NOM BLOG

The Next Six Months

National Organization for Marriage

Dear Marriage Supporter

I want first of all to express my gratitude to the many people that have donated to our matching gift challenge over the last 24 hours.

If you haven't taken advantage of this great opportunity to double the impact of your gift, won't you please do so today?

We are about to enter a crucial time for marriage in our country, and NOM needs your help to ensure that we can remain active in the fight to protect that most basic unit of our entire social order, the marriage-based family.

Just think for a minute of the momentous changes the next six months might bring in the fight for marriage in America:

  • Thirty-six Senate seats are up for reelection in November, including at least a dozen held by vulnerable Democrats. This is an opportunity to gain a pro-marriage majority for the Senate and halt the Obama administration's attempts to run roughshod over the values and truths that we hold dear!
  • With new details having recently come to light in the I.R.S. scandal, Congress will be able hopefully to finally get to the bottom of the corruption in the agency. We will continue to urge our leaders in Washington to ensure justice for NOM and the many other groups and individuals who were unfairly targeted and harassed by this out-of-control bureaucracy that stuck its nose into the political realm where it didn't belong.
  • The Supreme Court will be meeting in conference on September 29th to discuss at least 5 pending court challenges to States' marriage laws. All indications are that the Supreme Court will take up the issue of marriage once again in this term—and we need to make sure that the Justices know how many millions of Americans still believe in marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

In short, as you can see, we have plenty of work to do over the next few months!

That's why I need you to recommit to NOM's critical and irreplaceable mission today with your most generous donation, which will be instantly doubled through the kind matching pledge we've received from one of our most dedicated supporters!

It may seem like you've heard this before, but it is the plain truth that right now the stakes literally could not be higher: the next six months may determine the future of marriage in America for generations to come!

Please stand with us in this crucial time, and through your kind financial gift, help us ensure that your values have a voice in the halls of power and in the public square now when it is most needed!

Thanks in advance for your generosity, and for all you do to support and defend marriage.

Faithfully,

Brian S Brown

Brian S. Brown
President
National Organization for Marriage

Brian Brown


P.S.: Remember, the chance to double the impact of your donation is a limited-time event; so please donate by October 1st so we can be sure to take full advantage of this great opportunity! Thank you, again.

The Next Few Months Are Critical

National Organization for Marriage

Dear Marriage Supporter,

As I wrote to you in a letter recently, the critical, upcoming November elections are just a couple of short months away. And NOM is gearing up to make an impact!

But before getting into that, I want to reiterate the fantastic news I shared with you in my recent letter...

A dedicated donor has extended his generous matching gift, agreeing to match every donation received dollar-for-dollar!

By renewing your financial commitment to NOM today, the value of your gift will DOUBLE, giving your hard-earned dollars TWICE the impact in the fight to defend marriage! But the offer will only last for donations received in the third quarter of the year — before October 1st.

The summer months are always lean, and we now have some ground to make up. We have a ways to go to reach our quarterly projections — an additional $447,398. That means, if you donate today and help us raise the $223,699 we need by the end of the month, a single donor will donate that same amount to NOM!

Because your gift is matched dollar for dollar, every single donation helps out enormously and adds up very quickly. Anything you could do to help would be greatly appreciated.

Marriage Supporter, can I count on you to please help us take full advantage of this tremendous opportunity by clicking here right away to make a generous donation of $35, $50, $100 or even $500?

It's never been more critically important or opportune that you do so... especially with the November elections looming when we have an incredible opportunity to shift the balance of power within the United States Senate.

NOM has plans in motion to immediately impact several key races in the coming months — provided we can raise the necessary funds.

We will be building a visible, nationwide, grassroots infrastructure dedicated to defending marriage through advertising, online outreach, mailers and get-out-the-vote efforts.

In addition, we are in the midst of developing and deploying new, powerful and hard-hitting messaging — challenging the prevailing narratives and themes driving the same-sex ‘marriage' movement and exposing critical falsehoods in their argument.

But NOM needs your help to continue to stand up and fight back! Won't you please make a generous gift right away, knowing that your donation — of whatever amount — will be matched dollar-for-dollar?

We're seeing the furious attacks against marriage taking place all around us every day... radical activists seeking out hand-picked, liberal judges throughout the country and launching lawsuits against marriage laws in virtually every state... major corporations taking positions to endorse marriage redefinition — even throwing their financial weight behind the movement — despite the fact that millions of consumers and existing customers believe in marriage...

It's frustrating, I know. Sometimes, people feel powerless. But you and I know that it's merely another call to action... because marriage is worth defending — always!

Remember, if you act now you are taking advantage of our limited-time matching gift, which will instantly DOUBLE the size and impact of your gift! It's an incredible opportunity that we must take advantage of.

We CAN retake the Senate... We CAN elect marriage champions and ensure that the GOP remains strong on marriage... We CAN make a resounding statement that the Supreme Court will hear BEFORE they rule on the future of marriage in America.

But we need your help to fully realize this matching gift opportunity, ensuring that we have the resources we need to WIN this November!

