Dear Friends of Marriage,
Something fascinating just happened in Iowa: The president of the Iowa-Nebraska NAACP just refused to endorse Iowa's Democratic Gov. Chet Culver, instead throwing his support to one of the six GOP candidates for governor.
Why? Keith Ratliff, who is a black Democrat, said same-sex marriage was an "important factor": "There's no doubt about it, it's an important factor," he told the press.
Keith Ratliff is also the pastor of the Maple Street Missionary Baptist Church in Des Moines, and has been an outspoken critic of the Iowa Supreme Court's decision in April imposing gay marriage--and now of the Governor's and other leading Democrats' refusal to put a marriage amendment on the ballot. Why are Democratic leaders in Iowa so determined to keep the right to define marriage out of the hands of the people of Iowa? It will be a long-hard fight, but we believe in the end Iowa can and will join the 30 other states that have constitutionally protected the people's right to define marriage as one man and one woman.
In New York state, African-American state senators like State Sen. Ruben Diaz (like Ratliff, an ordained minister) have emerged as crucial roadblocks on the path to imposing same-sex marriage. In New Jersey, NOM has launched a new quarter-million radio ad designed to let parents know what gay marriage in New Jersey will mean for them and their children and grandchildren. Listen here. We need your help, today, to keep these ads on the air!
Thank the Lord for these great men and women, for their profiles in courage on marriage. We need more men and women of principle like New York State Senator Shirley Huntley from Queens, who told the New York Times, "If they gave me a million dollars, tax free, I just wouldn't vote for it."
On the other hand, there are people like Sarah Schulman, an English professor at New York's City University, with a very different view. She has written a new book, Ties that Bind, that pushes a new next step in the gay-marriage agenda: "Homophobia should be identified as a sickness, with families court-ordered into treatment programs." How did I hear about such a wacky idea? In an Oct. 14 column published by the perfectly respectable publication Inside Higher Ed. The author, Scott McLemee (whose summary of Sarah's thought I am quoting), believes in the "new civil rights movement." He doesn't go so far as Sarah and say that government should be used to force dissenters into therapy, though. His solution to persistent disagreement with gay marriage? "Traumatize 'em right back!"
Wow. Are these now the choices in so-called respectable so-called civil rights circles? Either forced therapeutic re-education by government or else cultural traumatization and marginalization of people who disagree? Nice movement you have there, guys.
I know that many, many gay-marriage advocates don't think this way. But this is a top-down movement driven by leaders who have seldom been very honest with the American people about what their ultimate aims are: to use the law to reshape the culture so that decent, loving, honorable, peaceful people who believe that marriage means a husband and wife get traumatized as bigots.
Fight back! When you speak out for marriage, when you vote for marriage, and when you donate to NOM, you're sending a message: We will not be intimidated.
Elder Dallin Oakes, one of the Quorum of the Twelve of the LDS Church, released to the press a copy of what the LDS church described as a major address on religious freedom, a speech Elder Oakes is making at Brigham Young-Idaho campus.
The AP, in covering the speech, for the first time to my knowledge acknowledged the widespread campaign of harassment and intimidation that took place against Prop 8 activists and donors--at least the disgraceful un-American focus on punishing a religious minority for peacefully exercising their core civil rights to vote, organize, and donate to protect marriage. That's worth noting.
"After the measure prevailed, its opponents focused much of their ire on Mormons, organizing boycotts of businesses with LDS ties and protests at Mormon worship places. While some demonstrations were peaceful, in others church windows were shattered and slurs were hurled at the church's founding fathers," the AP reporter wrote. The economic attacks that led people to lose their jobs and their businesses, the fearmongering that included hate mail directed to people's homes, and even a handful of reports of physical attacks? Those have not yet been noticed by the AP.
These attacks were not anti-religious as such, Elder Oaks says, and he is right. Anti-Mormon bigotry was only part of a larger attack on all Americans who dared to speak up for marriage.
"Those who seek to change the foundation of marriage should not be allowed to pretend that those who defend the ancient order are trampling on civil rights," Oaks said. "The supporters of Proposition 8 were exercising their constitutional right to defend the institution of marriage ...."
"There are civil rights involved in this--the right to speak your mind, to participate in the election," Oaks later told the AP. "But you don't have a civil right to win an election or retaliate against those who prevail."
Amen to that! At NOM we know we are the true rainbow coalition--people of every race, creed and color coming together in love to stand up for truth.
Thanks to all of you who have shown such grace under fire, such a firm commitment to stand up speak God's truth in love to all of our fellow citizens. Government did not make marriage, God did. And He knew what he was doing.
Please pray for America's leaders, and for all our fellow Americans of every faith community who must now stand up not just for marriage, but for the core civil rights that make democracy itself.
God bless you,
Brian S. BrownExecutive Director
National Organization for Marriage
20 Nassau Street, Suite 242
Princeton, NJ 08542
bbrown@nationformarriage.org
PS: Whether you can give $15 or $150--or even, if God has given you the means, more--know that every dollar makes a difference in the ongoing fight to protect marriage in this country. Thank you so much for all you do!
NOM Featured Interview
Brian Brown on CBN
October 12, 2009
"NAACP President Backs Vander Plaats, Calls Marriage Issue 'Important Factor'"
Des Moines Register
October 12, 2009
Keith Ratliff, president of the Iowa-Nebraska chapter of the NAACP, endorsed Republican gubernatorial candidate Bob Vander Plaats today, citing the Sioux City businessman's position on the same-sex marriage debate as "an important factor."
