Monthly Archives: May 2013

Marriage Supporters Win Major Victory In Illinois — Effort To Redefine Marriage Fails To Gather Support And Is Tabled Without A Vote

Contact: Elizabeth Ray or Jen Campbell (703-683-5004)

National Organization for Marriage

"This is a great victory for our allies and supporters, as well as Illinois families who have worked tirelessly with us to preserve marriage in Illinois." — Brian Brown

Washington, DC — The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) today celebrated the failure of legislation to come to a vote late this evening in Illinois seeking to redefine marriage, thus preserving marriage in the state as the union of one man and one woman. The bill's House sponsor, Rep. Greg Harris, announced this evening that he did not have the votes to pass the measure and would not bring the legislation to a vote. Assuming this is the case, the bill is thus dead until the fall when the Legislature reconvenes for a veto session.

"This effort to redefine marriage in Illinois was one of the most fiercely contested legislative battles in the country this year," said Brian Brown, NOM's president. "This is a great victory for our allies and supporters, as well as Illinois families who have worked tirelessly with us to preserve marriage in Illinois. We are gratified that our collective hard work has paid off in this stunning victory."

Illinois is a heavily Democratic state and has been widely considered by the gay marriage lobby as virtually certain to redefine marriage. Backers of the legislation have frequently claimed, falsely, that they had the votes in hand to pass the legislation (SB 10). President Obama had urged his former colleagues to vote to redefine marriage, and it was a top priority of both Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel and Governor Pat Quinn. It even was supported by a former Republican Chairman who was forced to resign from his post for advocating a position contrary to Republican principles.

"So much for the inevitability of gay marriage," said Brian Brown. "With a coalition that included strong support from the African American community as well as so many others throughout the state, we did what nobody in the intelligentsia thought was possible. This is a huge victory at a pivotal time, and totally undercuts the lie that somehow same-sex marriage is inevitable."

NOM spent well over $125,000 on grassroots activities to defeat the bill, but praised others in the coalition for securing the victory.

"Our thanks go out to champions such as the African American Clergy Coalition; Rev. James Meeks and Bishop Lance Davis; the Illinois Conference of Catholic Bishops and their director Bob Gilligan; the Illinois Family Institute and their director David Smith; the Illinois Family PAC and their director, Paul Caprio; and the Coalition of African American Pastors and their chairman, Rev. Bill Owens. Everyone pitched in everything they had to stop this ill-conceived legislation. We at NOM are honored to have been part of the coalition effort."

NOM also announced that it would form a state PAC to support Democrats and Republicans who supported marriage as the union of one man and one woman, and would oppose legislators, especially Republicans, who abandoned the true definition of marriage.

"We intend to continue to work with our coalition allies including Pastor Meeks, Bishop Davis and the other amazing leaders in the African American community who boldly stood for the truth about marriage," Brown said. "And those Republicans who betrayed principle will soon learn that their political careers are headed for the same dustbin that met former GOP Chair Pat Brady when he betrayed the cause of marriage."


To schedule an interview with Brian Brown, President of the National Organization for Marriage, please contact Elizabeth Ray (x130), [email protected], or Jen Campbell (x145), [email protected], at 703-683-5004.

Paid for by The National Organization for Marriage, Brian Brown, president. 2029 K Street NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20006, not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee. New § 68A.405(1)(f) & (h).

Chicago Reporter: No Momentum in Illinois for SSM

Greg Hinz on the manufactured effort to create momentum for gay marriage in Illinois failing:

2013-05-31 Illinois FB, Keep up Pressure"On gay marriage: Despite lots of brave talk and another plug last night by President Barack Obama, the bill to allow same-sex marriage in Illinois reportedly is short two or three votes, with stiff opposition among many African-American lawmakers." (Craig's Chicago Business On Politics blog)

Please keep up the pressure with your calls!

And if you live near Springfield, please come right away to an urgent rally to defend marriage at the Illinois State Capitol Rotunda. Our supporters and allies are gathering there at 10AM and will be there throughout the day. Thank you!

Down to the Wire, NOM Marriage News

NOM National Newsletter

Dear Marriage Supporter,

24 hours and the fate of marriage will be decided in Illinois.

