NOM BLOG

Monthly Archives: April 2014

Mark Harris: Marriage Champion

National Organization for Marriage

Dear Marriage Supporter,

I've told you that one of our strategic efforts this year is to try to win back the US Senate so pro-marriage and family legislation can move in Congress. With bills like the State Defense of Marriage Act waiting in the wings it is crucial that we send men and women to the Senate who will be champions for marriage and family.

Mark Harris is one of these champions in North Carolina and he needs you to carry him to victory in the GOP primary on May 6th.

Please be sure to vote and encourage your friends and family to cast their ballots for Mark Harris.

In every phase of his life, Mark Harris has served in leadership roles, including giving crucial leadership to the "Vote for Marriage NC" campaign of which he was a founding member. He believes marriage is between one man and one woman, and is an ardent proponent of traditional family values. Harris believes every human life is precious and should be protected. He believes that for America to be the "great city on a hill" that President Ronald Reagan spoke so passionately about, we must recommit to those values which made America great: the traditional values of faith and family. Mark Harris will not compromise on the issues of family values.

Further, Mark is also strong social and fiscal conservative. He is running for the U.S. Senate to bring common sense back to our government and restore people's faith in both the electoral process and the U.S. government.

The primary is just days away on May 6th and Mark Harris deserves your vote. Marriage needs champions like Mark Harris in the Senate, please be sure to get out and vote on May 6th.

Sincerely,

Brian S. Brown

Only 6 Hours Left!

National Organization for Marriage

Dear Marriage Supporter,

There are only a few hours remaining before the month ends so I'm sending you this quick note asking for your help in reaching our fundraising goal.

As always, I'm overwhelmed by the generous outpouring of support NOM has received in the past 12 hours; but we still need additional help to reach our $100,000 goal by midnight tonight.

The March for Marriage is an incredible opportunity that we MUST NOT waste!

If you haven't yet made a gift to support the March, please prayerfully consider investing right away in this noble and worthwhile event. And if you have recently donated, please consider making an additional gift to help us reach our goal.

Click here to make an immediate contribution of $50, $100, $500, $1,000 or more.

Thank you in advance for your support!

Faithfully,

Brian S. Brown

Only One Day Left!

National Organization for Marriage

Dear Marriage Supporter,

Today is the last day to help us reach our $100,000 fundraising goal for the 2014 March for Marriage.

It's the end of the month and bills are coming due. Contracts have been signed that require payment in advance for logistics, equipment, consumables, travel arrangements, and many, many more critical details.

We are still around $25,000 short of our $100,000 fundraising goal for this month — will you help us close the gap with an immediate and generous donation?

As you know, it's critically important that this March make a powerful statement. Right now, more than a dozen court cases are on their way to the Supreme Court and we have a chance to make our case that America still believes in marriage before the Justices next consider the issue!

As I mentioned yesterday, Justice Kennedy's strongly worded opinion about the sovereignty of the initiative process and rights of voters to enact social policy in the Michigan Affirmative-Action case is a very hopeful sign. So is the stay they issued earlier this year in the Utah case, halting the lower court's dictate that marriage licenses be issued immediately to Utah couples.

We still have a way to go to reach our goal of $100,000 before the close of the day, so please make a donation right away. If you haven't yet made a gift in support of the 2014 March for Marriage, please prayerfully consider investing right away in this noble and worthwhile endeavor. And if you have recently donated, please consider making an additional gift to help us reach our goal.

Follow this link to make an urgent donation of $50, $100, $500, $1,000 or more in support of the 2014 March for Marriage.

Marriage supporter, can I count on your help in this critical hour?

I'm asking you — regardless of the amount — to step up and make a gift in these final hours and help us make the 2014 March for Marriage an unparalleled success! Whether it is $5 or $5,000, if every one of us plays a part, we can make the case for marriage when it is in most need of a vibrant and energetic defense!

Faithfully,

Brian S. Brown

It's Not Too Late

National Organization for Marriage

Dear Marriage Supporter,

Some people are questioning why we are putting so many of our limited resources into our upcoming March for Marriage. The answers are many and varied, but all boil down to this: there's still time.

There's still time to make our case and preserve marriage in America.

The Supreme Court will likely take up the definition of marriage again next year as many of the cases throughout the country make their way through the legal system. And we must use this precious gift of time to let the justices on the Court — as well as the politicians, media elites and voting citizens — know that America still stands for marriage!

We've raised a good portion of the $100,000 we targeted before tomorrow, but we're still well short of our goal. Please click here right away to make an urgent, tax-deductible donation in support of the 2014 March for Marriage.

It's not too late to make the case for marriage, but now is the time to stand up. The American people have been the victims of a lie perpetrated by same-sex 'marriage' activists and the complicit mainstream media that this fight is over.

Polling correctly done (e.g. not framing the question as making same-sex relationships "illegal," which severely skews the results) shows that at worst, America is evenly divided on the issue. When polling is done of likely voters, the numbers in defense of marriage surpass those who prefer same-sex 'marriage.' And when looking at actual voting results rather than polls, the numbers trend even more to our side.

NOM's own exit polling after the 2012 elections showed that 60% of all voters who turned out to actually cast ballots — Democrat, Republican and Independent — supported the position that marriage should be the union of one man and one woman. And that number jumped to 80% of likely Republican and Republican-leaning Independent voters in a recent poll done by the Family Research Council and American Values.

