NOMblog: The Official Blog of the National Organization for Marriage

NOM BLOG

Monthly Archives: December 2012

NOM Chairman Eastman: "SCOTUS Won't Rule that California Voters Have No Voice"

December 13, 2012 – 3:30 pm

Our Chairman John Eastman has published an op-ed in USAToday predicting that the most likely outcome is that the Supreme Court will uphold DOMA and Proposition 8:

"...Prior to the Perry challenge to Proposition 8, no judge had ever found a federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage. Such a contention has expressly been rejected by the Supreme Court itself in its 1972 decision in Baker v. Nelson. That's why, before Perry, most legal experts felt it was a huge gamble for gay rights advocates to mount a federal constitutional challenge to traditional marriage laws. But the Hollywood funders of the Perry lawsuit proceeded anyway. I predict their gamble will go bust when the court rules that more than 7 million Californians were perfectly within their rights to define marriage in the traditional way, just as citizens in virtually every nation since the dawn of time have done.

... if states have the right to define marriage, doesn't the federal government have that same right? It's the constitutional duty of our elected officials to decide what burden taxpayers bear in dealing with same-sex couples. Federal laws encourage men and women to marry and have children because society has a profound interest in ensuring that children are born (to continue society) and then raised by their parents to become responsible adults.

It is not unconstitutional for the government to treat different things differently. Whatever one thinks about homosexual relationships, they are not the same as the male/female relationship in their potential for creating children, which is why we have laws encouraging marriage in the first place."

By NOM Staff | Posted in California, DOMA, Law, Marriage, Prop 8, Same Sex Marriage, Supreme Court | Comments (11)

On the Reawakening of Christian Humanism in France (to Protect Marriage)

December 13, 2012 – 12:00 pm

Sandro Magister is an expert observer of European culture and tradition, he writes for the Italian newspaper L'Espresso about what is happening in France to protect marriage:

"No one would have bet on it. But after decades of invisibility and torpor, the French Catholic Church has returned vigorously to the public scene.

It was a minority and a minority it remains, in a country where less than 5 percent of the population goes to Sunday Mass, and where baptisms of children are increasingly rare.

But it is one thing to give up, to and another to be creative. That of "creative minority" is the future that pope Joseph Ratzinger himself has assigned to Catholicism in secularized regions. The Church of France is putting this to the test.

The turnaround came all of a sudden. One sign of foreshadowing was, in mid-August, the prayer that the archbishop of Paris, Cardinal André Vingt-Trois (in the photo), had raised to Our Lady of the Assumption: "May children and young people cease to be the object of the desires and conflicts of adults, in order to enjoy fully the love of a father and mother." A furious controversy exploded, in a France on the path to legalizing marriage between persons of the same sex, with the possibility of adopting.

... To Minister Taubira, who told [the Cardinal]: "We are not touching the Bible," the cardinal rebutted that not even he was bringing this into discussion: "It is a question that concerns man, and this is enough."

And this is precisely what is new. Against the law on gay marriage a resistance is mobilizing that is not confessional, but humanistic, of men and women with the most varied visions of the world."

By NOM Staff | Posted in Culture, France, Marriage, Same Sex Marriage | Comments (9)

Congress Considering Military Religious Freedom Act of 2012

December 13, 2012 – 11:00 am

CitizenLink:

Congress is discussing an act that would protect the religious freedom of members of the military, including chaplains who decide not to perform same-sex ceremonies.

Introduced in the Senate on Sept. 11, 2012, the Military Religious Freedom Act (MRFA) would also prohibit same-sex marriage ceremonies, or anything similar, at military installations.

The House has already passed its version. Military experts are urging people to call their state’s two senators to ask them to co-sponsor the Senate version.

Here is the action item we posted recently related to this bill:

The NDAA is headed to a House/Senate conference committee to iron out the differences between the bills passed by the two bodies. Because the House version already contains the provision protecting marriage, we need to urge the members of the conference committee to protect the religious liberty language, ensuring that it is retained in the final version.

Please click here to contact your senators and representative today! A copy of your letter will also be sent to House Speaker John Boehner, and Senator John McCain, ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

By NOM Staff | Posted in Congress, DOMA, Marriage, Religious Liberty, Same Sex Marriage | Comments (19)

Anderson Explains Why Government is in the Marriage Business

December 13, 2012 – 10:00 am

For the third part of his series for Ricochet, Ryan Anderson (co-author of What is Marriage?) explains why government has a rightful role in protecting and promoting marriage:

"...Getting government out of the civil marriage business would be a catastrophe for limited government. Abolishing civil marriage would weaken social support for its norms. Over time, the law shapes what people think marriage is—which in turn affects how current and future spouses act. As countless studies show, absentee fathers and out-of-wedlock births bring a train of social pathologies, and greater demand for policing and social services. This was, after all, what inspired the original “marriage movement,” as my first post explained.