Won't you please join me in standing up in defense of marriage by making a generous donation today to help NOM give voice to our values and fight back against the storm assaulting marriage?

Faithfully,

Brian S Brown

Brian S. Brown
President
National Organization for Marriage

Brian Brown


PS: This new matching gift opportunity will only last until September 30th, so please click here to make a generous donation to support NOM and our mission of protecting marriage and the faith communities that sustain it today! Every dollar you donate will be instantly matched, dollar-for-dollar!

As we approach the November elections with the real possibility of turning the United States Senate into a body that will not only stand up for marriage, but also stand up to the Obama Administration's relentless executive assault against marriage, we need your financial support to ensure we have the funds necessary to engage in the key electoral fights around the country.

Pope Francis: Marriage Shows "The Reciprocity of Differences"

In Rome on Sunday, Pope Francis presided over the marriage of 20 couples at Saint Peter's Basilica. In his remarks during the celebration, the Holy Father spoke beautifully about the meaning of marriage and family. From The National Catholic Register [emphasis added]:

Pope FrancisMarriage, [the Pope said]... is about "man and woman walking together, wherein the husband helps his wife to become ever more a woman, and wherein the woman has the task of helping her husband to become ever more a man."

"Here we see the reciprocity of differences," he said.

[...]

"It is impossible to quantify the strength and depth of humanity contained in a family," he said, as demonstrated through the "mutual help, educational support, relationships developing as family members mature, the sharing of joys and difficulties."

"Families are the first place in which we are formed as persons and, at the same time, the ‘bricks’ for the building up of society."

Read more here.

NOM Keeping Up Fight for the People of Oregon

Oregon State CapitolOregonians have been so far shamefully denied their fundamental rights and role as citizens in a self-determinative democracy by a system of judicial tyranny run amok, but NOM is continuing our fight there to get the people of Oregon their day in court and ensure that they values are represented in the matter of how marriage is defined.

OregonLive reports:

Despite a string of legal defeats, the National Organization for Marriage is continuing its battle against the May 19 federal court decision overturning Oregon's ban on same-sex marriage.

Two weeks after a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the group's attempt to intervene in the case, the National Organization for Marriage on Wednesday asked the full Ninth Circuit Court to reconsider the decision.

You can read the rest of the article here.

"A New Totalitarianism is Developing Under the Cloak of Freedom."

A fascinating interview was published yesterday in The Catholic World Report that you won't want to miss.

In it, German sociologist Gabriele Kuby talks about her new book, The Global Sexual Revolution: The Destruction of Freedom in the Name of Freedom. Here's a brief sample of what she has to say:

Gabriele KubyWhen the Berlin Wall came down in 1989 we all had this hope of freedom and entering an era beyond ideology. But while we were delighting in that hope, powerful forces prepared for the next step of the global sexual revolution. Don’t ask me who these forces are, but I see this revolution taking place at a global scale, with a clear intent to destroy the basis of the family. The destruction of the family uproots every single human being. We become atomized human beings who can be manipulated to do anything.

A new totalitarianism is developing under the cloak of freedom.

Read the whole interview here.

A Major Victory

National Organization for Marriage

Dear Marriage Supporter,

Earlier this week, a federal district judge in Louisiana issued a key decision finding that the marriage amendment passed in 2004 by 78% of the voters of that state does not run afoul of the U.S. Constitution's guarantees of Equal Protection and Due Process. Accordingly, Judge Feldman ruled against the several plaintiffs' claims that the amendment is unconstitutional.

This is a major victory for marriage that should be celebrated.

Of course, if you've been depending on the major media outlets for your news, you'll have found precious little attention paid to this pivotal decision. The media has chosen instead to focus on a very poorly reasoned decision by a three-judge panel of the 7th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals that was basically lifted from the template of so many such rulings since the Windsor decision in 2012.

In the 7th Circuit case, Judge Richard Posner crafted one of the most ideologically-driven and personally invested rulings I've ever read from a federal justice—and that's saying something!

Garrett Epps, writing for The Atlantic, put the matter quite colorfully—and accurately—in his article contrasting the decision with the Louisiana case [emphasis added]:

Posner finds the states' justifications so irrational that he almost becomes unhinged himself.

[...]

It is a roaring steam engine of an opinion, at times exhilarating and at other times puzzling. Is it likely to change minds? No. Its flip dismissal of the political process argument makes it less persuasive than it could have been....

In contrast to this decision, Judge Martin Feldman of Louisiana crafted a lucid and careful legal argument for why the State of Louisiana not only has a rational basis for regulating marriage by defining it as the union of one man and one woman, but also in doing so is acting precisely the way that Justice Kennedy in Windsor said States can and should act!

In his analysis of Feldman's decision for The Daily Signal, Ryan Anderson explains:

Feldman ruled that, consistent with the U.S. Constitution, citizens and their elected officials should get to define marriage, and they can define it as the union of man and woman if they choose to.

[...]

Feldman cites the Supreme Court's decision in the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) case, U.S. v. Windsor, as support that Louisiana has the right to define marriage for itself. Feldman writes: "Windsor repeatedly and emphatically reaffirmed the longstanding principle that the authority to regulate the subject of domestic relations belongs to the states, subject to indistinct future constitutional guarantees that in Windsor were, by its expressed limits, left open and rather inexact."

