It's hard to follow the logic of Ken Mehlman, who - when he was in power - refused to support SSM. Now that he's just a rich guy making a lot of money, he's adamant the GOP should support gay marriage, regardless of what GOP voters think.
Will this kind of illogic influence the Republican Party's race for RNC Chairman? Not if we can help it.
Lifesite news columnist Kathleen Gilbert was at my debate with Andrew Sullivan at Georgetown on Wednesday and files this report--and asks this question:
"It was only when Sullivan talked about any Catholic other than himself that the warm rhetoric surrounding Catholicism began to grow ice cold.
The vast majority of the Catholic hierarchy, Sullivan asserted, cruelly suppress homosexuals (and “the reason they’re not OK with gay people is because they’re gay.”) Thanks to them, the hierarchy is rife with pedophiles - which, Sullivan acknowledged, were homosexual priests with a more twisted appetite.
As for the pope, words appeared not to be strong enough to express Sullivan’s anger. “The current pope, knowing that a child under his auspices had been raped by a priest under his authority, covered it up and sent that rapist to go rape other children,” he stated, referring to media accusations against Joseph Ratzinger regarding Rev Huellerman of Munich. The room, in a moment that will forever blacken the history of Georgetown, erupted in applause.
In any event, the lesson appeared to be that the pope, hierarchy, and the dogma they taught were far less Catholic than Sullivan himself.
I wondered what it was that defined Sullivan’s idea of “Catholicism.” It was unlikely to be the Bible, given Paul’s statement to Roman Christians that God punished mankind with “degrading passions” in which “their females exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the males likewise gave up natural relations with females and burned with lust for one another.”
So who decides what Catholicism is? After reducing the name “Catholic” to a mere shell (not unlike “marriage,” which Sullivan tellingly asserted “is what you believe it is”), why even keep the name? That, it seems, was the unasked question at the crux of the show."
Gov. Branstad questioned the judicial nomination commission's impartiality and promises to find candidates who will respect the voter's judgment on marriage. Bob Vander Plaats, who has been a critic, applauded Gov. Branstad. Here's the video.
NOM Chairman Maggie Gallagher gives fellow proponents of marriage between one man and one woman plenty of reasons to be hopeful that traditional marriage will carry the day, legally speaking; not the least of which is that most liberal judge on the panel, Stephen Reinhardt—whom NOM asked to recuse himself from the case—clearly saw that the Boies/Olson arguments presented amounted to a back door attempt to overturn the will of the people. Watch Maggie's interview:
You can watch the entire CBN news broadcast here and read their related article here.
Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse--Dr. J--of NOM's Ruth Institute interviews Austin Nimocks--senior legal counsel at the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) and member of the Prop8 legal team--about the national implications if Prop8 were overturned and the reasons he believes that the pro-traditional marriage argument will carry the day in court and around the nation. Click the player below to hear Austin's insightful points.
NOM Chairman Maggie Gallagher debated Andrew Sullivan at Georgetown University Wednesday night, in an event facilitated by a new group called Catholics for Equality and moderated by E.J. Dionne.
The day of the event Archbishop Wuerl's spokesman released a statement saying Catholics for Equality is not a Catholic group. Listening to Andrew Sullivan, you could see why.
Tom Peters take on Andrew Sullivan's performance is called "Mockery, Ignorance, and Lies""
A clever researcher, S. Alexandra Burt at Michigan State followed a set of identical twins and fraternal twins as they stayed single or married, and discovered marriage reduces anti-social behavior in men by 30 percent.
Prof. Burt points out "not that many things are related to desistance from antisocial behavior... The fact that something can reduce it is exciting."
Over at his law blog, Professor Michael Dorf criticizes Boies and Olson for their legal strategy, which he compares to Boies "too clever by half" losing strategy in the famous Gore v. Bush. (Maybe Ted Olson, who won that case, should have taken charge more?)
"Fast forward to the Boies/Olson strategy of only suing two county Clerks. Could this have been a similar tactical choice right from the beginning, aimed at engineering precisely the situation we now have, in which a district court ruling of nominally limited scope ends up being both effective statewide and unreviewable on the merits? If so, I've got to say that this strikes me as too clever by half. Boies and Olson had a claim to the moral high ground in bringing this case when mainstream gay rights litigators (and their allies, including me) had been timid. By directly making the argument that Prop 8 denies due process and equal protection, they signaled a refreshing willingness to make the strongest claim possible, and to let the chips fall where they may. But in apparently manipulating the procedural doctrines for advantage, they sacrifice at least some of that moral high ground, making themselves look no less the cautious schemers than the organizations whose warnings they ignored in filing suit when and how they did."
Here's NOM's Chairman Maggie Gallagher on TV talking over the Prop 8 oral arguments on Christian Broadcasting Network.
ADF Senior Counsel Joe Infranco writes:
One intriguing question in the Perry arguments was whether voters had done something wrong in "taking away" a briefly established scheme of "marriage" for persons engaged in homosexual behavior. To give some context to this line of questioning, the court was focusing on a brief window of approximately four months between the time the California Supreme Court (CSC) imposed same sex "marriage" and the effective date of voter-enacted Proposition 8, an amendment to the state constitution that restored the definition of marriage in California. Since some same-sex couples were allowed to "marry" during this time, the argument claims the mean-spirited voters obviously intended to take away this "right." In other words, the voters knew it existed, didn't like it, and acted accordingly. Plaintiffs' lawyers even cited the ballot language as further proof of voter meanness: the ballot summary read "eliminates right of same-sex couples to marry."
