Monthly Archives: December 2010

Vote for Marriage in RNC Chairman’s Debate

Coming up, we have an important opportunity to help make sure that the Republican Party remains firmly committed to the cause of marriage. And we need your help.

On January 3rd, Americans for Tax Reform and the Susan B. Anthony List will be co-hosting the 2011 RNC Chairman’s Debate, giving the American people (and RNC voters) a chance to question the candidates on key issues ranging from national defense, to deficit spending, to protecting marriage and the family. The next RNC Chairman’s views on these issues will be a major factor in shaping party message, budget, and objectives as we begin heading into the 2012 election cycle.

Every question to be asked at the debate is currently being voted on at The most popular questions will be asked at the January 3rd debate.

So please take a moment today to go to and vote for marriage. In just a moment, I’ll give detailed instructions for what we need to do.

Our own chairman Maggie Gallagher will be at the January 3 debate, and was invited by Susan B. Anthony List President Marjorie Dannenfelser to participate in a series of pre-debate interviews with various candidates for the RNC Chairmanship. Click here to watch Maggie's questions for Saul Anuzis, RNC candidate from Michigan (or watch the full 9-minute interview here).

There is tremendous pressure from inside-the-Beltway, establishment Republicans to water down the party’s commitment to marriage, compromising with gay marriage advocates or trying to sweep the issue under the rug in hopes that it will go away. But it isn’t going anywhere – not with a Supreme Court ruling likely looming in the next two years – and we need a RNC Chairman who is willing to make the case for marriage, religious liberty and the proper role of the judiciary, investing resources to advance the cause of marriage both nationally and at the state and local level all across the country.

Polls show that upwards of 80% of Republicans firmly support marriage as the union of a husband and wife. There should be no doubt about where the RNC stands on this important issue. Help make your voice heard today, by visiting and placing your vote for marriage!

Here’s what you need to do.

1. Register. Go to and click the REGISTER button. You’ll need to provide an email address and create a password in order to vote.

2. Check your email. An email confirming your registration will be sent to the email address you provide. Click on the link in the email to confirm your account.

3. Vote for marriage! The primary marriage question is item #24 (scroll down to the question and click on the UP arrow to give it a “thumbs up” vote). The question reads:

Question #24
“Surveys uniformly show that over 80% of Republicans support the traditional definition of marriage. GOP candidates who support gay marriage like Dede Scozzafava, Bill Binnie and Tom Campbell have been trounced in GOP primaries. In the 31 states where marriage has appeared on the ballot, including in deep blue states like California and Maine, the voters in every state have rejected gay marriage and voted in favor of traditional marriage. Yet most candidates have been encouraged by the RNC to avoid speaking up on the marriage issue. Will you continue this policy or will you encourage candidates to make their position on marriage clear to voters?”

And while you’re there, you may also want to vote for Question #23:

“As chairman, what specifically would you do differently than current and past administrations when it comes to the issues of Life and Marriage? Will you highlight these two critical issues in political advertising programs?”

Thus far, only a few hundred people have voted for any question in the RNC Debate poll. With your help, we can send yet one more strong message to the RNC, reminding them that marriage is a core issue for Republican voters, and urging them to elect a chairman who will be steadfast and unwavering in his or her support for marriage.

Finally, as we head toward Christmas next week, please consider a gift to protect marriage. Your gift right now is especially important, as every dollar raised between now and the end of the year will be matched, doubling its impact. We have just a few weeks to prepare for next year’s legislative sessions, and need your help to ensure that we have the resources to immediately counter every threat that arises. Please make your most generous gift to the NOM Marriage Challenge today!

NOM Update

NOM's new ad, "The Ironic Steve Jobs," has been launched on YouTube--the great counterrevolution has begun! Click the image to learn more!

It's been really fun showing this ad to people. I just got off the phone with a friend in New York--he's a major business leader--who told me, "I almost fell off my chair when I saw this ad--it's spectacular!"

You remember the back story, right? The Manhattan Declaration is a thoughtful and civil statement calling on Christians to defend life, marriage and religious liberty as core values. NOM's founding chairman Robby George helped draft it, alongside Chuck Colson. I signed it. Maggie signed it. So did major, mainstream religious figures like Archbishop Wuerl and about 500,000 Christians.

