NOM BLOG

Only Five Short Days...

National Organization for Marriage

Dear Marriage Supporter,

There are only five short days left before the November election.

So many of the races for the US Senate are too close to call—Alaska, Arkansas, Iowa, Louisiana, North Carolina...

So many of these races could be turned by making marriage a key election issue in states that are caught in the crosshairs of the radical movement to redefine marriage!

The winner in these races will likely be the one who best turns out the voters. And NOM is launching our final get-out-the-vote efforts right now... mobilizing the millions of Americans all across the country who believe in and are willing to stand up to defend marriage!

Won’t you please help us turn out the conservative base that values life and marriage by making a generous donation of $35, $50, $100, $500 or even $1,000 or more right away?

Remember, through November 4th, your donation will be matched dollar-for-dollar, DOUBLING the effectiveness of your gift!

What better way to impact key races all across the country?

Many of the candidates in these close races are fighting off the Chicago-model Obama machine, which is pouring in money and mobilizing activists from other parts of the country to ensure their ideology — with redefining marriage at the very top of their liberal agenda — is imposed on ordinary people like you and me.

Marriage Supporter, we must do everything in our power to ensure that doesn’t happen!

A pro-marriage majority in the Senate will allow us to advance critical pro-marriage legislation. It will be a powerful check on the Obama Administration’s stealth campaign to redefine marriage through executive order and "regulation." And it will be an obstacle to Obama appointing extremist, activist federal judges to the bench who are willing to throw out the votes of millions of Americans because they arrogantly believe their personal views trump the outcome of elections in over thirty states where voters have stood for the truth of marriage.

Please click here right away to make a generous donation that will be matched dollar-for-dollar!

Faithfully,

Brian S Brown

Brian S. Brown
President
National Organization for Marriage

Brian Brown


National Organization for Marriage SuperPac Launches TV Ad in Arkansas Opposing Mark Pryor

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: October 30, 2014
Contact: Elizabeth Ray or Matille Thebolt (703-683-5004)


"Tom Cotton will fight for marriage while Mark Pryor cannot be trusted. We urge Arkansas voters who believe in marriage as the union of one man and one woman to cast their votes for Tom Cotton." — Brian Brown, NOM president —

nom_logo

Washington, D.C. — The National Organization for Marriage Victory Fund has launched a television commercial in Arkansas revealing that US Senator Mark Pryor's claimed support for traditional marriage cannot be trusted in light of his obvious attempts to avoid answering questions about his current position, and the statements of a lesbian leader that Pryor told her he was not opposed to same-sex marriage. The ad is running statewide.

"For years Senator Mark Pryor has claimed to support traditional marriage, but his commitment to fight for marriage has been seriously undermined by his refusal to answer questions about his current position in light of a court decision finding the Arkansas marriage amendment unconstitutional," said Brian Brown, NOM's president. "Of even greater concern are comments by a prominent lesbian leader who says Pryor has told her he does not oppose gay marriage, but just can't talk about the issue right now. This powerful new ad exposes Pryor for this duplicity."

When confronted by a reporter asking him about the decision of the Arkansas Supreme court to overturn their amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman, an obviously anxious Pryor said he had to leave, and then told the reporter that since the matter is in the courts, "we'll see what happens." Meanwhile, prominent gay activist Bailey Bibb, head of the state's Stonewall Democrats, told an undercover reporter that Pryor explained to her, "It's not something we can talk about. I'm not against it."

"Marriage is a critical issue for Arkansans and could prove to be the decisive issue in this race," Brown said. "Tom Cotton will fight for marriage while Mark Pryor cannot be trusted. We urge Arkansas voters who believe in marriage as the union of one man and one woman to cast their votes for Tom Cotton."

###

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).

"To Change the Face and Voice of America's Politics"

National Organization for Marriage

Dear Marriage Supporter,

There is less than a week left until the mid-term elections, and the race between Richard Tisei and Seth Moulton in the Massachusetts 6th is a close one, by all accounts a ‘race to watch.' I write today to tell you that it essential that you NOT vote for Republican Richard Tisei, and in fact consider supporting the Democrat, Seth Moulton.

