10 Things You Should Know Abt the American Center For Lawnd Justice

Join millions of supporters by signing up for our newsletter.

Join millions of supporters by signing up for our newsletter.

Finding Insurance for Transgender-Related Healthcare

On Our Own: A Survival Guide for Independent LGBTQ Youth

10 Things You Should Know About the American Center For Law And Justice

1.) ACLJ has raised nearly $75 million in the past five years to fight for anti-LGBT causes, despite not meeting 10 out of 20 of the Better Business Bureaus standards for charity accountability.

ACLJ Has Had Raised Over $74 Million In The Past Five Years.According to IRS reports, ACLJ brought in $74,772,224 between fiscal year 2008 to fiscal year 2012 and had expenditures of $75,021,348. [American Center for Law and Justice IRS Form 990,2012,2011,2010,2009,2008]

2012: The ACLJ Has An Annual Budget Of Over $15 Million.According to IRS reports for Fiscal Year 2012, the ACLJ brought in $ 15,684.893 in contributions and had expenditures of $15,579,134. [American Center for Law and Justice IRS Form 990,2012]

2011: The ACLJ Has An Annual Budget Of More Than $17 Million.According to IRS reports for Fiscal Year 2011, the ACLJ brought in $ 17,164,568 in contributions and had expenditures of $17,416,278. [American Center for Law and Justice IRS Form 990,2011]

2010: The ACLJ Has An Annual Budget Of More Than $16 Million.According to IRS reports for Fiscal Year 2010, the ACLJ brought in $16,629,586 in contributions and had expenditures of $16,746,496. [American Center for Law and Justice IRS Form 990,2010]

2009: The ACLJ Has An Annual Budget Of More Than $13 Million.According to IRS reports for Fiscal Year 2009, the ACLJ brought in $ 13,291,865 in contributions and had expenditures of $13,420,518. [American Center for Law and Justice IRS Form 990,2009]

2008: The ACLJ Has An Annual Budget Of More Than $12 Million.According to IRS reports for Fiscal Year 2008, the ACLJ brought in $ 12,001,312 in contributions and had expenditures of $11,858,922. [American Center for Law and Justice IRS Form 990,2008]

According To The Better Business Bureau, The ACLJ Does Not Meet Ten Out Of Twenty Standards For Charity Accountability.The Better Business Bureau reported that the ACLJ does not meet standards for board oversight, board size, board meetings, board compensation, effectiveness policies and reporting, accurate expense reporting, annual reports, website disclosures and cause marketing disclosures. [American Center for Law and Justice Charity Review, Better Business Bureau,March 2012]

Since 1998, ACLJ And Another Charity Have Paid More Than $33 Million To Members OF Jay Sekulows Family.Sekulow is the principal officer of Christian Advocates Serving Evangelism and the American Center for Law and Justice. Since 1998, the two legal charities have paid more than $33 million to members of Sekulows family and businesses they own or co-own, according to the charities federal tax returns. [Associated Press,9/6/11]

The ACLJ Obfuscates How Much Jay Sekulow Earns From The Organization.The IRS requires nonprofits to disclose the compensation of their leaders. But a donor to ACLJ wouldnt know how much Sekulow is earning from his work with the organization, even though he is described as CEO, chief counsel and board member on its tax forms. ACLJ reports that Sekulow has taken no salary since 2002 However, ACLJs 2009 tax form shows it paid $2,382,770 to the law firm 50 percent owned by Sekulow –(AT) Constitutional Litigation and Advocacy Group. [USA Today,9/5/11]

2.) ACLJ suggests the sin of homosexuality might be to blame for the death of Tyler Clementi and the rash of teen suicides connected to anti-LGBT bullying.