"New Civil Rights Movement"
Scott McLemee
Inside Higher Ed
October 14, 2009
A less sanguine view comes across in Sarah Schulman's Ties That Bind: Familial Homophobia and Its Consequences, a recent title from the New Press. The author is a novelist and playwright who is professor of English at the City University of New York, College of Staten Island. It is a short and angry book. Unlike many another volume of social criticism by an academic, it does not mediate or diffuse that anger through carefully rehearsed stagings of the author's theoretical affiliations. She just gets right down to it.
NOM in the News
"Maine Gay Marriage Campaigns Report Donations"
Associated Press
October 14, 2009
Supporters of Maine's gay marriage law said Tuesday they've collected $2.7 million for their campaign against a ballot proposal to repeal it, more than double the amount the measure's supporters said they raised.
"Marriage Debate at Constitution Center"
Philadelphia Gay News
October 15, 2009
The National Constitution Center will host "A Right to Marry? Same-sex Marriage and the Constitution," a panel discussion on the issue with leading advocates and opponents of marriage equality, at 6:30 p.m. Oct. 20 at the center, 522 Arch St.
Joining the discussion will be marriage-equality supporters attorney David Boies, who is currently spearheading a legal effort to overturn California's ban on same-sex marriage; openly gay author Keith Boykin; and marriage-equality opponents Maggie Gallagher, president of the National Organization for Marriage; and Glenn T. Stanton, director for Family Formation Studies at Focus on the Family.
"Question 1: Nation Watches as Maine Voters Contemplate Who Can Marry"
Bangor Daily News
October 10, 2009
On Nov. 3, Maine will either make history as the first state where voters grant same-sex couples the right to marry or join the ranks of the dozens of other states where "traditional marriage" has prevailed at the polls.
"Maine in Spotlight"
Morning Sentinel
October 11, 2009
Maine is at the center of a divisive national debate that touches on religion, family, children and sexuality, political scientists say.
And it's all about gay marriage.
"Maine Anti-Gay Measure Facing Defeat"
Washington Independent
October 14, 2009
Buried in this poll on Maine political attitudes is a question on the Nov. 3 same-sex marriage referendum that does not auger well for gay marriage opponents. Question 1, which would roll back legal gay marriage in the state, is trailing 52-43. Catholic voters support the measure, but only by a seven-point margin. Last month, Maggie Gallagher of the National Organization for Marriage told me that she was confident that the question would pass.
"Trailing 2-to-1 in Donations, Opponents of 'Gay Marriage' in Maine Issue Plea"
Baptist Press
October 14, 2009
With three weeks left before Election Day, an expected tight race in Maine could turn into a landmark victory for "gay marriage" backers Nov. 3 thanks to a more than 2-to-1 fundraising advantage revealed Tuesday.
111 Comments
We must not allow a bunch of radical homosexual bullies to impose their degenerate values on us and our children. Please contribute to NOM today.
Here's some news worth mentioning....
Maine's Largest Newspapers Endorse Same-Sex Marriage, Support 'No On 1
By BDN Staff
Voting no on Question 1 will reiterate Maine’s commitment to equality and acceptance of families of all types while respecting religious traditions and beliefs.
"Voting no on Question 1 will reiterate Maine’s commitment to equality and acceptance of families of all types while respecting religious traditions and beliefs."
The trouble is, there aren't any protections for religious traditions or beliefs in the bill. That's exactly the problem.
John makes a good point.
It's so sad, they do NOM shows you people this kind of crud all the time but you dont see the video of the man brutally beaten in New York due to homophobic-ambitions anywhere on the site. Quit the lies, NOM.
Mainers, dont make the same mistake as California. Vote No on 1.
"you dont see the video of the man brutally beaten in New York due to homophobic-ambitions anywhere on the site. Quit the lies, NOM."
Jesse, why would NOM be interested in showing violence? They do not promote violence. Do you?
They also didn't put up the video of that 13 year old boy in Chicago that had his brains bashed out by a group of boys who thought he was part of the wrong gang. Violence occurs everywhere. Not mentioning it in this forum is not a sign that anyone agrees with killing people. The National Organization for Marriage isn't about killing people Jesse. Get it together. It's wrong for you to even insinuate that they would. Just because you disagree with their position on Question 1 doesn't give you license to call them murderers. That's completely inappropriate.
Susan wrote:
"The trouble is, there aren’t any protections for religious traditions or beliefs in the bill. That’s exactly the problem."
Susan, that's an already defeated argument. All people are free to worship as they choose, it's a guaranteed right provided in the religion clauses of the First Amendment. No church will be made to do anything against their will. There has not been one shred of evidence to support what you claim, just a lot of accusations.
And yes, the violence towards gays is sickening. We see how some will ignore and side-step it.
Maybe not violence, Thomas but....
Orson Scott Card, one of NOM's most prominent board member supports criminalizing sex between same-sex adults
Card's statement:
"Laws against homosexual behavior should remain on the books…to be used when necessary to send a clear message that those who flagrantly violate society's regulation of sexual behavior cannot be permitted to remain as acceptable, equal citizens."
Card has also advocated overthrowing the government if same-sex marriage is permitted:
Card's statement:
"How long before married people answer the dictators thus: Regardless of law, marriage has only one definition, and any government that attempts to change it is my mortal enemy. I will act to destroy that government and bring it down, so it can be replaced with a government that will respect and support marriage, and help me raise my children in a society where they will expect to marry in their turn."
Google me wrong...
What has that got to do with violence against gays?? Are you now the thought police as well?
