NOM BLOG

Carson Holloway: Has Obama Changed His Position on Marriage Again?

Carson Holloway at CatholicVote:

The Obama campaign has a new ad featuring actress Sarah Jessica Parker. In the ad Parker invites viewers to enter a contest to win a ticket to a dinner for the president and the first lady, a dinner to be held at Parker’s New York home.

In this ad Parker characterizes the president as “the guy” who, among other things, “says you should be able to marry anyone you want.”

...So now the president is now not content to advocate redefining marriage as being possible between two people of the same sex. He is now in favor of redefining marriage so that it can be any union at all — which is to say, he is in favor of abolishing any publicly normative definition of marriage. If “you should be able to marry anyone you want,” then you should be able to marry someone who is already married, you should be able to marry your father, your mother, your sister, your brother, whoever. Taken as stated, the president’s position, proclaimed by his actress-spokesperson, is to personally advocate polygamous and even incestuous marriages.

No doubt the president does not really intend to say this. But why not, at least on the logic of the left-wing marriage nihilists whose rhetoric he is parroting? Conservatives say that same-sex marriage is a step towards the destruction of marriage. Their liberal opponents respond that this is childish, that letting gay people marry does not threaten any existing marriage. But that response completely misses the point, which is this: the argument by which the left defends same sex marriage is inseparable from an argument that marriage should be anything anybody wants it to be, which is the same thing as saying there should be no publicly normative definition of marriage, which is the same thing as destroying marriage as a public institution.

Wedding Photographer May Be Required (on Pain of Legal Liability) to Photograph Same-Sex Commitment Ceremonies

Eugene Volokh's legal experts blog:

"So the New Mexico Court of Appeals held last week in the long-pending Elane Photography v. Willock (N.M. Ct. App. May 31, 2012). The court began by holding that the state law that bans sexual orientation discrimination in places of public accommodation applies to professional wedding photographers’ decisions not to photograph same-sex commitment ceremonies: Such photography businesses are “places of public accommodation” under the language of the law, and the discrimination between legally recognized opposite-sex marriages (New Mexico only recognizes such marriages) and same-sex commitment ceremonies constitutes discrimination based on sexual orientation.

The court then rejected the argument of the photographer (Elane Huguenin, the co-owner and principal photographer for Elane Photography) that penalizing her for not photographing such same-sex ceremonies was an unconstitutional “speech compulsion.” The First Amendment, Huguenin argued, has been repeatedly held to protect the right to speak as well as the right not to speak; and the right not to speak includes the right not to create artistic expression that one doesn’t want to create. And just as the First Amendment protects speech that is said for money (indeed, most books, newspapers, movies, and the like are created and distributed commercially), so it protects the right not to create certain artistic works for money, even if one is in that line of business. But the court disagreed..."

Washington State Rep. Says His Campaign is the Victim of Hate Crime Over His R-74 Support

State Rep. Matt Shea (R-Spokane Valley)'s statement as published by the Washington State Wire:

“As most of you already know, I am the state representative for the 4th Legislative District, an ardent supporter of Israel, and a committed Christian. However, some of you may not be aware of the support my campaign has received within the Messianic Jewish community.

“Sometime between 10:30 p.m. May 29, 2012, Tuesday night, and 6:00 a.m. May 30, 2012, Wednesday morning four campaign signs were vandalized in the north Spokane Valley area. The signs were spray painted with violent, threatening, hateful, sexually explicit, anti-Semitic, and anti-Christian words and symbols. This is clearly an attempt to threaten, harass, and intimidate me and my family.

“The Spokane County Sheriff’s Office is investigating the incident and I have also notified members of the Messianic Jewish community.

“This hate crime follows on the heels of my involvement in the R-74 campaign to stop the blatantly unconstitutional SB 6239 and my outspoken criticism of current Democrat leadership in Olympia and their continued inability to pass a truly sustainable balanced budget after wasting half the session on homosexual marriage. It appears I was targeted by members of the violent and radical progressive movement for my conservative consistent stand for limited constitutional government and my religious beliefs.

Ninth Circuit Speeds Prop 8 Case Toward Supreme Court!

Email Header Image

Dear Marriage Supporter,

Just hours ago, the United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit denied an en banc rehearing of this past February's decision striking down California's Proposition 8.

The decision clears the way for an immediate petition to the United States Supreme Court, and we need your help.

Would you please consider making an immediate, confidential, tax-deductible gift of $25, $50, $100 or even $500 to help bring this case to the Supreme Court?

Donate now

The majority decision authored by Stephen Reinhardt last February (the most overturned judge on the most overturned court in America) literally dismissed the history of legal precedent on marriage—only including it in a footnote in his decision!

