NOMblog: The Official Blog of the National Organization for Marriage

NOM BLOG

Category Archives: Supreme Court

Redefining Marriage "Consistently Heedless of Logic"

October 15, 2013 – 4:30 pm

Writing today in The Public Discourse, Matthew J. Franck probes "the prominence of [the] assault on reasoning itself" within the movement to redefine marriage:

Rather than say what marriage is—which anyone can see is an absolute prerequisite to saying whether "equality" demands its availability to partners never before thought capable of marrying—these advocates simply shout "marriage equality" ever more loudly, point to an array of "government benefits" linked to marital status, and make their desire for the thing substitute for an argument about what the thing is that they want.

You can read the rest of his article here.

M.Franck

By NOM Staff | Posted in Debating Marriage, Education, Same Sex Marriage, Supreme Court | Comments Off

Eviscerating our First Amendment Freedoms

October 2, 2013 – 11:28 am

"It's an evisceration of our freedom of association," said John Eastman, the chairman of the National Organization for Marriage...

We’ve been saying for years that one of the first casualties when you redefine marriage are our first amendment rights of religious liberty, free speech, and association. Now even the mainstream media has picked up on the growing list of attacks on the rights of businessmen and woman who wish to run their enterprises by the tenets of their faith. The Wall Street Journal reported,

Erasing the First Amendment

As more states permit gay couples to marry or form civil unions, wedding professionals in at least six states have run headlong into state antidiscrimination laws after refusing for religious reasons to bake cakes, arrange flowers or perform other services for same-sex couples.

The issue gained attention in August, when the New Mexico Supreme Court ruled that an Albuquerque photography business violated state antidiscrimination laws after its owners declined to snap photos of a lesbian couple's commitment ceremony.

Similar cases are pending in Colorado, Illinois, New York, Oregon and Washington, and some experts think the underlying legal question—whether free-speech and religious rights should allow exceptions to state antidiscrimination laws—could ultimately wind its way to the U.S. Supreme Court. (Read more)

However, there is a easier way to resolve this issue than going to the US Supreme Court – Don’t Redefine Marriage in the first place.

By NOM Staff | Posted in Corporate Ethics, Free Speech, New Mexico, Religious Liberty, Same Sex Marriage, Supreme Court | Comments Off

Undoing the Myth of Inevitability

September 27, 2013 – 10:25 am

Kellie Fiedorek at the Alliance Defending Freedom has a great piece in American Thinker this morning as to why states’ laws and constitutional amendments defining marriage as one man and one woman are completely constitutional and should not be overturned by the US Supreme Court despite efforts by those who would redefine marriage. She writes…

Myth of Inevitability Proponents of redefining marriage again have set their sights on the U.S. Supreme Court to force a new definition of marriage on every state in the country -- this time by 2015…
But the problem for those behind this plan is that the state marriage laws they are challenging do not violate the Constitution. Maintaining the gendered definition of marriage that these states have always known falls squarely into what both the Constitution and U.S. Supreme Court precedent approve…
Some assume that the Supreme Court found a new right to same-sex marriage when it issued the Windsor decision at the end of June, but nothing could be farther from the truth.

NOM's John Eastman Debates Marriage on PBS News Hour

August 21, 2013 – 12:59 pm

States have been feeling the ripple effects over these past few months following the Supreme Court's DOMA ruling. NOM Chairman John Eastman was featured on PBS News Hour today to talk about how the DOMA decision is affecting state laws, particularly those states that already have marriage protection amendments in their constitutions.

By NOM Staff | Posted in Debating Marriage, DOMA, Law, Marriage, Same Sex Marriage, Supreme Court | Comments Off

Cheated: How the Courts’ Treatment of Prop 8 Robbed America of its Democratic Process

July 23, 2013 – 10:30 am

Frank Schubert, NOM’s national political director, published a commentary yesterday at The Witherspoon Institute’s Public Discourse blog, reflecting on the course of court events that led to the recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions and the consequences those decisions have engendered.

