Monthly Archives: July 2014

Invest in Marriage. Invest in America.

National Organization for Marriage

Dear Marriage Supporter,

This week, our good friends at The Heritage Foundation released The 2014 Index of Culture and Opportunity, a research document that "tracks key social and economic indicators to determine whether important indicators of opportunity in America are on the right track [and] ... explores the factors that shape our capacity as a society to enjoy the blessings of liberty today and to pass them on to the next generation."

I recommend that you look this document up and read it at your earliest opportunity; especially the closing essay by David Azerrad and Ryan T. Anderson entitled "The Blessings of Liberty."

In this piece, Azerrad and Anderson identify "four broad pillars that together sustain our republic," which are:

  • A limited constitutional government;
  • A vibrant civil society with free markets;
  • Strong families; and
  • A culture that promotes virtue.

Azerrad and Anderson go on to describe how "[t]he family is the foundation of a strong society," explaining that

[t]o understand the centrality of the family, one need only see the host of problems that so often confront the children raised in homes without fathers, from lower graduation rates to greater incarceration rates. For those who are concerned about the vitality of the American Dream in the 21st century, strengthening the family ought to be an absolute priority. Far from being a tangential social or religious issue, the strength of the family is a crucial concern—both from an economic and political perspective—and deeply intertwined with the health of the country [emphasis added].

The strength of the family within society is so fundamental to the civic order, the authors conclude, that those who try to separate political and fiscal conservatism from so-called "social conservatism" are running a fool's errand:

As the American experience over the past 50 years has shown, limiting the size and scope of government is impossible without stable marriages and strong communities. When the family disintegrates, the government attempts to replace its vital functions, social welfare programs multiply and, as they grow, family and neighborhood bonds erode. A defense of marriage serves the ends of limited government more effectively, less intrusively, and at less cost than picking up the broken pieces of a shattered marriage culture. Fundamentally, then, social and economic conservatism are indivisible [emphasis added].

This is why I'm asking you today to recommit to NOM's mission to preserve and strengthen the value of family in America with a generous donation. Can you spare $50, $150, or even $500 to help us in this most vital work?

As Azerrad and Anderson write, "The stakes could not be higher. The robust ties that bind us together ultimately are the strength of our great nation." An investment in the preservation and promotion of marriage is an investment in the prosperity of our great nation, an investment in the future of America.

We hear so much about the amount of financial debt which we pass on from one generation to the next and how it may impoverish and undermine our children's and grandchildren's hopes to attain the American dream.

But what could be more impoverishing—what could be more damaging—to the next generation than a social order that doesn't recognize the value of marriage? A social order that devalues the unique and indispensable roles moms and dads play in their children's lives?

That is why the cause to protect, preserve, and promote marriage is the most crucial investment we can make for the future welfare of our country, and for future generations' happiness and prosperity. Will you invest generously today in our civilization's greatest asset—the family founded upon the union of husband and wife?

Like any investment, donating to the cause of marriage has its challenges, but it also has its rewards and returns.

It merits the satisfaction of knowing that we can tell our kids and grandkids that when the critical moment was upon us, we didn't stand idly by—rather, we did our part to preserve the ancient truth of marriage when it was most viciously attacked.

It earns us the right to say that we truly were on "the right side"—of history, of truth, of the promoting what is right and good.

It gives us the peace of mind of knowing that we weren't bullied into submission or intimidated into silent acquiescence—that instead we did what the great and noble Americans that came before us have always done: stood up and fought for what was right without counting the cost.

So, I ask you kindly to consider the value purchased by your generous investment in marriage which you can make with a donation to the National Organization for Marriage today. Your gift of $50, $150, or even $500 secures treasures that can't be counted.

Of course, we know also that the final repayment of fighting for a good cause is one which is even more incalculable. But we believe that repayment will be doled out, and in "good measure, pressed down, and shaken together, and running over."

Thank you, as always, for your generous support.