Apple's own reviewers certified that the Manhattan Declaration iPhone app was free from offensive content. But then 7000 LGBT activists signed a position saying they considered the Manhattan Declaration offensive. Steve Jobs pulled it, and his rep called it "offensive."

Now, it's Steve Jobs's company, we understand that. We are not asking the government to intervene. When Steve Jobs donated $100,000 to defeat Prop 8, we didn't try to hurt his company or boycott his products, as so many gay rights groups did to pro-marriage donors. We never organized to try to prevent Planned Parenthood or pro-gay-marriage groups from posting their own apps, however personally offensive we might find them.

But Apple has always positioned its brand as the champion of free thought, creativity and free minds. So it's pretty hypocritical and jarring now for Steve Jobs to make Apple into the new thought police, protecting customers from ideas he considers "offensive."

Steve Jobs issuing what his own iconic ad once called "information purification directives" to protect Apple customers from "contradictory and confusing truths." Pretty ironic, huh, for the spunky little company which saw itself as taking on Big Brother?

NOM's dynamite new ad calls Steve Jobs out for being untrue to his own values, and to the company's brand.

I need your help spreading the word--and this "spectacular" ad which makes people fall off their chairs!

Go to view it on NOM's website. Next to the title there's a button that says "Share This." Click on the "Share This" link and send it to your friends!

In the tech and business world, people are sitting up and taking notice.

"NOM does have a point," said Advertising Age's reporter-blogger. "Let's not mistake the clever '1984' for anything more than slick marketing."

Business Net's columnist Jim Edwards says we are making "Steve Jobs look ridiculous":

"Thus, Apple's policy of approving--or rejecting--apps based on their content has managed to make an anti-gay group look like it's standing up for freedom, and Jobs look like someone who doesn't want his customers to access anything he disagrees with."

But we have to keep the heat on. Right now the Manhattan Declaration sponsors, like the good Christians they are, are working overtime to meet the unfair objections of their critics. They've removed a questionnaire some found offensive and resubmitted the app.

One of my favorite quotes comes from Charisma News, which kindly posted a link: "Apple was not immediately available for comment." No, not immediately, but we'll keep the pressure up!

So far, as I write, more than 12,000 of you have viewed the "Ironic Steve Jobs" ad on YouTube. If you haven't yet, do something for me: Can you go there and watch it? (And remember, click the "Share This" link to spread the word to your friends!)

Tell your friends they have to go and watch this great video! 90 seconds of pure unadulterated pleasure wherein you and I hoist Steve Jobs "on his own petard," as the Business Net reporter put it.

The internet was supposed to launch an information revolution for freedom. Can we stand by and let one incredibly wealthy man use his market share to try to squeeze thoughtful debate from the public square?

Now you know me: I like to think big. Wouldn't it be great if Steve Jobs woke up every morning for a week seeing that ad as he sipped his morning cup of joe?

To make that happen, we need to find at least 483 people today willing to donate $10 to turn this internet ad into a TV ad in Silicon Valley. Would you be one of those? Remember, anything you donate between now and the end of the year will magically double, thanks to a generous donor who's offered to match, today, anything you give. $10 to put this ad in Steve Jobs's breakfast nook--and to support all of NOM's important work.

(Of course if you can give more--$20, $50, or even $100--that too will double. Steve Jobs may have billions of dollars, but you and I have truth and justice on our side--let Steve Jobs know what you think of his attempt to repress Christian thought!)

More amazingly good news. Two of NOM's key founders were just named to Newsweek's list of the "New Faces of the Christian Right." Number one was NOM's founding Chairman, Prof. Robby George. And Number 4 was NOM's current Chairman Maggie Gallagher.

Maggie wrote about it in her column this week, which you can find below.

It was a little strange that so many key figures of the religious left also made that list. But we appreciate the recognition of NOM's growing role in helping you fight for marriage and religious liberty!

Prof. Robby George is truly an amazing man. And along with two of his students, he has published a most amazing defense of marriage in the Harvard Journal of Public Policy called "What is Marriage?" You can read the full copy here as PDF.

I was particularly tickled to find this passage, during these scholars' serious discussion of the ways gay marriage will harm marriage and the common good:

"The idea that support for the conjugal conception of marriage is nothing more than a form of bigotry has become so deeply entrenched among marriage revisionists that a Washington Post feature story drew denunciations and cries of journalistic bias for even implying that one conjugal-marriage advocate was 'sane' and 'thoughtful.' Outraged readers compared the profile to a hypothetical puff piece on a Ku Klux Klan member."

