Dear Marriage Supporter,

24 hours and the fate of marriage will be decided in Illinois.

The fact that the fight for marriage is coming down to the wire in this deep blue state controlled by Democrats, even with Pres. Obama pushing for its passage, is a testament first, to the good people of Illinois, of every race, creed and color who have worked hard to stand up for God's vision of marriage against relentless political and media pressure.

What kind of political pressure? One of the legislators in Springfield told the The African American Clergy Coalition (NOM has been working closely with them) that Gov. Quinn is offering holdout Representatives earmarks for their district such as "bridges and expressway extensions" if return for their yes vote on gay marriage.

Gay marriage is so "inevitable", in other words, the governor of this deep blue state has been forced to stoop to bribery and favor-peddling to pass it over the will of the people!

If you live in Illinois, now is the time to speak or forever lose your peace. Please call your legislator or forward this alert to your friends and family in Illinois. Have them tell him or her "just say no!" to same-sex marriage and the shady back-room deals that accompany redefining marriage against the will of the people.

Rays of Hope

In the darkness, shimmers of light emerge. Michael Bradley, a young Notre Dame philosophy graduate student, pushes back against the powerful governor of Massachusetts Deval Patrick, when the later argues that gay marriage is a civil right like interracial marriage:

"Patrick first offers an argument that eludes this central question while simultaneously doing something rather insidious: employing the rhetoric of, and therefore inviting comparison to, the black civil rights movement in order to dress the same-sex marriage debate as just the next civil rights cause in marriage's sullied history. Such a move is predictable, old, tired and just a poor argument to make.

In ruling the prohibition of interracial marriages unconstitutional in 1967, the Supreme Court simply acknowledged that a man and woman of different ethnic backgrounds had all along been able to, in reality, form the sort of relationship that marriage is. That is, a white man and a black woman (for example) were just as able as a white man and a white woman to form the union of marriage, the essential characteristics and norms of which have been expressed in what was, until very recently, the universally-recognized understanding (if not articulation) of marriage: a comprehensive union of two sexually complementary persons. Loving v. Virginia simply established that race was not a salient feature of marriage. Loving didn't entail any redefinition or change to the understanding of marriage at all; it represented the gradual shedding of pure racism in America."

Right now in all states some marriages are "banned" for policy reasons: first-cousin marriages in some states, for example, sibling marriages in all 50 states. These bans are bans — not disagreement about the nature of marriage. Incestuous unions are bad for the common good and children and so they are outlawed.

But as the brave young scholar points out:

"This is not the case with same-sex marriage. Proponents of conjugal marriage have been arguing all along not that people with homosexual inclinations should not be allowed to get married — for such discrimination would be akin to the blatant racism that permeated the marriage culture prior to Loving — but rather that two men or two women, regardless of whether and/or how their sexual inclinations come into the picture, simply cannot form the sort of relationship that marriage is.

The logic that equates federal bans on interracial marriages and same-sex marriages is unsound because it is completely question-begging. It would be similar — and similarly ridiculous — if same-sex marriage advocates argued that since the state doesn't prohibit Italians from marrying the Irish (if this were the case, I would not have been born) or a man over six feet tall from marrying a woman under six feet tall (again, my parents would have been out of luck), a man can't be prohibited from marrying a man. Such an appeal proves absolutely nothing and simply arrives back at the same point: What are the essential characteristics of marriage?" Bradley asks.

Love, commitment, permanence, exclusivity, faithfulness between a man and woman who vow to be there for one another, and for their children.

That's the heart of what marriage is, what we fight for, and what government cannot change.

In the dark days of late spring, the light of truth spoken with vigor and with love continues to shine. Many young people are cowed or embarrassed to speak truth to power, but among the next generation, heroes are also arising.

Sandy Glass of Naperville, Illinois witnessed such unexpected courage during her recent trip to Paris last Sunday. She and her husband travel to France a great deal, so when they ran into massive street demonstrations, amounting to hundreds of thousands of people protesting, they assumed it was must be a left-wing labor protest about one thing or another.

Suddenly they realized that this was a massive protest against gay marriage, against the commodification of children. A protest for the natural family. "It brought tears to our eyes," Glass said, when they followed the noise and saw the pro-family signs. "Oh, we're not the only 'crazy' ones," she said, explaining that it is "sometimes very difficult to be on the right in America."