And consider this: last week's Supreme Court decision regarding the Michigan Affirmative-Action case gives even more reason for optimism.

In authoring the majority opinion, Justice Anthony Kennedy strongly supported the initiative process and the sovereign right of voters to directly enact social policy the media and the elite consider to be "controversial."

In fact, several prominent reporters and commentators have noted that Kennedy's opinion in the affirmative action case could show the way to how the Court might rule when it takes up the definition of marriage. One went so far as to say that a reader could simply substitute the phase "traditional marriage" for "affirmative action" and you'd have a strong defense of the right of states and their voters to define marriage solely as the union of one man and one woman. Combined with the Court's unanimous decision to take the highly unusual step of issuing a stay in the Utah marriage case, and the rationale of the Windsor case last year, Justice Kennedy's language strongly suggests that the Supreme Court still believes the marriage debate is an open question that the states should decide for themselves.

Does that sound like the issue is already decided to you?

Won't you please stand with us by financially supporting the 2014 March for Marriage through a generous, tax-deductible donation today, and help us reach our $100,000 goal before the end of the day tomorrow?

Thank you, as always, for standing in defense of marriage.

Faithfully,

Brian S. Brown

Role Playing

National Organization for Marriage

Dear Marriage Supporter,

Sometimes, a married couple in trouble will seek counseling and be encouraged to "role play" during the session. They try to step into one another's shoes and see things from the angle and point of view of the other.

This can be a useful technique for improving understanding and communication in a relationship. But it also hints at a fundamentally important reality about families: moms and dads play distinctly different and important roles, and both are worthy of appreciation in the unique parts they play, in their marriage and in their relationships to their children.

This role playing wouldn't have any value if there wasn't anything distinguishing the two: they wouldn't have any cause to "step into the role of the other" if they were simply interchangeable.

However, one of the confusions that arises about marriage when it is redefined is precisely that it mashes together the roles of moms and dads into one indistinguishable and interchangeable idea.

But what the psychological tool of role playing shows us is that the role of motherhood and the role of fatherhood are not interchangeable, are not able to be collapsed into a mere formula of "parent one" and "parent two." Or, for that matter, "parent three"...

A Triple Threat

Yes, "parent three." That's the new normal being proposed by a "throuple" from Massachusetts.

Their names are Brynn, Doll, and Kitten, and The Daily Mail among other outlets picked up the story this week:

It was back in 2009 that Brynn first met Doll through an online dating site. Senior Software Designer and Engineer, Brynn had been married twice before to women and both experiences had made her acknowledge that monogamous relationships weren't for her.

Meanwhile Fashion Designer, Doll had known that she was polygamous since high school....

Brynn and Doll dated for eight months before moving in together. Two years later, they purchased a house together.

Having both enjoyed polygamous relationships before, Doll and Brynn looked for a third woman to join them. After a few failed liaisons, Doll and Brynn created an OKCupid couple's profile. Eventually, they received a message from Kitten.

... Kitten says: 'My second boyfriend and I had been together for several years but a few months before our wedding, he called the whole thing off without explanation. At first, I was distraught but now, I'm grateful for what he did.

'The whole break-up forced me to really think about who I was and I realised that I had not been honest to myself. On reflection, I realised that I hadn't been happy in my previous monogamous relationships and I discovered that I was poly.

'I set up an OKCupid profile for myself and began dating an awesome woman with the happy consent of her husband. They were a lovely couple but we ended the relationship after I had to move away.

'Soon after that amicable break-up, I came across Doll's and Kitten's OKCupid profile and saw they were looking for a third member to join their 'Super Hero Group'.

The article explains that, "While Brynn and Kitten are legally married, Doll is handfasted to both so the threesome are as equally married to each other as legally possible."

The arrangement was worked out with the help of "a specialist family lawyer ...[who] drafted the ceremony so that all three of them were obligated and bound to each other."

You see, three-party marriages aren't legal anywhere in the U.S. (yet), so the lawyer "drew up paperwork — in terms of assets, wills and legal rights to children — to bind them all together as much as they could without an actual three way marriage" [emphasis added].

That's right — "legal rights to children" — because, you see, the "throuple" are expecting their first child:

It was only three months after their beautiful wedding day that Kitten fell pregnant, after undergoing IVF treatment using a sperm donor. They hope to conceive using the same method with all of their future pregnancies.

Kitten says: 'The three of us have always wanted kids. Doll, Brynn and I are committed to each other and we wanted to grow our family.

'We decided that I would be the one to carry the babies because I am more than happy to become a full-time mum....'

The article goes on to say they hope to have three kids in total ("one for each of them"), all by anonymous sperm donation, but perhaps using donated eggs from the other two "moms" in cooperation with Kitten's surrogacy.

Talk about a society that doesn't understand the roles involved in making a family!

Here we will find three fathers absent altogether from the picture, unknown even to the woman bearing their children; three women each claiming motherhood over their three anticipated kids; and a lawyer who seems to have thought through all the details about the women's "right to children" but seems to know nothing of the rights of children — like children's right to a mom and a dad!

It's the same confusion about roles that pervades our whole society, at every level. Another example, becoming all too familiar, is the case of leaders who won't lead.

