Monthly Archives: June 2013

Anderson: Supreme Court’s Mixed Decision on Marriage

Ryan Anderson writes in National Review Online that "the Supreme Court announced disturbing decisions today on two important cases dealing with marriage law. The Court refused, however, to create a constitutional right to same-sex marriage":

Proposition 8

In its ruling on California’s Proposition 8, the Court declared that the citizen group that sponsored Prop 8 did not have standing to defend the constitutional amendment that millions of Californians voted to pass. The only reason this jurisdictional question was an issue is because the governor and attorney general of the state of California decided to not defend a law passed by the people of that state.

It is scandalous that the governor and attorney general refused to perform their duty. That abdication of their constitutional responsibility should not have prevented these laws from having a vigorous defense in court. This sets a disturbing precedent and distorts the balance of powers between the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of government. It would allow the executive branch to effectively veto any duly enacted law simply by refusing to defend it against a constitutional challenge.

While the government of California through its inaction has tried to silence the voices of Californians, the Court has not created a right to the redefinition of marriage. Marriage laws in the states that tell the truth about marriage—that it is a union of one man and one woman to provide children with a mom and a dad—have not been struck down.

And we must now work to protect marriage laws in the 37 other states defining marriage as a man and a woman across the country.

Jim DeMint: SCOTUS Decisions Mean Marriage Debate More Important Than Ever

The Heritage blog:

Today, the Supreme Court failed to uphold two important laws defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman. At the same time, the Court also refused to fabricate a new right to same-sex marriage, as the proponents of redefining marriage through the courts had hoped to do.

Jim DeMintIn other words, the debate about marriage will continue. States will lead the way even as we work to restore clear marriage policy at the federal level. And in the states, support for marriage as the union of a man and a woman remains strong.

We’ll be joining with millions of Americans to ensure that support for marriage gets even stronger. Citizens and their elected representatives have the constitutional authority to make policy that recognizes marriage as the union of a man and a woman.

... But the Court didn’t redefine marriage for the nation. We will work to restore clear marriage policy at the national level and get our laws defended at every level. But in the meantime, today’s decision from the Court means that our national debate about marriage will continue.

Here at The Heritage Foundation, we’re ready to help you. Go to today to download your free copy of our e-book on marriage. And continue to speak out boldly about why marriage—that union of one man and one woman—is important for children, civil society, and limited government.

INFOGRAPHIC: What You Should Know About Marriage

In the days, weeks and months ahead, there will be millions of conversations across the country about what marriage is.

Heritage has produced this helpful infographic explaining what marriage is -- please share this far and wide!


NOM Sharply Condemns US Supreme Court Over Illegitimate Rulings Legislating From The Bench on Marriage and Rewarding Corrupt Politicians and Federal Judges on Prop 8 and DOMA

[For ongoing coverage of today's news please scroll down. -Ed.]

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

"There's a stench coming from these cases that has now stained the Supreme Court. It's imperative that Congress continue to protect the right of states to not recognize faux marriages in their state." — Brian Brown

National Organization for Marriage

Washington, DC — The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) today expressed dismay and outrage at the US Supreme Court's actions to dismiss Proposition 8 on procedural grounds, and for invalidating a key element of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). The group called the decision "illegitimate" and that it will be rejected by tens of millions of Americans, and demanded that Congress continue to protect the right of states to reject same-sex marriages performed in other states or countries.

"In a miscarriage of justice the US Supreme Court has refused to consider the decision of a single federal court judge to overturn the perfectly legal action of over 7 million California voters who passed Proposition 8 defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman," said Brian Brown, NOM's president. "The Supreme Court's holding that proponents of an initiative had no legal right to appeal ignores California law and rewards corrupt politicians for abandoning their duty to defend traditional marriage laws. It's imperative that Congress continue to preserve the right of states to protect true marriage and refuse to recognize faux marriages performed in other states or countries."

Proposition 8 was passed with over 52% of the vote, capturing the support of over 7 million California voters. Because they opposed the measure and receive political support from homosexual groups and activists, both then-Attorney General (now Governor) Jerry Brown and his successor, Attorney General Kamala Harris, refused to defend Proposition 8. The case was heard by a homosexual judge in San Francisco who himself was engaged in a long-term same-sex relationship. To nobody's surprise, the judge invalidated Proposition 8. This decision was upheld by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in an opinion written by liberal judge Stephen Reinhardt, despite the fact that Reinhardt's wife advised the plaintiff lawyers in this very case. Reinhardt refused to recuse himself from the case.