"The first and greatest threat from court decisions in California and Massachusetts, giving legal recognition to 'gay marriage,' is that it marks the end of democracy in America. These judges are making new law without any democratic process; in fact, their decisions are striking down laws enacted by majority vote."
This is also from Orson Scott Card, and mirrors exactly how many people feel. Because homosexuality is an action, not a person, legalizing that behavior and calling it equal to other behaviors crosses a line in the sand of freedom. Put his comments into context. You may not agree with all of them, I may not agree with all of them, but he is certainly allowed to have them.
Here are the comments you provided in full context:
http://www.nauvoo.com/library/card-hypocrites.html
http://www.mormontimes.com/mormon_voices/orson_scott_card/?id=3237
"I find that those who plead for tolerance are far too often prone to wanting to hunt down and wipe out the last vestige of what they call intolerance -- and are incapable of realizing that this behavior is, in itself, exactly as intolerant and usually as unjust as the behavior they so rigorously oppose. "
Another good OSC quote.
“I find that those who plead for tolerance are far too often prone to wanting to hunt down and wipe out the last vestige of what they call intolerance”
We must always be intolerant of hatred and bigotry, such as the kind that NOM promotes. Trying to keep the legal rights of same-sex couples from them is one thing. But to hurt the children of same-sex couples in order to punish gays is something satanic. God does not want His children hurt, whether they are the children of dual-gender couples or the children of same-sex couples. He will deal with Maggie Gallagher and Brian Brown as He sees fit. I don’t envy them their fates.
Kevin, You can re difine hatred and bigotry if you like, but that will not change the fact that NOM helpsand promotes families and children. It wont change the fact that traditional marriage promotes children and family and that government have a strong interest in promoting stable families. Marriage has its problems, but its not getting any better by taking gender out of the equation.
Maggie and Brian are the few who have not bowed down to the gay agenda. They have the civil right to believe in traditional marriage just as you do to believe in gay marriage.
-
Adam, I think Maggie and Brian do an excellent job at keeping the current definition of intolerance and bigotry clear and vivid.
Those who persist with calling homosexuality a "chosen lifestyle" have the same intent to invalidate and promote harm as those who deny the holocaust. It is an inexcusable action and one with no evidence to support it.
Let's make this crystal clear, this has never been about marriage, this has always been about homophobia and outright bigotry.
John, it's disturbing that you would consider those who disagree with your political views to be homophobes and bigots. You are a great example of why this is about more than just marriage. No one forces anyone into homosexual activities. You always have a choice of how you act. You can hide behind the excuse that everyone who disagrees with you must hate you, but that's all it is, an excuse. How convenient.
John,
Maggie and Brian don't define intolerance and bigotry, gays and lesbians have their definition and then there is the definition found in the dictionary.
Frankly this isn't about marriage, it is about drawing the line. Looking back in time you guys just wanted to be left a lone in the closet. We said fine, then you wanted to come out of the closet, we said fine, now you want to redefine marriage. We are saying No way!!! So if there was a line drawn for additional rights then so be it and then nothing more than that ever ever would be fine.
But history shows a sad trend regarding the gay community. Next, you will want marriage, then you will want religion, then you will want religion to teach god is gay, then you want us to teach our own children that they are gay. It wont stop....
Adam,
What a ridiculous post. A baseless string of unfounded babbling that serves to support nothing. It's very telling of your desperation.
John, its pretty easy to reply to your claims isn't it?
Daniel wrote:
"John, it’s disturbing that you would consider those who disagree with your political views to be homophobes and bigots."
Funny, I wasn't talking "political views."
There are plenty of politics at play with the gay agenda. You don't see it?
Adam:
"Maggie and Brian are the few who have not bowed down to the gay agenda. They have the civil right to believe in traditional marriage just as you do to believe in gay marriage."
They don't have the right to force their religious views on others through force of law. And that is the problem. If they believe that marriage has to be this way or that way, they have every right to practice it themselves. But no, they can't impose it others.
-
Daniel,
You extremist love your buzzword, they go well with those wild conspiracy theories. The only agenda I see is coming from NOM, look how an out of state organization is messing with Maine, as it did with Iowa and California.
"They don’t have the right to force their religious views on others through force of law."
Sure they do -- we ALL do. It's called democracy.
What they DON'T have the right to do is invent brand new "civil rights" out of thin air, and then declare them untouchable by the democratic process.
WOOT Marty!
John, and what state are you from? What state is EQCA from?? Hmmmm......
John,
Yesterday you flat out rejected any concerns about religious liberty -- calling them "defeated arguments".
Today you say that the marriage debate is about nothing more than "outright bigotry."
Which is it? We push racists to the margins of society in a million different ways, and rightfully so. Our laws tell racists (even racist religious groups) that they can't discriminate in employment, can't broadcast their hatred on the airwaves, and aren't eligible for tax exemption.
Is that the future you envision for people of faith who oppose gay marriage? And you say that sort of official marginalization doesn't impact their religious liberty?
John,
Extremist? For defining marriage as the union of male and female, husband and wife? Really, that's extreme? Here, I thought it was just normative. Go figure.
Kevin,
Yet the SSM camp can seemingly do the same thing (force their view of "marriage" through the courts) and it's okay? Huh?
-
Nicholas,
I believe the following statement, the statement from Adam is that of an extremist.
"then you will want religion to teach god is gay, then you want us to teach our own children that they are gay. It wont stop…"
Blurting out the most outrageous, unfounded crap, is "extreme."