Both Moulton and Tisei are anti-life.

Both are in favor of radically redefining marriage.

One is a Democrat, and one is a Republican.

So why is NOM urging Massachusetts voters to oppose the Republican Tisei and to vote instead for his Democratic opponent? Because the difference matters in ways we cannot count.

Consider one of Tisei's endorsements as a case-in-point: he has gained the support of the Gay & Lesbian Victory Fund. This organization says that it "works to elect LGBT leaders to public office for one simple reason. They change America's politics."

But let's be clear: it is the politics of the Republican Party that the Gay & Lesbian Victory Fund wishes to change with Tisei's election—and that's what makes his defeat so critical.

On the organization's blog, they state quite openly what earns Tisei their endorsement:

Tisei has shown that he is willing to stand up for equality within his party's caucus, and if elected to the U.S. Congress, will give the LGBT community a much-needed voice in the GOP.

Those words—"within his party's caucus"—are the critical words. It is within the GOP's own strategy meetings and consultations where Tisei is sought to be a "voice" for the political goals of the Gay & Lesbian Victory Fund.

And what kind of goals would he push? What kind of values will he give voice? Again, consider the track record that the Gay & Lesbian Victory Fund highlights for Tisei, and decide for yourself:

He has worked with MassEquality and pro-marriage legislators to help whip votes in support of marriage equality, and co-sponsored a gender identity non-discrimination bill.

This, indeed, would be "to change the face and voice" of the GOP's politics! The Republican party states clearly in its platform that marriage is the union of one man and one woman; Tisei, according to the hopes of his supporters, would work to undermine and change this platform conviction from within the party itself.

On the other hand, Tisei's opponent, Seth Moulton, is no better than Tisei on the issues. But as a Democrat in a House controlled by Republicans, Moulton wouldn't be able to impact anything. Furthermore, we could defeat him in two years. Tisei, however, as a Republican within a Republican-controlled House of Representatives, would be in a position to do great damage to the integrity of the party's platform and the pro-life and pro-family policies for which the party stands!

Please share this information today with everyone you know in Massachusetts and urge them to oppose Tisei's election, even if that means voting for his Democratic challenger.

Share This   Facebook This   Tweet This   Email This   Share on LinkedIn

A vote for Moulton would have little impact on the critical issues of marriage and life, either for the state of Massachusetts or for the nation. But a vote for Tisei would, in a very real way, "change the face and voice of America's politics"—precisely by silencing our voice, yours and mine, where the message of marriage and life needs most to be heard!

Faithfully,

Brian S Brown

Brian S. Brown
President
National Organization for Marriage

Brian Brown


Game Changer

National Organization for Marriage

Dear Marriage Supporter,

For too long, the Republican establishment has given lip service to protecting marriage but has not been willing to lead. A consultant class that has already helped spend billions of dollars on a failing 'economics'-only campaign strategy is trying to foist this same failed strategy on the party yet again.

Will you let them?

NOM is proud today to announce the launch of a new SuperPAC, the NOM Victory Fund, to put real money into winning key Senate races this election cycle.

We know that marriage is a winning issue with voters. And we're willing to do what the establishment won't do: create and distribute hard-hitting ads that take down liberals like North Carolina Senator Kay Hagan for trashing her own voters by supporting judicial tyranny and the redefinition of marriage.

This new ad supporting Thom Tillis is a game changer in this race. We know that North Carolina voters overwhelmingly approve marriage as the union of a man and a woman. Just hours ago, the venerable North Carolina polling group Civitas released results from a survey showing that support for traditional marriage has ACTUALLY INCREASED since 2012 when 62 percent of voters chose to amend the constitution to protect marriage as the union of a man and a woman. North Carolina voters are irate that judges are attempting to impose their redefinition of marriage on the State.

And Thom Tillis is standing strong, fighting with all of his strength to defend the voters—even leading the legislature to intervene to defend North Carolina's laws.

But here's the deal. We're almost the only ones trying to highlight the winning issue of marriage in this race... and we're totally outspent. We have just one week to increase our ad buy and prove the establishment wrong.

Please click here to make a generous contribution to the NOM Victory Fund today and help us make the game-changing play in this race and in other key races around the nation.

