NOM BLOG

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).

Did This Councilman Really Just Tell Millions of New Yorkers They're Unwelcome There? Yes. Yes He Did.

We've shared with you before this insightful article by Ryan Anderson at Heritage about the recent resignation of Brendan Eich from Mozilla. In it, Ryan remarked:

The debate over the meaning and purpose of marriage will continue. We should conduct it in a civil manner. Bullies may win for a while, but theirs is a scorched-earth policy. They poison democratic discourse and fray the bonds on which democracy itself ultimately depends.

Even those who disagree with each other about morally charged issues of public policy need to be able to live together.

Councilman Daniel DrommBut lest we think that Eich's ouster is an outlier, a rare case, consider this more recent news out of New York City. Via the Huffington Post, a gay city councilman is quoted as protesting the entrance of an unwanted new presence into his city. From his remarks here, who might you guess he's talking about?

"We don’t need bigots coming to New York City," Councilman Daniel Dromm, who is openly gay, told HuffPost. "They are not welcome here unless they can embrace all of New York's diverse community, including the LGBT community."

What radical group could provoke such a fiery response and merit being slurred as "bigots", you ask? Well, unbelievable as it may seem... Chick-fil-A. And yet the company hardly seems like it should be so unwelcome to a sane observer.

Of course, the reason for Dromm's intolerance of the company is that its CEO personally values biblical beliefs about marriage as solely being the union of one man and one woman.

Chick-fil-A, NYC

But what's most horrifying in Dromm's remarks is his final say on the matter. You would think that maybe his first statement of unwelcomeness was a knee-jerk and misinformed reaction. What if he were told that Chick-fil-A's CEO has repeatedly said that he has no intention of bringing the company into the political debate surrounding the issue of marriage?

From HuffPost [emphasis added]:

... Dromm, the city councilman, said there was no place for Chick-fil-A in New York, even if it remains out of the political fray.

“We don’t need bigoted people even keeping their opinions to themselves,” he said. “They need to wake up and see reality.”

Not only is the sleight of "bigot," directed toward those who hold marriage to be the union of a man and a woman, completely unfair, mean-spirited, and wide of the mark. More than that: here we have the most compelling proof one could want of Ryan Anderson's assertion that the gay rights community is engaged in a "scorched earth" policy of bigotry and intolerance.

It is a "thought policy" regime in the making, and if anyone thinks a lesson was learned with the Mozilla controversy, he or she needs only consider this later story to realize that Eich's treatment was only a template for the radical homosexual lobby's plans for the future. For now, it's chilling enough to know that an elected city councilman in New York has just told millions of his fellow residents that they are unwelcome there simply on account of their pro-marriage values.

They're Lying Again.

National Organization for Marriage

Dear Marriage Supporter,

The Mozilla controversy continues to draw commentary and attention around the web and throughout the media. Predictably, all this activity calls for setting the record straight on some points of misinformation, just as the always-stilted media narrative demands balance from the voices that you won't see on the late night talk shows.

The Devil is in the (Misremembered) Details

At Slate last Friday, columnist Mark Joseph Stern — who "covers science, the law, and LGBTQ issues" — writes about Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich's resignation and the Proposition 8 campaign, in an article that undoubtedly deals with LGBTQ issues but seems uninformed by science and misinformed about the law. The article is also fast and loose with the facts about the campaign to which Mr. Eich donated $1,000.00 in 2008.

Stern's piece — entitled "Just a Reminder: The Campaign for Prop 8 Was Unprecedentedly Cruel" — bears this central thesis:

[I]t's easy to forget the vicious tactics of the pro-Prop 8 campaign. Or, I should say, it's easy to forget them if you're not gay — because almost every gay person I know remembers the passage of Prop 8 as the most traumatic and degrading anti-gay event in recent American history.

The tactics used by pro-Prop 8 campaigners were not merely homophobic. They were laser-focused to exploit Californians' deepest and most irrational fears about gay people, indoctrinating an entire state with cruelly anti-gay propaganda.

