Monthly Archives: December 2010

Help push us across the finish line!!! Last chance to take the Marriage Challenge!!!

As we quickly come to the close of 2010, we are within reach of our $1 Million Marriage Challenge goal, thanks to very generous pledges we received yesterday. By midnight tonight, we still need to raise $161,000 to fully match the Million Dollar Marriage Challenge grant.

Just think what we can do together. If we each gave just $5, we would easily reach our goal. If we each gave $10, we would break all our fundraising records and set the stage for unprecedented successes in 2011. Click here to take the marriage challenge and make your gift today!

What can 5 dollars do?

  • Buy a hamburger and fries at a fast food restaurant;
  • Buy a gallon and a half of gas;
  • Pay a fine on overdue movies or library books;


  • Protect marriage in 2011, ensuring that you receive all the latest marriage news and information, defend Proposition 8, identify new grassroots marriage supporters, and take the case for marriage to state legislatures across the country!

While it’s been a tough year for many, and there are many worthy organizations asking for your support this time of year, virtually all of us can afford $5 to protect marriage –most of us could afford a gift of $20, and many even $50 or more.

Whatever you can give, I’m asking each of us to step forward and join with NOM as we press forward into 2011. NOM isn’t backed by a handful of rich gay billionaires like some of our opponents are, but by tens of thousands of ordinary Americans standing together to protect marriage. And the only way we will succeed is if we all stand together. By ourselves, we can only do so much, but together with tens of thousands of our fellow Americans committed to marriage, our gifts will make a mighty impact in the coming year.

The coming year is a year filled with unprecedented opportunities, and your gift today is critical as we set out to turn those opportunities into lasting victories for marriage.

Grateful to you for standing with us in support of marriage, and wishing a Happy New Year to you and yours!

Debate: Maggie Gallagher vs. Evan Wolfson at The Economist

Join NOM Chairman Maggie Gallagher for her week-long online debate with Freedom to Marry Director Evan Wolfson. The debate starts Monday and is hosted by The Economist, which framed the motion as: “This house believes that gay marriage should be legal.” Follow the daily back-and-forth starting Monday at

Now We're Talking (About the Marriage Issue)

The impact of the article “What Is Marriage?” in the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy on the gay-marriage debate continues to be profound.  Authors Sherif Girgis, Robert P. George, and Ryan T. Anderson (hereafter GG&A) issued a challenge to those who would “expand” the institution of civil marriage to include same-sex couples: answer their title question with a definition of marriage that is principled, coherent, and defensible without breaking down into the recognition of any and every sort of relationship brought forward with a claim to be recognized as a “marriage.”

So far the only answer, the only definition of marriage that meets these logically and morally compelling criteria is the one GG&A give themselves: that marriage is the comprehensive conjugal union of a man and a woman.  To say it applies to other pairs or groupings, or to male-female relations that are not comprehensive or conjugal, is to impart to marriage a definition that is self-destroying, incapable of maintaining a recognizable shape.

Two prominent gay-marriage advocates in the world of legal scholarship have stepped up to critique GG&A’s “What is Marriage?”–Kenji Yoshino of NYU law school, and Andrew Koppelman of Northwestern law school.  Yoshino, at Slate, first assayed a criticism almost completely devoid of substance, and GG&A easily rebutted him at Public Discourse.  (Yoshino has taken another stab at the issue, with the very telling concession that he “refuse[s] to answer the question ‘What is marriage?’” because the institution may in the future face even more “new challenges” to include still more relationships than those now claiming entry.)

Koppelman, for his part, writes at the Balkinization blog that he thinks Yoshino didn’t “really engage with any of [GG&A's] arguments,” and goes straight to the heart of the matter: he holds that marriage is “just a construct that has developed over time, and that therefore can be changed by human beings if that seems best.”  In other words, it has no correspondence to the nature of things, but is wholly conventional, from the bottom up.  Hence, for Koppelman, “[a] proposal to modify marriage is ontologically similar to a proposal to modify the game of chess.”  We can make it whatever we want it to be, and continue to call it “marriage” just as we could make chess indistinguishable from checkers and still call it “chess.”  Koppelman earns points for candor, but is marriage really whatever we say it is?

