Category Archives: Marriage Update

It's "D" Day Tomorrow For Marriage

National Organization for Marriage

Dear Marriage Supporter,

Tomorrow is D-Day for marriage. In this case, "D-Day" means "Decision Day." The marriage cases were not decided today, but Chief Justice John Roberts announced that the decisions will be issued tomorrow, which will be the Court's last day in session for this term.

We at NOM remain optimistic. Of course, the Supreme Court should uphold both Proposition 8 and the Defense of Marriage Act. Of the two cases, the Prop 8 case is definitely the most important. If Prop 8 is upheld, it means the Court has found no constitutional right to same-sex marriage, and all the traditional marriage laws in America will be preserved. It's the end of the claim that same-sex marriage is somehow "inevitable." Gay 'marriage' activists will have suffered a catastrophic loss. We feel good about the likelihood of prevailing on Proposition 8.

If you can get there, please join other supporters of marriage on the steps of the US Supreme Court tomorrow morning at 9:30am. The remaining decisions will begin coming down at 10:00am eastern, so we should know the outcome soon thereafter.

No matter what the Supreme Court does tomorrow, the battle to preserve marriage as God designed it will continue. We ask that you pray this evening for the success of our position before the Supreme Court, for the attorneys and their families who have sacrificed so much to fight for the truth of marriage, and for those of us who will be in the media firestorm tomorrow reacting to whatever the decision may be.

Please also continue to financially support our work, which is needed now more than ever.

Mike Gronstal, Are You Kidding Us?

Mike Gronstal, the Democratic Majority Leader in the Iowa Senate is practically throwing his body in front of the door to the voting booth, promising to block a state marriage amendment no matter how many Iowans want it. And yet today he had the chutzpah to accuse Republicans of "[stopping] at nothing to take away the constitutional rights of Iowans"?

Mike, the constitution of Iowa gives the people the right to change their constitution--by a vote of both houses in the Iowa legislature two years running. Right now you are the one man taking away the right of Iowans to vote for marriage.

Photo: OneNewsNow

Breaking News: France's Highest Court Rejects Right to SSM [updated]

The highest court in France re-affirmed today that marriage is the union of husband and wife for a reason: it respects the 'double origin' of the child. Justice Anthony Kennedy, who is influenced by international opinion, may be impressed. Read Reuters News for the rest.

UPDATE: Here is the link to the French Court's decision and here is the same page in a rough English translation: "RESOLVED: Article 1. The last paragraph of Article 75 and Article 144 of the Civil Code are in accordance with the Constitution."

Marriage Update for 3 States, 1 Country

In Iowa: A House panel will begin hearings today on a bill that would repeal gay marriage in the state

In Maryland: Gay marriage legislation has been filed in the General Assembly

In New Hampshire: House could ask to delay effort to repeal gay marriage until 2012

And in Peru: Former President Alejandro Toledo will push for legalization of gay and lesbian civil unions if he is elected

Breaking: NOM files amicus brief in support of DOMA

NOM has filed an amicus brief with the U.S. District Court in Massachusetts supporting the Defense of Marriage Act (you can read the entire brief below).

The basic point of the brief is that DOMA falls perfectly within America's long-standing jurisprudence tradition. The federal government has a right to define terms like "marriage" for purposes of federal law. If the federal government could not define such terms the 10th Amendment would quickly become a "reverse-supremacy" clause.

NOM Amicus Brief Final

Why Marriage is Essential to a Thriving Society

From Focus on the Family's talking points on Marriage:

- Marriage provides important benefits to society that no other institution can. Marriage:
- Regulates sexuality. Marriage establishes sexual guardrails, which remain a requirement for all successful societies.
- Socializes men. A society's most serious problem is the unattached male, and marriage links men to women who help channel male sexuality and aggression in socially productive ways. Marriage and parenthood socialize men to care for and respect their wives, other women and children.
- Protects women. Without a social norm of monogamy, women become commodities to be used and discarded.
- Provides children with a mom and a dad. Both mothers and fathers contribute in unique and irreplaceable ways to their children that prepare them to contribute to, and continue a flourishing society.

Read the rest here.

Canadian Marriage Official "They'll have to fire me"

"A Saskatchewan marriage commissioner says the government will have to fire him if it expects him to perform same-sex marriages.

Larry Bjerland of the east-central Saskatchewan community of Rose Valley said he was "very disappointed" by a Saskatchewan Court of Appeal opinion Monday dealing with proposed changes to the Marriage Act.

The province's highest court ruled that two proposals from the Saskatchewan government that would let marriage commissioners opt out of performing same-sex marriages on religious grounds would be unconstitutional.