Schubert points out that the "legal circus" has not only effectively disenfranchised more than seven million California voters, and that this should upset all of us: “Regardless of whether you see voters defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman as the ‘good guy’ or the ‘bad guy’ in this political drama, the process that killed marriage in California should greatly concern anyone who cares even remotely about democracy and the rule of law.”

Schubert goes on to answer an oft-asked question in the wake of the recent SCOTUS decision: “How do you feel?”

I feel like we were cheated. Just like I felt as a kid watching the bad guy put a sleeper hold on his opponent, or hitting him below the belt or with the brass knuckles while the referee had his back turned, so have the legal system and politicians cold-cocked the people of California—seven million of whom went to the polls to lawfully enact Prop 8. Only this time, I realize there’s not likely to be a rematch. The cheaters won.

I feel like the rule of law has been shredded, and conniving politicians have been rewarded for ignoring their sworn oath of office. Public confidence in the judicial system has been dealt a severe blow. Supporters of same-sex “marriage” may be happy with the result today, but hold on until the tables are turned and a conservative governor and attorney general refuse to defend a law they don’t personally support, and there’s nobody left with standing to defend it. …

I feel like a broadside has ripped a great hole in the initiative and referendum process itself. I have managed nearly 40 statewide ballot initiative campaigns in my career. The initiative process is one of the few viable ways to get a recalcitrant government to respond to legitimate issues that are not being addressed by the legislature or the state administration. By its nature, citizens are often pushing a law that is opposed by those in power.

Now those very people in power—the governor and attorney general—have been given a pocket veto over the initiative process itself. They can invalidate any measure they don’t personally support simply by refusing to defend it in federal court. Such power was never contemplated by the framers of the constitution, or by the people of California, but that is the practical result of the Supreme Court’s ruling on Prop 8. Again—it is marriage today, but tomorrow it could be any other issue on the political spectrum.

You can read the rest of Schubert’s insights here.

By NOM Staff | Posted in California, Marriage, Prop 8, Same Sex Marriage, Supreme Court | Comments Off

Blaze TV Video: Prof. Robert George Discusses SCOTUS and Marriage

July 16, 2013 – 10:00 am

Princeton Professor Robert George was on the Glenn Beck Program last week talking about the Supreme Court's decisions on marriage:

By NOM Staff | Posted in DOMA, Law, Marriage, Prop 8, Same Sex Marriage, Supreme Court | Comments Off

Peters: PA AG's Refusal to Defend Law is Result of Bad Prop 8 Ruling

July 12, 2013 – 1:00 pm

Juliet Eilperin of The Washington Post:

Pennsylvania attorney general Kathleen Kane announced Thursday afternoon she will not defend the state in a federal lawsuit filed this week challenging the constitutionality of the state’s ban on same-sex marriage, calling the prohibition “wholly unconstitutional.”

...Thomas Peters, spokesman for the National Organization for Marriage, said Kane’s refusal to defend the ban represented a sort of “pocket veto” of the law.

“This is just one more example of how the Supreme Court set a bad precedent [last month] in allowing elected officials to not represent the will of the people when they find it expedient,” he said an in interview.

... Pennsylvania General Counsel James D. Schultz said in a statement he and his colleagues “are surprised that the Attorney General, contrary to her constitutional duty under the Commonwealth Attorneys Act, has decided not to defend a Pennsylvania statute lawfully enacted by the General Assembly, merely because of her personal beliefs.”

... the state GOP chairman Rob Gleason released a statement calling it “unacceptable for Attorney General Kathleen Kane to put her personal politics ahead of her taxpayer-funded job by abdicating her responsibilities.”

By NOM Staff | Posted in Law, Marriage, Pennsylvania, Prop 8, Same Sex Marriage, Supreme Court | Comments (10)

Davenport: Is Gay Marriage The Product Of Judicial Activism?