Standing Up for the Rights of Our Members

As you already know, this week NOM filed to intervene in a pair of pending legal cases in Oregon... because all of the parties named in the lawsuit have colluded to agree that Oregon's marriage laws are unconstitutional. This includes the state's Governor and Attorney General, who have decided not to represent the interests of the state in preserving its laws.

NOM's intervention is based on the fact that we have members in Oregon whose interest in the case deserves hearing in court. As I said in our press release on the matter:

As a membership organization, we speak on behalf of our members, including a County Clerk in the state, several professionals in the wedding industry, and voters. All of these individuals have a particularized interest in the outcome of the litigation, yet their interests are not being represented. We are working to protect the interests of our members who support true marriage against a collusive lawsuit that has the state joining with the plaintiffs against the interests of our members, and the state's voters.

But Oregon isn't the only place where those who should be leaders are out of touch with those they represent.

An article in POLITICO this week spoke about how "[l]ast week, the Nevada GOP removed opposition to same-sex marriage from its platform, with the state chairman saying the move was indicative of where the party is headed" [emphasis added].

Of course, the media was exuberant about this news and tried to make the chairman's views here a real story when in fact he is simply as wrong as he can be.

Gary Bauer from American Values put it this way in comments to POLITICO:

[Bauer] faulted a "misinformation campaign waged by media elites" and insisted that "public policy-makers are doing a great disservice to themselves and future generations by continuing to misread the convictions of the American people."

Bauer's confident remarks were bolstered by a poll conducted by American Values and Family Research Council, the results of which give the lie to the Nevada GOP chair's notion of "where the party is headed." Here's what the poll showed:

The survey by the GOP polling firm Wilson Research Strategies was of Republican and Republican-leaning independents and was taken over a month ago, sampling 801 people nationwide from March 18 through 20, with a 3.5 percent margin of error.

The survey showed 82 percent agreeing with a statement that marriage should be between "one man and one woman." It also found that 75 percent disagreed that "politicians should support the redefinition of marriage to include same-sex couples.

If you saw a group of ten people, and eight of them were going one way while two at the rear peeled off to pursue their own path, which way would you say the group was headed? With the eight, or with the two? Evidently, the Nevada GOP leadership has decided that the two wanderers are "the party" and that the eight moving in an agreed direction are irrelevant...

The article reports Bauer as saying that, "[the survey] should remind political and cultural leaders that this debate is far from over. If anything, it is taking on a new sense of urgency for millions of men and women of faith."

I couldn't agree more!

Leaders might be abandoning their roles to represent the views they're chosen to represent, or to defend them when challenged, but NOM and others are standing up to fill these abandoned roles.

And in society at large, more and more people are coming to realize that a society based on abandoned roles cannot stand, and so we need to put a stop to the chaos that has ensued.

We need to encourage society to reaffirm the values of fatherhood and motherhood, and not remain silent in the face of couples — and now "throuples" — who would rather make moms and dads mere accidental conveniences, who would make parenting a matter of mere whimsy and place "the right to children" before the rights of children.

One thing's for sure: those of us who believe in marriage and the great goods that it gives to society are not abandoning our posts. Thank you for standing with us in your own irreplaceable and valuable role as part of the NOM family!

Faithfully,

Brian S. Brown

Because No One Else Will

National Organization for Marriage

Dear Marriage Supporter,

I don't know if you have been following what has been going on in Oregon this week.

Gay marriage activists have brought suit seeking to overturn Oregon's duly enacted Constitutional Amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman. And, as has happened in so many other places recently, state officials — the Attorney General and the Governor — are abandoning their oaths of office and sworn duty to defend the state's laws.

But someone is stepping up where these officials have backed down: NOM. And I'm asking you to stand with us: please click here to make a generous, fully tax-deductible donation today!

In a hearing earlier this week, all participants — two sets of plaintiffs and two sets of defendants, including the Governor and the Attorney General — all argued that Oregon's marriage law served no rational purpose. Furthermore, the attorneys for the government announced that they could not even conceive of any argument in favor of marriage between one man and one woman.

This is collusion, pure and simple. What is occurring here is the plaintiffs are colluding with the government to get a pre-ordained result that fits with their political agenda notwithstanding the fact that the voters of Oregon voted overwhelmingly to define marriage as one man and one woman.

But just this past Monday, NOM filed in federal court seeking to intervene in this case to serve as a genuine adversary to the plaintiffs and the state, and to represent our members and the voters who firmly believe that marriage between one man and one woman serves the public interest.

We're very pleased that the judge has agreed to hear us out! On May 14th, we get to make our argument before the court! And we look forward to mounting a vigorous defense of traditional marriage, making the strong arguments in favor of marriage that no one else is willing to make in this case, and defending the right of the people of Oregon to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

Today I'm asking you to stand up with us against this rising tide of radicalism seeking to redefine marriage at any cost — liberty, free speech, democracy.

Won't you please make a tax-deductible donation right now of $35, $50, $100, $500 or more to help us finance this critical litigation?

As you know, right now NOM has many immediate cash needs. But this opportunity to defend marriage and our democracy is just too important to pass up. We must make the case — since the appropriate elected officials refuse — that marriage as the union of one man and one woman is good for children and good for society.

Faithfully,

Brian S. Brown

PS: There is nothing inevitable about the future of marriage in America. What happens will depend on what ordinary people like you and I do in its defense. The one thing we cannot abide is losing because the side of right gave up. We need champions for marriage to stand up and defend it — which is why NOM took action in Oregon this past week when no one else would. Won't you please stand with us today by making a generous, tax-deductible donation in support of our legal efforts?