Oh Marty,
All new Civil rights were pulled out of thin air, and through the eyes of bigotry they do seem unfair and undeserved. The people of Arkansas certainly did not want segregation to end, but we see how that came out. Don't you remember how the National Guard had to come out to protect the children because the small-minded bigots couldn't contain themselves.
Bigotry looks at life through a very narrow scope, it rationalizes and it refutes, but in the end it loses. Don't take it too hard, my Dad's uncle went to his grave hating the coloreds.
John, are you really prepared to fight another war between the states over this issue?
Small minded bigots vs Sodomites.
Again, Marty, as I shake my head in disbelief,
You are welcome to join us in this 21st century, it's also a big ol' grownup world.
Considering that a majority of heterosexuals enjoy sodomy, you flat-earth people are seriously going to be out numbered.
I much prefer that you and the teabaggers (by the way, another form of sodomy) would move to Texas and secede.
I could care less about your sexual habits John, but find it interesting that you consider anyone who doesn't a "small minded bigot".
No, what I reject is this idea that a father can be replaced by an unrelated and redundant "mother figure". I will resist this sexist bigotry (based completely on your own sexual habits) until my dying day.
Kids need and deserve both a mother and a father -- your "orientation" is not even remotely relevant and is the least of my concern.
-
Marty,
You are all over the place with this, I'm talking marriage. Want to bring in what's fair for the dog and the apple tree in the front yard while you're at it?
And reject away! That's what's great about America, you live your life your way, I'll live mine my way.
Seriously, think TEXAS. Yee ha!
Religious liberty is a serious issue in the same sex marriage debate. We said so in CA, and legal experts are saying so in Maine.
http://www.bangordailynews.com/detail/125681.html
Marty
“No, what I reject is this idea that a father can be replaced by an unrelated and redundant “mother figure”. I will resist this sexist bigotry (based completely on your own sexual habits) until my dying day.”
You really have no clue on this topic, do you? How does outlawing same-sex marriage achieve your goal of having one mom/one dad families? Gay couples are completely free to have and raise children in all 50 states. There appears to be no momentum, except in Arkansas, to change that.
If society approves of same-sex couples raising children, why not give those children the added security of having married parents? Why discriminate against the children of same-sex couples? I really need your explanation for your point of view on this one!!
Amy,
Did you read the article? Religious freedom in this country is frequently curtailed in this country in the public realm. That’s why we don’t teach creationism in public schools, even as Christians teach their children at home that God created everything in six days, and rested on the seventh.
So long as religions take public monies in the form of tax-deductible donations, they will be subject to US law. Accept this. It shall always be so. If the government is giving your organization a tax break, as did the New Jersey government for the church in the article, you must follow the laws prohibiting discrimination.
Note that Christians are no longer allowed to stone people, discriminate against people who have committed adultery, had pre-marital sex or gotten divorced, which are also religious-based marital concepts. Selectively discriminating against homosexuals in a public place isn’t going to fly, either.
"How does outlawing same-sex marriage achieve your goal of having one mom/one dad families? Gay couples are completely free to have and raise children in all 50 states. "
Yep. But we don't need to put a goverment seal of approval on such a cruel and unusual practice, now do we?
We keep hearing about the hardships that the children of gay couples face -- and yet gay couples continue to subject their kids to them. That is thier choice in a free society, of course.
But it isn't society who is discriminating against these kids -- it is the sexist bigotry of the gap "parents" who insist that it is more important that their kids have no father (or mother, as the case may be) than it is to be married.
Anyway, if it's such a hardship, then surely SOME gay couples are smart enough not to subject any additional children to it.
That's "the gaY "parents"" of course, not gap parents.
If you boys want to shack up and play house, it's no skin off my nose -- knock yourself out. But if you intend to teach your children that mothers are not important, and your own sexual bias is a good enough reason for you kid not to have one, and that two grown men playing house are "equal" to a husband and wife, a mother and father, then you are completely out of your mind and in my opinion perpetrating a cruel and unusual sort of fraud on an innocent little kid.
You should be ashamed.
Marty,
“Yep. But we don’t need to put a goverment seal of approval on such a cruel and unusual practice, now do we?”
Marty: focus. We already DO put the government and social approval on gay couples raising children. Most states specifically approve of same-sex couple adoption. It is already legal in ALL states for same-sex couples to raise children. Sadly, the children of same-sex couples do not have the same right to having married parents that the children of opposite-sex couples do. Thanks to homophobes like you who hate children.
Certainly, you’re not advocating that gay people not be permitted to procreate are you? Isn’t procreation an inalienable human right? And aren’t two parents better than one? Your fake concern for children, in light of the devastating affects of divorce on children, and your silence on making divorce illegal, as well as criminalizing the adultery that so often precedes divorce, is deafening.
I'm all for making divorce and adultery illegal. Are you?
-
Marty, I'm all for you to stop worrying about what's going on in someone else's life. MYODB.
No sir. I refuse to sit by when such cruel and unusual experiments are being performed on children. Not in the name of sexist bigotry, no sir.
You wouldn't amputate your kids left hand just because you were right handed, were you? But you'd tell him he has no mother just because you don't like girls? No sir. I will not MYODB TYVM.
Daniel,
What's interesting to me is that folks find it "convenient" to define homosexuals as a behavior rathar than people. I do not define someone as heterosexual because of whom they sleep with.
"What’s interesting to me is that folks find it “convenient” to define homosexuals as a behavior rathar than people."
Convenience has nothing to do with it. People are people, actions are actions. That's just reality. Having same sex attraction does not make you into another race of people. People who experience same sex attraction are still just people, first, foremost and forever.
How we all choose to behave is up to us.