Feldman's decision is a far cry from Posner's, as the former looks carefully at the cases with binding precedent and reasons from the Constitution and rational analysis of facts; whereas the latter is a shameful display of animus and hostility toward anyone who dares agree with nearly all of human civilization throughout all of history and throughout most of the world today that there's something special about the conjugal union of husband and wife.

Indeed, the craziest moments of Posner's decision are not merely ludicrous and poorly reasoned, they're scandalously offensive.

For example, he insinuates that the people of Indiana and Wisconsin—whose marriage laws his decision strikes down—were acting against children's welfare by instantiating in law the ideal that kids have both a mother and a father!

But it gets even worse than that.

To take another—and perhaps the most egregious—example: We know that the tradition of marriage as the union of husband and wife is nearly universal to the human experience; it is a tradition honorably celebrated and sincerely believed in by nearly every religious tradition and philosophy, throughout history and in our own day. It constitutes a deeply held belief for literally billions of people worldwide.

Well, Posner compares that tradition to cannibalism and ritualistic suicide!

Mr. Epps says Judge Posner comes almost unhinged. I might question whether he's not underestimating things somewhat.

Marriage Supporter, you should be outraged, as I am, that the deeply held beliefs of millions of Americans like us can be subjected to such calumny by high-level judiciary official in our land. We should be disgusted to find the votes of millions of Americans to protect marriage and the interests of children in having a mom and a dad compared libelously to something as grotesque as cannibalism!

But, in light of this insidious attack, we should also be grateful and all the more thrilled for the cool-headed common sense of judges like Martin Feldman whose decision is like a breath of fresh air let into a dank and stale cellar.

Please share this decision with your family and friends, and read it yourself today, and be encouraged!

The redefinition of marriage is not inevitable—not by a long shot.

Even a writer like Epps, who admits he is on the side of redefining marriage, admitted of Feldman's decision that it was clearly and closely based on Justice Kennedy's reasoning in Windsor.

Epps recognizes as much because it is hard not to do so—just as it is not hard to recognize, as Epps does, that Posner's decision by contrast is "puzzling," to use perhaps the politest applicable term.

When the Supreme Court considers this matter again—as they will certainly do—they won't miss what anyone can plainly see. They won't miss that decisions like Feldman's are based in a careful and discerning reading of the law, without a personal agenda to push or axe to grind; and that decisions like Posner's are ideological screeds frankly unworthy of the very institution of the Judiciary.

So, take heart. And read the wonderful and victorious decision from Louisiana. It will be a wonderful resource and encouragement to you as, with us at NOM and with so many of your fellow citizens, you continue to stand up bravely and speak out boldly about what marriage is and why marriage matters!

Faithfully,

Brian S Brown

Brian S. Brown
President
National Organization for Marriage

Brian Brown


National Organization for Marriage Says Louisiana Marriage Decision Proves That It Is Perfectly Legal For States to Define Marriage As The Union of One Man and One Woman

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: September 3, 2014
Contact: Elizabeth Ray or Matille Thebolt (703-683-5004)


"This is a great win for the cause of marriage, coming as it does on the heels of other pro-marriage court victories, that puts the lie to the claim that it is inevitable the US Supreme Court will redefine marriage. To the contrary, we believe they will leave this issue with the states." — Brian Brown, NOM president —

nom_logo

Washington, D.C. — The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) today praised federal court Judge Martin Feldman for ruling today that the US Constitution does not preclude the state of Louisiana from defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman, and that voters made a rational decision in doing so when they adopted the state's marriage amendment. Feldman becomes the third federal judge to have ruled that traditional marriage laws are not unconstitutional, and the first since the US Supreme Court issued their decision invalidating a section of the federal Defense of Marriage Act. A state judge in Tennessee has also ruled that the US constitution does not prohibit states from defining marriage a one man and one woman.

"Here we see the house of cards collapsing that supported the myth that redefining marriage is inevitable," said Brian S. Brown, president of the National Organization for Marriage. "This decision by Judge Feldman in Louisiana is a great win for the cause of marriage, coming as it does on the heels of other pro-marriage court victories, that puts the lie to the claim that it is inevitable the US Supreme Court will redefine marriage. To the contrary, we believe they will leave this issue with the states."

In his ruling issued today, Judge Feldman wrote that "Louisiana's definition of marriage as between one man and one woman and the limitation on recognition of same-sex marriages permitted by law in other states ... do not infringe the guarantees of the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the United States Constitution... The defendants have shown that Louisiana's decision to neither permit nor recognize same-sex marriage, formed in the arena of the democratic process, is supported by a rational basis."

"Judge Feldman has authored a powerful opinion that points the US Supreme Court in the direction of upholding state marriage laws and constitutional amendments," Brown said. "He finds what should be obvious to everyone, that states have a legitimate concern in 'linking marriage to children with intact families.' It is perfectly appropriate for voters to determine if they wish to decide for themselves whether they wish to redefine this age-old institution that has served society so well. Overwhelmingly, voters have rejected redefining marriage, and we expect the US Supreme Court to do so as well."