Today at Public Discourse, GG&A respond to Koppelman, arguing in part that “marriage isn’t a pure construct, any more than human rights are mere constructs. Both are moral realities that the state has good reasons to recognize and support.”  The whole exchange is worth reading, starting with Koppelman’s blog post.

And here’s the really good news: Girgis, George, and Anderson appear to have started an actual debate on this question, just when many on the other side of the gay marriage controversy want to shut down debate with accusations of “hate speech,” as I noted in a recent Washington Post article.  Yoshino and, especially, Koppelman, are to be commended for their civility, and for engaging in a shared attempt to come to grips, rationally, with one of the most momentous moral and legal questions facing our country today.  Both sides cannot be right–but neither side needs to be tarred with the epithet “bigots!” while the debate continues.

Source article: click here.

NOM INTERVIEWS: RNC Chairman Candidate Michael Steel on Marriage

RNC Chairman Michael Steel, who is running for re-election, answers questions about his views on marriage--watch it here:

You can watch the whole interview by clicking here.

Marriage: Real Bodily Union

by Sherif GirgisRyan T. Anderson and Robert P. George

December 30, 2010

A response to FamilyScholars Blogger Barry Deutsch.

Like Andrew Koppelman, Barry Deutsch has posted a critique of our recent Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy article arguing that marriage is the conjugal union of husband and wife. And, like Koppelman, Deutsch makes central to his critique a denial that marital coition effects a true organic (bodily) union of spouses. For the reasons we set forth in our reply to Professor Koppelman, we believe his critique is unsuccessful; but no reader will doubt that Koppelman engaged our argument with intellectual and moral seriousness. We cannot, alas, say the same for Deutsch's reply. But we will respond to it without resorting to the rhetorical tactics Deutsch himself employs.

Deutsch's central problem is with the following passage in our article:

In coitus, but not in other forms of sexual contact, a man and a woman's bodies coordinate by way of their sexual organs for the common biological purpose of reproduction. They perform the first step of the complex reproductive process. Thus, their bodies become, in a strong sense, one--they are biologically united, and do not merely rub together--in coitus (and only in coitus), similarly to the way in which one's heart, lungs, and other organs form a unity: by coordinating for the biological good of the whole. In this case, the whole is made up of the man and woman as a couple, and the biological good of that whole is their reproduction.

Deutsch follows this with an analysis:

1) Individual adults are naturally incomplete with respect to sexual reproduction.
2) Reproduction can only be begun via coitus between a man and a woman.
3) Thus, during coitus, a woman and a man's bodies are biologically united and become one flesh.

How does #3 follow from #1 and #2? Answer: It doesn't.

Deutsch claims that our argument is a non sequitur because there is "no non-metaphorical sense in which the spouses become 'one flesh'" in light of the fact that "the man and the woman ... remain two separate entities," as can be confirmed by a "DNA sampling."

As most readers will have noticed, Deutsch's claim against us is itself a non sequitur.

Deutsch evidently assumed that a man and woman's common biological action cannot make them biologically united at all (that is, united in any respect), unless it makes them completely so (that is, united in every respect). But this is obviously untrue. Organic unity can be genuine without being all-encompassing:  two distinct organisms can be organically united in some respects or for some purposes while remaining separate and self-sufficient in other respects or for other purposes. Whether we are talking about humans or zebras, individual members of a mammalian species are separate and self-sufficient with respect to locomotion, digestion, respiration and most other functions. With respect to reproduction, however, individual members of the species are not self-sufficient. A male or female is half of a potential mated pair whose biological (and, as such, organic) common action--or unity--in coitus characteristically (though not on every occasion) produces offspring.

Deutsch's appeal to "DNA sampling" to "confirm" that there is "no non-metaphorical sense" in which males and females organically unite in mating is risible. Genetic identity is not what constitutes biological unity (cf. identical twins)--nor is it, as we will show, even necessary for biological unity of every meaningful sort. Elsewhere Deutsch suggests that biological unity requires being "physically joined." But physical joining just in itself can scarcely be considered a very significant kind of bodily unity, since it may well include the "unions" of animals that are tied to each other by the tails, or whose hides have been surgically attached at a point. There would be nothing metaphysically or morally significant about these instances of "physical joining."