The fact that the fight for marriage is coming down to the wire in this deep blue state controlled by Democrats, even with Pres. Obama pushing for its passage, is a testament first, to the good people of Illinois, of every race, creed and color who have worked hard to stand up for God's vision of marriage against relentless political and media pressure.

What kind of political pressure? One of the legislators in Springfield told the The African American Clergy Coalition (NOM has been working closely with them) that Gov. Quinn is offering holdout Representatives earmarks for their district such as "bridges and expressway extensions" if return for their yes vote on gay marriage.

Gay marriage is so "inevitable", in other words, the governor of this deep blue state has been forced to stoop to bribery and favor-peddling to pass it over the will of the people!

If you live in Illinois, now is the time to speak or forever lose your peace. Please call your legislator or forward this alert to your friends and family in Illinois. Have them tell him or her "just say no!" to same-sex marriage and the shady back-room deals that accompany redefining marriage against the will of the people.

Rays of Hope

In the darkness, shimmers of light emerge. Michael Bradley, a young Notre Dame philosophy graduate student, pushes back against the powerful governor of Massachusetts Deval Patrick, when the later argues that gay marriage is a civil right like interracial marriage:

"Patrick first offers an argument that eludes this central question while simultaneously doing something rather insidious: employing the rhetoric of, and therefore inviting comparison to, the black civil rights movement in order to dress the same-sex marriage debate as just the next civil rights cause in marriage's sullied history. Such a move is predictable, old, tired and just a poor argument to make.

In ruling the prohibition of interracial marriages unconstitutional in 1967, the Supreme Court simply acknowledged that a man and woman of different ethnic backgrounds had all along been able to, in reality, form the sort of relationship that marriage is. That is, a white man and a black woman (for example) were just as able as a white man and a white woman to form the union of marriage, the essential characteristics and norms of which have been expressed in what was, until very recently, the universally-recognized understanding (if not articulation) of marriage: a comprehensive union of two sexually complementary persons. Loving v. Virginia simply established that race was not a salient feature of marriage. Loving didn't entail any redefinition or change to the understanding of marriage at all; it represented the gradual shedding of pure racism in America."

Right now in all states some marriages are "banned" for policy reasons: first-cousin marriages in some states, for example, sibling marriages in all 50 states. These bans are bans — not disagreement about the nature of marriage. Incestuous unions are bad for the common good and children and so they are outlawed.

But as the brave young scholar points out:

"This is not the case with same-sex marriage. Proponents of conjugal marriage have been arguing all along not that people with homosexual inclinations should not be allowed to get married — for such discrimination would be akin to the blatant racism that permeated the marriage culture prior to Loving — but rather that two men or two women, regardless of whether and/or how their sexual inclinations come into the picture, simply cannot form the sort of relationship that marriage is.

The logic that equates federal bans on interracial marriages and same-sex marriages is unsound because it is completely question-begging. It would be similar — and similarly ridiculous — if same-sex marriage advocates argued that since the state doesn't prohibit Italians from marrying the Irish (if this were the case, I would not have been born) or a man over six feet tall from marrying a woman under six feet tall (again, my parents would have been out of luck), a man can't be prohibited from marrying a man. Such an appeal proves absolutely nothing and simply arrives back at the same point: What are the essential characteristics of marriage?" Bradley asks.

Love, commitment, permanence, exclusivity, faithfulness between a man and woman who vow to be there for one another, and for their children.

That's the heart of what marriage is, what we fight for, and what government cannot change.

In the dark days of late spring, the light of truth spoken with vigor and with love continues to shine. Many young people are cowed or embarrassed to speak truth to power, but among the next generation, heroes are also arising.

Sandy Glass of Naperville, Illinois witnessed such unexpected courage during her recent trip to Paris last Sunday. She and her husband travel to France a great deal, so when they ran into massive street demonstrations, amounting to hundreds of thousands of people protesting, they assumed it was must be a left-wing labor protest about one thing or another.