Remember? That was poor Monica Hesse's profile of me (!) in the Washington Post last year.

(Also, I'm going to go tell my wife I have a new job title: "Conjugal marriage advocate.")

Next week, I’d like to share more of this important essay--and the public debate it has sparked. For now, let me just mention that when a former Yale Law professor named Kenji Yoshino attempted to take on "What is Marriage?" at Slate, Matthew Franck over at National Review's Bench Memos described it as "A Swing and a Miss in Marriage Debate":

"Bottom line: Yoshino provides nothing--nothing at all--by way of an argument for including gay couples in the institution of marriage. For he provides no alternative answer to the question Girgis, George, and Anderson propound: What Is Marriage? Is this the best pro-gay-marriage folks can do?"

Wow. I've got so much more to tell you. But how much of your time can I take?

There's Newsweek's "Uncivil Rights" story, which questioned whether African-Americans' fight for civil rights can truly be equated with gay rights:

"Gays and lesbians 'may want to cast their fight in civil-rights terms, and a lot of people are buying it. But not the faith community and especially not the black community,' says Bishop Harry Jackson, whose Hope Christian Church has a flock of 3,000 in the Washington, D.C., area. Indeed, some 70 percent of African-Americans voted yes on California's Prop 8, and polls found similar levels of opposition among blacks for a marriage initiative in Florida that same year. After the Washington, D.C., City Council last year approved gay marriage in the District, Jackson joined forces with the National Organization for Marriage in petitioning the U.S. Supreme Court to allow voters to decide on overturning the law. 'Many African-Americans believe gays are discriminated against, but they don't believe marriage is a civil-rights issue,' says Jackson, who says his father was threatened at gunpoint in the 1950s by a state trooper while working on a voter-registration drive. 'There are issues of acceptance, but there is no back of the bus. . .'"

There's Iowa, where pro-gay-marriage forces are now trying to invalidate another election: the judicial retention election in which three judges lost their seats. The argument rests on the most specious technical grounds. They say the state constitution requires a "separate ballot" and the sheet of paper voters received also let them vote in other elections. So now they are back in state supreme court, asking the three justices to vote to re-install themselves on the court until a new election can be held.

Will they never respect the democratic process?

Of course, if these lawyers' theory is right and the election was invalid, then these three judges have not been retained either. They lack the authority to continue on the court. And a fourth judge who was retained two years ago, before the Iowa court decision, would have to face the voters again too, right away. Hmmm, maybe not such a bad idea!
But this does goes to show that we need need a marriage amendment in Iowa to settle this question, and we also need to fix a judicial process which has been hijacked by partisan Democrats in Iowa. Kudos to Bob Vander Plaats and Gov.-Elect Terry Branstad for fighting together on that one!

One final note on the court battle. Did you see on your nightly newscast the dramatic way Prop 8 litigator Chuck Cooper called out Olson and Boies at the press conference after oral arguments? ...No, neither did I. No news outlet saw fit to report it, so that's why I'm reporting it to you now. Click below to hear him!

Here's what he said:

"I want to pay our respects to our opponents in this case, who have presented their case with skill and with sincerity and we respect that. I regret in all candor that our opponents do not return that respect ... but rather have seen fit to demean and to ridicule those arguments.

"Our opponents ... believe that everybody on the other side of them in this debate is behaving irrationally, that no defense, no good-faith belief, can be entertained in defense of the institution of marriage which has existed, as we pointed out in the court earlier today, in every place and in every time in recorded history."

Then Cooper wound up with a swing that could not fail to miss; he batted it way over the fence:

"For the plaintiffs to prevail in this case they have to show not only that all the state and federal appellate courts that have addressed this issue, all of whom, by the way, that have upheld traditional marriage and rejected the arguments advanced today, that all of those judges rendering those decisions were irrational, that the Congress that enacted the DOMA--that all of those people were irrational, that a large majority of the population of this country is irrational and behaving not in good faith, and that Pres. Obama, for that matter, must presumably be irrational."

Cooper paused and then said, "That position, we believe, with all due respect to our opponents, is not sustainable and is not valid."