Brian S Brown

Brian S. Brown
National Organization for Marriage

Brian Brown

Video: How Ryan Anderson Responded to a Gay Man Who Wants to Redefine Marriage

The Daily Signal has highlighted two great videos of marriage champion Ryan Anderson.  In the first video, Anderson charitably responds to a gay man's questions about marriage. Anderson explained how redefining marriage ultimately makes marriage dissolve:

In the second video, Anderson discussed the differences in the law's interest in contracts and in marriage:


Polygamy the Key to Happy Relationships?

Readers of the NOM blog know that the push to redefine marriage has far-reaching consequences.  Redefining marriage renders the institution meaningless.  Once marriage is no longer the lifelong union of one man and one woman, there is no logical conclusion as to why three or four consenting adults can't "marry."  After all, if marriage is solely based on adults' emotions, why must it be limited to two people?  Why deny a "throuple" or "quartet" the right to "marriage equality"?Polygamy

A recent article in The Atlantic  profiled "polyamorous" couples who reject "mono-normativity."  Some of them have children who are aware of their polygamous relationships; others live together as "triads."

According to the featured polyamorists--who, by the way, were all interviewed using pseudonyms or their first names only--having different partners satisfies different needs and the more partners to whom they become close, the more fulfilled they are.

Leah Libresco, writing for The American Conservative, responded to some of the claims in this article, particularly the assumption that one's spouse or partner must fulfill 100 percent of expectations.  Libresco argues that expecting one's spouse to be "perfect" or fulfill unrealistic ideals is a destructive mindset with which to approach marriage:

Monogamy isn’t premised on the idea that one person can ever be everything to a partner. When a marriage fails to fulfill “the full smorgasbord” it’s not a sign that anything’s wrong. An expectation that a partner (or full set of them) is meant to be a perfect complement is destructive to romantic and platonic relationships.


If the friends of these marital perfectionists are rarely given the chance to excel, their spouses are only ever given the chance to fail. Expecting a romantic partner to be fully satisfactory doesn’t just damage existing marriages, it can preempt them. A person who assumes that their spouse should fit seamlessly into his or her life may pass up several good partners while waiting for the perfect one.

In the meantime, they’ll be missing out on the best part of marriage—the presence of a partner in the ongoing project of becoming better versions of yourself.

Self-sacrifice, as well as commitment to one's spouse and children, make marriages stronger--not polygamy or "polyamory."

National Organization for Marriage Condemns Virginia Court for Ignoring History, Reality and Rule of Law

Contact: Elizabeth Ray or Matille Thebolt (703-683-5004)

"It is a terrible abuse of power for a court to abandon the definition of marriage which has existed throughout the history of the Commonwealth of Virginia, was adopted by the people, and reflects in law the reality of what marriage is, the union of one man and one woman." — Brian Brown, NOM president —


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

"We are extremely disappointed, though not surprised, with today's ruling from the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals invalidating the definition of marriage in Virginia. It is a terrible abuse of power for a court to abandon the definition of marriage which has existed throughout the history of the Commonwealth of Virginia, was adopted by the people and reflects in law the reality of what marriage is, the union of one man and one woman.

"While we condemn the ruling of the majority, we are pleased with the strong dissent authored by Justice Paul Niemeyer who noted that the 'linguistic manipulation' of case law employed by the majority to create a 'fundamental right' to same-sex marriage will also result in 'the right of a father to marry his daughter and the right of any person to marry multiple partners.'

"Justice Niemeyer's dissent lays bare what the majority has done — they have invented a right to redefine marriage because two justices have substituted their views for the considered opinion of the General Assembly and the voters of the Commonwealth.

"We call on the state to appeal this decision to the US Supreme Court and to vigorously fight for the truth of marriage and the right of the people and the elected representatives of the state to define marriage in law consistent with what it is in reality — the union of one man and one woman."


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

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

You Don't Want to Miss This

National Organization for Marriage

Dear Marriage Supporter,

Our good friend Rick Santorum will be premiering a new feature documentary tonight at the Heritage Foundation. The film is called One Generation Away: The Erosion of Religious Liberty.

