Forgive me my tangent, though. What I intended to write about is the fact that, while I do enjoy many of these quirky Britishisms, there’s one that positively rubs me the wrong way: a usage which thankfully never gained much traction here in the States (though it did enjoy a certain vogue for a time among certain people), but is very common in England. That’s the use of the word “partner” in place of “spouse” or “husband/wife.” 

Now, I’m not entirely sure of the origin of this silliness in England. I can recall that here in the US, at least, when briefly this did have some currency, it seemed tied up with political correctness. Though the word “non-heteronormative” (a pox upon it) was unheard of back then, looking back we could fairly say that in today’s terms that the use of “partner” in place of “spouse’ seemed to have once come into fashion in order to eschew “heteronormativity.” As I said, I’m not entirely certain of whether the origin of the usage in British English was for similar reasons, but I think it likely enough.

As this word “partner” popped up several times in things I’ve been watching recently, and each time grated my nerves like a wrong note in a familiar song, I finally decided to try to analyse (see what I did there?) why it bothers me so much. And that reflection proved more fruitful than expected. Indeed, I don’t think it is too bold to say that, in a sense, the whole history of the changing mores and values around marriage over the past three or so decades could be written around this one term. I’ll explain what I mean.

For one thing, there is a sense in which the term “partner” used this way seems odd or even anachronistic now. Granted, “spouse one and two” or “partner one and two” are still sometimes sought after in certain official applications as politically correct or “sensitive” alternatives to the old “husband and wife.” But there’s also a feeling that we’re well past such quaintness. Nowadays, many gay couples seem perfectly content to refer to themselves as “husband and husband,” “wife and wife,” or even as “husband and wife” in a gender-bending sort of way. Indeed, they might find “partner” as somewhat offensive in its attempt to be inoffensive, a relic from and reminder of a time when the public wasn’t ready to hear a lesbian speak of her “wife” or a gay man his “husband.” It’s arguable whether as much of the public are ready to hear this now as the LGBT activists seem to think, but the movement has certainly abandoned such timidity on the whole. That sort of sensibility seems oh, so utterly ’90s now. Even I, when I hear someone speak of his or her “partner” today, am struck in the manner that I am when I hear someone rather over-pronouncing words like “empanada” or “burrito” when ordering Chipotle. It’s seems more than a bit too precious. In this fact of the sudden seeming outdatedness of such usage, though, we catch a glimpse of how complete and total has been the conquest by the LGBT movement in the areas of ideas, language, and values, and how thorough the normalization of same-sex ‘marriage.’ The Overton window hasn’t so much shifted as it has been shattered and the wall that housed it blown out, in favor of the much more modern “open concept.” So open have we become conceptually that, in a very short period of time, far from being jarred by hearing a woman speak of having a wife, we are now expected to hear with placidity a woman refer to herself as a husband !

Secondly, this shift in language shows the real nature of the change from marriage as the union of a man and a woman to a union of any two persons regardless of sex. Time and again, in the push leading up to the decision in the Obergefell case to expand marriage to include same-sex couples, we were told that this wasn’t a change in the definition of the institution. This was an impossible bluff, however, as the cards were already face up on the table in the usage of the term “partner.” If you look in a dictionary for the definition of partner , you’ll find persons in romantic relationships included as one meaning of the word. But this is a relatively recent usage, as can be seen by comparison with the definition of partnership . Here, the primary meanings relate to business and contractual relationships, e.g. , “a legal relation existing between two or more persons contractually associated as joint principals in a business.” Quelle romantique! Indeed, the great ironic is that it’s generally frowned upon for persons in a partnership, classically defined, to begin sleeping with one another—but suddenly people who shared a bed and a home, and maybe even offspring, started referring to one another as each one’s “partner.” Marriage, though, is not a partnership. It isn’t even, except in a secondary sense, a contract. It is a covenant . The contractual element only enters in with the broader society and its interest in legally codifying, promoting, and defending the status of marriage. It wasn’t until very recently that the married persons themselves began conceiving of themselves as mere parties to a contract, like leasing a Prius.

In their 2012 book, What is Marriage? Man and Woman: A Defense , scholars Sherif Girgis, Ryan T. Anderson, and Robert P. George define marriage this way:  “Marriage is, of its essence, a comprehensive union: a union of will (by consent) and body (by sexual union); inherently ordered to procreation and thus the broad sharing of family life; and calling for permanent and exclusive commitment…” Does “partner” seem a congruous term to this description? Or might we suppose that part of the move toward the “partner” terminology was bound up precisely with rejecting one or more of the facets of this definition? Partnerships can be broken as easily as made, can be fleeting and—something all of the Supreme Court Justices dissenting from Obergefell pointed out—needn’t inherently be dimeric or two-partied: there is nothing intrinsic to “partnership” that demands monogamy, exclusivity, and life-long permanence. The shift from the idea of “spouse” to “partner,” then, seems related necessary cause, if not indeed sufficient, for why we are now hearing rumblings of expanding marriage even further to include groupings of more than two persons—“throuples” or whole group marriages.

Finally, a last point we may take away from this reflection on the term “partner” in place of more traditional terms is the most obvious one, which therefore must take the anchor position of emphasis at the end: namely, ideas have consequences and words have meanings. Not only do words have meanings, but changing words can have the result of changing meanings and values: and one wonders if this wasn’t the long-game all along, behind this playing with the words to describe wedded couples. When the term “partner” used in this way first began to pop up in popular culture, perhaps we thought it of little import, not something to get too worked up about, just another quirk of language like misuse of the past participle “sat.” But as we sat and watched, that subtle revision in language became part of the mechanism by which our culture changed around us. It is a cautionary tale, and a lesson we’d do well to learn, as ever-more neologisms pop up around us daily: terms like “dead-naming,” “cis,” and the nonsense pronouns, “zie, zir, and zirself.” These rare and marginal usages might become the norm of thought in the future, if we’re not careful.

I close with an observation by my favorite writer, G. K. Chesterton, that I think not only captures the power of language to change thinking, but also the audacity of how progressive movements will manipulate language. He wrote: “The modern man, regarding himself as a second Adam, has undertaken to give all the creatures new names; and when we discover that he is silly about the names, the thought will cross our minds that he may be silly about the creatures. And never before, I should imagine, in the intellectual history of the world have words been used with so idiotic an indifference to their actual meaning. A word has no loyalty; it can be betrayed into any service or twisted to any treason.”

The post Husband, wife, or ‘partner’? How words can shape ideas about marriage appeared first on IFN .

18 honorary doctorates; a Bradley Prize for being “a leading moral voice in today’s world”; the Templeton Prize for his role in advancing public appreciation for the spiritual values of all faiths; the Irving Kristol Award from the American Enterprise Institute for his “remarkable contributions to philosophy, religion, and interfaith discourse… as one of the world’s greatest living public intellectuals”; and the Becket Fund’s Canterbury Medal for his role in the defence of religious liberty in the public square—the same honor bestowed on such notables as Elie Wiesel, Charles Colson, Archbishop Charles Chaput, and IOF’s own honorary board member, President Dallin H. Oaks.

Rabbi Sacks was also an eminent biblical scholar, renowned public speaker, and prolific author of 37 books, including Morality , published just months before his passing on November 7, 2020. According to NYU Professor Jonathan Haidt, “If the prophets of the Hebrew Bible came back to guide liberal democracies and anxious citizens through this difficult time, but first they studied modern history and social science, this is the book they would write for us.” Distilling the wisdom of Rabbi Sacks’ remarkable lifetime of learning and service, the book offers a sure guide to a faltering world. “A free society is a moral achievement,” he explains, and the essence of morality is “a concern for the welfare of others” along with “a willingness to ask not just what is good for me but what is good for ‘all of us together.’ It is about ‘Us,’ not ‘Me’; about ‘We,’ not ‘I.’”

Unfortunately, continues Rabbi Sacks, “there has been too much individualism and too little of the moral bonds that lie at the heart of friendship, family, and community”—bonds which “make us larger than we would be if we focused on self-interest alone.” And here he waxes personal in telling of the experience that changed his life. “As I write these words, Elaine and I are looking forward to our golden wedding anniversary. In the TED Talk I gave in 2017, I spoke about our first meeting. It took place in Cambridge, England, where I was a philosophy student… One day early in my final year I saw, across a college courtyard, a girl who was everything I was not. She smiled, she radiated sunshine, she was full of joy. It took me three weeks to put aside metaphysics and say, ‘Let’s get married.’ Forty-nine years, three children, and nine grandchildren later, I know it was the best decision of my life, because it’s the people not like us who make us grow. Marriage is the supreme embodiment of openness to otherness.”

It is also the facilitator of civilization itself, he insists in an impassioned plea. “The family—man, woman, and child—is not one lifestyle choice among many. It is the best means we have yet discovered for nurturing future generations and enabling children to grow in a matrix of stability and love. It is where we learn the delicate choreography of relationship and how to handle the inevitable conflicts within any human group. It is where we first take the risk of giving and receiving love. It is where one generation passes on its values to the next, ensuring the continuity of a civilization. For any society, the family is the crucible of its future, and for the sake of our children’s future, we must be its defenders.”

Rabbi Sacks’ clarion call is part of a chorus of voices by religious leaders such as Pope Francis, who declared, “Every threat to the family is a threat to society itself…. The future of humanity passes through the family. So protect your families! See in them your country’s greatest treasure and nourish them always.” Likewise President Russell M. Nelson, speaking at our World Congress of Families in Amsterdam, warned, “On all sides, the family is under attack. Many wonder if the institution is no longer needed. Our response is certain. If there is any hope for the future of nations, that hope resides in the family. Our children are our wealth; our children are our strength; our children are indeed our future!” We invite you to join with IOF in answering the call of these visionary leaders as we accelerate our work at the forefront of defending the family.

The post Not “I” But “We”: Rabbi Jonathan Sacks’ Parting Witness to the Power of Marriage and Family appeared first on IFN .

It’s a pithy statement; and it rings true. As divorce rates have risen dramatically in the course of the last several decades, surely the question of preparedness for marriage must be part of any analysis of the trend. On the other end of the question is the matter of marriage being delayed for many couples until later in life, if not foregone entirely—replaced by years-long, live-in relationships with no legal (but no fewer emotional and psychological) strings attached. It’s gotten to the point that, in the rare instance of a couple getting engaged in their early twenties, the reaction of society is such that one would think the young lovers had expressed their intention to fly to and colonize one of Jupiter’s moons. 

A piece published this week at The Atlantic provides some insight into at least one aspect of how young people may be ill-prepared to enter the marriage contract, lacking the affective maturity necessary and also having wrong-headed ideas about what makes marriage the special relationship that it is. The piece, by writer Rhaina Cohen, is entitled, “What If Friendship, Not Marriage, Was at the Center of Life? ” and it details the experience of many people who have faced a particular dilemma in their romantic relationships: they are uncomfortable with the idea that such a relationship can in any way supplant or supersede their existing friendships. In the first paragraph, Cohen illustrated the case-in-point by way of quoting the experience of one young woman named Kami West, who after “a distressing experience in her mid-20s” with a boyfriend who seemed jealous of her best friend, a woman named Kate Tillotson, henceforth took pains to make sure the confusion that had distressed her would never be allowed to arise again. With her latest boyfriend, West explains, she laid it all out for him:

“‘I need you to know that [Tillotson’s] not going anywhere. She is my No. 1,'” Cohen quotes West as telling her boyfriend. Cohen goes on: “Tillotson was there before him, and, West told him, ‘she will be there after you. And if you think at any point that this isn’t going to be my No. 1, you’re wrong.'”

“She will be there after you. ” This single phrase sums up one aspect of how West’s view of her romantic relationship is out of step with conventional and traditional understandings of marriage. For, after all, if West is planning—or at least open—to marrying her boyfriend one day, then it seems odd to speak of a relationship coming “after” her relationship with her boyfriend: because marriage is a life-long commitment, ‘until death do us part.’

Cohen details the experience of many other individuals in her story in order to illustrate her point. More on these later. But first, what is that point Cohen is seeking to demonstrate? She writes [emphasis added]:

In the past few decades, Americans have broadened their image of what constitutes a legitimate romantic relationship: Courthouses now issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, Americans are getting married later in life than ever before, and more and more young adults are opting to share a home rather than a marriage license with a partner. Despite these transformations, what hasn’t shifted much is the expectation that a monogamous romantic relationship is the planet around which all other relationships should orbit .

By placing a friendship at the center of their lives, people such as West and Tillotson unsettle this norm. Friends of their kind sweep into territory typically reserved for romantic partners : They live in houses they purchased together, raise each other’s children, use joint credit cards, and hold medical and legal powers of attorney for each other. These friendships have many of the trappings of romantic relationships, minus the sex.

It is telling that it is Cohen herself that connects the emergence of such trends around friendship with the rise of same-sex ‘marriage.’ One of the sets of friends whose experience she covers is two gay men named Joe Rivera and John Carroll, who “met at a gay bar in Austin, Texas [where] Rivera was the emcee for a strip competition, and Carroll won the $250 cash prize.” The men live together, and Cohen describes their relationship as being “like brothers,” though Cohen quotes Carroll as describing their situation thus: “we have a little married-couple thing going on even though we’re not married.” Cohen calls this one of many typical “mixed analogies” that describes the new phenomena of intimate friendships she is investigating. She later details more about the men’s relationship, wherein she seems to make clear that their living situation is platonic and non-sexual. But at the same time, she quotes Carroll in a telling passage where he explains his view of his relationship with Rivera in contrast to “expectations” about romantic relationships and friendship more generally:

Carroll, who met his platonic partner, Joe Rivera, at a gay bar, describes [the] type of romantic relationship [where people ‘rely… on their spouses for social and emotional support’] as “one-stop shopping.” People expect to pile emotional support, sexual satisfaction, shared hobbies, intellectual stimulation, and harmonious co-parenting all into the same cart. Carroll, 52, thinks this is an impossible ask; experts share his concern.

Note how casually “sexual satisfaction” and “harmonious co-parenting” are thrown together as mere items in a list, clearly suggesting that they have nothing to do with one another and are easily extricable from one another.

Cohen is right in one respect: experts are concerned about this. But it is a different set of experts, and a different manner of concern, than what she chooses to focus on in her piece. She quotes “sexologists” and psychotherapists who all seem to think the traditional idea of all-encompassing conjugal union unhealthy and outdated; for example, a philosopher named Elizabeth Brake who “takes issue… with the special status that governments confer on romantic relationships” and the fact that “access to marriage currently hinges on (assumed) sexual activity.” All over this piece is the implicit challenge: What does marriage have to do with sex? Why should it have anything to do with sex?

This is precisely the challenge that the other experts mentioned above—the ones left outside Cohen’s research—have been preoccupied with for many years. In their 2012 book What is Marriage? Man and Woman: A Defense , authors Sherif Girgis, Ryan T. Anderson, and Robert P. George foresaw how this problem is tied up directly with proposals to grant same-sex couples the privilege of ‘marriage.’ In a section of their book headed “Undermining Friendship,” the authors explain how changes to views about friendship and the “revisionist view” of marriage go hand-in-hand:

Revisionists cannot define marriage in terms of real bodily union or family life, so they tend to define it instead by its degree or intensity. Marriage is simply your closest relationship, offering the most of the one basic currency of intimacy: shared emotion and experience. As a federal judge recently put it in a case striking down California’s conjugal marriage law, “ ‘marriage’ is the name that society gives to the relationship that matters most between two adults.”

The more we absorb this assumption, the less we value deep friendship in its own right. Self-disclosure, unembarrassed reliance, self-forgetfulness, extravagant expressions of affection, and other features of companionship come to seem gauche—or even feel like unwelcome impositions—outside romance and marriage.41 We come to see friendships as mere rest stops on the way back to family life. It becomes harder to share experiences with our friend that we could just as well have shared with our spouse, without seeming to detract from our marriage.

The conjugal view, by contrast, gives marriage a definite shape, as ordered to true bodily union and thus to family life. If the revisionist view sees single people as just settling for less, the conjugal view leaves room for different forms of communion, each with its own distinctive scale and form of companionship and support. It keeps from making marriage totalizing: it clarifies what we owe our spouses in marital love; what we owe it to them not to share with others; and what we could share now with them, now with others, without any compromise of our marriage.

In short, what the authors mean is simple: if you remove sex from marriage, if you make “sexual satisfaction” and “harmonious co-parenting” mere incidental list items of things two people can do with one another that have nothing to do with a life-long conjugal union of monogamous and exclusive intimacy, then marriage is just another form of friendship : and it therefore comes into conflict with and can be pitted against friendship in general, or with this or that particular friendship in the instant.

The logical end of this is the reversal that Cohen’s piece seems to push toward, quoting figures like Carroll and Blake: why shouldn’t friends be allowed to marry? If marriage is no longer conjugal, no longer tied with procreation and parenting, is just seen as being a particularly intense friendship, why do we still narrowly view marriage as having an implicit connection to sex? But of course, perhaps the crises marriage faces with respect to divorce and so much else are bound up precisely with the increasing pervasiveness of this logic. Committing to a friendship has no essential or rational demand of exclusivity, permanence, or monogamy, those characteristic features of the conjugal union.

Kami West, in explaining her friendship with Kate Tillotson, demonstrates the topsy-turvydom that comes from mixing up these categories: her friendship is the thing that’s permanent, that will last, but her relationship with her boyfriend, even if it becomes a marriage, might be a transient reality: Tillotson “was there before him,” and she would be there “after [him]. ” In West’s case, the juxtaposition has already become complete: for her, marriage has become friendship, and her friendship is like a marriage. But when marriage and friendship are blended together in this way, the result isn’t that either institution becomes stronger: it is that we lose both . And it seems that’s what Cohen would have us do.

The post The Atlantic Wonders, “What If Friendship, Not Marriage, Was at the Center of Life?” appeared first on IFN .

The declaration sent shock waves throughout the homosexual community. A pro-gay writer at Slate magazine minced no words about the importance of this development: “If Amy Coney Barrett is confirmed [same-sex marriage] is likely doomed.”

The news was welcomed by pro-family groups such as the National Organization for Marriage (NOM). NOM’s president, Brian Brown (who also is the publisher of iFamNews.com) said, “For many months, NOM has pointed out that we are approaching – if not already at – the point where the Supreme Court’s illegitimate, anti-constitutional imposition of gay ‘marriage’ on the nation in the Obergefell ruling could be reversed. Now two Supreme Court justices, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, have given voice to that very point. Make no mistake about it – the confirmation of Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court is essential to our continuing efforts to overturn Obergefell and restore marriage to our nation’s laws.”

It would be one thing if recognition for same-sex marriage had been debated and adopted through the democratic process…it is quite another when the Court forces that choice upon society…

Justice Clarence Thomas

Here’s what went down this past Monday: In a written explanation of their decision in a procedural ruling on a case, Justice Clarence Thomas took the highly unusual step of issuing a statement on behalf of himself and Justice Alito that by improperly reading a right to same-sex ‘marriage’ into the US Constitution, the Supreme Court “threaten[s] the religious liberty of the many Americans who believe that marriage is a sacred institution between one man and one woman.” The Obergefell decision, Justice Thomas wrote, casts people of faith as “bigots,” “demeaning to gays and lesbians,” “imposing stigma and injury” and “disrespectful to gays and lesbians.” But none of those things are true, he said. Instead, the issue of same-sex ‘marriage’ is one that properly belongs to the states, where policymakers could debate the matter including any accommodations they might wish to afford people of faith. That debate was short-circuited, Justice Thomas lamented, by the ill-advised, narrow 5-4 majority that decided Obergefell , Justice Thomas said “It would be one thing if recognition for same-sex marriage had been debated and adopted through the democratic process…[b]ut it is quite another when the Court forces that choice upon society through its creation of atextual constitutional rights and its ungenerous interpretation of the Free Exercise Clause, leaving those with religious objections in the lurch.”

It is highly unusual for Supreme Court justices to make any comments on a procedural ruling, let alone signal their desire to overturn a major decision such as Obergefell . So where do pro-family advocates stand in terms of being able to secure a majority of votes on the Court to overturn the illegitimate, anti-constitutional Obergefell ruling?

It’s always speculation to predict how a justice might vote on a future case, but here’s how things line up to me:

It takes five votes to secure a majority on the Supreme Court. So we start with Thomas + Alito = 2.

Fellow conservatives Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh both strongly believe that the Constitution should be interpreted as written and, thus, are thought to be reliable votes against the imposition of same-sex marriage. That results in Thomas + Alito + Gorsuch + Kavanaugh = 4.

Chief Justice John Roberts strongly objected to the majority ruling in Obergefell, but he can be fickle and certainly cannot be counted on to cast the deciding vote to reverse Obergefel l. So, that leaves us still at 4 votes to reverse Obergefell , with a question mark, among the current justices.

This brings us to Judge Amy Coney Barrett who has a long record of personal support for traditional marriage and has been sharply critical of Supreme Court rulings that articulate so-called “rights” that are found nowhere in the text of the Constitution. If past is prelude, then we have Thomas + Alito + Gorsuch + Kavanaugh + Barrett = 5. With Amy Coney Barrett on the Supreme Court, her deciding vote to restore marriage could well be enough to persuade Chief Justice Roberts to stick with his original opinion and vote to overturn Obergefell as well.

Add this all together and you get a formula that, regardless of Justice Roberts’ vote, would spell the end of court-imposed same-sex marriage, and return the issue to the states where over 50 million Americans have already cast ballots to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

Now, there are a lot of ‘ifs’ in this scenario and admittedly it involves a good deal of speculation. Still, it seems clear to me that the issue of the imposition of same-sex ‘marriage’ on this nation is now front and center once again, a development that makes the confirmation of Judge Amy Coney Barrett all the more important for conservatives and pro-family advocates.