"There is a stench coming from this case that has now stained the Supreme Court. They've allowed corrupt politicians and judges to betray the voters, rewarding them for their betrayal. It's an illegitimate decision. We and millions of other Americans will refuse to accept this rogue decision rewarding corruption. " Brown said.

The Supreme Court invalidated Section 3 of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which defines marriage under federal law as the union of one man and one woman. Section 2 of DOMA, which codified the long-standing right of states to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states or countries, remains in effect and was not challenged. "We also urge Congress to reject the inevitable attempts to dismantle remaining elements of DOMA, including the right of states to refuse to recognize so-called gay marriages performed elsewhere. The vast majority of American voters have expressed with their votes their desire to maintain marriage as the union of one man and one woman. That decision should be respected and left undisturbed."

Despite the ruling on Proposition 8, the decision leaves intact the marriage amendments adopted by thirty other states as the Court refused to find a constitutional right to same-sex marriage, as celebrity lawyers David Boies and Ted Olsen had been urging throughout the case. More importantly, the DOMA ruling, which turns on the primacy of the states in setting marriage policy, calls into serious question the correctness of Judge Vaughn Walker's initial decision invalidating Proposition 8.

"The only other saving grace of the Supreme Court's decisions today is that they refused to go along with the urgings of Ted Olsen and David Boies to find a constitutional right to same-sex ‘marriage,'" Brown said. "The plaintiffs failed in their primary objective, which is a major victory for those defending Proposition 8, especially Chuck Cooper and his firm, along with the attorneys at the Alliance Defending Freedom, and Andy Pugno of the Prop 8 Legal Defense Fund."

NOM was the biggest contributor to putting Proposition 8 on the ballot. The case was Hollingsworth v. Perry. The DOMA case was Windsor v. United States.


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.

It's "D" Day Tomorrow For Marriage

National Organization for Marriage

Dear Marriage Supporter,

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

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

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

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

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

How to Get Equipped for the Supreme Court’s Decisions

The Supreme Court has announced they will issue decisions in the Proposition 8 and DOMA cases tomorrow (Wednesday) at 10AM Eastern time.

Heritage has posted a very helpful article explaining how we can prepare to stand up for marriage tomorrow:

The Supreme Court is expected to rule in challenges to state and federal laws that define marriage as the union of one man and one woman [on Wednesday].

Below is a list of ways that you can prepare for the Court’s decisions.

Ahead of the Supreme Court’s decisions:

Get equipped on the marriage message. Download a free copy of What You Need to Know About Marriage and share the online booklet via Twitter, Facebook, and other social media. Read the “5 Things You Need To Know About the Supreme Court’s Marriage Cases.”

Share the message on social media and other platforms. Explain what marriage is, why it matters to public policy, and the consequences of redefining it. The Court should uphold Proposition 8 and the federal Defense of Marriage Act, respecting the constitutional authority of the American people and our elected representatives to determine marriage policy. We should continue to stand up for marriage as the union of one man and one woman because of the reality that children need a mom and a dad.

On decision day:

Tweet. Be sure to use the hashtag #1m1w (“one man, one woman”) on social media. [And also: #SpeakTheTruth]

[On Facebook please change your profile photo to this:]


Remind people that the debate over marriage will continue. Regardless of the Court’s decisions, the debate will continue, and we should continue to uphold the truth of marriage as the union of a man and a woman in the interest of children and limited government. The American people and our elected officials should be free to make marriage policy. Courts should not stop the debate about marriage policy currently underway through the democratic process.

And stay tuned right here for updates!

Anderson: 5 Things You Need to Know About the Supreme Court’s Marriage Cases

[We are at the Supreme Court again today awaiting decisions -- if an announcement is made we will post a statement here shortly after. -Ed.]

Ryan Anderson at Heritage's The Foundry blog:

(Pablo Martinez Monsivais, AP)

(Pablo Martinez Monsivais, AP)

Next week the Supreme Court will decide two cases dealing with the definition of marriage.