Stern supports this thesis with four clips from advertisements supposedly run by the campaign to pass Prop. 8, charging ahead to the conclusion that "The campaign's strategy was to debase gay families as deviant and unhealthy while insinuating that gay people are engaged in a full-scale campaign to convert children to their cause. This strategy worked."

But is this conclusion valid? Is the evidence admissible? Or is Mr. Stern engaged in his own underhanded campaign to mischaracterize and misrepresent historical facts?

Frank Schubert, NOM's National Political Director, had the following to say about Stern's piece — and you'll notice from his first sentence that he speaks as one very qualified to address the matter:

I managed the Yes on Proposition 8 campaign and am intimately familiar with the advertising. With the exception of the ad featuring the Pepperdine professor, all the other examples cited by [Mr. Stern] as Prop 8 ads are in fact NOT Prop 8 ads. They were not produced by the campaign, the campaign had nothing to do with them and they never aired on television. They were produced by various individuals on their own and were videos that they distributed with no involvement from the campaign. This is a normal thing in any major campaign like Prop 8. Certainly President Obama cannot be held accountable for the content of independent videos that were produced by individual supporters of his election, and the same holds true for our campaign.

As to the ad featuring the Pepperdine professor, it was a true and correct ad that included citations to support its contentions [emphasis added].

This is an important insight because it brings fluttering down the entire house of cards Stern has built up as a rationale for why Brendan Eich's resignation (for all intents and purposes, a compelled resignation) is somehow justifiable.

In another wonderful piece published this week on the Eich controversy, the Heritage Foundation's Ryan Anderson cites President Obama as an example of another point:

The outrageous treatment of Eich is the result of one private, personal campaign contribution to support marriage as a male-female union, a view affirmed at the time by President Barack Obama, then-Sen. Hillary Clinton, and countless other prominent officials. After all, Prop 8 passed with the support of 7 million California voters.

So was President Obama a bigot back when he supported marriage as the union of a man and woman? And is characterizing political disagreement on this issue — no matter how thoughtfully expressed — as hate speech really the way to find common ground and peaceful co-existence?

Obviously, the answer to Ryan's rhetorical question is an emphatic "NO." As Ryan says, "The debate over the meaning and purpose of marriage will continue. We should conduct it in a civil manner. Bullies may win for a while, but theirs is a scorched-earth policy. They poison democratic discourse and fray the bonds on which democracy itself ultimately depends [emphasis added]."

Undemocratic and Hypocritical

The leader in the public effort to remove Mr. Eich for his contribution to the Prop 8 Campaign was the online dating site OkCupid. OkCupid was among the first to call for Mr. Eich's resignation and for the public to remove Firefox from their computers.

However, among the misremembered details in this story is that Sam Yagan, co-founder and CEO of OkCupid donated $500.00 to the congressional campaign of Chris Cannon in 2004. Mr. Cannon is a supporter of traditional marriage, having supported a constitutional amendment to define marriage as one man and one woman when he was in Congress.

How can one justify that Mr. Yagan has kept his post while supporting traditional marriage and Mr. Eich has not? You can't. The radical advocates of redefining marriage are hypocrites, remembering only the details of history that further their cause. If supporters of traditional marriage are wounded in the process, all the better.

This is not idle sensationalism: this issue has struck right to the very roots of our democratic system. This is why NOM is calling on people to stand up and to say, "Enough is enough!" We cannot allow this culture of intimidation and intolerance, this "poisoning" of the public discourse, to continue.

So we're inviting all men and women of good will to visit www.KeepTheRepublicAndMarriage.com and make a public statement that we will not be bullied and pushed out of the public square. We will continue to exercise our rights as citizens to donate, to vote, to speak up, and to demonstrate on behalf of the value of marriage, in defiance of the McCarthyesque "thought police" who are trying to silence us.

It isn't without reason that some level-headed individuals are raising such dire warnings about what this whole Mozilla fiasco portends.