Suddenly they realized that this was a massive protest against gay marriage, against the commodification of children. A protest for the natural family. "It brought tears to our eyes," Glass said, when they followed the noise and saw the pro-family signs. "Oh, we're not the only 'crazy' ones," she said, explaining that it is "sometimes very difficult to be on the right in America."

Here is what the right side looks like in France:

The media and the elites want you to feel alone and isolated and powerless and silenced. That's why I'm so proud of what you and I have built together — the most important megaphone for marriage in America. That's why I went to France as well to share what we have learned with organizers there, building (as the gay-marriage have) a transnational movement for marriage.

The Wrong Worldview

My old dinner host Dan Savage is out with a new book in which he explains how hard it was to sit with me and civilly discuss our differences.

The gap between our worldviews is once again on display. Like Savage, I do not believe divorce is a good answer to the problem of adultery. Unlike Savage, I do not believe endorsing adultery is the solution to the problem of divorce.

Nor do I believe that the answer to the problem of "minors having easy access to pornography on the Internet" is "to educate your child to be a…critical and thoughtful viewer of porn, and to think about what they may be viewing."

Meanwhile The Atlantic is at last acknowledging that gay marriage will likely change marriage.

The most telling interview is with the Episcopalian Dean of the National Cathedral who says he is hoping the ancient Anglican wedding liturgy, and the ideas it represents, will be replaced by a new wedding ceremony and ideal, patterned on same-sex blessing ceremonies: "The new service does not ground marriage in a doctrine of creation and procreation,' [Gary] Hall says. "It grounds marriage in a kind of free coming-together of two people to live out their lives."

The Atlantic continues: "In the next couple of years, Hall expects, the General Convention will adopt a new service for all Episcopal weddings. He is hopeful that the current same-sex service will serve as its basis."

This is the worldview we are fighting, the new morality gay marriage is a vehicle for imposing.

It is the reason we cannot listen to the voices of despair — a spiritual temptation — but must instead resolve to stand shoulder to shoulder together, across the boundaries of race and religion, in loving defense of a truth that is eternal, that cannot be changed, that must be passed down to future generations: marriage as the sacred union of a man and a woman, who give their child that inestimable treasure: a loving mom and dad.

Thank you for giving me and all of us here at NOM the chance to be your voice for your values — for true and good and beautiful values.

African American Clergy Coalition to Governor Quinn: Don't Engage in Legislative Bribery to Push SSM!

The African American Clergy Coalition, which is opposing SB 10 in Illinois (a bill to redefine marriage) just issued this media advisory:



Leaders of the African American Clergy Coalition (AACC) today are appealing to Governor Pat Quinn to refrain from offering pork projects to legislators in return for a “yes” vote on SB 10. This comes after unnamed legislators informed the AACC of legislative bribery tactics being used by staff members of Governor Quinn’s office to lobby legislators. Specifically according to one legislator, a bridge and an extension of an expressway was assured in exchange for a “yes” vote on SB 10.

“This particular vote on SB 10 is too important to many African American throughout the state of Illinois would want to protect and defend traditional marriage. We are the same African Americans who Governor Quinn leaned on heavily for his election victory in 2010. And we will be the same community that will now take a closer look at him in 2014. Governor, we appeal to you to not interfere or compromise the integrity of the legislative process, says Bishop Lance L. Davis, Co- Chairman of the African American Clergy Coalition.

PastorOn Yesterday, the AACC responded to recent statements by the sponsor of same-sex marriage (SB10), State Representative Greg Harris. The AACC viewed Harris’s claim of having already secured 60 votes for passage as both fraudulent and an attempt to mislead black legislators regarding the present support for this highly controversial measure. A measure in which has been clearly opposed by the vast majority of African American constituents in their districts.

On Tuesday, May 28th, Representative Harris stated that he picked up the vote of African American legislator, Lashawn Ford, to support same-sex marriage. However, Representative Ford has been considered a “yes” vote all along by every lobbyist dating back three months!

Representative Harris also failed to mention that according to the Capitol Fax, one of the three Republicans supporting the bill has actually changed his position and will now vote ”no.” So instead of gaining a vote yesterday, Harris actually lost a vote for same-sex marriage.