One concerns the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which defines marriage for the purposes of federal law as the union of one man and one woman. President Clinton signed DOMA into law after Congress passed it by overwhelming bipartisan majorities in 1996. The other case concerns Proposition 8, a state constitutional amendment approved by California voters in 2008 defining marriage for state purposes as the union of one man and one woman.

At stake is whether citizens and their elected representatives have the constitutional authority to make laws that reflect the truth about marriage.

Here are five things you need to know:

1. Courts Shouldn’t Redefine Marriage

The U.S. Constitution does not require redefining marriage. Unelected judges should not usurp the authority of citizens and their elected representatives to discuss, debate and vote on important policy matters. In a Heritage Legal Memorandum, John Eastman explains why marriage laws are constitutional.

Read the other four things you need to know here.

No News From Supreme Court, But There's Some Other Good News

Email Header Image

Dear Marriage Supporter,

The US Supreme Court briefly convened this morning but did not issue its rulings in either the Proposition 8 or DOMA cases. They will reconvene again tomorrow, and very likely at least one other day this week. We expect the marriage cases to be the final decisions issued this term, and we will be at the Court each day waiting for their decision.

Meanwhile, we got some other good news from a federal court. You may recall the video our Marriage Anti-Defamation Alliance produced last year featuring the case of Daniel Glowacki. Daniel refused to speak approvingly in class about homosexual conduct when his gay activist teacher attempted to use an "anti-bullying" day to promote homosexuality in the classroom. Daniel was kicked out of class for adhering to his Catholic beliefs about the true nature of human sexuality. His teacher angrily told him that he had lost his right to free speech once he entered his classroom.

Well, last week Daniel won his case to defend his right to speak his views in a classroom discussion on homosexuality.

Please join us in congratulating Daniel and his mother for having the courage to speak the truth about his religious beliefs and for standing up to a teacher who bullies his students. You can write your own words of thanks and encouragement to Daniel and his mother here and we will be sure to deliver them.

Please also make a financial contribution to help us produce more videos highlighting the cases of average Americans who stand in the public square for the truth of marriage and human sexuality, and suffer consequences as a result.

Everyone has the right to free speech, including people of faith who believe in the truth about marriage and sexuality.

Teetsel: "On Winning the Marriage Debate"

Today on Public Discourse, Eric Teetsel, the Executive Director of the Manhattan Declaration, argues that conservatives need to argue more like lovers if they want to win the marriage debate:

"...What are marriage advocates to do? How can marriage--a thorough defense of which requires deep theological reflection or the complex natural law web of anthropological, historical, social, and scientific ideas contained in What is Marriage--compete with "all you need is love"?

Couple SilhouetteMore broadly, how can conservatism--whose rich intellectual foundation includes philosophers such as James Madison, Edmund Burke, and Adam Smith--win in an age when Glee and Lady Gaga carry the real cultural heft?

Here's what we must not do: sacrifice our principles. Better to lose a thousand elections than win in sycophantic appeals to the lowest common denominator. Christians, at least, can rely on the long view of God's redemptive story. We have already read the final page of human history; we know how the story ends. How utterly meaningless is the next election cycle viewed from this perspective?

Until that final chapter comes to pass, the responsibility is ours to be active in the present. And since we aren't about to gain a slew of celebrity endorsements, we have to make ourselves and our ideas as attractive to the "persuadables" as possible. Forget beating the entrenched opposition. When we debate in the public square and in social media, our goal should be to win those silent observers whose commitments are shallow and subject to change.

This week, the Supreme Court will issue decisions in two cases involving the meaning and purpose of marriage. Whatever the results, our work to rebuild a culture of marriage and family will continue. Restoration will require that we better brand ourselves and make our case more attractive."

Anderson: When it Comes to Marriage, Gender Matters

Ryan Anderson of Heritage:

"...Some supporters of redefining marriage appeal to the civil rights movement and interracial marriage. They argue that laws defining marriage as a union of a man and a woman are unjust because that they fail to treat people equally—exactly like laws that prevented interracial marriage. Yet such appeals beg the question of what is essential to marriage. They assume that gender is as irrelevant as race in making policy about marriage.

164718775But the relevance of gender to marriage is the exact question we need to debate, not preemptively discard without discussion as advocates of redefinition seem to do.

Marriage must be color-blind, but it cannot be gender-blind. The color of two people’s skin has nothing to do with marriage. But the sexual difference between a man and a woman is central to what marriage is. Men and women regardless of their race can unite in marriage, and children regardless of their race need moms and dads. To acknowledge such facts requires an understanding of what, at an essential level, makes a marriage.

