Thursday, July 31, 2014
Wednesday, July 30, 2014
Invest in Marriage. Invest in America.” NOM relies heavily on a piece from the Heritage Foundation written by our old friend Ryan T. Anderson and David Azerrad. Brian Brown highlights the following passage:
For those who are concerned about the vitality of the American Dream in the 21st century, strengthening the family ought to be an absolute priority. Far from being a tangential social or religious issue, the strength of the family is a crucial concern—both from an economic and political perspective—and deeply intertwined with the health of the country.
Tuesday, July 29, 2014
NOM lost this case in summary judgment. The organization was confined to receive actual damages plus reasonable attorneys' fees. NOM and the government reached a damages settlement in the amount of $50,000.
Presumably someone, either the judge or the US Attorney, is going to request time logs. Additionally there should be some discovery regarding fee arrangements and what was actually disbursed.
NOM lost this case in summary judgment
Monday, July 28, 2014
We are extremely disappointed, though not surprised, with today's ruling from the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals invalidating the definition of marriage in Virginia. It is a terrible abuse of power for a court to abandon the definition of marriage which has existed throughout the history of the Commonwealth of Virginia, was adopted by the people and reflects in law the reality of what marriage is, the union of one man and one woman.
We should acknowledge that our history is marked by discrimination against gays and lesbians. There was once a time when our federal government not only banned the hiring of gay employees, it required private contractors to identify and fire them. Some laws prohibited gays from being served in bars and restaurants and many cities carried out law enforcement efforts targeting gay Americans.
|Peter Sprigg - "Oh shit"|
In joining the judicial stampede to redefine marriage, the court not only radically departs from natural law and human history but omits altogether, as noted in the dissent, the 'necessary constitutional analysis.'