The film "goes to the front lines of the changing face of America's religious freedoms, discovering a series of dramatic shifts in how the First Amendment (and it's religious freedom clauses) is being applied across a broad spectrum of modern America."

I don't need to tell you how relevant and timely this documentary is!

If you're in the D.C. area this evening, I'd urge you to consider attending this exciting screening event. Here are the details:

Monday, July 28, 2014 ~ 5:30 to 8:00 p.m.

5:30 p.m. Reception ~ 6:30 p.m. Screening

The Heritage Foundation's Allison Auditorium
214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE | Washington, DC 20002

RSVP Online
News media inquiries, call (202) 675-1761

If you can't make it, be sure to stay tuned for news about this film and its wider release by visiting the movie website or by checking out the page on Facebook.

Many thanks to Senator Santorum's EchoLight Studios and the many others whose hard work has produced this timely and important documentary.


Brian S Brown

Brian S. Brown
National Organization for Marriage

Brian Brown

An Opportunity to Protect Conscience Rights

Last week at National Review, our friend Ryan Anderson presented four major problems with President Obama's new executive order on sexual orientation and gender identity.   The four biggest problems with the executive order, Anderson wrote, are:

1.) It undermines our nation's commitment to reasonable pluralism and reasonable diversity,

2.) It equates conscientious judgments about behavior,

3.) It does not contain a Bona Fide Occupational Qualification exemption, and

4.) It is unnecessary.

Anderson wrote:Ryan Anderson

All Americans should be free to contract with the government without penalty because of their reasonable beliefs about morally contentious issues. The federal government should not use the tax code and government contracting to reshape civil society about controversial moral issues that have nothing to do with the federal contract at stake.


Sexual orientation and gender identity are unclear, ambiguous terms. They can refer to voluntary behaviors as well as thoughts and inclinations, and it is reasonable for employers to make distinctions based on actions. By contrast, “race” and “sex” clearly refer to traits, and in the overwhelming majority of cases, these traits (unlike voluntary behaviors) do not affect fitness for any job.

A Bona Fide Occupational Qualification (BFOQ) exemption, Anderson wrote, "allow employers to make employment decisions so long as those decisions are honestly related to job qualifications."

For example, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act contains a BFOQ that allows employers to take sex into account: hiring a female camp counselor at an all-girls sleep-away summer camp, for example, which might otherwise seem to be “sex discrimination.”

This new executive order presents an opportunity for Congress to act to protect conscience rights and religious liberty, Anderson argued:

Policy should prohibit the government from discriminating against any individual or group, whether nonprofit or for-profit, based on their beliefs that marriage is the union of a man and woman or that sexual relations are reserved for marriage.  The government should be prohibited from discriminating against such groups or individuals in tax policy, employment, licensing, accreditation, or contracting. This is the policy approach proposed by the Marriage and Religious Freedom Act (H.R. 3133, S. 1808).

This is indeed the time for Congress to move to protect conscience rights and religious liberty.  The left is doubling down on their attacks on marriage supporters and religious liberty.  America is healthier and freer when the law tolerates a diverse array of opinions and religious beliefs.

6 Couples Married 50 Years Apiece Share Wisdom, Advice

More than 50 years ago, six Michigan couples married--and they have been friends ever since.  Each couple wed within weeks of the others back in 1963, meaning they have been married for a combined 300 years.  The couples have all remained friends over the years, participating first in each other's weddings and eventually each other's children's weddings.

This past Valentine's Day, the couples shared advice for others seeking lasting love:

Married Couple“You have to be able to joke about the bad times,” said Lorna Roka, 70, of St. Charles. She and Bob Roka, now 72, married June 15, 1963.


“After 50 years, you pretty much say what you want to say. It doesn’t matter,” said Tom Metiva, 73. "You have to remember four words: Yes, dear, you're right. I have a hard time saying all four of them together, sometimes."

