Dear Friends of Marriage,
"We must stand for preserving traditional marriage and oppose
efforts to legalize same-sex marriage."
-Sean Hannity, Conservative Victory-
Our friend and ally, Sean Hannity, host of Fox News Channel's successful primetime program Hannity and of Premiere Radio Network's The Sean Hannity Show (heard by approximately 13.5 million loyal listeners nationwide) has just released his new book, "Conservative Victory." In it, he outlines his "Top 10 Items for Victory" - chief among them social and value issues such as preserving traditional marriage.
Hannity's ringing defense of marriage is a welcome rebuke to those Republicans working to undermine the party's commitment to common-sense values.
You can purchase a copy of the book here.
Please share this message with friends and family.
Faithfully,
Brian S. BrownExecutive Director
National Organization for Marriage
20 Nassau Street, Suite 242
Princeton, NJ 08542
bbrown@nationformarriage.org
©2010 National Organization for Marriage.
16 Comments
I like the "preserving" word used here. Some things shouldn't change and marriage is one of them. Marriage is the fundamental foundation for society. Change the definition of marriage and change the foundation for society. Preserving marriage will preserve our society.
Extending marriage and the federal and state benefits that come along with it to same sex couples does nothing to undermine marriage for straight couples. Zilch.
You hope right Clark? I mean, you really hope that it doesn't undermine marriage for the rest of society, but you don't really know do you? Unless of course you look at other countries, other civilizations where this is being tried. It's the great human experiment isn't it? How far can we go in tearing apart the human family in pursuit of our own selfish goals before society disintegrates?
You know, there were many at the beginning of the sexual revolution who preached that there were no consequences to divorce either. Zero. Zilch. Here we are 40 years later, and now we know. Can we go back? Sure, but it's a long road back from here. What about the two or three generations since that time that have deteriorated because of the selfish needs and philosophical whims of the morally "liberated"? Are they just more casualties of the culture war?
At most now we have another topic to teach our children. One kid told my son it was ok for a man to marry another man. Ok so some states it is true. My son asks dad is it ok for a man to marry another man? I said technically in some states where the law says its ok they can. But its their choice, like smoking cigarettes isn't a good choice but some people do it. Now I don't know if that was a good answer. My son is 6 years old. I'd like to open this question up. How would you respond to a question like this?
Clark,
This is the same argument that was used by advocates of no-fault Divorce. How will making my divorce easier hurt your marriage? Divorce rates skyrocketed. It did hurt marriages.
Fundie, not the same. You can't bar an entire class of people from the privileges you enjoy because of what *could* happen to your own marriage.
Clark, You have just switched from legislative/socialogical discussion to a legal one. Legally, there is no question that one man/one women is rationally related to a legitimate state purpose (protecting children) and legal. Even the state Supeme Courts in New York and Washington agreed.
But to address your main point, legal Same Sex Marriage will radically shift the law and society. Same Sex Marriage will be taught in schools, and parents who disagree will have no grounds to object. Religous schools that do not embrace Same Sex Marriage, will lose tax exemptions and grants. Doctors who provide reproductive services will be compelled to provide service to Homosexual couples. I don't think this shift is disputed. Gays love it. Religious folks hate it.
But beyond even the immediate legal and social changes, I think there would be profound demographic impacts that could threaten civilization. Marriage rates will drop, and Fertility rates will implode. The few kids that are born will be in single parent/unmarried parent homes. Gay Marriage might just be another symptom of Modern fragmentation, but I do think it will greatly accelerate trends that are well underway. I could be wrong, but only time - a long time - will tell.
"You can't bar an entire class of people "
Gays are not a social class of people they are in every class and level of society.
Steve, "class" can be used to mean "group", not just a designation of social strata. Gay people are a group that has historically been and continues to be discriminated against.
Straight people have done a fine job weakening marriage. You can't argue, fundie, that opening marriage to gay people will result in the demise of an institution that straight people have been screwing up for a while. Children are not a requirement for a marriage certificate, neither is proof of fertility or the possibility of procreating.
Clark,
There is an rock solid deductive logic to One Man/One Women marriage. IF there is a Child, there Must be one father, and one mother. They are what logicians call a Necessary Condition. One Man/One Women is not a suficient condition, but both Necessary and Sufficent conditons are not required to establish a rational basis.
However, if the definition of marriage is changed to allow same sex couples, there is no basis to exclude anyone. The door to polygamy and group marriage will swing wide open.
Fundie, divorce doesn't hurt marriage. It hurts marriage statistics. What hurts marriages is people who have not learned to be self-aware getting into situations where they think everything is sunshine and buttercups, and then wind up disappointed when things don't go their way. Also, I don't remember marriage being "taught in schools," gay or straight. You also said:
"Doctors who provide reproductive services will be compelled to provide service to Homosexual couples."
Wait.....what?
How can a homosexual couple REPRODUCE?
"Gay" marriage is only a negative issue if you want it to be. Shut up, and things will be just fine.
There's something I don't understand about the stance advocated on this website/by this organization. Part of the argument is that marriage's primary function is to protect children. And though it's true that a same-sex couple cannot provide both a mother and a father, isn't having two loving parents more important than the sex of those parents? When I think about all the children who grow up in abusive or unhealthy homes with straight parents, I can't help thinking that two parents who want those children and want to give them a good, well-adjusted life should be able to do so, despite their sexual orientation.
Also, I find the argument that polygamy and group marriage will be permitted if same-sex marriage is permitted to be offensive. Despite the claims that this issue is different from the prohibition of interracial marriage, I fail to see the difference; gay couples are kept inferior to straight couples, as though their partnership, however loving and committed (for example, couples who have been together upwards of twenty years) is not valid simply because they are different.
Finally, I would like to ask the question: if something similar to marriage were allowed for same-sex couples, with all of the same benefits as marriage (including the ability to adopt a child as a couple), but it were called something else, would this organization and its supporters have a problem with that?
Clark
your misreading of Supreme Court case law on the subject of marriage: you are making the same mistake the New York Court points out in its recent decision. Discussing the Supreme Court precedents of Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987); Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374 (1978); Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967); Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965); Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535 (1942)
Judge Graffeo noted….
“To ignore the meaning ascribed to the right to marry in these cases and substitute another meaning in its place is to redefine the right in question and to tear the resulting new right away from the very roots that caused the U.S. Supreme Court and this Court to recognize marriage as a fundamental right in the first place.”2
2 - Andersen v. King County (J. Graffeo concurring)
The right to marry is not a privilege conferred by the State, but a fundamental right that is protected against unwarranted State interference. On the legal aspect, instead of creating a new fundamental right to marry, or more accurately the right to choose whom to marry, the State does not have a rational basis to deny same-sex couples marriage on the ground of due process and equal protection.
In California, Justice Corrigan's dissent made a point similar to Judge Gaffeo:
"What is unique about this case is that plaintiffs seek both to join the institution of marriage and at the same time to alter its definition. The majority maintains that plaintiffs are not attempting to change the existing institution of marriage. This claim is irreconcilable with themajority’s declaration that “[f]rom the beginning of California statehood, the legal institution of civil marriage has been understood to refer to a relationship between a man and a woman.”
Nice Job fundie...thanks for the quote...Visit our website sometime...