A study by the Left-leaning Brookings Institution finds that $229 billion in welfare spending between 1970 and 1996 can be attributed to the breakdown of the marriage culture and the resulting exacerbation of social ills: teen pregnancy, poverty, crime, drug abuse and health problems. A 2008 study found that divorce and unwed childbearing cost taxpayers $112 billion each year. And Utah State University scholar David Schramm has estimated that divorce alone costs local, state and federal government $33 billion each year.

Civil marriage serves the ends of limited government more effectively, less intrusively, and at less cost than picking up the pieces from a shattered marriage culture.

Of course, it isn’t just the legal title of marriage that encourages adherence to marital norms. There is nothing magical about the word “marriage.” Instead, marriage laws work by embodying and promoting a true vision of what marriage is that makes sense of those norms as a coherent whole."

By NOM Staff | Posted in Debating Marriage, Economics, Marriage, Same Sex Marriage | Comments (1)

Liberals Demand Obama Weigh in On Gay Marriage Legal Arguments

December 12, 2012 – 11:00 am

Obama's conveniently-timed endorsement of same-sex marriage during the campaign season is now leaving some liberals to wonder why he hasn't commented once on the issue since being reelected, not even now that the Supreme Court has decided to take up the question:

"The Supreme Court’s decision to weigh in on two gay marriage cases has raised an important question: Will the Obama administration offer clarity on whether he thinks gay and lesbian Americans have a constitutional, as opposed to a moral, right to marry?

The Obama Justice Department is not saying whether it will address this question. But sources tell me the legal team representing the plaintiffs in the Proposition 8 case — Ted Olson, David Boise, and Ted Boutrous — plan to lobby the administration to publicly declare that the right to gay marriage is protected by the constitution, and to file a legal brief supporting their argument to that effect.

This would be a big, big move on the administration’s part. And Obama must do it, for two reasons. First, because it could help influence the Supreme Court to reach a broad conclusion on the constitutionality of gay marriage. Second, weighing in could help prepare public opinion to accept this right, too." -- Greg Sargent at The Washington Post

By NOM Staff | Posted in Marriage, Politics, President Obama, Same Sex Marriage, Supreme Court | Comments (16)

NRO Editors: On Marriage, The Supreme Court Should Defend the Right of Republican Self-Governance

December 12, 2012 – 10:00 am

The editors of National Review comment on the Supreme Court taking up Prop 8 and DOMA:

"...The Supreme Court should reverse these lower-court rulings, and straightforwardly affirm the right of the people in any state to act, constitutionally or legislatively, to adopt the traditional view of marriage as a relationship oriented toward procreation. The justices need not themselves hold that view — they may consider it outmoded or rationally inferior to a conception of marriage that treats it first and foremost as an emotional union of adults — to see that the Constitution erects no barrier to it, and that states therefore have the freedom to act on it.

Of the various arguments advanced for a constitutional “right” of same-sex marriage, none withstands even momentary scrutiny by accepted standards. Are gays and lesbians a powerless and oppressed minority? One can hardly say that after the November elections, in which the cause of same-sex marriage was victorious in four states, in a year when it was also embraced by the president of the United States and enshrined in the platform of the larger of our major parties. Is it rationally indefensible to reserve the institution of marriage to the only kind of union — one man and one woman — that is capable of procreation, and to the kind of union that is proven to be the best general setting for the rearing of children? The question answers itself.

Are laws protecting this time-honored institution founded upon a culpable animus against persons of homosexual inclination? Such a conclusion would rest on three errors. First, it would confuse the law’s purpose with the putative motives of some who support it. Second, it would accuse some citizens — citizens holding moral opinions about behavior that the Constitution plainly permits them to act upon — of a personal animosity of which they are not guilty. Finally, it would be blind to the plain fact that in a society that is increasingly open and tolerant regarding homosexuality, many Americans find it easy to join in such welcoming attitudes while believing quite sensibly that governmental recognition of same-sex couples as married is incompatible with the purpose for which marriage policy exists in the first place: to foster stability in the sort of relationships that can give rise to children."

