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.