October 17, 2013 – 12:29 pm
In the aptly named Crisis Magazine, Stephen Beale has begun to chronicle the persecution of Christians as they take public stands through their businesses against the redefinition of marriage. NOM has chronicled many of these for you, but the article is a timely reminder of the growing threat to our free exercise of religion as marriage is redefined. Beale quotes, Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of The Thomas Moore Law Center:
These cases represent a new battlefield in the clash between the freedoms of Christians and the “radical homosexual agenda”…Despite their relatively small numbers, radical homosexuals wield enormous power. They dominate our cultural elite, Hollywood, television, the mainstream news media, public schools, academia, and a significant portion of the judiciary…As a result of their power, homosexual activists are able to intimidate and silence opposition.
Read more here.
October 3, 2013 – 12:55 pm
In addition to the important announcement today that NOM has filed suit against the IRS, two other stories are drawing heat for the Government agency today:
As part of the shutdown of the Federal government, the National Taxpayer Advocate Service (TAS) - which describes itself as "Your Voice at the IRS" - has shuttered its doors, and this has potential ominous consequences for citizens. Forbes reports:
Shutting down TAS could have some serious consequences, according to [the service's head, Nina Olsen]. With our voice at the IRS cut off, “the government can harm the taxpayer with impunity and the taxpayer has no redress”.... According to Olson, the advocate service routinely handles cases from distraught taxpayers who threaten suicide if their disputes with the IRS cannot be resolved expeditiously, as well as cases in which a lien on property ties up funds a taxpayer needs for lifesaving medical help. Apparently, the entire lien process has not been shut down.
You can read the full story here.
And if anyone knows the importance of having an avenue of redress when it comes to dealing with the IRS, it's the subject of the other story worth noting today: Dr. Ben Carson.
According to The Washington Times:
Just months after he gave a speech earlier this year that challenged America’s leadership in President Obama’s presence, Dr. Ben Carson was targeted by IRS agents who requested to review his real estate holdings and then conducted a full audit without finding any wrongdoing.
“I guess it could be a coincidence, but I never had been audited before and never really had any encounters with the IRS,” Dr. Carson said in an interview Thursday.... “But it certainly would make one suspicious because we know now the IRS has been used for political purposes and therefore actions like this come under suspicion.”
Go read more about Dr. Carson's situation, and let's hope that this powerful agency finally faces appropriate scrutiny and is held accountable to the American people.
October 3, 2013 – 7:30 am
At The Washington Times, Stephen Dinan reports that "The National Organization for Marriage will sue the IRS on Thursday, saying it has evidence that someone within the agency leaked the organization’s private donor list to its political enemies in 2012 but that nobody has been held responsible" [emphasis added].
Dinan spoke to attorney Cleta Mitchell of ActRight Legal Foundation which is handling NOM's case. She said:
Somebody did this deliberately and it was planned, and we need to know who it was. The IRS needs to pay. Ultimately, the IRS is responsible for the damages.
Dinan also quotes NOM's chairman, Dr. John Eastman, explaining how the fact that the leaked documents had internal IRS markings on that that had been hidden makes for a compelling case:
It suggests to me that this thing was deliberate and at high levels — head of the division, a political appointee, somebody. And darn it, we’re going to find out who did it, and we’re going to wrap it up with a bow and send it over to the Justice Department and keep the pressure on.
You can read Dinan's entire piece here.
And don't forget that you can hear John Eastman and Cleta Mitchell both speaking today at The Heritage Foundation as part of their ongoing series, Preserve the Constitution.
The event will be live-streamed from 12:00pm - 1:00pm EDT, and you can sign up for an email reminder here.
Oh, and the topic of the event? "Political Speech and the IRS: Protecting the First Amendment." Surely, this one is not to be missed!
October 2, 2013 – 11:28 am
"It's an evisceration of our freedom of association," said John Eastman, the chairman of the National Organization for Marriage...