By contrast, race has nothing to do with marriage, and racist laws kept the races apart—and that is a bad thing. Marriage unites the two halves of humanity—male and female—and that is a good thing."

Catholic Father of Six: "Changing the Definition of Marriage in the Law is Unjust"

Tim Roder, Associate Director for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops Secretariat of Laity, Marriage, Family Life and Youth, writes in the Washington Post On Faith section:

"The U.S. Supreme Court is poised to rule on two cases about marriage. But regardless of what the court decides, marriage cannot be redefined. Its meaning cannot be changed. And the real meaning of marriage matters to everyone, especially children.

Father and SonFather’s Day was this past Sunday. As the father of six, I can’t imagine raising my children without their mother, my wife for life. We’ve been blessed with many children, and this gift has taught us much. One thing we’ve learned is that a mom and a dad aren’t interchangeable, and that kids deserve to be raised by them in the stability and security that only marriage can provide. Deliberately depriving a child of a married mother or father is a great injustice.

Changing the definition of marriage in the law is unjust, plain and simple. To anticipate all the consequences is very difficult, because the effects of laws and social norms are measured out over a long period of time."

Australian Senate Defeats Effort to Bypass Marriage Laws 44-28

The Australian Herald:

EFFORTS to change Australia's marriage laws to recognise gay couples who tie the knot overseas have been shot down in parliament.

The Australian Greens had moved a private bill to amend the Marriage Act, so that same-sex marriages validly entered into in foreign countries were recognised under Australian law.

But on Thursday the bill was defeated 44 votes to 28 in the Senate.

... DLP senator John Madigan not only voiced his opposition to the bill, but said he'd be calling for a referendum to recognise marriage as just a union between a man and a woman.

Sydney Harbor

New Study: Children of Surrogates Face More Adjustment Problems

Today Health:

Over the past decade the number of births involving surrogacy with donor eggs and sperm has surged. What, experts wondered, does this mean for the mental and emotional health of the growing number of kids who may or may not know the truth about their distinctive origins?

Surrogate ChildrenA team of British researchers, led by Susan Golombok, a professor of family research and director of the Centre for Family Research at the University of Cambridge, has found that children born with the help of a surrogate may have more adjustment problems – at least at age 7 – than those born to their mother via donated eggs and sperm.

Their results, published in the June issue of the Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, suggest that it’s more difficult for youngsters to deal with the idea that they grew in an unrelated woman’s womb, than with the concept that they are not biologically related to one or both parents.

With the number of births involving a surrogate or donated sperm or eggs on the rise, this issue may become increasingly relevant.

The latest statistics from the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM) show that the number of children who were created with a donated egg rose more than 30 percent from 7,284 in 2004 to 9,541 in 2011, while the number of births involving a surrogate jumped more than 200 percent, from 530 in 2004 to 1,179 in 2011. No one knows how many births have resulted from sperm donations, but estimates range from 30,000 to 60,000 per year, according to a New York Times report.

Anderson on Why Government Isn't in the Love Business

Ryan Anderson writes for Heritage's Foundry blog:

At a reception last week for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Pride Month, President Obama reiterated his support for the redefinition of marriage, claiming inspiration from the Declaration of Independence:

And it’s something that can be traced back to our Declaration of Independence—the fundamental principle that all of us are created equal. And as I said in my Inaugural Address, if we truly are created equal, then surely the love we commit to one another must be equal as well.

Heart“The love we commit to one another,” as such, is none of the government’s business. The government isn’t in the business of affirming our loves. Rather, it leaves consenting adults free to live and love as they choose.

And consenting adults are free to do so. Contrary to what some say, there is no ban on same-sex relationships. Nothing about them is illegal. In all 50 states, two people of the same sex may choose to live together, choose to join a religious community that blesses their relationship, and choose a workplace offering joint benefits.

What’s at issue is whether the Supreme Court will redefine marriage—and then force every citizen, religious institution, and business to treat same-sex relationships as if they are marriages. At issue is whether the government will trample the real civil rights of Americans (such as religious liberty) as it coerces and compels them to recognize and affirm same-sex relationships as marriages.

