Dear Friends of Marriage,

Victory is at hand! What if they declared a war on DOMA and nobody showed up?

DOMA is the one federal law that protects marriage as the union of husband and wife, and clarifies that no state is obligated to recognize gay marriages performed in other states or countries.

As we told you, Jerry Nadler, a classic New York City liberal, introduced sweeping legislation to repeal DOMA, to the applause of all of his friends who live in high-rises with views of Central Park.

Back in the real world, the Examiner is reporting dwindling enthusiasm on the part of Democrats in Congress for dying on this particular hill:

"But the real danger to the bill's success appears to come from Congressional Democrats, especially openly-gay Representative Barney Frank (D-NY) and Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Both Frank and Pelosi have balked at supporting the effort to repeal DOMA, on the grounds that the timing is bad, and that other gay-rights causes like the inclusive Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) and the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell (DADT) have a better chance of passing.

"Meanwhile, no Democratic senator seems poised to introduce legislation similar to the Respect for Marriage Act in the Senate."

Why are Democrats balking? Because they know that you are not backing down! You will not be silenced or intimidated. Together we will make sure that your voice and your values are heard!

Can you do one thing for me this week? Send a friend to our DOMA website, Two Million for Marriage. Sign up to join the swelling chorus of marriage supporters who say to Washington politicians: We're here, we care about marriage and we will not be silenced!  We vote, we make phone calls. We give of our time and treasure.

In California, gay-marriage advocates have just paid our movement's work a backhanded compliment: A group campaigning to overturn Prop 8 has proposed new religious liberty language: "The refusal to perform a marriage under this provision shall not be the basis for lawsuit or liability, and shall not affect the tax-exempt status of any religious denomination, church or other religious institution," reads the exemption, an attempt by Love Honor Cherish to defuse one of the arguments Proposition 8 sponsors used to garner support last fall.

That's at least a tiny step forward from previous efforts to denounce us as haters and liars for raising this obvious truth: If gay marriage is constitutional right like interracial marriage, then Christianity and other traditional faith communities who do not see same-sex unions as marriages will get treated like bigots in law and culture.

Fight back across the country! Whether you can give $10, $50, or perhaps even more, every donation counts.

One final thing I want to call to your attention this week: a brilliant new essay by George Mason law professor Nelson Lund. He is responding to the arguments of Ted Olson and David Boies for overturning Prop 8. Even more, he is responding to the suggestion they are trying to convey that somehow opposition to gay marriage is over.

I'm putting in a link at the bottom of the page so you can read the whole thing and rejoice!  But let me pull out from excerpts the heart of Prof. Lund's "Case against Boies-Olson," whom he called "wrong on the law, and on civilization":

"Judging from the players, it may look as though we now have a consensus among liberals and conservatives that the federal Constitution includes a right to same-sex marriage, to which only bigots and religious zealots could object. But nothing could be farther from the truth: The position these lawyers are advocating has no support in Supreme Court case law, let alone in the Constitution. ...

"The Boies/Olson invocation of the Loving case is both misplaced and peculiarly offensive. In that case, the Court recognized that anti-miscegenation laws had no other purpose than the maintenance of white supremacy. Analogizing the traditional definition of marriage to these Jim Crow devices demeans both the civil-rights movement and the countless millions of people who accept the traditional definition of marriage."

The gay-marriage movement does engage in an offensive attempt to label serious moral disagreement as bigotry. And Prof. Lund nails Ted Olson and David Boies on this:

The notion that the fundamental features of an institution adopted by virtually every civilized society are based on nothing but moral opprobrium toward homosexuals is so weird that one wonders why serious people should even have to discuss it. Apparently, however, we've come a long way since the Supreme Court summarily dismissed such a claim in 1971. But here we are, so let's point out the obvious.