On this, I am in complete agreement with pro-gay advocates and leftist publications like Slate magazine.

The post U.S. Supreme Court Justices Signal Willingness to Reverse Ruling Imposing Gay ‘Marriage’ appeared first on IFN .

The NOM video powerfully shows how the left is reacting to the nomination of Judge Coney Barrett to underscore the importance of this battle. One leftist activist urged Democrats to take to the streets and “physically attack GOP Senators” if necessary. The activist goes on to say “THIS IS WAR!” The ad shows an angry mob surrounding Senator Rand Paul and his wife to show how real this type of threat has become. A tweet by former CNN television host Reza Aslan is shown with his warning to the country: “If they even TRY to replace [Ruth Bader Ginsburg] we burn the entire f*&%ing thing down.” Another activist wrote that if the GOP attempted to confirm President Trump’s nominee “we’re shutting this country down.” After showing a clip of Senator Kamala Harris, the Democrats’ vice presidential nominee, officiating a gay “wedding” in California, the ad urges Americans to contact their US Senators to urge the confirmation of Judge Coney Barrett.

Sources tell iFamNews.com that there may be an effort underway by social media giants to suppress distribution of the video. Many people have complained to NOM that they could not reach the video on Facebook, YouTube and Twitter. Readers can use the links in this article to watch the video directly.

The post New Video Makes It Clear Why Amy Coney Barrett Must Be Confirmed appeared first on IFN .

Our push to urge Members of Congress to introduce legislation to protect people of faith from governmental persecution for living out the truth of marriage in their daily lives and at work is working. Thousands of people have reached out to members of Congress urging them to introduce and support the First Amendment Defense Act (FADA). These patriots know that without the legal protections that FADA would provide, faith-based nonprofit groups, small businesses, churches, pastors and priests, schools, charities and individuals will continue to be subject to targeting by government officials whenever they do not embrace the extreme agenda of LGBT activists and the left.

We need to keep the pressure up on Congress so that when they return to Washington after Labor Day they give us action, and not more empty promises. That's why I am asking you to please support the National Organization for Marriage with an immediate financial contribution. The plain fact is that we need to raise additional resources to push Congress and the Trump administration to provide the protection they have repeatedly promised.

Many NOM members have responded with help, and for that I am grateful. If you have not yet been able to make a contribution, I ask that you prayerfully consider one now.

If you have not yet contacted your member of Congress to ask him or her to introduce and support the First Amendment Defense Act, there's still time to act. You can click on this link to look up your Representative in Congress. (You'll have to enter your zip code).

The reality of the political situation in America today is that Republicans in Washington – from President Trump on down to the most junior member of the House of Representatives – owe their election to people of faith, who form the core base of political support that delivered both houses of Congress and the White House to the Republican Party. Despite this, we've heard little but talk from them since they were sworn into office this past January. We need them to stop talking and start doing. Introducing and passing the First Amendment Defense Act needs to happen now.

You can help NOM push for urgently needed legal protections by contributing to support NOM and by contacting your Representative in the House to urge action on the First Amendment Defense Act.

Faithfully,

Donate Today!

Dear Marriage Supporter,

It's hard to believe that the legislature, facing issues like a $100 billion budget shortfall and the corresponding desperately needed pension reform, is spending hours of the taxpayers' time lobbying behind closed doors for same-sex 'marriage'!

But even if the legislature didn't have other pressing issues and higher priorities that they were ignoring, the proposal to redefine marriage would still be outrageous for two very simple reasons: it's bad policy and it's being pushed against the will of the people of the state.

Click here to contact your state representative today and let him or her know — in no uncertain terms — that the people of Illinois stand for marriage as the union of one man and one woman!

They didn't have the votes to pass this bad bill in the spring session. So gay 'marriage' activists poured MILLIONS of dollars into a lobbying campaign over the past few months trying to buy up the votes they need to impose their radical social agenda.

In spite of their efforts, right now it appears that a vote (if it is scheduled) could go either way. So it's absolutely critical that your representative hears from you right away.

Please act now to ensure that your opinion is heard in Springfield and that your representative voices and votes for your values in the House!

Unless we send this clear message to the legislature, they might think they can get away with sneaking the vote under the radar. They might think that people have become weary of tracking this long-fought-over bill and that this is their last opportunity. And if they pass that bill... well, I hardly need to remind you what the consequences would be.

We've seen how marriage redefinition leads to those who believe in traditional marriage being punished, labeled 'bigots' and 'haters' in the public square, and forced to be silent about their deeply held beliefs or face repercussions. And their children? They're taught in schools that the values planted in them at home are bigoted and outdated, the equivalent of racism!

We must not allow that to happen in Illinois! We cannot let the pro-marriage majority be relegated to a second-class citizenship status.

This is the 'eleventh hour' moment for this long fight. We can win a great victory, but only if you act right now to contact your state representative. Let the leaders in Springfield hear you loud and clear: the people of Illinois will not stand idly by and allow marriage to be redefined against their will.

Finally, after you have taken action today, please take a moment to forward this message to your family and friends throughout Illinois urging them to do the same.

Faithfully,

Brian S. Brown

Dear Marriage Supporter,

We've all been incredibly moved to see the tremendous outpouring of support for marriage at the grassroots level all across the state of Hawaii. The rally last week at the statehouse was incredible — a reported 10,000 people attended! And thousands more have submitted testimony in opposition to SB 1, the proposed legislation that would redefine marriage.

Please contact your state House Representative to let him or her know to vote against SB 1 and oppose redefining marriage.

Several news articles over the weekend suggest that the House is considering amending the legislation to put in place enhanced religious liberty protections. While preserving religious liberty is certainly important, this points out the fundamental problem with redefining marriage — it creates a whole host of conflicts that tears our society apart.

Not only are people of faith punished for believing in marriage as the union of a man and a woman, but redefining marriage puts every citizen, especially our children squarely in the crosshairs. Anyone who refuses to support same-sex marriage will be labeled a bigot and a hater. For adults, that comes with severe consequences that could affect someone's ability to earn a living, practice a profession and even raise a family. And school children will be taught that they have the choice of marrying anyone regardless of sex, even if that teaching squarely conflicts with what the child is taught at home or in church.

You see, once marriage is redefined then true marriage as we've always known it ceases to exist. There would be only one institution of 'marriage' recognized by the law — and it would be this new genderless version. Everyone will be governed by this new construct of 'marriage,' whether you like it or not.

The only way to avoid the inevitable clash and impairment of civil rights is to reject redefining marriage. Any attempt to mitigate the damage through passage of "religious liberty protections" will inevitably leave most unprotected and eventually leave even those covered without the protections that were promised.

Please act today — use this link to send an urgent message to your representative about this very important issue. And even if you've already called your legislator, call again to remind him or her that you remain strongly opposed to SB 1 redefining marriage.

And after you have taken a minute or two to contact your legislators, please take just a moment more to forward this message to your family and friends so they can do the same.

May God bless you and your family,

Brian S. Brown

Dear Marriage Supporter,

In just a few hours, the polls will open in Virginia and voters will make their decision on electing their next Governor. The race is very close between Ken Cuccinelli, a principled pro-marriage, pro-life champion, and Terry McAuliffe, the discredited former chief of the Clinton Administration. Turnout is key and every vote counts.

Please vote tomorrow, and vote for Ken Cuccinelli, along with his running mate, E.W. Jackson for Lt. Governor.

The importance of this race goes far beyond the borders of the Commonwealth of Virginia. It will help set the tone for the 2014 midterm elections, and will be closely watched and analyzed by candidates, consultants and party leaders on both sides of the aisle.

Electing a pro-marriage champion like Ken Cuccinelli would be a great blessing. It would make it easier for other conservatives to attract support from national party leaders and donors. Though he appears to be narrowly behind, Cuccinelli could pull ahead with a strong turnout of conservatives.

Please do not let anything prevent you from getting out to vote tomorrow for Ken Cuccinelli and E.W. Jackson, and urge all your friends, neighbors and colleagues in Virginia to do the same.

Help get out the vote! Share this email:

Faithfully,

Brian S. Brown

Ryan points out a remarkable confluence where "conservatives and libertarians alike oppose this bill," explaining why:

Of course, employers should respect the intrinsic dignity of all their employees. But ENDA is bad public policy. Its threats to our freedoms unite civil libertarians concerned about free speech and religious liberty, free marketers concerned about freedom of contract and government interference in the marketplace, and social conservatives concerned about marriage and culture[.]

Ryan then spells out the connection between ENDA and threats to traditional marriage believers on the basis of precedents we've seen set by local and state legislation of a similar kind to ENDA:

It is hard to square ENDA’s basic purpose with any robust protection of citizens’ rights to speak freely of religious or moral convictions about marriage and sexuality. Indeed Americans are paying the price where their state or local governments have passed sexual-orientation and gender-identity statutes.

You can read the entire piece here.

The new report from Heritage, authored by Ryan T. Anderson, is (like the "fact sheet" we posted earlier) entitled "ENDA Threatens Fundamental Civil Liberties."

Here's just an excerpt:

[ENDA] would further weaken the marriage culture and the ability of citizens and their associations to affirm that marriage is the union of a man and a woman and that sexual relations are reserved for marriage so understood.[14] ENDA would treat these convictions as if they were bigotry.

Furthermore, ENDA would ban decisions based on moral views common to the Abrahamic faith traditions and to great thinkers from Plato to Kant as unjust discrimination. Whether by religion, reason, or experience, many people of goodwill believe that our bodies are an essential part of who we are. On this view, maleness and femaleness are not arbitrary constructs but objective ways of being human to be valued and affirmed, not rejected or altered. Thus, our sexual embodiment as male and female goes to the heart of what marriage is: a union of sexually complementary spouses. Again, however, ENDA would deem such judgments irrational and unlawful.

You can click here to read or download the report and study it before contacting your legislators.

Dear Marriage Supporter,

Several news reports and discussions with Illinois pro-family leaders point to backers of same-sex marriage bringing the issue to the floor of the state House of Representatives for a vote next week.

This is crunch time — please contact your state House Representative immediately to urge him or her to vote against redefining marriage.

The vote is too close to call and could go either way. Even backers of same-sex 'marriage' admit they don't yet have the votes. It's critically important that legislators hear from you right away.

Preserving marriage as the union of one man and one woman is an incredibly important thing to do. Doing so keeps the focus of marriage on what's right for children, in addition to the benefits to the couple. The social science is crystal clear and confirms our own personal experience — children have the best chance of thriving when they experience the love of both a mother and a father.

Men and women make unique, irreplaceable, contributions to parenting. Both genders are needed for human flourishing. Backers of redefining marriage want to shift the purpose of marriage away from its central role in forming strong families and onto a public recognition of romantic relationships. That's a very slippery slope to travel.

Once we say that marriage simply is the state's recognition of a loving and committed relationship, we've lost any principled argument to limit it to two people, or to prevent other romantic entanglements from being called 'marriage' as well. This will be a very destabilizing force on society at a time when we should be working to strengthen families. Children have suffered decades of abandonment from absent fathers. Now with same-sex 'marriage' they are going to be told that fathers don't really matter after all. Or mothers for that matter, either.

That is the wrong message to deliver to our children and grandchildren.

Furthermore, whenever marriage is redefined people who believe in traditional marriage as God designed it are punished. Anyone who cannot accept this radical new idea of 'marriage' will soon find themselves in conflict with the law. Individuals have been sued and fined. Small businesses have been forced to close. Charities have shut down. The record is filled with examples of people being punished because their views about marriage come in conflict with the law. Tragically, it's religious freedom that is the loser.

Do you remember back to the controversy over Chick-Fil-A's CEO saying that he believed marriage should be the union of one man and one woman? The very thought sparked a furor among homosexual groups and their political allies. Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel declared that Chick-Fil-A would never be allowed to do business in Chicago. All because their CEO supports traditional marriage!

So don't let anyone tell you otherwise — if marriage if redefined, there is going to be real harm inflicted on individuals, businesses and religious groups.

The future of marriage in Illinois hangs in the balance. We can win a great victory if you act right now to contact your state representative. If we fail to mobilize the faithful, we could well lose — and suffer the consequences for years to come.

Please, time is of the essence. I urge you to act today.

Faithfully,

Brian S. Brown

(This is a tactic with which those of us in the marriage debate are very familiar. When an argument for traditional marriage is first made, it is scoffed at and dismissed outright. When that argument is then proven to be valid and true, it is studiously ignored. It is the equivalent in public discourse of putting your fingers in your ears and humming.)

But the arguments for marriage will not go away simply by activists' pretending they don't exist.

And neither will arguments proving ENDA to be a threat to marriage.

A great resource outlining such arguments has just been released this week over at the website of The Heritage Foundation.

The factsheet entitled "ENDA Threatens Fundamental Civil Liberties" points out:

ENDA would further weaken the marriage culture and the ability of civil society to affirm that marriage is the union of a man and a woman, and that maleness and femaleness are not arbitrary constructs but objective ways of being human. ENDA would treat these moral convictions as if they were bigotry.

Download the factsheet for yourself here.

And while you're at Heritage, you can also check out some other resources on ENDA.

For example, there is a lengthy paper entitled ENDA and the Path to Same-Sex Marriage from back in 2009 which, along with its Executive Summary, demonstrates how even same-sex marriage activists themselves have claimed "legislation like ENDA as a key step on the 'incremental' path to same-sex marriage":

[L]aws like ENDA have already proved to be an important step toward legal recog­nition for homosexual unions in several states throughout the country. In states including Ver­mont, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Cali­fornia, Connecticut, and Iowa, courts have cited sexual orientation nondiscrimination laws in decisions mandating same-sex marriage or some other form of legal recognition for homosexual unions. And no state has legislatively redefined marriage without first enacting a sexual orientation nondiscrimination law [SOURCE].

Once you've gotten appraised of these arguments which are only the beginning of the rationale for why ENDA is such dangerous legislation, click here to find out how you can help make sure that this law is rejected and Americans' first amendment rights are protected.

On a Friday in July I awoke in the early morning hours to someone beating on my back with their fists. I was lying on a bed in a place I did not recognize and I was in excruciating pain. It was a kind of pain I had never experienced before and did not understand. There was a tube down my throat and my body felt incomplete, as if much of it was missing. I came to realize in the hours that followed, the man beating on my back with his fists was a nurse, and he was trying to dislodge some of the fluid that was filling up my lungs as the result of the diving accident I had sustained three days previously, an accident that had fractured my fifth vertebrae and had given me a severe spinal cord injury, an injury that has changed the course of my life forever.

I have no memory of the accident itself. By God's grace, someone spotted me floating face-down in the water and started dragging me to the shore. Had I not been seen, I would have surely died. By God's grace, I was injured on one of the only two days of the year when a group of EMTs gathered less than a mile away for training, so I received prompt medical care for my drowning damage. Had it not been that particular day, help would have been about twenty minutes away and I would have sustained brain damage. And by God's grace there was a field nearby large enough for a rescue helicopter to land and transport me to the University of Maryland Medical Center's Shock Trauma Center, the best unit of its kind in North America. Had I not received the benefit of the best possible care so soon, my recovery would have been unalterably impaired.

Recovery was, and is, hard. It took six weeks to patch me up to a medically stable position suitable enough to transfer me to a rehabilitation center in Washington, D.C. For six weeks in Baltimore, nurses and doctors battled infections and secretions to heal the damage my lungs had suffered from ingesting filthy water. I was placed in a metal halo in an effort to save my fractured vertebrae. And when that effort ultimately failed, I underwent a two-day surgery to replace the damaged vertebrae with a titanium cage. The surgeons also fused my fourth and sixth vertebrates to strengthen my neck. I was intubated, given a tracheotomy, re-intubated, and put back on the tracheotomy. A steady stream of friends and family visited me during this time to lift my spirits and to share tears and smiles. But no one was more faithful than my wife Natalie; she did not leave my side my entire time in the Intensive Care Unit.

A major accident is an invitation to both physical and spiritual recovery. I have never felt God's presence as much as I do since the accident. People will say that accidents like mine should call into question God's mercy or even His existence. But for me, the fact that I survived my injury is the greatest evidence I have ever experienced of God's mercy and providence. I believe God allowed my accident to happen and that He chose to help me survive that accident and every day gives me the opportunity to be blessed through it.

The accident has taught me the essential value defended by the principle of subsidiarity: the value of family and friends as the first line of defense when things go badly. My family and friends have come forward to help my wife and I in ways that have taken our breadth away. They brought us meals, helped pack and move our home, loaned us their cars, contributed their professional advice like how to plan our financial future and cover medical expenses, they have organized prayer groups for us, designed wristbands to help remind people to pray for us and offered us gifts so generous I have had to firmly say no because they are simply too much. The man is never poor or alone who has good friends. My wife and I simply could not gave survived this were it not for our dear family and friends.

The accident has taught me more about the incredible gift of marriage. My father, during his speech at my wedding reception, said the sacrament of marriage gives us the grace to do the impossible. I have met people during these months who think it is incredible, even impossible, that my wife and I survived a trauma like this having been married only three months. I tell them it helps to marry the right woman and get married the right way, the way the Church taught the two of us what marriage is and why it should be honored. People have told us that they are inspired and receive hope from the witness of our marriage – it inspires us too, I respond! We feel it is possible to face anything, even a future of me paralyzed, so long as we cling to each other, to God, and to our marriage vows.

The accident has taught me to be more humble and realistic about my own efforts and contributions. Before my accident I took pride in my self-reliance, and my ability to contribute to the causes I care about, and I still do, but since the accident I have gained a far greater appreciation for the fact that everything I do and am is because of the Lord. I certainly didn't bring myself back from the brink of death and, as a wise priest told me, my prayers and sacrifices these weeks and months have done more to aid the causes of life, marriage and religious freedom than anything I wrote, said or did to promote these prior to the accident.

But make no mistake, as soon as I am able, I am coming back to fight harder than ever for all of these things because I know now that it is prayer that makes the warrior his strongest.

The accident has taught me that I am a work still in progress and anything I do achieve is for God's glory. I completed my term of inpatient rehabilitation this week and the hard work of learning to live on my own again (with the tremendous help of my wife) has just begun, as has grueling outpatient therapy to regain more of the strength and muscle systems I have lost. The vast, vast majority of individuals with my injury never walk again, but there remain signs that I could beat these long odds, and I have been praying to St. Jude for such a miracle. The majority of individuals with an injury like mine never regain the use of their hands - I have had to write these reflections using a knuckle of my right pinky on a touchscreen, if you can believe it. But through the intercession of St. Francis, I am recovering some finger function in my left hand. There are troubling signs that my life will forever be plagued with neuropathic pain, but as I have learned, pain can be offered up and need not inhibit living a good and worthy life. In the coming months, I will be focusing on prayer, reflection and recovery, and then we will know more about what the future holds.

I don't quite remember how it began, but during one of the many sleepless nights spent in the Baltimore ICU, unsure of what that night and the next day would hold, I was inspired by the example of Samuel in the Old Testament, and began quietly saying to God, "Speak, Lord, your servant is listening." This remains my prayer. I do not know what the future holds. But I do know that as long as I have breadth, and with whatever limbs and muscles I can move, I will strive to serve the Lord and do His will. What else is a life for?

You can learn more about my ongoing recovery at tpetersrecovery.blogspot.com.

Dear Marriage Supporter,

A bill coming up for a vote in the Senate next-week innocuously named the "Employee Non-Discrimination Act of 2013 (ENDA)" is nothing other than a Trojan horse built to attack the foundational institution of marriage between a man and a woman.

This disastrous piece of legislation is modeled on various local and state non-discrimination statutes that have already been used as tools in advancing the same-sex 'marriage' agenda around the nation. In the wake of Justice Kennedy's misguided opinion in the DOMA case (Windsor v. U.S.) it is certain that this federal ENDA bill will become a fulcrum used by same-sex 'marriage' activists to try to foist a marriage redefinition regime on the entire country.

Why is ENDA so dangerous? Because with the precedent set by this bill, courts in states around the country would soon find easy rationale for ruling that any organization or business that treats same-sex 'marriage' as different from man-woman marriage are discriminatory by definition. Under the law, individuals holding the common-sense belief that marriage is about giving kids a mom and a dad would be subject to punishment. Expressions of support for true marriage in the workplace would no longer be a fundamental right, but discriminatory, bigoted and an actionable offense!

I need you to contact the Senate right away and let them know where you stand on this egregiously flawed law. Urge them to reject ENDA and to preserve pro-marriage Americans' rights to speak, vote, donate, or act in defense of marriage as the union of a man and a woman.

In particular, there are eight senators who need to hear from you today. These senators are 'on the fence' and you can bet they'll be hearing from noisy same-sex 'marriage' lobbyists who want this legislation passed so that they can use it as a tool for forwarding their radical agenda.

Here is the contact information for these key legislators. Take some time today to call their offices and voice your opinion on ENDA using the recommended talking points below:

Ask for a legislative staffer if you get through, or leave a voicemail to make sure these senators know where the majority of Americans stand on this dangerous bill. Here are some talking points to guide your discussion:

"I oppose ENDA because it is a threat to religious liberty, workplace civility, and traditional marriage."

"This bill will be used to bully and intimidate traditionally-minded citizens and organizations like we've already seen occurring in states that have passed they own ENDA-type laws."