Nikki Blakeslee, 70, said she and her husband Gary, 71, have found a way to laugh every day. They live in Hemlock and were the last friends to marry that year, on Nov. 30, 1963...

“It’s just a matter of give and take,” Nikki Blakeslee said. “We’ve kept each other probably on an even keel. It seems to have worked for 50 years.”

She echoed the same advice as the others.

“Gary and I laughed every day, and we never go to bed mad. We have had little major arguments in our lifetime,” she said.

“When one is mad, the other person tries to make them come out of it. We always try to have laughter in our day. We have a lot of things in common. We do things together that we love.”

Before the group's female friends married their now-husbands, some of them graduated from nursing school together in 1962.  The women played in a card club together for nearly 30 years.  Two of the men, Bob Roka and Jim Mueller, have been friends since elementary school.

In the 2010 U.S. Census, only six percent of couples had been married for 50 years or longer.  The story of these friends is stirring and advice from these faithful couples, now in their 70s, is certainly worth heeding!

Should Parents or Government Raise Children?

"There was of course no way of knowing whether you were being watched at any given moment. How often, or on what system, the Thought Police plugged in on any individual wire was guesswork. It was even conceivable that they watched everybody all the time. But at any rate they could plug in your wire whenever they wanted to. You had to live—did live, from habit that became instinct—in the assumption that every sound you made was overheard, and, except in darkness, every movement scrutinized." - George Orwell, 1984

Scottish parliament recently passed a bill that requires the state to appoint a "guardian" for every child in the country from birth until the age of 18.  This sinister and disturbing practice would expand the role of the state in an unprecedented way, chipping away at parental rights and opening the door for massive government intrusion into family life.Man-Woman-Child

The right of children to be raised by their parents--and the rights of parents to raise their children according to their values--is a basic human right.  When parents responsibly rear their children, families stay strong, thus limiting the power of the state.  A free society depends in part on strong marriages and families to bring up children in the most ideal setting.

A government "guardian" checking in on every child is tantamount to government surveillance of every family.  These "guardians" will have access to family records and will be required to report on the child's development and welfare.  They will also recommend household changes.

What if a government "guardian" disagrees with parents on how to best raise a child?  Will the government official be able to override the parents' decisions about the child's healthcare, education, and home life?  What if the government worker disagrees with parents' religious or political views, and thinks it's "unfair" or "bigoted" to raise a child in a religious environment?

If this bill and the threatening principles enshrined in it become law--which will happen unless pro-family activists stop it--it would open the door for state-sponsored surveillance on every family.  It would enable the Scottish government to tell parents how to raise their children, place children's best interests and parental rights at odds with the interests of the increasingly powerful state.

Of course, there are occasionally unfit or abusive parents from whom children must be protected.  But sound policy is not based on rare exceptions.  In almost every case, children do best when raised by married parents in a stable relationship, and the government has no right to interfere with this.

Parents, not the government, know what's best for their kids.

Southern Baptist Convention: Executive Order Violates Freedom of Conscience

SBCRussell Moore, president of The Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, has joined other faith leaders in raising concerns over the lack of religious liberty protections in President Obama's new executive order.

Moore said:

“While we don’t know the full implications of this executive order, I am disappointed that this administration persistently violates the freedom of conscience for religious organizations that provide necessary relief for the poor and endangered.  The same religious convictions that inspire their social action are the convictions now considered outside the new mainstream of sexual revolutionary fundamentalism. The ones hurt will be the most vulnerable in our society.”

This new executive order could result in Christians and those who belief in marriage as the union of a man and a woman facing reprisal and even punishment simply for expressing their views in the workplace.

They're At It Again

National Organization for Marriage

Dear Marriage Supporter,

I told you in this week's newsletter about the assault being waged by radical gay activists over the hiring by the New York Giants of former celebrated wide receiver David Tyree, because he has publicly expressed his belief in the Biblical values of marriage and family. (In fact, Tyree was featured in one of NOM's Marriage Anti-Defamation Alliance videos because of the earlier attacks he received as a result of these views.)