Thank you for all you do to sustain the work of NOM--and, more importantly, the fight for God's own truth about marriage.

Until next week, please pray for me, and for Chuck Cooper and for everyone who is standing tall against the campaign to brand civilized discourse as hate, to re-brand Christianity as bigotry, and to silence and marginalize millions of Americans with whom they disagree.

As Maggie said in her debate with Andrew Sullivan at Georgetown last week, "In the end truth and love will prevail over lies and hate. Not love without truth. Not truth grounded in hate, but together, I promise, in the end truth and love will prevail."

God bless you and keep you always this Advent season,

Why Did Judge Reinhardt Refuse to Recuse Himself?

Two weeks after Judge Reinhardt refused to recuse himself, he still hasn't issued the memo he promised explaining his reasoning. The mystery deepens.

15 Days Remaining for the NOM Marriage Challenge!

With 15 days left, we have just under $700,000 to go to complete our $1 Million Matching Challenge Grant by December 31. Please join us as we get
set to make 2011 our best year yet! There are a host of new opportunities ahead of us in the coming year, but we need your help to make these possibilities a reality, from rolling back same-sex marriage in New Hampshire and Iowa to passing marriage amendments in states like Pennsylvania and Indiana, plus much, much more!

Every dollar given between now and December 31 will be matched - so if youcan afford even $10 or $25 to help protect marriage this Christmas season, please join us today at

Reclaiming the rainbow

From Dr. J at NOM's Ruth Institute:

by Becky Yeh

Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse of the San Diego-based Ruth Institute rightly argues that the rainbow is a sign of God’s covenant with man, and she says proponents of Proposition 8 – California’s measure that passed in 2008 to define marriage as between a man and a woman — are the original “rainbow coalition.”
Jennifer Roback Morse (Ruth Institute)“Proposition 8 was passed by a great grassroots coalition that included people from all across the religious traditions, and also people of every race and color,” Morse recognizes. “We are the real rainbow coalition. The gay lobby does not own the rainbow.”

She tells OneNewsNow that she wore a rainbow-colored scarf to the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals hearing on Proposition 8 as a statement to signify that supporters of traditional marriage still own the symbol.

“We can’t simply let that go by. Families put rainbows in their children’s nurseries. Little Christian preschools will have rainbows…Noah’s Ark and all the animals…. Those are great Christian symbols, great Jewish symbols,” the Ruth Institute president points out.

She adds that marriage is an issue that goes beyond race and religion, and she encourages Christians to take back the symbol of the rainbow because it represents God’s promise to humanity.

Found here.

Breaking News: Iowa Lawyers Seek To Invalidate Judicial Retention Election Results

After the people passed Prop 8 in California, lawyers went to the California state supreme court to argue the court did NOT have to respect the election results, the people had no right to amend their own constitution. Now,  lawyers are asking the Iowa Supreme Court to invalidate the results of the election in which three judges lost their seats-- on the grounds the state constitution requires a "separate ballot."   When will they accept a fair and free vote of the people as valid?

Of course if the election to retain these three judges was not valid--then these three judges did not gain majority approval, as required by the law, to retain their seats and the seats would be vacant until a new election was held.  And isn't there a fourth judge whose judicial retention election in the past would also be invalidated and so would forced to face a new election right now?  Maybe not such a bad idea after all!

"The Ick Factor"--Is there a right to consensual incest?

David Epstein, a Columbia poli sci professor, was just arrested for have a consensual sexual relationship with his 24 year old daughter.  His lawyer wasted no time making a Lawrence v. Texas style defense of his client's alleged act, according to this ABC news video report, which raises a new public question: do we all have a right to commit consensual adult incest?

The interesting thing is the response by progressive pro-gay marriage family law professors.  How do we explain why we criminalize incest?  "The ick factor" is the best Prof. Joanna Grossman can come up with (inherently coercive might do for fathers, but surely  not for sisters, say).

Over at Discover magazine, they rely on a more sophisticated-sounding form of the Ick Factor.  Natural sociobiological aversion.  But of course if the aversion is natural why does the law need to be involved?  Incidentally adult consensual incest has, according to ABC News been legalized in a variety of developed countries.  And the sky has not fallen.  It never does.