"Believers in traditional marriage are already threatened with stigmatization by the reckless wording of Justice Kennedy's DOMA decision, and this bill will put them in even more danger of being labeled bigots or haters by those who disagree with them."

"Employees nationwide shouldn't feel that their workplaces are hostile environments just because of their belief in marriage."

"This bill will almost certainly be used as a tool for pushing a nationwide redefinition of marriage."

"I urge you to reject this bill and protect religious liberty and marriage."

After you've made your calls today, don't forget to use the NOM Action Center to send an email to your own senators and urge them to cast a vote for marriage and religious liberty next week.

And be sure to share this message with your family and friends, via email, or on Facebook and Twitter so that they can take action, too!

We need as many people as possible to become aware of the threat of this Trojan horse being built in the senate before it becomes a weapon in same-sex 'marriage' activists' arsenal.

Thank you for taking action today!

Faithfully,

Brian S. Brown

P.S.: If you'd like to learn more about ENDA or do more to stop this dangerous legislation, Family Research Council's legislative action arm, FRCAction, is leading the charge with a great online resource: www.FightENDA.org. Be sure to check it out!

We've been keeping our readers informed about the ongoing efforts in California to overturn AB 1266, the "Co-ed Bathroom Law" - efforts which have brought together a broad coalition effort in the Privacy for All Students campaign, including NOM California and NOM's political consultant Frank Schubert.

In case you missed it, Frank was interviewed last Friday for National Review Online and explained to Alec Torres why he is optimistic about the initiative underway there:

Once people become aware of [the law], then they oppose it.... We’ve done a survey and what we’ve found is that only 35 percent of voters support this law, and 51 percent oppose it. When you [talk with individuals and] go through the pro and con arguments, we end up at over 60 percent opposition to the law.

A victorious repeal of the law is almost certain if the matter can be put on the ballot. That's what the Privacy for All Students coalition is busy working to do, gathering petition signatures to meet a November 8th deadline.

To find out how you can help, visit the coalition's website today.

Dear Marriage Supporter,

Our children face enough struggles at school without having to worry about being harassed and bullied by someone of the opposite sex forcing their way into the most vulnerable areas of public schools — showers, bathrooms, changing areas and locker rooms. But that's exactly what is going to happen if a new law in California is allowed to take effect.

California lawmakers have passed what's being called the coed-bathroom law. It mandates access to all school facilities including showers and restrooms based on "gender identity" and not a student's actual sex.

The temptation some people may have is to chalk this law up to another crazy idea coming out of California. But that would be a mistake. Rather, this new law illustrates where the gay lobby is going with their never-ending crusade to strip society of all gender norms and differences.

California is the first state to pass a law like this, but several other states have had similar legislative proposals. And Massachusetts has passed something similar by way of administrative regulation.

If the law is allowed to stand in California, it could be coming to your state before you know it. That's the bad news.

The good news is that we have an excellent chance of stopping this law in its tracks and making sure it never takes effect. But time is short — we have only one week left to stop this law.

NOM California is working with allies in the Privacy For All Students coalition to qualify a referendum putting the co-ed bathroom law on the ballot. Once the referendum qualifies for the ballot, the law is suspended and does not take effect until voters can decide if they want to approve or reject the law.

Our polling shows that voters are highly likely to reject the law if it is presented to them. The challenge is obtaining the nearly 505,000 signatures we need to succeed.

If you live in California, or can forward this email to someone who does, please go to the coalition website to download a petition. Complete the petition (be sure to read the instructions) and mail it back immediately. Petitions must be received by November 6th to be processed in time to be submitted to counties on November 8th.

Please also make an immediate contribution to NOM California so that we have the resources to finish the petition drive strong. Because of the short timeframe to mount a referendum, it's necessary to supplement the volunteer effort with a paid petition drive. We must help the coalition raise $77,500 immediately to finish the paid petition portion of the qualification effort.

We are nearly out of time. Hundreds of thousands of signatures have been collected, but we need more.

If you live in California, please help us by signing the petition today. Regardless of where you live, please also make an immediate donation to NOM California so that we have the resources needed to complete the petition drive.

We are counting on you to help protect the privacy and security of our children and grandchildren and prevent them from being exposed to members of the opposite sex in school showers, bathrooms and locker rooms. Please act today.

Faithfully,

Brian S. Brown

Dear Marriage Supporter,

NOM is honored to support Virginia's Attorney General — Ken Cuccinelli — in his campaign for Governor of the Commonwealth. Cuccinelli is facing off against Clinton crony Terry McAuliffe, an ardent pro-abortion, pro-marriage-redefinitionist. The election is one week from today — on November 5th.

Many of the polls show that McAuliffe leads Cuccinelli by 7-8 points, but that's a close race in an election like this. It all comes down to turnout. Historically, turnout in an "off" year election consists of older, more conservative voters who can be expected to support Cuccinelli in larger numbers.

But whether Ken Cuccinelli was ahead by 7 or 8 points, or behind by 70 points, NOM would be proudly supporting him regardless. Why? Because Ken Cuccinelli is a man of principle.

Won't you please stand with NOM by supporting Ken Cuccinelli with a gift of $25, $50, $100, $500 or more today?

I've had it with politicians who tell us one thing when they are being interviewed or completing a candidate questionnaire, but then when the pressure is on can't be counted on to keep their word.

Ken Cuccinelli is a trusted leader who will stand for the truth of God's design for marriage no matter the season. He knows that children have the best opportunity to thrive when they are raised in a loving home by a mother and a father. He knows that marriage as the union of one man and one woman has served society well for thousands of years. And he respects the voices of Virginia's voters, who overwhelmingly approved the state's marriage amendment back in 2006.

Terry McAuliffe? He was against gay marriage...before he was for it. Or was he? He attacks Ken Cuccinelli for supporting true marriage, but then refuses to answer reporters' questions about his own position. All he can manage to say are platitudes such as "it's not my priority" ... "It's not something I am going to focus on" ... and, "the state constitution is not going to change on my term."

I thought we were done with "Slick Willie" back in the 90's.

I also want to commend the principled leader running alongside Cuccinelli for the office of Lieutenant Governor — E. W. Jackson. Dr. Jackson is a not only a man of faith, he's a brilliant and highly regarded conservative leader. He is a Baptist minister who studied at Harvard Divinity School, and holds a law degree from Harvard Law School. He graduated summa cum laude and Phi Beta Kappa from the University of Massachusetts. He's an accomplished author and lecturer, and has been a conservative leader for decades.

This drives the left batty, because Dr. Jackson is also African American. The left can't stomach the idea of an African American conservative, especially one who is as knowledgeable and persuasive as Dr. Jackson.

This importance of this race for governor in Virginia stretches beyond the borders of the Commonwealth itself. It will help set the political tone as we head into the crucial mid-term elections of 2014.

If Ken Cuccinelli is able to pull out a victory with our help, it will be impossible for the media to make the claim that only moderate or liberal Republicans like Chris Christie can win election. But if Cuccinelli is not successful and Christie is, the media spin will be unrelenting. We'll have months of hearing from media such as the New York Times and people like Karl Rove — who lost virtually every election he was involved with in 2012 — about how the GOP must "moderate" its views on social issues like marriage and life if Republicans are to win.

Please join us in rewarding principle and send a true conservative leader to the governor's office in Virginia. Please give generously to Ken Cuccinelli by donating online today.

Thank you.

Faithfully,

Brian S. Brown

Paid for by the National Organization for Marriage. Not authorized by any candidate.

Dear Marriage Supporter,

This week the battle for marriage in our country has taught us quite a lot about what this fight means for us and for our country. It has also taught us a lot about the meaning of some other things we take for granted.

What Leadership Means

In New Jersey this week, we learned the meaning of leadership — or, rather, its opposite. Governor Chris Christie on Monday abandoned his principles and the people of New Jersey to the whims of an activist Judiciary when he withdrew his administration's appeal to the Supreme Court of a lower ruling that had ordered same-sex 'marriages' to begin in the Garden State.

As I noted in my comments on the decision Monday, "The mark of a leader is to walk a principled walk no matter the difficulty of the path. Chris Christie has failed the test, abandoning both voters and the core institution of society — marriage as the union of one man and one woman."

To be fair, Christie is not responsible for redefining marriage — that was accomplished by an out-of-control judiciary. However, he is responsible for leaving the field of battle and refusing to fight a principled fight when it was most needed. By surrendering, he has guaranteed defeat in the Garden State.

But while this surrender proved to demonstrate what leadership is not, the same day provided a contrasting image of leadership worth celebrating: that, from Pennsylvania's governor, Tom Corbett.

Governor Corbett was pressured following the Christie administration's announcement to follow suit in Pennsylvania and give up the Pennsylvania government's defense of the standing law in that state that defines marriage as between a man and a woman. But Corbett isn't backing down. He said that the case in New Jersey was "no precedent" for what is going on in Pennsylvania and that he would see the case there through the full process of judicial review. Thank you Governor Corbett for demonstrating what it really means to be a leader!

What Privacy Means

Recently I wrote to our California supporters to urge them to support NOM's efforts in California as part of a coalition to defend students' privacy there against a heinous law recently passed which allows any student to use the shower, bathroom or locker room of his or her choice regardless of biological sex!

We are working with the Privacy for All Students coalition supporting a ballot referendum to overturn this dangerous and invasive new law. Certainly students with gender-identity confusion shouldn't be subjected to bullying or discrimination, but California law already protects students from such discrimination and bullying. Rather than protect against bullying, the new law IS bullying! It violates student privacy and security by forcing them to share the most vulnerable areas of school with members of the opposite sex. Imagine being a high school girl forced to undress before the eyes of an opposite-sex peer, and to be told that his so-called "gender identity" entitles him to shower next to you. Worse, if you complain, you might be accused of discrimination against him!

This is an outrageous new law that is terribly conceived and horribly flawed. It just shows you how much the homosexual lobby thinks it can get away with in advancing their agenda.

Please visit www.privacyforallstudents.com today to find out how you can help us ensure every student in California has the right to his or her privacy upheld and protected by the law! If you live in California, please download a petition and return it promptly. And please consider making a contribution to help the campaign be sure they collect the signatures they need.

What Liberal Thought Means

A remarkable essay earlier this month deserves to be read and re-read by every marriage advocate in our country. It is a great resource for engaging in conversation and debate about this issue, whether at home, at school, around the water-cooler at work, or in the public square.

The essay by James Kalb was published in the Catholic World Report on October 2nd and it eviscerates the liberal thinking that has too long dominated our nation's public discourse, and undergirded the Supreme Court's decisions in June against DOMA and Proposition 8:

Liberal thought is entrenched as the basis for public discussion, and it doesn't like the idea of a network of expectations and obligations to which people are subject other than those generated by state and market. What's just, liberals believe, is for individuals to be free from all social pressure in their private lives as long as they perform their duties as employees, taxpayers, and citizens of a diverse, tolerant, and multicultural society. If people are pressured to act one way or another for some reason other than the needs of liberal institutions, that's bigotry and discrimination, and eradicating it is one of the central duties of government.

However strong and entrenched that way of thinking is, it needs to be disputed and overthrown.

Kalb explains what we lose when we trade age-old institutions like marriage, which pre-exist the state, for a modern notion of rights and privileges which the State arbitrarily creates out of thin air:

If marriage is to be something we can rely on, it can't be a sentimental celebration or optional lifestyle choice whose content depends on the orientation and goals of the parties. It has to be understood as something definite that, simply because of what it is, has intrinsic functions that are basic to human life. To be itself, it must therefore be understood as a union of man and woman that accepts the natural consequences of such a union, and there have to be distinct understandings of men, women, the relations between the two, and what they owe and have a right to expect from each other.

Be sure to read the whole wonderful piece today.

What Fatherhood Means

An article in the Washington Times this week revealed growing concern about "irresponsible fatherhood" in our country and lamented that "despite myriad efforts by fatherhood programs, too many men are ending up in multiple relationships, with multiple children from multiple mothers."

What the article failed to mention was that efforts to protect and promote fatherhood are distinctly at odds with the drive to redefine marriage. Because when marriage is redefined, so is the meaning of fatherhood. Rather than the father being a unique and irreplaceable role in the life of a child, a father becomes merely "Spouse 1" or "Spouse 2" — interchangeable and replaceable, an optional role easily replaced in an 'alternative family' model.

But we did have two shining examples of fatherhood this week, of a kind: spiritual fatherhood. Two great pastoral leaders gave shining examples of what it means to care for the 'children' given to one in ministry.

Bishop Thomas J. Paprocki of Springfield, IL responded with a strong press statement to a planned same-sex 'marriage' protest at his Cathedral on Tuesday — part of a larger effort of lobbying by same-sex 'marriage' activists in Illinois who are beginning to see the writing on the wall that gay 'marriage' advocates simply don't have the votes to redefine marriage in this fall session.

In response to plans by a group named the Rainbow Sash Movement to disrupt the Cathedral's religious services on Tuesday, Paprocki announced:

People wearing a rainbow sash or who otherwise identify themselves as affiliated with the Rainbow Sash Movement will not be admitted into the cathedral and anyone who gets up to pray for same-sex marriage in the cathedral will be asked to leave.

Of course, our cathedral and parish churches are always open to everyone who wishes to repent their sins and ask for God's forgiveness.

Meanwhile, in Virginia, another spiritual leader has taken a strong stand in the face of plans to undermine true marriage there.

I've told you before about plans by the Richmond City Council to use a same-sex 'marriage' ordinance as a political power play. Well, the members preparing the ordinance are still at it; and that attracted a strong response from a local pastor, Bishop Daryl Husband, Sr. of Mount Olivet Church in Richmond.

Writing at the blog of the Coalition for African American Pastors, Bishop Husband had this to say about the ordinance:

Today I urge the people of Richmond to stand up to our City Council and tell them that the people of Virginia have already spoken on marriage — loudly and clearly. We believe that this vital institution — the bedrock of our society — is solely the union of a man and a woman. This arrangement has served all civilization well for countless ages, and in our day is the best means we have of ensuring every child the opportunity to have both a mother and father. Tell your Councilmember to scrap this terrible proposal, Ordinance 2013-154, and to stop playing politics and get back to work for the people of Richmond.

Bravo to these brave men for standing up for marriage and leading their congregations to do the same!

What Marriage in America Means

Finally, from Hawaii comes an important reminder of something that we here at NOM have always maintained to be crucial for the fate of marriage in the United States. On this important issue, the people should decide!

A coalition called Let the People Decide, of which NOM is a very proud partner, has begun running some wonderful ads in Hawaii and I want to share one with you today. It's especially touching because it reflects the great cultural heritage and richness of Hawaii which some of us perhaps have experienced in visits to the beautiful state. And thus it reminds us, too, that marriage is a universal value that every heritage and every culture has treasured and honored throughout history. Hawaiians are asking for their right to do the same — and I pray that they are afforded that right!

Thank you for continuing to stand strong for marriage and for our treasured freedoms. It is my honor to stand with you.

Dear Marriage Supporter,

Let me start by thanking all of you who responded to our request to support the referendum to overturn California's incredible new co-ed bathroom law.

And then let me gently persuade any of you who have not signed a referendum petition and made a donation to help this effort.

I know it sounds like the end of a "slippery slope" scenario: "If we don't do this or that, then we will have boys in the girls' locker rooms". But it is true.

California's legislature approved it and Governor Brown signed it into law. It will take effect on January 1, 2014. Starting on that day, any boy can claim to identify as a girl and start using the girls' bathrooms, showers and locker rooms. And girls can claim to identify as boys and use the boys' facilities.

It will be an absolute right. There is no check or safeguard to assure that the claim of gender identity is sincere. But let me be clear, even if there were safeguards to assure that the claim of gender identity is sincere, I would still object to forcing boys and girls to share bathrooms, showers and locker rooms.

Why?

Because nakedness trumps sincerity. I do not want a naked boy in front of a young girl in the shower or bathroom even if he sincerely identifies as a girl.

We should have compassion for students that are uncomfortable with their sexuality or believe that biology has betrayed them. But we have to also have compassion for all of the other students whose privacy will be denied and who will be uncomfortable when these facilities are no longer sexually separate.

How can we possibly be so committed to relieving the discomfort of a handful of students but totally ignore the discomfort and privacy concerns of the 99%+ of other students?

How can we claim that this will decrease bullying, when forcing boys and girls to share bathrooms IS bullying?

Thankfully Californians are having a bathroom backlash.

There is a plan to stop this law from being implemented and allow the voters to reject it. But that plan depends on you and me.

NOM California has joined the coalition of Privacy For All Students to qualify a referendum to overturn this law. I am asking all supporters of true marriage as the union of one man and one woman, and anybody with common sense, to take a stand for privacy and safety by supporting this referendum.

If you have not done so, please visit the PFAS web site at www.privacyforallstudents.com. There you can download a petition, sign and return it in the mail. You can also get church resources and other information for collecting signatures.

Please also make an immediate donation to NOM California to help us cover the costs of this referendum effort. To gather the almost 505,000 valid voter signatures required to qualify the referendum, it is necessary to have paid signature gatherers collect a portion of these signatures. It is an expensive process and we need your immediate help. Your donation to NOM California will be used to help us support the petition drive.

Remember, time is short. All signatures must be submitted to the PFAS office by November 6 so PFAS can process and have these delivered to each county by November 8.

Your signature on the petition and financial support is needed right away. Please do not delay.

Faithfully,

Brian S. Brown

Dear Marriage Supporter,

This past Monday was a sad day for New Jersey and the nation as we watched Governor Chris Christie surrender on marriage. His backing down also provides an important object lesson in leadership (or lack of it) and gives us a great opportunity to contrast what happened in New Jersey with what's going on elsewhere: what happens when people fight for the truth of marriage.

Please help us today to continue the principled fight for the truth of marriage and make sure that elected officials defend God's design for marriage, not abandon it.

To be sure, the blame for the imposition of same-sex 'marriage' in New Jersey belongs with an activist judiciary that once again imposed their values on the citizenry. Still, the failure of the courts to act responsibly and grant a stay of the ruling imposing same-sex ‘marriage' is no excuse for Governor Christie throwing in the towel and dropping the appeal of the underlying issue.

Because of his failure of leadership, there's now little chance in the short term to restore true marriage in the state. In fact, now that he's abandoned the fight, it's highly likely that next month the Legislature will override Christie's earlier veto of legislation redefining marriage.

Christie's decision will have many consequences — for New Jersey and for his own career. It won't be long before people of faith in New Jersey begin to feel the consequences that have been demonstrated in other states. We'll see individuals sued, fined and persecuted. Small businesses put out of business. Students punished. Church groups will be targeted. Charities may have to close if their views are not in alignment with a redefined version of marriage. These things, and more, are becoming commonplace in any state that redefines marriage.

Governor Christie can also forget any idea he might have had of securing the Republican nomination for president. Already provoking suspicion for his embrace of President Obama and for the legislation he signed to prohibit parents from seeking certain types of counseling for their children with same-sex attraction, Governor Christie surrendering on marriage will be seen as the final act of betrayal. Conservatives and people of faith who make up the core of the GOP will never forgive his failure to lead on marriage when leadership was needed most.

So in surrendering in the face of difficulty, Christie not only ensured that marriage would be redefined in New Jersey, he mortally wounded his own political career.

Contrast that to what is happening in states like Illinois, Pennsylvania and Hawaii.

All year same-sex 'marriage' activists have been claiming they have the votes to redefine marriage in Illinois. They've had President Obama, Governor Pat Quinn, Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel, legislative leaders and union activists all on their side. Yet this past May when the bill was on the line, its prime sponsor declined to bring it up for a vote, finally forced to acknowledge he didn't have the votes he'd been claiming.

In response, homosexual advocacy groups announced a multi-million dollar campaign to push the issue in a fall legislative session that began this week. Activists loudly claimed they'd have the votes this time. And now? The bill's author is acknowledging that he still doesn't have the votes, and likely will not bring it to the floor for consideration.

How did this happen?

First, principled legislators refused to cave to pressure and instead fought for what is right and true. African American pastors, in particular, got engaged and worked with their congregations to make it clear to legislators that a vote for same-sex ‘marriage' would be unacceptable.

Second, the pro-family movement became engaged and fought a fierce battle. NOM has been at the forefront of the effort, working with groups like the African American Clergy Coalition, Coalition of African American Pastors, Illinois Family Institute, Illinois Family PAC, Illinois Catholic Conference and others.

Third, legislators of both parties began to worry that if they voted to redefine marriage, they'd face primary opponents who would use the issue to remove them from office.

You see, exercising leadership works. It coalesces allies, motivates people to get off the sidelines, and demonstrates that you have the courage to fight for principle.

Will you help NOM continue to work to lead the marriage movement in America? Elected officials, pastors and activists across the country are turning to NOM for help and direction. Please give us the support we need to continue to show leadership in this critically important battle.

What's happened in Illinois is not an isolated example.

In Pennsylvania, the state's law defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman has been under attack from the left. The state Attorney General announced that she would not defend it. Meanwhile, a local government official — a County Register of Wills — was openly flaunting the law, declaring that he'd ‘marry' same-sex couples regardless of what the law provided.

NOM sprang into action and organized supporters across the state to contact Governor Tom Corbett and call on him to step in and defend marriage in court, and demanded that he file legal action against the local official who was illegally issuing same-sex ‘marriage' licenses. Thousands of people responded to our call to action, and Governor Corbett listened. The Governor is now actively defending the lawsuit challenging marriage, and he's won a court order against the Montgomery County Register of Wills ordering him to cease his illegal conduct.