Feldman becomes the third federal judge to uphold traditional marriage laws, joining judges in Nevada and Hawaii. Last month a judge in Tennessee ruled that the US Constitution does not prohibit Tennessee from adopting a marriage amendment defining marriage as one man and one woman.

###

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

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

Two Roads

National Organization for Marriage

Dear Marriage Supporter,

A couple of court cases have attracted some interest this week, and they provide an interesting contrast highlighting why we are both concerned about the future of marriage in America, but also optimistic in the long run.

Oregon

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals denied NOM's motion this week to intervene to defend the state's marriage amendment in court.

Because the state Attorney General and Governor both abandoned their sworn duty to defend the law, NOM was left as the sole entity willing to publicly defend the statute on behalf of our members within the state of Oregon. We filed the appeal on behalf of our supporters, who did not wish to be named publicly, fearing reprisal.

There is well-established precedent for this under the Supreme Court's ruling in the case of NAACP v. Alabama allowing membership organizations to pursue the interests of their members when there are substantial hurdles to the members litigating in their own name, such as the real threats of harassment and violence that have been manifested elsewhere in the country around the marriage issue.

Unfortunately, the Ninth Circuit did not agree and denied our motion, saying that we lacked legal standing.

Which raises the question: in America today, who DOES represent the interests of the voters? Elected officials who have sworn oaths of office to do so are refusing to do so when the issue is perceived to run counter to the popular culture. And when that happens, what can the voters do?

It's a serious crisis begun by the Supreme Court's decision last summer that the defendants of Proposition 8 didn't have legal standing which is now calling into question the entire validity and purpose of the referendum process — the truest form of democracy in our great Republic.

Of course, the legal process isn't necessarily over, and NOM will be exploring whether to file a petition for rehearing en banc with the full Ninth Circuit or whether we will seek review in the Supreme Court itself.

Because, right now, the sovereign act of the people of Oregon — voting in 2006 to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman — went entirely undefended by the elected officials of Oregon, an abdication of duty that resulted in the long-standing understanding of marriage in Oregon being rewritten by a single federal court judge.

The policy fight over the definition of marriage is something that should ultimately be resolved by the people, not unelected judges. For now, Oregonians have been denied their voice on that important policy issue, and that is truly regrettable.

North Dakota

In contrast to Oregon, we have the example of the leaders in North Dakota. Like so many other states, North Dakota's marriage amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman is under attack in federal court.

But the actions of the Governor and Attorney General in defense of the law have been exemplary to this point. They recently filed a response to the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment in the case that outlines — brilliantly — so many of the critical and compelling arguments in defense of marriage.

Among many other critically important points, they make a few that I would like to highlight here:

The case involves two conflicting marriage institutions that cannot coexist.

As I mentioned in my email on Wednesday, they point out that "this case involves two mutually exclusive and profoundly different marriage institutions, marriage institutions that serve separate, distinct, and conflicting societal purposes."

In fact, in making the argument, they cite the minority opinion of Justice Alito in the Windsor case of last summer — an opinion that cites NOM co-founder Robert P. George's book, What Is Marriage? in making precisely that point!

They correctly point out that "North Dakota can have only one social institution denominated 'marriage.' It cannot simultaneously provide the historically proven valuable social benefits of man-woman marriage and the asserted benefits of the new genderless marriage. One necessarily displaces or precludes the other."

The States have the power to define marriage.

It should be obvious, but in light of the blatant activism of federal judges recently, it must be pointed out. So they do: "In cases spanning three centuries, the Supreme Court has emphasized that '[t]he whole subject of the domestic relations of husband and wife, parent and child, belongs to the laws of the states, and not to the laws of the United States.'"

Furthermore, nothing in federal constitutional law requires North Dakota to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states.

The media likes to say that last year, the Defense of Marriage Act was struck down in the Windsor case. But that's simply not true — only ONE of the FOUR sections of DOMA was struck down — the section that dealt with the federal government's recognition of marriage. The other three sections are still the law of the land — including Section Two, which clearly says states do NOT have to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states.

Perhaps most importantly, they point out that:

North Dakota marriage law does not violate either the Due Process Clause or the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment

The defendants point out that "[t]he due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is not a charter for restructuring [marriage] by judicial legislation." (see Supreme Court case, Baker v. Nelson).

In fact, they further point out that "Windsor also makes no mention of Baker and certainly does not inform lower courts that they are no longer bound by Baker. Windsor dealt with the constitutionality of a federal law defining marriage, not a state law" [emphasis added].

I realize that this is quite a bit technical, but I wanted to let you see that marriage can and IS receiving a phenomenal defense in court.

As cases like the one in North Dakota make their way up to the Supreme Court in the coming months, rest assured that NOM will be doing everything we can to support the defense of marriage in the courts and throughout society. If you are able this Labor Day weekend, could you please consider making a generous contribution to support our efforts to protect marriage and the faith communities that sustain it?

Faithfully,

Brian S Brown

Brian S. Brown
President
National Organization for Marriage

Brian Brown

PS: Enjoy your Labor Day weekend!