The rest of Deutsch's posting is ostensibly an effort to find such a sense in which coitus is a real bodily union. But if he were careful, he wouldn't have had to look very far. In fact, the answer is in the very passage that he first quotes: "...they are biologically united... similarly to the way in which one's heart, lungs, and other organs form a unity: by coordinating for the biological good of the whole."

Thus, following Aristotle, we argued in our article--in the paragraph immediately preceding the one that Deutsch cites--that "our organs--our heart and stomach, for example--are parts of one body because they are coordinated, along with other parts, for a common biological purpose of the whole: our biological life. It follows that for two individuals to unite organically their bodies must be coordinated for some biological purpose of the whole." This conception clearly allows for partial biological unity, in respect of coordination toward some but not other biological purposes.

Think of a biological function in humans. Now think of the parts that are inherently oriented to playing some role in serving that function and can thus be said to be coordinated together toward its fulfillment. Our claim is that there is one meaningful sense in which the parts just mentioned enjoy a biological unity, precisely in virtue of that coordination toward fulfilling a common biological function.

If the function that you thought of was locomotion, metabolism, respiration, or one of many others, then (a) the parts that you thought of are organs within a single individual; and (b) the function in question itself plays some role in serving that individual's biological life. But if reproduction was the function you picked, then (a) the parts that you thought of are not organs in a single individual; and (b) the function in question is one that serves the biological good not of an individual, but of a male-female pair as a whole: namely, their reproduction. And coitus is the process by which such coordination toward a common biological function--such real, if limited, biological unity--is achieved.

Deutsch objects that "it's not true that every part of our body is 'coordinated'... for a common biological purpose... [namely] biological life," and cites hair, skin tags, and benign tumors. But far from disproving our point, these examples support it. For it is clear that hair, skin tags, and benign tumors--though contiguous with our bodies--are not biologically united with them in just the way that, say, a heart and lungs are. To remove tumors or skin tags (or at least some of the body's hair) has no effect on our organic functioning; that is why doing so is not mutilation. (In Deutsch's own words, "they could all be removed at no biological cost.") If there is still a sense in which they are parts of one's body--because of their contiguity with it, and so on--that just shows that there are different (more and less important) senses in which two things can be biologically united. But that is no strike against our argument, since we articulated precisely which sense we meant--and a sense that is clearly more significant than the contiguity that skin tags have as much as limbs do.

Deutsch continues:

I largely agree with George that a marriage, in nearly all cases, requires a physical, sexual union to become complete. (There may be individual couples who are exceptions, but for the overwhelming majority of couples, it will not feel like a true marriage without a sexual union.)

It is not clear what Deutsch means here. If marriage is a human good with some essential features that hold regardless of the participants, then either consummation is one such essential, or it is not. If it is, then Deutsch's second sentence is false; if it is not, then his first sentence is puzzling. If, on the other hand, Deutsch thinks that there are no essential features of marriage that hold constant across would-be spouses, then we wonder why he thinks that marriage would require even mutual commitment (much less monogamous or exclusive commitment). Why, too, would he not think that such an intrinsically malleable good would be hindered by legal recognition, which imposes certain uniform constraints on every recognized marriage?

Perhaps then Deutsch means that a certain sort of mutual pleasuring is essential to marital unity, and that this is what most (but not all) couples achieve through sex. Our article includes a short note about why pleasure cannot be another biological good in respect of which two individuals are in some sense biologically united, by sexual activities other than coitus:

Pleasure cannot play this role for several reasons. The good must be truly common and for the couple as a whole, but pleasures (and, indeed, any psychological good) are private and benefit partners, if at all, only individually. The good must be bodily, but pleasures are aspects of experience. The good must be inherently valuable, but pleasures are not as such good in themselves--witness, for example, sadistic pleasures.

Ignoring our first two points, Deutsch says of the last sentence:

[That] is a little like saying "childbirth is not as such a good in itself-witness, for example, the birth of Hitler." For any good, one could imagine an instance of the good being used for negative purposes; yet if "can never be used for negative purposes" is the definition of good, then absolutely nothing on this mortal Earth is or ever can be good. That's silly. In the right context (i.e., not Hitler), childbirth is a good; and in the right context, sexual pleasure is also a good.