ACLJs David French Said Concerns A Tennessee Law Would Lead To Anti-LGBT Bullying Were Bad Faith Because Compared To All The Complaints Against Christians I Can Probably Count On The Fingers Of One Hand The Times That Involved Any Conflict With LGBT Students.According to the Atlantic, Bloggers at The Gaily Grind and The New Civil Rights Movement have claimed the [Tennessee] law [protecting religious speech in schools] would protect anti-gay bullies. I think that criticism is in bad faith and absurd, said David French, a senior counselor at the American Center for Law and Justice. I have not seen any evidence whatsoever that there is a desire to use religion as a thinly-veiled pretext to bully anybody. .With this particular bill, it seems like LGBT bullying is a bit of a distraction. Of all the religious discrimination claims hes represented, very few have had to do with homosexuality, French said. I have been on the receiving end of complaint after complaint: Teachers telling students, dont bring your Bible to recess, you cant discuss your faith or invite someone to church at school, you cant form a club, you cant pray. In all of that time, I can probably count on the fingers of one hand the times that involved any conflict with LGBT students. [The Atlantic,4/15/2014]

ACLJs David French Said Universities Advance Values By Conducting Orientation Indoctrination Sessions And Diversity Training That Leaves No Space For Traditionally Christian Beliefs.In an article lamenting the Supreme Courts decision in CLS v. Martinez holding that a Christian club had to open itself to leadership from other religions on a public university campus, French said, As universities have grown in size, they have also grown in ambition. Most students are now aware of the concept of university values, an all-encompassing worldview that tells us men and women are exactly the same, that diversity is a paramount goal, and that one should tolerate everything except intolerance. Universities advance those values energetically by conducting orientation indoctrination sessions and diversity training, enforcing expansive rules governing student speech, and creating an alphabet soup of programs and centers serving different identity groups but pushing the same agenda. The message is clear: Out with the old (your parents influence, your traditional religion, your intellectual independence); in with the new (sexual experimentation, group identification, and statist dependence). In other words, the rule isnt Christians need not apply but Christians are welcome so long as their beliefs are not traditionally Christian. ,Schools That Used To Favor Openness Are Becoming Closed And Dogmatic When It Comes To Traditional Religious Groups, Accessed10/23/2014]

ACLJs French Said It Is Absurd To Suggest That Christian Opposition To Homosexual Behavior Creates A Climate Conducive To Suicide.In a post on National Review, David French said, First, the argument that comes largely from external (typically Leftist) critics of Christianity is that Christian opposition to homosexual behavior creates a climate conducive to suicide. I think this is frankly absurd. Of course individually targeted bullying certainly can lead a person down that dark path (but lets never forget that the suicide itself is an act of independent will), theres no allegation to my knowledge in any of the recent suicides that some sort of Christian thug was taunting anyone. Nor is there any evidence that any serious Christian endorses bullying and other kinds of thuggish behavior. Lacking this evidence, what is the Lefts argument? That the mere existence of people who think homosexual behavior is wrong makes it more likely that a person who identifies as gay will kill himself? In a vibrant democracy, debates are often intense, and religious debates can be the most intense. Yet do we see a connection in other communities between intense religious debate and suicide? Lots of communities are publicly criticized for many reasons, but Im not aware of any spike in the suicide rate accompanying public debate even intense debate. [National Review,10/25/2010]

French Said Recent LGBT Teen Suicides When The Problem Is Sin, De-Stigmatizing Sin Doesnt Actually Heal The Human Heart And That Anti-Bullying Laws Are Often Grotesquely Unconstitutional.In a column in Patheos addressing the suicide of Tyler Clemanti, French said, We dont know Tylers roommates motive for taping Tyler. Was he homophobic? Was it merely a malicious prank — one that he would have played regardless of the sex of the person in the room with Tyler? We certainly dont have any evidence that Tylers roommate taped Tyler because of any religious objection to Tylers behavior (that would be a curious thing indeed). Nor do we have any evidence that other recent gay teen suicides have been caused by any religiously-motivated actions. But that hasnt stopped the finger-pointing. According to some, the fundamentalist or evangelical (those terms are often used interchangeably) Christian community has created a cultural climate that stigmatizes gay people. Allegedly, this stigma contribute[s] to the atmosphere that makes suicide more likely. Christian opposition to same-sex marriage, Christian disapproval of homosexual behavior, and even Christian opposition to so-called anti-bullying laws (which are often grotesquely unconstitutional) harm gays emotionally..As we de-stigmatize homosexuality, the human toll continues to mount. Why? Perhaps because the fundamental problem wasnt stigma in the first place. Perhaps when the problem is sin, de-stigmatizing sin doesnt actually heal the human heart. Celebrating sin doesnt ultimately soothe the conscience. And in celebrating sin, we often stigmatize the one Truth that can offer light in the darkness of the soul. [Patheos,10/19/2010]