July 9, 2013 – 12:00 pm

David Davenport, a fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University's policy think tank, for Forbes:

"...What is judicial activism? There are lots of opinions on that, but none is definitive. Apparently the origin of the term came not in a legal opinion at all, but in a 1947 Fortunemagazine article by historian Arthur Schlesinger in which he described the sitting U.S. Supreme Court as having 4 judicial activists, 3 judges who practiced “self-restraint,” and 2 in the middle. The distinction, Schlesinger argued, was based on their legal worldview, with the activists finding the law more malleable and subject to interpretation, whereas those engaged in self-restraint felt that legal terms had real meaning and it was not their place to provide a lot of interpretation.

... Since then, there have existed many understandings of judicial activism. Perhaps the most basic is when a court usurps the role of one of the other branches of government and takes up the work of the legislature or executive. Indeed, Justice William Rehnquist inRoe v. Wade found the majority of the Court engaged in judicial activism or “judicial legislation.” Another variation is when a judge is results-oriented, wanting to reach a particular conclusion and searching far and wide to find some strained legal interpretation to support it. Black’s LawDictionary says it is a “philosophy of judicial decision-making whereby judges allow their personal views about public policy, among other factors to guide their decisions.” I would submit that when a Court becomes an engine of change, rather than a brake on the illegal actions of another branch, it is engaging in judicial activism.

Under virtually all of these definitions, it is fair to conclude that there was judicial activism, or at least what New Jersey Governor Chris Christie called “judicial supremacy,” in both of the same sex marriage cases. "

By NOM Staff | Posted in DOMA, Law, Marriage, Prop 8, Same Sex Marriage, Supreme Court | Comments (6)

Anderson: What Three Dissents Signal for Marriage's Future

July 3, 2013 – 2:30 pm

Good weekend reading from Ryan Anderson:

"Not only was the Supreme Court’s ruling on the Defense of Marriage Act baseless and just plain wrong, you won’t learn much from reading Justice Anthony Kennedy’s majority opinion. Except that he thinks only bigotry can explain support for marriage as it was until the year 2000—a male-female union.

You can learn something, however, from reading the three dissenting opinions closely. The conservative justices’ dissents are like flares signaling the path that marriage proponents must take from here.

... The most serious looming challenge is that the Supreme Court will rule in an overreaching way again to remove the authority to make marriage policy from the American people and our elected representatives—if it thinks it can get away with it.

The Court will be less likely to usurp the authority of citizens if it is clear that citizens are engaged in this democratic debate and care about the future of marriage." (Red State)

By NOM Staff | Posted in Culture, DOMA, Law, Marriage, Prop 8, Same Sex Marriage, Supreme Court | Comments (2)

Tuininga: Marriage, the Court, and the Erosion of Liberal Democracy

July 3, 2013 – 1:00 pm

Today on Public Discourse, Matthew Tuininga argues that same-sex marriage advocates are undermining the future of democratic self-government through the courts:

There is a lot of good analysis on the Supreme Court's decisions last Wednesday to throw out California's Proposition 8 case (Perry v. Hollingsworth) and to overthrow key parts of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) (United States v. Windsor). Same-sex marriage supporters are elated at the incredible progress the gay rights movement has made in recent years. The more optimistic marriage defenders point out that the decisions don't really change much: they simply refer the argument over marriage to the states, to let the democratic process, and civil society, do its work. And who could argue with this sort of federalism?

But of course, both of these positions miss an important fact. In both Supreme Court decisions a law passed by a democratic majority through the democratic process was overturned by judicial fiat. What we are seeing here is yet another case of reliance on nondemocratic power structures in order to overcome or bypass a democratic process that stubbornly refuses to go its way, or at least to go its way quickly enough.

By NOM Staff | Posted in Law, Marriage, Politics, Same Sex Marriage, Supreme Court | Comments (1)

DeMint: Do Traditional Marriage Supporters Deserve to Be Treated with Dignity?