Our point was not that sadistic pleasures are inherently good things that just happen to be used for bad purposes. First, it is a confusion to speak of sadistic pleasures being used for bad purposes. It is the other way around: sadists seek what is bad or evil for the sake of pleasure, which they typically seek for its own sake. Second, we agree (who wouldn't?) that good things can be twisted. Our point was that in sadistic pleasures, it is not as if the pleasure itself is good, only sought by illicit means. Pleasure taken in bad things is bad. And we doubt that Deutsch would disagree. If a man took pleasure in strolling the halls of a pediatric oncology ward to watch children die of cancer, no one would we say, "Well, it's too bad that's what suits his fancy--but at least he got pleasure out of it." Pleasure does not have its own value, considered as a state of mind independently of its object; it shares in the moral quality of that object. Now communities--like friendship or marriage--are built up by the pursuit of what is inherently valuable. So marriage cannot be built up by the common pursuit of pleasure just as such. Spouses must achieve some good (organic union as an embodiment of their commitment), in which the pleasure they take is then an additional perfection. That was our point.

From these misunderstandings, Deutsch rushes to his conclusion:

But at heart, "What Is Marriage" is a faith-based argument. George believes, as a matter of faith (all he has, since he lacks evidence), that there's something called "bodily union," a biological merger of male and female bodies, that occurs only in coitus....

But basing laws on Robert George's faith in a mythical "bodily union" is no better than basing laws on my faith in Mork from Ork. Robert George and his fellow-travelers may have faith in magical bodily unions, but they would be morally wrong to force that faith on us through the legal system....

But now we're treading on even more bewildering territory. Do we want a society in which people's civil rights are decided, not by what is just, not by what is pragmatic, not by what is fair, but by a metaphor? Metaphors, unlike facts, can change arbitrarily. Suppose that George chooses to believe in a different metaphor next year -- a metaphor saying that comprehensive unity can only be achieved by dog owners, for instance. Would we then be obliged to change marriage laws to exclude cat owners?

Ridicule is the last resort of desperate arguments. If Deutsch had achieved a sound understanding of our view (as Koppelman did) and then produced a valid argument against it (as Koppelman made a serious effort to do), he would have had no need of putting words into our mouths ("biological merger") or festooning his critique with dismissive terms ("mythical," "magical"). A sound objection would have sufficed. But a dozen sneers do not make an objection.

What Deutsch calls the protean "myth" at the heart of marriage law has been its cornerstone for centuries. Our legal tradition understood coitus and coitus alone as consummating (and thus completing) a marriage, but never accepted infertility as a ground for annulment or dissolution. Our argument--into which readers will gain little insight by reading Deutsch's post--can make ample sense of that tradition, in a way that also accounts for other marital norms (permanence, exclusivity, monogamy). Can Deutsch? What is the non-arbitrary basis on which he would ground these norms (assuming he accepts them), while rejecting sexual complementarity as integral to marriage? Our guess: he will do no better than other advocates of redefining civil marriage have done in meeting our challenge. What argument would Deutsch make against the 300 academics and activists who signed "Beyond Gay Marriage," or others who would eliminate the requirements of monogamy and sexual exclusivity? Or would he join them?

The common biological action of mating is no myth; it is a biological fact. Ask any zoologist (or farmer). The real question is whether human mating, precisely in virtue of the unity it effectuates, is capable of having moral significance of a certain sort. Can it embody and complete an inherently valuable, comprehensive form of relationship--historically known as marriage--that is, like mating itself, ordered to procreation? We have argued as much. And if we are right, then not only sexual complementarity, but the other structuring marital principles recognized by our legal tradition--monogamy, sexual exclusivity, the pledge of permanence--are intelligible and sound. Yet they cannot be accounted for by a sneering Barry Deutsch any more than by a commendably thoughtful and morally serious scholar like Andrew Koppelman.

Sherif Girgis is a PhD Candidate in Philosophy at Princeton University. Ryan T. Anderson is a PhD Candidate in Political Science at the University of Notre Dame. Robert P. George is McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence at Princeton University.