The decision was hailed by gay rights advocates, but Bjerland said it may result in his losing his appointment.

"I do not intend to marry any gay couples and so, therefore, I’m not going to resign," said Bjerland, who has been a marriage commissioner for 10 years. "They’ll have to fire me."

Click here to read more.

Bishop Evans on "Our Baptismal Call to Defend Marriage"

Bishop Evans is the auxiliary bishop of Providence, RI. This is his sermon from last Sunday:

I submit that today, in the State of Rhode Island, we are faced with a challenge to our baptismal promises to renounce the modern day evil works of Satan and confess our belief in Christ and His holy Catholic Church. On the day of our baptism, we chose whose side we are on. The question we must now ask ourselves is: Are we still on God’s side? And if we are, how will we prove it?

This challenge takes the form of an attempt to grant to same sex couples that recognition reserved for the oldest and the only institution God created in His own image: Man as male and female united in marriage. The essence of marriage in God’s plan is a union of one male and one female, who are so physically, emotionally, psychologically and religiously complementary that each completes the other in such a way that without the other each is incomplete. For this reason, it is a vocation, a call from God to the persons concerned as to how they are to live their lives and win their salvation.

Read the entire sermon.

NOM Exposed ad "possible the most laughable piece of gay propaganda ... ever"

John Jalsevac is amused:

Today I came across a video by the Human Rights Campaign “exposing” the pro-family organization the National Organization for Marriage (NOM). It has to be one of the most embarrassing and ultimately hilarious pieces of propaganda ever produced.

With the breed of creepy music, and foreboding, overstated voice-overs usually reserved for the grittiest crime shows about grisly homicides and serial killers, the Human Rights Campaign explains that while NOM would have you think that its mission is to “protect marriage” (“Ah, such a noble cause isn’t it?” says the creepy voiceover), there’s a much darker (duh-duh-duh!) purpose behind NOM.

Oh yes, the HRC has dug deep, has done its research, has snooped about in seedy bars with nothing more than a notebook, a hidden tape recorder and an instinct for a scandal; they’ve pored over the dusty records in the archives, they’ve found and interrogated anonymous sources – and they have uncovered NOM’s deep dark secret: NOM exists *gasp* to fight same-sex marriage.

In the words of HRC: “their only purpose is to deny the rights of marriage to loving and committed same-sex couples and their families.” (Well, that’s not actually true: NOM would also deny marriage to homosexual couples who can’t stand each other and aren’t committed in the least.).

Out of curiosity I immediately went to NOM’s (publicly accessible) website, and clicked on the “About us” section. And indeed, just as HRC had said, in the first sentence NOM claims that their mission is to “protect marriage.”

You have to read all the way to the second sentence to find out that NOM was founded “in response to the growing need for an organized opposition to same-sex marriage in state legislatures.”

Do you see how NOM hides its true purpose, purporting to be something that it isn’t? Can you evenbegin to grasp the level of dishonesty and depravity it takes to bury your real purpose all the way in the second sentence on your about page on your publicly accessible official website?! It takes your breath away.

But wait, there's more!

The Economist Debate: Me and Evan Wolfson

Evan WolfsonLast week Evan Wolfson and I debated on The Economist website. I have some regrets: the moderator's comments were not forwarded to me. I can easily answer his argument: "why do we let infertile couples marry?" I did not answer it because I was responding to the arguments that Evan presented, which were all I was presented with.

I'm most proud of the fact that as the debate progressed more people supported our position. Many of the commenters on their blog are just appalled - appalled! - that even a third of Economist readers support our views. That's our achievement.

I was helped by Evan Wolfson resolute refusal to engage ANY argument. I can understand gay marriage advocates who argue their view of marriage is superior to my own. Understand at least the disagreement.

But Evan is totally committted to the intellectually absurd idea "there are not arguments for marriage."

If you want to follow the debate check it out here.

In 2011 a Vote for a Democrat Anywhere has Become a Vote for Gay Marriage Everywhere

This column by Ed Holiday is causing waves in Mississippi, one of the few states with elections in 2011. Why? Because of this line: "In 2011 a vote for a Democrat anywhere has become a vote for gay marriage everywhere."

Follow Maggie's Debate with Evan Wolfson at The Economist

Join NOM Chairman Maggie Gallagher for her debate with Freedom to Marry Executive Director Evan Wolfson this week over at The Economist. Click here to follow the debate and cast your vote today.

Epiphany for the Political New Year: Donors Should Be Protected From Pro-SSM Intimidation

Constitutional scholar Hadley Arkes marks the feast of the Epiphany with an epiphany of legal opinion arguing that donor information of traditional marriage groups should be kept confidential because of the intense intimidation tactics used by the radical homosexual lobby.