That's right—they're at it again. Just like with Brendan Eich of Mozilla, or Phil Robertson from Duck Dynasty, or the Benham brothers and HGTV—the radical gay activists who claim to be all about "tolerance" are on a frenzied witch-hunt and demanding that the Giants fire Tyree.

Marriage Supporter, it is unacceptable to think that in America a person could face the loss of his or her job simply for holding a personal belief about marriage and sexuality that happens to be identical to the beliefs of literally billions worldwide and throughout history!

Click here to join me in urging the New York Giants to defy these bullies and intolerant bigots and stand by their decision to hire Tyree—a decision, by the way, based on football and not politics, and in that respect a very wise and prudent decision!

Folks like you and I can't simply sit back and watch this eerily familiar situation unfold without speaking up. We cannot let this kind of thing become a trend. Tyree should be as free to voice his values as anyone else in our country without having to fear reprisals and discrimination.

So please sign this important petition right away!

And don't forget, when you're done taking action, to share this message with your friends and family and urge them to do the same. Use these buttons to forward the message via email or to share it on Facebook and Twitter:

Share This   Facebook This   Tweet This   Email This   Share on LinkedIn


Brian S Brown

Brian S. Brown
National Organization for Marriage

Brian Brown

Unsportsmanlike Conduct

National Organization for Marriage

Dear Marriage Supporter,

It has long been clear that same-sex marriage activists don't want a fair and even-sided debate. They don't want honest public discourse that hears both sides. They want instead the enforcement of double standards that work to bolster their own side while silencing any opposition.

To take one instance: the oft-repeated call to a standard of "live and let live" is not really meant to apply equally, to everyone. It isn't meant to apply to people of faith, or those who believe in traditional marriage. No, such people are supposed to be harassed and harried for their views at every opportunity. Their businesses should be targeted with nuisance lawsuits, and ultimately they should be forced out of public life altogether unless they wholly embrace the ideology of so-called "marriage equality."

Imagine a game—say a football game—where the sides were deliberately matched unevenly. A game with two sets of rules: one for them, and one for us, their opponents. A game fixed by the referees, with penalty flags thrown only against the "wrong" side.

That's the game the same-sex marriage lobby wants to play. And this week, the metaphor is particularly apt and relevant, because the activists and bullies have lately been trying to enforce their uneven rules and mismatched penalties on the structure of the NFL.

Picking the Winners and the Losers

Last Wednesday, the sports world celebrated the annual ESPY awards, a ceremony meant, according to Wikipedia, to honor "excellence in sports performance and achievements."

During the awards this year, Michael Sam—hailed as the first openly gay NFL player—was given the Arthur Ashe Award for courage in the face of adversity. But one wonders if the narrative of adversity Sam has faced is more fiction than fact.

The media was nearly univocal in its praise for Sam's "bravery" in announcing his sexual preferences before getting drafted, after all. Perhaps the "adversity" they had in mind was the challenge of scheduling his play with the team around the laudatory Oprah Winfrey Network documentary he's meant to star in?

The documentary had to be postponed, according to CBS Sports:

With the backlash that occurred when the new show was announced earlier this week, this shouldn't be a huge surprise. Particularly since it makes little sense for a seventh-round draft pick who has an uphill battle to make the team to continue on with a project that might alienate his employers and/or his colleagues.

The Rams apparently didn't know about the documentary before they drafted him with the No. 249 pick... Reportedly, some of his Sam's new teammates were upset about the plans for the show.

I'm sure some of the more imaginative gay activists would suggest all kinds of reasons why his teammates were upset; but it seems most probable that they simply didn't think having part-time jobs on the side represented a full commitment to a football organization.

In any case, Sam's reception of this award should be noted, because I'll be returning to the point later.

