NOM Encouraged by Supreme Court Arguments; Demands That Justices Uphold Marriage As One Man, One Woman
Contact: Paul Bothwell, National Organization for Marriage
, 703-474-6142, email@example.com
WASHINGTON, April 28, 2015 /Christian Newswire
/ -- The National Organization for Marriage (NOM), the nation's largest organization dedicated solely to preserving marriage as the union of one man and one woman, today said they were encouraged by the probing questions from the justices and demanded that the Supreme Court find that laws defining marriage as only the union of one man and one woman are fully constitutional. NOM's Chairman, John Eastman, attended the arguments.
"I am extremely encouraged by the questioning, especially from Justice Kennedy, because it focused on what marriage is," said John Eastman, Chairman of NOM. "It shows that the justices realize that marriage has existed for millennia and they have no constitutional basis to redefine it."
Over 50 million Americans have cast ballots in 35 states in support of preserving marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Over sixty percent of the electorate in those states voted in favor of traditional marriage. Additionally, numerous state legislatures have acted to define marriage only as the union of one man and one woman. Yet these decisions have been undermined in a series of lower federal court decisions that seek to impose same-sex marriage on the entire nation, despite the preferences of voters and their elected officials.
"The entire spectacle of the same-sex marriage litigation has undermined confidence in the judicial system as activist federal judges around the nation have taken it upon themselves to substitute their own views for the sovereign right of states, expressed through their voters and elected officials, to decide this issue," Eastman said. "We call upon the US Supreme Court to put an end to this judicial tyranny by ruling forthrightly that there is nothing in the US constitution that prevents states from defining marriage in the law as it has existed in reality for millennia – the union of one man and one woman."
NOM filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court urging the justices to uphold traditional marriage laws.
Eastman noted that Justice Kennedy's questioning revealed empathy to claims of discrimination against gays and lesbians as a violation of their human dignity, but that does not mean that he will find that traditional marriage laws discriminate.
"Society has many ways to support the dignity of all its citizens, including gays and lesbians, without redefining marriage," said Eastman. "The Supreme Court does not have the power to change an institution like marriage, which has predated government itself and has always existed to bring the two halves of humanity together to provide the ideal environment for raising children. Marriage is not discriminatory, it is unitive and life-giving, and must be preserved."
The Supreme Court also heard argument on a lesser but still important question of whether states must treat as valid same-sex 'marriages' performed in another state even if their own state does not allow for someone to marry a person of the same-sex.
"A number of justices clearly recognize that forcing states to recognize marriages performed elsewhere that are against their policy risks the result of a single state being able to impose their policy across the country," Eastman said. "States have the right to decide what marriages they will recognize as valid and that right should be respected."
Eastman concluded: "Nobody can safely predict the outcome of a case like this on the basis of oral argument, but we are encouraged that the justices understand what is at stake – upending an institution that has served society well for millennia – and are hopeful that they will find that the constitution does not prevent traditional marriage laws. In doing so, they will restore to the people the power to decide the issue of marriage."
To schedule an interview with John Eastman, NOM's Chairman, or Brian Brown, NOM's president, contact Paul Bothwell, firstname.lastname@example.org