NOM Marriage News: January 22, 2010

NOM BLOG

NOM Marriage News: January 22, 2010

NOM Marriage News.

Dear Friends of Marriage,

Senator Scott Brown!

Any time you wonder whether miracles can happen, just mutter that phrase under your breath: Senator Scott Brown!

A political earthquake just happened in Massachusetts. Yes, it's about the economy. Yes, it's about voter dissatisfaction with the current health-care bill. And yes, it's a victory for marriage, electing a senator who voted for a state marriage amendment and who pledged to uphold DOMA over a candidate who has led the charge to get the Supreme Court to gut DOMA--the one federal law that protects marriage as the union of husband and wife. (You can see from the articles in "NOM in the News" that our efforts to get marriage voters to the polls in Massachusetts did not go unnoticed!) Pres. Obama is also going to have a much harder time delivering on his promise to overturn DOMA after this 41st vote!

But it goes even deeper than that. Scott Brown's victory is a massive repudiation by voters of politicians who ignore their voices and their values--and let me tell you it bodes well for our job here at NOM in the 2010 elections in New Hampshire, Iowa and elsewhere. We have a great opportunity to fire incumbents who refuse to trust the people to vote on marriage, and replace them with elected representatives who represent our interests and values.

I am very optimistic about what this mean for marriage in the very near future--and so should you be!

And remember this is your victory! By helping NOM with your prayers, your sacrifices, your emails, your phone calls and yes, your time and treasure, you helped make this happen!

One of the things we want to do at NOM is remain lean, flexible and smart--with the capacity to act fast to make a difference when opportunities arrive. Sen. Scott Brown is, we hope, merely the first of many examples of where you can make a difference. Thank you. I never forget that you are what make our work possible.

The big Prop 8 trial continues to unfold. Maggie Gallagher is commenting about it daily at the NOM blog, and you can sign up for our Twitter feed if you want to keep up.

But here's the bottom line: So far, it's not going that well for gay-marriage advocates. Legal scholars who favor gay marriage are expressing increasing concern. After the Supreme Court intervened to block the shenanigans aimed at televising the trial, Prof. Dale Carpenter called it "a potentially ominous development for the pro-[same-sex marriage] litigants." After all, "As an advocate you'd rather not have the ultimate reviewing court call into question your judge's objectivity on the third day of trial. The Court also takes seriously the claims of irreparable harm to anti-SSM witnesses. ..." "As an advocate," he points out, "you'd rather not have the ultimate reviewing court see the opposition as David needing protection from your Goliath."

All in all, he concludes, "it's a bad start for the judicial challenge to Prop 8."

Ted Olson's and David Boies's basic legal strategy is to put Christianity on trial. Southern Baptist and Catholic statements about sex and marriage are being read into the record as evidence of animus and bigotry and fancy professors are testifying that "religion is the chief obstacle for gays' and lesbians' political progress."

As Maggie writes, "Ted and David want the Supreme Court to rule that Catholicism and Southern Baptism and related Christian denominations are bigotry."

You and I know better. You and I know that millions of decent, loving, law-abiding Americans are being characterized as bigots and haters because we know that marriage is the union of husband and wife.

One example: Cindy McCain.

You may have seen the news stories that Sen. McCain's wife announced her support of gay marriage. That's no big deal. It's a free country and everyone should be able to speak their minds, even when we disagree. But Mrs. McCain chose to express her mind by appearing in an ad campaign whose slogan is "NOH8." Get it? No to Prop 8, No Hate.

That's a slogan that collapses the distinction between hatred and disagreement, which insults and stereotypes 7 million Californians who voted for Prop 8--not to mention Mrs. McCain's husband, who campaigned for Arizona's marriage amendment.

I have a message for Ted and David: It's not going to work. It's not true, it's not civil or decent, and it's not going to work!

Pray for our opponents. We need grace, and courage, and kindness of heart to stand up to the onslaught unfolding before our eyes.

And we need, above all, to stand together for the truth about marriage.

With God's grace, truth will prevail.

God bless you!

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

P.S. We called 800,000 households in Massachusetts to find marriage voters to turn out for Scott Brown. Our coffers are bare. We need your help to replenish them so we can strike quickly when opportunities arise elsewhere. Can you reach down and help us make more victories happen? $10 for marriage this week can make a huge difference. If you're blessed with more and want to make more happen, consider a larger gift, $100 or even $1000 for marriage (we can dream big, can't we?). But above all keep praying and keep acting! It's morning in America for marriage! We're on the cusp of something really big.