Mollie Hemingway, in an excellent article published in The Federalist, uses the political thought of Vaclav Havel to raise a warning about how "group think" enables totalitarian tendencies, and how dissent is needed urgently in such circumstances. She warns that even some of those who have participated in campaigns to redefine marriage probably never fully grasped the implications of their actions:

Did we mindlessly put up red equal signs when we hadn't even thought about what marriage is? Did we rush to fit in by telling others we supported same-sex marriage? Did we even go so far as to characterize as "bigots" or as "Hitlers" those who held views about the importance of natural marriage?

[...]

...The dissidents are the ones who, by refusing to put the sign up, or refusing to recant, shine a huge light on the system, including the ones who go along to get along. All of a sudden those Facebook signs, those reflexive statements, those cries of "Bigot!" look less like shows of strength and more like shows of weakness.

Meanwhile, news this week came to my attention of one great example of the courage to stand up and speak out in favor of marriage: an example in the form of some college-age young men and women!

"You Have A Voice"

A new group at Notre Dame University, the Cardinal Newman Society reports, is making news for a petition to the administration of the school asking its leadership "to take up the defense of marriage at this pivotal moment in the national discussion surrounding [the] foundational institution [of marriage]."

The group is called "Students for Child-Oriented Policy" (SCOP), and one of its cofounders — a student named Tiernan Kane — explains the petition's purpose this way:

The Catholic Church's teaching on marriage, which is universally intelligible to human reason, is informed by a tradition of philosophical reflection that reaches back at least as far as Plato.... As the nation's premier Catholic university, Notre Dame has the ability, and thus the responsibility, to contribute to — indeed, to lead — public discourse about marriage.

Another co-founder, a senior named Michael Bradley, expressed very succinctly why he thinks it's important that the school's leadership speak up in defense of marriage: "Notre Dame, you have a voice, and it would mean a lot."

Well, this is clearly a case of students becoming the teachers, because Michael's message is a lesson and reminder for each of us, too: "You have a voice."

And there is no lack of opportunity for using that voice!

You can join the many other Americans who have taken a stand at KeepTheRepublicAndMarriage.com today and make a public declaration that you stand for marriage and will continue to do so.

But you can also use your voice by helping us to spread the word and promote the 2014 March for Marriage!

I was very pleased this week that two leading Catholic figures in the field of family and marriage issues lent their voices in support of the March: Bishop Richard Malone of Buffalo and Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone of San Francisco.

In a letter to their fellow Bishops nationwide, they wrote:

[T]his year's March for Marriage will provide an ideal occasion for participants to celebrate and give public witness to the unique meaning of marriage as the union of one man and one woman at a time when the religious liberties and conscience rights of those who promote and defend marriage are increasingly threatened. ... We kindly ask that you promote the march in your diocese and parishes and encourage participation where possible.

Well, today, I kindly ask the same of you.

Please help us to promote the march and to encourage participation by sharing the many resources you'll find at the brand-new March for Marriage website.

And, please, by whatever portion your means allow, consider a contribution today to help us make the March as great a success as possible.

You have a voice. Together, let's show the bullies and thugs who want to censor our pro-marriage views that your voice is not alone — that it is, in fact, many millions strong — and that it simply will not be silenced.

Faithfully,

Brian S. Brown

ICYMI: New Heritage Research Piece Explains Why the Analogy between Same-sex Marriage and Interracial Marriage is a False One

From Ryan Anderson, on The Foundry blog at Heritage:

Bride and GroomIs opposition to same-sex marriage at all like opposition to interracial marriage? One refrain in debates over marriage policy is that laws designating marriage as exclusively the union of male and female are today’s equivalent of bans on interracial marriage. Some further argue that protecting the freedom to speak and act publicly on the basis of a religious belief that marriage is the union of a man and woman amounts to the kind of laws that enforced race-based segregation.

These claims are wrong on several counts, as I explain in a new Backgrounder Report... “Marriage, Reason, and Religious Liberty: Much Ado About Sex, Nothing to Do with Race.

You can read Ryan's full blog piece here, or read the larger report here.

Standing Up. Fighting Back.