Since December, legislators have been told by LGBT forces that there was tremendous momentum to pass this bill, but that has proven to be incorrect. For five weeks now, legislators were told that “we have the votes to pass the bill and we are calling it this week.” However that also has proven to be incorrect.

With just one day away from the end of the Legislative Session and Representative Harris still lacks the 60 votes necessary to pass SB10. It is important that black legislators not be duped into thinking this bill is going to pass anyway. But it is very clear that it will not pass unless black legislators go against the wishes of the majority of their constituents, and support it.

If you have not contacted your legislator in Springfield yet please do so right away.

IL Review: Legal Experts Conclude IL SSM Bill Worst in U.S. in Protecting Religious Liberty

Illinois Review:

Experts in the law have concluded that the pending Illinois same-sex marriage bill would be the worst in the U.S. in protecting religious liberty.

Writing on behalf of legal experts from around the country, Thomas Brejcha, President & Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Society, and Peter Breen, the firm's Vice President & Senior Counsel sent a letter to Illinois state representatives today explaining the danger Illinois' same-sex marriage bill (SB10) poses to individual religious liberty and freedom of conscience.

[Read the letter here.]

If you have not yet contacted your state legislator, please do so today!

Gay Marriage Vote in UK House of Lords "Too Close to Call"

The latest from England:

Peers from all main political parties are expected to oppose same-sex marriage in the House of Lords on Monday, with a vote described as “too close to call”.

Crossbench Peer Lord Dear, a former HM Inspector of Constabulary, is leading the opposition to the Bill and said about half of Peers who are speaking during the second reading debate are against gay marriage.

Senior Tory Baroness Warsi, a practising Muslim, refused to steer the proposals through the House of Lords, according to The Sunday Telegraph.

And Lord Luce, who served as a minister in Margaret Thatcher’s government, said the issue has been handled in a “careless manner” with “little consultation” and “little thought”.

Last week MPs voted in favour of the legislation but it has now gone to the House of Lords where Peers will debate and vote on the proposals.

So far, at least 75 Peers have asked to speak on Monday, which could mean the vote takes place late in the day. (UK Christian Institute)

If Gay Marriage Is Inevitable ...


Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse asks, if gay marriage is so inevitable, why is its progress always made possible by political favors, etc?

"...When I was in Springfield testifying before a committee in February, I witnessed the lobbying being done by the advocates for redefining marriage. Individual legislators who had not committed one way or the other on the issue were marched one by one into Speaker Madigan's office. We can only guess what was being said in these meetings. But not too many votes changed. At least, not enough votes changed to make a difference.

The "gay marriage is inevitable" mantra seems to mean one thing: rich people of both parties in America have decided that they want gay marriage. They expect that their money will buy them the influence they need to get it done." (Christian Post)

If you live in Illinois and your state representative in Springfield has not heard from you yet, please pick up the phone.

Gay Marriage Won't Be an Economic Boost to Illinois

Prof. Jennifer Roback Morse, Founder and President of the Ruth Institute, writes in Mercatornet:

116935206recent report claims that "marriage equality" will provide an economic boost to Illinois: US$54- $103 million in new spending, and $8.5 million in new tax revenues. This study comes at an opportune time for the gay lobby in Illinois. Their marriage bill, SB-10, is not exactly sailing through the House. Chicago legislators representing heavily ethnic minority and religiously conservative districts have been reluctant to endorse the redefinition of marriage. Perhaps the gay lobby hopes this extra tax money might motivate wavering legislators to support this bill.

The people and legislators of Illinois should not count on extra revenue as a benefit from redefining marriage. These forecasts are based on an elementary economic error as well as highly dubious forecasts. That is why the "Gay Marriage Economic Miracle!!!" predictions have not worked out so well in the past.

If you have not yet contacted your state legislator in Illinois please do so today.

Only 3 Days

National Organization for Marriage

Dear Marriage Supporter,

We have only 3 days to defeat gay-marriage activists in Illinois, where the General Assembly adjourns this Friday.

Our opponents have been fighting for months in this deep blue state to pass a bill redefining marriage — but our side has been fighting even harder to stop them. NOM has dedicated over one hundred twenty-five thousand dollars to this critical fight.