NOM Featured Article
"Marriage Group Poll: Brown Up 5"
Ben Smith
Politico.com
January 18, 2010
Another data point for the junkies: The National Organization for Marriage says a smallish poll conducted for it by QEV Analytics has Brown up 5 (which is well within the margin for error of the 304-person sample).

NOM in the News
"Massachusetts Senate Candidates Push to the Finish Line"
New York Times
January 18, 2010
The National Rifle Association and the National Organization for Marriage - which opposes same-sex marriage - have also run small campaigns intended to get Mr. Brown's supporters to the polls on Tuesday, federal election records show.

"Brown Win a Setback for Gay Activists, Liberal Causes"
Baptist Press
January 20, 2010
The National Organization for Marriage -- a leading opponent of "gay marriage" -- spent $50,000 in the final days in automated phone calls to 800,000 households to elect Brown.

"Massachusetts Robocalls"
Metro Weekly
January 16, 2010
The National Organization for Marriage appears to be making automated telephone calls today in support of U.S. Senate candidate and Massachusetts Senator Scott Brown (R) and attacking his opponent, Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley (D), for her strong pro-marriage equality position. Coakley is running an unexpectedly close race for the seat held by the late Senator Edward Kennedy (D), the election for which will be held Tuesday.

"Scott Brown Benefits from Late National Republican Money"
Robert Schlesinger
USNews.com blog
January 17, 2010
The National Republican Trust, an influential and well-financed conservative PAC, has spent a bit under $100,000 on media and emails. The National Organization for Marriage ($50,000) and something called the Cooperative of American Physicians ($35,000) have each sunk money into phone banking on behalf of Brown.

"Judge Says Public Vote on D.C. Gay 'Marriage' Law Would Violate Human Rights Act"
LifeSite News
January 15, 2010
"Had gay-marriage opponents been able to hold a Prop. 8-style referendum (the successful California vote against same-sex 'marriage') in D.C., Washington would likely have followed the national trend and banned same-sex marriage," said Brian Brown, executive director of the National Organization for Marriage.

"Must-See TV"
Dahlia Lithwick
Newsweek
January 15, 2010
Yet when Judge Walker announced that he'd allow portions of Perry v. Schwarzenegger to be shown on YouTube, the fear of the marauding villagers was almost palpable. In opposing the move, for instance, Brian Brown, executive director of the National Organization for Marriage, argued that the decision to put cameras in the courtrooms was intended for "low profile" cases only. Can it possibly be true that the American citizenry is fit to watch only boring cases, not the big ones?

"Nun Need Apply"
Kathryn Jean Lopez
National Review Online
January 16, 2010
Maggie Gallagher, president of the National Organization for Marriage, who has been a close observer of and active participant in the religious-freedom fight across the country, including in Massachusetts, says: "The genteel liberal consensus around abortion -- as long as women can get them, let's not torture religious people or institutions that disagree -- is clearly breaking down. Part of the reason is that as religious people filter increasingly into the one party that protects their values, the other party is becoming increasingly open to using the law to stick it to such folks if possible."

"An Unlikely Warrior Against Prop 8"
Long Beach Press-Telegram
January 18, 2010
Karger stepped into the fight and did what he knows best. He created an organization, Californians Against Hate. The name belies its size. It was Karger and a few friends. Using the Internet and his knowledge of media and his organizing ability, Karger fanned boycotts of the six- and seven-figure donors to Yes-on-8, including a San Diego convention hotel and a Central Valley health food producer.

"Cindy McCain Defends Gay Marriage and Joins the NOH8 Campaign"
Associated Content
January 20, 2010
Proposition 8 may not have passed if it were not for the aggressive work of the National Organization of Marriage, a nonprofit organization that wants to "protect marriage and the faith communities that sustain it." The organization backs a number of conservative Republicans who believe that marriage should only happen between a man and a woman. With high profile Republicans, like the conservative Sarah Palin, it can be easy to forget that Republicans are not all the same.

"University of Colorado Catholics to Host Debate on Same-Sex 'Marriage'"
Catholic News Agency
January 21, 2010
The Catholic campus ministry at the University of Colorado at Boulder will host a debate next Monday on whether the government should recognize same-sex "marriage." The speakers will be Maggie Gallagher and Jonathan Rauch.