July 2, 2013 – 12:00 pm

Jim DeMint, President of Heritage, writes:

Some people can’t seem to understand why anyone would support marriage as the union of a man and a woman. Indeed, Justice Anthony Kennedy argued last week that the only reason Congress had for passing the Defense of Marriage Act was to “disparage,” “injure,” “degrade,” “demean,” and “humiliate” others. Justice Kennedy says we’re denying dignity to people in same-sex relationships.

154066523 But it is his ruling that denies dignity to those who don’t think a same-sex relationship is a marriage. His ruling denies dignity to the millions of Americans and their elected officials who have voted to pass laws that tell the truth about marriage.

The rhetoric from the Court attacking the goodwill of the majority of Americans—who know marriage is the union of a man and a woman—is not helpful. The marriage debate will continue, and all Americans need to be civil and respectful.

...It is outrageous to suggest that 342 Members of the House, 85 Senators, and President Bill Clinton were all acting on the basis of anti-gay bias in 1996, when the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was enacted. As Chief Justice Roberts says in his dissent, “I would not tar the political branches with bigotry.”

Indeed, as Heritage has argued repeatedly, there are valid reasons to oppose the redefinition of marriage—which those House Members, Senators, and President Clinton took into account. Marriage matters for children, civil society, and limited government, because children deserve a mother and a father, and when this doesn’t happen, social costs run high.

Citizens and their elected representatives have the constitutional authority to make policy that recognizes marriage as the union of a man and a woman. States will lead the way even as we work to restore clear marriage policy at the federal level. And in the states, support for marriage as the union of a man and a woman remains strong.

By NOM Staff | Posted in Civility, Culture, Law, Marriage, Same Sex Marriage, Supreme Court | Comments (3)

WaTimes: Critics Say Supreme Court’s Prop 8 Ruling Takes Power from Voters, Gives it to State Officials

July 2, 2013 – 9:00 am

Whatever your views on marriage -- the Prop 8 ruling is "fundamentally undemocratic":

The Supreme Court’s decision Wednesday on Proposition 8 unlocked the door for same-sex marriage in California but also may have stifled the voices of the state’s voters.

In its 5-4 decision, the high court ruled that the private group behind the citizen-initiated measure on the November 2008 ballot had no standing to defend Proposition 8 in federal court, even after California Gov. Jerry Brown and state officials refused to do so.

We the People The ruling on standing, while seemingly technical, has alarmed critics on both ends of the political spectrum, who worry that the decision effectively gives state officials the unchecked power to nullify ballot initiatives they dislike by refusing to enforce them or defend them in court.

“I think regardless of what anybody thinks about same-sex marriage, everyone who cares about democracy should be concerned about this decision,” said John Matsusaka, president of the Initiative and Referendum Institute at the University of Southern California. “It’s fundamentally undemocratic.”

The national revolt against higher taxes arguably began with a California citizen initiative: Howard Jarvis‘ Proposition 13 in 1978. Over the years, the state’s voters have weighed in on such hot-button issues as term limits, bilingual education, affirmative action, medical marijuana, punishment for crimes, government debt and, in 2008, same-sex marriage.

But the Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision written by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., essentially held that those who draft, finance and campaign for the initiatives can’t get into the courtroom to defend their handiwork. (The Washington Times)

By NOM Staff | Posted in Law, Marriage, Politics, Prop 8, Same Sex Marriage, Supreme Court | Comments (1)

Rasmussen: Public Approval of Supreme Court Falls to All-Time Low

July 1, 2013 – 1:00 pm

America is not happy with the Supreme Court:

Judicial Branch Of Government The U.S. Supreme Court finished its term with big decisions on voting rights, affirmative action and same-sex marriage. Following those rulings, public approval of the court has fallen to the lowest level ever recorded in more than nine years of polling.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that just 28% believe the Supreme Court is doing a good or an excellent job. At the same time, 30% rate its performance as poor. That’s the highest-ever poor rating. It’s also the first time ever that the poor ratings have topped the positive assessments. Thirty-nine percent (39%) give the court middling reviews and rate its performance as fair.