Please help NOM continue to support those who are fighting on the front lines of this good fight with your donation of $35, $50 or $100 right away.

This is our last opportunity to score a legislative victory for marriage before the Supreme Court hands down their rulings on marriage next month.

Our sources on the ground tell us the vote could be as soon as tomorrow or the day after (Thursday). Gay-marriage activists are claiming they have the votes, but we know they don't yet!

That's why we need everyone, and I do mean everyone, to pitch in...and also to help spread the word: please use this link to contact your state legislators if you live in Illinois or forward this to all of your friends and family:

Tell them all to VOTE NO on SB10. Vote NO on Gay Marriage.

If you can call your state legislator, that is the best option!

We need to get the word out far and wide that Illinois hangs in the balance, and so does marriage — across America.

Already gay-marriage advocates in other states are preparing campaigns to REPEAL existing State Constitutional protections for marriage. With your help NOM will be there to help those states preserve marriage...

In addition to fighting to protect marriage in Illinois, NOM is already planning for the next stage of the marriage debate, ensuring that no matter what the Supreme Court decides, marriage is upheld and strengthened in our culture.

Please help NOM prepare for the next critical stage of the marriage fight as we await the decisions of the Supreme Court by donating whatever you can spare to our critical efforts.

And please continue to pray and act on behalf of marriage in Illinois.

Only 3 days — marriage is worth defending!

NFL MVP Adrian Peterson: Gay Marriage "Not Something I Believe In"

Adrian Peterson should be commended for courageously sharing his views on marriage:

Adrian PetersonNFL MVP Adrian Peterson says he has family members who are gay whom he loves and respects. But on gay marriage, the Minnesota Vikings running back says “that’s not something I believe in.”

Peterson made his comments in a recent interview with Sirius/XM NFL radio. He was asked his thoughts on the Vikings cutting longtime punter Chris Kluwe, an outspoken advocate for gay rights and gay marriage.

Peterson says he considers Kluwe a good friend. He says: “I have relatives who are gay. I’m not biased towards them. I still treat them the same. I love ‘em. But again, I’m not with that. That’s not something I believe in. But to each his own.” (CBS)

American Observer Brought to Tears Witnessing Hundreds of Thousands March for Marriage in France (Includes Photos)

The Blaze:

Sandy Glass from Naperville, Illinois, was in Paris and witnessed the parade unexpectedly, telling TheBlaze she and her husband estimated more than 250,000 people were present.

“It brought tears to our eyes,” Glass, a conservative and Glenn Beck fan, said in a phone interview.

“We go to France a lot and thought it was another left wing protest,” she said later, recalling that last year they found themselves in the middle of a Socialist rally.

When they followed the noise and witnessed what she described as “pro-family” signs, Glass said she realized “oh, we’re not the only ‘crazy’ ones,” explaining that it is “sometimes very difficult to be on the right in America."

Here are some photos showing the scale of the demonstration:





Looking Ahead: Supreme Court to Issue Rulings Next Month on Prop 8/DOMA

Our Communications Director Thomas Peters is mentioned in this NBC News report on what to expect from the Supreme Court next month:

78433716The Supreme Court could issue a ruling on same-sex marriage as early as this Tuesday.

Whether the justices deliver a narrow ruling, a broad one - or none at all - they are unlikely to have the final word on this issue.

While the Supreme Court has been weighing two same-sex marriage cases that could become legal landmarks, the fiery national debate has shown no signs of dying down.

... A dozen states currently recognize same-sex unions, but 30 states have banned it.

Opponents of same-sex marriage believe time and numbers are on their side.

"We just want to make sure the Supreme Court doesn't cut the conversation short by issuing a sweeping ruling. We saw them do that before with the issue of abortion that didn't settle anything. Americans are fully capable of coming to their own conclusions and deciding marriage laws for themselves," Thomas Peters of National Organization for Marriage.