Chuck, that too is an already defeated argument. Please, enough of the rationalizing.
Marty, again, mind your own, and grow up.
Mark and Charles point to what I believe is a weakness in our language that causes some confusion:
In short, Heterosexuality is something much larger than a mere "sexual orientation" -- it is a law of nature that not even homosexuals can escape.
John, you have not addressed the argument, much less defeated it.
Chuck, you are regurgitating the same stupid argument that you have posted elsewhere. It's pure nonsense and frankly hysterical. It's like watching my dog chase his tail.
Dodge #2?
Are you really trying to tell me that homosexuals have no control over their actions? They're out of control?
Chuck,
Actually, it was a kin to a Barney Frank line. I too will not argue with my dining room table, the only question is your planet of origin?
I've seen your senseless, everything is a behavior, go nowhere argument elsewhere. IT IS STUPID. If I was there in person I would ASL it into the palm of your hand.
Dodge #3? The only stupid thing here is you having no reply to a simple question in a discussion. So far you can address neither the person nor the issues in a coherent manner. On an issue you claim is of utmost importance to you, is this the best you have to offer?
Whatever you need to say, Chuck. LOL
I've never heard anyone punt on such a straightforward issue. What are you afraid of John? And why can't you read?
I don't think he is quite sure of his position. I don't think he can really believe that homosexuals have no choice in their behavior. I think he can't support his claim, and so he resorts to poking fun, hoping someone will get mad and change the subject.
Maybe the issue will just go away on it's own. Who knows, maybe he has no choice.
Yeah John hasn't made a coherent point since #15:
"Let’s make this crystal clear, this has never been about marriage, this has always been about homophobia and outright bigotry."
He's just not capable of arguing with anyone about marriage -- you're all just a bunch of fag-bashers and that settles that.
Except for the ugly little fact that we all get to vote, and his doesn't count any more than mine or yours.
Homosexuals have control over their behavior. As do heterosexuals. The real question is..why homosexual behavior is seen as "wrong"? If it's between two consenting adults with no harm being done, what's the big deal? Live and let live
Not just wrong Ross....wrong, distasteful, unhealthy, harmful....and more. And when applied to a family situation it's also selfish.
I'm all for live and let live, but the gay community gave up that effort when they imposed marriage redefinition on a free people. Who wants marriage neutered?
Excellent explanation!
Marty,
Why would I oppose legalized adultery and divorce? I’m not the one against same-sex marriage, you are. I’ll take you seriously when I see a “people’s initiative” on state ballots to criminalize adultery and outlaw divorce. It would never pass, though; too many Christians vote, and they LOVE to divorce!
“No sir. I refuse to sit by when such cruel and unusual experiments are being performed on children.”
Then what are you doing to stop same-sex parenting? It’s legal in all 50 states. Why aren’t you supporting same-sex marriage? The children of same-sex couples do not deserve the cruel and unusual punishment that not having married parents inevitably is. Stop hurting kids, ok?
“I’m all for live and let live, but the gay community gave up that effort when they imposed marriage redefinition on a free people. Who wants marriage neutered?”
Who wants marriage’s lifelong commitment eviscerated by divorce? Why is legal divorce ok, but legal same-sex marriage not? You can’t have it both ways, saying marriage is so sacred and important and wanting same-sex marriage outlawed, but pre-marital sex, adultery and most of all, divorce, to be legal.
Of course you support divorce, adultery, sodomy, and god knows what else Kevin. Call me shocked!
PS: You're already taking me seriously, hunny. You're obviously very worried about people like me -- the vast majority -- who think your ideas about marriage are dangerous and ridiculous. See you at the polls!
"The children of same-sex couples do not deserve the cruel and unusual punishment that not having married parents inevitably is. "
And who was it that put them in this predicament? Who was it that removed either their mother or father from the equation? It sure wasn't me... I'd like nothing more than for these kids to have a married mother and father of their very own. Is that so much to ask? Or does your sexist bigotry trump what kids need and deserve?
Marty
I think you are in a very tiny minority who believe gay people shouldn’t reproduce. Since the vast majority of people support every human being’s right to reproduce, and take a life partner, well, gosh, shouldn’t we have some concern for the children?
If you’re so concerned about children having ready access to a mom and a dad, what’s your stand on legal divorce, which severs the mom/dad parenting bond? What about voluntarily single parents, sperm banks, widowed parents who choose not to remarry, etc.?
I care enough about children to beg you to consider their welfare. Please put children ahead of your homophobia. Your reward for doing so will be in Heaven.
“Of course you support divorce, adultery, sodomy, and god knows what else Kevin. Call me shocked!”
What makes you think I support them? I’m adamantly opposed to them. I just think they should be legal because I can’t know any particular couples’ circumstances that might require that they resort to any or all of these. Same with same-sex marriage. It’s not for me to judge. Just God.
I have no opinion on whether gay people reproduce -- that's a personal decision. But I do have an opinion on depriving a kid his father because mommy doesn't like boys: cruel, unusual, and sexist.
"If you’re so concerned about children having ready access to a mom and a dad, what’s your stand on legal divorce [I believe "til death do us part" should be legally enforced]? What about voluntarily single parents [selfish and cruel. Nearly child-abuse, and a drain on society], sperm banks [should be limited to the medically infertile -- not abused by the socially infertile], widowed parents who choose not to remarry [tragic, but life/death happens]"
Marty,
Again, how does outlawing same-sex marriage stop what you object to, that is, dual-gender parenting? I think you're opposing the wrong thing. You should take a stand against legal same-sex parenting, not legal same-sex marriage. Many same-sex couples don't have children. Is it ok if they marry?