Here is what the right side looks like in France:

The media and the elites want you to feel alone and isolated and powerless and silenced. That's why I'm so proud of what you and I have built together — the most important megaphone for marriage in America. That's why I went to France as well to share what we have learned with organizers there, building (as the gay-marriage have) a transnational movement for marriage.

The Wrong Worldview

My old dinner host Dan Savage is out with a new book in which he explains how hard it was to sit with me and civilly discuss our differences.

The gap between our worldviews is once again on display. Like Savage, I do not believe divorce is a good answer to the problem of adultery. Unlike Savage, I do not believe endorsing adultery is the solution to the problem of divorce.

Nor do I believe that the answer to the problem of "minors having easy access to pornography on the Internet" is "to educate your child to be a…critical and thoughtful viewer of porn, and to think about what they may be viewing."

Meanwhile The Atlantic is at last acknowledging that gay marriage will likely change marriage.

The most telling interview is with the Episcopalian Dean of the National Cathedral who says he is hoping the ancient Anglican wedding liturgy, and the ideas it represents, will be replaced by a new wedding ceremony and ideal, patterned on same-sex blessing ceremonies: "The new service does not ground marriage in a doctrine of creation and procreation,' [Gary] Hall says. "It grounds marriage in a kind of free coming-together of two people to live out their lives."

The Atlantic continues: "In the next couple of years, Hall expects, the General Convention will adopt a new service for all Episcopal weddings. He is hopeful that the current same-sex service will serve as its basis."

This is the worldview we are fighting, the new morality gay marriage is a vehicle for imposing.

It is the reason we cannot listen to the voices of despair — a spiritual temptation — but must instead resolve to stand shoulder to shoulder together, across the boundaries of race and religion, in loving defense of a truth that is eternal, that cannot be changed, that must be passed down to future generations: marriage as the sacred union of a man and a woman, who give their child that inestimable treasure: a loving mom and dad.

Thank you for giving me and all of us here at NOM the chance to be your voice for your values — for true and good and beautiful values.

Dear Marriage Supporter,

Just about 75 days until the Supreme Court rules on the fate of marriage for a generation. Now is the time for you to act!

If you've signed the petition to the Supreme Court, thank you.

Can you ask 3 friends today to sign the petition as well?

If you haven't yet signed—go right now, and make your voice heard!

More "Inevitable" State Battles...

Deep in blue states, gay marriage advocates are pushing hard to get another victory, to feed their narrative of "inevitability" in the weeks before the Supreme Court decides the fate of marriage for a generation.

Right now the battle for marriage is engaged in Rhode Island, Illinois, and Delaware. Gay marriage advocates expected these battles in deep blue states to be slam-dunks.

But thanks to the generous donations of thousands of Americans who give to NOM's general treasury and trust us to be at the forefront of the most important fights for marriage—the good people in these states are not fighting alone.

The "slam dunk" in Illinois, which was supposed to showcase turncoat Republicans' embrace of gay marriage, is turning into a big problem, as black pastors in Chicago have made it clear they expect their elected representatives to represent them, not the DNC or George Soros, or the mainstream media.

In Rhode Island, what ought to be another "slam dunk" is turning into a real dog fight. NOM's Chris Plante is helping lead the fight.

We expect more battles to emerge across the country, especially after the Supreme Court ruling re-ignites the fight!

New Matching Gift Campaign

And thankfully an amazingly generous donor has stepped forward to help you make a difference for marriage:

Between now and the Supreme Court ruling, this donor has agreed to match every donation—dollar-for-dollar!—that you or a friend make for marriage.

That's right—your gift of $33 becomes $66 in the fight for marriage;

A gift of $100 will become $200; $500 becomes $1,000;

And, if God has blessed you with the means, $5,000 becomes $10,000!

And all of it, every precious penny you worked so hard to earn and save, will be carefully stewarded, gratefully treasured and put to the best possible use in fighting for marriage.

Time, treasure, talent, that's what the Lord asks of all of us. If you cannot be with the good people fighting for marriage, on the steps of the Supreme Court and beyond, you can help NOM amplify their voices, to make your own voice for marriage heard in the halls of power across this great and blessed country of ours!