I always avoided all these slipperly slope arguments because to me the rightness of our marriage tradition does not depend on the idea that changing the law's meaning and purpose will lead to a possible right to  polygamy or a public debate about a right to  incest.  But it does seem to be happening, rather more quickly than anyone imagined.

I wish Grossman and company well in coming up with a more coherent explanation for why the Constitutional right to have sex and intimate relationships and indeed marriage with anyone you want, or the one person you fall in love with, can be cabinned in principle by anything other than irrational moral disgust aka "the ick factor."

Will Helping AIDS Victims Avert the Charge of Hatred and Bigotry?

Over at First Things, a wonderful evangelical theologican Ron Sider, who cares very deeply about marriage, argues the way to deflect the charge of hatred and bigotry is to behave with greater Christian charity towards suffering gay people, especially AIDS victim.

It takes a Catholic to gently respond from our Church's experience: no that won't reduce the hatred flung our way. But we should do it anyway.

My favorite line from Jeff Mirus' essay is the last one: "And while I can certainly agree that if love is a strategy, it is the greatest of all strategies—nonetheless I cannot get past that “if”."

All Rights from the Apple Creator?

This comment appeared on our blog. Because of the mild profanity, it might get erased but I wanted to reproduce it here (censoring only the curses!):

"If you don't like the way Apple and Jobs handles your app, invent your own [darn] computer.  Otherwise, shut the [blank] up!  They owe you nothing and you have no "right" to have your app published.  It is a privilege that is the right of the Apple Creator."

And thus does Steve Jobs becomes our kindly Big Brother, issuing information purification directives, using his market share to protect us from contradictory and confusing truths.

(When you are confident you are right, you have no need or desire to censor alternative views, incidentally.)

Princeton v. Yale; Robby George vs. Kenji Yoshino

Yale prof. Kenji Yoshino tries to rebut Princeton Prof. Robby George's new essay (along with Sherif Girgis and Ryan Anderson) "What is Marriage?" in Slate today. [Correction: Prof. Yoshino recently left Yale Law to join NYU's law school]

Over at NRO's Bench Memos blog Matthew Franck evaluates the match and issues a ruling: Princeton by a mile.

"A Swing and Miss in the Marriage Debate"  is the headline of Franck's post which concludes:

"Bottom line: Yoshino provides nothing–nothing at all–by way of an argument for including gay couples in the institution of marriage.  For he provides no alternative answer to the question Girgis, George, and Anderson propound: What Is Marriage?  Is this the best pro-gay-marriage folks can do?"

Prof. Robby George: How SSM Will Hurt Marriage!

NOM's founding Chairman Prof. Robby George and his colleagues Sherif Girgis and Ryan Adnerson have written an amazing essay "What is Marriage?" for the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy. We'll post excerpts in a bit. Meanwhile, read it in full here.

From Iconic to Ironic – Steve Jobs Transformation into Big Brother

Apparently Apple Computers “got the memo” that it is “OK” to discriminate against Christians. Leading that charge is their Chairman/CEO Steve Jobs. Despite one of the highest positive ratings available (4+), Apple pulled an app developed by the Manhattan Declaration—a group of 500,000 Christians who have publicly declared their support for traditional marriage, life and religious liberty—from their iTunes store.

NOM is fighting back with this powerful new video calling on all Christians to email Jobs and demand that they reinstate the app to the iTunes store.

Steve Jobs is an iconic figure, a legendary marketer who sprang to public attention in 1984 with his famous ad promoting the Macintosh computer by taking on “Big Brother.” Since then, Jobs has made billions in his information age battle against Big Brother. Ironically, in deciding to pull the Manhattan Declaration app, Steve Jobs has become “Big Brother.”

The app in question would help Christians sign the Manhattan Declaration and encourage their friends and family to likewise do so. It was approved by Apple reviewers and rated 4+, certified to contain no offensive material. Yet Apple pulled the app after an online petition by gay marriage activists. An Apple spokesperson said the app was “offensive to large groups of people.”

What’s offensive is the action of Steve Jobs. Jobs allows applications in support of gay marriage and abortion. Planned Parenthood has an app, so do several gay marriage groups. There’s an app to sign petitions to repeal Proposition 8 in California. And there is even an app coming to allow gay marriage backers to “report” priests and pastors who preach about the sanctity of marriage!