This entry was written by NOM Staff, posted on January 22, 2010 at 8:45 am, filed under NOM Marriage News. Bookmark the permalink. Follow any comments here with the RSS feed for this post. Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.

13 Comments

Adam

Posted January 23, 2010 at 12:44 pm | Permalink

I'm very disappointed that part of the strategy seems to single out religion. Probably part of the strategy is intimidation to get the churches to back out of any campaign activity. If religion gets involved the courts will drag you into their arena and smear you.
Its bogus to come to a conclusion that people can't use religious beliefs at the voting booth. Its equally bogus to portray 7 million california voters voted based of their religous beliefs. How many voters voted for prop 8 because a friend recommended it? How many voted because they feel it is unatural? How many voted because they got a call from someone who has a respectable opinion? The lawyers in this case want us simply to believe that all the voters definitely voted wrong because they all were religious bigots. Wrong!
Kevinn

Posted January 24, 2010 at 2:56 pm | Permalink

Adam,

I don’t think most voters in California voted for Prop 8 because of religious beliefs, but since the vote was nearly 50/50, with almost as many voting against the measure, there is a sense that the “faith” vote, and all the money that the Mormons and Catholics spent on misleading ads, tilted the win to the marriage discrimination side.

You can always vote your faith but if the outcome undermines the US Constitution, the law cannot stand. Laws always supersede faith beliefs, if the two are in conflict. That’s why pre-marital sex, adultery and divorce are all legal, even though the Bible prohibits them. If the courts determine that marriage discrimination is too closely aligned with religious belief and personal animosity toward homosexuals, marriage discrimination will fail..
Adam

Posted January 24, 2010 at 5:43 pm | Permalink

You think most voters didn't vote for prop 8 based on their religious beliefs. If that is the case, people not of faith tipped the scale, not religion.

You can always vote your faith. Thanks you should stop right there. I'd like to see Ted and gang prove each and everyone one of those votes that "tipped" the scale to the prop 8 side. You said yourself you think most voted not based on religious beliefs. I'd like to also see Ted and gang prove in court that the ads were misleading. I;d like to see him prove each person's conscience that watched a "misleading" ad. Its called hearsay. One person's opinion. People can vote for whatever reason they want and are not accountable to government at the ballot box.

Its Ironic you believe that Religion holds animosity towards homosexuals. Christian religions including Mormons,, Catholics, Lutheran, whatever all teach people to love their neighbor, help the sick and afflicted. Christians base their religion off the Bible. A book that is believed by many people including gays. Some gays are Christian and receive a feeling of comfort from pastors and bishops. They are not cast out. They are welcomed in our churches. We love the individual and hate the sin. I'd like to know how Ted and gang can have any chance of a case pointing to animosity of gays, when quite the opposite is happening.

Sure they can prove that religion doesn't agree with homosexual behavior, that's no secret. Christian religion teaches us to love the sinner and not the sin. Good luck proving animosity or hate in court. Its the opposite of what we teach.
TC Matthews

Posted January 25, 2010 at 3:10 pm | Permalink

excellent comment Adam. Right on.
Chairm

Posted January 25, 2010 at 11:36 pm | Permalink

I concur with Adam.

If the key is the beliefs of those who 'tilted the win' for the marriage amendment in California, then, SSMers can blame that portion of the openy gay electorate which delivered the margin of victory.

Do the anti-8 litigators want to drag those voters into court and accuse them of anti-gay animus? No, they do not, for some unstated reason.
Adam

Posted January 26, 2010 at 2:41 am | Permalink

For the record from the trial. Lets see who had the balance of power tilted their way at the ballet.

To show that homosexuals are not politically powerless, Dr. Miller provided “striking” examples of the many ways in which they have won support for their political agenda in California, claiming allies such as federal officeholders (both US Senators and President Obama) , local and statewide elected officials (more than 30 local officials, mayors of the top three cities, and every single Constitutional officer); organized labor (more than 54 such groups opposed Prop 8); major newspapers (21 of 23 opposed Prop 8 while the other two took no editorial position); major corporations (including a consortium of Silicon Valley businesses), and the fact that the “No on 8” campaign actually raised more money than the “Yes” side.