What is clear from the outset, though, is that Sam has been picked as a "winner" by the media and others—hailed as akin to Jackie Robinson for "breaking through a barrier" of animus and discrimination. He has been said to symbolize a turning point for the NFL. The world of football, we are now told, is a place of considerably greater tolerance and acceptance of diversity than what it was.

Well, tell that to David Tyree.

Tyree, once a celebrated wide receiver for the New York Giants, was featured in a Marriage Anti-Defamation Alliance video in June 2011 because of the backlash he received after expressing publicly his view that marriage is the union of a man and a woman—a view that stems from Tyree's deeply held religious convictions. Tyree is one of several players in the NFL who have been willing to step up and express such views in the public square.

This week, Tyree is in the news again, after having been named to a new position with the Giants organization. But what has been the reaction of those who most vocally celebrated the "new" culture of "tolerance" and "acceptance" in the NFL—such as the Human Rights Campaign? Here's what one HRC spokesman had to say:

His misinformed and dangerous statements put his judgment into question, on and off the field," said Fred Sainz, a spokesman for the HRC. "Why would the New York Giants organization want a guy like this working for them?

Don't waste too much time puzzling over how Tyree's belief in Biblical marriage "put[s] his judgment into question, on and off the field." I guess to people like Fred Sainz, the skill to run a successful screen pass is incumbent upon one's ability to ignore the unique and complementary assets husbands and wives bring to the enterprises of starting a family and raising children.

No, don't waste too much time thinking about it: because it's a ruse. It's a ploy by HRC to distract less attentive readers from the essential fact that when HRC preaches "tolerance," they're really talking about a one-way street of acceptance.

They're proffering a rulebook with two sets of guidelines: one for them, and one for everyone else. All views should be treated equally, says HRC—but some views should be treated more equally than others.

The bottom line is that Tyree has been picked as a "loser" because of his views, just as Sam has been picked as a "winner." Their performance on the field, it seems, is of less importance to all the football fans at HRC and in the media.

Raising the False (Penalty) Flag

Another NFL spotlight this week has focused on former Indianapolis Colts Coach Tony Dungy. Dungy was reported as saying about Michael Sam as a draft pick: "I wouldn't have taken him, not because I don't believe Michael Sam should have a chance to play, but I wouldn't want to deal with all of it."

Of course, cries of bigotry and persecution rang from the rooftops in response to that remark.

But what, after all, was Dungy really talking about? He said in a statement intended to clarify things that he meant Sam's sexual orientation could be an unwelcome "distraction." But that only caused an even greater uproar.

Since then, Dungy has said in a follow-up interview:

Well, gay marriage and who should be on a football team have nothing to do with each other... [On the Indianapolis Colts] [n]ot everybody... was a Christian. Not everybody believed what I did. Not everybody had the same views. To equate this to gay marriage to me, is really silly.

Yet that is precisely what people have sought to make it about, as silly as it is—and that's why I'm constrained to mention it here.

Because, you see, what has happened with Dungy is another example of the gross double-standard same-sex marriage activists want to apply to every aspect of public life.

Remember I said I'd return to the matter of Michael Sam's award last week? Well, consider things this way: Sam has been awarded a high honor in the NFL without having set foot on the field during a game of regulation play. He has also already faced an awkward scheduling difficulty because of a proposed documentary offer he accepted before committing to the NFL, which presented potential conflicts with his team obligations.

The point is that it is evident that Sam's orientation has already been a distraction from football. If you turned on ESPN over the last few days hoping for news of football, you would not have seen so much about pass completion statistics and running yard averages relevant to the upcoming season. You'd have seen instead a whole lot of talking about the drama of gay rights.

Is Tony Dungy a "bigot" for saying that he personally would rather not deal with any such and just do what he got into his career to do, which is win football games?

A Glimpse at the Playbook

Marriage Supporter, what is happening in the NFL is not an isolated phenomenon, but a sign of the larger cultural conflict of which NOM is on the front lines. This is why we need your help to continue the work that we do, and why I ask you so often to provide that assistance. Would you consider sparing a donation to NOM today?