NOM is not going to be bullied as Jobs and Apple insult Christians and the majority of Americans who support marriage as the union of men and women. This is the latest attempt by technology billionaires to marginalize and isolate marriage supporters, attempting to drive us form the public square.


We don’t have the resources to compete with a billionaire like Steve Jobs. But we do have grassroots supporters like you! Please watch the video and then share it with all your family and friends. Ask them to take action by contacting Steve Jobs and demand that they reinstate the Manhattan Declaration app. Click here to send an email to Steve Jobs and other members of the Apple board.

Please help us spread the word about this incredible video by making a donation to NOM today. NOM is fighting hard to preserve marriage, including in legislatures, in court and in the court of public opinion – even when billionaires try to stop us.

Steve Jobs has built Apple into one of the most powerful companies in the world by helping develop the information age, making billions in profits in the process. We certainly don’t object to him making money by marketing devices for consumers to access the incredible amount of information that is available today through the Internet, social media and other sources. What we do object to, however, is Jobs censoring that information, especially when it comes to something as important as the preservation of marriage.

Newsweek: New Leaders of Christian Right

NOM Chairman Maggie Gallagher is featured as one of the "Faces of the Christian Right" by Newsweek, as is NOM's founding Chairman Robby George.

Here's the weird thing though: Jim Wallis is listed as a member of the "Christian Right" as are several people who work for Pres. Obama. The old Christian Left is apparently the new Christian right, according to Newsweek. Not that we don't appreciate the plug.

Photos and comments by Newsweek reporters on how important we all are, here.

Marjorie Dannensfelser of SBA List also makes the cut "like Gallagher."  Marjorie is an inspiration to us all.

Newsweek: Uncivil Rights?

What would Dr. Martin Luther King do?

Newsweek asks whether gay rights and the African-American civil rights struggle are really all that similar. (Brian Brown is quoted!).

Chuck Cooper Calls Out Olson and Boies for "Demeaning Those With Whom They Disagree"

Have you seen the video of Chuck Cooper at the press conference after the oral arguments last week? No of course not. Not a single TV newscast televised his dramatic and graceful calling out of so-called superlaywers Olson and Boise for the way they have consistently demeaned those with whom they disagree.

Here's the clip of Cooper's dramatic statement.

Transcript (as closely as I can type it) is below:

Mr. Charles Cooper:

"Good afternoon ladies and gentlemen. We are very pleased to be in this courthouse today to present our argument on appeals in defense of the constitutionality of prop 8, in defense of the judgment made by the majority of voters in the state of Calif. I want to pay our respects to our opponents in this case, who have presented their case with skill and with sincerity and we respect that. I regret in all candor that our opponents do not return that respect to the arguments and the positions that those of us defending the constitutionality of Prop 8 have advanced but rather have seen fit to demean and to ridicule those arguments.

We believe even more troubling is the essential point made with respect to well over 7 million people in this state who supported traditional marriage and the enactment of Prop 8. We believe that people of good will can disagree in good faith on this question, and that there are good and decent people on both sides of this debate; people from all walks of life, from all political persuasions, from all races and creeds, simply acting according to what they believe is best for their community, their state and themselves.

Our opponents don’t agree with that. They believe that everybody on the other side of them in this debate is behaving irrationally, that no defense, no good-faith belief, can be entertained in defense of the institution of marriage which has existed as we pointed out in the court earlier today in every  place and in every time in recorded history.

The place for this question to be decided is the place where it was decided: by the electorate through the democratic process.  Now in the court hearing just now there was obviously time for the court and the advocates to touch on only a fraction of the issues that have been raised, as I’m sure you know there are several hundred pages of briefing in this case, and  it’s not the appropriate forum here to attempt to re-argue that case but I do commend you to the full briefing for a complete discussion of all the merits of the case by all the parties

For the plaintiffs to prevail in this case they have to show not only that all the state and federal appellate courts that have addressed this issue, all of whom by the way that have upheld traditional marriage and rejected the arguments advanced today, that all of those  judges rendering those decision were irrational, that the Congress that enacted the DOMA that all of those people were irrational, that a large majority of the population of this country is irrational and behaving not in good faith, and that Pres. Obama, for that matter, must presumably be irrational.

That position we believe, with all due respect to our opponents,   is not sustainable and is not valid.

In conclusion if marriage is to be redefined in this state, it is the people who should make that decision."