National Organization for Marriage Statement on the 9th Circuit's Ruling

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


nom_logo

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

"We are of course disappointed with the Ninth Circuit's decision today. The Ninth Circuit did not reach the appeal of the denial of motion to intervene, holding instead that even if NOM had been allowed to intervene on behalf of its members (including Oregon voters, wedding services providers, and a county clerk), it had no standing to appeal the judgment below even though the elected officials of the state refused to provide any defense of the marriage amendment adopted by a strong majority of Oregonians.

"We believe that the decision conflicts with a prior Ninth Circuit opinion specifically recognizing that a County Clerk with the duty to issue marriage licenses likely would have standing to intervene and appeal an adverse judgment. NOM alleged under oath that it had among its members just such a county clerk, and it sought to intervene on the clerk's behalf under the Supreme Court's well-established precedent in the case of NAACP v. Alabama allowing membership organizations to pursue the interests of their members when there are substantial hurdles to the members litigating in their own name, such as the real threats of harassment and violence that have been manifested elsewhere in the country around the marriage issue. Because of that conflict, we will certainly be exploring whether to file a petition for rehearing en banc with the full Ninth Circuit or whether we will seek review in the Supreme Court itself.

"Ultimately, though, NOM remains concerned that a sovereign act of the people of Oregon went entirely undefended by the elected officials of Oregon, an abdication of duty that resulted in the long-standing understanding of marriage in Oregon being rewritten by a single federal court judge. The policy fight over the definition of marriage is something that should ultimately be resolved by the people, not unelected judges. For now, Oregonians have been denied their voice on that important policy issue, and that is truly regrettable."

###

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).

Why I Think We'll Win

National Organization for Marriage

Dear Marriage Supporter,

Although it has been a mild summer, things are heating up in the fight to defend marriage.

In just a few months, we will be facing a potential turning point in the political arena, as NOM will be working with many other groups to retake the United States Senate and hold politicians accountable to you, the voters, for their policy positions related to the institution of marriage.

And a few short months after that, NOM will be leading the charge to make a national statement that will be heard around the country and the world as the United States Supreme Court likely hears arguments in a case that could well become the Roe v Wade of marriage.

But here's the thing about that potential case: this time around, we have a very good chance to WIN!

Won't you please help NOM gear up for the November elections and pending litigation with a generous donation of $35, $50, $100 or even $500 right away?

Why do I think we have a very good chance of winning at the Supreme Court?

I'll refer your attention to the recent legal filings in North Dakota by the Governor and Attorney General and their powerful and compelling legal arguments in defense of marriage.

In their briefs, they point out that "this case involves two mutually exclusive and profoundly different marriage institutions, marriage institutions that serve separate, distinct, and conflicting societal purposes."

They go on to note that:

The man-woman marriage institution has uniquely provided valuable social benefits necessary to the well-being and stability of society and the development of individuals, especially children. In particular, the man-woman marriage institution's norms and other public meanings have helped a greater portion of children know and be raised by their mother and father.

Toward the end of the twentieth century, however, various individuals and groups began a campaign to use the force of law to replace the man-woman marriage (traditional marriage) institution with an institution that would still be called "marriage" but would have a very different core meaning: the union of any two persons without regard to gender (genderless marriage). This civil action is an important part of that campaign.

North Dakota can have only one social institution denominated "marriage." It cannot simultaneously provide the historically proven valuable social benefits of man-woman marriage and the asserted benefits of the new genderless marriage. One necessarily displaces or precludes the other.

This is exactly correct. Redefining marriage to include homosexual couples isn't simply adding a parallel institution that won't alter or interact with marriage — it fundamentally changes marriage and makes it an inherently genderless institution.

And that genderless institution is what will be pushed in government policy; in schools; indeed, through all mechanisms of government.

As the brief also points out, same-sex 'marriage' is based on two fundamentally flawed propositions: "First, that there is a fundamental right to marry someone of the same sex. Second, that sexual orientation is a class meriting heightened scrutiny. Both of these propositions have been rejected by the Supreme Court and the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals."

Legal precedence is on our side. Reason is on our side. History is on our side. And the vast majority of citizens in America and across the world are on our side.

All we must do now is mobilize them to ensure that the individuals in control of the levers of power in the government and society recognize and respect that fact.

Won't you please click here right away to make a generous donation of $35, $50, $100 or even $500 to help NOM fight to defend marriage and the faith communities that sustain it?

Faithfully,

Brian S Brown

Brian S. Brown
President
National Organization for Marriage

Brian Brown

PS: I'll have a lot more to say about these legal cases involving marriage making their way up to the Supreme Court in the days ahead. But I wanted to let you see how powerful and compelling the arguments supporting marriage are; and I wanted to show you that those arguments are being ably advanced in the courts. I feel very good about the legal appeals underway and am optimistic about our chances to win at the Supreme Court in the months ahead.

And NOM will be doing everything we can to assist in these pending victories by mobilizing tens of thousands of Americans to rally in defense of marriage, sending politicians and judges around the country a powerful and unequivocal message: marriage is the union of one man and one woman! Please consider partnering with us today by making a financial investment in NOM today.