Most wonderful of all, the other day when Chris Christie surrendered on marriage, a couple of Pennsylvania legislators went to Governor Corbett and asked him to do the same thing. To his credit, Governor Corbett refused, and continues to stand strong for the truth of marriage. That's what leadership looks like.

Please help NOM continue to organize the grassroots to hold elected officials accountable, praising people like Governor Tom Corbett who stand on principle and condemning those like Chris Christie who abandon the fight in the face of pressure.

We can only be effective if we have your financial support. Those funds give us the ability to write directly to constituents, call them on the phone, email them, sponsor rallies, air advertisements, and undertake a range of other activities to educate and mobilize the strong majority of Americans who agree with us on marriage.

Let me also tell you about leadership in Hawaii. Like Illinois, Hawaii has a super majority of Democratic legislators in both houses of the Legislature, and a Democrat governor. Governor Neil Abercrombie wants to redefine marriage, and he's called a special session of the Legislature for next week to attempt to do so. Like the author of the bill in Illinois, Abercrombie claims he's got the votes to succeed, even though he refuses to say who they are.

NOM is working with allies in Hawaii to preserve marriage and demand that the citizens be given the right to vote on this critical issue. A large coalition of allies has been formed called the Let The People Decide coalition. It includes NOM, the Hawaii Family Advocates, Hawaii Family Forum, a diverse mix of pastors and church groups, and many others.

For the past several weeks, marriage supporters have been attending legislative constituent meetings, calling their representatives and standing on countless street corners during rush hour, waving signs to show their support for marriage. Pastors have preached about the importance of preserving marriage, and people are responding in droves.

This past Monday, NOM launched a major statewide television advertisement campaign designed to educate and mobilize marriage supporters throughout the islands. We're also phoning tens of thousands of marriage supporters in Hawaii to urge them to contact their state representatives. We've had to virtually empty our coffers to take these steps, but we are determined to do everything possible to prevail.

It's called leadership.

And it's working. Thousands of constituents have contacted their legislators to demand the right to decide the marriage issue, just as voters in nearly three dozen other states have done. A poll released this week showed that 70% of Hawaii voters believe that they should decide the issue, not legislators meeting in special session.

Will we be successful in Hawaii, one of the most Democratic states in the country? We'll see. But one thing is for sure — surrender always fails.

So that's the contrast. In New Jersey, the courts attempt to impose their skewed views of marriage and a governor surrenders the fight, even while claiming to still be on our side. His surrender eliminates any chance of prevailing. But in states like Illinois, Pennsylvania and Hawaii, people of principle exert leadership, refusing to buckle to political pressure — and achieve remarkable success.

We believe in leadership, and we believe in you. Please help us continue to fight for what is good and right — the truth of God's design of marriage.

Faithfully,

Brian S. Brown

Flaubert recognized that sometimes there really is only one perfect term to describe the essence of a particular thing. Well, there is one perfect word to describe our culture's dissonant approach to marriage and family, and that word is incoherent.

An article in yesterday's Washington Times reports that there is a growing concern about "irresponsible fatherhood" in our society: "Despite myriad efforts by fatherhood programs, too many men are ending up in multiple relationships, with multiple children from multiple mothers."

An expert quoted in the article suggests that men need to "advised... to 'slow down,' 'prepare for fatherhood,' realize that a mother and child are 'a package' and 'take time' to select a loving partner and future mother."

But these efforts to address a very real concern are incoherent in a cultural context where powerful forces are pushing a radical agenda to redefine marriage and thereby necessarily redefine the roles of parents, making 'fatherhood' an expendable option and devaluing the unique services that men and women each provide in raising children.

To preserve and promote fatherhood requires first that we preserve and promote the true definition of marriage. Marriage is like a key-word for a cipher which, when you get it wrong, causes all the connected code-words to fall apart too. Fatherhood depends on the meaning of the unique and special union of one man and one woman.  And for that union, le mot juste is "marriage."

The remarkable piece by James Kalb lays out in a compelling way how the standard for public discourse today - "the view that recently led the Supreme Court to treat restriction of marriage to opposite-sex couples as an expression of intent to harm same-sex couples" - needs to be attacked and shifted to more solid ground [emphasis added]:

Liberal thought is entrenched as the basis for public discussion, and it doesn’t like the idea of a network of expectations and obligations to which people are subject other than those generated by state and market. What’s just, liberals believe, is for individuals to be free from all social pressure in their private lives as long as they perform their duties as employees, taxpayers, and citizens of a diverse, tolerant, and multicultural society. If people are pressured to act one way or another for some reason other than the needs of liberal institutions, that’s bigotry and discrimination, and eradicating it is one of the central duties of government.

However strong and entrenched that way of thinking is, it needs to be disputed and overthrown.

Kalb also explains in very clear terms the importance of the definition of marriage and why it matters so deeply:

If marriage is to be something we can rely on, it can’t be a sentimental celebration or optional lifestyle choice whose content depends on the orientation and goals of the parties. It has to be understood as something definite that, simply because of what it is, has intrinsic functions that are basic to human life. To be itself, it must therefore be understood as a union of man and woman that accepts the natural consequences of such a union, and there have to be distinct understandings of men, women, the relations between the two, and what they owe and have a right to expect from each other.

Take some time to read and re-read the entire essay today.

FOX 13 News

Chronicling some of his work, Charisma Magazine writer Joy Allmond, notes, “Before we can take on our role as the church in areas like social justice activism and preserving society, we must be aware of our current freedoms and our position in regard to the state.”

Quoting Metaxas, she continues, “There is a fundamental misunderstanding of the separation of church and state. The church is to be protected from the state. Not the reverse," …"People have divorced faith from public life, mostly because of this misunderstanding.”

Allmond expands on this costly misunderstanding, as she explains,

“We have also confused the terms freedom of worship with freedom of religion. So, what is the difference?

Freedom of religion allows us to take our faith into the public square as we leave our corporate worship settings. “The founders have said that we can and should do that,” adds Metaxas. “That means we can exercise our faith freely in the workplace, or wherever we are.”

Freedom of worship allows us to worship within the confines of the church building. However, that freedom is not valid outside of that church building. Furthermore, that means that whatever views you have on the hot-button social issues, such as abortion or same-sex marriage must be kept within the walls your home or your church building.

“They have freedom of worship in China, and they had it in Germany in the 1930s. Today, that is we have—freedom of worship. So today, we are slowly privatizing our faith because of this great misunderstanding,” says Metaxas. “Once we leave our homes or our churches, we are expected to accept the secular humanist view of everything.” (Read More)

In America people of faith have been blessed with the right to the free exercise of their religion, not just worship.  One day we will be held to account for our stewardship of this blessing.  Let be found to have been faithful – standing for God’s truth not just in our churches but in the public square, the halls of power, and across the back fence with our neighbors.

"An activist judiciary has once again imposed its views and ignored the rights of voters. Regrettably, Governor Christie's decision to surrender on marriage reveals him to be a man who lacks the courage of his supposed convictions." — Brian Brown, NOM president —

Washington, D.C. — The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) today sharply criticized the courts of New Jersey for orchestrating the redefinition of marriage, and also criticized New Jersey Governor Chris Christie for withdrawing an appeal of the court ruling imposing same-sex marriage and thus abandoning the right of voters to determine the definition of marriage. NOM pledged to continue to fight for the right of New Jerseyans to define marriage, and suggested that Christie's decision will end any chance of him winning the GOP nomination for president.

"There's no question that the courts of New Jersey are responsible for the imposition of same-sex marriage in that state, and we sharply criticize them for redefining our most important social institution with no regard to the wishes of voters or even elected officials," said Brian Brown, NOM's president. "The refusal of the New Jersey Supreme Court to order a stay of the same-sex 'marriage' ruling was wrong, and the latest example of an activist judiciary running amok, substituting their views for those of the people of the state. Still, we are extremely disappointed in Governor Chris Christie for withdrawing the state's appeal of the underlying decision, effectively throwing in the towel on marriage. The mark of a leader is to walk a principled walk no matter the difficulty of the path. Chris Christie has failed the test, abandoning both voters and the core institution of society - marriage as the union of one man and one woman."

A superior court judge had imposed same-sex marriage in New Jersey in a ruling in September, with same-sex 'marriages' set to begin today. Christie's administration appealed the decision and sought a stay to preserve the status-quo until the merit of the case is heard next year. The New Jersey Supreme Court denied the request for the stay, and today Christie dropped his appeal of the underlying decision imposing same-sex marriage.

"It's a sad day for the voters of New Jersey," said Brown. "An activist judiciary has once again imposed its views and ignored the rights of voters. We will continue to fight for the right of New Jersey voters to determine the definition of marriage. Regrettably, Governor Christie's decision to surrender on marriage reveals him to be a man who lacks the courage of his supposed convictions. As far as we are concerned, it's a disqualifying failure. His surrender on marriage effectively surrenders any chance he might have had to secure the GOP nomination for president."

###

To schedule an interview with Brian Brown, President of the National Organization for Marriage, please contact Elizabeth Ray (x130), eray@crcpublicrelations.com, or Matille Thebolt (x143), mthebolt@crcpublicrelations.com, 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).

"It is extremely disappointing that the New Jersey Supreme Court has allowed the ruling of an activist judge to stand pending its appeal through the court system." — Brian Brown, NOM President —

Washington, D.C.—The following should be attributed to Brian Brown, president of the National Organization for Marriage (NOM).

 It is extremely disappointing that the New Jersey Supreme Court has allowed the ruling of an activist judge to stand pending its appeal through the court system. The definition of marriage is something that should be decided by the people of New Jersey themselves, not by any judge or court. New Jerseyans should have the right to vote on this issue just as voters in nearly three dozen other states have done. In addition, the decision to allow same-sex ‘marriage’ to proceed even while the law is being tested in court is unfair both to the voters of the state and to same-sex couples themselves. If the state Supreme Court were to uphold marriage as they should do, then the validity of the ‘marriages’ that will be performed starting next week will be called into question. Further, the decision opens the door to a possible federal court ruling similar to what occurred in California in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal which held that once a state grants same-sex ‘marriage’ rights it can never take them away. All in all, today’s ruling is another sad chapter in watching our courts usurp the rights of voters to determine issues like this for themselves.

###

To schedule an interview with Brian Brown, President of the National Organization for Marriage, please contact Elizabeth Ray (x130), eray@crcpublicrelations.com, or Matille Thebolt (x143), mthebolt@crcpublicrelations.com, 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).

Dear Marriage Supporter,

I want to begin today by sharing with you the video of the panel I participated in last week at the Values Voter Summit on The Future of Marriage with the wonderful Ryan Anderson and Jennifer Marshall from The Heritage Foundation.

The Future of Marriage Begins With YOU

Here's what I had to say about the future of marriage:

This, I believe, is the future of marriage: that if those of us who know the truth about marriage are willing to speak lovingly but boldly the truth that we know in our hearts — that we know through reason, that we know through faith — then ultimately others who in their hearts know this truth... will come back to this truth.

This is written on the human heart — that there's something different about moms and dads, that kids deserve both mothers and fathers — this is written on our hearts. And what we need are people who are willing to stand up — regardless of the names they're called, regardless of the threats that come, regardless of whether supporters of redefining marriage take their 990s and post their names on the internet or whatever else.

What little are we being asked to do! — if we look back at those before us who stood up for the truth, Christians and others through the Civil Rights Movement before! All we're being asked to do is to stand up for the truth... what we know is true in our hearts.... And some of us are never, ever going to be ashamed of that or refuse to stand up to defend it.

This notion was a theme of sorts at the Values Voter Summit: that what we need is for ordinary citizens, individuals like you and I, to stand up bravely and speak the truth without fear or shame.

Jennifer Marshall developed upon the same theme in her response to a question from Tony Perkins. She was asked what she would offer to inspire people to have that courage needed to continue standing up in defense of marriage.

Jennifer drew attention to a joint publication from NOM, The Heritage Foundation, FRC, Focus on the Family, and Alliance Defending Freedom, the booklet What You Need to Know about Marriage:

This is just one example of the kinds of ways that we have been really honing our message and trying to make it accessible for everybody. We did this booklet so that you could take it, digest it, and have these conversations, over the water cooler at work, with your family... we need to really be talking about the case for marriage, and we all need to be equipped with it.

You can get a link to download your own copy of this important resource by visiting this website.

The same theme of citizen activism came up during a Congressional Town Hall at the Summit, when Representative Louie Gohmert (R-Tx.) gave this stirring advice:

What can you do? Listen, folks: if you haven't written a letter to the editor of your local newspaper at least once every six months (and I'd recommend once a month!) then you're not helping like you could. If you're not calling into the newspaper and complaining about leftist articles they've done, and especially opinions they do; if you haven't called your television stations and complained about things, you're not doing what you can do. And when you let your voice be heard, Congress always follows. [...]

The truism has always been consistent, that democracy ensures that people are governed no better than they deserve.... We need to be about deserving better leaders.

Great advice! And I'd encourage everyone to follow it, especially those of you in those states where marriage is currently under attack.

Where Your Voice Needs to be Heard

An article in Crisis Magazine last week by Stephen Beale highlighted just some of the threats to marriage that we're seeing around the nation, and you should really check it out. You might be surprised to find attacks to religious liberty happening right in your backyard in your home state, and think of ways that you might be able to help.

Beale details "at least 11 instances of wedding vendors and venues facing some form of recrimination — threats, boycotts, protests, and the intervention of state or judicial authorities — because they denied services for gay nuptials because of their faith."

He explains clearly how these are linked to the push to redefine marriage:

Such fundamental clashes are linked to the spreading legalization of same-sex marriage. Of the 11 total cases cited above, three occurred within two years of their state legalizing same-sex marriage. A fourth came four years afterwards. Four others were in states that did not have same-sex marriage but had granted some legal recognition to same-sex unions, such as domestic partnerships or civil unions. "When you start recognizing same-sex marriage, these cases are going to start coming up," said Jim Campbell, an Alliance for Defense attorney [sic].

But Beale ends with his own reflection on the future that gives the same spirit of advice we saw coming up time and again at the Values Voter Summit. The advice comes from a Catholic Bishop to his diocese; but it's food for thought for all supporters of marriage in our nation who won't willingly be silenced:

As Christians in the United State wonder on what these cases might mean for them, they would do well to reflect on a letter that a bishop recently issued to his diocese, after losing that state's battle over marriage. The letter is addressed by Bishop Thomas Tobin to Rhode Island Catholics, but his words speak to Christians across the country: "Without a doubt this is a time of challenge, even disappointment for many of us, but it is also an opportunity to be steadfast and courageous, and to renew our commitment to Christ and His Church. As our Lord Jesus Christ told us, ‘In the world you will have trouble, but take courage, I have conquered the world' (Jn 16:33)."

We can welcome this "opportunity to be steadfast and courageous" in various ways, but it starts with being willing to stand up and to defend the truth about marriage without counting the cost.

The Future of Marriage is Bright

It's also good to be reminded that the victory has already been won in the end, because sometimes we see only glimmers of hope and victory for long periods of time when we're in the trenches of these cultural battles. One such glimmer did come this week, though, out of Illinois.

The Illinois Review reports that the proposed bill to redefine marriage in the Land of Lincoln continues to face an uphill battle, and this time because of fundraising shortcomings from those pushing the radical legislation:

Equality Illinois vowed to raise $500,000 to renew the fight this fall. Half of the money was to be earmarked for a "re-education campaign" while the other $250,000 was to fund re-election challenges to lawmakers who would have voted "no" on gay marriage, and to protect those that were planning to vote "yes".

But as David Ormsby reports, despite all the "rhetorical swagger" and "political chest thumping," the organization has fallen far short of its political fundraising goal — raising only $25,421 in the third quarter.

The fact is that the people of Illinois simply do not want marriage redefined and undermined — least of all when the legislature there has so many better things to do with the people's time and resources. It's good to see this fact bearing consequences for the disastrous bill that a noisy minority are still trying to ram through the legislature.

Let's take encouragement where we can, and continue together to stand up bravely for the value of marriage and for the liberties we hold so dear, like freedom of religion and freedom of speech.

The future of marriage is ours to make: what will you do today to ensure that future is bright?

Faithfully,

Brian S. Brown

Dear Marriage Supporter,

OK, sometimes late is better than never.

If you have the opportunity this evening, you are invited to Princeton University to hear Ryan T. Anderson, William E. Simon Fellow at the Heritage Foundation, on the consequences of redefining marriage. He is the co-author of What is Marriage? Man and Woman: A Defense.

The lecture will take place in McCosh Hall, Room 50 at 7:30 PM on the Princeton Campus, and is hosted by the University's Anscombe and American Whig-Cliosophic Societies. Click here for more details on the event.

What is Marriage? Man and Woman: A Defense is one of the best resources for understanding and helping explain to others the unique and critical institution of marriage. I urge anyone who is able: Please make the effort to hear this enlightening lecture.

Across the country, but critically in New Jersey, each one of us who believes marriage to be the union of one man and one woman need to be able to give a reasoned defense of our position — across the back fence, with our families at dinner, or in the public square. This special opportunity will help you do just that.

I hope you can make it.

Faithfully,

Brian S. Brown

These cases represent a new battlefield in the clash between the freedoms of Christians and the “radical homosexual agenda”…Despite their relatively small numbers, radical homosexuals wield enormous power. They dominate our cultural elite, Hollywood, television, the mainstream news media, public schools, academia, and a significant portion of the judiciary…As a result of their power, homosexual activists are able to intimidate and silence opposition.

Read more here.

Dear Marriage Supporter

In recent days, it has become clearer than ever that the fight to defend true marriage is a fight for the very identity and destiny of our great nation. Marriage is the foundation that supports our country, and we simply cannot have a well-functioning nation if we destroy the marriage culture. But that's what is happening before our very eyes.

In North Carolina, a lawsuit has been pending before the courts to strike down the state's Marriage Amendment — a law passed just last May and by 61% of the popular vote! But just this week North Carolina's Attorney General, tasked with defending the voters' will in this case, compromised his integrity in that role by formally announcing his support for same-sex 'marriage.' Worse, he's headlining a fundraising event for a group that wants the courts to strike down the marriage law!

As if that were not bad enough, hot on the heels of the A.G.'s reckless announcement, a County Register of Deeds in North Carolina announced that he would begin accepting same-sex couples' applications for marriage licenses — a move we've seen before in states like New Mexico and Pennsylvania. This is the lawless destruction of democracy that we can expect to see spreading around the nation if we do not act today!

Please click here to contribute to NOM's efforts to stem this tide of anarchy and lawlessness and restore order to our democracy. The well-funded attacks of same-sex marriage activists will only become more and more brazen unless we push back fiercely right now.

Of course, orchestrations like we're seeing in North Carolina don't happen on their own — they are carefully planned and executed. A group named the Campaign for Southern Equality has been fishing for county-level officials in states like North Carolina to break their oath of office and flout the law the way D. Bruce Hanes of Pennsylvania's Montgomery County did earlier this year.

The Campaign for Southern Equality has been working tirelessly at this, and here is the fruit of those efforts: by the flagrant and irresponsible actions of two public officials, the will of the voters of North Carolina has been placed in peril. The strong majority of voters who declared last May that marriage is between one man and one woman are now in danger of being silenced by two elected politicians beholden to a well-financed special interest group.

Please give right now to NOM and help us consolidate the voices of the pro-marriage majority in America to be heard in the public square and the halls of power. We cannot allow our values to be drowned out by the shouting mob seeking to destroy our democratic order. Will you raise a cry for marriage with your generous gift today?

One of our great Founding Fathers, Benjamin Franklin, announced after the Constitutional Convention that we had "a Republic — if you can keep it!" We feel the duty implied by those words more than ever today. Stand with us now, and together we will keep the republic — and marriage!

Faithfully,

Brian S. Brown

P.S.: The aggressive same-sex 'marriage' lobby continues to whittle away at the will of the people and the foundations of our democracy. Help us defend marriage — and our nation itself — against these outrageous attacks. Your donation to NOM is a gift to our children and grandchildren, an investment in the future of our county and society. And remember, every dollar you give now will be matched — dollar for dollar — by one of our faithful donors. So, please give generously today!

Rather than say what marriage is—which anyone can see is an absolute prerequisite to saying whether "equality" demands its availability to partners never before thought capable of marrying—these advocates simply shout "marriage equality" ever more loudly, point to an array of "government benefits" linked to marital status, and make their desire for the thing substitute for an argument about what the thing is that they want.

You can read the rest of his article here.

Dear Marriage Supporter,

Please be sure to vote in the special election tomorrow Wednesday October 16th — and when you do, cast your vote for Steve Lonegan.

Steve Lonegan is a true social conservative who will protect and promote marriage, life, and religious liberties on the national stage. And Steve Lonegan supports the right of the people of New Jersey to vote on the definition of marriage as three dozen other states have done.

Steve Lonegan would be a champion in the US Senate for New Jersey families. He's a tremendously effective public official and will get immediately to work to begin to restore the direction of the country.

Lonegan began the campaign 35 points behind, but has worked to make the race close in these final days. Each passing poll shows him closing the gap and gaining momentum. With turnout expected to be low, the race is now up for grabs.

Cory Booker expected a coronation — not a close contest. He's been busy raising money in Hollywood and among the gay lobby, who've lavished money on his campaign because he shares their values. Meanwhile, Steve Lonegan has worked hard to talk about the real issues impacting New Jersey families, and voters are responding.

It's vital that we carry Steve Lonegan over the top by voting tomorrow, Wednesday the 16th, for the only candidate who shares New Jersey's values and will fight for them in the U.S. Senate — Steve Lonegan.