With your help, we'll show the Republican establishment—and the nation—that marriage is still an election issue, and that those who support marriage can win elections by doing so!

Faithfully,

Brian S Brown

Brian S. Brown
President
National Organization for Marriage

Brian Brown


National Organization for Marriage Launches New Super PAC to Defeat Kay Hagan and Mark Pryor, Oppose Republicans who Betray Marriage

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: October 28, 2014
Contact: Elizabeth Ray or Matille Thebolt (703-683-5004)


"Supporting marriage as the union of one man and one woman is a winning issue and we believe it can play a pivotal role in defeating Kay Hagan and Mark Pryor." — Brian Brown, NOM president —

nom_logo

Washington, D.C. — The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) today announced the formation of a new Super PAC to campaign against incumbent US Senators Kay Hagan (D-NC) and Mark Pryor (D-AR), and to oppose Republican candidates who abandon support for marriage.

"The National Organization for Marriage Victory Fund will spend $200,000 this week in just the North Carolina and Arkansas Senate contests," said Brian Brown, President of NOM. "Today we're announcing the launch of a powerful new television ad that puts marriage front and center in the race, contrasting the leadership of Thom Tillis in getting the North Carolina marriage amendment on the ballot with Kay Hagan's opposition to it. Moreover, Hagan was the person who hand-picked the federal judge who invalidated the North Carolina marriage amendment without so much as giving voters a day in court."

The television ad, "Kay Hagan's Judge," runs statewide as of October 28th. It was produced in concert with the NC Values Coalition with whom NOM worked to pass the marriage amendment.

The North Carolina Marriage Amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman was enacted in 2012 with 61% of the vote. When the US Supreme Court refused to hear the case invalidating the Virginia marriage amendment, federal District Court Judge Max Cogburn ruled the North Carolina amendment unconstitutional. The people of North Carolina were never permitted to defend the amendment.

NOM also announced that, along with the NC Values Coalition, they had sent a mailer to well over 100,000 supporters of marriage in the state pointing out the differences between Tillis and Hagan on marriage as well as abortion. Thom Tillis is reliably pro-life but Kay Hagan is a strong supporter of the extreme agenda of the abortion lobby.

"For too long, we've watched as GOP consultants and the elite have told candidates to avoid mention of social issues, leaving them to be defined by their opponents and failing to excite the base that is responsible for winning elections," Brown said. "So the NOM Victory Fund will work independently of candidates and campaign on the marriage issue in key races like in North Carolina and Arkansas. Supporting marriage as the union of one man and one woman is a winning issue and we believe it can play a pivotal role in defeating Kay Hagan and Mark Pryor."

###

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).

ICYMI: Making Marriage Meaningless (VIDEO)

Here's a terrific new video with a clear, concise message about the meaning of marriage and why it is best for both children and society to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

Making an Impact

National Organization for Marriage

Dear Marriage Supporter,

We're off to a great start! We've already raised over $200,000 in matching funds! But we still have a long way to go!

Won't you please consider making a generous donation of $35, $50, $100, $500 or even $1,000 if God has given you the means to help NOM elect marriage champions to office?

With the elections just one week away, NOM is hard at work turning marriage into an election-winning issue...

Television ads have been purchased and will be on the air this week in North Carolina and Arkansas. Automated phone calls have been made in California, Massachusetts and Oregon. Mailers have been sent out in North Carolina and are being sent out in California. And we've been active online, getting information to voters and rallying marriage supporters all across the country to stand up for marriage next Tuesday!

We're already making a tremendous impact, ensuring that your voice and values on marriage are represented this November!

But there is so much more we could do! There are close races for the Senate in Iowa, Kansas, New Jersey, Louisiana and many other states where marriage could make the difference!

With your generous support, we could enter some of these races and make an even bigger impact!

So, please, click here to make a generous donation right away, knowing that your donation will be matched dollar-for-dollar and be put to immediate use electing marriage champions to office!