National Organization for Marriage Comments on Oregon Case

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: April 24, 2014
Contact: Elizabeth Ray or Matille Thebolt (703-683-5004)


nom_logo

Washington, D.C. — The following statement may be attributed to John Eastman, Chairman of the National Organization for Marriage (NOM), Director of the Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence at the Claremont Institute and Professor of Law and former Dean at Chapman University School of Law:

"What is occurring in Oregon is the plaintiffs are colluding with the government to get a pre-ordained result that fits with their political agenda notwithstanding the fact that the voters of Oregon voted overwhelmingly to define marriage as one man and one woman. Judge Michael McShane held a hearing in Oregon yesterday where everybody participating--two sets of plaintiffs and two sets of Defendants, including the Governor and the Attorney General, all argued that Oregon's marriage law served no rational purpose. Attorneys for the government announced that they could not even conceive of any argument in favor of marriage between one man and one woman. The hearing highlighted in a profound way the importance to our adversary process of actually having adversaries. The National Organization for Marriage has asked to intervene in this case to serve as a genuine adversary to the plaintiffs and the state, and to represent our members and the voters who firmly believe that marriage between one man and one woman serves the public interest. We're very pleased with Judge McShane's order on Tuesday allowing briefing and argument on our motion to intervene. We look forward to the argument on May 14, and then to full participation in this important case thereafter. And we look forward to mounting a vigorous defense of traditional marriage and making the strong arguments in favor of marriage that no one made to the Judge yesterday."

###

To schedule an interview with John Eastman, chairman 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).

GOP Elites Out of Touch with Rank and File

A recent poll pushes back strongly against a recent 'wave' of mainstream media stories about how the GOP is supposedly abandoning its historical support for marriage between one man and one woman and that same-sex marriage is inevitable.

GOPMaggie Haberman of Politico writes that the survey of 801 Republicans and republican-leaning independents showed:

82 percent agreeing with a statement that marriage should be between “one man and one woman.” It also found 75 percent disagreed that “politicians should support the redefinition of marriage to include same-sex couples."

These results should send the same clear message to GOP leadership that NOM has been saying for years: “Marriage is a winning issue” with the rank-and-file republican base. They also echo the support NOM found for marriage after the 2012 elections in its own polling where 60 percent of voters indicated their support for marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Finally, it needs to be noted that in the four states that marriage was on the ballot in 2012, traditional marriage out-polled the Romney campaign by better than ten percentage points.

According to Haberman, “[Gary] Bauer, the president of American Values [one of the groups that commissioned the poll], faulted a “misinformation campaign waged by media elites” and insisted that “public policy-makers are doing a great disservice to themselves and future generations by continuing to misread the convictions of the American people … this survey should remind political and cultural leaders that this debate is far from over. If anything, it is taking on a new sense of urgency for millions of men and women of faith.”

Screen Shot 2014-04-24 at 1.57.52 PM

"They hope to show the world that polyfidelity is an acceptable choice of love."

"Polyfidelity."  No, unfortunately, it isn't a paradoxical movie title along the order of "True Lies."

It is a word being used to describe the relationship of the "throuple" - three 'married' lesbian women - from Massachusetts, in this article in The Daily MailOf course, the article's headline highlights a distinct piece of news about the group's relationship: they are presently expecting a child through one of the women's IVF conception by anonymous donor sperm. The three are named Brynn, Doll, and Kitten, and here's a snippet of their story [emphases added]:

PolyfidelityIt was back in 2009 that Brynn first met Doll through an online dating site. Senior Software Designer and Engineer, Brynn had been married twice before to women and both experiences had made her acknowledge that monogamous relationships weren't for her.

Meanwhile Fashion Designer, Doll had known that she was polygamous since high school....

Brynn and Doll dated for eight months before moving in together. Two years later, they purchased a house together. 

Having both enjoyed polygamous relationships before, Doll and Brynn looked for a third woman to join them. After a few failed liaisons, Doll and Brynn created an OKCupid couple's profile. Eventually, they received a message from Kitten. 

... Kitten says: 'My second boyfriend and I had been together for several years but a few months before our wedding, he called the whole thing off without explanation. At first, I was distraught but now, I'm grateful for what he did. 

'The whole break-up forced me to really think about who I was and I realised that I had not been honest to myself. On reflection, I realised that I hadn't been happy in my previous monogamous relationships and I discovered that I was poly.

'I set up an OKCupid profile for myself and began dating an awesome woman with the happy consent of her husband. They were a lovely couple but we ended the relationship after I had to move away. 

'Soon after that amicable break-up, I came across Doll's and Kitten's OKCupid profile and saw they were looking for a third member to join their 'Super Hero Group'.

You may recognize the name of the dating site, OKCupid, from the relatively recent news about Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich having been forced to step down following protests of his having contributed $1,000 to support Proposition 8.

OK Cupid

OKCupid was involved in leading the charge protesting Eich's appointment, and was positively hyperbolic in their exasperated moral outrage and indignation. OKCupid caused all Firefox users to see a screen during their protest that included this message:

Equality for gay relationships is personally important to many of us here at OkCupid. But it’s professionally important to the entire company. OkCupid is for creating love. Those who seek to deny love and instead enforce misery, shame, and frustration are our enemies, and we wish them nothing but failure.