"Coercive Big Government Run Amok"

National Organization for Marriage

Dear Marriage Supporter,

"This is coercive big government run amok."

That is the phrase The Daily Signal has used to describe a recent bit of news from New York state which represents only the latest act of bullying and intimidation by the same-sex marriage lobby against those of us who refuse to step in line with their radical ideology.

This time, the victims of this discriminatory and bigoted targeting are a couple who rent out their family farm for wedding receptions, but who respectfully declined renting to a lesbian couple because they could not in sound conscience participate in such an event.

To the Orwellian New York Human Rights Commission, however, this kind of conscientious dissent is ungoodthink. The farm owners, Cynthia and Robert Gifford, are being fined $13,000.00 for this malfeasance: $10,000 in civil damages to the State of New York and $1,500 to each of the two women of the couple denied services, for the "mental anguish" they have supposedly suffered.

But the damage of this terrible legal ruling goes beyond the pecuniary penalties against the Giffords themselves. In fact, they are only the chief victims of this travesty of justice. The wider implications are for you, and I, and future generations of Americans who suddenly see one more fundamental right—the right of conscience—being eroded more and more under the tidal wave of the marriage redefinition ideology.

Not the Onion

Sometimes news is so absurd that when you post it on Facebook or Twitter, you need to include the caveat that it is "not the Onion"—referring to the famous parody humor website.

As I read through the decision from the New York Human Rights Commission in the case of the Giffords, I had to keep reminding myself that it wasn’t parody.

For instance, in the section called "Findings of Fact", the document details the only recorded interaction between the Giffords and the female couple that wanted to rent the farm for their 'wedding.’ It reads as follows (the numbers are part of the ordered list of "facts" found by the court):

59. When Complaintants found the [Farm’s] website, they felt "very grateful and very excited" as if "this was meant to happen." [...]

60. Complaintants first attempted to contact [the Farm] about renting the wedding venue spaces electronically. Complaintants then left a phone message. [...]

62. In September 2013, Melissa McCarthy [one of the 'brides’] and Cynthia Gifford spoke by telephone. Jennifer McCarthy listened in on the phone. [...]

66. After being invited to visit [the Farm], Melisa McCarthy referred to her fiancé as "she" when discussing making an appointment to visit, and stated that "she works until 5:30." [...]

67. Upon hearing Melisa McCarthy refer to her finance [sic] as "she," Cynthia Gifford said there was "a little bit of a problem" because "we do not hold same-sex marriages here at the barn." [...]

70. Melisa McCarthy... asked Cynthia Gifford the reason for not allowing same-sex marriages. [...]

71. Cynthia Gifford responded that the reason for the policy was that "it’s a decision that my husband and I have made that that’s not what we wanted to have on the farm." [...]

72. Melisa McCarthy ended the phone call with Cynthia Gifford by stating that learning of the policy was "very disappointing" and that Complaintants "won’t take up anymore of your time." [...]

Apparently, Melisa McCarthy was simply being quaint when she said she and Jennifer wouldn’t be taking up any more of the Giffords’ time, because of course they ended up hauling the Farm owners into court.

But this is the extent of the interaction between the Giffords and the two women who wanted to 'marry’ at the farm. This is the basis of finding that $1,500 worth of "mental anguish" penalties were due to be paid to each of the complaintants!

I wish I could say the near-parody of the piece ends there, but it gets even worse. While the monetary damages are perhaps the most egregious penalties being imposed against the Giffords, they aren’t the most ridiculous penalties—nor the most invasive and insidious.

The judge also ruled that:

Within sixty (60) days... [the Giffords] shall prominently post in [their] place of business, where members of the public are likely to view it, a copy of the [New York Human Rights] Division’s poster...;

[The Giffords] shall establish in [their] place of business both anti-discrimination training and procedures... [and] shall provide proof of the aforementioned to the Division upon written demand... [emphasis added].

So, not only do the Giffords need to establish a kind of "re-education" regimen in their place of business (which is also their home, by the way), but they also need to hang on the wall a poster that reads in a big red box, in all capitals:

DISCRIMINATION BASED ON AGE, RACE, CREED, COLOR, NATIONAL ORIGIN, SEXUAL ORIENTATION, MILITARY STATUS, SEX, DISABILITY, DOMESTIC VIOLENCE VICTIM STATUS, OR MARITAL STATUS IS PROHIBITED BY THE NEW YORK STATE HUMAN RIGHTS LAW....

It’s like Hawthorne’s Scarlett Letter or something else out of dystopian fiction!

How would you like a poster like that hanging on the wall at your wedding reception? When you went to visit the venue and you saw that, wouldn’t you wonder what kind of place this was that has been forced to hang such a thing on its wall?

This is Only the Tip of the Spear

Those who clamor for the redefinition of marriage talk a lot about the damaging effect of stigma—but it is becoming increasingly clear that that is precisely the treatment they have in mind for anyone who dares disagree with their radical agenda.