The Intolerance of the "Tolerant"

Let me share with you the story of what people on the front lines face at this point. And what great people are at the forefront of that fight.

My friend Peter Wolfgang of the amazing Connecticut Family Institute received death threats for opposing homosexual marriage. This week the man who sent those threats was sentenced to five year probation by a federal judge.

Assistant Federal Defender Gary D. Weinberger said he "was touched" by the letter sent to the judge by Lawrence Taffner, who is operations director for the Connecticut Family Institute which spoke of the need to temper justice with mercy and prayers.

My friend, the one whose life and family was threatened, said he agreed with "every word."

"I do forgive [the man who made the death threats]" Peter said. But he also asked us all to be aware of a "a growing campaign of intimidation with respect to those of us who advocate traditional values, in an effort to silence us. And we will not be silenced."

Wolfgang said he learned of [the man's] intention to plead guilty to mailing the threats on the same day last August that Floyd Lee Corkins II was charged in the non-fatal shooting of a security guard at the Family Research Council in Washington, D.C.

(If you'd like to donate to the Connecticut Family Institute you can do so by clicking here.)

Peter is right this is not an isolated case. Most gay people, I like to remind myself and you, are law-abiding people, our neighbors and fellow citizens whom we can respect even while we profoundly disagree with them on marriage. But what may be an organized minority are issuing increasingly ugly complaints and threats against their fellow citizens who stand up for marriage. Their goal? To silence dissent.

Just a few days ago we received a letter from a 17 year old, who posted a petition supporting marriage on Facebook. What happened next has been the experience of too many good people:

I got a slew of nasty and threatening comments. I was called many things and one even implied that I believed in slavery since I did not support gay marriage. But the one that took the cake was when one of them said that 'I hope a gay guy rapes you so you understand that they can't do anything to you, except rape you. There is nothing wrong with gay marriage, it doesn't hurt anyone but butt hurt civil war jerk offs.' I simple wanted to tell my story in hopes that others learn that they are not alone in this.

What kind of advocate hopes a 17 year boy is raped?

We cannot let the ugly threats of a tiny minority prevent us from standing up for what is true and good and right about marriage.

What's Coming Next?

What's next if we don't stand?

This week the polygamists and the polyamorists came out of the closet to stake their claim to undefining marriage.

The Economist bold headline said it all "Gay Marriage: And Now On to Polygamy!"

The writer finally admitted what so many gay marriage advocates deny and suppress—changing the definition of marriage is a big deal:

Obviously the legalization of same-sex marriage represents a major change in the institution and in the meaning of the word, much as the meaning of phrases like 'all men are created equal' changed significantly when they began to be understood to include, say, women. For people who have a strongly gendered understanding of their own marriage, this is a paradigm shift. The government is now saying it understands marriage as a long-term legal commitment between two people who are assumed to have a sexually attached relationship to each other. Gender is irrelevant; marriage is simply a paired relationship. It's a big deal when social institutions change this way, and if conservative heterosexuals feel their marriages are affected, they're right, even when the way they phrase their complaints is wrong.

"But 'why only two?' isn't a ridiculous question," The Economist acknowledges. "Why shouldn't it be legal for more than two consenting adults to marry each other?" they ask, describing an unwillingness to consider recognizing polygamy as mere "cultural prejudice."

(As one young supporter of marriage asked me "Is it still a slippery slope if your opponents start calling for it?")

That same week, Slate weighed in with an essay headlined "Legalize Polygamy!" She actually writes, "marriage is plastic."

Marriage is plastic, in their view. Marriage is just a word for government politicians to take over and define and redefine and undefine in response to aggressive claims of folks who don't want to marry, and they want the government's help in forcing all of us to view their relationships as marriage.

Just like heterosexual marriage is no better or worse than homosexual marriage, marriage between two consenting adults is not inherently more or less 'correct' than marriage among three (or four, or six) consenting adults. Though polygamists are a minority—a tiny minority, in fact—freedom has no value unless it extends to even the smallest and most marginalized groups among us. So let's fight for marriage equality until it extends to every same-sex couple in the United States—and then let's keep fighting. We're not done yet.