At the time, OKCupid's word choice - mentioning "gay relationships" when speaking of "creating love," as opposed to mentioning gay couples - was careful and calculated: because they don't limit their mission to bringing couples together, but all manner of relationships. In this one story alone, the site is credited with facilitating two separate poly-amorous relationships.

That's  just one part of what makes this article so important:

It isn't just that these sorts of relationships are going to become more and more common as the norms of marriage are dismantled by the radicals out to redefine that sacred institution.

It isn't just that the calls for legal redefinition to include unions of 3 or more people will inevitably increase in the wake of same-sex 'marriage.'

Rather, we should note the irony and the telling fact that the company that posted such angry words and reacted so indignantly to Brendan Eich is a company that is so far out of touch with most Americans values that it facilitates bringing married couples together with random strangers for romantic and sexual trysts.

Of course, a final important point worth reflecting on in light of this article is the matter of the welfare of children. One wonders, for example, what confusion might attend the future children of these women, at least two of whom admit to having been serial polygamists - and who plan to have three kids, probably all by IVF and anonymous sperm donation. That's three kids, each with 'three mothers' - and each denied his or her fundamental and basic human right to the love of both a mom and a dad.

Are we content to go quietly down a road of legal reconstruction that will one day attempt to tell us that there is no difference between being raised in such an environment and being raised by one's own biological parents - that even to suggest as much is the equivalent of bigotry and hate-speech? After all, what logically stands in the way? If fatherhood is unimportant, and two moms can serve just as well, then wouldn't it follow that three moms is even better?

If There Was Any Doubt...

National Organization for Marriage

Dear Marriage Supporter,

I've written to you before about how Congressional candidate Carl DeMaio is running as a "reformer" in his Republican primary race. DeMaio's idea of reform? Support for same-sex 'marriage,' abortion, gun control and marijuana.

Does that sound like the kind of reform that America needs? No, I don't think so either.

Not only is DeMaio advocating these radical positions on issues, he doing so as a so-called Republican candidate. And incredibly, his candidacy is being pushed by some GOP leaders in Washington and the lobbyists, PACs and corporate interests who profit handsomely from the Washington scene.

Why would Washington insiders and power brokers push a guy like Carl DeMaio who seems so out of touch with traditional Republican values? Because in DeMaio they see someone they can put on display on the cable TV shows as "evidence" of how "tolerant" and "diverse" the party has become. And in DeMaio they have someone who will be seen by the media as "proof" that the GOP no longer will accept social conservatives who support issues like life and marriage.

You see, Carl DeMaio is gay, and a homosexual activist. His first campaign television commercial featured him with his male partner at the San Diego Gay Pride parade.

It would be bad enough if all DeMaio was in Congress was a symbol, someone who put himself out as a role model to young people about what a "new" Republican looks like and believes.

But Carl DeMaio is going to be much more than a misguided role model for young people. He's going to be a determined activist who will rip traditional values from the Republican Party and push GOP leaders to completely and permanently abandon social issues.

DeMaio's latest campaign finance report shows that he's raised nearly $1.5 million, a lot of it from Washington insiders and gay activists. Among his key supporters is Ken Mehlman, who has donated thousands to his race.

Does the name Ken Mehlman ring a bell? He's George Bush's former campaign manager who also served as Bush's White House political director and the former Chairman of the Republican National Committee. Mehlman is gay and, like Carl DeMaio, wants to impose same-sex 'marriage' on the nation. Mehlman was instrumental in raising the funds that fueled the push to redefine marriage in New York, a huge coup for gay 'marriage' activists that generated international media attention and gave our opponents a great deal of momentum.

Mehlman has since been a key person in mobilizing the corporate community and Republican officials like Jon Huntsman and Meg Whitman to endorse gay 'marriage.' He even filed a brief with the US Supreme Court in the Proposition 8 case and told a reporter he hoped the Republican members of the Court would see that "conservatives" support gay 'marriage.' A majority of the Court — tragically including Chief Justice John Roberts (appointed to the bench by George Bush) — went on to issue a ruling that let stand a lower court ruling invalidating Proposition 8.

If Ken Mehlman is supporting Carl DeMaio, you can count on DeMaio becoming another tool in his arsenal to redefine marriage.

We can't let that happen. Fortunately, there's a true conservative running against Carl DeMaio who stands a chance of upsetting DeMaio in the upcoming primary election.

Kirk Jorgensen is a highly-decorated former Marine officer who served tours of duty in both Iraq and Afghanistan where he led human intelligence, counterintelligence and force protection missions to thwart terrorism, espionage and sabotage against the United States and allied forces.

But Kirk Jorgensen is more than a military hero. He's a loving husband and a devoted father who will be a champion for all the issues we care about, especially preserving marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

Will you please join me in supporting Kirk Jorgensen in his race against Carl DeMaio and activists like Ken Mehlman who want to redefine marriage? You can click here to donate to the Jorgensen campaign through NOM partner, ActRight.com.

I'm not going to kid you — Kirk Jorgensen is an underdog fighting the Washington machine that is backing Carl DeMaio. Still, Kirk has raised nearly $250,000 and if we all band together to support him we can make this a real race.

But he needs each of us — you and me — to make a sacrificial gift right away so that he has the funds needed to expose the DeMaio agenda that will destroy the Republican Party and unalterably damage America. Will you help us?