We’ve been saying for years that one of the first casualties when you redefine marriage are our first amendment rights of religious liberty, free speech, and association. Now even the mainstream media has picked up on the growing list of attacks on the rights of businessmen and woman who wish to run their enterprises by the tenets of their faith. The Wall Street Journal reported,
As more states permit gay couples to marry or form civil unions, wedding professionals in at least six states have run headlong into state antidiscrimination laws after refusing for religious reasons to bake cakes, arrange flowers or perform other services for same-sex couples.
The issue gained attention in August, when the New Mexico Supreme Court ruled that an Albuquerque photography business violated state antidiscrimination laws after its owners declined to snap photos of a lesbian couple's commitment ceremony.
Similar cases are pending in Colorado, Illinois, New York, Oregon and Washington, and some experts think the underlying legal question—whether free-speech and religious rights should allow exceptions to state antidiscrimination laws—could ultimately wind its way to the U.S. Supreme Court. (Read more)
However, there is a easier way to resolve this issue than going to the US Supreme Court – Don’t Redefine Marriage in the first place.
September 26, 2013 – 10:00 am
Yesterday, from Deseret News, a story about the continuing battle surrounding our military's chaplain services in the wake of the Supreme Court's fateful DOMA decision this past June:
The Catholic Church has joined Southern Baptists in directing its military chaplains not to witness or bless same-sex marriages nor offer marriage counseling to gay couples.
The rules issued last week by the Archdiocese of Military Services also prohibit chaplains from acknowledging a spouse of the same gender at a retirement or promotion ceremony, or from assisting at a funeral if it would "give the impression that the Church approves of same-sex 'marital' relationships."
The guidelines also give direction on how to comply with implementing federal employee benefits for same-sex couples under their command.
You can read more here.
Unfortunately, we know that these challenges for our chaplains will only continue unless Congress acts decisively either to pass aggressive and sweeping conscience protection legislation or to undo the Court's strike against DOMA by passing a Federal Marriage Protection Amendment.
In the meantime, please join us in praying for our brave men and women in uniform and the chaplains who serve them.
August 29, 2013 – 1:20 pm
Whenever we talk about the effects of redefining marriage -- the normalization and legalization of polygamy, threats to religious liberty, lawsuits against small business owners, etc. -- same-sex marriage advocates counter by insisting these threats aren't real. They claim we're overreacting so that they can falsely assuage the legitimate concerns of Americans who value their first amendment rights. But the truth is, most SSM activists know exactly what's in the cards once marriage is redefined.
HuffPo:
The ink is not yet dry on David Cameron's gay marriage Bill and already two stories in the news this week show that the Bill's critics have been proved right. A wealthy gay couple say they "have launched" legal action to force gay weddings on the Church of England; and the BBC is cheerleading for polyamory (mutiple-partner relationships).
...During the passage of the gay marriage Bill, I was one of those saying that the Church would face litigation. I was accused of scaremongering and of whipping up hysteria. It'll never happen, they said with a straight face. Perhaps they meant it. Perhaps they honestly couldn't see the danger. Perhaps, but I doubt it. The thing is, many people could see the risk, including the Church itself (initially) and leading human rights lawyers.
August 28, 2013 – 12:18 pm
Dr. Frank Turek is an award-winning author and courageous marriage defender who was fired - twice! - for his beliefs. With his unique perspective, he makes a point to speak out often about the importance of our first amendment rights.
Check out Frank's latest article on New Mexican photographer Elane Huguenin, who was sued by a same-sex couple after standing strong on her marriage beliefs as well.
Although the lesbian couple that brought the complaint easily found another photographer, Elane Photography now must pay nearly $7,000 in court costs for merely exercising her First Amendment rights.
The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution was put in place to prevent exactly what the New Mexico Supreme Court has done: using the strong arm of government to force citizens to advocate (not just tolerate) ideas and behaviors that contradict their religious or moral convictions. Forcing people to support same sex weddings or commitment ceremonies is forcing them to advocate same sex behavior.
Even the U.N. Human Rights Committee recognizes a universal human right not to be coerced into advocating any idea. (You know our country is stuck on stupid when our courts are getting human rights lessons from the U.N.!)