... Just prior to last week, 30% gave the court good or excellent marks. While the overall number fell only slightly following the final flurry of rulings, there were significant changes beneath the surface. Positive ratings increased among liberal voters by 13 points. However, they fell by eight points among conservatives and by seven among moderates.

By NOM Staff | Posted in Marriage, Polling, Same Sex Marriage, Supreme Court | Comments (5)

Video: NOM's Appearances on the Sunday Shows

July 1, 2013 – 11:30 am

Prof. John Eastman, Chairman of NOM and Brian Brown, President of NOM were busy this weekend touring the Sunday shows and charting out the future of the marriage movement:

NBC: Nightly News with Lester Holt - John Eastman:

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

CNN: State of the Union with Candy Crowly - John Eastman:

ABC: This Week with George Stephanopoulos - Brian Brown:

Despite this week's rulings, which declared part of the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional and dismissed an appeal made by supporters of Proposition 8 banning same-sex marriage in California, Brown downplayed the victories claimed by gay marriage supporters, saying that the Court did not establish a constitutional right to same-sex marriage in Hollingsworth v. Perry , the case that considered the California ban passed in 2008.

"The court said, well, the proponents don't have standing. It did not say that there was a constitutional right to redefine marriage," Brown said on "This Week" Sunday.

President of the Human Rights Campaign Chad Griffin also joined "This Week" and said he's prepared to continue to "fight this battle on all fronts," through referenda, state legislation and federal court cases to expand same-sex marriage rights further.

Brown said the precedent set in California, where state officials refused to defend Proposition 8 - a law passed by popular referendum - is "horrific for our republic."

"If the governor and attorney general don't to want defend that law, you've just gutted the initiative and referendum process. This is not an American value," Brown said.

Brown called Justice Anthony Kennedy's majority decision in the DOMA case an "absolute travesty" and "incoherent."

He added that Justice Kennedy "says something that is patently untrue," that a person who believes "this truth, that marriage is the union of a man and a woman is somehow motivated by animus and discrimination."

Such an assumption, Brown said, "leads to discrimination against those of us who know that there's something unique and special about husbands and wives, mothers and fathers coming together in marriage."

"There will be a lot of attempts to use this decision to redefine marriage in other states. And we will stand for the truth wherever it is," Brown said.

Fox News: America’s News Headquarters with Shannon Bream – Brian Brown:
[Link forthcoming.]

By NOM Staff | Posted in DOMA, Marriage, Prop 8, Same Sex Marriage, Supreme Court | Comments (1)

Peters Interviewed by HuffPo on the New Momentum in the Pro-Marriage Fight

June 28, 2013 – 12:00 pm

Our Communications Director Thomas Peters was interviewed yesterday by Lila Shaprio of The Huffington Post about what the Supreme Court's decisions mean positively for the pro-marriage movement:

"...[Peters] wasn't expecting the huge influx of supportive calls and donations that came in to his organization, the group leading the fight throughout the United States against same-sex marriage legalization efforts.

"A not-insignificant part of our base expected us to lose it all at the Supreme Court," Peters told The Huffington Post on Thursday. "I think this does put new momentum into our fight."

On Wednesday, the court, in two separate cases, ruled that the federal government must recognize gay couples married in states where it is legal and returned same-sex marriages to California. But the justices stopped short of declaring it a constitutional right for all gay couples to marry.

..."A lot of our people are ecstatic. We've been in a waiting game since the court decided to take Proposition 8," Peters said of California's voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage that the court's ruling nullified. "There was always a question about whether the court would just change it all unilaterally. Now, these state-level rights really matter."

While efforts are already in the works to reintroduce a Federal Marriage Amendment, a measure NOM supports that would define marriage as between one man and one woman, Peters feels that the state fights over gay marriage are at the top of his organization's agenda."