There's less than seven weeks left before the primary election when Jorgensen and DeMaio will face off. Please do everything you can today to help stop gay activists like Ken Mehlman and his buddies in corporate America and Washington special interest groups from electing candidates like Carl DeMaio who will work to redefine marriage and push the GOP away from supporting social issues. Time is short; please give today.

Faithfully,

Brian S. Brown

Why We March!

National Organization for Marriage

Dear Marriage Supporter,

In response to last week’s appeal, over 100 of you donated more than $10,000! Thank you so much to each and every one for your generosity. But we still have a long way to go to reach our goal of $100,000 by the end of the month.

If you haven't donated to support the 2014 March for Marriage, won't you please do so today by clicking here and making a generous, tax-deductible donation of $35, $50, $100, $500 or more?

Why are we going through the incredible effort to put this event together? For many reasons, but here are three of the primary ones:

  1. The Supreme Court failed last summer to make a decisive ruling about the definition of marriage, instead referring the question (as it always has been handled) back to the states. Nonetheless, Federal Courts are egregiously misapplying that ruling to overturn state marriage amendments all over the country. This may be the last chance we have to make a powerful statement before the Supreme Court again takes up the issue next year!

  2. People need to know that the fight isn't over...indeed it's just beginning! The myth that “same-sex marriage is inevitable” is used by radicals and elites who want to redefine marriage in an attempt to cow the American people into giving up this critical battle. Polling (correctly done and unbiased) shows at worst a 50-50 split across the country — and that's not factoring in just voters, who lean more heavily toward defending marriage. We cannot concede victory without a fight!

  3. No matter what happens in the future at the Supreme Court, marriage is a tremendous good for society and must be defended. The March for Marriage is a starting point for building a movement that will be around for a long time, to meet whatever challenges the future may bring to this most important institution.

Right now NOM has immediate cash needs to support our vitally important March for Marriage.

We've already invested a lot of time and money into the development of our new March for Marriage website (www.marriagemarch.org) and producing the myriad of materials on the site for the March's promotion.

Now, we are in the midst of negotiating contracts that require substantial down payments — for the many, many logistical details entailed in organizing an event for thousands upon thousands of people.

Won't you please support the 2014 March for Marriage with a generous, fully tax-deductible contribution to help us make this historic event a tremendous success?

Faithfully,

Brian S. Brown

PS: Bills are coming due right now for the March for Marriage, and we need to raise $100,000 by the end of the month to pay them. We're going "all in" on this March because it's vitally important that we rally the American people in defense of marriage at a time when it's at a tipping point — one that we could tip in our favor as the Supreme Court and decision makers across the nation consider the future of marriage. Won't you help us out today by making a generous, tax-deductible donation?

National Organization for Marriage Files Motion Seeking to Intervene in Oregon Marriage Case

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: April 21, 2014
Contact: Elizabeth Ray or Matille Thebolt (703-683-5004)


"We are acting to protect the interests of our members in Oregon who support traditional marriage, including government officials, voters and those in the wedding industry, who will be directly impacted by this collusive lawsuit which the state has refused to defend." — Brian Brown, NOM president —

nom_logo

Washington, D.C. — The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) said it will file a motion in federal court later today seeking to intervene in the case challenging the constitutionality of the 2004 state ballot measure that defined marriage as the union of one man and one woman. NOM seeks to protect the interests of its members in Oregon which include a County Clerk, professionals in the wedding industry and voters who supported the 2004 amendment to the state constitution. The group said the intervention filing became necessary when the state Attorney General refused to mount a defense of the amendment, a situation that creates a "collusive" lawsuit where the public's interests are unrepresented.

"Marriage in Oregon is worthy of defense, yet the Attorney General has abandoned her duty to defend the marriage state constitutional amendment enacted overwhelmingly in 2004 and in effect has switched sides," said Brian Brown, president of NOM. "As a membership organization, we speak on behalf of our members, including a County Clerk in the state, several professionals in the wedding industry, and voters. All of these individuals have a particularized interest in the outcome of the litigation, yet their interests are not being represented. We are working to protect the interests of our members who support true marriage against a collusive lawsuit that has the state joining with the plaintiffs against the interests of our members, and the state's voters."

The challenge to Measure 36, the state constitutional amendment defining marriage, is currently scheduled for oral argument in federal district court in Eugene on Wednesday, April 23rd.

NOM's lead legal counsel — its chairman John Eastman — will tell the federal court in the filing today that NOM's members in Oregon include a county clerk who must perform marriages and certify them, professionals in the wedding industry, and voters who cannot defend their interests in upholding the law themselves due to legitimate fear of reprisal.

"It is precisely for this reason that federal law has a strong premise that organizations like NOM should be able to intervene to defend the interests of their members who cannot adequately defend those interests themselves," said John Eastman, NOM's Chairman and Director of the Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence at The Claremont Institute. Eastman, a noted constitutional law scholar and former clerk to US Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, added that, "even the simple fact of having to publicly identify themselves as supporters of traditional marriage would subject them to reprisals. This is obvious and well-documented from what's occurred to businesses in Oregon and elsewhere."

In 2009, the Heritage Foundation published a report, "The Price of Prop 8," detailing numerous examples of harassment, boycotts and other threats against supporters of the 2008 constitutional amendment in California, nearly identical to Oregon's amendment, defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Since then many further examples have been widely reported, including an Oregon baker whose business has effectively been shuttered, and most recently a woman whose new natural food business is being boycotted over her support for true marriage.