Now, if you justify this decision because you disagree with Elane Photography's religious or moral position, you're not thinking like an American (or a U.N. person). Imagine a homosexual videographer being forced to video a speech that a conservative makes against homosexual behavior and same sex marriage. Should that homosexual videographer be forced to do so? Of course not! Then why Elane Photography?
It is important to understand that Elane Photography was not refusing service because of the "sexual orientation" or sexual attractions of the couple. In fact, Elane Photography was happy to work with lesbian clients on other projects that did not involve advocating homosexual behavior (for example, taking professional head shots). In this case however, she declined service because she did not want to use her artistic talents to advocate sexual actions that went against her moral and religious beliefs.
Finish reading at The Christian Post.
August 19, 2013 – 2:46 pm
Don't Ask, Don't Tell may just be alive and well in the military. Only now it applies to Christians.
The Right Scoop:
Senior Master Sergeant Phillip Monk, who’s been in the Air Force for 19 years, was relieved of his position and reassigned because he disagreed with his openly gay commanding officer about gay marriage. Monk’s commanding officer wanted to strictly punish a subordinate Airman for mentioning to his trainees that he disagreed with same-sex marriage. Monk apparently thought her punishment was to harsh and it came out that he also disagreed with same-sex marriage. He was later reassigned.
“I was relieved of my position because I don’t agree with my commander’s position on gay marriage,” said Monk.
FOX News Interviewer: How worried are you that Christians in the military are caught in a really tough spot now, in trying to balance tolerance and acceptance of their fellow men and women who are serving with them, but also to be able to express their own views based on their religious beliefs?
Kelly Shackelford [attorney representing Sergeant Monk]: This is really concerning. What happened here to Sergeant Monk is a violation of Air Force policy. It's a violation of DOD policy. It's a violation of the Constitution. And as you mentioned, this is a trend. For instance, if you were to go to libertyinstitute.org and look at Sergeant Monk's facts, you'd see a link to numerous other recent attacks on our soldiers and our airman, and that shouldn't be happening. That violates the law, and our soldiers deserve a lot better. They're giving service for us to protect these freedoms, so I think the least we can do now is stand with them when they come under attack.
August 16, 2013 – 1:14 pm
As a forward to the 2006 book "The Meaning of Marriage", prominent ethicist Jean Bethke Elshtain, who passed away earlier this week, wrote this insightful piece on the marriage debate.
The Public Discourse:
One reason, of course, is that we all have a stake in the debate and its outcome. No one is left untouched by marriage, including those who never marry, because marriage is such a pervasive institution in our society. One recent estimate indicates that 88 percent of women and 82 percent of men will marry at some point.
Given the importance of marriage as an institution for individuals and for society, the thoughtful citizen has every reason to expect, and even demand, a deep and thoughtful debate as the precondition for any change in how we understand marriage and encourage it to take shape. One need only reflect on previous alterations in the regulation of marriage in order to understand that changes in marriage law have consequences that intellectuals, politicians, and citizens alike should think through thoroughly before endorsing.
When one looks back on the debates that took place in the late 1960s and early 1970s over changing the divorce laws of this country—leading to the wide-scale institutionalization of no-fault divorce—there was much debate about the rights of women stuck in unhappy marriages. There were few serious discussions about what effects no-fault divorce would have on the institution of marriage; how social perception of marriage as a normative institution would subsequently change; how its purpose in society might be altered; what historical and philosophical roots anchored the movement; what effect widespread no-fault divorce might have on how we raise children and prepare them to become responsible citizens. Certainly people did not consider the negative impact no-fault divorce would have on women themselves!
But we have now learned that divorce is strongly associated with the immiseration of women: studies indicate, for example, that between one-fifth and one-third of women fall into poverty in the wake of a divorce. At the time, there were a few who argued that no-fault divorce would have significant social repercussions, but the ensuing highly-charged debate, again narrowly cast in terms of individual rights, muted their voices. Any opposition was construed as anti-feminist, despite the fact that many of the concerns expressed were precisely about the well-being of women who faced divorce.
...Responsible social scientists and political theorists always caution that major social change—and same-sex marriage involves something more basic than no-fault divorce—always trails negative unintended consequences in its wake. It follows that this recognition, for which there is a mountain of compelling evidence, should caution us to move with great care if we aim to alter the fundamental human institution that has always been the groundwork of social life.