Sekulow Said School Policies Protecting LGBT Students From Harassment Went Too Far, There Is A Line Between Sensitivity And Indoctrination.The Los Angeles Times, in an article about school districts improving their anti-gay harassment programs, reported, Others say school districts are going too far. There is a line between sensitivity and indoctrination, said Jay Sekulow, chief counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice, which was founded by conservative evangelist Pat Robertson. Sekulow said schools should treat all students with dignity and respect, but they shouldnt promote one lifestyle over another. If districts are going to offer extra protections for gay and lesbian students, they should do the same for students who want to express their religious beliefs, he said. [LA Times, 9/11/00]

3.) ACLJ goes after cities and municipalities, simply for protecting employees against anti-LGBT discrimination.They even call workplace diversity training offensive.

ACLJ Filed Suit Against The City Of Louisville Challenging Non-Discrimination Employment Policy Including Gender Identity And Sexual Orientation.In 1999, according to a press release from ACLJ, The American Center for Law and Justice, an international public interest law firm, today filed suit in U.S. District Court in Louisville challenging the Citys ordinance that extends protected status in employment to the categories of sexual orientation and gender identity. The ACLJ filed suit against the City of Louisville, the Mayor and other officials on behalf of J. Barrett Hyman, M.D., a medical practitioner, who contends that his Biblically-based Christian beliefs prevent him from complying with the Citys ordinance. The lawsuit contends that because of his sincerely held religious beliefs, Hyman is compelled to deny employment and discharge from employment any person whom he learns is living a homosexual, bisexual, transgendered, or transsexual lifestyle. By forcing employers who object to homosexuality and transgenderism to hire people who practice those lifestyles, the City of Louisville is attempting to legislate its own view of morality at the expense of the fundamental rights of its citizens, said Francis J. Manion, Senior Regional Counsel of the ACLJ-Midwest, who is representing Hyman in the suit. [American Center For Law and Justice, Press Release, 11/6/1999]

ACLJ Filed Lawsuit Against City Of Henderson, Kentuckys Non-Discrimination Ordinance In Employment And Housing Protecting Sexual Orientation.According to a press release from ACLJ, The American Center for Law and Justice, an international public interest law firm, today filed suit in Henderson Circuit Court for the Commonwealth of Kentucky challenging the City of Hendersons ordinance that extends protected status in employment, housing, and public accommodation to the categories of sexual orientation. The ACLJ filed suit against the City of Henderson, its Mayor, and the Henderson Human Rights Commission on behalf of Rick and Connie Hile, who own three rental properties in Henderson.The suit contends that the Hiles believe the ordinance requires them to abandon and act contrary to beliefs which are central to their Christian faith. At the same time, the suit contends the Hiles believe they are compelled to act in accordance with their faith and the complaint says they have concrete plans to deny rental of their property to individuals who are homosexual or bisexual. On October 5, 1999, the City of Henderson amended its ordinances to extend anti-discrimination provisions to include sexual orientation, which the City defines as a persons actual heterosexuality, homosexuality or bisexuality, or the supposed heterosexuality, homosexuality, or bisexuality of a person as perceived by another person. At the same time, the ordinance states that it shall be unlawful for a person to discriminate against another person in any real estate transaction because of a persons sexual orientation. Those who violate the ordinance are subject to fines of up to $250.00. [American Center for Law and Justice, Press Release, 11/23/1999]

ACLJ Represented Mother Who Sued High School After Being Excluded From Assembly Supportive Of LGBT Student Rights.According to the Associated Press, A St. Louis mother who filed a civil lawsuit after she was asked to leave a high school assembly about tolerance for gay students has reached a settlement with public school officials. The American Center for Law and Justice said Wednesday that St. Louis school officials have agreed to revise their policy, clarifying the right of parents to observe school-sponsored events. The ACLJ represented the mother, Debra Loveless. Lovelesss daughter attends Metro High School. The suit contended that in October 2001, Loveless decided not to allow her daughter to attend an assembly featuring a group that supports gay student rights. Loveless tried to attend herself but was asked to leave. In the suit, Loveless charged that her exclusion violated her rights of free speech, equal protection, and parental liberty. As part of the settlement, school officials can still exclude parents if they disrupt the event. [Associated Press, 5/22/2003]