Eastman also said that news reports over the weekend that Judge Michael McShane is in a long-term relationship with another man and that the two are raising a child together raise serious ethical questions about whether the judge should continue to hear the case.

"These recent news reports suggest that Judge McShane is in the same position as the two gay men challenging the marriage amendment, raising troubling questions about his impartiality," Eastman said. "But regardless of what judge eventually hears this matter, it is wrong that a challenge to Oregon's marriage law would proceed in federal court with no meaningful defense of the constitutional amendment adopted overwhelmingly by voters. Their interests, and the particular interests of those involved in performing or celebrating wedding ceremonies deserve a defense. If our motion to intervene is granted, we intend to fully and aggressively defend the state constitutional amendment."

###

To schedule an interview with Brian Brown, President of the National Organization for Marriage, or John Eastman, chairman 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).

Haven't You Had Enough?

National Organization for Marriage

Thursday, April 17, 2014

Dear Marriage Supporter,

Can you envision a future in which your support of marriage deprives you of your job...of your business...of your liberty?

I can. Because, quite frankly, we're already seeing it...all over the country!

Mozilla's forcing CEO Brendan Eich to resign over a political contribution he made six years ago certainly brings to the fore the need to stand up to these bullies.

So, what can be done about it? Many things — but it all boils down to this: mobilize the American people to defend God's truth about marriage and stand up to the radical extremists that want to redefine marriage, marginalize its supporters and stifle free speech and the democratic process!

That's why NOM has decided to move forward with our second (and annual) March for Marriage. We must show that we will not be intimidated by the thought-police-bullies intent on silencing us so they can push their agenda down America's throat!

We are in the midst of intense preparations for the March, taking place this June 19th. We are securing permits, organizing logistics, signing contracts, making arrangements with speakers...all of which constitute large up-front costs.

And that's why we're launching a campaign to raise $100,000 by the end of April to support this essential initiative.

Won't you please join us today by making a generous, tax-deductible donation of $35, $50, $100, $500 or more to support the 2014 March for Marriage?

The intolerance of Mozilla towards Brendan Eich is only part of a pattern.

This past weekend, New York City Councilman Daniel Dromm reacted to news that Chick-fil-A wanted to open a store in the City by saying, "We don't need bigots coming to New York City. They are not welcome here unless they can embrace all of New York's diverse community, including the LGBT community....We don't need bigoted people even keeping their opinions to themselves....They need to wake up and see reality." (Emphasis Added)

Translation: There is no room in Councilman Dromm's view of New York City for anyone who believes that marriage is the union of one man and one woman —even if that person remains quiet on the topic. They should just leave.

This vicious attack on Chick-fil-A resulted from the company's CEO, Dan Cathy, stating his belief in marriage as the union of one man and one woman in 2012, saying, "We know that it might not be popular with everyone, but we thank the Lord we live in a country where we can share our values and operate on biblical principles."

Do we, though? Cathy's comments at the time drew the ire of mayors in San Francisco, Chicago and Boston, (and now this Councilman in New York) who vowed to block the franchise from opening new locations in their cities. Is that freedom?

It most certainly is NOT! And that's why you and I have to stand up and shout from the rooftops: I will not be intimidated. I will not be silenced. Marriage is beautiful and good and I will defend it!

Won't you join with us today by making a generous, fully tax-deductible contribution in support of the 2014 March for Marriage to help us bring many thousands of marriage supporters to Washington DC so we can amplify your voice and make sure it's heard resoundingly throughout the country?

Please join us today in making a statement in defense of marriage, of free speech and of our very democratic process by financially investing in the 2014 March for Marriage.

Faithfully,

Brian S. Brown

NYC No Place for You or Me

National Organization for Marriage

Dear Marriage Supporter,

"Stay out of New York City."

That is effectively the message that a City Councilman named Daniel Dromm has sent to you, me, and millions of pro-marriage Americans — including the millions who already live in the city that never sleeps. And none of us, least of all New Yorkers, can allow ourselves to remain silent about it.

Dromm sent his message by way of remarks to the Huffington Post, when he said of anyone who believes in marriage as the union of one man and one woman:

We don't need bigots coming to New York City. They are not welcome here unless they can embrace all of New York's diverse community, including the LGBT community. [...] We don't need bigoted people even keeping their opinions to themselves. They need to wake up and see reality.

"Not welcome here." Yes, you read that right. An individual's own privately-held beliefs, if they conflict with Mr. Drumm's radical new orthodoxy, even if those beliefs are never publicly expressed, make that person guilty of a "thought-crime" and label him or her a "bigot" that doesn't belong in the Big Apple!

What spurred Dromm's remarks? The announcement that Chick-fil-A had plans to expand its operations into New York City. Dromm is one of those intolerant few who still cling bitterly to a misremembered moment in 2012 when Chick-fil-A CEO Dan Cathy was reported in the press expressing his personal belief that marriage is the union of a man and a woman.

In Dromm's and others' imaginations, this meant that Chick-fil-A was an "anti-gay company" and that Cathy and the many thousands who work for him deserve punishment. You may remember how, at the time, several cities mayors and councilmembers said that Chick-fil-A was unwelcome in their jurisdictions. But Dromm's recent remarks go even further: he's effectively said that anyone who believes in marriage, regardless of how privately they hold these beliefs, is a "bigot" who doesn't belong!