Copyright 2010 the Witherspoon Institute. All rights reserved.

Three Days Remaining! Double your support with a gift today!

Double your support for marriage with a year-end gift to NOM!

With NOM's $1 Million Marriage Challenge grant, every gift received (or postmarked) before midnight Friday will be matched, doubling the impact for marriage. Join us today as we close out 2010 and prepare to make an immediate impact for marriage in 2011.

We're already making ambitious plans for the new year - I'll have more details in the days ahead about the opportunities for 2011, including repeal of same-sex marriage in New Hampshire and Iowa, passing marriage amendments in Minnesota, Pennsylvania, Indiana and North Carolina, and continuing to build the defense of California's Proposition 8 in preparation for a dramatic victory at the Supreme Court in 2012.

Over the past three years - with your help - NOM has grown to become one of the nation's most effective advocacy organizations, and the nation's largest national organization focused solely on defending marriage. And together we've achieved some incredible victories, becoming the largest single contributor to the Prop 8 campaign, organizing grassroots opposition to block same-sex marriage in New York and New Jersey, heading the effort to repeal same-sex marriage in Maine, and helping to flip state legislatures in New Hampshire, Minnesota, Pennsylvania and Indiana.

After playing defense for most of the past two years since the passage of Prop 8, we are now once more to go on the offensive, building legislative victories from the opportunities created this past November.

But it is going to take all of us joining together to make these victories possible. Click here to make your secure online gift right now. In just a few weeks, state legislatures will begin their 2011 session, and it is imperative that we have the resources to make an immediate difference in key states this year.

Same-sex marriage radicals will stop at nothing as they seek to force their agenda on the nation - "whether you like it or not!" as San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom put it so memorably. Even in just these past two weeks, we've seen the depths to which some same-sex marriage activists will stoop in their campaign for same-sex marriage - even to the point of exploiting young children, filling their mouths with hateful obscenities.

We need your help to fight back! Truth and love will always prevail over hatred and name-calling in the end.

Already, we've raised $336,520 to protect marriage through the matching challenge grant. And with just three days left in our $1 Million Marriage Challenge, we are working to raise an additional $663,480 to take full advantage of the challenge grant. Here's what I need you to do:

1) Take the Marriage Challenge right now! Would you make a year-end gift to protect marriage as we head into 2011? Each of us needs to step up and join the effort if we are to reach our goal and take full advantage of the challenge grant. We need you!

Can you give $10 as we come to the end of 2010? Maybe you can afford a gift of $100, or even $1,000? Whatever the amount, we need your participation – with your gift today, $20 becomes $40, $50 becomes $100, and $500 becomes $1,000 to protect marriage in 2011. Click here to make your secure online gift right now!

2) Then tell a friend! One of the best ways to maximize your support for marriage is to spread the word to your friends and relatives. Invite your friends to join us as we work to take full advantage of the opportunities we've been presented, making 2011 a pivotal year for the future of marriage. To help spread the word, simply forward this email to 10 friends, or go to and click on the "Like" or "Tweet" buttons at the top of the page. Become an ambassador for marriage by mentioning NOM's work at a holiday party this week, or at gatherings of friends and family.

If we all join together, I'm confident we can reach our goal by midnight Friday . . . but it will only happen with your help. Please, don't assume someone else will step up. We need YOU! Join us at today!

Help NOM Protect Our Children

Help NOM protect our children: post this web banner on your Facebook page, blog... and join thousands who already signed the online petition by clicking here.

download this banner and post it.

Billboards in Putnam County, Tenn., promote biblical view of marriage between man and woman

Supporters rally to keep signs up and spread the message nationwide


COOKEVILLE, Tenn. -- A grassroots effort to promote the biblical view of "Marriage God's Way" has materialized into the form of two billboards in Putnam County.

The billboards, produced by Roland Advertising of Cookeville, Tenn., depict a young man and woman along with the words: "Man + Woman = Marriage God's Way" in reference to Genesis 2:24 from the Bible. The first, located on Tennessee State Highway 111 south of Interstate 40, went up in September. A second billboard went up on I-40, westbound before Exit 290, in October.