They want to stigmatize them, publicly shame them, label them "bigots" and "haters"—yes, even to the extent of hanging public notices on the walls of their workplaces to identify them as such!

Wedding professionals are only the tip of the spear. What has happened to the Giffords in New York is a direct consequence of that state’s political act to redefine marriage, making a romantic attachment between adults of the same sex the legal equivalent of marriage between a man and a woman, something that has helped form civilizations since the dawn of time.

It used to be that same-sex 'marriage’ advocates would ask, "What does the gay marriage down the block have to do with your marriage?" They suggested Americans adopt a kind of laissez-faire attitude that effectively downplayed the consequences to come. Now that marriage has been redefined, we can plainly see those consequences, however... and they are not just to those in the wedding industry.

If same-sex 'marriage’ advocates were to ever succeed in redefining marriage nationwide, the consequences would be felt by everyone. We are already seeing religious groups’ tax exemptions challenged, charities such as adoption agencies forced to abandon their mission or sacrifice their beliefs, and family-owned businesses being compelled to provide services that conflict with their values or else get out of business altogether... and on, and on.

It’s safe to say that if marriage were ever redefined nationally, we would see happen across America what has happened in New York: the full force of government would be deployed to force people not only to accept it, but participate in it.

"How does 'gay marriage’ affect you?" It threatens your church’s liberties, it changes your child’s school curriculum, it determines which charities are allowed to operate and what businesses will be allowed to continue, and it engenders "coercive big government run amok" narrowing and cutting away at our rights to speak and act upon the truth of marriage.

Rolling Back the Tide

I referred earlier to our civil liberties being eroded by the "tidal wave" of same-sex marriage. I borrow the phrase from Bobby Lopez, who used it in a recent talk to the Anscombe Society at Stanford.

Bobby was speaking about the effects of redefining marriage on children, whose rights are almost always ignored when our opponents bring this debate into the public square. Bobby said that the same-sex marriage agenda, in practice, "ultimately means that in order to protect the sexual relationship between two adults, you have to shatter the relationship between a child and either his father or his mother."

He said that those "who kept on warning that gay marriage was a portal to new things" years ago (when he disagreed with that view) have turned out to be right: "Gay marriage became this tidal wave that then swept up children."

But I need to repeat something I have said again and again in these newsletters: it is NOT inevitable!

Just this week, we saw a huge victory in the judicial realm when the Supreme Court unanimously decided to block the enforcement of a ruling in Virginia that had struck down that State’s marriage amendment! And that’s on top of the tremendous court victory in Tennessee which rejected an attempt to redefine marriage.

These are the sorts of things which, according to the inevitability narrative parroted by our opponents, should never happen. And yet it did.

So, remain hopeful. Unfortunately, there will be more such sad cases as that of the Giffords—cases of good and honorable Americans unjustly targeted and discriminated against simply for believing in marriage between a man and a woman.

But we will see that tide roll back, and an end to "coercive big government run amok."

We have the truth on our side. We have the right principles, and a just cause. We stand for something wholesome and good: we stand for marriage as God made it and as humanity has treasured it; we stand for the rights of kids to a mom and a dad; we stand for the liberty of conscience.

Let’s continue to stand for those things bravely and unwaveringly, because marriage will have its day in court again—and we’re going to win!

Faithfully,

Brian S Brown

Brian S. Brown
President
National Organization for Marriage

Brian Brown


Couple With "Amazing Love" for One Another Die Four Hours Apart, Holding Hands

Here's a bittersweet tale that should nonetheless brighten your Friday with its wonderful witness to Married Joy:

A couple married for 62 years recently died four hours apart while lying next to each other.  The story of their lifelong love has quickly gone viral.

KERO-TV reported that Don and Maxine Simpson traveled the world, adopted two boys, and participated in many different activities together.  According to their relatives:

“Gram woke up and saw him, and held hands and they knew that they were next to each other,” said Sloan.

CoupleBut what no one knew is how they would leave this world.

“I knew in my heart this is what’s supposed to happen. Grandma and grandpa are supposed to be together and grandma and grandpa are going to die together,” she said.

And that’s exactly what happened.

“I could hear on the monitor, she took her last breath and I came to check. She had passed,” said Sloan.

Maxine was gone.

“I walked them out with her body, walked back in to check on grandpa and he quit breathing as soon as her body left the room.  He left with her, and they passed four hours apart from each other,” she said.

The man, that married the love of his life more than 60 years ago, was only hours behind in death.

Godspeed to them in their final journey together and may they be reunited in the life to come!

We DO Need Fathers

In a recent Rolling Stone interview, pop icon Katy Perry remarked about fatherhood, “I don't need a dude.  It's 2014!  We are living in the future; we don't need anything.  I’m not anti-men. I love men. But there is an option if someone doesn’t present himself.”

D.C. McAllister responded at The Federalist with a very fine article:

Father-DaughterSociologist David Popenoe, a pioneer in the field of research into fatherhood, says, “Fathers are far more than just ‘second adults’ in the home. Involved fathers bring positive benefits to their children that no other person is as likely to bring.”