And now a majority of judges on the Ninth Circuit have refused even to reconsider his ruling.

Judge O'Scannlain's dissent to today's ruling bluntly criticized the court's refusal. Noting President Obama's recent call for the "conversation [to] continue in a respectful way," he put it perfectly: "Today our court has silenced any such respectful conversation."

O'Scannlain continued:

Based on a two-judge majority's gross misapplication of Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996), we have now declared that animus must have been the only conceivable motivation for a sovereign State to have remained committed to a definition of marriage that has existed for millennia, Perry v. Brown, 671 F.3d 1052, 1082 (9th Cir. 2012). Even worse, we have overruled the will of seven million California Proposition 8 voters based on a reading of Romer that would be unrecognizable to the Justices who joined it, to those who dissented from it, and to the judges from sister circuits who have since interpreted it. We should not have so roundly trumped California's democratic process without at least discussing this unparalleled decision as an en banc court.

Disagreeing with same-sex marriage is animus and bigotry. The votes of 7 million Californians are worthless. Open democracy is dying.

My friends, this is what Judge Walker's and Judge Reinhardt's decisions mean.
Help us stop this once and for all at the Supreme Court!

Please make a secure, tax-deductible donation right away to NOM's Legal Defense Fund to help us bring this case to the United States Supreme Court!

Donate now

We have already donated over $400,000 to help defend Prop 8...but so much more is needed to ensure we are able to mount the best defense possible in the coming months!
Remember, the Proposition 8 case is about more than just California.

If we allow this ruling to stand, then every single legal protection for marriage in every single state is in danger...

...and the day will soon come when same-sex marriage is the law of the land all across America.

Please help us right this wrong and let the voices and votes of over 7 million Californians be heard, once and for all!

God bless you for all that you do. Together, with your help, we will overcome.

To learn more about Prop8, visit www.prop8case.com.

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Overrules the Will of the People

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: June 5, 2012

Contact: Anath Hartmann or Elizabeth Ray (703-683-5004)


"This is a gross miscarriage of justice that we trust the majority of the U.S. Supreme Court will rectify." —Brian Brown, NOM President—

National Organization for Marriage

Washington, D.C.—Brian Brown, President of the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) released the following statement in response to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals' decision denying an en banc hearing regarding Proposition 8:

"Today the full 9th Circuit Court of Appeals refused to re-hear the decision striking down Prop 8. Millions of Californians who gave their time and treasure to protect marriage deserve better," stated Brown. "We are calling on the U.S. Supreme Court to preserve our democratic rights and overturn this action of judicial arrogance. As Judge Diarmuid O'Scannlain, dissenting from the 9th Circuit's refusal to hear the case, stated:

Today our court has silenced any such respectful conversation. Based on a two-judge majority's gross misapplication of Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996), we have now declared that animus must have been the only conceivable motivation for a sovereign State to have remained committed to a definition of marriage that has existed for millennia, Perry v. Brown, 671 F.3d 1052, 1082 (9th Cir. 2012). Even worse, we have overruled the will of seven million California Proposition 8 voters based on a reading of Romer that would be unrecognizable to the Justices who joined it, to those who dissented from it, and to the judges from sister circuits who have since interpreted it.

"This is a gross miscarriage of justice that we trust the majority of the U.S. Supreme Court will rectify," Brown added.

###

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

Katherine Kersten on The Faulty Case for Changing Marriage Laws

Katherine Kersten is a senior fellow at the Center of the American Experiment. She writes in the StarTribune:

Sometimes you have to take an argument to its logical conclusion to see its flaws.

I'd guess, for example, that 95 percent of Minnesotans would oppose redefining our marriage laws to include temporary marriages, where the partners' marriage certificate includes an end date; marriages of three or more people (say, two lesbians rearing their child with a gay male sperm donor), or marriages between siblings in a nonsexual relationship.

Yet how would such marriages hurt anyone else's marriage? If the individuals in question love and care for each other, isn't that all marriage is about? Doesn't love make a family? Don't people bound by affection deserve the benefits of marriage -- and suffer stigma if these are withheld? If you disagree, aren't you discriminating against others' "fundamental right" to marry as they wish?

These questions are, of course, the same as those posed by same-sex marriage advocates to fellow Minnesotans who support preserving one-man/one-woman marriage in our state Constitution.

...Marriage has always and everywhere been a male/female institution because it is rooted in biology and human ecology. Across the globe and through the millennia, its public purpose has been the same: To connect men with their children and the mother who bore them, so that every child has a loving, committed mother and father.