Here is the video:

National Organization for Marriage Reacts to Boy Scouts of America

Contact: Elizabeth Ray or Jen Campbell (703-683-5004)

"It's the beginning of the end for what once was one of America's noblest organizations." — Brian Brown, President, NOM —

National Organization for Marriage

Washington, D.C. — The following statement may be attributable to Brian Brown, President of the National Organization for Marriage:

"Today is a sad day for the Boy Scouts of America. They have succumbed to political pressure and abandoned their historic roots in what will prove to be a failed attempt to appease gay activists and corporate donors. Unfortunately, what they have done is said to the world that their oath no longer means much. Their decision to admit openly gay scouts will end up sexualizing the organization. I am certain that having changed their policy on homosexuality, it's only a matter of time before courts order them to admit homosexual scout leaders. Meanwhile, countless thousands of churches will very likely pull their sponsorship rather than endorse homosexuality, and the entire organization will begin to collapse. All of this is happening not because of a true grassroots demand of gay youth to be part of the organization but by an orchestrated political effort by gay activists who want to punish any group or organization that does not embrace homosexuality. It's the beginning of the end for what once was one of America's noblest organizations."


To schedule an interview with Brian Brown, President of the National Organization for Marriage, please contact Elizabeth Ray (x130), [email protected], or Jen Campbell (x145), [email protected], at 703-683-5004.

Paid for by The National Organization for Marriage, Brian Brown, president. 2029 K Street NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20006, not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee. New § 68A.405(1)(f) & (h).

Truth Matters, NOM Marriage News

NOM National Newsletter

Dear Marriage Supporter,

Truth matters. Especially when bullies and bureaucrats conspired to hide it.

Standing Up to IRS Bullies

NOM's decision to stand up to abuse and fight back by suing the IRS is generating a mountain of positive responses with major media outlets. By our rough count, NOM's case has been mentioned over 85 times this past week!

A special shout-out to Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, a major GOP presidential hopeful, for speaking out about this abuse of power in front of the cameras at a morning press conference:

Fox News took notice on numerous occasions — including this one:

Here's NOM's own fighting law professor and Chairman John Eastman on Neil Cavuto:

But of all the coverage the one that lays bare new and important details is this radio interview between Mike Huckabee and John Eastman:

Mike Huckabee: "...this is pretty explosive. It's one thing to say an application got bureaucratic red tape that's inexcusable and unforgivable but what you're saying is that the information that by law is confidential on your tax return was handed over to the co-chairman of the Obama for reelection campaign?"

Prof. Eastman: "That's right so let me walk very precisely through the steps and the evidence. In March of 2012, a copy of our confidential tax return was posted on the website of the Human Rights Campaign which is the leading pro gay-marriage organization in the country. . . there's portions of our tax return that are as private and confidential as your private 1040 tax returns and it was that portion, that schedule B that lists all of our major donors and their addresses that was given to the Human Rights Campaign and they posted it on their website for the explicit purpose of then targeting our donors and harassing them, intimidating them, trying to chill them away from engaging in the political fights that we engage in."

"We know that it came from the IRS because the copy HRC posted on its website contained some redacted information our computer geniuses were able to remove. Those were codes showing the copy came from the IRS not us. [That means whoever leaked and/or posted it was aware they needed to cover up this information proving a felony had been committed]."

Huckabee: "I mean you literally do have at that point a smoking gun, don't you?"

Eastman: "Yes we do, it's a felony punishable by up to 5 years in prison to release private IRS information. It became a felony in 1976 because of concerns about the way Nixon had abused IRS private data for political purposes."

NOM's smoking gun is particularly hot because it blasts open the current IRS narrative that just a few guys in Cincinnati did the wrong thing while trying to be efficient, as Gov. Huckabee astutely notices:

"You know this is really stunning and especially in light of hearing the testimony of Steven Miller before Congress this morning. I'm not sure John if you had an opportunity to hear it but his whole defense was that there were some mistakes made but there was no partisanship and that they were just trying to be very efficient and that's why all this happened, in their attempt to be incredibly efficient. This is not efficiency, what they're after with the National Organization for Marriage. They take information, they feloniously give it away to an organization that hates you and then expect us to believe that that's all in the name of efficiency?"