Faithfully,

Brian S Brown

Brian S. Brown
President
National Organization for Marriage

Brian Brown


"Inexplicable Contortions of the Mind"

National Organization for Marriage

Dear Marriage Supporter,

On Tuesday of this week, United States District Judge Juan Pérez-Giménez handed down a ruling in a case upholding Puerto Rico's law defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

This ruling is the top headline of this week's marriage news.

"Marriage is the fundamental unit of the political order"

The Carter appointee did not fail to acknowledge that his opinion runs contrary to the majority of other Federal courts that have ruled on States' marriage laws since the Windsor decision by the Supreme Court, that struck down Section III of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).

But in acknowledging this, Pérez-Giménez spoke of a "misapprehension that has plagued our sister courts." Specifically, he said that all of these decisions have blatantly ignored binding Supreme Court precedent from the Baker v. Nelson decision of 1972.

Baker essentially says the U.S. Constitution is silent on the issue of same-sex 'marriage'—which is a far cry from what activist judges have claimed over the last several months, that same-sex 'marriage' is somehow mandated by the 14th amendment!

Pérez-Giménez points out that this absurd claim is distinctly refuted by Baker, and that only the Supreme Court can contradict or overturn Baker, which they have not done. Furthermore, he notes that the First Circuit Court of Appeals, which governs Puerto Rico, explicitly recognized this only just two years ago! It will be interesting to watch this case as it will most surely be appealed to the First Circuit, and to see whether the Judges on that court will have the integrity to bind themselves by their own very recent logic.

Pérez-Giménez describes the "inexplicable contortions of the mind or perhaps even willful ignorance" that seem to have guided other Judges to the conclusion that the Supreme Court, in Windsor, signaled a constitutional demand for marriage to be redefined.

But the real beauty in this judge's decision is how he links the ideas of marriage and the rule of law itself, and points out that his fellow judges who have acted to redefine marriage have also showed a shameful disregard for the way in which our legal system works.

Allow me to quote at length from his conclusion [emphasis added]:

There are some principles of logic and law that cannot be forgotten.

Recent affirmances of same-gender marriage seem to suffer from a peculiar inability to recall the principles embodied in existing marriage law. Traditional marriage is 'exclusively [an] opposite-sex institution... inextricably linked to procreation and biological kinship.' Traditional marriage is the fundamental unit of the political order. And ultimately the very survival of the political order depends upon the procreative potential embodied in traditional marriage.

Those are the well-tested, well-proven principles on which we have relied for centuries. The question now is whether judicial 'wisdom' may contrive methods by which those solid principles can be circumvented or even discarded.

A clear majority of courts have struck down statutes that affirm opposite-gender marriage only. In their ingenuity and imagination they have constructed a seemingly comprehensive legal structure for this new form of marriage. And yet what is lacking and unaccounted for remains: are laws barring polygamy, or, say the marriage of fathers and daughters, now of doubtful validity? Is 'minimal marriage,' where 'individuals have legal marital relationships with more than one person, reciprocally or asymmetrically, themselves determining the sex and number of parties' the blueprint for their design? [...] It would seem so, if we follow the plaintiffs' logic, that the fundamental right to marriage is based on 'the constitutional liberty to select the partner of one's choice.'

Of course, it is all too easy to dismiss such concerns as absurd or of a kind with the cruel discrimination and ridicule that has been shown toward people attracted to members of their own sex. But the truth concealed in these concerns goes to the heart of our system of limited, consent-based government: those seeking sweeping change must render reasons justifying the change and articulate the principles that they claim will limit this newly fashioned right.

For now, one basic principle remains: the people, acting through their elected representatives, may legitimately regulate marriage by law.

I encourage you to read the entire decision and to share it with your friends. The clear logic and devotion to the truth, and the dedication to the integrity of our legal system, are a breath of fresh air compared to so many other errant decisions that have been issued over the past few months.

Standing Together

Marriage Supporter, I hope the decision from Puerto Rico is an encouragement and an inspiration to you this week, because now more than ever we must continue to stand together in this fight.

You've heard by now of the egregious violations to religious freedom that are cropping up around the nation, such as the case of the minister couple in Idaho who are being threatened with legal punishment unless they consent to act against their religious convictions and officiate same-sex 'marriage' ceremonies!