Only unions between men and women are capable of producing offspring, and every civilization has recognized that procreation is critical to its survival. The institution of marriage has been established in virtually every known human society, including our own, and officially recognized marriages have always been exclusively between men and women. This is not an accident or the result of some unreasoned prejudice. After the desire for self-preservation, sexual passion is perhaps the most powerful drive in human nature. Heterosexual intercourse naturally produces children, sometimes unintentionally, and it does so only after a nine-month lapse. The result can be uncertainty about paternity or indifference to it by the father. If left unchecked, this would give many men little incentive to invest in the rearing of their offspring, and the ensuing irresponsibility would have made the development of civilization impossible.

The fundamental purpose of marriage is to enable, encourage, and require biological parents, especially fathers, to take responsibility for their children. Because this institution is a response to a phenomenon uniquely created by heterosexual intercourse, the very meaning and definition of marriage has always been inseparable from the problem it is meant to address. ...

Homosexual relationships, and lots of other relationships as well, have nothing to do with the purpose of marriage, which is why marriage does not extend to them.

The "underlying and unspoken premise of the Boies/Olson position," Prof. Lund says,  would "redefine marriage and replace it with a new institution having a different purpose."

Thank you, Prof. Lund, for your intellectual courage and relentless sanity.

And thank you for all you do that has given the National Organization for Marriage the power to make a difference.

Please pray for us and our work.

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

NOM Featured Video
Maggie Gallagher introduces Carrie Prejean at the Values Voters Summit

NOM Featured Article
"The Case Against Boies-Olson"
Nelson Lund
National Review
September 24, 2009
...As if this weren't enough, in 1971 the Supreme Court dismissed as meritless a constitutional challenge exactly like the Boies/Olson challenge, and the 2003 Lawrence opinion specifically said that it was not implying a right to same-sex marriage. Perhaps recognizing that they really don't have any support in Supreme Court case law, Boies and Olson argue that the traditional definition of marriage is so utterly irrational, so bereft of any legitimate purpose, that it can be explained only as something "born of animosity" against a politically unpopular group.

If Boies and Olson really believe what they say, they have also condemned President Obama.

NOM in the News
"National Organization for Marriage President: We'll Win in Maine"
Washington Independent
September 21, 2009
I spent a few minutes talking with Maggie Gallagher, the president of the National Organization for Marriage, after she gave a rip-roaring introduction for Carrie Prejean at the Values Voter Summit. ...

"I'm pretty confident that, as in California, we're going to win," said Gallagher. "We're in much better shape in Maine than we were in California at a similar point. We were ten points down on September 1, 2008 and we won. I saw a poll yesterday that had us up two points in Maine."

"GOP Checks for a Pulse, And Finds One"
New York Times
September 19, 2009
"What holds the conservative movement now is how appalled everyone is at what liberals are trying to do," said Maggie Gallagher, the president of the National Organization for Marriage, which is fighting efforts to advance same-sex marriage. "I think the conservative movement is far more energized than it was six months ago."

"Carrie Prejean Thanks You for Supporting Her"
Washington Independent
September 14, 2009
But the star of the morning session was Carrie Prejean, the former Miss California who lost the Miss America crown after a pageant judge asked her whether she supported gay marriage and she said no. Prejean arrived with the National Organization for Marriage, and was introduced by NOM's Maggie Gallagher with a passionate speech about what Prejean had overcome.

"House Effort to Repeal DOMA May Be Sabotaged by Lukewarm Democratic Support"
Examiner.com
September 18, 2009
But the real danger to the bill's success appears to come from Congressional Democrats, especially openly-gay Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) and Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Both Frank and Pelosi have balked at supporting the effort to repeal DOMA, on the grounds that the timing is bad, and that other gay-rights causes like the inclusive Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) and the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell (DADT) have a better chance of passing.

"Miss California Wows Conservatives"
ABC News
September 18, 2009
Maggie Gallagher, the head of the conservative Institute for Marriage and Public Policy, introduced her to the packed room of hundreds of social conservatives as "our Miss America."