I mean single-gender parenting LOL
I'm taking their word at face value Kevin. We're constantly being told about the hardships children of same-sex couples face, because their "parents" have chosen a lifestyle that cannot include marriage.
If these hardships are real, and not just hype, then it only follows that many same-sex couples will NOT subject children to them, until/unless "marriage" becomes an option.
Which, if true, means that legal recognition of SSM will result in more children -- not less -- being intentionally deprived of either a mother or father, according to the particular bias of their "parents".
(PS: I have, and do take a stand against same-sex parenting. Haven't you been paying attention son?)
Marty
I’m not your son. Was that supposed to diminish me or something? It didn’t, it diminished you. Where are your public comments against same-sex parenting? Is there a website where you post? I’d like to see them. Have you signed citizen initiative petitions against legal same-sex parenting? Have you written your Congressperson? Tried to persuade your friends and neighbors that gay couples shouldn’t be allowed to reproduce? I’m betting you haven’t. You’re just saying it now as a rhetorical defense, son.
Marty
“If these hardships are real, and not just hype, then it only follows that many same-sex couples will NOT subject children to them, until/unless “marriage” becomes an option.”
Congratulations, you’ve now become absurd. One shouldn’t be allowed to reproduce until one is legally permitted to marry, something gay couples want to do, but their fellow citizens have decided against? And yet any number of heterosexual couples freely have children without benefit of wedlock. And there are no public efforts to stop them.
Talk to me about absurd. If you haven't seen any public efforts to reduce unwed parenting, then you simply aren't paying attention.
Marty
As you well know, I’m not talking about “efforts against,” I’m talking about “making illegal.” Big difference. You can rail against same-sex marriage all you want, just don’t make it illegal, so that people have the option to do it, if that’s what their lives require for happiness.
Since society approves of legal adultery and legal pre-marital sex and legal divorce, there simply isn’t a leg to stand on to become indignant at the thought of legal same-sex marriage. You’re not a hypocrite, are you?
But same-sex "marriage" is NOT "illegal" in any of the 50 states. You and John are free to shack up and play house to your heart's content -- this is no crime.
But please don't ask the rest of us to pretend that your arrangement is "equal" to husband and wife, or mother and father. That's simply ridiculous.
Marty,
More absurdity. “Shacking up” is not legal marriage. There’s a whole host of federal and state benefits for legally married couples. You know that. Why are you acting so obtuse? No one’s asking you to pretend anything. You are free to disapprove of same-sex marriages if you wish, just as you are free to disapprove of inter-racial marriages, adultery, and divorce. But they’re all legal. We cannot under our system of laws treat gay people differently than straight people. Period.
"We cannot under our system of laws treat gay people differently than straight people. Period."
We don't. Period. What we do is treat two men different than a man and wife. Because they ARE different.
Marty,
I invite you to read the opinion of the unanimous Iowa Supreme Court decision, striking down Iowa’s discriminatory marriage statute, on the grounds of the Iowa state’s constitutional guarantee of equal protection. You are free to distinguish in your mind the marriage between a man and a woman, and a marriage between a man and man. Just as you are free to distinguish between a young couple getting married and two widowed seniors marrying, or a successful business man divorcing his first wife and replacing her with a trophy wife. You are free to condemn Rush Limbaugh for his three divorces. Yet he is legally free to marry and divorce as often as he wishes. So much for the sacredness of marriage, eh?
The law, however, makes no such distinction. Marriage is marriage, regardless of the composition of the married couple. You want us to obey the law, don’t you?
Kevin -- so move to Iowa.
I have no interest in marrying a same-sex partner. I'm sure Iowa's a nice place. I'll stay put just the same.
Where do you stand on obeying the US Constitution's 14th Amendment? I'm just curious.
"Where do you stand on obeying the US Constitution’s 14th Amendment? I’m just curious."
A valid question. Here's where I stand:
The 14th Amendment was ratified by 28 of the 37 states in 1868. Do you honestly think that would have happened if the ratifying states had known that they were making same-sex marriage legal? No, it could not have been ratified then -- and it could not be ratified today, if that was the understanding.
Therefore, same-sex marriage was NOT legalized when the 14th Amendment was ratified. How could it have been?
As it is, 30 states have created constitutional amendments declaring marriage to be one man and one woman. We only need 8 more to ratify a federal amendment to the constitution.
Marty
Using your flawed logic, the 14th Amendment would not have passed if it was known that blacks and whites could intermarry, or that women would win the right to vote.
You need to review your constitutional amendment adoption process. Constitutional amendments originate in the US House and are approved by state legislatures, not individual voters. It is highly unlikely that Congress and then state legislatures will adopt an amendment that discriminates against gay people, just because voters in some states do.
"Using your flawed logic, the 14th Amendment would not have passed if it was known that blacks and whites could intermarry, or that women would win the right to vote."
Please. It is quite possible that the 14th Amendment would have passed in 1868 if it were understood to include interracial marriage. In any case, certainly such an amendment WOULD be ratified easily in more modern times (unlike SSM). So judicial avctivism aside, that point is moot.
Women were guaranteed the right to vote by the 19th Amendment in 1920. The 14th had nothing to do with it.
"It is highly unlikely that Congress and then state legislatures will adopt an amendment that discriminates against gay people, just because voters in some states do."
True, but certainly it is FAR more likely than finding SSM a constitutional right, under the 14th or any other amendment. Ratification of that idea is now, and always has been absurd.