Our own Chris Plante, Regional Director for NOM-Rhode Island, appeared on the Drew Mariani Show today to discuss attacks on marriage and our religious liberties, and also how we can continue to build a strong marriage culture for the future.
The segment begins around the 33:00 mark:
By NOM Staff
|
Posted in Children, Culture, Debating Marriage, Free Speech, Law, Marriage, Media, News, Politics, Religious Liberty, Same Sex Marriage
|
Brent Bozell, founder and president of the Media Research Center, calls out the media for censoring pro-marriage points of view:
"...The official gay censorship lobbies – from the Orwellian-named “GLAAD” to the National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association – define “fairness and accuracy” as being stories that try to scrape “fairness” away, treating opposition like used gum on someone’s shoe. GLAAD created what they call the “Commentator Accountability Project” designed to discourage reporters and TV bookers from booking “hate” guests.
... To quote GLAAD censor Aaron McQuade, “Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from the consequences of speech.” If they prevail, the “consequences” of speaking in opposition to the gay lobby equals zero bookings. In their dream land, every “news” segment looks like the usual MSNBC “Lean Forward” gay segment where everyone embraces the equality and fluidity of “sexual preference.”
But they’re not censors, they insist."
February 18, 2013 – 4:00 pm
A special shout-out to ConservativeHQ for coming to the defense of Orson Scott Card, author of Ender's Game, who has come under fire for his pro-marriage views:
Orson Scott Card, a talented science fiction writer, is part of a team of writers and artists assembled by DC Comics to create an “Adventures of Superman” comic series ahead of the release of the summer Superman film Man of Steel.* Card is also a believer in the Biblical definition of marriage who has the courage to say so.
Orson Scott Card’s views, such as “the left is at war with the family,” and opposition to same sex marriage are reflective of his Christian faith and hardly “out of the mainstream,” but they have now earned him and DC comics a call from homosexual activists for a boycott.
National Organization for Marriage President Brian Brown told Fox News he was simply stunned that homosexual activists are trying to destroy a man’s career.
“This is completely un-American and it needs to be stopped,” Brown said. “Simply because we stand up for traditional marriage, some people feel like it is okay to target us for intimidation and punishment.”
Brown called the attacks on Card frightening and said it’s another example of radical homosexual activists trying to punish those who believe marriage should be a union between a man and woman.
“Marriage is the union of a man and a woman,” Brown said. “That is not hateful. That is not bigoted.”
February 15, 2013 – 10:00 am
Rod Dreher writes at The American Conservative:
Orson Scott Card is one of the best-selling science fiction writers alive. He is also a devout Mormon who opposes same-sex marriage. A group of pro-gay comics fans is up in arms over the fact that DC has hired Card to write a new Superman series. The Guardian is making it sound like a huge deal:
... “Superman stands for truth, justice and the American way. Orson Scott Card does not stand for any idea of truth, justice or the American way that I can subscribe to,” said Jono Jarrett of Geeks Out, a gay fan group. “It’s a deeply disappointing and frankly weird choice.”
A film of Ender’s Game, co-produced by Card and starring Harrison Ford, is set to be released in November. Jarrett speculated DC was hoping pre-publicity for the movie would drive sales for the comic.
Fortunately, a gay comic writer quoted in the piece understands that blacklisting Card is offensive:
Dale Lazarov, a gay comic writer, said it was counterproductive to attack Card’s appointment: “I’ve known Orson Scott Card is a raging homophobe since the early 90s. I refuse to buy or read his work. But asking that he be denied work because he is a raging homophobe is taking it too far. Asking for workplace discrimination for any reason is counterproductive for those who want to end discrimination on their own behalf.”
True enough. What does Card’s view on homosexuality have to do with Superman? This is about trying to punish Card for thoughtcrime.
A Tennessee community college professor ordered her students to wear ribbons supporting gay rights and said those who believed in the traditional definition of marriage are just “uneducated bigots” who “attack homosexuals with hate,” according to a legal firm representing several of the students in the class.