Still not convinced about how wide-spread the effects of redefining marriage are becoming?

Consider a final case.

A New York Times columnist named Josh Barro on Wednesday tweeted the following:

Anti-LGBT attitudes are terrible for people in all sorts of communities. They linger and oppress, and we need to stamp them out, ruthlessly.

A minute later he followed up with a second tweet:

We don't even need to change everybody's mind. Making people too embarrassed to express their anti-gay views is valuable progress.

Needless to say, debate quickly erupted on Twitter. But Barro stuck with it, late that night issuing a tweet comparing social conservatives to segregationists in the 1970s!

Finally, on Thursday morning, the good folks at the Media Research Center's NewsBusters asked Barro a direct question; and his reply is illuminating:

NB: Honest question for @jbarro: should the 'traditional marriage' opinion be stamped out ruthlessly?

Barro: @newsbusters I think it should be rendered unsuitable for polite company, like advocacy of segregation.

Rarely do we see such open frankness from those who favor redefining marriage. Here, in plain terms, is the page from the playbook that HRC and others have been enacting in their harassment of David Tyree and Tony Dungy over the past week:

The goal is to make "traditional marriage," or the very mention of it, "unsuitable for polite company, like advocacy of segregation."

Well, Marriage Supporter, I call foul on that play. And I know you will, too.

So, I ask you to please continue standing with NOM and speaking up on behalf of marriage—regardless of how many elite intolerant bigots in the media find it to be "unsuitable for polite company." Because if their company is considered "polite," then I'd hate to see what impolite company looks like.

Meanwhile, NOM will continue running both a strong offense and defense, trying to advance back down the field toward our goal: a mom and a dad for every child, and a culture that recognizes the great and beautiful good of marriage between one man and one woman.


Brian S Brown

Brian S. Brown
National Organization for Marriage

Brian Brown

Catholic Bishops Slam "Unprecendented and Extreme" Executive Order

The bishop-Chairmen of two USCCB Committees slammed President Obama’s July 21 "gender identity" executive order for its lack of religious freedom protection and "flaws in its core prohibitions."  This new "non-discrimination" executive order, aimed at preventing workplace discrimination against LGBT persons, opens the door to discrimination against Christians and those with deeply-held beliefs about the nature of marriage and human sexuality.

Catholic BishopRe-iterating the Catholic Church's opposition to unjust discrimination and sexual conduct outside of marriage, the bishops outlined how this new executive order "implements discrimination" and why Catholics and people of goodwill should oppose it.

Archbishop William E. Lori of Baltimore, Chairman of the Ad Hoc Committee for Religious Liberty and Bishop Richard J. Malone of Buffalo, Chairman of the Committee on Laity, Marriage, Family Life and Youth said:

Today’s executive order is unprecedented and extreme and should be opposed.

In the name of forbidding discrimination, this order implements discrimination. With the stroke of a pen, it lends the economic power of the federal government to a deeply flawed understanding of human sexuality, to which faithful Catholics and many other people of faith will not assent. As a result, the order will exclude federal contractors precisely on the basis of their religious beliefs.

ObamaMore specifically, the Church strongly opposes both unjust discrimination against those who experience a homosexual inclination and sexual conduct outside of marriage, which is the union of one man and one woman. But the executive order, as it regards federal government contractors, ignores the inclination/conduct distinction in the undefined term “sexual orientation.” As a result, even contractors that disregard sexual inclination in employment face the possibility of exclusion from federal contracting if their employment policies or practices reflect religious or moral objections to extramarital sexual conduct.

The executive order prohibits “gender identity” discrimination, a prohibition that is previously unknown at the federal level, and that is predicated on the false idea that “gender” is nothing more than a social construct or psychological reality that can be chosen at variance from one’s biological sex. This is a problem not only of principle but of practice, as it will jeopardize the privacy and associational rights of both federal contractor employees and federal employees. For example, a biological male employee may be allowed to use the women’s restroom or locker room provided by the employer because the male employee identifies as a female.