ACLJs Website Says Workplace Diversity Training Can Be Offensive Because Of the Subtle But Often Times Open Hostility Towards Racial, Ethnic, And Religious Majorities.According to the ACLJ website, A religious discrimination claim can arise in the context of a mandatory diversity training program. Over the past twenty years or so, public and private employers have glommed onto the concept of promoting diversity in the workforce. As a result, most employers have instituted mandatory programs in Diversity Training. Often, the content of these mandatory training sessions can be offensive because of the subtle but often times open hostility towards racial, ethnic and religious majorities. Additionally, employees should have the right to opt out of objectionable diversity training if it violates their sincerely held religious beliefs. [ACLJ.org,Accessed 8/6/14]

ACLJ Filed Suit In Minnesota Defending Employees Who Read Bible At State-Mandated Training Called Gays And Lesbians In The Workplace.According to a report by Focus on the Family, The ACLJ filed suit in April 1998 against the Minnesota Department of Corrections on behalf of Thomas Altman and Ken Yackly to force their employer to rescind the reprimands they received in 1997 after they silently read their Bibles at a state-mandated training session called Gays and Lesbians in the Workplace. The employees contended that the training session was little more than a state-sponsored indoctrination aimed at changing their religious beliefs about homosexuality. Four years later, and several appeals later, the employees were finally vindicated. ,Focus On the Family, How Sexual Orientation Nondiscrimination Laws Harm Businesses & Employees, 9/2009, Accessed10/23/2014]

ACLJ Defended Right Of Parents Opposed To California Public Schools Pro-Homosexual Indoctrination Program To Homeschool Children.According the the ACLJ website, The case came out of a juvenile court situation in which family members told WND they objected to the public schools pro-homosexual indoctrination program in California. In fact, just yesterday, California lawmakers decided to mandate a day of celebration and honor for Harvey Milk, the late San Francisco supervisor who was an activist for homosexuality. The ACLJ, along with many other organizations, had filed an amicus brief in the case which had been interpreted as threatening the very practice of homeschooling in California. Jay Sekulow said ACLJ was pleased with the courts decision affirming the rights of parents to homeschool. [ACLJ.org,8/09/2008]

4.)ACLJ defended the Boy Scouts of America in their fight to prevent LGBT scouts and scout leaders, with the groups founder warning of predators as Boy Scouts, pedophiles who will come in as Scoutmasters.

Pat Robertson Said Boy Scouts of America Welcoming LGBT Scouts Would Open Scouts To Predators And Pedophiles.According to Right Wing Watch, Pat Robertson appeared rather confused about the upcoming vote by the Boy Scouts of America board to end the national ban on gay membership, telling 700 Club viewers today that Congress is trying to change the organizations ban on gay Scouts. After misrepresenting the looming decision by the board, Robertson warned that if the sweeping prohibition on gay members is lifted then there will be predators as Boy Scouts, pedophiles who will come in as Scoutmasters.Our prayers are with them that they will do what they feel is right for them, not what the political correct crowd thinks is right for them, Robertson said. [Right Wing Watch,2/5/2013]

Sekulow Warned That Allowing Gay Boy Scout Leaders Would Lead To Targeting Of Religious Schools.The Star-Ledger reported on a challenge in New Jersey to the Boy Scouts of America policy banning gay scout leaders. The religious groups argue the New Jersey ruling could have serious consequences for them beyond their Boy Scouts troops. In a fund-raising letter sent out by the Center for Law and Justice, the legal organization of Christian Coalition founder Pat Robertson, attorney Jay Alan Sekulow warned that a decision allowing gay Boy Scouts leaders would be just the beginning. Churches will be the next target. Homosexuals will then set their sights on religious schools, wrote Sekulow, who has filed a legal brief with the court, the Star-Ledger reported. [Star-Ledger, 4/25/2000]

Sekulow Called 1999 New Jersey Ruling That LGBT Scout Leaders Must Be Accepted A Very Dangerous Precedent And Vowed To Continue Fight Supreme Court.According to The Baltimore Sun, following a court ruling in New Jersey that Boy Scouts of America must accept gay scouts, Jay Alan Sekulow, a lawyer who took part in the case in support of the Boy Scouts, called the ruling a very dangerous precedent. He predicted that the U.S. Supreme Court will be very interested in a case involving the Boy Scouts because of the threat to their rights to choose their members and leaders and to project their own moral message. If they can crack the Boy Scouts, it is an important precedent on gay rights, said Sekulow, chief counsel of the American Center for Law and Justice. Scouting, he said, is Americana, its mom, its apple pie. [Baltimore Sun,8/05/1999]