Audio: Rush Limbaugh on Obama's Gay Marriage Move Driving Democrat Nardelli to GOP

Rush Limbaugh notes in his program last week that Obama's flip flop on marriage was the last straw for an influential PA Democrat, Jo Ann Nardelli (more on her story here):

Black Pastors Demand Meeting with Obama Over Gay Marriage

The Washington Times:

The Coalition of African American Pastors has demanded a meeting with President Obama to try to change his mind on his personal embrace of same-sex marriage.

The pastors fired off a letter this week to Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. asking him to set up the meeting with the president, and painted their quest as a civil rights cause.

"I can promise you personally, as an organizer of the civil rights movement in Nashville, I did not march one inch, one foot, one yard for same-sex marriage," said Rev. William "Bill" Owens Sr., founder of the coalition and organizer of the letter.

While saying they are proud of Mr. Obama's success and calling him the "fulfillment of our dreams for our sons," Mr. Owens and the 19 other religious leaders who signed his letter said the president's evolution to embrace same-sex marriage "has broken our hearts by using his power and position to endorse as a civil right something that is simply wrong."

Australian SSM Campaigners Distance Themselves from Polyamorists' Demands

The Australian:

The main lobby group promoting gay marriage yesterday distanced itself from polyamorists demanding to be included in the proposed reforms, saying marriage involving more than two people would undermine a traditional institution.

As reported yesterday by The Australian, Greens senator Sarah Hanson-Young has come under attack from polyamorists, including some who are members of her party, for insisting that marriage should be between two people of any sex, but no more than two.

US Bishops: Federal Court's DOMA Ruling a "Grave Injustice"

Catholic Culture World News:

The chairman of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops’ Subcommittee for the Promotion and Defense of Marriage condemned a federal court ruling that declared a portion of the Defense of Marriage Act to be unconstitutional.

“The federal appeals court in Boston did a grave injustice yesterday by striking down that part of the Defense of Marriage Act that reasonably recognizes the reality that marriage is the union of one man and one woman,” said Bishop Salvatore Cordileone of Oakland. “Hopefully, this unjust ruling will be overturned by the US Supreme Court, for the benefit of our nation’s children, and our nation as a whole.”

“Marriage, the union of one man and one woman, is the cornerstone of society,” he added. “It is also the foundation of a just society, as it protects the most vulnerable segment of the population, children. Every child longs for and deserves a mother and a father, and marriage is the only institution that insures that children grow up knowing and being known by their mother and father. The public good demands that this truth of marriage be respected in law and society, not rejected.”

California Pro-SSM Church Buys Billboard Attacking Supporters of North Carolina's Marriage Protection Amendment

One pro-SSM church in California is not handling defeat in North Carolina well:

A California-based church has put up a billboard in west Charlotte, apologizing for North Carolina voters’ support of a law that defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman.

The billboard, on the Billy Graham Parkway, was installed Wednesday. It apparently is in response to the May 8 vote, in which about 60 percent of voters who went to the polls supported Amendment One.

... The billboard apparently was put up by Missiongathering Christian Church, which is based in San Diego.

The message on the board reads, “Missiongathering Christian Church is sorry for the narrow-minded, judgmental, deceptive, manipulative actions of those who denied rights and equality to so many in the Name of God.”

Amendment One was supported by the two Roman Catholic bishops of North Carolina and also got the support of some other churches across the state. -- The Charlotte Observer

Atlantic Blogger: "Americans Have No Idea How Few Gay People There Are"

Garance Franke-Ruta blogs for The Atlantic:

"...In surveys conducted in 2002 and 2011, pollsters at Gallup found that members of the American public massively overestimated how many people are gay or lesbian. In 2002, a quarter of those surveyed guessed upwards of a quarter of Americans were gay or lesbian (or "homosexual," the third option given). By 2011, that misperception had only grown, with more than a third of those surveyed now guessing that more than 25 percent of Americans are gay or lesbian. Women and young adults were most likely to provide high estimates, approximating that 30 percent of the population is gay. Overall, "U.S. adults, on average, estimate that 25 percent of Americans are gay or lesbian," Gallup found. Only 4 percent of all those surveyed in 2011 and about 8 percent of those surveyed in 2002 correctly guessed that fewer than 5 percent of Americans identify as gay or lesbian.

... The Williams Institute at UCLA School of Law, a gay and lesbian think tank, released a study in April 2011 estimating based on its research that just 1.7 percent of Americans between 18 and 44 identify as gay or lesbian, while another 1.8 percent -- predominantly women -- identify as bisexual. Far from underestimating the ranks of gay people because of homophobia, these figures included a substantial number of people who remained deeply closeted, such as a quarter of the bisexuals. ACenters for Disease Control and Prevention survey of women between 22 and 44 that questioned more than 13,500 respondents between 2006 and 2008 found very similar numbers: Only 1 percent of the women identified themselves as gay, while 4 percent identified as bisexual."