Waiting But Not Idle, NOM Marriage News

NOM National Newsletter

Dear Marriage Supporter,

We continue to await news from the Supreme Court in the Proposition 8 and DOMA cases — please continue to pray and stay tuned in for updates! We expect the decisions to be handed down next week.

In the meantime, we are not idle!

Praising African-American Pastors

Today I'm published in National Review Online's popular The Corner blog,
pointing out the "funny thing" that happened on the way to the "inevitable" redefining of marriage — it didn't happen!

"What happened in Illinois is huge. It's the last major state to consider redefining marriage before the U.S. Supreme Court issues its ruling on the constitutionality of California's Proposition 8 upholding traditional marriage. It's so important, in fact, that the mainstream media is doing everything it can to avoid having to report on what happened — an example of the overwhelming media bias in favor of same-sex marriage ...

What happened in Illinois is that African-American pastors worked hard to reach and convince African-American legislators to stand tall for the truth of marriage — that it is an institution created by God to bring men and women together for the benefit of children that can only be created through the union of men and women. That's what marriage is, and that's the truth that these pastors demanded that legislators recognize.

President Obama tried to defeat them by personally lobbying legislators. So did Governor Quinn and Mayor Emanuel. They all failed..."

They all failed because YOU stood up for the truth of marriage and we refused to back down. Thank you for that.

Here I am addressing the Tea Party Patriot's "Audit the IRS" rally in Washington, D.C. yesterday:

I shared with them NOM's story of the IRS leaking our confidential tax returns. And I told them "the purpose of the targeting by the IRS is intimidation and an attempt to silence us." I asked them "Will you be silenced?" They shouted back: "NO!"

Wait, the media is biased?!

The Pew Research Center came out with a report this week that told us what we already knew — that the media is hugely in the tank for same-sex 'marriage':

"In a period marked by Supreme Court deliberations on the subject, the news media coverage provided a strong sense of momentum towards legalizing same-sex marriage, according to a new study by the Pew Research Center. Stories with more statements supporting same-sex marriage outweighed those with more statements opposing it by a margin of roughly 5-to-1."

When it comes to marriage the media doesn't cover the news, it tries to shape it.

And yet, the Pew same report observed that comments about marriage on the social media platform Twitter were far more even (because social media more accurately reflects the real conversations taking place everyday across America than your average big-city newsroom):

On social media, the opinions expressed on Twitter were closely split between those that supported (31%) and those that opposed (28%). There were, however, significant shifts in the sentiment over the nine weeks studied. During the week prior to and the week of the Court hearings, more of the Twitter conversation favored same-sex marriage. The two following weeks saw a reverse with more posts in opposition. Then, during the last month of the study, assertions in favor of the measure once again took the lead.

Thank you to all of you who share the pro-marriage message via social media. If you aren't already following us on Twitter and liking us on Facebook now would be a great time to do so! We are also now on Pinterest — sharing the best pro-marriage visuals we find and create.

Young Marriage Movement Gaining Steam

I want to make sure you saw this interview with Ryan Anderson of the Heritage Foundation and Caitlin Seery of the Love and Fidelity Network — both young marriage leaders — on CBN News:

"...a traditional marriage movement whose leaders represent a new generation has entered the game, and it is gaining steam.

"The other side has been preparing the seeds for this debate for 20 or 30 years and they've been well-prepared, well-organized and the response is just in its infancy," Ryan Anderson, with the Heritage Foundation, told CBN News.

... The New York Times recently recognized Anderson and other movement leaders like Caitlin Seery, who directs the Love and Fidelity Network on college campuses.

"We are trying to help students prepare themselves for healthy marriages so they will then raise healthy families because healthy families are the foundation of our society," Seery told CBN News.

What Seery, Anderson, and other supporters of traditional marriage have in common is a willingness to face fierce opposition and think outside the box about what is possible."

Yes, a new generation of marriage leaders is entering the fray, because the truth about marriage is eternal. Every generation must choose to make our marriage tradition their own. And each generation must decide what the next generation deserves — what their children deserve.

Please join me in praying for these young marriage leaders, and that we can pass on to them a strong marriage culture.

Speaking of prayer, please join me in praying that the Supreme Court will respect the conversations going on across America everyday about marriage by allowing the debate to continue.

And pray the Supreme Court recognizes and respects the truth about marriage, a truth that the next generation and our children so deeply deserve.