Marty
“True, but certainly it is FAR more likely than finding SSM a constitutional right, under the 14th or any other amendment. Ratification of that idea is now, and always has been absurd.”
You didn’t read the Iowa decision, did you? There’s a great six-page summary at the Iowa Supreme Court’s website. The issue isn’t that same-sex marriage is or isn’t a constitutional right. The issue is, if states are going to offer marriage licenses (or drivers licenses, or fishing licenses) they can’t arbitrarily deny a specific group (such as homosexuals) the right to get one of these licenses. It violates constitutional equal protection doctrine.
The Iowa court got it wrong friend. Get over it and on with your life and stop trying to force your morality down the throats of people who aren't interested.
A unanimous decision? This group of heterosexual, married men and women ALL got it wrong? How convenient for you and your viewpoint!
And how inconvenient for you. Because every time the courts of one state redefine marriage without consulting their citizens, 2 more states pass a constitutional amendment making that impossible.
Your disrespect for democracy and for your neighbors right to participate in government is duly noted.
And your disrespect for the US Constitution’s 14th Amendment guaranteeing equal protection under the law, the 1st Amendment guaranteeing separation of church and state and 5th Amendment’s guarantee of due process is duly noted.
Also noted: your disrespect for same-sex couples who, when denied the right to marry, are denied the legal rights afforded married couples, as well as the longer, healthier lives that married people enjoy, according to Maggie Gallaher of this website. You also appear disdainful of the children of same-sex couples, who are denied the security that having married parents gives the children of opposite-sex couples.
So let’s review: you hate the US Constitution, you hate gay couples and you hate their children. Bravo!
No friend, I already shot down your 14th amendment argument. It's dead as a doornail. You don't get ti invent constitutional rights because you want them -- they must be ratified by a majority of states or they simply do not exist.
You can see for yourself what havoc was wrought by the Roe decision, which created an illegitmate "right to privacy" that was not, nor ever could have been ratified by the states.
If you want the SSM battle to remain a festering sore on our culture, then ram it down our throats like abortion was. Tryanny is on your side.
Dead as a doornail? Not hardly. Unanimous court decisions in Missouri, Hawaii and most recently, Iowa, appear to support the idea that gays get to have equal rights as straights.
I’m sorry, friend, that you have so little understanding of the US Constitution. Try reading it, especially the 9th Amendment, which says the people are not denied rights just because those rights aren’t enumerated in the Constitution. Your casual acquaintance with, and lack of obedience to, the US Constitution is frightening.
Funny, I was about to say the same about you. Considering that you believe it is a handful of judges who create our constitutional rights for, while completely ignoring the process spelled out in the constitution itself whereby We The People create them for ourselves by mututal argument and eventual agreement.
If you'd rather live under a dictatorship where your leaders know what's best for you, I can suggest a couple of places.
Marty
Judges are supposed to determine if laws are constitutional or not. They are not supposed to determine if laws are popular or not. I know it’s all the rage to call them “activist judges” if they decide marriage discrimination is unconstitutional, but they’re just doing their jobs. Disagree with their decision but don’t slander them for doing their jobs. The only reason you and others like you insist that this is a matter for the people to decide is because you know many if not most people will decide against gay couples and their children, based on their fear, hatred and ignorance of the law.
We rarely decide on laws as individual citizens. We’re a representative democracy, not a direct democracy.
I hear what you're saying Kevin, but apparently you aren't hearing me. Either that, or you just disagree and can't explain how.
Whether or not a law is Constitutional depends on what the constitution actually says/means. And every right in the constitution was approved and ratified through the representatives of a supermajority of states.
Can you claim, with a straight face, that when the 14th or any other amendment was ratified -- or at any time since -- the representatives of a supermajority of states were creating a constitutional right to same-sex marriage? Ever?
The very idea is preposterous. So then, is any claim that SSM is guaranteed by any right in our constitution.
Marty
I don’t think anyone is saying that marriage is guaranteed by the Constitution, certainly not by the US Constitution. The 14th Amendment says that citizens have to be treated equally, not that a certain right is guaranteed.
Previous US Supreme Court cases have ruled that prisoners can’t be prevented from marrying, fathers who are behind on their child support can’t be prevented from marrying, interracial couples can’t be prevented from marrying, etc. Marriage is seen by the Court as a pretty fundamental right and as noted (and which you reject, since you don’t agree with it), three state courts have ruled unanimously on equal protection grounds that states can’t give marriage licenses to straight people but not to gay people.
So are you claiming that men and women are legally "equal"? And therefore 2 men are no different than 2 women, are no different than 1 man and 1 woman?
Because if there really is no difference between men and women, then you and I have no argument. But if there IS a difference, then it's absurd to think that separate could ever be equal. Two men either can or cannot equal two women. Which is it?
PS: "gayness" has nothing to do with it, as I'm sure you've noticed. No one cares, no one asks, and there is no "sexual orientation" test to pass. The question is, does sex matter?
"three state courts have ruled unanimously on equal protection grounds [based on "gayness"]"
And the People of 30 states have risen up and said "Now wait a minute!" Surely you can see what's happening here: we have a tiny minority of people who are insisting on forcing their radical ideals upon the rest of society, and society is rejecting it as strongly as possible.
If, as you and these 3 state courts claim, "marriage is a fundamental right", then you might expect there to be a law somewhere, anywhere, prohibiting gay people from marrying. But it's just not there. Gay men and lesbian women can and do marry, in every state in this country, practically every single day. One man, one woman, without regard to race, religion, or sexual orientation. It's a wonderful thing isn't it?