ACLJ Defended Boy Scouts Of America From Claim That DOD Sponsorship of Jamborees Violated Establishment Clause Due To BSAs Religious Content.On ACLJs website, Jay Sekulow writes, Tomorrow the ACLJ will file an amicus brief with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit on behalf of 88 members of the House and Senate. Since 1937, the United States military has provided supplies and services in support of the National Scout Jamboree held every four years by the Boy Scouts of America (the BSA). Congress formally recognized this tradition in 1972 by passing the Jamboree statute, authorizing the Department of Defense to provide such support for the Jamborees. The militarys support of Jamborees came into question when Eugene Winkler and other federal taxpayers brought the current lawsuit. Winkler sought to enjoin the enforcement of the Jamboree statute and other programs under which the BSA is eligible to receive some form of federal aid. The plaintiffs claimed that the Jamboree and other statutes were laws respecting an establishment of religion in violation of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution because the BSA has a religious component to its activities and beliefs. The District Court denied most of the plaintiffs claims. The court sustained the challenge to the Jamboree statute, holding that it violated the Establishment Clause because it had the primary effect of advancing religion. [ACLJ.org,Defending the Boy Scouts, Accessed10/23/2014]

ACLJ Amicus Brief To Supreme Court On Behalf Of Boy Scouts Of America Said Men Who By Word Or Deed Condone Homosexuality Cannot, Therefore, Be Good Role Models.According to Political Research, Sekulow has championed the Boy Scouts of Americas ban on openly gay scoutmasters for years, telling donors in March 2000 that the Scouts have come under attack from homosexual activistswho may well set their sights on your church next. In an amicus brief to the Supreme Court, the ACLJ defended the Boy Scouts finding that homosexuals are not morally clean, writing, Men who by word or deed condone homosexuality cannot, therefore, be good role models. [Political Research,11/5/2012]

5.) ACLJ defends criminal punishments for consensual, adult same-sex behavior, saying homosexuality is destructive to society.

Sekulow Said Lawrence v. Texas Ruling Reflect A Political Approach To The Law That We Deplore.According to the Albany Times Union, In another closely watched case involving gay rights, the Supreme Court struck down the Texas sodomy law, ruling that the government has no right to control the private lives of homosexuals. The 6-3 decision overturned a court ruling 17 years ago that states could punish gays and lesbians for what such laws historically called deviant sex. The courts decision infuriated conservatives. Both the affirmative action and the gay rights decision reflect a political approach to the law that we deplore, Jay A. Sekulow, the legal director of the American Center for Law and Justice, a conservative legal advocacy group, said following the decisions. [Albany Times Union, 6/19/03]

Sekulow Said Sumpreme Court Ruling in Lawrence v. Texas Strikes A Damaging Blow For the Traditional Family.According to the Chicago Tribune, in response to a Texas sodomy law being struck down by the Supreme Court, Sekulow said, By providing constitutional protection to same-sex sodomy, the Supreme Court strikes a damaging blow for the traditional family that will only intensify the legal battle to protect marriage and the traditional family. [Chicago Tribune, 6/27/03]

Sekulow Defended Rick Santorums Controversial Comments Saying Sodomy Protections Could Cover Bigamy, Polygamy, Incest, And Adultery As Out Of Context.U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum said last week that if homosexual sodomy was protected as a private act, then the same protection could also cover bigamy, polygamy, incest and adultery. He made the comments to the Associated Press while discussing a Texas anti-sodomy law being reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court. All this tumult over Santorums comments really were out of context, said Jay Sekulow, chief counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice. They were simply repeating a legal theory that if you declare that activity (same-sex sodomy) as a fundamental right simply because it is consensual, you would thereby eviscerate regulations on sex crimes. [Birmingham News, 5/2/03]

