could have predicted the developments that shifted public opinion in a more pro-life direction. Abortion opinion trends during the past forty years should offer some reassurance to supporters of traditional marriage. It’s hard to anticipate how reality will turn around and confront public opinion, but the truth often has a way of revealing itself. Demography today is not necessarily destiny tomorrow.

To read the full article, please visit The Public Discourse.

SCOTUS Marriage Ruling Has Left In Full Retreat on Religious Liberty

Robert Knight, a senior fellow for the American Civil Rights Union, offers his informed opinion on what lies ahead for those who disagree with SCOTUS’s ruling regarding same-sex marriage: an end to their religious freedom.

ThinkstockPhotos-479616714Even before the U.S. Supreme Court announced the previously unknown constitutional “right” to impose same-sex “marriage” on all 50 states, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) was readying its next volley.

For two decades, the ACLU has cited the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) as a defense of religious liberty in various worthy and some not-so-worthy cases. No more.

The ACLU has decided that the unalienable right to religious freedom embodied in the First Amendment must give way to newly coined claims by newly empowered groups.

In a Washington Post column, ACLU Deputy Director Louise Melling called on Congress to make RFRA essentially toothless. Of course, that’s not the way she put. Here’s her signature sentence: “It’s time for Congress to amend the RFRA so that it cannot be used as a defense for discrimination. Religious freedom will be undermined only if we continue to tolerate and enable abuses in its name.”

. . .

Not missing a beat, atheist activist Mikey Weinstein of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation has uncorked yet another call for the Pentagon to weed out conservative Christians. In a Daily Kos posting, he wrote that chaplains who teach biblical marriage “don’t belong in the military. At this stage, the only honorable thing that these losers can do is to fold up their uniforms, turn in their papers, and get the hell out of the American military chaplaincy. If they are unwilling or too cowardly to do so, then the Department of Defense must expeditiously cleanse itself of the intolerant filth that insists on lingering in the ranks of our armed forces.”

Given that this is what passes for tolerance, it’s not surprising that the ACLU and others on the left want to render meaningless the free exercise of religion guarantee of the First Amendment and any federal and state laws that fortify religious freedom.

Deploying the language of inevitability, such as “being on the wrong side of history,” they seek to persuade the vast majority of Americans that resistance is futile.

Are they right? The answer will depend on a vigorous, renewed fight for liberty in the land of the free and the home of the brave.

For the full article, please visit The Washington Times.

All Dissenting Voices Must Be Silenced: SSM Erodes Free Speech

In a fiery article featured on Breitbart, John Nolte pens a loaded opinion piece, that comments on the recent developments in one of the infamous “wedding cake” episodes. Aaron and Melissa Klein have been not only unjustly fined for invoking their religious rights, but they have been ordered to remain silent after trying to speak up about the discrimination they have faced from the state, and from the proponents of “tolerance” - the same-sex marriage agenda:

ThinkstockPhotos-517523279A judge in Oregon has issued a gag order denying two Christian bakery owners from speaking out against same sex marriage.

“The Commissioner of the Bureau of Labor and Industries hereby orders [Aaron and Melissa Klein] to cease and desist from publishing, circulating, issuing or displaying, or causing to be published … any communication to the effect that any of the accommodations … will be refused, withheld from or denied to, or that any discrimination be made against, any person on account of their sexual orientation,” [Administrative Law Judge Alan] Avakian wrote.

The gag order is meant to stop Aaron and Melissa Klein from publicly speaking out about their desire to not bake cakes for same sex weddings. The State’s order came after the Kleins were interviewed by the Family Research Council’s Tony Perkins, and after the State fined the Kleins $135,000 for “emotional damages” incurred by a lesbian couple after the Kleins refused to bake their wedding cake.

Towards the end of the article, John Nolte gives a terse summary of how quickly religious rights and free speech have been eroded and slashed with the onset of the same-sex marriage movement. Consider their arguments through the years:

1995: We don’t want marriage, just civil unions.

2005: Our marriage won’t affect your rights.

2014: Bake me a cake, or else.

2015: Your opinion against same sex marriage is illegal.

The same-sex marriage agenda may believe they have scored a victory, but Americans don’t take being tread on lightly. We expect these types of attacks against American principles will awaken the silent majority to demand action protecting their rights.

Happy Independence Day

On this Independence Day, we celebrate:

The men and woman who sacrificed everything for Liberty.