The Illinois Family Institute published a transcript from a radio interview with lesbian journalist Masha Gessen:

It's a no-brainer that (homosexual activists) should have the right to marry, but I also think equally that it's a no-brainer that the institution of marriage should not exist. ... [F]ighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we are going to do with marriage when we get there — because we lie that the institution of marriage is not going to change, and that is a lie.

Two gay marriage advocates in one week admitting gay marriage will change marriage—wow the truth will come out, won't it?

She goes on to say:

I don't like taking part in creating fictions about my life. That's sort of not what I had in mind when I came out thirty years ago. I have three kids who have five parents, more or less, and I don't see why they shouldn't have five parents legally... I met my new partner, and she had just had a baby, and that baby's biological father is my brother, and my daughter's biological father is a man who lives in Russia, and my adopted son also considers him his father. So the five parents break down into two groups of three... And really, I would like to live in a legal system that is capable of reflecting that reality, and I don't think that's compatible with the institution of marriage.

You may not have heard of Ms. Gessen, but she is not some outlier. She was appointed by the Obama administration in 2012 to head up Radio Liberty's Russian service and she blogs at the New York Times Latitude blog.

The Economist admits gay marriage fundamentally changes marriage. A New York Times blogger says she's tired of lying about what gay marriage means for marriage; what the future she is trying to build holds.

Superlawyers Stumped

Truth is breaking out all over!

Ed Whelan points out that the renewed interest in the consequences of "marriage equality" for polygamous marriage was actually spurred in part by the oral arguments before the Supreme Court.

When Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked Ted Olson:

Mr. Olson, the bottom line that you're being asked — and — and it is one that I'm interested in the answer: If you say that marriage is a fundamental right, what State restrictions could ever exist? Meaning, what State restrictions with respect to the number of people, with respect to — that could get married — the incest laws, the mother and child, assuming that they are the age — I can — I can accept that the State has probably an overbearing interest on — on protecting a child until they're of age to marry, but what's left?

Alleged superlawyer Olson's response is lame to say the least: "If a State prohibits polygamy, it's prohibiting conduct. If it prohibits gay and lesbian citizens from getting married, it is prohibiting their exercise of a right based upon their status." Marrying one man is status, marrying two women is conduct.

What's left?

Youth On The March For Marriage

Enjoy this photo of one of our youngest next gen leaders in Minnesota, protesting the gay marriage bill which as the Minnesota Family Council points out "quite literally would remove the terms 'husband,' 'wife,' 'bride,' and 'groom' from our state's policies, and also redefine 'mother' and 'father' as gender-neutral terms."

Talk about speaking truth to power!

Part of the good news I see emerging is a new generation of young leaders for marriage.

Here in America the Baptist Press reports on the brave young Americans who refuse to be silenced. "They exist: Millennials opposed to gay marriage" as the headline says, and the Baptist Press story notes that it was NOM's March for Marriage that brought a number of these young leaders out of the closet.

"Called to speak at the March 26 marriage rally in Washington, D.C., Alison Howard ran to the stage's microphone in an adrenaline-fueled burst. The 24-year-old graduate of Liberty University said she wanted to 'talk to the grown-ups" supporting traditional marriage at the event on the National Mall.

"Do not give up on us young people," said the communications director for Concerned Women for America. "The media will tell you that I don't exist. Well, I'll be the unicorn. I do exist, and I believe in the marriage between a man and a woman."

It would be easy to dismiss Howard's plea as a voice crying in the wilderness. A recent Pew survey found that 70 percent of those in the millennial generation (ages 18 to 33) favor same-sex marriage. But the same poll shows that 65 percent of young evangelicals oppose same-sex marriage. And a number of them, like Howard, are willing to face scorn by taking very public stands against the redefinition of society's most basic institution.

Many of them did not grow up expecting to stand on the front lines of the marriage debate. "Everyone I know who is working on this issue would rather be doing something else," said Ryan Anderson, 31, who co-authored the book What Is Marriage? Man and Woman: A Defense. "But we feel like we have an obligation to be doing this."

The Baptist Press reported on several other next gen leaders who Marched for Marriage with us.