And be sure to forward this message to as many of your friends and family as possible. With turnout expected to be low, every vote is particularly important.

Fighting for New Jersey Families,

Brian S. Brown

“Steve Lonegan is a champion for marriage, life and religious liberty.” — Brian Brown, NOM president —

Washington, D.C. — Today, the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) announced that it is launching an independent expenditure campaign in New Jersey to boost the candidacy of Steve Lonegan in the special election for US Senate set for October 16th.

“Steve Lonegan is a champion for marriage, life and religious liberty and would be a leader in the US Senate for New Jersey families,” said Brian Brown, NOM’s president. “He’s a tenacious campaigner and an even more effective public official. He will get immediately to work to begin to restore the direction of the country.”

NOM has in excess of 120,000 supporters in New Jersey and will organize them to turn out to vote for Lonegan next Wednesday. Lonegan began the campaign 35 points behind, but has worked to make the race close in these final days. With turnout expected to be low, the race should be considered up for grabs.

“Corey Booker expected a coronation, not a close contest,” said Brown. “He’s been busy raising money in Hollywood and among the gay lobby, who’ve lavished money on his campaign because he shares their values. Meanwhile, Steve Lonegan has worked hard to talk about the real issues impacting New Jersey families, and voters are responding. We hope our independent expenditure effort can help propel him over the top.”

###

To schedule an interview with Brian Brown, President of the National Organization for Marriage, please contact Elizabeth Ray (x130), eray@crcpublicrelations.com, or Matille Thebolt (x143), mthebolt@crcpublicrelations.com, 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).

For those of you looking for Brian Brown's panel discussion on the future of marriage at the Values Voter Summit, we've just learned that the panel has been moved to the evening session at 7:30 PM eastern.

We're sorry for the inconvenience.  Please look for him then.

Dear Marriage Supporter,

Good morning from the Values Voter Summit in Washington, DC! I just wanted to give you an update on what NOM has been up to recently before taking the stage in a few hours.

This morning at 10:45 am Eastern Time, I'll appear on a panel with Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council and Ryan Anderson and Jennifer Marshall of the Heritage Foundation talking about "The Future of Marriage."

If you are able, I invite you to watch the live, streaming video feed of the panel on the Values Voter Summit home page. If you can't watch this morning, you can visit FRC Action's YouTube page in the coming days and watch the video once they have posted it.

Partnering with the African American Church

I also had the pleasure of attending a banquet supporting the Coalition of African American Pastors (CAAP) last night. CAAP — especially honoree, Rev. William Owens — has done an incredible job of rallying the African American community in the defense of marriage all over the country.

I'd like to introduce you to this wonderful organization by letting you watch the video presentation they played at the dinner:

I make a couple of brief appearances in the video toward the end after they begin talking about the importance of defending the family around the 6:40 minute mark of the video.

NOM v. IRS

Our Chairman, Dr. John Eastman, was also speaking out and making news this past week, as NOM launched our lawsuit against the IRS for its illegal action of leaking our confidential tax documents. If you haven't seen it yet, you can watch what Dr. Eastman had to say at a conference hosted by the Heritage Foundation:

The Continued Assault on Religious Freedom

Also in the news this week is an interesting story out of Iowa. The Odgaard family is having to sue the Iowa Civil Rights Commission asking the Commission to declare that the couple was not in violation of the law when they declined to participate in a same-sex marriage ceremony by renting out their private property.

Fortunately, our good friends at the Becket Fund are on the case — literally! — defending the Odgaards in court. You can watch this brief video they compiled to learn more about it:

Action Items You Can Take Today

As ever, we remain vigilant on the state and federal level, stoking up grassroots activism wherever marriage is threatened. Please take a moment to look over our current, pressing Action Alerts to see if there is some action you can take to defend marriage in America! It will only take a few minutes of your time!

Marriage Amendment	The Marriage and Religious Freedom Act	New Jersey

Illinois	Hawaii

Finally, in Monday's email we misattributed statements from Laurie Higgins' wonderful article on the Illinois Family Institute blog to the Chicago Tribune. These errors have been corrected on our blog and online properties. Our apologies to all parties for the mistake.

Faithfully,

Brian S. Brown

PS: I just wanted to remind you that our matching gift challenge is still active — and will be throughout the rest of the year — so there's no better time to make a donation to NOM to support our work of defending marriage and the faith communities that sustain it. Won't you please consider making a donation of $25, $50, $100 or even $500 or more in support of our work today?

What's more, if you sign up to be a monthly donor, I'll send you a free copy of NOM co-founder and Princeton Professor Robert P. George's book, What Is Marriage? — an essential educational tool for every marriage defender, as well as the best argument ever assembled as to why marriage must be between one man and one woman and why the government has a compelling interest in defending that definition.

Dear Marriage Supporter,

No, I'm not talking about Governor Christie's reelection race next month. I'm talking about the US Senate special election in New Jersey next week. Marriage, life, and family values are on the ballot in New Jersey one week from yesterday on October 16th — and every marriage champion across the country can play a part to make sure those values come out on top.

Next Wednesday voters in New Jersey need to make a special effort to get out and vote for the only US Senate candidate who will protect and promote marriage, life, and family on the national stage — Steve Lonegan.

In the beginning, no one gave Steve any chance against Newark mayor Corey Booker. The big city mayor with over a million Twitter followers and a 35 point lead in the polls was supposed to waltz through this special election — but Steve Lonegan and his conservative supporters didn't get the message...they have fought and scraped and dramatically closed the gap. An internal poll by the Lonegan campaign has the race at six points, while other polls have Booker up by 11-12 points. All the polls show that momentum is with Lonegan, meaning by this time next week it could well be a dead heat.

What will push Steve — and marriage, life, and family — over the top?

First and foremost — getting out the vote. In this special election, where voter turn-out is expected to be low, every vote is particularly important. Please make every effort to get out to vote on next Wednesday, October 16th, and to urge your family and friends to do so. You can forward this email to them by using one of the social media buttons below.

Even if you're not a New Jersey voter you can still be involved. The Lonegan campaign is looking for volunteers to make calls into New Jersey to get out the vote. If you would like to volunteer from around the country, follow this link to the campaign's "Get Out the Vote" center.

Every marriage champion across the country can make a difference in this crucial election. Steve Lonegan is the only candidate in New Jersey who will stand proud for marriage, life, and family in the U.S. Senate — and he deserves our help. Please join me in getting involved as a volunteer, and consider making a contribution to Steve's campaign.

Together, we can roll up our sleeves to win an unprecedented victory. And don't forget — if you are in New Jersey be sure to vote on Wednesday October 16th...and get your family and friends to do the same.

Can you imagine the national uproar if Steve Lonegan were to pull of an incredible upset? Coming from 35 points back to capture this seat would be historic. It would serve a powerful message to Washington that being conservative, pro-life and pro-marriage are winning issues even in deep blue states like New Jersey.

Let's push hard for the next week and try to help Steve cross the finish line.

Faithfully,

Brian S. Brown

From hearings yesterday before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee comes this shocking news, via a headline in the Daily Caller: "White House, IRS exchanged confidential taxpayer info." The Daily Caller reports:

[IRS Official Sarah] Ingram appeared before Rep. Darrell Issa’s House Oversight Committee Wednesday and claimed she could not recall a document that contained confidential taxpayer information.

“Well one of the areas of interest is there’s a significant redaction that quotes the statute 6103. Do you know who is underneath that blackout?” Issa asked Ingram.

“I don’t recall the document so I can’t help you with what’s underneath that redaction,” Ingram said.

“Her response has not put concerns to rest,” Oversight staffer Frederick Hill said.

You can read the rest here.

Understandably so, if the following exchange is any indication of her response:

Meanwhile, NOM is grateful to Representative Issa for his strong leadership on House Oversight and Government Reform to hold the IRS accountable for misconduct and felonious actions, and particularly for his pledge to investigate the leak which resulted in our own confidential tax information getting into the hands of the Human Rights Campaign.

We are also continually grateful to Chairman Camp of the powerful House Ways and Means Committee for his own commitment to securing justice for all those targeted by the IRS and making sure the American people get the answers they deserve about how deep this scandal runs.

DES MOINES — A nationally known religious rights group is suing the Iowa Civil Rights Commission on behalf of a Grimes couple who refused to host a same-sex couple’s wedding…

“Just as the Odgaards cannot be forced to display art that violates their religious convictions, they should not be forced to host religious ceremonies that violate their religious convictions,” Hardman wrote. “To our knowledge, no Iowa or Federal court has ever forced anyone to participate in a religious activity against their will. Doing so now would abandon Iowa’s history of being the vanguard of protecting individual freedom, and out of line with state and federal law.” (Read More)

It is a sad day in America when people of faith have to sue to prove their innocence.

Dear Marriage Supporter,

The next month is vital for the future of marriage in Illinois. Same-sex 'marriage' advocates have been working around the clock to gather votes — but now it's our turn.

G.K. Chesterton wrote: "...an ordinary man and an ordinary woman and their ordinary children literally alter the destiny of nations."

While gay 'marriage' activists have thrown millions of dollars and high-profile names at your legislators, it is now up to ordinary men, women, and children to secure the destiny of marriage in Illinois.

The special legislative session is just about upon us — October 22, 23, 24 & November 5, 6, 7 — and we need all marriage champions in Illinois to stand strong and make every effort to tell their legislators to not redefine marriage.

There are three ways in particular you can make a difference for marriage today:

• Email your legislators today. They need to hear from you. Use this simple link to send them the important message today that marriage in Illinois deserves to be defended and strengthened, not redefined. Every voice and vote counts — make yours heard.

• Join the Illinois Family Institute (IFI) on October 23rd for their Marriage Lobby Day. This crucial event will bring marriage champions like you from all across the state to rally and meet with legislators face to face. IFI has worked hard to organize this day and even arranged buses to help gather as many people as possible. Information about the buses with contact persons and other logistical information is below. And more information about the day itself can be found here.

• Tell your family and friends to make a stand for marriage by joining you in emailing, calling, and visiting your legislators. Use these buttons to forward this email to as many family and friends as possible:

This is our time to make a difference.

Standing strong with you,

Brian S. Brown

P.S. I hope you are able join the Illinois Family Institute at their Marriage Lobby Day on October 23rd. Here is the bus information if you need to arrange transportation to Springfield.

Bus Locations for Marriage Lobby Day

Buffalo Grove area
St. Mary School
10 N. Buffalo Grove Rd (intersection of Lake-Cook & Buffalo Grove) in Buffalo Grove
Contact Fred Sturgeon — 847-344-8791 or Ted Valenti — 847-910-2009
Leaving at 7:15 am (school bus) and returning from Capitol at 2:30 PM
Cost per person: $20

Chicago area
Israel Methodist Community Church
7616 Cottage Grove, Chicago
Departing at 6 am
Returning from Capitol at 2:30 pm
Contact Dr. Crawford, Pro-Life Pro-Family Coalition, (773) 960-5656 or (773) 483-1131
Cost per person: $10 (includes lunch)

Queen of All Saints Basilica
6280 N. Sauganash Ave. in Chicago
The bus leaves at 5:30 AM
Contact the Archdiocese of Chicago's Respect Life Office, 312-534-5355
Cost per person: $25 (includes lunch)

Crystal Lake area
St. Thomas The Apostle Church (176th & Oak St.) in Crystal Lake
Departing @ 6: AM and returning from Capitol @ 2:00 PM
Contact Phil Weyna, McHenry County Right to Life, 815-861-5847
Cost per person: $30

Hobby Lobby in the parking lot
6250 Northwest Hwy Crystal Lake, IL 60014
Departing at 6:00 AM and return to Crystal Lake at 6:00 PM
Register at www.truthexchange.net
Questions: Email KathyBarnette@TruthExchange.net

Lansing area
Faith Church at 100 — 81st Ave. Dyer, IN 46311
Departing at 6:30 AM (church van(s)) and returning from Capitol at 12:30 PM
Contact Bob Hofstra, 708-257-7772
Cost per person: TBA

Libertyville area
Marytown - 1600 W Park Ave. (Butterfield Rd & Rt 176) in Libertyville
Departs from Marytown at 6:00 AM and returning from Capitol at 2:00 PM
Contact Bonnie Quirke, Lake County Right to Life, 847-644-8456
Cost per person: $35

O'Fallon area
WalMart at 1530 W US Hwy 50 in O'Fallon
Departing at 8:30 AM (school bus) and returning at 4:00 PM
Contact Ken Brosh, 618-540-5960
Cost per person: $13

Western Springs Area
St. John of the Cross Catholic Church
5005 S. Wolf Road in Western Springs
Contact the Archdiocese of Chicago's Respect Life Office, 312-534-5355
Cost per person: $25 (includes lunch)

Wheaton area
Wheaton Wesleyan Church at 1300 S President St, Wheaton
Departing at 5:30 AM and returning from Capitol at 3:00 PM
Contact Dick Norton, 630-260-1135
Cost per person: $34

Freeport area
East Gate Christian Center
1650 S. Armstrong Ave. in Freeport
Contact Pastor Steve Barr at 815-541-5898
Cost per person: $5

I am against same-sex marriage, not because I hate the LGBT community — I don’t. Everyone deserves to be treated with equal respect and kindness, regardless of their sexual orientation. I am against same-sex marriage because same-sex relationships do not adhere to the definition of marriage, and there is no logical reason to redefine it.

…

The most common argument I hear is that everyone deserves to be happy with the one they love, and government should not deny anyone that right. But opponents of same-sex marriage are not proposing that same-sex couples be banned by law from choosing to have a relationship, but rather that such a union cannot be defined as marriage, because the nature of the union contradicts that of marriage.

…

As the definition of marriage broadens to mean different things and accepts different kinds of relationships, it loses its distinct identity and meaning. In this case, there is no point in recognizing marriage at all.

I am not against homosexuals having rights, but granting same-sex couples the right to marry is erroneous. Redefining marriage will deconstruct its original value. Louisiana should continue to defend the institution of marriage as outlined in the state constitution. (Read More)

It’s great to hear young people, especially on the college campus, carrying the banner for true marriage.

The unauthorized release of confidential information is a crime and those affected deserve answers, not the runaround.  What makes the situation even worse is that the law, intended to protect taxpayers, is being used as a shield for those that perpetrate this wrongdoing.  Just last year, the IRS released the confidential taxpayer information of the National Organization of Marriage. These organizations and the American people deserve the truth and the IRS must take serious action to stop the illegal leaking of confidential information.

Chairman Camp and all of our allies in the Congress understand that, no matter our differences, no one should be the target of harassment and abuse of power by government agencies. That is simply not how we do things in America.

NOM thanks Representative Camp for his courageous and steadfast leadership in holding the IRS accountable for abuses of power and identifying those responsible for leaking NOM's confidential donor information.

Here is the description from the event page:

What is marriage? Why does marriage matter? What would be the consequences of redefining marriage? These are just some of the questions Ryan T. Anderson will address in his lecture on Marriage as a Social Justice Issue.  Anderson is the William E. Simon Fellow at the Heritage Foundation and co-author of the book What Is Marriage? Man and Woman: A Defense, cited by Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito twice in his dissenting opinion on the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) case. Anderson makes a secular case for marriage without appeals to theology, revelation or morality.

The lecture will be in McCarthy Hall in the McShain Large  Conference Room (37th and O St. N.W.) from 7:00 - 9:00 PM. It is free and open to the public.

RSVP on Facebook event page here.

Regnerus shares his opinions on the research by Douglas Allen published in the Review of the Economics of the Household last week:

Every study has its limitations, and this one does too.... [but] its limitations are modest in comparison to its remarkable and unique strengths—a rigorous and thorough analysis of a massive, nationally-representative dataset from a country whose government has long affirmed same-sex couples and parenting. It is as close to an ideal test as we’ve seen yet.

The study’s publication continues the emergence of new, population-based research in this domain, much of which has undermined scholarly and popular claims about equivalence between same-sex and opposite-sex households echoed by activists and reflected in recent legal proceedings about same-sex marriage.

Read Professor Regnerus' full piece here.

Pope Francis urged youth today to have the “courage” to get married and have children despite a culture that emphasizes “individual rights” over family.

The pope made the remarks in Assisi during an energetic question and answer session with a number of young people.

[...]

The pope pointed out that marriage is a "real vocation, just like priesthood and religious life are. Two Christians who marry each other have recognized in their love story the Lord's call, the vocation to form one flesh, one life from the two, male and female" [emphasis added].

Read more here.

Dear Marriage Supporter,

Same-sex 'marriage' radicals are at it again... the latest example comes from Chicago.

In what Laurie Higgins of the Illinois Family Institute called "a stunning admission" openly homosexual Democratic State Representative Greg Harris of Chicago, outright admitted in a public debate that the proposed law in Illinois redefining marriage did NOT provide religious liberty or conscience protections for individual Christian business owners.

Higgins' article continued, saying that "it was clear that both he and homosexual Chicago Alderman Deb Mell (a former state representative and co-sponsor of SB 10) oppose any such protections." (emphasis added).

Earlier this year, when trying to force the bill through the legislature, Alderman Mell claimed that warnings about future religious persecution were dishonest "scare tactics."

And so the script repeats... promise that nothing will change when marriage is redefined while knowing that religious liberties will be necessarily suppressed and people of faith are sure to be punished.

Won't you please make an immediate, generous donation of $35, $50, $100, $500 or even $1,000 to NOM right away to help us expose the lies upon which the movement to redefine marriage is based?

Remember, if you donate today, your gift will be matched, dollar-for-dollar by a generous donor who has pledged to match every donation to NOM before the end of the year, up to $1,000,000!

It's especially important to act now because the past few months have seen numerous examples of the kind of anti-religious abuse that will increase as same-sex marriage becomes more widespread.

In Washington state, a florist had to file a counter-suit against the state attorney general, after being charged with a violation of the state Consumer Protection Act for refusing to provide flowers for a same-sex wedding.

In Minnesota, the Department of Human Rights recently released new rules governing individuals who believe in traditional marriage. Despite many, many promises to the contrary when pushing the marriage redefinition bill through the legislature, they decreed that "the law does not exempt individuals, businesses, nonprofits, or the secular business activities of religious entities from non-discrimination laws based on religious beliefs regarding same-sex marriage."

And the worst part? None of this is accidental! It's by design!

Please consider making an urgently needed donation of $35, $50, $100, $500 or even $1,000 to NOM today to help us defend marriage and religious liberty wherever they are threatened.

I want you to read what Chai R. Feldblum, a professor of Law at Georgetown Law School, and an Obama appointee to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), has to say:

"I believe the burden on religious people that will be caused by granting gay people full equality will be justified. . . That is because I believe granting liberty to gay people advances a compelling government interest, that such an interest cannot be adequately advanced if 'pockets of resistance' to a societal statement of equality are permitted to flourish, and hence that a law that permits no individual exceptions based on religious beliefs will be the least restrictive means of achieving the goal of liberty for gay people."

Can you believe that?! Religious liberty is a guaranteed right under the US Constitution; gay marriage obviously is not. Yet in left speak, our constitutionally guaranteed religious liberty to live out our faith in our daily lives is a "pocket of resistance" to a "compelling government interest" to establish a "societal statement of equality!"

In other words... my belief and yours... my Church's teaching and yours... that marriage is the union of one man and one woman... is contrary to the interests of government and must be suppressed!

Won't you please help us put a stop to this insanity by making a generous donation right away?

This is even taking place in states where the laws on marriage recognize it as the union of one man and one woman! Consider:

• Albuquerque, NM: In August, the New Mexico Supreme Court ruled it was illegal for a photographer to refuse to accept clients celebrating a same-sex commitment ceremony. The case is being appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
• Gresham, OR: Also in August, a same-sex couple filed a discrimination complaint against a bakery that refused to decorate a wedding cake for their celebration. Oregon Labor Commissioner Brad Avakian announced that the goal of the law is to "rehabilitate" offending business owners, rather than shut down their businesses.
• Denver, CO: In a claim brought to the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, a baker faces up to one year in jail for refusing to decorate a wedding cake for a same-sex wedding ceremony.

NOM is working all across the country to wake people up to the fact that redefining marriage poses an enormous and imminent threat to our precious religious liberties. But we need your help to reach more people and build the grassroots coalition needed to stop these abuses in their tracks.

Please click here right away to support NOM's work to defend marriage and the religious liberties of individuals who stand up for it.

Thank you!

Faithfully,

Brian S. Brown

PS: Redefining marriage isn't about hollow claims of "equality" and "civil rights." It's about changing the core, foundational institution in our society — turning it into a vehicle stripped of gender which exists purely for the satisfaction of adults, and away from one intrinsically ordered toward gender complementariness and geared toward the good of children.

And right now, it's the weapon of choice being used by a small but extremely well funded group of extremists in a fight to strip away our First Amendment religious freedoms. We cannot let that happen! Won't you please stand with me today by making a generous donation to NOM to advance our critical work? Remember, whatever you give today will be DOUBLED, thanks to our generous donor who established a new matching gift challenge. Help us draw a line in the sand and stand up for marriage... for the rights of children... and for our most precious religious liberties.

[An earlier version of this message misattributed statements on the Illinois Family Institute blog to the Chicago Tribune. These errors have been corrected. - Ed.]

SECTION 11 RELIGIOUS FREEDOM. Absolute freedom of conscience in all matters of religious sentiment, belief and worship, shall be guaranteed to every individual, and no one shall be molested or disturbed in person or property on account of religion;

That state continues to be at the forefront of sanctioning people of faith when it comes to same-sex marriage.  First the State sued a Christian florist, and now it has admonished a judge for simply saying he would not perform same-sex weddings due to his religious beliefs.