Arkes discloses that Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas is the court’s strongest advocate of this protection, and Arkes also cites the legal precedent to support this conclusion: “The hard nut to crack here, though was the famous case of NAACP v. Alabama (1958). A law in Alabama required the NAACP along with other organizations to reveal their list of members and donors. Teachers who were members could be threatened with the loss of their jobs, and sympathetic whites faced with ostracism or other forms of retaliation. The Court struck down that requirement of disclosure. And from that decision some of us drew this lesson: that the freedom to engage in a legitimate association may entail the freedom to engage in that association with confidentiality – if there was reason to think that disclosure could subject a person to acts of intimidation and retaliation designed to discourage him from participating in an association quite legitimate.”

Read Arkes whole column here.

RNC Chairman Candidates: How did They Do on Marriage? By Maggie Gallagher

The RNC Chairmanship is not just a spokesperson contest. I (and NOM) fully recognize the importance of technical and fundraising competence in the decision-making of the Republican National Committee Members, and my evaluation below is not intended to be comprehensive. This scorecard only evaluates candidates’ answer on the marriage question.

The best news? All five RNC Chairman candidates clearly and unequivocally supported the people’s right to vote for marriage, and opposed same-sex marriage.

The question, asked of RNC Chairman candidates by SBA List president Marjorie Dannensfelser on behalf of the National Organization for Marriage, was something like this:

“More than 80 percent of Republicans support traditional marriage, but certain GOP elites say we are on the wrong side of history on this marriage question nonetheless. Regardless of your view of the RNC Chairman’s job you will be asked to defend the GOP’s position on marriage. What is your best 30 second case for defending marriage as the union of one man and one woman?”

NOM Marriage Scorecard

Michael Steele: B+
Steele called marriage “foundational to who we are as a people” and an important “ideal for family life.”
“There are lots of debates about the definition of family and everyone has a different way of defining it but as a party we have said we support this ideal.” When he speaks about marriage he tends to be more eloquent than the average person.

Rience Priebus: A-
Priebus was the only one who spoke to the combined issues of judicial activism, the natural basis of marriage, and the social ideal it represents for children:

“I don’t believe judges can rewrite the constitution and redraft what marriage is. There is a sanctity to marriage and I agree with Micheal that it is foundational in our lives, I believe children should grow up with a father and a mother if possible. Certainly we support single parents if possible. I don’t believe anyone should be denied dignity, everyone should be loved, I believe that marriage should be between one woman and one man.”

Ann Wagner: B.
Ann Wagner is a strong supporter of traditional marriage, highlighting her work in Missouri to support the state marriage amendment. But her answer was less than ideal because rather than defending traditional marriage as a public idea, she relied on her personal life: “I live my marriage beliefs. I’ve been faithfully and happily married for 24 years, we have 3 beautiful children, I live my family traditional values and my sanctity of marriage as I consider it a true sacrament - a bond between a man and a woman taken before God and others.”

We know supporters of gay marriage who could say the same.

Saul Anuzis: A-
Anuzis like Ann Wagner, has a strong record of support for marriage in his state (Michigan). He argued that marriage as a natural institution, religious but not only religious, and noted that U.S. support for marriage is part of American exceptionalism, something that distinguishes America from Europe and much of the rest of the world.

“Marriage is both a religious and cultural institution that has existed for over 2000 years, it is a natural part of life, marriage is between one man and one woman; the family is very important, this belief to promote marriage and traditional family” is “an important distinction in American between rest of world. Marriage is a religious and cultural institution worth protecting and fighting for.”

Maria Cino: C-
Maria’s answer was the shortest and the least content-filled. She said (and this is her total quote): “I believe in traditional marriage, that’s been a big part of my faith and my family upbringing and I support the Republican platform.”

We appreciate her support for marriage, but wish she could articulate a reason.

Pro-Marriage, Not Anti-Gay

Over at the Ruth Blog, Dr. J has a great post discussing her entry into the same-sex marriage debate, and how the SSM issue fits into the larger cultural dialog over marriage, its meaning and purposes:

Some of our commenters seem to be surprised that the Ruth Institute is "transitioning away from its anti-gay advocacy.. Why is there an article about abortion here?" Actually, if you look over the life of this blog, you will see a lot of discussion about abortion, contraception and artificial reproductive technology. You will also see discussions of divorce, cohabitation, out of wedlock childbearing, abstinence education, adultery, the demographic winter, what makes for a happy marriage, welfare policy and much else. The common thread is marriage: the significance of marriage to society and to children, and all the social, legal and cultural practices that affect marriage. You will see very little about homosexuality per se...