National Organization for Marriage

Dear Marriage Supporter,

The more I think about the situation surrounding Mozilla's termination of new CEO Brendan Eich over a political contribution he made six years ago, the more alarmed I become.

In 2008, Eich donated $1,000 to the campaign to pass Proposition 8 in California and protect marriage as the union of one man and one woman. For that, he's been convicted of an imagined hate crime by the radical homosexual activist community.

We must stand up to this outrageous assault on not just our values — but on the fundamental principles of free speech and our very democratic process! We cannot let a fringe group of radicals create an environment that will prohibit citizens from engaging in their right to enter the political arena without fear of reprisals!

And that is why we are asking people to go to KeepTheRepublicAndMarriage.com and make a donation — of any amount — adding your name to the thousands who have taken a public stance for marriage, refusing to be silenced!

Ryan Anderson from the Heritage Foundation sums up the impact of this development in the title of a piece he wrote recently: "Eich is out. So is tolerance." He asks, "is characterizing political disagreement on this issue — no matter how thoughtfully expressed — as hate speech really the way to find common ground and peaceful co-existence?"

Unwilling to acknowledge this [the marriage debate] as a significant question on which reasonable people of goodwill can disagree, some advocates of redefining marriage increasingly characterize those with whom they disagree as "enemies of the human race." They've sent a clear message: If you stand up for marriage, we will demonize and marginalize you.

I'm asking you today to say, "I will stand for what is right in the public square. I will be counted publicly as one who supports marriage as the union of one man and one woman." Make this happen by going to KeepTheRepublicAndMarriage.com and taking your stand.

I also recently had the pleasure of reading a blog post by Catholic blogger Rebecca Hamilton, who is also a member of the Oklahoma House of Representatives. She hits the nail on the head with a passionate piece she penned about Eich's downfall. This issue is about so much more than the debate over marriage. Hamilton wrote:

The issue here is the First Amendment right of Americans to petition their government, including by means of making donations to causes and issues they believe in, without fear of organized reprisals from a bunch of — here comes the word folks — haters.

This whole thing is getting awfully close to pressuring, bullying and threatening people about how they vote in an election. In fact, I'm pretty sure that if it wasn't for the secret ballot, that's exactly what the "equality" for us, "inclusiveness" for us, but not for anyone else crowd would be doing right now.

Indeed, this kind of freedom-hating campaign is a very chilling example to witness of the sheer intolerance and bigotry of those pushing same-sex ‘marriage' on our nation. It seems as if their real goal is to push Christians and others completely out of the public square.

We cannot let them do that!

Please stand with these two courageous Americans and fight back against this unconscionable behavior and deplorable tactics which are so severely damaging marriage, free speech and our very democratic process. As we know, the only way to stop bullies is to stand up to them.

Specifically, I'm asking you to do what Sen. Hamilton did: first, she deleted the Mozilla Firefox browser from her computer, and then she made a contribution to NOM.

As Ryan observed, "The debate over the meaning and purpose of marriage will continue. We should conduct it in a civil manner. Bullies may win for a while, but theirs is a scorched-earth policy. They poison democratic discourse and fray the bonds on which democracy itself ultimately depends."

This is our hope — knowing that this kind of intolerance and uncivil behavior simply cannot go on for much longer before the American people put their foot down and say enough is enough.

Will you be one of them?

Faithfully,

Pope: "The image of God is the married couple: the man and the woman."

From CNSNews:

Pope FrancisDuring his General Audience speech at St. Peter’s Square on Apr. 2, before a crowd estimated at 45,000, Pope Francis first cited Genesis, saying, "God created man in his own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female he created them. … Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh."

"The image of God is the married couple: the man and the woman; not only the man, not only the woman, but both of them together," said the Pope. "God’s covenant with us is represented in that covenant between man and woman. And this is very beautiful."

"When a man and a woman celebrate the Sacrament of Matrimony, God as it were 'is mirrored' in them; He impresses in them his own features and the indelible character of his love," said Pope Francis. "Marriage is the icon of God's love for us."

Read more here.