Those who founded this nation upon the radical notion that our rights come not from a benevolent government, but are unalienable, granted us by the Creator.

Who recognize that the Creator endowed us with the institution of marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

And who understand that marriage has served a great public good, bringing men and women together to provide the ideal environment for any children born of their union.

And we are grateful for the tens of millions of Americans who, despite the grave error of our US Supreme Court in presuming that they have the power to redefine marriage, continue to revere the truth of marriage as serving a profound public good for families, children and society itself.

May God continue to bless our nation and remind us that his plan for marriage is perfect.


Brian S Brown

Bobby Jindal Knows Exactly What Marriage Is

While the Supreme Court’s recent decision regarding marriage exemplifies that the majority of the justices do not understand the cultural significance, biological requirements, or historical reasoning of marriage, Bobby Jindal assures everyone that he is not “evolving” on marriage:

Bobby-JindalGOP presidential candidate Bobby Jindal says he will not change his stance on marriage.

The Louisiana governor made that clear when he sat down for an interview with The Daily Signal earlier this year in Baton Rouge.

“My faith teaches me that marriage is between a man and a woman. I’m not changing,” Jindal says. “I know it’s politically fashionable to evolve. I’m not evolving and it doesn’t matter to me what the polls say…that is one of those issues that I’m not going to change on.”

Jindal has called the Supreme Court’s ruling legalizing gay marriage an “all-out assault against the religious freedom rights of Christians.”

While Jindal says his state will comply with the Supreme Court’s ruling on same-sex marriage, he has also stated that court clerks and state workers can’t be forced to support the ruling if they have religious objections.

Jindal says he will continue to push for a constitutional amendment that defines marriage between a man and a woman.

Original article and video can be found via The Daily Signal.

The Next Target in the Same-sex Marriage War

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Marriage Debate is Far From Over

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This article originally appeared on The Sacramento Bee.

We Must Fight On!

Dear Marriage Supporter,

Last week's US Supreme Court ruling on marriage is an illegitimate decision and a gross example of legislating from the bench!

Plain and simple, what the small majority (5/4) of the justices has done is simply invent a constitutional right to same-sex 'marriage' out of thin air, and invalidated the decision of over 50 million voters and their elected officials in the process. It is the worst exercise of judicial activism I've ever seen.

Justice John Roberts called it "an act of will, not legal judgment" and he properly compared it to other illegitimate Court decisions of history, specifically the Dred Scott decision that determined that African Americans were the mere property of their "masters."

But despite this terrible blow, we will fight on. We will not give up! And we will not accept this decision to be "the last word" about marriage in America.

We have a lot of work ahead to reverse this illegitimate decision, and we have a plan ready to launch. But we urgently need your financial help today to carry the fight forward. Please make an emergency contribution of $50, $100 or $500 or more.

Help Us Fight On

Not only has the Court's majority thrown the legal definition of marriage aside, they have put in the crosshairs every American that believes in the truth of marriage. We are already seeing examples of discrimination and possible persecution against those of us that believe in marriage as between one man and one woman. Justices Scalia, Alito and Thomas all worry aloud — rightly so — that it will not be long before cases will be brought involving punishment of people and groups by the government for not agreeing to go along with the new orthodoxy of marriage.

The Obama Administration can be expected to be at the forefront of this punishment and persecution as they become a tool of gay activists to crush any dissenting view of marriage. Already a top Obama lawyer has hinted that Christian schools and other nonprofit and charitable groups that refuse to go along might lose their tax-exempt status.

But it won't stop there. Soon, any lever of power the government can wield will be used to force compliance — whether that be the tax code, revocation of government contracts, new provisions in employment law, denial of access to services and benefits, etc. — whatever the federal government has at its disposal to force individuals and organizations to comply will be utilized.

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

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

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

But it is not enough to only pass FADA at the federal level; we must advance it in every state in the nation. Thus, our plan includes working with allies at the state level to support state-based versions of the First Amendment Defense Act. We will work to pass this legislation through state Legislatures, and we will look to put it on the ballot directly in many states.

We need your financial help for this cause. Will you consider making a gift of $100 today so that we can get started? Of course, it that is too much, please give what you are able. And if you can give more than that, it would be a great blessing.

Help Us Fight On

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

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

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

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

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


Brian S Brown

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

Donate Today

"SCOTUS is Not the Final Word on Marriage"

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

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

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

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

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

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