By NOM Staff | Posted in Debating Marriage, DOMA, Law, Marriage, Prop 8, Same Sex Marriage, Supreme Court | Comments (5)

AP: "Gay Marriage Supporters See 41 Reasons to Fret Over SCOTUS Decision to Take Up Cases"

December 12, 2012 – 9:00 am

The Associated Press on more gay advocates coming forward to share their fears of losing at the Supreme Court:

Gay marriage supporters see 41 reasons to fret over the Supreme Court’s decision to take up the case of California’s ban on same-sex unions.

While nine states allow same-sex partners to marry, or will soon, 41 states do not. Of those, 30 have written gay marriage bans into their state constitutions.

That fact is worrisome to those who firmly believe there is a constitutional right to marry, regardless of sexual orientation, but who also know that the Supreme Court does not often get too far ahead of the country on hot-button social issues.

“Mindful of history, I can’t help but be concerned,” said Mary Bonauto, director of the Civil Rights Project at Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders and a leader in the state-by-state push for marriage equality.

By NOM Staff | Posted in California, DOMA, Law, Marriage, Politics, Prop 8, Same Sex Marriage, Supreme Court | Comments (5)

Anderson: What is Marriage Besides Sexual Complementarity?

December 12, 2012 – 8:00 am

Ryan Anderson's second contribution to Richochet:

"...Just ask yourself: If the law recognized same-sex couples as spouses, would it still fail to respect the equality of citizens in multiple-partner relationships? Are those inclined to such relationships being treated unjustly when their consensual romantic bonds go unrecognized, their children thereby “stigmatized,” their tax filings unprivileged?

This isn’t scaremongering. In 2009, Newsweek reported that there were over 500,000 polyamorous households in America. And prominent scholars and LGBT activists have called for “marriage equality” for multipartner relationships since at least 2006.

And in any case, the question is more fundamental: Once one jettisons sexual complementarity—the bodies of men and women go together—what principle can one offer to limit civil marriage to monogamous couples? For that is the only way to answer the charge that withholding a “fundamental right” from even just one multiple-partner household isn’t a grave injustice.''

Again, to know when the lines drawn by a marriage law are arbitrary—when they violate equality—we have to know what marriage is and why the state promotes it. Tomorrow’s post will examine that latter question; today we focus on what marriage is."

By NOM Staff | Posted in Debating Marriage, Marriage, Same Sex Marriage | Comments (9)

Don't Be Fooled: They DON'T Want This Fight

December 11, 2012 – 3:00 pm

Dear Marriage Supporter,

E.J. Graff has been a leading voice in the charge for same-sex marriage for well over a decade. But now that same-sex marriage is on the doorstep of the Supreme Court, she's nervous. More than that: she's scared. As she wrote last week in The Advocate:

If the court does take up Perry (Proposition 8), be afraid, be very afraid. Almost no one believes the Supreme Court is ready to get out ahead of American opinion on the question at Perry's heart: Do same-sex couples have a fundamental right to marry under the U.S. Constitution?

I couldn't have said it better myself.

Last Friday, the U.S. Supreme Court did take up the Perry case—as well as a case attempting to overturn the Federal Defense of Marriage Act.

This is fantastic news for marriage! It is also a strong signal that the justices are concerned with the rogue rulings of far-left, activist courts that have been practically legislating from the bench to re-define marriage.

Now that we are assured marriage will have its day in court, it's time to stand strong like never before, and give marriage the best defense possible in front of our nation's highest Court.

Please consider making a year-end contribution to NOM today of $50, $100, $500 or even $1,000 if you have the means, to help turn the political and cultural tide and ensure that marriage is given the best defense possible.

An extremely generous supporter has given us the opportunity to level the playing field entering 2013, with a NEW $500,000 matching challenge grant! Every dollar NOM raises before the end of the year, up to half a million, will be matched—doubling the value of your gift to NOM, and providing us with the resources needed to face the forces arrayed against us, who are trying to impose their radical same-sex marriage agenda on the entire country!

NOM has been deeply involved in the defense of both Prop 8 and DOMA from the beginning. We submitted amicus briefs to the court in their defense, and have directly contributed over $400,000 to the legal defense of Prop 8.

The original ruling in the Prop 8 case, issued by a homosexual judge involved in a long-term same-sex relationship, was upheld (but on different grounds) by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals this past year.