"Victory for Pro-Life, Pro-Family Catholics and Other Christians"

From Aleteia, more on the recent marriage victory in Europe:

...the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) lowered the boom on European progressives. And, the wind was taken out of the sails of American liberalism.


FamilyMoreover, whereas U.S.-based agitators for same-sex marriage have pulled off their boldest accomplishments through the judicial usurpation of politics, the European high court has challenged that angle of approach. In its ruling, it declared that no member nation can be forced to accept same-sex marriage. At least at the European level, the question about the legalization of same-sex marriage must remain a democratic or political question.


The European court's claim flies in the face of pro-same-sex marriage legal arguments so often heard here in the U.S. Those arguments object that civil unions that are not converted to state-recognized marriages impose a second-class legal status on homosexuals. Europe's court disagreed.

Read the rest here.

Christian Post: "Traditional Marriage Group Calls for Boycott of JP Morgan Chase Over LGBT Survey"

The Christian Post recently reported on NOM's new VoidChase boycott of JP Morgan Chase Bank:

National Organization for Marriage announced its boycott of the financial company earlier this week due to a survey the company did of employees that many believe was meant to punish employees who disagree with pro-LGBT positions.nom_web_2014-07-16_chase_button

Joseph Grabowski, director of communications for NOM, told The Christian Post that the idea for the boycott came when "Chase asked its employees in their annual survey whether they were 'allies' of the LGBT community."

"The employees themselves broke this story to outside media sources because they recognized that this was no only an inappropriate question, but also that it created an unhealthy work environment," said Grabowski.

Imagine if your employer asked you a loaded question about whether you support the "LGBT community."  If you are someone who believes marriage is between a man and a woman, would you feel intimidated and threatened by such an intrusive question?  If you are someone who would rather not tell your employer your sexual orientation, would you feel harassed?

It's hard to believe that Chase Bank expects its employees to answer this scandalous survey--but they do.

The petition continues gaining momentum!  If you haven't already, sign it now!

Human Rights Court Says Europe Cannot Be Forced to Redefine Marriage

Amid their constant claims of victory and incessant harping on about the inevitability of same-sex "marriage," supporters of redefining marriage received a major setback recently.

The European Court of Human Rights ruled Wednesday that the refusal to recognize same-sex “marriages” does not violate the European Convention on Human Rights.

As reported by the National Catholic Register:

In a July 16 ruling, the human rights court explained that while “some Contracting States have extended marriage to same-sex partners,” European laws establishing the right of men and women to freely marry “cannot be construed as imposing an obligation on the Contracting States to grant access to marriage to same-sex couples."


the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights found that Finland’s refusal to recognize same-sex unions does not violate the European Convention on Human Rights.

While the convention establishes the ability “to marry and have a family” as a right, the court stated that the document cannot be interpreted as requiring marriage to be defined in a way that includes same-sex couples.

The European Convention on Human Rights, the court explained, “enshrines the traditional concept of marriage as being between a man and a woman.”

The court also noted that applicants cannot claim “that there exists any European consensus on allowing same-sex marriages,” given that only 10 member states of the European Union recognize such unions, and the majority of countries recognize marriage as a union between one man and one woman.

The push to redefine marriage is hardly making international progress.  The true definition of marriage enjoys broad support in many different countries.

Macedonia's parliament is considering a proposed constitutional amendment to protect marriage from being redefined.  Last year, the citizens of Croatia voted to preserve marriage.  Just earlier this week, the prime minister of the island nation of Dominica asserted that his country "will not accept" the redefinition of marriage.  The push for "gender-neutral" marriage in Finland has been halted.  And one million people flooded the streets of Paris in support of marriage.

This important victory in Europe demonstrates that although the battle to protect marriage is far from over, it certainly is not a hopeless cause, especially around the globe!

Copyright 2014