Though the message is controversial, supporters of the sign, who have no official name for their group, say it is needed around their region and beyond. They hope news of the billboard will spread and become a nationwide effort among fellow advocates of marriage between one man and one woman.

"I just thought this billboard was a marvelous idea," said Lois Irby, one of several Cookeville-area supporters of the sign. "You hear so much about same-sex marriage on TV, and it's so readily accepted by the public. Children, unless they have some kind of religious training at home, are taught to accept it and not question it or feel that it's wrong. I think God's word needs to be inserted as often as possible to reaffirm that homosexuality is wrong. It doesn't need to be presented in a glorified light
as just an alternate lifestyle."

Another sign supporter, Kerry Duke, who also serves as dean at Tennessee Bible College in Cookeville, said the group purposely avoided a reference to "traditional marriage" in the billboard.

"The will of God -- not tradition -- is the basis for saying that marriage should be between people of the opposite sex," Duke said. "Marriage between a man and a woman is not right because it is traditional. It is traditional
because it is right."

He added, "There are two basic ways of looking at marriage. Either humans invented marriage or God created it. If marriage is a human arrangement, then a society may alter it at will or do away with it altogether. But if marriage is a divine institution, then only God has the right to say what it is and who has the moral right to be in it."

Duke and Irby are co-workers at Tennessee Bible College. Irby is also a member of the Putnam County Right to Life group. The idea for the "Marriage God's Way" billboard began several months back during a conversation at work about pro-life billboards.

"The Putnam County Right to Life group and other pro-life organizations have put up some great signs that are very encouraging to those of us who believe in the sanctity of life in the womb," Duke said. "Lois and I were talking one morning about these pro-life signs when I mentioned that it would be great to have some signs which promote marriage between a man and a woman."

And so the seed was planted that eventually led to Duke taking the idea to Roland Advertising in Cookeville.

"I had never worked with sign companies, so I was a little skeptical about a company being willing to put up a sign that takes a stand on one of the most controversial issues of our time," Duke said. "But a representative for Roland assured me that the company would be glad to develop the sign."

Dave Roland, owner of Roland Advertising, even offered to put up another billboard free of charge.

"We are glad to participate in this project because of our belief in marriage God's way," Roland said. "Our conservative values are under attack every day, and outdoor advertising is one way we can speak to the masses for very little cost. We want to make sure our messages are positive and promote the right things. We believe this message is one of them."

From that point, news of the billboard spread by word of mouth.

Duke said, "Individuals throughout this area expressed interest and pledged support. The most common response is that Bible-believing people in this area are deeply concerned. They believe it is time to take a firm stand and
make a public statement about marriage according to God."

Anyone wanting to join in the effort to keep the billboards up may do so by contacting Roland Advertising at (931)528-8100 or Kerry Duke at (931)526-2616.

Lois Irby said, "We're just hoping to spread the word to different congregations to help us. Any amount is welcome. I believe there are so many good moral people, especially here in the Bible belt, who feel that this billboard is a great thing and would want to be a part of it."

She added, "Maybe somebody driving along really needs to see that sign. Maybe they're questioning homosexuality in their life, and they don't have a religious background."

Kerry Duke said, "God has never approved of same-sex relations. When Jesus was asked about divorce, He went back to the beginning and said God created male and female for marriage (Matthew 19:4-5). Even nature shows that it is wrong (Romans 1:26-27)."

In the United States, same-sex couples can legally "marry" in several states, including Massachusetts (which was the first, in 2004), Connecticut, Iowa, New Hampshire, Vermont and Maine, plus Washington D.C., with California possibly the next in line. New York, Rhode Island and New Mexico recognize same-sex "marriages" that were legally performed elsewhere. Several other states offer civil unions or domestic partnerships, which grant all or part of the state-level rights of marriage. Thirty-one states have constitutional restrictions limiting marriage to one man and one woman.

"Our hope is that God-fearing people will be encouraged by these 'Marriage God's Way' billboards in Cookeville, Tenn.," Duke said. "On a bigger scale, we hope people from other parts of the nation who drive by these signs will go home and put up similar ones. Our dream is that it will grow into a nationwide effort."