OLYMPIA, Wash. — A Thurston County Superior Court judge has been formally admonished for saying he wouldn’t perform gay marriages.

Judge Gary Tabor first made the comments during an administrative meeting shortly before Washington’s gay marriage law took effect late last year. He told colleagues he wasn’t comfortable performing same-sex weddings and asked if other judges would do it in his stead. (Read More)

So we ask, “What does ‘Absolute freedom of conscience in all matters of religious sentiment…’actually mean in Washington State?”

Using Canadian census data, a very large and therefore representative database, Canadian professor Douglas Allen of Simon Frazier University finds that children raised by intact, married biological parents do better than children raised by same-sex couples.

So once again science confirms the truth about the importance of marriage that the wisdom of the ages and common sense have always told us: marriage matters because kids need and deserve a mom and a dad. Redefining marriage, though, means that kids as a norm will be denied at least one of these parents' vital role in their lives - and there are consequences, whether we like it or not. Facts are stubborn things.

Dear Marriage Supporter,

Well, the big news this week of course is the lawsuit that NOM filed just yesterday against the Internal Revenue Service for unlawful disclosure by one or more IRS employees of our confidential tax return information, including the identities of our major donors. Worse, the information went to our chief political opponent — the terribly mis-named Human Rights Campaign — whose president was a national co-chair of President Obama's reelection campaign.

If you need to catch up on that story, or wish to keep best appraised of its developments moving forward, your best resource is the NOMblog, under the subject tag IRS. Click here to read all about it!

But you should also be sure to check out the case page set up by NOM's legal representatives at ActRight Legal Foundation. There you'll find the actual case filings, including the exhibits of 'smoking gun' evidence and other pertinent artifacts — all available for download, at www.ActRightLegal.org/NOM-v-IRS.

But there's plenty else still happening this week having to do with marriage, and here are the top items of interest in case you missed any of it:

UK Reveals SSM to Be a Political Loser

From across the pond, recent news reveals that two-thirds of Members of Parliament believe that supporting marriage redefinition is a 'vote loser.' And now, Prime Minister Cameron himself is expressing "regret" for "forcing" marriage redefinition through the Parliament.

In the US, the same is true, whatever the complicit media tries to prove to the contrary. The fact is that nearly two-thirds of the American people are against redefining marriage. Marriage significantly outperformed (by an average of seven points) the Republican presidential ticket in last November's elections, as well — in all four states that had ballot issues dealing with marriage. Conservative pundits and politicians here should take note: support for marriage is strong, and a platform built around that plank is a firm political footing.

In Congress

This week, we’re still working to have as many people as possible write their federal legislators to express their support for two hugely important pieces of legislation coming up this term:

The Marriage and Religious Freedom Act

Congressman Raul Labrador of Idaho, along with 60 co-sponsors, is offering this critical bill to protect all organizations, religious or otherwise, that believe marriage to be the union of one man and one woman from having their tax-exempt status stripped by the IRS.

This legislation will protect religious liberty in a very crucial way, allowing organizations to communicate their views about marriage without threat of reprisals via the tax code.

Marriage Amendment

And the other critical piece of legislation is the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment, sponsored by Representative Tim Huelskamp and a host of others. Has your Congressman joined the coalition yet to enshrine marriage once and for all in our Constitution and protect this precious institution for the good of all future generations?

Marriage Battles Around the Nation

New Jersey

We told you last week about the New Jersey Superior Court judge who brazenly handed down an activist ruling that the state should begin conducting same-sex marriages.

Since then, Governor Christie has pledged that his administration will appeal this egregious ruling — a pledge that deserves all our thanks.

But those of you who live in the Garden State also need to let the legislature know today that it's more critical than ever that they commit to defending marriage and letting the people exercise their right to vote to define marriage constitutionally in New Jersey.

Illinois

Later this month — on October 23rd, in Springfield — local leaders are hosting the second Defend Marriage Lobby Day.

The event website explains the success the pro-marriage movement has had there in keeping the legislature from committing to bringing a vote on SB-10 (an act that would redefine marriage); but they note that this day is all the more important as the veto session approaches:

Over the past seven months, we have been busy contacting churches in key districts. Thousands of religious leaders from across the state have responded, voicing their opposition to marriage redefinition to local state lawmakers. They have urged their members to stand for God-ordained marriage. And as a result, YOU stepped forward. Perhaps for the first time. Thank you! But we need you to do it again, for as long as this issue is on the minds of those who are in power to pass laws.

If you live in Illinois, plan to attend this great event if you are able. And in the meantime, take some time to email the legislature and remind them where you stand on SB-10!

This week we remember that our elected officials, whether local or state or federal, work for us — for, as Lincoln put it, ours is a "government of the people, by the people, for the people." So please continue to stand with us as together we hold our government accountable: executives, legislators, judges, and — yes — tax administrators.

Faithfully yours,

Brian S. Brown

Even while NOM battles on the national stage with the IRS, the battle to protect marriage in Illinois continues on.  Our friends at the Illinois Family Institute are calling all marriage champions from all over Illinois to “Flock to the Capitol” on October 23^rd for the Defend Marriage Lobby Day.

CHILDREN will be taught implicitly and explicitly that mothers and fathers are interchangeable and that mothers or fathers are expendable…

CHILDREN need, deserve, and have a right to both a mother and a father. Social science research consistently demonstrates that children with both a mother and father fare better than do motherless or fatherless children. Mothers and fathers bring critical and different components to child-rearing. Purposely placing children in fatherless or motherless homes is tragic and will have negative consequences for future generations. Most societal ills can be traced to the breakdown of the natural family. Redefining family and marriage to include two people of the same sex will only further weaken marriage, family, and ultimately society.

They’ve even produced a 2-minute video for you to show in your church promoting this important day.

They're also helping to arrange buses to Springfield from across the region.  We encourage you to take the time on October 23rd to stand for marriage in Springfield, Illinois.

The same can be said in America.  Despite the droning drumbeat of the mainstream media, nearly two-thirds – 65 percent – of Americans disapprove of redefining marriage.

During the November 2012 elections, true marriage out-polled the Romney campaign in all four states marriage was on the ballot – by double digit margins!

It seems English politicians have already learned what the GOP in America – and all its candidates – need to grasp.  Defending marriage as one man and one woman is a winning issue at the polls.

This week Governor Christie reiterated his position that the definition of marriage should be left to the people and at the same time appealed the Court’s ruling and asked for a stay while the appeal is considered.

Finally today, a new, pro-marriage coalition – New Jersey Coalition to Preserve and Protect Marriage – held a press conference to announce itself and its plans for defending marriage and religious liberties in New Jersey.

Among their points are letting the people vote on marriage and challenging the legislature to take whatever action it is planning BEFORE the November elections so the voters will know where their representatives stand when they go to the polls in November.

Dear Marriage Supporter,

I have some breaking news for you! Today, NOM filed suit against the IRS over the leak of our confidential tax documents from their offices and to discover how these documents got into the hands of our chief political opponent, the Human Rights Campaign in March 2012.

It's a felony to release or receive confidential tax returns. NOM's case has garnered a lot of attention throughout the course of this year — especially following our chairman Professor John Eastman's explosive testimony before the House Ways and Means Committee this past June. We have been working hard to make sure that not only our rights, but every American's rights, to freedom of speech and association are protected as they should be.

Unfortunately, despite our efforts and the efforts of several members of Congress, the IRS and Obama Administration continue to every request to get to the bottom of this crime and hold accountable to the American people those responsible for this deed. That's why our lawsuit is so important, not only for our case, but for anyone who has been harassed and targeted over their political beliefs. As Dr. Eastman explains in his op-ed today on FoxNews.com, "The politicization of the IRS... is a dangerous development, a threat to the liberty of every citizen, and it needs to be stopped. NOM's suit is an important step in that effort."

Dr. Eastman writes,

It was March of 2012. Marriage was on the ballot in 5 states that year: North Carolina in May; and Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, and Washington in November. Those seeking to redefine marriage had an uphill battle. 32 states had voted since 2004 to reaffirm the traditional definition of marriage by large margins, and no State had voted to approve same0sex ‘marriage.' But campaigns of intimidation and harassment against donors to the traditional marriage cause and its flagship organization, the National Organization for Marriage, had begun to take its toll. The Human Rights Campaign ("HRC"), NOM's principal opponent in these political battles, even had a website, "NOM Exposed," designed to publicly identify NOM and its supporters and donors so they and their businesses could be harassed. But HRC wanted more. They wanted access to NOM's confidential list of donors, lists that NOM is required to file with the IRS but are not public information.

Magically, soon after their president was named a national Co-Chair of the Obama Releection campaign, the HRC got what they wanted. It's an established fact that the information originated with the IRS.

That leak of confidential information had its desired effect. Dr. Eastman explains:

The campaign of harassment and intimidation that had been tried and perfected in the fight over California's Proposition 8 could now begin again in the 2012 election cycle. That effort succeeded. Donations to NOM and to the ballot campaigns then underway became increasingly hard to come by, to the point that the same-sex marriage forces were able to outspend NOM and its allies by more than $20 million dollars (a nearly 4 to 1 advantage) in the 4 States where marriage was on the ballot in November 2012, resulting in the first electoral losses for traditional marriage ever.

What happened at the IRS concerning the illegal leak of our confidential tax return and donor information is the most serious example to date of the kinds of intimidation tactics that same-sex marriage activists use to bully folks and try to scare us from the public square.

And yet it's been eighteen months since the illegal disclosure of our 2008 Form 990 Schedule B which eventually made its way into the hands of the Human Rights Campaign... and no charges have been filed, nor any demonstration made of what internal investigations into the matter involved or discovered. In fact, the IRS claims that releasing the name of the culprit is illegal on the basis of the very same federal statute that was violated in the leak! Talk about an Orwellian irony!

An organization with the power and reach of the IRS must be held to account for the scandal of political targeting, or else our treasured First Amendment rights run the risk of becoming worth less than the parchment they're written on.

So, we'll be fighting the IRS in court to get to the bottom of this matter. This lawsuit goes hand-in-hand with one of our central beliefs as Americans: the belief that no one should ever have reason to be afraid to exercise his or her freedom to speak, write, act, donate, or vote on behalf of the common sense principle that marriage is the union of one man and one woman.

The Human Rights Campaign has a notorious record of intimidation and bullying. Pro-marriage individuals are targeted by HRC and others — such as the Southern Poverty Law Center — with all kinds of charged and libelous rhetoric — such as "hate speech" and "hate groups" — in the hopes that they will feel too threatened and frightened to express their views publicly.

The most flagrant instance of what this kind of uncivil behavior can lead to was seen last August, when Floyd Corkins used the SPLC's "hate map" to compile a list of organizations that he hoped to target in a murderous shooting spree. But for the heroic actions of a security guard at his first target — the Washington headquarters of the Family Research Council — there's no imagining what the tragic results might have been.

Of course, Corkins' deadly plans are an instance of extremism. But extremism is no stranger to the HRC. Their stock in trade is bullying, harassment and intimidation. (See their disgusting website, NOM Exposed, for an example.)

One way or another, the HRC is not going to be able to just ignore the felony that has occurred. They are going to have to answer how they came into possession of a confidential tax return and donor information — information that unquestionably originated with the IRS itself — at the very time their president was raising millions of dollars for President Obama's reelection campaign as a national co-chair.

I say "one way or another" — that's because, in addition to the suit we've just filed, there are others looking into this matter. Just this past Friday, the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee's chairman Darrell Issa announced that his committee would be holding an investigation into the IRS's malfeasances as well. In a statement to NRO's The Corner, Issa said:

This information will give us a better sense of why these groups faced delays, what questions they were asked, and what sort of communications were occurring within the IRS in regards to the inappropriate delays and the apparently politically driven leak.

"The truth will come to light," said Shakespeare. But sometimes it needs a little help, and we're going to give it all we can to ensure that the truth of this matter is exposed for the American people. The protection of our core liberties demands nothing less.

As I said, this case is not just about NOM, but about every American's right to the freedoms of speech, religion, and association. I'm glad we've finally filed this critical suit, but NOM still needs to press forward, not just with the case, but with the marriage battles across the country — New Jersey, Illinois, Hawaii, and in Congress. Please consider a generous donation to NOM today to help us win these fights. And remember, now is a great time to make a gift because your generosity will be matched dollar for dollar, up to $1 million.

Thank you for your faithfulness to NOM and the unique and critical institution of marriage.

Faithfully yours,

Brian S. Brown

As part of the shutdown of the Federal government, the National Taxpayer Advocate Service (TAS) - which describes itself as "Your Voice at the IRS" - has shuttered its doors, and this has potential ominous consequences for citizens. Forbes reports:

Shutting down TAS could have some serious consequences, according to [the service's head, Nina Olsen]. With our voice at the IRS cut off, “the government can harm the taxpayer with impunity and the taxpayer has no redress”.... According to Olson, the advocate service routinely handles cases from distraught taxpayers who threaten suicide if their disputes with the IRS cannot be resolved expeditiously, as well as cases in which a lien on property ties up funds a taxpayer needs for lifesaving medical help. Apparently, the entire lien process has not been shut down.

You can read the full story here.

And if anyone knows the importance of having an avenue of redress when it comes to dealing with the IRS, it's the subject of the other story worth noting today: Dr. Ben Carson.

According to The Washington Times:

Just months after he gave a speech earlier this year that challenged America’s leadership in President Obama’s presence, Dr. Ben Carson was targeted by IRS agents who requested to review his real estate holdings and then conducted a full audit without finding any wrongdoing.

“I guess it could be a coincidence, but I never had been audited before and never really had any encounters with the IRS,” Dr. Carson said in an interview Thursday.... “But it certainly would make one suspicious because we know now the IRS has been used for political purposes and therefore actions like this come under suspicion.”

Go read more about Dr. Carson's situation, and let's hope that this powerful agency finally faces appropriate scrutiny and is held accountable to the American people.

Today NOM filed suit against the IRS for the criminal release of its confidential tax information which included dozens of names of major donors.  NOM’s chairman, Professor John Eastman has published an op-ed on Foxnews.com describing the issue:

Wherever one stands on the marriage issue, we should all be able to agree that the people responsible for these abuses by the IRS must be held to account.  The IRS is simply too powerful, with too much access to our most private information, to become a tool in the political fights of the day.

We have been down this road before.  One of the Articles of Impeachment that had been drawn up against President Richard Nixon before he resigned in 1974 charged that Nixon “endeavored to obtain from the Internal Revenue Service, in violation of the constitutional rights of citizens, confidential information contained in income tax returns for purposes not authorized by law.”  Yet the Department of Justice, the Inspector General at the Treasury Department, and the Internal Revenue Service itself have all circled the wagons to protect the felon or felons who illegally disclosed NOM’s tax return.

So today, NOM is filing suit against the IRS, as permitted by federal law, to obtain compensation for the injuries it suffered as a result of these felonies.

Read Dr. Eastman's entire piece here.

“We can prove that NOM’s confidential tax return was released by the IRS and went to our chief political opponent. This is a federal crime.” — Brian Brown, NOM president —

Washington, D.C. — Today, the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) announced it has filed a lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service seeking damages over the illegal release of the organization’s 2008 confidential tax return which went to the Human Rights Campaign, America’s leading marriage opponent whose president was a national co-chair for President Obama’s reelection campaign.

“We have irrefutable proof that NOM’s confidential tax return was released by the Internal Revenue Service and went to the number one opponent of marriage, the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) whose president was a national co-chair of President Obama’s reelection campaign. The HRC promptly published it and released it to the media,” said Brian Brown, NOM’s president. “This is a federal crime. Worse, the confidential information contained in the illegally leaked documents included the identity of dozens of our major donors and the HRC used this confidential donor information to harass our donors. This is a chilling set of circumstances that should ring alarm bells across the nation.”

The lawsuit, The National Organization for Marriage, Inc. v. The United States of America, Internal Revenue Service was filed in federal district court in the Eastern District of Virginia. NOM is represented by ActRight Legal Foundation, NOM Chairman John Eastman, Cleta Mitchell, of counsel to ActRight Legal Foundation and Jason Torchinsky of Holtzman, Vogel & Josefiak, PLLC.

“There are many emerging examples of how the IRS has targeted conservative groups, but what’s happened with the release of NOM’s confidential tax return to a group that fights marriage at every turn, and which was headed by President Obama’s national reelection campaign co-chair is in a special category of abuse and concern,” said John Eastman, NOM’s Chairman.

“So far the IRS and Obama Administration officials have stonewalled our every attempt to get information or answer basic questions about who knew what inside the IRS and who in the Obama administration had any information or involvement in this crime. Our lawsuit will be a powerful tool in ending the stonewalling and getting the truth to the American people.”

NOM called on the Congress to continue to pressure the IRS, Treasury Department and other officials to disclose what they know about who is responsible for the illegal leaking of NOM’s tax return and confidential donor identity information, which was then published by the Human Rights Campaign.

“The American people are entitled to answers about who at the IRS is responsible for this crime, and whether anyone in the Administration, White House, or Obama Reelection campaign had any information about or involvement in the crime,” said Brown. “We urge Congress to continue to pursue an investigation, including putting the appropriate government and HRC officials under oath and subpoenaing documents to get to the bottom of this matter.”

###

To schedule an interview with Brian Brown, President of the National Organization for Marriage, please contact Elizabeth Ray (x130), eray@crcpublicrelations.com, or Matille Thebolt (x143), mthebolt@crcpublicrelations.com, 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).

Dinan spoke to attorney Cleta Mitchell of ActRight Legal Foundation which is handling NOM's case. She said:

Somebody did this deliberately and it was planned, and we need to know who it was. The IRS needs to pay. Ultimately, the IRS is responsible for the damages.

Dinan also quotes NOM's chairman, Dr. John Eastman, explaining how the fact that the leaked documents had internal IRS markings on that that had been hidden makes for a compelling case:

It suggests to me that this thing was deliberate and at high levels — head of the division, a political appointee, somebody. And darn it, we’re going to find out who did it, and we’re going to wrap it up with a bow and send it over to the Justice Department and keep the pressure on.

You can read Dinan's entire piece here.

And don't forget that you can hear John Eastman and Cleta Mitchell both speaking today at The Heritage Foundation as part of their ongoing series, Preserve the Constitution.

The event will be live-streamed from 12:00pm - 1:00pm EDT, and you can sign up for an email reminder here.

Oh, and the topic of the event? "Political Speech and the IRS: Protecting the First Amendment." Surely, this one is not to be missed!

The one hour presentation will take place: Thursday October 3rd, from Noon — 1 PM EDT To register to live stream the one hour event, click here

Religious-rights advocates argue that the Constitution affords people the right to abstain from a ceremony that violates their religious beliefs. "It's an evisceration of our freedom of association," said John Eastman, the chairman of the National Organization for Marriage, a group opposed to legalizing same-sex marriage.

Cleta Mitchell Partner, Foley & Lardner

The First Amendment was intended to protect political speech and encourage participation in the political life of the nation. Campaign finance laws implemented over the past four decades have imposed various restrictions on political speech as have tax laws as they have been interpreted by the Internal Revenue Service. Congress is now conducting an investigation of the possible targeting by the IRS of conservative tea party and other groups because of their political views and beliefs, and lawsuits are pending over the unauthorized disclosure of sensitive donor and tax information by the IRS. Did the IRS unfairly target certain organizations? What is the status of their claims and the investigation? How far can the government go in balancing the interests of preventing public corruption with encouraging open and spirited political debate? Do IRS tax rules need to be changed to protect the First Amendment rights of advocacy organizations? Do current campaign finance rules restrict political speech and discourage participation by citizens and associations? Three experts, including a lawyer representing conservative organizations, the head of an advocacy group targeted by unauthorized disclosures, and a former chairman of the Federal Election Commission, will discuss these issues. The panel will be moderated by a former FEC commissioner.

We’ve been saying for years that one of the first casualties when you redefine marriage are our first amendment rights of religious liberty, free speech, and association.  Now even the mainstream media has picked up on the growing list of attacks on the rights of businessmen and woman who wish to run their enterprises by the tenets of their faith.  The Wall Street Journal reported,

As more states permit gay couples to marry or form civil unions, wedding professionals in at least six states have run headlong into state antidiscrimination laws after refusing for religious reasons to bake cakes, arrange flowers or perform other services for same-sex couples.

The issue gained attention in August, when the New Mexico Supreme Court ruled that an Albuquerque photography business violated state antidiscrimination laws after its owners declined to snap photos of a lesbian couple's commitment ceremony.

Similar cases are pending in Colorado, Illinois, New York, Oregon and Washington, and some experts think the underlying legal question—whether free-speech and religious rights should allow exceptions to state antidiscrimination laws—could ultimately wind its way to the U.S. Supreme Court. (Read more)

However, there is a easier way to resolve this issue than going to the US Supreme Court – Don’t Redefine Marriage in the first place.

Dear Marriage Supporter,

You may have missed it since the news just came through on Friday, but House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa announced that he is officially investigating how NOM's confidential tax files were stolen from within the IRS and provided to the Human Rights Campaign.

This is fantastic news... not just for NOM — but for every group targeted by the Obama administration and the IRS.

And this is especially good news for the American people who are rightfully concerned about abuse of power and political targeting by operatives inside the IRS, and the failure of the Department of Treasury and other enforcement agencies to hold those responsible to account.