That means it’s not just the fact that he provides money so there is reduced stress in the home, and it doesn’t mean just any “dude” can step in and replace him. There is a real and organic relationship between a father and a child that is irreplaceable and essential in the development of the child.

Williams wrote in an article at the Wall Street Journal that “when fatherless young people are encouraged to write about their lives, they tell heartbreaking stories about feeling like ‘throwaway people.’ In the privacy of the written page, their hard, emotional shells crack open to reveal the uncertainty that comes from not knowing if their father has any interest in them.”

Study after study has shown that children with fathers in the home are better off in school, commit less crime, have more stable relationships, and are less likely to be involved with drugs or engage in other deviant behavior. Girls, in particular, exhibit higher self-esteem and are less likely to have out-of-wedlock pregnancies.

[...]

Studies have shown that fatherless children are more insecure, more likely to experience depression, and more inclined to exhibit disruptive behavior. “Boys with involved fathers have fewer school behavior problems,” and “girls have stronger self-esteem.” In other words, “fathers have a powerful and positive impact upon the development and health of children.”

[...]

A dad isn’t just some dude to dismiss. Children need him. They will always need him; from infancy to adulthood, he is the cornerstone of their lives... if the statistics are to be believed, then the truth is that growing up without a dad is no fairytale.

Read the whole piece.

Worth Your Attention: TN and VA Court Decisions

National Organization for Marriage

Dear Marriage Supporter,

Great news!

Yesterday, the US Supreme Court intervened to grant a stay — a delay in the implementation of a lower court's ruling pending legal appeal — in Virginia, halting the redefinition of marriage in its tracks in the Old Dominion!

The justice in charge of reviewing petitions in the 4th circuit (Justice Roberts) referred the matter to the full court. And once again — just as was the case in Utah earlier this year — there was no dissent from a single justice in granting the stay!

Let me remind you that one of the conditions for overturning a lower court's decision in granting a stay is the reasonable expectation of victory on appeal!

Won't you please take this opportunity to renew your commitment to defending marriage by making a generous contribution of $35, $50, $100, or even $500 to NOM today?

After winning many lawsuits in lower federal courts presided over by hand-picked, liberal, activist judges, the momentum behind the marriage redefinition agenda is waning.

Remember, in addition to the Supreme Court's intervention in Utah and Virginia, federal judges in states like Wisconsin are taking notice and issuing stays on their own decisions to allow the legal process to play out.

Much, much more importantly, we recently won a case at the lower level in Tennessee! You might not know about it because the media is doing everything it can to ignore the facts, but Roane County Circuit Judge Russell E. Simmons, Jr., of Kingston, Tennessee ruled that "neither the Federal Government nor another state should be allowed to dictate to Tennessee what has traditionally been a state's responsibility."

In addition, he correctly commented on the Supreme Court's Windsor decision of last summer, saying that the "Supreme Court does not go the final step and find that a state that defines marriage as a union of one man and one woman is unconstitutional. Further, the Supreme Court does not find that one state's refusal to accept another state's valid same-sex marriage to be in violation of the U.S. Constitution."

The rush to judgment declaring marriage to be unconstitutional is not only premature — it's flat out wrong!

Won't you please give a generous donation today to help NOM continue fighting to defend marriage and the faith communities that sustain it?

The US Supreme Court has determined that states have the right to define marriage and we remain confident that they will uphold all the various traditional marriage laws and constitutional amendments that have been wrongly invalidated by federal judges.

Moreover, we look forward to the US Supreme Court taking one or more of the three marriage cases now pending before them, and ultimately ruling that defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman is entirely constitutional.

Thank you for continuing to stand for marriage!

Faithfully,

Brian S Brown

Brian S. Brown
President
National Organization for Marriage

Brian Brown

PS: As the recent actions of the Supreme Court in Virginia and the legal victory in Tennessee show... the tide is turning! And NOM needs your help to keep building the momentum! These lower federal court cases are making their way up to the Supreme Court, and we must demonstrate that Americans across the country and from all walks of life believe that marriage is the union of one man and one woman. Won't you please make a generous donation today to help us build a grassroots movement and make a powerful statement that will be heard throughout the country and especially in the halls of the Supreme Court?


National Organization for Marriage Pleased that the US Supreme Court Granted a Stay of the Decision Striking Down Virginia’s Marriage Amendment

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: August 20, 2014
Contact: Elizabeth Ray or Matille Thebolt (703-683-5004)


nom_logo

Washington, D.C. — The following statement may be attributed to Brian Brown, President of the National Organization for Marriage:

"We are pleased that the US Supreme Court has put a halt to the decision in Virginia redefining marriage in violation of the state’s marriage amendment overwhelmingly approved by voters. We had called upon the Court to take this step and are gratified that they will now be able to carefully consider the issues. This is another indication that the rush to judgment declaring marriage to be unconstitutional is not only premature, but incorrect. The US Supreme Court has determined that states have the right to define marriage and we remain confident that they will uphold all the various traditional marriage laws and constitutional amendments that have been wrongly invalidated by federal judges. We look forward to the US Supreme Court taking one or more of the three marriage cases now pending before them, and ultimately ruling that defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman is entirely constitutional."

###

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).