The Human Rights Campaign, a $40 million dollar-a-year organization dedicated to striping America of a feasible definition of marriage, set its sights on the National Organization for Marriage through a video “exposing” their true ambitions.
A laughably spooky voice begins the video by asking, “Ever heard of NOM?” The voice, which sounds like it’s right out of murder investigation television show, then goes on to give NOM (the National Organization for Marriage) free ad space. Continue reading.
The author concludes by noting that HRC’s media coordinator has not responded to requests about the video and its claims.
The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), which has at least four members of a five-man board appointed by Pres. Obama, just ruled that Manhattan College, a college run by a Catholic order, is not Catholic enough to qualify as a religious institution under national labor laws because its own documents say it pursues academic diversity (read more from Cardinal Newman Society and ADF here).
This is a very important decision, if allowed to stand. It points to the ways in which federal laws will likely be used to pressure religious institutions in hiring if they do not treat same-sex unions as marriages. Bill Clinton's "maximum feasible accomodation" standard is being replaced by something new: redefine "religious" so fewer and fewer people and institutions are protected.
Haley Barbour included a special shout-out to marriage in his recent “State of the State” address:
“I’m proud that Mississippi cast the highest percentage of its vote of any state in the country for the Defense of Marriage Act, defining marriage as a union between one man and one woman.”
You can read his entire speech here and watch it on Youtube here.
In just one month the Harvard essay of Prof. Robert George and his two colleagues, Sherif Girgis and Ryan Anderson has vaulted to the Top Ten list of most-viewed papers on SSRN, according to this note from Public Discourse editor Ryan Anderson:
We just received an e-mail from SSRN with the following message: "Your paper entitled, "What is Marriage?" was recently listed on SSRN's Top Ten download list for All SSRN Journals. As of 01/12/2011 your paper has been downloaded 24,013 times. You may view the abstract and download statistics at the URL: http://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=1722155."
National Organization for Marriage President Brian Brown believes the renewed push for redefining marriage in both [Maryland and Rhode Island] is a reaction to pro-values gains throughout the country.
“In most states we have positive legislation to protect marriage,” stated Brown.
So far, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Iowa, Minnesota and Wyoming are all working to repeal or ban same-sex marriage. Maryland Republican lawmakers are also introducing an inclusive civil union law as an alternative to same-sex marriage.
Brown said gay rights advocates are now desperate. “I think supporters of redefining marriage are looking [at] any place they can gain ground,” he shared.
Brown believes attempts in both Rhode Island and Maryland will come up short. In Rhode Island, Brown said, “The people just don’t want same-sex marriage.” Brown pronounced the same sentiment to be true in heavily Democratic Maryland.
In the event that the Maryland state legislature tries to approve a gay marriage bill, he said NOM will work with advocates on the ground to collect the signatures necessary for a referendum.
“In every state where the people had the chance to vote, in both deep blue and deep red states, they have voted against same-sex marriage,” Brown emphasized.
“Lawmakers are set to introduce and sponsor a marriage protection amendment to the state constitution during the upcoming legislative session, according to a press release issued by the West Virginia Family Foundation.
… “We call on the Legislature to stop obstructing the people's right to join 30 other states in constitutionally protecting the definition of marriage as only between one man and one woman," [said Kevin] McCoy.”
Will D.C. voters get their right to vote on marriage restored? The case Jackson v. D.C. Board of Elections and Ethics, appears on the Supreme Court's docket for private discussions on Friday, meaning we can expect to hear next week whether or not the Supreme Court will take up this case.
The Charter granted to residents of D.C. by Congress gives them a right to pass laws via referendum. The City Council has refused to permit the people to vote on marriage, which they say is now part of the human rights code. Can the legislature (city council) overturn a right given in a state constitution (the Charter)? That's the legal question.
- Marriage provides important benefits to society that no other institution can. Marriage:
- Regulates sexuality. Marriage establishes sexual guardrails, which remain a requirement for all successful societies.
- Socializes men. A society's most serious problem is the unattached male, and marriage links men to women who help channel male sexuality and aggression in socially productive ways. Marriage and parenthood socialize men to care for and respect their wives, other women and children.
- Protects women. Without a social norm of monogamy, women become commodities to be used and discarded.