This is in addition to the Houston Pastors whom the Mayor and other city officials are trying to intimidate as retribution for their opposition to a deplorable "bathroom bill" ordinance.

These unconscionable violations are, unfortunately, one of the consequences of redefining marriage and family into genderless institutions which NOM has warned about for years.

We need to continue standing with those who face these attacks.

But we also need to get out and vote this November and send pro-marriage champions to Washington, D.C. where they will help us to promote a legislative agenda aimed at protecting conscience rights and religious liberty; and where they will lend their support to an amendment to our Constitution that will reestablish the truth of marriage and undo the harm done by so many tyrannical courts over the past two years.

Please — if you can today — make a contribution to NOM so we can continue to do the important work of informing the nation about critical marriage news like the decision by Judge Pérez-Giménez. We need your help to continue being your voice for your values in the public square and in the halls of power.

Thank you continuing to stand firm for marriage.

Faithfully,

Brian S Brown

Brian S. Brown
President
National Organization for Marriage

Brian Brown


SPECIAL EVENT: Stand for Houston Pastors

National Organization for Marriage

Dear Marriage Supporter,

The right of churches to speak the truth freely is under threat in Houston.

Five pastors and churches in have had their internal church communications subpoenaed by Mayor Annise Parker. This is part of an intimidation campaign that comes amidst a lawsuit brought by citizens against the city of Houston after a petition from residents was basically thrown out by the city administration.

But none of these pastors or churches are even a party to the lawsuit! This action is simply an attempt to intimidate anyone who has dared to question the city's terrible gender-neutral "bathroom bill" — the ordinance against which the voters signed the petition.

The bottom line, though, is that the government has no business monitoring sermons or prying into the private communications between a pastor and his congregation! The Constitution secures the freedom of the church to proclaim the truth. We can't sit idly by and allow intimidation like this to stand.

That's why The National Organization for Marriage is proud to be a partner in a special nationwide simulcast event, live from Houston:

The event will stream live from Grace Community Church in Houston—one of the affected churches—and will focus on what's happening in that city, as well as other threats to religious freedom around the country. Our aim will be to show how Christians nationwide can stand together in love and unity for America's First Freedom of religious liberty.

Please bring this to the attention of the your church leadership, and encourage them to have your church join with us and churches across the country as we focus on this issue that is crucial to the freedom of the church. If your church is unable to join, there's also a home viewing option, where you can watch with your small group.

Speakers will include:

  • David & Jason Benham, Co-founders, Benham Companies

  • Hernan Castano, Pastor, Iglesia Rios de Aceite — Houston

  • Dr. Ronnie Floyd, President, Southern Baptist Convention

  • Magda Hermida, Founder, Magda Hermida Ministries

  • Gov. Mike Huckabee, Host of Fox News' Huckabee, former Gov. Arkansas

  • Tony Perkins, President, Family Research Council

  • Pastor Steve Riggle, Founding Senior Pastor, Grace Community Church, Houston

  • Alan Robertson, Star of Duck Dynasty

  • Phil Robertson, The Duck Commander/Duck Dynasty

  • Dr. Rick Scarborough, President, Vision America

  • Todd Starnes, Fox News Radio

  • Dr. Ed Young, Pastor, Second Baptist Church Houston

Time is short, but the issue is crucial. The affected pastors and churches in Houston need believers from across the nation standing with them in solidarity for the right to freely proclaim the truth of Scripture. Visit IStandSunday.com to find out how you can be a part of this bold moment of witness to the truth and this historic stance for our most cherished liberties.

Faithfully,

Brian S Brown
Brian S. Brown
President
National Organization for Marriage
Brian Brown

Twitter Glitch or Taking Sides?

After pastors in Houston dared to exercise their first amendment rights to speak out against same-sex marriage laws, they were issued subpoenas by the city. In response, a faith-based organization launched a petition, demanding that the city end its bullying against those who were doing nothing more than acting on their rights to free speech and freedom of religion (see the First Amendment).

To spread the word, the hashtag #HoustonWeHaveAProblem was launched, which was met with a less than desirable response from Twitter.