She concludes:

"One thing's for sure: it's hard to imagine the fact that so many think the country is more than a quarter gay or lesbian has no impact on our public policy."

AP: Target's Political T-Shirts Rile Marriage Amendment Supporters

The Associated Press:

Two years after Target Corp. angered gay marriage supporters with a political donation that benefited a fiery gay marriage opponent seeking the governor's office, the retailer is now upsetting same-sex marriage opponents by selling T-shirts to raise money for a group working to defeat a gay marriage ban in Minnesota.

The Minneapolis-based retailer is taking heat in its home state, where voters will decide this November whether to put a gay marriage ban into the state constitution. One organizer of gay marriage opponents warned that their displeasure could spread to 32 other states where voters have banned gay marriage.

"Target is attacking traditional marriage, which is an incredibly misguided thing for them to have done," said Chuck Darrell, spokesman for Minnesota for Marriage, a group campaigning to pass the constitutional marriage amendment. "It's an insult to the overwhelming majority of their customers."

Target's move comes two years after it endured a backlash from gay rights supporters for giving $150,000 to a campaign group backing the conservative Republican candidate for Minnesota governor, Tom Emmer, who narrowly lost to Democrat Mark Dayton in a race that went to an automatic recount. The donation set off protests and calls for a boycott from a constituency that had seen Target as an ally.

DumpStarbucks.com News: Starbucks Tries to Buy Back Customers and Sticks It to Consumers

Dump Starbucks Newsletter

Welcome to the DumpStarbucks.com News!

This past week was a little disappointing. The 1st Circuit Court of Appeals, where Starbucks jointly filed their amicus brief in opposition to the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), found portions of DOMA to be unconstitutional. Starbucks' opposition to marriage continues to help sway the leaders of our nation and they need to be stopped!

If you'd like to read more about this legal situation, William Duncan provides a great review of the important details at the National Review Online.

Starbucks says they are not worried about losing customers as the result of their support for same-sex marriage. Yet, this past week, two people who are participating in the DumpStarbucks.com protest emailed to me pictures of gift cards they were sent in an effort to lure them back to Starbucks.

These two individuals previously participated in the Starbucks rewards program and have not gone to Starbucks since they learned of the protest. If every member of the protest is sent the same $5 gift card that these two individuals were each sent, Starbucks, who apparently has no concerns over the financial impact of this boycott, would be mailing out over $200,000 in free gift cards!

Not to fear—Starbucks has plenty of money, as they continue to raise prices on their coffee while other brands are able to cut prices for consumers. Rich Smith of The Motley Fool details on DailyFinance.com how Starbucks continues to stick it to customers while other brands are passing cost savings of 5-10% on to consumers.

What you can do this week:

  1. Pass this email on to a friend. We blew through 40,000 signers last week, and as I write this we are passing the 43,000 participant mark in the campaign! Forward this email to two friends and help us reach 50,000 as we ready our next advertising effort to alert more people to Starbucks support for same-sex marriage.
  2. Does your church or other place of worship serve Starbucks coffee? Let us know by replying to this email.

DumpStarbucks.com already allows you to search for alternative coffee shops for your daily coffee fix. We hope to soon be able to offer you some suggestions on where you can purchase quality coffee beans and grounds from companies that have not taken a position opposing marriage as the union of one man and one woman and alienated their customers and employees.

Two former Starbucks employees (with 20 years of experience between the two of them) have given great reviews to one such supplier we hope to roll out in the next couple of weeks.

Have a great week, and do something fun with the extra cash you have saved by not purchasing coffee at Starbucks!

Pro-SSM NY Assemblywoman Faces Tea Party Challenge

Politicker NY:

Joseph Hayon, a Republican activist in southeastern Brooklyn’s Jewish community who did surprisingly well against Assemblyman Steve Cymbrowitz in 2010, will forgo a rematch and instead run against Assemblywoman Helene Weinstein. Indeed, Mr. Hayon, who also doubles as the head of the Brooklyn Tea Party club, told us that he was “99%” likely to run.

Mr. Hayon is known in Brooklyn political circles as a particularly passionate opponent of the gay marriage legislation signed last year, and he hinted that Mr. Cymbrowitz’s vote against the bill — and Ms. Weinstein’s support of it — factored into his decision-making, in addition to redistricting changing the shape of the map.

“Weinstein’s vote to redefine marriage will play a major role in this campaign,” he explained in an email. “Voters do not forget easily, and they are still angry at the marriage vote.”