But as John Eastman says, that's not even the whole story. The evidence of systemic Orwellian corruption gets worse:

"When we discovered the smoking gun that this felony leak came from within the IRS in April of 2012, we filed complaints and requests for information with both the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration [they authored the report that came out this week] and with the Department of Justice.

We know the IRS conducted the investigation because they asked us for a lot of information, mostly trying to demonstrate that the leak came from someone inside our organization. When that turned out not to be true, somehow the investigation just kind of drifted off. We heard no more from the IRS.

The next step was to file a series of Freedom of Information Act [FOIA] requests trying to determine the name of the individual who leaked this information. We are legally entitled to this information, if the IRS knows it. We wanted the information because while we cannot decide to criminally prosecute anyone, there are also civil liabilities amounting to $1000 for each instances of illegal disclosure, plus attorney's fees."

As John Eastman told Huckabee: "I got to tell you the responses out of the government have just been bizarre."

"In response to our first request, the IRS said, "Well, any info we have is under the jurisdiction of the inspector general's office so ask them." So we did and we got the response "you already made this request and we don't respond to multiple requests for information. You have your answer."

So we then asked for, as we're legally allowed to do, the status of the investigation, whether it was conclusive or inconclusive and whether there was anybody identified as committing this crime who is once their appeals have run we're allowed to have that information.

The answer from your government about this threat to your rights was just incredible:

"The inspector general's office took the position that the very statute that makes it a felony to disclose a taxpayer's tax returns protects the individual who committed that felony because he is himself a taxpayer and the subject of an IRS investigation. Unbelievable," Prof. Eastman concluded.

I have to thank Gov. Huckabee for doing the single best coverage of what is really at stake here. He knows how government works, when an issue is serious, and when you need subpoena power to uncover the truth.

Mostly he understands how important it is not to back down but to stand up and fight back:

Huckabee: "And I want to commend you for just not taking it lying down, maybe even making some noise and not acting on it. I think this has got to work its way through the courts because there's going to be discovery, depositions, judges, a much different kind of atmosphere than there will ever be in a congressional hearing and this is where this belongs so let me say I know this is not going to be pleasant or inexpensive but I think it's critical on behalf of every organization that you guys follow through this lawsuit and I commend you for it."

And then he asked his listeners, as we ask you, to support us with the donations we need to fight the IRS:

"Well I will definitely remind our listeners, is the website and it is going to be a long slog of a process and I know that they're going to need help because they need to raise money for the cause not to have to fight the IRS in court which is one of the things that big government does it forces people to use up their resources to hire attorneys and accountants to fight the government rather than be protected by the government. Our thanks to John Eastman . . . we've got to get to the bottom of this."

And I promise you we will!

Illinois Update

In Illinois it is down to the wire; the session ends May 31. We've spent $125,000 in Illinois helping amplify the voices of thousands of Illinois people and pastors (especially the brave African-American clergy who have stood up the Chicago political bosses and shouted: "Stop!").

I hope they learn the lesson from Minnesota about the deceptions too many gay marriage advocates think are justified in pursuit of their agenda.

Bait, Switch and Lie: Doreen's Story

Our Thomas Peters went on Minnesota NPR alongside gay marriage honcho Evan Wolfson (he's the big recipient of GOP pro-SSM money at this point). He pointed out that voters in Minnesota were lied to; they were told the amendment wasn't necessary; if they voted "no" nothing would change. So the host asked the very next caller, a woman named Doreen how she would respond to that:

Doreen said: "If I had known that [voting "no" on the Amendment] would open the door to same-sex marriage I would definitely not have voted the way I voted. I would have voted YES, should be in the Constitution ... ya know, I was lied to. Plain and simple. I was told nothing would change. And now everything is changing. It's just not right."

You can hear the interview with our able Thomas Peters and Doreen's response here:

Speaking of able, NOM's founding Chairman of the Board, Prof. Robby George appears on a new PBS special on the Constitution (you can watch it here🙂

He appears discussing the Prop 8 and DOMA legal cases at 14:40 to 16:45 — just after a gushing interview with the lesbian couple in the Perry case and a historical review of the invalidation of laws prohibiting interracial marriages.

