Dear Friends of Marriage,

Three big pieces of news this week. You've already heard about New Jersey, where yesterday the state senate REJECTED gay marriage 14 "yes" to 20 "no" (with five senators declining to vote).
 
That's a victory to celebrate!
 
As USA Today put it, "The end of 2009 saw momentum on the marriage issue stall.

"Two states rejected same-sex marriage, reflecting the fact that most Americans do not support it."
 
Thank you. This is a victory for all the ordinary, extraordinary people who refused to be bamboozled, intimidated or discouraged out of common sense, and who summoned the decency to speak the truth in love to power--and won!
 
God bless you. It is such an honor to know and serve with you in this great cause!
 
The second piece of news, which you may not have heard: Stand for Marriage D.C. has filed a referendum seeking to give the people of D.C. the right to vote for marriage--and overturn gay marriage as the peple in California did in 2008, and thye people of Maine did in 2009.
 
Gay-marriage advocates are claiming gay marriage is such a core civil right that they have the right to block the people of D.C. from voting for marriage--even though that right is explicitly laid out in that city's charter, its constitution. 
 
NOM will help local groups fight not only for marriage, but for the right to vote on this important issue.  Once again, you are the ones who make this possible.
 
The third big piece of news this week: Next week the federal trial over the constitutionality of Prop 8 begins. Judge Vaughn Walker, in another display of his eagerness to cater to the pro-gay-marriage side, just announced he will televise this trial over the objections of lawyers for Protect Marriage, who cited the threats and harassment Californians have already experienced as just one of many reasons why we should respect the federal rule that bans televised trials. 
 
Maggie Gallagher wrote about this decision in her syndicated column this week, and I'll share with you some of her conclusions in a second.
 
But there's a topline message here about this trial even many informed voters don't yet realized: It's not about California, it's about the whole country. Gay-marriage advocates are in federal court arguing for a federal constitutional right to gay marriage that would trump not only Prop 8, but the laws of 45 other states, including the 30 other states where the people  have passed state constitutional marriage amendments.
 
That's right, the Constitution drafted by our Founding Fathers contains a right to gay marriage--in their twisted view. This is judicial activism on steroids, and a flagrant disrespect for civility, common sense, and democracy.

Gay-marriage advocates believe they have a right to win. They think you and I don't count. NOM will be filing an amicus brief in this litigation, and will work with Protect Marriage and the lawyers for Prop 8 in every way we are asked.
 
We do not expect to win at the trial level, but with God's help, at least five members of the current  Supreme Court will have the courage to defend our Constitution from this grave attack.
 
Here's part of what Maggie has to say about the case:

On Monday, Jan. 11, U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker will put the people of California on trial for voting against gay marriage.

The case will be a show trial in a kangaroo court. I don't say that lightly of any federal judge, but Judge Walker's extraordinary bias has already been flagrantly on display.

Take the trial itself. The constitutionality of Proposition 8 is not really a matter for a trial of fact. It's a question of law. But Judge Walker ordered one anyway. Why? Ordinarily a trial judge's rulings of fact cannot be questioned by higher courts. So the more of his opinions that Judge Walker can stuff into the box of "trial of fact" instead of "review of law," the more power he will have over this historic case.

Next Judge Walker issued an extraordinary ruling that the private intentions of Prop. 8 proponents -- ideas by definition never communicated to voters -- were properly the subject of this trial. So people who worked on the campaign have been put on trial, subpoenaed for all their e-mails and personal correspondence. This is an enormous personal headache, one which will (as intended) discourage participation in the political process in the future.

. .  . ."These are kangaroo-court procedures," distinguished lawyer Ed Whelan noted in National Review Online's Bench Memos this week.

But the third outrageous ruling by Judge Walker is the worst of all: On Dec. 22, he ordered the trial televised -- in defiance of federal rules -- without proper notice and public comment... . Whelan points out that the Judicial Conference of the United States opposes televising federal trials in part because doing so "could jeopardize ... the safety of trial participants" and "produce intimidating effects on litigants, witnesses and jurors."