NOM has worked closely with Chairman Issa and the House Oversight Committee for many months to ensure they have all the information and legal authority they need, including confidentiality waivers, to compel the IRS and the Treasury Department to cooperate with the Committee's investigation.

As Chairman Issa told National Review Online last week:

These waivers allow the committee to get information the IRS is currently withholding. This information will give us a better sense of why these groups faced delays, what questions they were asked, and what sort of communications were occurring within the IRS in regards to the inappropriate delays and the apparently politically driven leak.

After months of delay, denial and outright refusal by the IRS and the Treasury Department, it looks like we may finally get answers to the obvious questions that have been repeatedly asked!

It's absurd that we even have to go through such extreme lengths to have our fundamental rights protected instead of pushed aside by politicians playing partisan politics. But that's the reality of our situation right now...

... and it will only get worse if gay 'marriage' advocates and opponents of our precious religious liberties continue unabated.

If you have the means, won't you help us stand up to this egregious abuse of power by making a donation today of $35, $50, $100, $500 or even $1,000 to support NOM's work defending marriage, religious liberties and the basic rights of every American?

Thank you!

Faithfully,

Brian S. Brown

Issa and subcommittee chairman Jim Jordan notified Treasury Department inspector general Russell George and Internal Revenue Service acting administrator Danny Werfel in letters dated September 26 that the National Organization for Marriage, the conservative group founded in opposition to the legalization of gay marriage, and a handful of tea-party groups have signed waivers allowing senior stafff on the committee to access their tax return information. “With the authority granted by these waivers,” they write, “we request that you produce all documents and communications referring or relating” to the applications and their review within the agency.

Johnson quotes a statement from Representative Issa that explains the scope of the investigation. According to Issa, "This information will give us a better sense of why these groups faced delays, what questions they were asked, and what sort of communications were occurring within the IRS in regards to the inappropriate delays and the apparently politically driven leak."

We look forward to the Committee's findings.

The latest agency to ignore the majority of states’ laws on this topic is the Department of Labor. Last week, DOL issued guidance informing all private employers across the nation that they must now extend spousal health and retirement benefits organized under the Employment Income Retirement Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) to same-sex spouses—even if they live in a state that does not recognize same-sex “marriage”…

If you’re a shop owner who is willing to hire any individual, no matter their sexual orientation, but who believes in natural marriage and only wishes to extend spousal benefits to those traditionally married couples, how will you comply with federal law?...

In addition to the burden this places on private employers, the Labor guidance continues to trample on the will of the American people in most states who have maintained laws respecting only natural marriages. (Read more here.)

Dear Marriage Supporter,

It's been a very busy week on every level in the defense of marriage and religious freedom — from the City Council in Richmond, VA to the United States Congress, marriage champions like you have been called upon to stand for the truth of God's design for marriage and family. And you have responded heroically as always. Thank you.

I am so encouraged when I see pastors standing on the steps of a city hall opposing proposed legislation that would undermine true marriage, and that is what we saw yesterday in Richmond, VA. Through the efforts of these pastors — and your letters, emails, and calls — the Richmond City Council again delayed a vote on the controversial ordinance.

And I am also thrilled when our representatives in Congress stand up for the truth and introduce laws that protect people like you and me who refuse to be cowed in our belief in marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Congressman Raul Labrador and over sixty of his colleagues have introduced the Marriage and Religious Freedom Act to make sure that the IRS cannot use its power to harass or punish people or organizations who believe in true marriage. And you've responded with spades of encouragement for those cosponsoring the bill, and loads of pressure for those not doing so to get on board.

Let's keep up the good work. Your voices are making a difference in the halls of power, and NOM is proud to stand with you.

Breaking News!

Just today a New Jersey Superior Court judge handed down a ruling that purportedly requires the state to redefine marriage to impose same-sex 'marriage' on the state.

This is another outrageous example of judicial activism. An activist judge has overreached her authority and chosen to impose same-sex 'marriage' on the entire state of New Jersey. Judge Jacobson has trampled on the right of the people of New Jersey to define marriage, a right that the Supreme Court has upheld in the very case she misuses to redefine marriage.

The New Jersey state judge applied her own reading of the US Supreme Court's decision in Windsor v United States to find that the state's law defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman must be changed. However, the Windsor decision declined to impose same-sex marriage on the nation and instead upheld the right of states to define marriage for themselves.

This is a gross abuse of power that cannot be allowed to stand. We urge Governor Chris Christie to appeal this lower court ruling immediately. It's essential that a single lower court judge not be allowed to impose her own views of marriage on the entire state.

No matter the immediate outcome of this case, we must keep calling and emailing the State Legislature demanding that they not override Governor Christie's veto of an earlier same-sex 'marriage' bill. See below for more information.

IN CONGRESS

The Marriage and Religious Freedom Act

Introduced by Congressman Raul Labrador of Idaho, along with 60 co-sponsors, the Marriage and Religious Freedom Act protects organizations who believe that marriage is the union of one man and one woman from having their tax-exempt status stripped by the IRS.

This is a critical piece of legislation to protect religious liberty as a cornerstone of our country and deserves our full support. Efforts to redefine marriage pose a direct threat to the free exercise of religion. This legislation would protect the right of organizations to communicate their views about marriage without threat that the tax code will be used to punish them.

Jorgenson for Congress

Congressmen like Raul Labrador need more allies, and one man who would stand with them in the defense of marriage and religious liberties is Kirk Jorgenson, who is running for Congress in California.

Kirk Jorgensen urgently needs your help before the September 30th FEC filing deadline... because not only is he fighting against California Democrats... he is fighting against the pro-abortion, pro-gay 'marriage' RINO, Carl DeMaio for his own party's nomination!

One of the most frustrating things I see is Republicans being pressured, bullied and cowed into silence by a small but powerful faction trying to GUT the Republican Party of its traditional principles and values. We need leadership in Washington that will stand for the values that made this country great —for marriage, for life, and for family! Kirk Jorgenson will be one of those leaders. Please help him out today!

Marriage Amendment

If elected, Kirk Jorgenson will join other principled leaders like Congressmen Labrador and Huelskamp. You'll recall that in the wake of the awful Supreme Court rulings this summer, Congressman Tim Huelskamp of Kansas introduced a resolution for a Constitutional amendment to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman. This resolution continues to garner support in the House, however we can do more to urge our Representatives to sign on to this resolution and move it towards a vote.

Meanwhile In the States

Illinois

You may have heard media reports in the past week that the sponsors of the same-sex 'marriage' bill in Springfield are reconsidering their strategy of calling the bill for a vote during the veto session this fall. This is good news, but we can't let up yet.

We need to keep the pressure on legislators so there can be no doubt in their minds that the people of Illinois do not want marriage redefined. Keep calling — keep writing — keep visiting — and get your family and friends to do the same.

New Jersey

In the Garden State, the drum beat is getting louder. Same-sex marriage activists are working hard to rally the votes required to override Governor Christi's veto of a bill (2012-S1) that would have redefined marriage in New Jersey.

The people of New Jersey need to be heard in this matter, and—as Governor Christie himself has said—they should be allowed to vote directly on the issue of marriage. At the very least, they must be heard by their elected representatives so that these lawmakers follow the will of the people who sent them to Trenton to work on their behalf.

Hawaii

And we can't forget about Hawaii, way out there in the Pacific. As you recall, their Governor has called a special session specifically in an attempt to pass legislation to redefine marriage. NOM is working hard with allies on the ground to mobilize grassroots marriage champions.

There are already a lot of misrepresentations being made to the people of Hawaii about this battle. For example, Governor Abercrombie claims that he has the votes to pass same-sex marriage. We have heard this before. In Illinois they claimed they had the votes, but when it got to it, they didn't and never even brought the bill up for a vote.

So don't believe claims that we've already lost — in fact, we've only just begun to fight! Claiming victory before the battle has even begun is an old political trick to dishearten us. We won't fall for that gambit.

Through all these battles I'm proud to stand with you. These are fights we can win if we stand together and do not grow weary. We know the Truth — God's Truth — that marriage is the sacred union of a man and woman, designed specifically for the good of children. We won't give up the fight.

Faithfully yours,

Brian S. Brown

PA Pastor fired for marrying gay couple Where's NOM? @maggiemarriage @briansbrown What about "Religious Freedom?" http://t.co/FWoqJq2Stg

— Fred Karger (@fredkarger) September 26, 2013

So I replied:

@fredkarger this IS #religiousfreedom: the congregation is free to choose its pastor based on its beliefs, and he is free to go elsewhere.

— Brian S. Brown (@briansbrown) September 27, 2013

“This is another outrageous example of judicial activism. An activist judge has overreached her authority and chosen to impose same-sex ‘marriage’ on the entire state of New Jersey.” — Brian Brown, NOM president —

Washington, DC — This afternoon the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) denounced today’s ruling by a New Jersey Superior Court judge that purportedly requires the state to redefine marriage to impose same-sex ‘marriage’ on the state.

“This is another outrageous example of judicial activism. An activist judge has overreached her authority and chosen to impose same-sex ‘marriage’ on the entire state of New Jersey,” stated Brian Brown, NOM’s president. “Judge Jacobson has trampled on the right of the people of New Jersey to define marriage, a right that the Supreme Court has upheld in the very case she misuses to redefine marriage.”

The New Jersey state judge applied her own reading of the US Supreme Court’s decision in Windsor v United States to find that the state’s law defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman must be changed. However, the Windsor decision declined to impose same-sex marriage on the nation and instead upheld the right of states to define marriage for themselves.

“This is a gross abuse of power that cannot be allowed to stand,” said Brown. “We urge Governor Chris Christie to appeal this lower court ruling immediately. It’s essential that a single lower court judge not be allowed to impose her own views of marriage on the entire state.”

###

To schedule an interview with Brian Brown, President of the National Organization for Marriage, please contact Elizabeth Ray (x130), eray@crcpublicrelations.com, or Matille Thebolt (x143), mthebolt@crcpublicrelations.com, 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).

The Heritage Foundation's Ryan T. Anderson explores some of these costs, the true meaning and nature of marriage in his recent report The Social Costs of Abandoning the Meaning of Marriage.  He writes,

In recent decades, a revisionist view of marriage has eroded these norms. No-fault divorce was the first major trend to undermine a strong marriage culture. Now the effort to redefine marriage away from male-female complementarity has gone even further in abandoning the central characteristics of the institution. But if the law redefines marriage to say the male-female aspect is arbitrary, what principle will be left to retain monogamy, sexual exclusivity, or the expectation of permanency?[2] Such developments will have high social costs...

Redefining marriage to say that men and women are interchangeable, that “monogamish” relationships work just as well as monogamous relationships, that “throuples” are the same as couples, and that “wedlease” is preferable to wedlock will only lead to more broken homes, more broken hearts, and more intrusive government. Americans should reject such revisionism and work to restore the essentials that make marriage so important for societal welfare: sexual complementarity, monogamy, exclusivity, and permanency.

That’s the quote, but the truth is they gave themselves another month to think over a proposal that would redefine marriage in the City of Richmond if and when the Commonwealth of Virginia did the same.  Don’t be fooled, this seemingly innocuous proposal is not about benefits but about the definition of marriage. 

The proposed ordinance would simply be playing politics and using the bully pulpit to promote a radical agenda, inviting out-of-state influences and special interests into Virginia during a critical Gubernatorial election season.

But what gave the Council pause?  It was the noble effort of a small coalition of local faith leaders led by Bishop Darryl Husband, Bishop Leon Benjamin, and Pastor Michael Hirsch. These men stood up for marriage in front of City Hall and delivered the resounding message that marriage is the union of one man and one woman because that's the way it best serves society, and especially our society's most precious members, our children. They delivered this message boldly and clearly, and they were heard!

But you were heard as well!

NOM asked our supporters to speak truth to power on this issue, and rallying them to call, email, and visit City Council members expressing their opposition to the proposal - and hundreds of you responded!  Thank you to all who stood strong for marriage in this small but important skirmish.

Proponents of redefining marriage again have set their sights on the U.S. Supreme Court to force a new definition of marriage on every state in the country -- this time by 2015…
But the problem for those behind this plan is that the state marriage laws they are challenging do not violate the Constitution.  Maintaining the gendered definition of marriage that these states have always known falls squarely into what both the Constitution and U.S. Supreme Court precedent approve…
Some assume that the Supreme Court found a new right to same-sex marriage when it issued the Windsor decision at the end of June, but nothing could be farther from the truth.

Read more here.

This is an important piece that all marriage champions should read and share as we work to win the battle in the court of public opinion.  The redefinition of marriage is not inevitable.

Dear Marriage Supporter,

You may have heard media reports in the past week that the sponsors of the same-sex 'marriage' bill are reconsidering their strategy of calling the bill for a vote during the veto session this fall. This is good news, but we can't let up yet.

It means that your efforts — the emails, the calls, and the in-person visits to legislators — are making a difference.

If those who would redefine marriage had the votes to push through their bill, they would not be equivocating about calling the vote this fall. Despite all their money and big names, they have not yet been able to overcome the voice of the people.

However, we can't stop yet. We must keep the pressure on legislators so there can be no doubt in their minds that the people of Illinois do not want marriage redefined. Keep calling — keep writing — keep visiting — and get your family and friends to do the same.

And don't forget the Illinois Family Institute's lobbying day on Wednesday October 23. This will be a crucial opportunity for true marriage champions to join together in Springfield — before the Legislature and before the media — to take a stand for marriage.

The only way we will defeat the special interest groups with their multi-million dollar campaign and high-profile lobbyists is if we continue to stand together and make our voices heard. And so far so good — let's keep up the good work.

Finally, if you are able, please consider a generous donation to the National Organization for Marriage today.

It's a great time make a contribution because your gift will be doubled dollar-for-dollar in our $1 million matching campaign. NOM relies on gifts from people just like you to multiply your voices in the halls of power. Whether it be telephone calls to constituents, advertisements, or organizing rallies and marches — just to name a few — it is only through the generous contributions of marriage champions from across the country that NOM is able to help you make your voice heard.

We're making progress in Illinois. Your voices have given our opponents pause and caused them to begin reconsidering their strategy. But the situation in Springfield is still fluid and we can't afford to let up now. Let's continue to stand together to protect marriage in Illinois.

Faithfully yours,

Brian S. Brown

The Catholic Church has joined Southern Baptists in directing its military chaplains not to witness or bless same-sex marriages nor offer marriage counseling to gay couples.

The rules issued last week by the Archdiocese of Military Services also prohibit chaplains from acknowledging a spouse of the same gender at a retirement or promotion ceremony, or from assisting at a funeral if it would "give the impression that the Church approves of same-sex 'marital' relationships."

The guidelines also give direction on how to comply with implementing federal employee benefits for same-sex couples under their command.

You can read more here.

Unfortunately, we know that these challenges for our chaplains will only continue unless Congress acts decisively either to pass aggressive and sweeping conscience protection legislation or to undo the Court's strike against DOMA by passing a Federal Marriage Protection Amendment.

In the meantime, please join us in praying for our brave men and women in uniform and the chaplains who serve them.

New Mexico's Attorney General, Gary King, is refusing to defend New Mexico law in the courts, but thankfully others, like Governor Martinez, are stepping up to fulfill their constitutional duties.

On Monday, GOP lawmakers in the State also stepped up to the plate, filing an amicus brief in the case:

The Republican lawmakers... said anti-discrimination and equal protection guarantees in the state constitution do not provide a legal right to marriage for same-sex couples.

The lawmakers said that "the judiciary should exercise caution when asked to divine fundamental and important constitutional rights not expressly provided in the Constitution's text."

You can read more about the case here.

Dear Marriage Supporter,

As you know, NOM is engaged in fights to defend marriage in Congress as well as in states all across the country.

And one of the most frustrating things I repeatedly run in to is Republicans who are pressured, bullied and cowed into silence by a small but powerful faction that is trying to GUT the Republican Party of its traditional principles and values.

These RINO-backers are telling Party members that they shouldn't stand up for marriage... that they shouldn't even talk about marriage, or protecting innocent life from the scourge of abortion... that marriage and life are losing issues... When NOTHING could be further from the truth!

When over 60% of the voting public backs marriage at the ballot box, how on Earth can they make that claim with a straight face?

And yet, they do. The marriage issue performed an average of 7 points better than the Romney ticket did last November, and yet GOP candidates are still told to ignore marriage. And wishy-washy politicians who lack principles fall in line, abandoning marriage, life, and pro-family policies in the process.

I don't know about you, but I'm sick of it.

That's why you and I need principled leaders like Kirk Jorgensen in Congress.

Please click here today to make a donation to support Kirk's campaign.

Not only does Kirk have to fight against liberal California Democrats — he has to fight a liberal challenger from his own party!

Carl DeMaio is a career politician, running as a Republican, who has abandoned the party's platform on both marriage and life — a RINO to the core — and, worst of all, is being backed by many establishment Republicans trying to reshape the party to be more “progressive”!

Will you let them do that? Or will you stand with me today and help send a true marriage champion to Washington?

The September 30th FEC filing deadline is rapidly approaching and Kirk needs our help right away. Many of you have already given — almost 100 of you have stepped up in the past few days to make a donation — but we need to help Kirk's campaign take the next step.

We cannot miss this opportunity to send a message to the Republican-In-Name-Only establishment in Washington: WE the People reject your attempts to GUT the Republican Party of its core principles and values.

We need leadership in Washington that will stand for the values that made this country great — that will stand for marriage, for life, and for family!

And, after you have donated, please forward this email to your family and friends and ask them to help you send this true marriage champion to Washington!

Sincerely,

Brian S. Brown

P.S. The struggle for control of the Republican Party is real. A well-financed group of political operatives are working day and night trying to get the Party to abandon its values and reshape its principles. We CANNOT let that happen!

The Grassroots base of this great nation believes in marriage and we WILL NOT stand by and watch as the core values of the Republican Party are gutted. We must respond by taking advantage of this opportunity to send principled leaders like Kirk Jorgensen to Washington. Will you stand with me today in supporting Kirk by making a generous donation to his campaign?

Dear Marriage Supporter,

Same-sex marriage activists are working hard to drum up the votes required to override Governor Christie's veto of a bill (2012-S1) that would have redefined marriage in New Jersey.

While they may be working quietly and behind the scenes, you can be sure that this small but very powerful and well financed lobby is being heard by our leaders in Trenton. So now we need to make sure we get a hearing too!

Marriage is a vital and important institution in our society as it has been in every society since the foundation of the world. It is the best means by which we bring new children into the world and ensure them a happy and loving environment, by uniting their own mom and dad to them and to one another.

The people of New Jersey know this about marriage, and they deserve to be heard. Let them hear you in Trenton today: "Do not vote to override the Governor's veto! Do not vote to redefine marriage! Let the people have their say in this important and critical matter!"

The people of New Jersey need to be heard in this matter, and — as Governor Christie himself has said — they should be allowed to vote directly on the issue of marriage. At the very least, they must be heard by their elected representatives and demand that these lawmakers follow the will of the people who sent them to Trenton to work on their behalf.

So please make sure your voice is heard by your representatives today by clicking here to send an immediate and urgent message. And, after you've taken action today, use the buttons below to forward this email to your family and friends or share it on Facebook and Twitter, so that our voice for our values is heard loud and clear in Trenton today!

Well, he is back in the news again, because now - merely for speaking to the press about his ordeal - he is facing possible disciplinary action including a potential court-marshal!

Tony Perkins from Family Research Council spoke to Shannon Bream of FOXNews about the situation in an interview on Monday. He had this to say:

Under the Obama administration, it's become very difficult as a person of faith, a religious person, to simply walk out their faith.... Living your faith in the military has become like walking through a minefield.

Watch the whole interview here:

At TownHall.com, Sarah Jane Seman offers a response to a recent claim by an Illinois lawmaker that by not redefining marriage, Illinois is "missing out on [an] economic opportunity."

Seman references our friend Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse's able take-down of the arguments from economics:

[A leading report on the economic advantages of same-sex marriage] give[s] the illusion of precision, however, the entire report is incorrect because premises are flawed, Morse explained.

For example, it calculated a fiscal increase from weddings between in-state residents. This is not added money to the economy, it is merely redirecting cash. The only increase to the state budget would come from out-of-state residents.

Read the entire piece here.

And, if you're a resident of Illinois, click here to send a message to the Illinois legislature to vote against redefining marriage when they reconvene next month.

Dear Marriage Supporter:

Lawless. That's what we, as a nation, are dangerously close to becoming. And the really scary part? This is by design.

The alarming new trends in the marriage fight, based on devious tactics being employed by same-sex 'marriage' activists, are nothing short of breathtaking in their audacity.

And that's why I need you to make a financial investment in NOM today.

A generous and sacrificial donor, who believes we can win this fight, has set up a new $1,000,000 matching grant — so every dollar you give today will be matched dollar-for-dollar up to $1 MILLION. That's right — your gift will be DOUBLED to help in this fight!

Would you consider making an investment in NOM right away, to help us combat the radical lawlessness sweeping the nation and ensure that we have the resources we need to expand our efforts to defend marriage?

I've written to you about it before... the IRS... the courts... government bureaucrats... state human rights commissions... election boards... these are the preferred vehicles (along with complicit state attorneys general and activist judges) that the far left is using to circumvent the will of voters — "We the People" — and impose their radical agenda on you and me.

Why? Because gay 'marriage' activists know that the majority of Americans believe marriage is the union of one man and one woman! The majority will never go along with their radical social experiment.

But it only takes one rogue judge, one vote on a court panel, or one manipulative public official in an administration to force the redefinition of marriage on a whole state or nation.