NOM's other former Chairman of the Board, Maggie Gallagher is up on National Review patiently answering the question we've answered over and over again: "How does same-sex marriage affect marriage's relationship to procreation, given infertile couples may marry? "

Dear [Name Redacted}:

I have made this argument repeatedly. I understand you either disagree with it or can't hear it.

Childless and older couples are part of the natural lifecycle of marriage. Their presence in the mix doesn't imply anything about the relationship between marriage and procreation. They've always been there.

I went around saying for years "marriage matters because children need a mom and a dad" nobody ever said: that's not true because infertile couples can marry. Never, not once. Sexual union of male and female who are co-parents in itself points to affirms, and regulates an ideal.

Whereas two men, if married, clearly, clearly state that either the ideal for a child is not a mom and a dad or that marriage has nothing important or integral to do with that ideal. When anyone says children need a mom and dad now, the response is a powerful rejection from gay marriage advocates: that's a discriminatory idea that has been disproved by science. The logic of marriage equality has a real cultural force.

I think that is playing out in the rapid abandonment of the idea that marriage is related to children among the young. I can't prove it because cultural logic while a powerful force is hard to translate into social science evidence.

I can provide evidence but not proof.

If we cared seriously about marriage's role in regulating childbearing, we would not be disrupting this norm on behalf of the maybe one-half of one percent of the population (and that is generous) who wants to enter this institution. It cannot remain the same institution, as many gay marriage scholars have acknowledged, any more than a boy's school can admit girls and remain a boy's school.

Marriage equality is going to be used primarily to enforce the new moral norm: no differences between straight and gay can matter. Or as Think Progress put it recently "At a basic level, it's logically impossible to say that heterosexuality is better — or should be the norm — compared to homosexuality without simultaneously stating that homosexuality is worse — or abnormal. Either all people are equal in society or they are not; she cannot have her straights-only wedding cake and eat it stigma-free."

And over in Great Britain Patricia Morgan points to the data that explodes the argument Cameron's Tories are making that gay marriage is somehow a conservative idea that will strengthen marriage as a social institution.

It hasn't happened in Scandinavia, Spain, Massachussetts, or anywhere else that has adopted gay marriage. In Holland she points out the number of first babies born to unwed couples has doubled to 40 percent since gay marriage was adopted.

It is as absurd as the oft-repeated argument that gay marriage will somehow improve a state's economy or that a marriage amendment will hurt jobs.

Here's the thing they don't believe that you and I do: truth matters.

If we speak with love, conviction and courage, on behalf of the timeless truths that government has no right to redefine—in the end we will win.

Thank you again for standing up for God's truth about marriage and our Founding Father's vision for what American politics should be.

Refusing to Stay Silent: A Millennial Case for Marriage

citizenRyan Anderson and Andrew Walker of the Heritage Foundation are featured this month on the front page of Citizen, the Focus on the Family magazine.

One of the great lines from their article: "There’s no such thing as being on the “right” or “wrong” side of history. There’s only being on the right or wrong side of truth."


Here's how their article begins:

Two of the younger conservative voices in the nation explain why marriage needs to be preserved for the next generation—their own.

The media claim we don’t exist. OK, that’s a slight exaggeration. But after all, we’re Millennials, born during the Reagan administration. We’re supposed to be of the generation that is embracing same-sex marriage in droves.

Instead, we’re standing strong on upholding the truth about what marriage is.

We’ve been asked—repeatedly—whether the position we’re promoting is pointless. Are we willing to endure cultural scorn for holding to a position as supposedly outmoded as natural marriage?

Politicos and pundits offer hyperbolic missives on how conservatives are losing young Americans, who are likely to be more libertarian on social issues. The preferred talking point is to assert the demise of the opposition; Same-sex marriage is “inevitable.”

A justly revered conservative columnist, George F. Will, has said twice on ABC’s “This Week” that opposition to same-sex marriage is a dying trait. “Quite literally,” he said, “the opposition to gay marriage is dying. It’s old people.”

Tweet to Mr. Will: Reports of our death have been greatly exaggerated. #NotDeadYet

Read the rest here.