Individuals responded with tweets to let everyone know the issue and @FaithDrivenConsumer called on others to help lift the block:

On Tuesday, in an email to the Daily Signal, a Twitter spokesman for Twitter explained:

“The URL HoustonProblem.com was mistakenly flagged as spam last week, by an outside organization that tracks spam sources. We quickly restored access and apologize for the error.”

Coincidence? You may remember that Twitter users encountered similar blocks while trying to utilize the hashtag #IStandWithPhil to petition for Phil Robertson's right to express his beliefs on the traditional Christian view of marriage and family. An executive director at Faith Driven Consumer, Matthew Faraci, admitted to The Daily Signal that while it is possible that both campaigns were blocked due to “technical reasons,” it looks suspicious.

We saw this during #IStandWithPhil, this happened to [former Arkansas] Gov. Mike Huckabee, and we know this also happened to [actor] Kirk Cameron, so fundamentally, someone needs to ask the question: Why is there a repeated pattern of behavior here?

Once Twitter fixed the “technical problem,”  the hashtag went back to leading people to the petition, which has now received over 10,000 signatures. Faraci suggested that it is possible that in blocking the petition, Twitter made the petition supporters more passionate and determined to get it signed. In addition, Faraci believes that the public deserves (and needs) more transparency from Twitter and other social media giants.

In an era where transparency is the expectation, we encourage Twitter and other social media sites to be very open about how this whole process works in order to reassure the public that there is fair and equal treatment for people of all perspectives.

Twitter has not responded to any follow-up questions regarding the number of websites it normally flags as spam on a daily basis.  Faraci made an excellent point in asking:

Has a similar effort from an opposing viewpoint been blocked? We challenge you to find such an example.

If Twitter wants to take sides, they should understand the issue at stake. The “Houston Problem” wasn’t a case of bickering political parties: it was an assault on freedom of religion and freedom of speech. Twitter's entire existence is built on the assumption of free speech and should take a hard look at those “technical issues.”

Volokh on Coeur d'Alene Ordinance: "Inconsistent with the Free Speech Clause and the Idaho RFRA"

UCLA Law Professor and Washington Post blogger Eugene Volokh has posted an analysis of the controversy surrounding the Hitching Post Wedding Chapel in Coeur d'Alene, Idaho.

If you haven't heard about the outrageous case, click here for more information.

The basic situation is this, as explained by Alliance Defending Freedom, one of whose allied attorneys will be representing the couple that runs the chapel:

City officials told Donald Knapp that he and his wife Evelyn, both ordained ministers who run Hitching Post Wedding Chapel, are required to perform such ceremonies or face months in jail and/or thousands of dollars in fines. The city claims its “non-discrimination” ordinance requires the Knapps to perform same-sex wedding ceremonies now that the courts have overridden Idaho’s voter-approved constitutional amendment that affirmed marriage as the union of a man and a woman.

Silenced

As ADF Senior Legal Counsel Jeremy Tedesco notes, "Many have denied that pastors would ever be forced to perform ceremonies that are completely at odds with their faith, but that’s what is happening here – and it’s happened this quickly."

Volokh, in his piece, seems to agree with ADF that "he city is on seriously flawed legal ground." He writes:

The First Amendment protects the right to speak the words in a wedding ceremony — words that have deep meaning to many officiants as well as to the parties — and the right to refrain from speaking the words. A system which secures the right to spread religious and moral messages inherent in the wedding vows must also guarantee the right not to convey those messages (including the message of approval of the wedding inherent in the act of officiating at it) in contexts that the officiant thinks unholy and immoral rather than sacred and right.

187643976We hope and pray that the Knapps are successful in their lawsuit. But the fact that such a lawsuit is needed at all is a sobering reminder of why we must continue to fight to roll back the damaging and unconstitutional imposition of same-sex 'marriage' that has been forced on so many States' citizens by ideologically-driven and unconscionable judges playing to a powerful special interest group.

More than the definition of marriage is at stake: the fundamental contours of our democratic republic, such as the right to self-determination and the rights of religion, speech, and assembly imbricated in the First Amendment, are also at risk of being radically redefined.

Federal Judge: "No Right to Same-Gender Marriage Emanates from the Constitution"

Ryan Anderson reports on a new ruling by United States District Judge Juan Pérez-Giménez upholding Puerto Rico's law defining marriage as between a man and a woman.

