Author: ADF Senior Counsel Brian Raum

Something is rotten in the states of America… And it isn’t the state of marriage.

Despite a relentless pop-culture, a Big Media and education establishment-led propaganda campaign, and flawed polls screaming that marriage as we know it is doomed in the U.S., support for this foundation of our society is actually alive and well.

For those who believe the support for marriage as a union between one man and one woman has gone asunder in America, we direct you to a scientific survey sponsored by the Alliance Defense Fund and completed by Public Opinion Strategies last month.

When all the numbers were tallied up from what is believed to be the most extensive national research survey of its kind to date, it was confirmed that 62 percent of Americans believe that “marriage should be defined ONLY as a union between one man and one woman.”  A majority (53 percent) of Americans strongly agreed with this sentiment, and a slim 35 percent disagreed.  This comprehensive study of 1,500 Americans’ attitudes toward marriage included research from 14 focus groups from coast to coast.

If this isn’t enough to dispel the misguided claims and misrepresentative polls posturing that marriage in America is passé, please note that this survey is a strikingly accurate reflection of official polling results from the ballot box on this issue – putting the troubled leftist pipe dream in peril.  We’re talking about election statistics spanning from 1998 to 2008, when voters from 31 states were asked to support or reject a state marriage amendment.

California, back in the ancient days of 2008, when an ultra-right-wing presidential candidate received 137 percent of the state’s vote, a marriage amendment passed, sure.  Oh wait, that’s not what happened.  Despite being outspent by $3.5 million and lacking the support of every media, entertainment, cultural, union, educational, and political power structure, marriage proponents were able to pass Proposition 8 by four percent, with 52 percent of the vote.

Note also that Smurf-Blue Maine voted in 2009 to reverse a legislatively imposed redefinition of marriage and restored marriage in the state as it’s always been understood – the union of husband and wife – nothing more, nothing less.

In the 31 states that voted on a marriage protection amendment to determine whether the definition of marriage should stay as a union between a man and a woman within their borders, 63 percent of more than 63 million voters tipped the scales at “yes.”  Only 37 percent said “no.”  That’s nearly 40 million voters affirming marriage to some 23 million rejecting it – a decisive victory for the American family.

But what about the remaining states without such an amendment protecting marriage? (The federal government, along with 45 states, has preserved the definition of marriage either through constitutional amendment or statute.)  If would-be marriage re-definers are so confident, why do they oppose “taking it to the polls” and putting this very public policy decision in the hands of the public?  Some judges have already beat voters out of their right to decide the issue.

In Iowa, the voters reacted to the state supreme court’s imposition on same-sex “marriage” on the state by – in unprecedented fashion – throwing three of the justices off the court.  Iowans would likely have ejected all seven had they been given the opportunity.  Of the five states that issue “marriage” licenses to same-sex cohabitants, none have had marriage redefinition approved by the people, with three states having it forced on them by the courts.

So, in a day and age when it appears as if marriage is about to be swept under by a relentless wave of an anti-marriage culture, all we need to do is grab our [election] boards and say “surf’s up!”  Remember, we’re riding above the wave – not below it.

Join the conversation: Facebook.com/SpeakUpChurch
Facebook.com/AllianceDefenseFund

62% of Americans say it’s one man, one woman, nothing else.

Comprehensive survey shows support for marriage remains high despite recent, flawed polls that create illusion of momentum against it

Source: TellADF.org

SCOTTSDALE, Ariz. — Results from what is likely the most extensive national research survey of its kind show that 62 percent of Americans believe that “marriage should be defined only as a union between one man and one woman.” Fifty-three percent of Americans strongly agreed.

The scientific survey, sponsored by the Alliance Defense Fund and completed by Public Opinion Strategies May 16-19, was part of a comprehensive examination of American attitudes toward marriage.  In addition to the national survey, the research included 14 focus groups completed across the country.

“Americans recognize that marriage provides a strong foundation for a thriving society,” said ADF Senior Counsel Brian Raum. “The union between husband and wife benefits society–especially children–in unique ways that cannot be duplicated by any other relationship. Throughout history, diverse cultures and faiths have recognized this universally defined ideal as the best way to promote healthy, natural families for the good of future generations.”

The survey results mirror American voter behavior when faced with the decision to either affirm marriage in their state constitutions or leave it open to legal challenges or other attacks.

“These numbers are not surprising,” said Public Opinion Strategies partner, and the survey’s director, Gene Ulm. “More than 63 million Americans in 31 state elections have voted on constitutional marriage amendments. Forty million Americans in all—63 percent of total voters–have voted to affirm marriage as a union between a man and a woman.”