But Judge Stephen Reinhardt, the judge who wrote that appellate decision, is the most overturned judge in America, sitting on the bench of the most overturned appeals court in America.

Supporter, as you can see, we have a great chance of winning!

Please make a generous year-end contribution right away to help us defend marriage as it needs to be defended, and as it deserves to be defended!

In this defense, we'll be able to marshal some powerful forces to aid marriage in the courtroom.

Social science data is beginning to show glimpses of what common sense has always told us: children raised without the benefit of their own loving mother and father face challenges most children in intact families are never forced to deal with. One recent study just concluded that "children of same sex couples are significantly less likely to make normal progress through school than other children: 35% less likely than the children of heterosexual married parents."

This new scientific evidence, coupled with the Family Structures Study published by Professor Mark Regnerus earlier this year, are part of a growing body of research that will surely play in favor of winning at the Supreme Court.

But we need your help to make sure we can garner these resources, assemble the teams of experts needed, and put them to work in the most effective way.

Supporter, please donate to NOM today to help us win this all-important fight for marriage.

We cannot give up on our society's foundational institution. We must continue defending it with everything we have.

Especially now—when major victories are in sight—do NOT give in to the lie that the fight is lost and that same-sex marriage is inevitable. 2013 could be a year of unprecedented victory for marriage, and perhaps turn the tide in this fight forever...please take a moment to make a donation today to be a part of this historic moment.

By Brian Brown | Posted in Prop 8, Same Sex Marriage, Supreme Court | Comments (4)

Safe World for Women: "Starbucks to Cut Maternity Benefits for UK Workers"

December 11, 2012 – 2:30 pm

Starbucks supports redefining marriage but not new mothers:

The new contractual terms being circulated to staff across 750 stores [in the UK] include the removal of cash incentives for becoming manager or partner of the year in favour of the award of a plaque and the removal of a bonus scheme for women returning after they have had a baby because "it is not considered a valued benefit".

A worker who claimed he was told to sign the new contract last week or leave, told the Guardian colleagues were "really upset" at the changes and said it appeared relatively low-paid staff were being forced to help bear the cost of the company's potentially increased tax bill.

"It's really convenient for them to say we're going to pay more taxes, when they're going to save money with us, the staff," said the coffee shop worker on condition of anonymity. "It's convenient saying we'll pay more because they're going to save more – and the perfect excuse for them is to say to staff 'We're going to pay more taxes, so…'." -- Safe World for Women

We are less than 1,300 away from reaching 50,000 who have signed our pro-family DumpStarbucks pledge. Please sign today if you have not already!

By NOM Staff | Posted in Culture, Dump Starbucks, Marriage, Same Sex Marriage, United Kingdom | Comments (2)

Ryan Anderson: "Why [Do] Conservatives Choose to Focus Exclusively on SSM? ... We Don't"

December 11, 2012 – 2:00 pm

Ryan Anderson, co-author of What is Marriage? One Man, One Woman: A Defense writes in Ricochet:

"As the Ricochet editors mentioned, tomorrow Encounter Books releases my new book, co-authored with Sherif Girgis and Robert P. George, What Is Marriage? Man and Woman: A Defense. So while blogging at Ricochet this week, I thought I’d explore some of the issues raised by the book—and recent events, thanks to the Supreme Court. Today I’d like to situate the debate over the definition of marriage within its proper context.

Some people wonder why conservatives choose to focus exclusively on same-sex marriage. The answer is simple: We don’t. First, conservatives always did—and still do—make other social and political efforts to strengthen the marriage culture. The push for same-sex marriage was brought to us. Second, now that this is the live debate, we can’t ignore it, for its outcome will have wider effects on the marriage culture that really is our main concern.

Long before there was a debate about same-sex marriage, there was a debate about marriage. It launched a “marriage movement,” to explain why marriage was good for the men and women who were faithful to its demands, and for the children they reared."

By NOM Staff | Posted in Culture, Debating Marriage, Marriage, Politics, Same Sex Marriage | Comments (11)

Brian Brown on Newsmax TV: "Lawyers for SSM ... Didn't Want the Court to Take the Case"

December 11, 2012 – 1:30 pm

Brian Brown spoke with Newsmax over the weekend for a more in-depth interview about the important news regarding Prop 8 and DOMA:

"We are ecstatic that the court took the case. Folks may not remember this but the lawyers for those that wanted to overturn Proposition 8 actually asked the Supreme Court to not take the case. That would have created gay marriage almost immediately in California and they would have used it as a precedent throughout the country. By the court accepting the case, we can get a resolution on this.