Sekulow Called Reaction To Alabama Attorney General And Rick Santorums Equating Homosexual Acts To Necrophilia, Bestiality, And Pedophilia Overblown.According to the Assoicated Press, A nominee for a federal judgeship filed a Supreme Court brief that compares homosexual acts to prostitution, adultery, necrophilia, bestiality, possession of child pornography and even incest and pedophilia. The brief by Alabama Attorney General Bill Pryor, nominated by President Bush to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta, resembles comments about the same Texas sodomy case by Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum. Pryor declined comment Thursday and referred questions about the case to Jay Sekulow, chief counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice, a Washington firm specializing in constitutional law. Sekulow said the reaction to Santorums comments and Pryors brief was overblown because Supreme Court Justice Byron White used similar language in a 1986 Supreme Court case when the court ruled 5-4 that Georgias criminal penalties against homosexual sodomy were constitutional. [Associated Press, 5/01/03]

ACLJ: The State Has A Compelling Interest To Ban The Act Of Homosexuality.Simply put, just as we have laws banning polygamy and incest because those sexual acts undermine society, likewise the state has a compelling interest to ban the act of homosexuality. And certainly, there is no duty to promote the act that society deems destructive! In fact, it could be argued that society has a responsibility to discourage such acts. [American Center For Law And Justice Chief Counsels Confidential Report On The Homosexual Agenda,1997]

The ACLJ Argued That Banning Same Sex Intimacy Furthers Public Morality And Protects Public Health In An Amicus Brief InLawrence v. Texas.There are at least three, independently adequate, rational bases for the statute. First, a ban on same-sex sodomy permissibly furthers public morality. Second, the extensively documented health risks of same-sex sodomy supply a strong public health rationale for the statute. [American Center for Law and Justice Amicus Brief,Lawrence v. Texas]

6.) ACLJ literally helped write the discriminatory Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), parts of which were deemed unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court last year inUnited States v. Windsor.

ACLJ Helped Draft Language For the Defense Of Marriage Act And Jay Sekulow Testified For Its Passage.According to Jay Sekulow on ACLJs website, There were also concerns among many that the same-sex marriage proponents would be successful in having declared the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) unconstitutional. Our office helped draft DOMA and I even testified before the United States House of Representatives for its passage almost ten years ago. Initially, a district court in Nebraska did hold Nebraskas constitutional DOMA as violative of the federal Equal Protection Clause. But just a few weeks ago, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the district court. That court found that the states asserted interest in steering procreation into marriage and encouraging procreation to take place within the socially recognized unit that is best situated for raising children was a sufficient basis, together with the states responsible procreation theory. The Court of Appeals further held that the same-sex advocates possessed no fundamental right to be free of the political barrier a validly enacted constitutional amendment erects. [ACLJ.org,A Legal Grand Slam,Accessed10/22/2014]

ACLJ Gathered Signatures For Petition To Preserve Marriage In Support Of Federal Marriage Amendment.The American Center for Law and Justice, specializing in constitutional law, today notified the U.S. Senate that nearly 415,000 people have signed petitions in support of a Federal Marriage Amendment – just days before the Senate is expected to debate the issue and vote on an amendment. The response has been very strong from people nationwide who want to see marriage remain an institution between one man and one woman, said Jay Sekulow, Chief Counsel of the ACLJ. We have heard from people in every state and the message is clear: marriage must not be redefined. It is important for members of Congress to understand that most Americans oppose same-sex marriage and that there continues to be growing support for an amendment to protect the institution of marriage. As the Senate prepares to take up this issue, we are hopeful that Senators will get the message.For months, the American Center for Law and Justice has been gathering signatures on its Petition to Preserve Marriage in support of a federal marriage amendment. [Press Release, ACLJ, 7/09/04]

Sekulow Called Massachusetts Decision Legalizing Same-Sex Marriage Troubling And Called For Federal Marriage Amendment.The ACLJ said in response to the legalization of same-sex marriage in Massachusetts, It is troubling that an activist court in Massachusetts has succeeded in overturning hundreds of years of tradition by redefining marriage to include same-sex couples, said Jay Sekulow, Chief Counsel of the ACLJ. With Massachusetts now the first state to legalize same-sex marriage, it is clear that the need for a Federal Marriage Amendment is greater than ever. We call on Congress to act without delay and pass an amendment – and send it to the states for ratification – to protect the institution of marriage as a union between one man and one woman. [Press Release, ACLJ, 5/17/04]