“Americans strongly affirm the lifelong, faithful union of a man and a woman as the fundamental building block of civilization,” said Raum. “This survey, along with the nearly 80 percent win rate in ADF marriage cases, shows the opposition has created an illusion of momentum but not a real base of support or track record of victory in the courts.”

POS is a nationally-known public opinion research firm. In addition to polling for Fortune 100 companies, 80 members of Congress, 19 senators, and six governors, the firm’s partners (in conjunction with two other firms) poll for NBC News/Wall Street Journal and National Public Radio.

Other Resources:
Map: Legal battles in the defense of marriage

Marriage amendment vote percentages across the U.S.

Marriage survey results summary

Join the conversation: Facebook.com/SpeakUpChurch

ADF Senior VP; Senior Counsel Gary McCaleb writes:

A half a century ago, the United States lent a hand to the struggling nation of South Vietnam as its freedom was threatened by the Communist North Vietnamese regime and its Viet Cong allies. But by the mid-70s, the war whimpered to defeat: radical leftists won the day and the so-called “peace” movement forced American withdrawal and the inevitable, bloody collapse of South Vietnam.

Tens of thousands were slaughtered and more imprisoned in “re-education camps” as victorious Communists spread their brand of “freedom” through the land. And at the same time, thousands of freedom-loving South Vietnamese fled the country.

Most fled by boat, in harrowing ventures across the open sea to an uncertain fate—all the more uncertain as would-be host nations often turned back the “boat people,” or made their lives intentionally miserable to discourage others.

Among those refuges was 10-year-old Viet D. Dinh, who, through Providence and perseverance, found himself in America—and more amazingly, not living from hand to mouth but serving his new homeland as the senior partner in the esteemed firm of Bancroft Associates.

So what does a former “boat boy” turned attorney have to do with saving marriage? The answer is rooted in President Obama’s flip-flop on marriage, where he abandoned his campaign promises and decided that marriage between one man and one woman is somehow unconstitutional—then told the Department of Justice stop defending the Defense of Marriage Act. In response, the House of Representatives acted to defend DOMA itself.

To that end, House leaders hired Paul Clement, a noted Supreme Court lawyer at the “big law” firm of King and Spalding, to present the case for marriage in court.  But within a few days, homosexual activists leaned on the firm so hard that it turned tail and bailed out of the case.

But Mr. Clement did not flee with his firm. Instead, he resigned his position so that he may continue to represent the House and give voice to the pro-marriage arguments. And he did so as firmly as he did graciously, in a letter of resignation that profiles moral courage.

But a lawyer alone is still a lawyer alone. On a case like this, he needs help—a host of professional colleagues—with whom to go to war.

And with delicious, made-in-America irony, it was a refugee from the war lost by the American left—Mr. Viet D. Dinh—who welcomed Paul Clement to Bancroft Associates—who will be his “band of brothers” in this battle against the left’s effort to redefine marriage.

ADF commends Paul for his principled decision, and honors Mr. Dinh for enabling the defense of marriage—that unique bonding of a man and a woman, hopefully for life, that provides the procreative potential and nurturing that undergirds every civilization. Defending marriage is a high calling—and it certainly looks like the best and brightest have answered that call!

Please leave a comment below to share your thoughts or follow us on Facebook to join the conversation. http://www.facebook.com/SpeakUpChurch

ADF Senior Counsel Austin R. Nimocks writes:

For years, those who advocate for same-sex “marriage” in this country have employed a semi-unilateral approach with their advocacy—if you think that children need a mother and a father, or that marriage is the union of one man and one woman, then there’s something wrong with you. At every turn, they have attempted to shame Americans into jettisoning their basic beliefs about marriage, and at any cost, especially civility. Victims of these reprehensible attacks have included politicians, corporate America, educational institutions, churches, and even private citizens, many of which the Alliance Defense Fund has defended in court.

And, for years, the Alliance Defense Fund and our allies have warned that the agenda driving same-sex “marriage” in this country, if allowed to persist, will have devastating consequences to our freedoms of conscience, religious liberty, and speech. Case after case, the ADF defends both individuals and entities persecuted for merely believing that marriage is the union of one man and one woman, or that children do best when raised by the mother and father who brought them into the world. And even though there may be genuine, good-faith disagreements regarding these topics, we’re still free to disagree, right? After all, this is America, right? Birthplace of free speech? Home of religious freedom and conscience? Apparently not.

