Press release:
On April 25, thousands upon thousands of traditional marriage supporters will gather in the nation's capital for the 3rd Annual March for Marriage. This is just days before the U.S. Supreme Court is scheduled to take up a case to determine the legal status of society's most fundamental relationship. The March for Marriage provides "a powerful demonstration to the media, opinion leaders, legislators and jurists that a majority of Americans still stand for marriage as it has been traditionally and historically defined and handed down through the centuries," according to the March for Marriage website at www.marriagemarch.org.
At the April 25 March for Marriage, tens of thousands of Americans who will have traveled across the country by bus, plane, train, and car will converge on the National Mall in Washington, D.C. A host of speakers will address the crowd during a rally that starts at 11:30 a.m., before the group begins its march to the steps of the U.S. Supreme Court building at 1:00 p.m.
"The March for Marriage serves as an important reminder to government leaders, the public, and the media, that Americans from across this nation still hold to the truth that marriage, by its very design and definition, is only the union of one man and one woman," said John L. Rustin, president of the North Carolina Family Policy Council. "We encourage all North Carolinians to participate, either in person or in spirit, in the March for Marriage and to affirm that every child deserves a mother and a father."
The March for Marriage website includes several resources for participants.
The Supreme Court hears oral arguments April 28.
Family Research Council (FRC) has filed its own amicus curiae brief in Obergefell v. Hodges, the general name of the combined cases the Court will hear. FRC's brief has been authored by respected constitutional attorney Paul Linton, formerly of the Thomas More Society, and FRC Senior Fellow Chris Gacek, J.D., our brief debunks the argument that the "fundamental right to marry" includes a right to marry a person of the same sex, as well as the contention that limiting marriage to opposite-sex unions constitutes a form of sex discrimination.
It is easy to overdramatize public policy issues; sometimes, Christian groups issue Jeremiah-like warnings too readily. This is not such a time: The implications of the Supreme Court's decision could be farther reaching than, at present, anyone knows.