But this is no ordinary trial. This is a trial in a case where thousands of ordinary citizens have already faced a wave of hatred for participating in democracy. On Oct. 22, the Heritage Foundation released a report titled "The Price of Prop. 8," which concluded that "supporters of Proposition 8 in California have been subjected to harassment, intimidation, vandalism, racial scapegoating, blacklisting, loss of employment, economic hardships, angry protests, violence, at least one death threat, and gross expressions of anti-religious bigotry."
 
To deliberately and needlessly expose these people to a new wave of publicity and attacks by televising the trial is outrageous.

Full disclosure: As the president of the National Organization for Marriage, which created a ballot initiative committee -- NOM California -- that worked with Protect Marriage, I was intimately involved in putting Prop. 8 on the ballot. So I know dozens of people who have been personally threatened, some of whom still live in fear today when they walk outside their door as a result of an organized effort to distribute personal addresses of donors to Prop. 8. NOM is involved in a separate federal lawsuit to protect donors' constitutional rights in future marriage amendment battles.

At stake in this case is not only the future of marriage in all 50 states, but the future of democracy, the future of fair play, ordinary decency and common sense. Not to mention a little thing like constitutional limits on the power of judges.

After Prop. 8, gay couples continue to enjoy unmolested all the legal civil rights of marriage under California law through civil unions. Who will stand up for the core civil rights of the people of California... to participate in democracy without fear?

"Be not afraid." That's the most often repeated commandment in Holy Scriptures. A movement founded on a lie about human nature will fail. It takes just a few men and women of courage and vision to stand up for God's truth against all the powers that counsel defeat, despair or indifference.

Until next week, dear friend and comrade; I pray for you and for all those who stand for marriage. God bless you! 

Faithfully,
Brian S. Brown
Executive Director
National Organization for Marriage
20 Nassau Street, Suite 242
Princeton, NJ 08542
[email protected]

P.S. Our victories in Maine, New Jersey, and New York, and our support for the lawsuits protecting marriage and the rights of donors have drained our coffers. Can you help get us refill them for the fights in 2010? I am asking you, if God has given you the means, to please give us $5 for marriage. If you are blessed with the capacity to meet your other obligations, and yet have more to give, can you give us $50 or $500 to spread your voices and values? The beauty of NOM is that we are the true rainbow--people of every race, creed and color coming together in love to defend the truth about marriage.  Separated they can harass and intimidate, but together we have proved that your voices and your values will be heard!!

NOM in the News
"California Voters Face Show Trial in Kangaroo Court"
January 5, 2010
Maggie Gallagher
On Monday, Jan. 11, U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker will put the people of California on trial for voting against gay marriage.

"The People's Veto: Why Gay Marriage Failed in Maine"
Catholic World Report
Sean Higgins
In the days leading up to Maine's gay marriage vote on November 3, it seemed like a big, possibly momentous, shift in American culture was about to take place, one that could give major momentum to the gay rights movement.

All the major outlets reported that it was close. "Most polls suggest the electorate is evenly divided on the issue," reported the Los Angeles Times. The Washington Post breathlessly told readers, "Public opinion polls in Maine show a dead heat." It followed that with a quote from Maine Governor John Baldacci, a Democrat, who explained that, "I believe it is something in the water or the air in this state that recognizes individual rights and anti-discrimination."

"R.I. Assembly Faces Deficit, Taxes As Session Begins"
Providence Journal
January 3, 2010

ADVOCATES OF same-sex marriage are pushing for an opening-day override of Carcieri's veto of a bill that would let "domestic partners" make funeral arrangements for their loved ones. They will also resume their drive to legalize same-sex marriage.

"Gay-Marriage Foes Slam Plans to Televise Prop 8 Trial"
Washington Times
January 6, 2010

Supporters of traditional marriage are outraged over a California judge's efforts to bring television cameras into court next week to cover a trial challenging Proposition 8, California's initiative against gay marriage.

"Mixed Messages on Marriage"
Chuck Raasch
Livingston Daily
January 1, 2010

"In Maine, a secular blue state with a history of approving pro-gay legislation, the people once again decisively rejected gay marriage," said Brian Brown, executive director of the National Organization for Marriage, a New Jersey group founded in 2007 to fight same-sex marriage.