Stand Up to Anti-Religious Bigotry in Our Capital!

NOM Marriage News.

Dear Friends of Marriage,

I've heard from many of you who were shocked and simply appalled at the anti-religious bigotry shown by supporters of same-sex marriage in the DC Council debate over same-sex marriage.

Unfortunately, that isn't even the worst of it. The Council's treatment of representatives from the Catholic Church, expressing concerns that it would be forced to choose between its charitable work and its religious convictions, has been nothing short of shameful. Several members of the Council are nearly giddy at the chance to punish the Catholic Church -- and religious believers of all stripes -- by passing a same-sex marriage bill.

The anti-religious bigotry on display in DC is reaching the point of the absurd. Earlier this week, Councilmember Tommy Wells wrote an open letter to U.S. Senator Dick Durbin urging him to use his position as committee chair to block educational vouchers for poor kids in DC.

Why?

Because some of the kids are using the vouchers to go to Catholic schools -- and the Catholic church opposes same-sex marriage.

So here it is:

Same-sex marriage advocates on the DC Council want to punish the District's poorest children because they can't force the Catholic Church to change it's historic beliefs about marriage.

I hope you find that as shocking as I did. It's bad enough that they want to punish religious believers who disagree with them. But to go after the District's poorest kids who are stuck in dead-end schools? Simply inexcusable.

In the Council vote on the DC same-sex marriage bill yesterday, just two of the Council's thirteen members had the courage to stand up for marriage in the face of the strong pressure brought to bear by same-sex marriage advocates.

Please take a moment to thank Councilmembers Marion Barry and Yvette Alexander for standing up for marriage. Click here to send an email to these courageous leaders today.

Reading the newspaper, you'd think this fight was over. "District Approves Same-Sex Marriage . . . Foes see little chance of reversal," is how Tim Craig of the Washington Post put it. Craig's piece (mis)quoted Bishop Harry Jackson as conceding the fight was over, but nothing could be further from the truth. Bishop Jackson heads up the Stand4Marriage committee where I represent NOM as treasurer. When I saw this article, I called up Bishop Jackson to see what he really said to the Post. You know what he said? We have not yet begun to fight!

We've known for more than a year how the DC Council would vote. That's why we're more determined than ever to make sure the people of the District have a chance to vote on this attack on marriage and religious liberty.

After the Board of Elections rejected the marriage initiative proposed by the Stand4Marriage coalition, we filed suit to overturn this bogus attempt to deny DC voters their constitutional rights. I'll keep you posted as the lawsuit moves forward.

Meanwhile, there's more we can do.

The same-sex marriage bill requires two votes before being enacted into law. The second vote is scheduled in two weeks, after which Mayor Adrian Fenty has promised to sign it into law. From that point, the U.S. Congress has 30 days in which to reject this blatant violation of the federal Defense of Marriage Act -- not to mention the protections against anti-religious discrimination contained in Title VII and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

Help send a message to Congress! Tell Senate and House leaders to reject this violation of DOMA and attack on religious liberty. We know Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi won't take any action to stop the DC Council's vitriolic attack on religious liberty unless they're forced to deal with it. They're hoping it will just go away, but if the issue blows up on them, they'll have no choice but to take action. We need to send a message to our Senators and Congressmen, telling them to stop same-sex marriage in our nation's capital. Click here to send a message to your Senators and Congressman today!

Please take a moment to contact your Senators and Congressman today.
And don't forget to send a message thanking Councilmembers Alexander and Barry.

Faithfully,
Brian S. Brown
Executive Director
National Organization for Marriage
20 Nassau Street, Suite 242
Princeton, NJ 08542
bbrown@nationformarriage.org

14 Comments

Chairm

Posted December 4, 2009 at 11:42 pm | Permalink

Brian said: "Bishop Jackson heads up the Stand4Marriage committee where I represent NOM as treasurer. When I saw this article, I called up Bishop Jackson to see what he really said to the Post. You know what he said? We have not yet begun to fight!"

The SSM campaign's corruptive influence begins with the readiness to misrepresent the views of the marriage supporters. It is so predictable that the regular voter is learning that the truth is the virtual opposite of what is presented by SSM sympathizers among reporters in the news media.

Just turn it upside down and your probably closer to the truth, as your example demonstrates.

Brian said: "We’ve known for more than a year how the DC Council would vote. That’s why we’re more determined than ever to make sure the people of the District have a chance to vote on this attack on marriage and religious liberty."

There is no principled basis to deny the direct vote on this. If SSM hardliners on the Council had the courage of their convictions, they'd put their attack on marriage to the test and campaign against the core meaning of marriage and do so in the name of gay identity politics. Afterall, they've already expressed such in their Council proceedings. What are they so scared of? They picked this fight and yet would runaway from it.

Well, we can start by reminding Congress that the DC Council, like schoolyard bullies, have placed their hopes of escape on the shoulders of elected representatives in the nation's legislative branch. Is this the fight they want to join -- on the side of the dodgers whose anti-religous bigotry and anti-marriage sentiments have invited this dust-up on Capitol Hill?

We'll find out soon enough.
Kevin

Posted December 4, 2009 at 11:51 pm | Permalink

“The Council’s treatment of representatives from the Catholic Church, expressing concerns that it would be forced to choose between its charitable work and its religious convictions, has been nothing short of shameful.”

