David — NOM urgently needs to raise $20,000 this week to have a reasonable chance of meeting the $100,000 year-end matching opportunity made available by a group of generous donors. Unfortunately, we are nowhere close to our goal, and I really need your help.That's the same $20K that they were asking for on Monday. And that matching-donor scam is getting old. We all know, Mr. Brown, that you are just restructuring a donation that was intended either way (and might have already been received). Why is it that these holier-than-thou types are dishonest with such ease?
Everything that NOM is fighting for — the restoration of marriage; preventing President Obama and LGBT extremists from redefining gender, which will devastate families and damage children; protecting the religious freedom of Christians and others to believe in marriage; and protecting children in public schools from the dangerous ideologies being imposed upon them — is dependent on us reaching our fundraising goals this week, and next.The restoration of marriage translates to the Catholic Church's religious understanding of wedlock. I continue to maintain that marriage equality is not going to be revisited by the Supreme Court. The doctrine of stare decisis (precedent) is the bedrock of our legal system. It assures stability and consistency. Supreme Court reversals are rare and they usually correct an injustice. Other than religious objections there isn't a reason to overturn Obergefell. As judges become more conservative they might be less happy with marriage equality but they tend to have increased respect for precedence.
A good example of this can be found in the New Mexico wedding photographer's case. When Elane Photography v. Willock was reviewed by the Court Scalia was still among the living. Yet they could not find four justices who wanted to hear the case and it died. My guess is that this case was in direct conflict with Employment Division v. Smith. Writing for the majority in Smith, Scalia asserted that there are no religious exemptions to otherwise valid laws.
I have no idea what “redefining gender” even means. The existence of people with gender dysphoria does not redefine gender nor has it in this country for at least a half century. Nor do I understand how transgender people “devastate families and damage children.” NOM does enough of that themselves with bigotry and intolerance.
What “dangerous ideologies” is Brown referring to? What is it that children need protections from? Frankly they need protection from NOM. Many of its dangerous ideologies are formed from superstition.