Once again, those who demand that same-sex “marriage” be the law of the land have taken their intimidation and narrow-mindedness to new heights. No longer, in their eyes, can we have a free and fair debate about this topic, and never has the intolerance of this ideology been more evident than last week. When the U.S. House of Representatives hired former Solicitor General Paul Clement to defend the Federal Defense of Marriage Act in federal court, the viciousness of the attacks upon both General Clement and his law firm were unprecedented. One press release said that Clement’s firm’s “defense of the Defense of Marriage Act [is] a shameful stain on the firm’s reputation.” Those who believe that Federal DOMA is unconstitutional could not muster even one single professional remark about Paul Clement, his esteemed reputation as a Supreme Court advocate, or as one of our country’s finest modern day solicitor generals. All they could manage was “shame,” acrimony, and prejudice.

Really? It’s “shameful” to believe that children need both a mother and a father? It’s “shameful” to believe that marriage is the union of one man and one woman? If this type of abhorrent attitude is disturbing to you, you’re not alone. Regardless of how you feel about same-sex “marriage,” do you really believe that this is how people who merely hold different ideas should be treated?

And not surprisingly, the venom spewed at Clement’s firm impacted its central nervous system, causing a shutdown and the hysterical severing of its agreement to defend Federal DOMA. This placed Mr. Clement in an uncompromising position, having already made a commitment to a client. Thus, we can now add to the list of victims created by the dogmatism of same-sex “marriage” advocates a former solicitor general, and one of the finest legal minds of our time. Fortunately, Mr. Clement would not be intimidated by those who sought to “shame” him for his decision to assist the House of Representatives in standing up for a bill that it enacted by an 84% margin. He found a new home and intends to continue his defense of marriage.

Please leave a comment below to share your thoughts or follow us on Facebook to join the conversation. http://www.facebook.com/SpeakUpChurch

 ADF Senior VP; Senior Counsel Gary McCaleb writes:

Ah, yes…“homophobia”—a fine pejorative propaganda term, liberally sprinkled throughout modern moral debates.  In a few short syllables, proponents of same-sex “marriage” may demonize anyone who reasonably opposes the homosexual agenda—and even laws that simply affirm marriage as being between one man and one woman.

Perhaps it is only a matter of time, then, before leftist historians discover threads of “homophobia” lurking in the Magna Carta, drafted circa 1215 A.D.  This would be no small thing, for as professor Anthony Esolen recently reminded us, much of our modern liberty is rooted in the English Magna Carta. Could it be that the so-called “religious right” was alive and well some nine centuries ago, cannily inserting “homophobic” principles into civil law?    

As silly as it would be to think that the same-sex “marriage” debate raged in the 1200s, it happens that Professor Esolen inadvertently revealed one of the metaphysical reasons why marriage between one man and one woman is something radically different than any same-sex relationship.  In the April, 2011 edition of First Things he writes: 

By signing Magna Carta, the king conceded that there were many centers of authority besides his own, from that of his enemy the belligerent duke down to that of the free man in his home.
These other centers of authority were embedded in a history of their own that rightly commanded reverence. Therefore the right of inheritance is the most jealously guarded liberty in Magna Carta. You may not pillage a man’s castle simply because he happens to have died. We mistake the matter entirely if we consider such a right only in terms of wealth retained. The right of inheritance allowed a family the same kind of being extending through the centuries that the nation enjoyed. It honored the family as not merely a biological happenstance within the state but as a metaphysical and political reality that preceded the state.

Note that it was the fact of procreation perpetuated through familial generations that created the demand for inheritance rights.  Recognizing those rights in law acknowledged the natural family’s unique role as the self-sustaining, self-governing unit that predated (and formed the foundation of) civil society.  And as Magna Carta demonstrated, those rights fostered a system of limited civil government with its inherently broader scope of liberty—strong, multigenerational families thrive best where the government intervenes least. 

Now, same-sex relationships can mimic the natural family by importing a child into the relationship or contracting with a third party to produce one.  But it is scarcely plausible to think that subsequent generations of such artificially constructed families would naturally follow, so as to give rise to a claim for inheritance rights. 

This all strongly suggests that opposing the homosexual agenda has nothing to do with irrational fear (which is what a true “phobia” is) of the advocates of same-sex “marriage.”  But it has a lot to do with protecting the philosophical bases that have been proven to foster stable, just societies that maximize liberty, and done so for millennia. 

Thus, when ADF opposes same-sex “marriage” in the civil realm, it isn’t defending some “homophobic” limitation of rights, as our opponents love to claim.  ADF is instead defending liberty on a deeply reasoned, philosophical foundation.  This, ADF has done for well over a decade, and this ADF will do, with the grace of God, for some decades to come.