“It takes four votes [for the high court] to take a case. That shows that we at least have four votes. We’re going to have more and that’s because the arguments being made by the other side I just don’t think are going to withstand the court’s scrutiny. There is no constitutional right to redefine marriage and the court’s going to find that.”

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

William Duncan on SCOTUSBlog: SCOTUS Should Correct Novel Application of Equal Protection in Lower Court

December 11, 2012 – 1:00 pm

SSM Advocates often claim same-sex couples have a right to marry because of "equal protection." Legal scholar William Duncan explains why that is not the case over at the highly-read SCOTUSblog:

"...The decisions the Court will be reviewing have embraced something like a “substantive equal protection” doctrine.

... The Supreme Court now has an opportunity to wave the lower courts off this program of social engineering through a results-oriented jurisprudence.

The Court has appropriately cabined the more expansive applications of substantive due process so that courts may not create “rights” unknown to text, history and tradition. The concerns prompting this curb are also present in an attempt to impose a result with no mooring in Constitutional provisions, practice, or precedent through the Equal Protection Clause. Such a program ends an ongoing debate with complex and sensitive implications for family policy, religious freedom, federalism, etc.

... The justification for a novel application of equal protection has been that normal procedures for lawmaking are hopelessly inadequate for protecting certain identifiable groups. This is manifestly not the case in the marriage context. There is no reason, far from it, to believe the people of the states cannot, directly or through their representatives, appropriately respond to claims that marriage ought to be redefined. The claim that advocates of redefining marriage are politically powerless does not ring true."

By NOM Staff | Posted in DOMA, Law, Marriage, Prop 8, Same Sex Marriage, Supreme Court | Comments (5)

VICTORY: University Settles with Christian Julea Ward After Court Rules "Tolerance is a Two-Way Street"

December 11, 2012 – 11:30 am

Excellent news from the Alliance Defending Freedom:

Eastern Michigan University has agreed to settle an Alliance Defending Freedom lawsuit filed on behalf of Julea Ward, a graduate student whom the university expelled from a counseling program for abiding by her religious beliefs. As a result, a federal district court issued an agreed-upon order of dismissal Monday.

Even though counseling referrals are a common and accepted professional practice, the university expelled Ward when she sought to avoid violating her religious beliefs by referring a potential client to another counselor. In January, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit ruled in her favor.

“Public universities shouldn’t force students to violate their religious beliefs to get a degree. The 6th Circuit rightly understood this and ruled appropriately, so the university has done the right thing in settling this case,” said Senior Legal Counsel Jeremy Tedesco, who argued before the court in October of last year. “When Julea sought to refer a potential client to another qualified counselor--a common, professional practice that is endorsed by her profession’s code of ethics--EMU denied the referral. Then it attacked and questioned her religious beliefs, ultimately expelling her from the program. We are pleased that Julea and her constitutionally protected rights have been vindicated.”

Visit our Marriage Anti-Defamation Alliance page to learn more about citizens who have experienced discrimination and harassment for their pro-marriage views.

By NOM Staff | Posted in Education, Law, Marriage, MarriageADA, Michigan, Religious Liberty, Same Sex Marriage | Comments (15)

New Study by Prudential Insurance Shows the Wealth of LGBT People

December 11, 2012 – 11:00 am

Austin Ruse at the First Things First Thoughts blog:

"...Matthew Frank pointed out in these pages that recent Federal Court rulings scoff at the claim that LGBT persons are politically powerless.

... And now comes a new study from the financial services giant Prudential. The study looked at 1,401 LGBT persons aged 25-68 from “urban, suburban, and rural communities throughout the 50 states in August 2012.”

Rather than living in extreme poverty, or poverty of any kind, the study shows that gay individuals and couples are significantly better off than heterosexuals. They are more likely to be employed. They make significant more money. They have much higher levels of disposable income and have more in savings.

... A lawyer in Washington DC recently said the LGBT folks are the most powerful minority group our country has ever seen. They are lauded in the media and in the popular culture. They are better off by any financial measure. And their cause is championed by what Father Neuhaus called the “prestige media.” They are honored and promoted not just at Ivy League schools but in just about every college setting in the United States. And those who oppose them? They are vilified, driven from their jobs and from the public square.

Let us hope that the Supreme Court, which has taken up this issue, looks carefully at the real and privileged position of the homosexual community in the United States. We should all be so discriminated against."