The problem is that the claim holds no water. First, the ballot process was started well before the state high court decision redefining marriage. The initiative went through a laborious process of organizational steps, culminating in collecting over 1.1 million signatures on petitions. In fact, those 1.1 million signatures were submitted Apr. 24, 2008 - prior to the CSC May 15, 2008 decision. It's clear the people pursuing the amendment were concerned with the definition of marriage, and not "taking away rights" that did not even exist at the time the effort began. When the CSC issued its decision, the proponents of Prop 8 immediately requested that the effective date be stayed a few months until after the election, to avoid exactly this situation. The court refused, in a 4-3 vote, and pushed for the earliest possible effective date. Oh, and yes - neither the governor nor the legislature asked the court to delay the effective date; all branches of state government apparently wanted marriage redefined, and wanted it done quickly, regardless of the amendment pending on the ballot.
We knew something was fishy in Des Moines, when Democrats outnumbers Republicans on the Judicial Nominating Commission by 12 to 1.
Under Iowa' current system the Governor picks from three judges recommended by the Commission--and he cannot pick anyone else.
Here's what we didn't know, but Bopp, Coleson and Bostrum figured out: Seven of the Commission members are elected--but in an election in which only lawyers have a right to vote.
The lawsuit filed on behalf of four Iowa voters calls for an end to "lawyers-only" elections in the state of Iowa. Talk about your one-man one-vote case!
According to attorney James Bopp, Jr., lead counsel for the plaintiffs, the Iowa system “gives attorneys a stranglehold on the judiciary. Lawyers in Iowa have enormous influence over who the state judges are, while the ordinary voter is denied the right to an equal voice.”
The case is Carlson, et al. v. Cady, et al., 10-cv-587 (S.D. Iowa). The complaint and memorandum supporting the motion for a temporary restraining order are available in PDF format online at the James Madison Center’s website,
According to the Washington Post, Maryland is poised to pass an SSM law next year.
In a case unrelated to Prop 8, a sanctions motion has been filed against David Boies' law firm charging "egregious misconduct," read more.
For those of you in the DC area, NOM Chairman Maggie Gallagher will be debating Andrew Sullivan at Georgetown University tonight at 7:30pm. Please come on out if you can to support Maggie and enjoy the lively debate. Come early to get a good seat!
The evening is sponsored by “Catholics for Equality,” a new group that is drawing fire for its efforts to organize Catholic opposition to Church teaching on marriage – from inside the church with a new app to locate sympathetic parishioners while at Mass, and to report priests who speak out about marriage. Tom Peters of the AmericanPapist blog calls this new group “an unprecedented and dangerous threat to the Church.”
So join Maggie as she stands for the truth about marriage. The event will be held from 7:30-10:30pm at the Georgetown University Intercultural Center Auditorium (ICC) on the corner of 37th and O Streets, NW.
Wednesday, December 8
7:30 – 10:30pm
Georgetown University Intercultural Center Auditorium (ICC)
37th and O Sts, NW
Washington, DC
We need your help to protect the gift of marriage this Christmas season!
In this season as we prepare for the greatest gift, we too must prepare to defend the rightful home of that gift: marriage as the union of one man and one woman. The November elections have brought us to a moment of unprecedented opportunity, with the chance to pass new marriage amendments, strengthen legislative protections, and even roll back same-sex marriage in states like New Hampshire and Iowa.
But it’s also a moment of profound risk. Risk of letdown. Of complacency. Of surveying our successes with satisfaction, while forgetting that all we accomplished on November 2 only set the stage for the larger mission to come.
Now is the time that we must begin working to capitalize on those opportunities – organizing, planning, and beginning the grassroots outreach that will turn our electoral successes into lasting legislative victories. NOM poured over $12 million—everything we had—into focused, strategic initiatives to protect marriage this year. We urgently need your help to prepare for the 2011 legislative sessions.
We’ve just launched our new Marriage Challenge website. Thanks to a generous marriage challenge grant, every dollar we can raise from now until Dec. 31, 2010 will be matched, doubling the impact.
Please take a moment to watch our new Marriage Challenge video, recapping our successes of the past year and setting the stage for 2011. Then take the Marriage Challenge with your most generous gift. Thanks to the challenge match, your $25 gift becomes $50. A $50 gift becomes $100 to protect marriage. And $500 becomes $1000 for marriage!
My wife and I were blessed with the birth of our seventh child last week—Madeleine Sophie Brown. As I look at these little ones, I am more determined than ever to do whatever lies within my power to preserve, protect and defend the institution of marriage and the religious liberty upon which our great nation was founded.
Now the question is: Are you willing to do what it takes to protect a culture of marriage and religious liberty for your children and grandchildren? Will you stand with me today? Accept the 30-Day Marriage Challenge and join us with a gift of $25, $50, $250 or more.
Then—and this is equally important—please ask 10 friends to join you in taking our 30-Day Marriage Challenge at this all too critical moment.