We've won some recent victories enforcing the rule of law. For example, a judge in Pennsylvania has ordered a local clerk to stop issuing "marriage" licenses to same-sex couples in violation of state law.

But the effort sometimes resembles the game "whack-a-mole" — as soon as we win somewhere, a rogue official pops up somewhere else. Now another local government official in Pennsylvania is encouraging couples with illegal marriage licenses to come to his jurisdiction to get "married" even though the law prohibits it and the courts have ordered the lawlessness to stop.

Supporter, you know that NOM will NOT give up the fight... we will stand with you and the millions of marriage champions across the country... but we need your help to reach more and more people and voice your values in the public square and halls of power across our nation.

Won't you please respond right now by clicking this link and investing in NOM's work with your most generous, emergency contribution of $25, $50, $100, $500 or even $1,000 if you can afford it?

Among so many other battles — against the IRS, in the halls of Congress, etc. — we are working furiously in the legislatures of Illinois and New Jersey, and now Hawaii, to prevent a redefinition of marriage in the closing months of this year.

In each of these states, our opponents are amassing millions of dollars to spend against us. But we remain hopeful that gay 'marriage' can be stopped in its tracks — because our work on grassroots activism is having a definite impact.

Already in Illinois our efforts have resulted in gay-marriage activists openly questioning whether they can win this fall like they expected. This is the same group that claimed they already had the votes earlier in the year, but we helped stop them. Their comments show that we can do it again! We cannot give up the fight or let off the pressure. The voices of Illinois marriage champions at the grassroots level are making a difference — now is the time to increase them!

It's imperative that we continue to work in concert with allies to help organize a vibrant grassroots defense of marriage and inundate lawmakers in these states with appeals to preserve marriage as God designed it.

But the fact is we need your sacrificial gift today to mobilize the grassroots base of marriage supporters in these states in order to prevail. Through God's grace, a major donor will immediately match your donation, and we can deploy these resources where they are most needed.

And, as we look to next year, we expect at least three and maybe as many as SIX OR SEVEN state initiatives to be on the ballot in November 2014.

Indiana, behind the strong leadership of Governor Mike Pence, will likely have a marriage amendment before the people of the Hoosier State, and we're committed to help pass it. In Oregon and Ohio homosexual 'marriage' activists will attempt to overturn existing marriage amendments already passed by the people. The same type of measure is being threatened in Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado and Florida.

Wherever those who wish to redefine marriage are active, we must respond with a vigorous defense. We know our opponents will be committing TENS of millions of dollars to these fights.

But one generous donor on our side has laid down a challenge to you and me: if we raise $1 million dollars before the end of the year and he will match it dollar–for–dollar! Whatever you give, it will be doubled!

I need your help protecting marriage and restoring the rule of law. Please give generously and remember: your gift today will be matched up to $1 million.

Faithfully,

Brian S. Brown

P.S. We don't need to match the other side dollar-for-dollar. You see, we have 3 critical things working for us: God, the truth, and the majority of the American people! But we do need the resources to get our message out and stand up to the absurd claims and lawless actions undertaken by same-sex 'marriage' proponents.

Every single dollar you donate today will be matched by a heroic marriage supporter. Please help us take advantage of this amazing and generous opportunity by making your most generous contribution to NOM today. Thank you!

The New York Times reports:

The event at Providence College was initially planned as a solo lecture, though Mr. Corvino said he suggested that it be a debate and provided the names of several potential sparring partners. Last week, the organizers added Dana L. Dillon, a theologian at Providence College, to present a response.

But Dr. Lena, the provost, said in an interview late Monday night that the event was canceled because it was largely a platform for only one side, and that it could be rescheduled if it included a philosophy professor with experience arguing against gay marriage.

In cancelling the event, organizers cited a 2004 document from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops which stipulates that "Catholic institutions should not honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles."

The point seems to be not that Dr. Corvino is unwelcome to engage the issue or provide his perspective at the college, but that this would need to be in the context of a balanced presentation that gives the Catholic Church's position alongside. What do you think? Is this a fair application by the college of Church discipline, or too cautious?

Dear Marriage Supporter,

Yesterday, Representative Raúl Labrador (R-Id.) announced important new legislation which he will be presenting to Congress with a large bi-partisan coalition of co-sponsors: H.R. 3133, the Marriage and Religious Freedom Act.

In a press release announcing the new legislation, co-sponsoring Representative Steve Scalise (R-La.) explained the significance of this bill in the wake of the Supreme Court's June decision to overturn part of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA):

[T]he Supreme Court's ruling on marriage may embolden those in government who want to impose their views of marriage on faith-based organizations. We need this strong legislation to protect freedom of conscience for those who believe marriage is the union of one man and one woman. [Rep. Labrador's] bill does exactly that, ensuring respect and tolerance for those who affirm traditional marriage.

Along with the National Organization for Marriage, the bill enjoys the full support of several national pro-family and faith-based groups, including Heritage Action, Family Research Council, Focus on the Family, and the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, among many others!

The Marriage and Religious Freedom Act already has a strong, bi-partisan coalition of support, with over 60 initial co-sponsors. As Representative Labrador explains, "Regardless of your ideology, we can all agree about the importance of religious liberty in America…. This is not a Republican or Democrat issue."

I hope you take the few minutes required to take this important action step today. And when you're done contacting your Representative in the House, please use the buttons below to email this critical message with your family and friends or to share it on Facebook and Twitter.

Thank you for continuing to stand with us in defense of marriage and the faith communities that sustain it!

Faithfully,

Brian S. Brown

"AB1266, the co-ed bathroom law, is a horrible attempt by activists to strip society of all gender roles and uses children as a weapon in their culture war." — Brian Brown, NOM president —

Sacramento, CA — The National Organization for Marriage California (NOM) today announced that it has joined in the fight to repeal California's first-in-the-nation co-ed bathroom law, AB 1266. NOM is urging its members in California to assist in the effort to gather the nearly 505,000 required voter signatures to place the repeal on the November 2014 ballot, suspending the law until Californians can vote to reject it.

"AB1266, the co-ed bathroom law, is a horrible attempt by activists to strip society of all gender roles and uses children as a weapon in their culture war," said Brian Brown, NOM's president. "The National Organization for Marriage fully supports the efforts of the Privacy for All Students coalition to repeal this dangerous law. Opening our most vulnerable areas at school including showers, bathrooms and changing rooms to members of the opposite sex is politically-correct madness that risks the privacy and security of our children and grandchildren."

NOM has long warned that when marriage is redefined, other important social norms are soon destroyed. In June 2013, the United States Supreme Court ruled that the backers of Proposition 8 preserving marriage did not have the legal standing to bring an appeal of a lower court ruling finding traditional marriage laws to be unconstitutional, which resulted in same-sex marriage being imposed on the state in violation of the direct decision of the people themselves.

"Not even two short months after the US Supreme Court refused to uphold the right of over 7 million Californians to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman, the California Legislature passed AB 1266, the school co-ed bathroom law," said Brown. "They are forcing our school children to be exposed in showers and bathrooms to members of the opposite sex who claim a 'gender identity' with that sex. This new law doesn't prevent bullying - it is bullying. It is not about protecting kids; it damages kids."

The Privacy for All Students coalition is attempting to stop the law's implementation by gathering nearly 505,000 voter signatures by early November. The law will then be suspended until the people have the chance to reject it at the general election to be held in November 2014.

"We urge all our supporters to download a petition and to financially support the Privacy For All Students coalition effort," Brown said.

The National Organization for Marriage expects to play a significant role in getting the referendum on the ballot as it did in the Prop 8 campaign in 2008.

###

To schedule an interview with Brian Brown, President of the National Organization for Marriage, please contact Elizabeth Ray (x130), eray@crcpublicrelations.com, or Matille Thebolt (x143), mthebolt@crcpublicrelations.com, 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).

Dear Marriage Supporter,

We warned Californians during the Proposition 8 campaign that once marriage was redefined, it would open the floodgates to more proposals to use the public schools to push our opponents' activist agenda. Their ultimate goal has never been simply to have the right to "gay marriage;" it's to strip society of all gender roles. Well, true to form, that's exactly what's happening, and they're using California's school children as a weapon to wage their culture war.

Not even two short months after the US Supreme Court refused to uphold the right of over 7 million Californians to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman, the California Legislature passed AB 1266, the school co-ed bathroom law. If you haven't heard of this new law, you soon will. The law mandates that any student has the right to use the showers, restrooms and locker rooms — and play on school sports and athletic teams — of the opposite sex based on claiming "gender identity."

Stop the Madness

As bad as this is, fortunately we have an opportunity to all work together to stop this madness by qualifying a referendum to put the new law enacted by AB 1266 on the ballot, where I am confident that it will be rejected by voters.

This new law opening the most vulnerable areas of schools — showers, bathrooms and changing areas — to the opposite sex is set to start on January 1st. However, the good news is we can stop it from ever going into effect by mounting a referendum effort.

NOM California has endorsed the referendum effort to reject the co-ed shower and bathroom law, and we encourage you to join us. We've joined with the Privacy For All Students coalition to help collect the 505,000 voter signatures needed to put the new law on the ballot, and to suspend it until voters have the chance to reject it in 2014.

Please act today to download the referendum petition and begin collecting voter signatures to stop this legislation that opens school showers, bathrooms and locker rooms to members of the opposite sex.

It's Truly Outrageous!

The coalition only has until early November to collect approximately 505,000 voter signatures needed to suspend AB 1266 and give voters the right to decide if we want to overturn this outrageous law.

How bad is this new co-ed shower and bathroom law? It's truly outrageous. This new law invades the privacy of our children while they are in the most vulnerable areas of a school — showers, rest rooms and locker rooms. The law allows any student to use the facilities reserved for the opposite sex simply by asserting a vague "gender identity." The bill contains no definitions, rules, standards or guidelines. It simply creates a right for students of the opposite sex to use the most sensitive private areas at school.

Can you imagine how your daughter or granddaughter would feel having to share a shower with a male student following gym class? All the male student has to do is claim a female gender identity, and this new law gives him the absolute right to shower with female students!

Conversely, imagine a scenario where a fully-developed teenage girl decides to shower with the guys, claiming that she identifies with the male sex.

The new law is so poorly drafted that the student claiming a gender identity opposite his or her actual gender needs no evidence that he or she actually identifies with the opposite gender. There is no requirement that the person have ever presented himself or herself at school or home as the opposite gender. There's no requirement for a medical or professional evaluation. And there is no requirement that the student's parents be involved in the decision. The law is wide open for abuse.

Please help us by collecting as many signatures as you possibly can. Please also share this petition with all your friends, family and colleagues and ask them to help as well. (Before collecting signatures, please download and read the circulation instructions to make sure all the signatures you collect will be acceptable.)

I firmly believe that with this new law the homosexual movement has gone too far and exposed their agenda — and their willingness to use our children and grandchildren as tools to achieve it. The new co-ed shower and bathroom law is the only bill of its kind ever enacted in America. With your help, we can stop it by getting behind the Privacy For All Students coalition referendum effort.

This New Law Doesn’t Prevent Bullying — it is Bullying

Our opponents and the political elite will try to portray this new law as being necessary to prevent discrimination and bullying. But the fact is that California already protects so-called transgender students against bullying and discrimination, including actions based on gender, sexual orientation, gender identity and non-conforming gender appearance and behavior.

A recent statewide poll showed just how unpopular this new law is with California voters. Only 35% of voters support the law, while 51% oppose it. We never had that kind of advantage with Prop 8 — a 16 point lead — showing just how far this new law is out of the mainstream.

Please help NOM California with an urgent financial contribution as we reach out to voters across the state to spread the word and encourage citizens to sign the referendum petition. We hope to play a significant role in getting the referendum on the ballot, just as we were in helping qualify Proposition 8 back in 2008. In fact we were the largest contributor to qualifying Prop 8, and we hope to play a significant role in qualifying this referendum as well.

The time available to qualify the referendum to the ballot is short — effectively only 80 days to collect signatures. That's why no referendum has ever qualified solely by volunteers. To be successful, we need to fund a professional circulation effort to supplement the work of the volunteers.

Your contribution will help us be able to make the difference in qualifying this most urgently needed referendum. It will be used to support the effort by printing petitions, spreading the word and helping to pay for professional circulators. Please give today.

This new law doesn't prevent bullying — it is bullying. It's is not about protecting kids; it damages kids

The bill is so badly written it may actually deprive transgender students of access to targeted strategies to help them, including offering access to gender-neutral single-stall restrooms, access to faculty facilities and other strategies tailored to meet the specific needs of the individual student. Instead, the transgender student is forced into a one-size-fits all process pushed by agenda political activists.

All Kids Deserve Support and Love

God made society to be male and female because men and women are complementary, and the union of men and women is the only union that can create new life. There's no question that children thrive when they receive the love of both genders, beginning with a mother and a father. Yet some children suffer from gender confusion and deal with powerful emotions that draw them to identify with the opposite gender. Those kids deserve our support and love — we are all children of God — and certainly no child should be subjected to discrimination or bullying. But California already protects children from bullying based on gender identification. This new co-ed shower and bathroom law is about agenda politics, not helping kids.

We can stop this outrageous law in its tracks, and thwart the efforts of homosexual activists to use vulnerable children as a weapon in their culture war to redefine society. Please act today to download a referendum petition and get started immediately collecting signatures.

Please also consider making an immediate financial contribution to NOM California so that we can help reach other Californians and get them involved in the effort as well.

We can stop the gender madness coming out of Sacramento by stopping the co-ed bathroom and shower law in its tracks. Supporting the Privacy For All Students referendum against the law is something we can do today that will make a real difference for our children, grandchildren, and for generations of kids to come. Please act today.

Sincerely,

Brian S. Brown

PS — Please act today to download the petition to stop this outrageous law that jeopardizes the safety, security and privacy of vulnerable children using sensitive school facilities like showers, restrooms and locker rooms. We need to collect over 500,000 voter signatures by early November. We also urgently need your financial help to spread the word to more Californians who need to know about this terrible legislation, and to supplement our volunteer effort with professional circulators. Thank you.

Dear Marriage Supporter,

Twenty years ago, a young U.S. Marine Corps Officer took an oath to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States." He put his life on the line in an honorable career to protect our liberty and all the freedoms we hold dear. Today, he is a Republican candidate for the U.S. House of Representatives in California's 52nd district.

Kirk Jorgensen urgently needs your help before the September 30th FEC filing deadline... because not only is he fighting against California Democrats... he is fighting against the pro-abortion, pro-gay 'marriage' RINO, Carl DeMaio for his own party's nomination!

We cannot sit this one out!

This race is about so much more than an individual seat in Congress. It is a microcosm of the struggle for control of the Republican Party. GOP establishment and RINO backers are marshaling support for DeMaio in an effort to take the party in a new direction — a direction that abandons life, marriage and family!

Supporter, you and I must hold the liberal, establishment leadership in the Republican Party accountable. And the best way to do so is by sending true marriage and life champions and leaders like Kirk Jorgensen to Washington.

Our country is in dire need of honest and responsible leadership. There is no greater responsibility than leading men and women in combat. Kirk has been entrusted by moms, dads and spouses to keep their loved ones safe — and to bring them home. Now, he's decided to pursue a different responsibility. Too often we elect political survivors instead of leaders — politicians who are more motivated to perpetuate their political careers than to serve our communities.

I'm asking you to give whatever you can to help Kirk Jorgensen. We must start sending leaders, not career politicians to Washington D.C. This is a huge opportunity for us.

Kirk's name has never been on a ballot before. He's someone like you and me who just wants to restore our political integrity, accountability to voters, and a sense that our nation is once again on a path to toward greatness.

His opponent, the liberal Carl DeMaio, is a career politician who's repeatedly run for higher office in a desperate attempt to advance his career. Even while a candidate for this very House seat, DeMaio was reportedly considering running for mayor of San Diego — again.

In pursuit of his ambitions, DeMaio has shredded much of what we hold dear. He's a pro-gay 'marriage,' pro-abortion candidate. DeMaio is fine with abandoning the most important foundational institution of society — marriage — that is our best hope for ensuring that children enjoy the love of a mother and a father. He's fine with tens of millions of children being snuffed out in the name of "choice."

There's another thing about DeMaio's candidacy that you should know. He's an open homosexual and an avowed supporter of the gay movement. Now don't get me wrong — I'm not judging him as a person and I firmly support his right in America to live as he chooses. The reason his homosexuality is an issue in this race is because this is precisely why GOP leaders in Washington are backing him.

In DeMaio, they have a trophy candidate they can point to and say to the media, 'see, we're progressive, too. We've evolved.' And in DeMaio, they hope to have a colleague who can steer their way some of the millions that go into gay political causes.

Well, I don't know about you, but I am not going to sit by and give in to the political calculation of GOP leaders in Washington willing to support a candidate who abandons our core principles. I'm going to stand for principle, and support a principled candidate — Kirk Jorgensen.

Please chip in as much as you can to help a true American hero, Kirk Jorgensen, and then forward this email to your friends. This is a rare opportunity to support a real conservative champion that values the same things that you and I do.

I've included Kirk's bio below my signature so you can learn more about him.

Sincerely,

Brian S. Brown

Kirk Jorgensen, a former U.S. Marine Corps Officer and resident of Black Mountain Ranch in San Diego has a long history of service to his community and country that continues with his run for California's 52nd Congressional District.

His close-knit family first moved to Rancho Bernardo in 1974, where they thrived as highly-involved members of the community. At a young age, Jorgensen participated in Cub Scouts and Boy Scouts eventually earning the rank of Eagle Scout and is a lifetime member of the National Eagle Scout Association. Always wanting to be a Marine, Jorgensen attended the Army and Navy Academy in Carlsbad and accepted a full scholarship to the University of Arizona under the Marine Corps Naval ROTC program.

As an active duty Marine officer, Jorgensen was recognized with numerous awards and honors for his service including the Defense Meritorious Service Medal. He led human intelligence, counterintelligence and force protection missions in Asia, Central America, and the Middle East to thwart terrorism, espionage and sabotage against the United States and allied forces.

Jorgensen was selected to attend elite Central Intelligence Agency training and graduated from "The Farm," with the highest accreditation. Following his CIA Operations Officer certification, Jorgensen served with the Defense Intelligence Agency and deployed to the Balkans where he facilitated the search and apprehension of Persons Indicted for War Crimes and genocide.

In 2003, during Operation Iraqi Freedom, Jorgensen commanded the largest Marine Corps deployment of Counterintelligence/Human Intelligence forces in history. The Marines under his command are credited with obtaining the critical intelligence that led to the successful rescue of all seven U.S. prisoners of war from Saddam Hussein's forces, emerging as one of the most decorated units of all coalition forces to serve in the campaign to Baghdad.

Returning home from Iraq after 10 years of active duty service with six deployments, Jorgensen joined Booz Allen Hamilton to provide technology and management consulting for the U.S. Navy Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command (SPAWAR) in Point Loma and the U.S. Navy SEALs in Coronado. He currently serves his community and country with the Department of Homeland Security as a U.S. Coast Guard Reserve Officer assigned to Sector San Diego. In 2008, Jorgensen was recalled to active duty to serve as an Intelligence and Operations Officer with the Navy/Coast Guard Combined Task Group 56.5 in the Persian Gulf.

Jorgensen is married to Dr. Georgine Jorgensen, a family physician and small business owner in San Diego. She has been recognized by her peers as a "Top Doctor of San Diego" for five consecutive years. The Jorgensens are the proud parents of sons, Erik (8) and Nate (4).

“This is a critical piece of legislation to protect religious liberty as a cornerstone of our country. Efforts to redefine marriage pose a direct threat to the free exercise of religion.” — Brian Brown, NOM president —

Washington, D.C. — Today the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) endorsed the “Marriage and Religious Freedom Act.” Introduced by Congressman Raul Labrador of Idaho, along with 60 co-sponsors, the proposed legislation protects organizations who believe that marriage is the union of one man and one woman from having their tax-exempt status stripped by the IRS.

“This is a critical piece of legislation to protect religious liberty as a cornerstone of our country and deserves our full support,” said Brian Brown, NOM’s president. “Efforts to redefine marriage pose a direct threat to the free exercise of religion. This legislation would protect the right of organizations to communicate their views about marriage without threat that the tax code will be used to punish them. We applaud Congressman Labrador and his colleagues for their leadership on this important issue.”

Rep. Raul Labrador, Rep. Steve Scalise, Chairman of the Republican Study Committee, Rep. Mike McIntyre, Rep. Dan Lipinski, Rep. Joe Pitts, and Rep. John Fleming introduced the landmark bipartisan bill today to protect freedom of conscience on the issue of marriage. Their bill – the Marriage and Religious Freedom Act – would prohibit discrimination through the federal tax code against individuals or institutions that exercise religious conscience regarding marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

“This bill is crucial. Those who wish to redefine marriage would like nothing better than to wield the tax code as a weapon against those who hold a traditional view of marriage. Further, during the IRS hearings before the House Ways and Means Committee we all heard that some legislators would support stripping the tax-exempt status of some groups that support traditional marriage,” continued Brown. “Individuals and groups should be able to freely speak their views about marriage in the public square without fear of governmental reprisal including having their tax exemption stripped. This legislation protects religious freedom and our constitutional rights.”

###

To schedule an interview with Brian Brown, President of the National Organization for Marriage, please contact Elizabeth Ray (x130), eray@crcpublicrelations.com, or Matille Thebolt (x143), mthebolt@crcpublicrelations.com, 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).