Marty
Yes, men and women are legally equal. Not sure if there’s a point there but I’ve never been afraid to state the obvious.
No one said there’s no difference. There’s a difference between a 20 year old female and a 75 year old female, not the least of which is fertility, and they can both still get married.
“we have a tiny minority of people who are insisting on forcing their radical ideals upon the rest of society, and society is rejecting it as strongly as possible.”
Tiny minority? As close as the vote was in California and as close as it’s going to be in Maine, you want to call those of us who support marriage equality and an end to marriage discrimination a “tiny minority”?
“Gay men and lesbian women can and do marry, in every state in this country, practically every single day. One man, one woman, without regard to race, religion, or sexual orientation. It’s a wonderful thing isn’t it?”
It would be even better is for gay people to marry someone they want to marry, just like straight people get to. That way, we’d respect our Constitution, have fewer divorces and create better parenting environments for our nation’s children. You care about kids, don’t you?
"Yes, men and women are legally equal. "
Wrong. Men and women are NOT equal under the eyes of the law. Until and unless they are, you don't have an "equality" argument and will have to find another avenue. Next?
"and create better parenting environments for our nation’s children."
So you think it's better for a kid to be raised without his father, if his mom hates men. You think this is a "better environment" than expecting her to respect that it takes both and exactly one man and one woman to create a child. That's twisted my friend. Apalling, and utterly derranged.
Marty,
Are you a male heterosexual? Do you therefore hate men? Sexual attraction is merely a specific kind of human appetite, like food. Some people like tomatoes; I can’t stand them. It’s beyond anybody’s control. Do I hate people who like tomatoes? Nope, not at all. Sometimes I even make myself eat them, because they’re so healthy. I don’t think lesbians hate men. Many lesbians have fathers and brothers, male colleagues and friends. Sexual orientation doesn’t dictate your interpersonal relationships.
Do you think it’s good for kids to be raised by a dad who’s in prison, and a mom who works as a prostitute? Well, it’s perfectly legal. To reduce good parenting to merely gender tells me you aren’t a parent. Take it from those of us who are, kids need nurturing and love, and good role models. My grandfather was a much stronger influence on me than my father. I may as well have had two lesbians for moms, and my granddad as the “necessary” male influence.
Kevin,
Your assessment of who we are as humans leaves me to wonder if we have any recourse at all? On one hand, you state that "Some people like tomatoes; I can’t stand them. It’s beyond anybody’s control." Yet, you go onto say that you occasionally eat them because they are so healthy. That being the case, I didn't think you had any say (control) over the liking/eating of tomatoes. So which is it?
I have long suspected that otherwise ordinary people who reject that fatherhood plays any particular importance in a childs life are projecting their own failed relationships with their own fathers. Tragic, indeed, but thank you for confirming my theory Kevin.
Marty
Maybe you’re just being snarky but no one rejects the role of someone’s father in their lives, or their mother. But to insist that children can’t be happy and well-adjusted without one of the other is simply false. There are many faulty dual-gender parenting situations; one male and one female does not automatically create good parents.
And no one forces widowed parents to remarry, or voluntarily single parents to marry. And outlawing same-sex marriage doesn’t even stop same-sex couples from raising children together. It just makes those children less secure, for reasons fully documented by NOM’s own Maggie Gallagher.
It’s a strawman argument and I’m glad you guys keep arguing it. It’s so unconvincing that people on the fence on this issue are more likely to support same-sex marriage in order to create a more stable environment for children being raised by same-sex couples.
Kevin, can you name me one situation where a child grows up without a father that isn't tragic? Just one please.
Barak Obama is a person, not a situation. But let's look at what he himself had to say about the matter:
"I observe this Father’s Day not just as a father grateful to be present in my daughters’ lives but also as a son who grew up without a father in my own life. My father left my family when I was 2 years old, and I knew him mainly from the letters he wrote and the stories my family told. And while I was lucky to have two wonderful grandparents who poured everything they had into helping my mother raise my sister and me, I still felt the weight of his absence throughout my childhood.
As an adult, working as a community organizer and later as a legislator, I would often walk through the streets of Chicago’s South Side and see boys marked by that same absence—boys without supervision or direction or anyone to help them as they struggled to grow into men. I identified with their frustration and disengagement—with their sense of having been let down.
In many ways, I came to understand the importance of fatherhood through its absence—both in my life and in the lives of others. I came to understand that the hole a man leaves when he abandons his responsibility to his children is one that no government can fill."
Clearly, his father's abandonment was a tragedy.
Kevin,
Because it would recognize their particular relationship over and against that of the rest of the non-marital category. As has been stated ad nauseum by Chairm, Marty, Beetlebee, and others, what makes a SS relationship in need of special status that it be recognized by the gov't via a "marriage" license? Why is this so hard to understand?
Finally the voters can decide, just like California, that they do not want to legalize Gay Marriage...My problem is the Courts are stepping in after the vote or before the people have voted to backdoor the voter. I do not have a problem with gay people....I have a problem with THEIR BEHAVIOR....Sex with your own kind is wrong on sooo many levels...Don't ask me to vote to legalize this behavior...I don't need to know if you are gay and DON't TELL ME.
We're destroying the basic fabric of human existence, the family structure.
"I do not have a problem with gay people….I have a problem with THEIR BEHAVIOR" who are you fooling???
Brenda you're ignorant. Your comments reek of homophobia and hate.
Sergio, your comment illustrates the very concern we have with gay marriage mainstreaming the homosexual lifestyle. There is no tolerance for differing viewpoints from your own.