Hardly powerless, you practically had the entire state government on your side. And the governor and elected official have turned their back on the people not even fulfilling their obligations to the state. Shameful.
Karen Grube

Posted January 26, 2010 at 1:02 pm | Permalink

I just found out that as of yet, the Alliance Defense Fund hasn’t filed an appeal to the DC Superior Court’s decision that denying the voters the right to put the question of gay marriage on the ballot.

I also learned that if Congress does nothing on this matter, this law will go into effect the day the 30 legislative day review period runs out, whether or not the case is under appeal.

I am appalled at the possibility that gay marriage would be allowed for a short time and then be taken away once the court rightfully decides that silencing the voters on this issue violated the DC Charter, and then the voters decide to support traditional marriage instead.

Please tell Congress that they must not let this happen. There was absolute chaos in California because of the rash decision on the part of the State Supreme Court to allow gay marriage for a short time knowing full well that the question was up for a vote in a few months. Their lack of common sense and judicial responsibility was reprehensible, and I’m seeing the same situation with Congress right now in that they think that doing nothing to stop this from happening is acceptable.

Assuming ADF files its appeal in a timely manner, Congress has to stop this law from going into effect until the court has made its decision. I’d hate for ADF to have to file an injunction to stop it from going into effect while it’s under litigation, I’d prefer that Congress did its job and told the DC Council they just don’t get to silence the voters like that. But if an injunction is what it takes, I hope the ADF attorneys will do that.

In the meantime, please call Congress - in partidular the House Oversight Committee and the Federal Workforce and DC Subcommittee - and tell them to boot this law back to Mayor Fenty and the Council because the way the voters request to put this on the ballot was rejected violated the DC Charter.
Eve

Posted January 26, 2010 at 3:14 pm | Permalink

Karen Grube,

I contacted the committee and told them this needed to go back and placed on the ballot as the people of DC have demanded. Thank you for bringing this to our attention. SSMers have called this as their victory, let's make sure the people of DC have the final say.
Jason Goslin

Posted January 26, 2010 at 3:17 pm | Permalink

Adam et al, the whole notion of the the christian loving the sinner and hating the sin, is really an interesting one if you think about it. How can you love someone if you hate an integral part of who they are?

Homosexuality is not a disease or a learned behavior. I believe that christian's truly do try to love the sinner and hate the sin, but in the case of sexuality, the majority of christian's fall flat on their faces.

Love is trust, trust beyond what you may be able to comprehend at any given point; trust that the one you love knows themselves more than you ever could, and trust that they can count on you and vice versa no matter what ideological differences you may have at any certain point.

That is it. Simple. Give everyone the opportunity to love like christian's are supposed to.
Verity

Posted January 26, 2010 at 3:54 pm | Permalink

Adam, you're right that Christianity does teach love, but that doesn't mean we all live it well. I have heard plenty of other Christians say false and hateful things about gay people. You don't lie about people you love.
Adam

Posted January 26, 2010 at 7:21 pm | Permalink

To say that Religion hates gays is very offensive. Sure individuals make mistakes. Government makes mistakes, does government have corrupt politicians? Do we have corrupt police officers? Yes. Does the government then promote these kinds of behaviors? NO. Government makes solemn promises under oath to uphold the laws of the land. Religion promotes love, the central figure in Christianity taught to turn the other cheek, love your enemy. It does not mean everyone follows it, just like corrupt government officials. Claims that Religion is hateful are cynical.
Adam

Posted January 27, 2010 at 12:54 pm | Permalink

From the Prop 8 trial Expert Blankenhorn.

The only social relationship with a “biological foundation” found in the complementary nature of man and woman and their ability to procreate. Across all cultures and times, no other human relationship has been more closely connected to the ultimate goal of uniting the biological, social and legal dimensions of parenthood for the raising of children.

Gay marriage redefines marriage to be not biological and contractual, but just contractual. Simply a piece of paper for the benifits of marriage.
Leave all the difficult things like childbearing to the heterosexuals. Breastfeeding? Sheesh people still do that? Wait a second who said that gay marriage is unatural? The are just bigots!
Chairm

Posted January 27, 2010 at 8:36 pm | Permalink

SSM has no biological foundation. It has no foundation in family formation. It is, indeed, without foundation.

Well, that is if we remove from SSM argumentation its hyper emphasis on gay identity politcs. That is a socio-political construct and to press it into marriage law would be closely analogous to pressing racialist identity politics into marrige law.

That sort of thing has been long repudiated in our constitutional order.

NOM Marriage News: January 22, 2010

13 Comments

Post a Comment