Providence Journal Finds 80% of Rhode Islanders Want Vote on Marriage

When former Providence Mayor Buddy Cianci cited the fact that "over 80 percent of the people want the shot to vote" on same-sex marriage during an ABC-6 interview earlier this month, a skeptical ProJo Politifact Truth-O-Meter decided to investigate. After reviewing three NOM-Rhode Island polls conducted by Quest Research, the Truth-O-Meter concluded that "a hefty majority wants voters to determine the issue," with support ranging from 74% and 84% of Rhode Island voters with various wordings of the question between June 2009 and August 2010.

Help NOM Close Out the Year

Help NOM close out the year with our most ambitious challenge grant ever! There are 5 days left in the $1 Million for Marriage Challenge where your gift of $25, $50 or $500 instantly doubles to $50, $100 or $1,000. The new year promises many opportunities to strengthen and reclaim marriage – but we'll succeed only if you stand with us to start the year off right! Please take the challenge today at! Then invite your friends to join you by clicking the “Like” or “Tweet” buttons at the top of the page!

Cardinal Donald Wuerl on Fox News Sunday

Cardinal Wuerl defends the Catholic Church's teaching on marriage on Fox News Sunday.

WSJ Touts Mike Pence As Potential GOP Prez Candidate

Wall Street Journal today touts Indiana's Mike Pence as a potential frontrunner for the  GOP nomination who can unite all wings of the party:

"When conservative activist and former presidential candidate Gary Bauer scans the potential 2012 Republican field, not much excites him. "All the obvious frontline names have all the usual pluses and minuses," Mr. Bauer says.

But in considering one candidate, Mr. Bauer sees only qualities that he likes. Indiana Rep. Mike Pence is a military and fiscal hawk who frequently plugs his Christian credentials. To some, he's the potential candidate best able to unite two wings of the Republican Party—its fiscal conservatives and social conservatives.

"He is definitely the guy to watch," says Bryan Fischer of the American Family Association, a group that opposes gay marriage and abortion. . .

Mr. Pence usually draws under 5% in voter surveys testing the emerging 2012 field. But the excitement he's stirred among a swath of conservatives—he won a straw poll at the prominent Values Voter Summit in September—points both to the fluidity of the 2012 lineup and the dearth of names rousing interest among the religious right, a dependable GOP voting bloc. . .

A former radio personality, the 51-year-old Mr. Pence became a darling among fiscal conservatives for opposing two of President George W. Bush's signature initiatives, the 2001 No Child Left Behind education act and the 2003 Medicare Part D drug benefit. He saw both as violating his party's small-government principles. . .

Mr. Pence favors reducing the size of the federal government, and even the power of the presidency. He wants to amend the Constitution both to ban abortions and to allow marriage only between men and women.  . .

It was his speech at the Values Voter Summit, a marquee annual event among social conservative groups, which did the most to rouse support. The speech, with its calls to ban all federal abortion funding and stem-cell research, drew standing ovations and chants of "President Pence."

When summit attendees cast ballots in a straw poll for president, Mr. Pence came in first, ahead of former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin and others. . .

The Indiana lawmaker, who first won election to Congress in 2000, also has the backing of budget hawks such as Chris Chocola, a former Indiana congressman who is now president of the fiscally conservative Club for Growth. 'Mike has the retail appeal of Huckabee but is an across-the-board conservative with all the credentials. There is no one else like that,'  says Mr. Chocola."

RNC Chairman Candidate Saul Anuzis on Marriage

Maggie Gallagher, NOM's chairman, interviews Saul Anuzis--one of the serious contenders for RNC chairman--watch it here.

You can watch the whole interview by clicking here.

RNC Chairman Candidate Gentry Collins on Marriage

Maggie Gallagher, NOM's chairman, interviews Gentry Collins--one of the serious contenders for RNC chairman--watch it here.

You can watch the whole interview by clicking here.

RNC Chairman Candidate Ann Wagner on Marriage

Maggie Gallagher, NOM's chairman, interviews Ann Wagner--one of the serious contenders for RNC chairman--watch it here.

You can watch the whole interview by clicking here.