Ryan points out that Pérez-Giménez is "the first Democrat-appointee to the federal bench to uphold marriage law since the Supreme Court’s Windsor decision on the Defense of Marriage Act case."

He quotes extensively from Pérez-Giménez's powerful decision, including these bits:

American DemocracyIt takes inexplicable contortions of the mind or perhaps even willful ignorance—this Court does not venture an answer here—to interpret Windsor’s endorsement of the state control of marriage as eliminating the state control of marriage.

[...]

Recent affirmances of same-gender marriage seem to suffer from a peculiar inability to recall the principles embodied in existing marriage law. Traditional marriage is "exclusively [an] opposite-sex institution . . . inextricably linked to procreation and biological kinship." Traditional marriage is the fundamental unit of the political order. And ultimately the very survival of the political order depends upon the procreative potential embodied in traditional marriage.

Those are the well-tested, well-proven principles on which we have relied for centuries. The question now is whether judicial "wisdom" may contrive methods by which those solid principles can be circumvented or even discarded.

Read more from the decision, and Ryan's worthy commentary, over at The Daily Signal.

Rolling Out!

National Organization for Marriage

Dear Marriage Supporter

Thank you to everyone who has already donated to our matching gift campaign! We had an amazing initial response.

As a result, we’re preparing to roll out major television ad buys in two states in addition to preparing several other voter contact programs.

But there is still so much more to do!

Won’t you please consider making a generous donation of $35, $50, $100, $500 or more right away to help us take advantage of this incredible matching gift program?

We want to get our ads on the air in many other states. Several swing seats in the US Senate are up for grabs and marriage could be the defining issue!

And there are also races featuring Republicans — backed by the establishment — actively campaigning on their pro-abortion and pro-same-sex 'marriage' views. Not only that, they’re talking about "remaking" the Republican Party into one that ignores social issues entirely!

Marriage Supporter, we cannot let that happen!

But I need your help right away to secure the funds we need to get involved in these races and turn marriage into a turning point issue!

Won’t you please consider making a generous donation right away, knowing that your gift will be matched dollar-for-dollar by another generous donor?

Faithfully,

Brian S Brown

Brian S. Brown
President
National Organization for Marriage

Brian Brown


"Putting to Rest a Bad Argument"

Sherif Girgis, one of the co-authors of What is Marriage? Man and Woman: A Defense, opines at Public Discourse about a "bad argument" that needs to be put to rest - namely, the argument that "laws defining marriage as a male-female union should be treated as forms of sex discrimination".

Girgis writes:

126982681The Supreme Court closely scrutinizes policies involving racial, sexual, and other "suspect" classifications. But unlike almost every other classification imaginable, marriage laws use a criterion necessarily linked to an inherently good social purpose that we didn't just invent. This criterion isn't truly suspect and shouldn't get heightened scrutiny.

[...]

The primary question regarding the definition of marriage is not whether any particular class of individuals (gay, straight, male, female) has a special link to the common good, but whether certain couples do. And it shifts the burden of proof onto those who would find no such link.

Read Girgis's whole outstanding essay today.

"This Isn't How the Constitution Works"

In The Daily Signal, Ryan Anderson looks at the latest "evolution" on the issue of same-sex 'marriage' undergone by President Obama, and explains why with recent waves of political 'evolutions' and activist judicial rulings, "we’re not only redefining marriage, we’re redefining our Constitution." He writes:

Constitution“Ultimately, I think the Equal Protection Clause does guarantee same-sex marriage in all fifty states,” Obama told the New Yorker.

This is a case study in how liberals “evolve” on policy. First they embrace a policy change. If they can’t convince a majority of Americans to vote for their preferred policy, they discover that the Constitution requires their preferred policy. So, according to the Obama of today, the Obama of early 2012 held an unconstitutional view of marriage. Or, perhaps, it wasn’t unconstitutional back then but it is now.

But this isn't how the Constitution works.

[...]  Judges should not insert their own policy preferences about marriage and declare them to be required by the Constitution [emphasis added].

Read the rest here.