I shudder to think I've lived to see the day when a public official in our great nation can make such an outrageously intolerant statement and not be taken to task in every quarter for such an un-American and uncivil position. These remarks should have stirred public outcry and a flurry of media attention: but instead we hear deafening silence from the media, which is tantamount to a tacit approval.

What does this say about our media culture? When Brendan Eich was appointed as the new CEO of Mozilla, and it came to light that years before he had given a donation to Proposition 8, a few activists on Twitter expressed disapproval. But the media eagerly leapt to the task of fanning that flame and ignited a true firestorm in the press that eventually ended with Eich's being forced to step down from his position.

But when the shoe is on the other foot, we don't hear a peep from the press. Where is the national outcry over the news coming last week from Portland, Oregon, about Chauncy Childs and the new business she's trying to start?

You haven't heard of her? I'm not surprised. That's because she's not a gay activist. She's not a radical leftist trying to redefine marriage and family to suit her own personal desires. Instead, she's a pro-marriage individual who posted on her private Facebook page some expressions of her beliefs.

So you probably haven't heard how gay activists are trying to force her business closed before it even opens its doors. They've even been posting lists of vendors that trade with her small shop, Moreland Farmers Pantry, and calling for a boycott of those other businesses until they sever ties with Mrs. Childs. One local restaurant owner, a man who actually supports same-sex ‘marriage,' spoke up against the bullying targeted at Mrs. Childs — and now his restaurant has been targeted by a separate boycott!

Is this the environment we want to pass on to our children and grandchildren? An environment where belief in marriage as God designed it is made into a "thought crime" and the sole criterion by which one can be excluded from a company position, a business relationship, or even a whole city community?

Of course not. Absolutely not. But the culture isn't going to turn around on its own. We need to stand up and speak out.

Here's what you can do.

So here's what you can do today to respond to these latest outrages waged against people like you and me who believe in marriage as the union of a man and a woman.

If you live in New York, send a strong message to the City Council that Mr. Dromm's remarks should be condemned, and the City should apologize to the millions of New Yorkers that have been insulted and hurt by this display of gross intolerance.

For those of us who do not live in New York, we can make our voices heard with this summer's March for Marriage on June 19th. We are working hard to make sure we bring as many people to the Capitol as possible, to show that a groundswell of support still exists in our country for the values you and I believe in.

But of course, the March requires a great deal of resources and planning, and we can use your help. Please consider making a gift to the March for Marriage today and help us to spread the word about this event which comes at such a critical time in the public debate over marriage.

We need to show the radical activists out to redefine marriage that their tactics of intimidation and bullying won't work — that they aren't going to silence us or crowd us out of the public square. On the contrary, we're going to take to the public square even more literally, marching in the streets of our capitol against their brash attempts to curtail our rights of free speech, free assembly, and free exercise.

Thank you for standing — and Marching — with us!

Faithfully,

Brian S. Brown

National Organization for Marriage Condemns New York City Councilman’s “Outrageous, Intolerant” Remarks, Demands an Apology and Retraction from Entire Council

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


"What Councilman Dromm has effectively said here is that anyone who believes in marriage as the union of a man and a woman is unwelcome in New York City. Mr. Dromm has alienated and insulted millions of New Yorkers." — Brian Brown, NOM president —

nom_logo

Washington, D.C. — The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) issued a strong condemnation of recently reported remarks by New York City Councilman Daniel Dromm which the organization characterized as "outrageous and intolerant." The organization called upon Dromm to apologize for his words, and for the City Council to condemn the remarks and clarify that they do not reflect the City's values and views.

Dromm's remarks, reported in an April 9th article on The Huffington Post, were in response to the announcement by Chick-fil-A of the company's plans to expand operations into New York City. Dromm was reported as saying, "We don't need bigots coming to New York City. They are not welcome here unless they can embrace all of New York's diverse community, including the LGBT community. […] We don't need bigoted people even keeping their opinions to themselves. They need to wake up and see reality."

Brian Brown, NOM's President responded to the comments with condemnation. "These remarks are outrageous and intolerant, and sadly seem to be part of a trend developing in the public debate surrounding this issue," Brown said. "When Dan Cathy's pro-marriage views were first reported in 2012, we saw mayors and city councils saying similar things—it was a disgraceful circus then, and it is now."

But Brown said that Dromm's remarks go even further than previous attempts to punish Chick-fil-A for its CEO's personal views.

"What Dromm has effectively said here is that anyone who believes in marriage as the union of a man and a woman is unwelcome in New York City," Brown noted. "His remarks, coming amidst a climate of such unseemly attacks on pro-marriage people as we saw with the Mozilla controversy last week, simply reinforce a growing manifestation of hostility and intimidation in the public square toward folks with traditional values. Christians and others are now, it seems, going to be considered guilty of 'thought-crimes' and threatened with all manner of reprisals simply for holding their beliefs."

Brown called on the City Council to condemn Dromm's statements and to issue a formal apology to New Yorkers: "Mr. Dromm has alienated and insulted millions of New Yorkers and made them feel like they don't belong in their own home city. The Council should correct this and extend an apology immediately and undo the hurt and wrong that's been done."

###

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).

Copyright 2014