What’s shameful is the Catholic Church’s approval of legal adultery and legal divorce, while opposing, for some unknown reason, only same-sex marriage. Oddly, the Catholic Diocese in DC is happy to give employment benefits to divorced persons, persons who use birth control, people who are or are committing adultery. It’s a pretty hard sell that suddenly you must follow your religion when the issue of homosexuality comes up!

Of course the biggest shame is the Catholic Church’s willingness to use the poor and needy as pawns as it tries to force its selective religious dogma on everyone!
Chairm

Posted December 5, 2009 at 11:30 am | Permalink

The Catholic Church does not approve of nonmarital sexual behavior, Kevin. You've been corrected on this point before and so your repetition of this misrepresentation stands as an outright lie on your part.

Whatever SSM might be (and SSMers are skittish to say what it actually is), the issue for the Church is the core of marriage.

The SSM campaign wants to misuse the marriage law as a vehicle for promoting gay identity politics. Okay, if that's the fight you really want, then, don't whine that people squarely stand against your purpose. The Bishops do so on the firm ground of reason and respect for human dignity.

The hardline SSMers want to change the subject from marriage to homosexuality -- or rather to the assertion of supremacy of their version of identity politics -- and so they'd abandon reason and respect for human dignity.

The world does not revolve around the SSM campaign's self-indulgence. More respectful SSM supporters know the difference and won't go along with the anti-religious antics of the hardliners.
Clark

Posted December 8, 2009 at 6:22 pm | Permalink

The catholic church is a vestige of by-gone bigotry. Just like NOM. D.C. is leading the way in marriage equality.
Peace

Posted December 8, 2009 at 7:09 pm | Permalink

Clark, it's interesting you'd admit your anti-religion, anti-freedom of thought, speech and conscience steeped agenda. That is of course what NOM has been saying all along. This issue isn't about love, or even marriage. It's about replacing one set of moral ideals with another. Not only replacing them, but forbidding any others. That's what's bigoted. Where's your tolerance for people who disagree with you?
Clark

Posted December 9, 2009 at 4:05 pm | Permalink

Your right to "disagree" and hold your bigoted ideas does not trump the over 1,100 rights straight people enjoy through CIVIL marriage that are denied to gay people.
Janet

Posted December 9, 2009 at 4:10 pm | Permalink

Clark, the SSM fight is not about gays vs. straights. Every human being has the same right I have to get married. Every human being has the same right I do to receive those benefits. The government can't force you to qualify. That is up to you.
Clark

Posted December 9, 2009 at 4:22 pm | Permalink

Janet,
It's not the same when you are gay or lesbian. I'm not going to marry someone of the opposite sex because I am not heterosexual. I'm homosexual. And your hang ups about our relationships are really irrelevant to our rights to have our relationship protected in a civil marriage. We aren't going to stop being gay, no matter how red in the face you turn trying to argue this non-truth.
Clark

Posted December 9, 2009 at 4:53 pm | Permalink

"The SSM campaign wants to misuse the marriage law as a vehicle for promoting gay identity politics."

We don't want to misuse anything. Don't put words in our mouths, Chairm. Your windbag rhetoric makes the situation much more complex than it is. Here's a simple definition of same sex marriage for you: I want to marry one person of the same sex that I intend to spend the rest of my life with so that I may enjoy the over 1,100 benefits of civil marriage, such as the special treatments married persons have with regard to estate tax, Social Security, retirement benefits, etc.
Dean

Posted December 9, 2009 at 5:22 pm | Permalink

Clark, "I want what I want, when I want it, regardless of who else it hurts" is not good reasoning, and isn't a good excuse for lack of argument. Things aren't so just because you want them to be, or just because your gay ideology tells you it ought to be. Societal practice is and ought to be based on merit, not ideology.
James R.

Posted December 9, 2009 at 5:24 pm | Permalink

Clark, and what do you say to other groups of sexually deviant individuals? Polygamists? Polyamorists? Pedophiles? Are they the next civil rights movements after yours? If actions are rights, then shouldn't all of their actions be equal to marriage as well?
Clark

Posted December 9, 2009 at 5:37 pm | Permalink

Dean,
Clark, “I want what I want, when I want it, regardless of who else it hurts” is not good reasoning, and isn’t a good excuse for lack of argument.

see my post #9:
"..1,100 benefits of civil marriage, such as the special treatments married persons have with regard to estate tax, Social Security, retirement benefits, etc."

This isn't concrete enough for you? Shall I list all 1,100? The people hurting the longer marriage equality is denied are American gay and lesbian families. You guys feign hurt or damage, but the real people suffering are us right now.
2 Cents

Posted December 10, 2009 at 9:45 am | Permalink

Clark,
You missed the point of Dean's response above. You have just as much ability to access those benefits as anyone else. Perhaps if you are suffering, you should rethink your life choices.
Chairm

Posted December 10, 2009 at 12:40 pm | Permalink

Clark, what makes your 'want' different from the rest of the types of nonmarital relationshps out there? Gayness.

You put it in your own mouth.

Or do you agree that there is nothing of societal significance that distinguishes your 'want' from the rest of the nonmarriage category of relationshps and arrangemnts?

Then maybe you don't stand on gayness as the decisive factor, afterall, but rather on demoting marriage from its special status.

Either way, your 'want' is simplistic, as you said, and the actual disagreement would be too complicated for you to engage. No crime in that.

Thanks for the concessions.