Hours before Anderson's televised showdown, Owen Strachan had positioned himself for his own marriage clash. The 31-year-old father of two had flown into Washington the day before the rally from Louisville, KY, where he is a professor of Christian theology and church history at Boyce College. He maneuvered his way to the second row of marchers headed past the U.S. Capitol toward the Supreme Court. Hispanics, Asians and African Americans strode alongside him.

'This reflects the diversity of the body of Christ,' he thought.

When they turned onto the street that runs past the court, they ran into a blockade of gay marriage supporters trying to halt the march. The counter-protestors refused to move. A man in fishnet stockings, devil horns, and a rainbow-colored tutu danced and taunted the marchers. In the midst of the chaos, Strachan and the others offered a unified response: They knelt where they stood and prayed aloud.

Some truths will not be suppressed! Some truths are too important to let die. And in the end I believe—I know—truth spoken in love will prevail.

Expect The Unexpected

A tiny sign of the times took place lack week at Princeton University, where a friend of NOM wrote to tell us that the distinguished debating society Whig-Clio sponsored a student debate on gay marriage. The vote at Princeton on marriage? 43 in favor—41 against. Among America's best and brightest, new concerns for what gay marriage will mean for marriage—for them, their children and their children's children, are brewing.

One thing I know from my 6 years at the forefront of this fight, thanks to your help and support for the National Organization for Marriage:

Expect the unexpected!

More Young People "Causing Problems"

In France spontaneous peaceful demonstrations by young people protesting their government's determination to ignore the voice of the people is causing headaches across the country:

"Since last Friday, public demonstrations against same-sex "marriage" and adoption in France have been escalating, not only in Paris but also in remote provincial towns and even abroad among French expatriates," reports Lifesite News. "The Senate's approval of the gay marriage bill (known as the 'loi Taubira,' after the Justice Minister that proposed the text to the legislature) has sparked off a wave of anger, and groups of determined young people all over the country have decided to make their presence felt."

For the government, this is becoming a major headache:

There is no centralized organization behind the rallies to look to for information about the next action, no unified group to follow, no 'youths' who are 'well known by the police,' as is the case when ethnic riots burst out in Paris. The demonstrators are law-abiding citizens who have no wish to steal, vandalize or hurt the law enforcement officers. They are massively answering calls to join spur-of-the-moment demonstrations via their cell phones and social media. They are in the streets to stop a law that they believe would badly hurt the common good, and they are prepared to give their time, efforts and even a few hours in custody to put a stop to the redefinition of marriage.

(If you want to follow these underreported events in France you can see photos and videos by "Salon Beige" a newsblog here.)

These young people are making sure government officials' support for gay marriage is not forgotten.

Each time a member of government visits a provincial town dozens of young and less young people bearing flags of the 'Manif pour tous' are on the spot to greet the official party; several visits have been cancelled. The Interior minister Manuel Valls' visit to a concert on Sunday evening in Paris was protected by 30 police vans and several people who joined the protests were arrested. Passers-by who had no idea of what was going on were also arrested in the melee. A growing number of police and 'gendarmes' are voicing their irritation about orders coming from the government to repress the movement with exceptional severity.

Violence did break out but not from the pro-marriage protestors.

In the small hours of Saturday, a leading member of the 'Manif pour tous,' Samuel Lafont, was knifed several times in the center of Paris after pro-gay 'marriage' activists had called for violence against him on Twitter. While his alleged aggressors are apparently not linked to the pro-gay movement in any way – they are Brazilians who were arrested on Sunday afternoon – outrageous remarks from the pro-gay 'marriage' lobby hoping he would die triggered a new series of demonstrations in the center of Paris on Sunday.

Courage, gaiety, light-heartedness and youth: these are the marks of a gallant French resistance that is vexing the powers that be, baffling the police and surprising the world. Something has changed deeply in France since nearly 40 years ago when the legalization of abortion was met with much less opposition and amidst near silence from the Catholic Church. Now many bishops are speaking out — and the communications revolution has given new power to ordinary citizens.

Change is coming, something new is stirring. The truth will win out.

Thank you again from the bottom of my heart for all or your support, your prayers, your notes of encouragement, your willingness to take action (like signing the petition) through the years.

You are such a blessing to me, to NOM, to this great country of ours.

It is an honor to serve with you in this great and noble fight for marriage.