- Provides children with a mom and a dad. Both mothers and fathers contribute in unique and irreplaceable ways to their children that prepare them to contribute to, and continue a flourishing society.
"A Saskatchewan marriage commissioner says the government will have to fire him if it expects him to perform same-sex marriages.
Larry Bjerland of the east-central Saskatchewan community of Rose Valley said he was "very disappointed" by a Saskatchewan Court of Appeal opinion Monday dealing with proposed changes to the Marriage Act.
The province's highest court ruled that two proposals from the Saskatchewan government that would let marriage commissioners opt out of performing same-sex marriages on religious grounds would be unconstitutional.
The decision was hailed by gay rights advocates, but Bjerland said it may result in his losing his appointment.
"I do not intend to marry any gay couples and so, therefore, I’m not going to resign," said Bjerland, who has been a marriage commissioner for 10 years. "They’ll have to fire me."
I appreciate, very much, the honesty of this poster at Queerty, who says he honestly does not know how to answer my rhetorical question in my debate with Evan Wolfson:
"For those of you reading this I would ask of you only one thing: whether you support gay marriage or not, can you at least acknowledge what you are asking of those of us who disagree, who believe our historic marriage tradition is good? … Gay marriage will make it virtually impossible to renew marriage's central public role, which is not to celebrate private romantic love—hardly any business of government—but to protect children by increasing the likelihood that they will be born to and raised by their own mother and father. Gay marriage makes it impossible to articulate this as a goal of marriage, much less to realise it in real children's lives."
“Getting 36% of the vote is no mandate to redefine marriage.” – Christopher Plante, Executive Director of NOM-RI
Providence, RI – The National Organization for Marriage-Rhode Island (NOM-RI) today launched a statewide advertising campaign in support of traditional marriage and challenging Governor Lincoln Chafee’s claim to have a mandate to redefine marriage.
“Lincoln Chafee got just 36% of the vote in the recent election, and fewer popular votes than the Cool Moose Party’s candidate for Lieutenant Governor,” said Christopher Plante, Executive Director of NOM-RI. “Our message is that getting 36% of the vote is no mandate to redefine the institution of marriage for all of Rhode Island society.”
Chafee signaled in his inaugural address last week that imposing same-sex marriage in Rhode Island is a top priority, and called on the legislature to move quickly to enact it. He opposes giving Rhode Islanders the right to vote on marriage, even though public opinion polls show that 80% of voters want the right to decide this issue themselves.
“80% of Rhode Islanders want the chance to vote on marriage, just as voters in 31 other states have done,” the ad states. It calls on Rhode Islanders to call Chafee’s office, and that of House Speaker Fox and Senate President Paiva-Weed to express their views.
“In some ways, Lincoln Chafee is an accidental governor for Rhode Island, elected in the most unusual of circumstances,” Plante said. “Yet he expects legislators to follow him off the cliff in pursuit of same-sex marriage. This is what happened in neighboring New Hampshire and before that in Maine. In both those states, politicians who followed their so-called leaders have been replaced with pro-marriage legislators and same-sex marriage has been repealed, or is on its way to being repealed. In Iowa, three judges who voted to impose same-sex marriage were summarily thrown out of office by voters. If legislators in Rhode Island wish to redefine marriage, they should put this issue on the ballot where the people themselves can decide if they wish to abandon one of the most fundamental institutions of society.”
The NOM-RI advertisement is running statewide on broadcast and cable stations. The group is spending in excess of $100,000 on the advertisement.
For more information or to schedule an interview with Christopher Plante, executive director of NOM-Rhode Island, contact Elizabeth Ray (x.130) or Mary Beth Hutchins (x.105) at 703-683-5004 or via e-mail at [email protected] or [email protected]
Over the weekend the news broke that the U.S. state department was planning to remove the words "mother" and "father" from our passport applications and replace them with "parent 1" and "parent 2."
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's spokesman says she was unaware that the changes she authorized would completely remove the names "mother" and "father" and so the new solution is to split the baby. According to the Associated Press, "the form will now ask for the names of the child's "mother or parent 1" and "father or parent 2."
Efforts to remove state recognition of mothers and fathers remind us of the dangers of alienation faced by children in a post-marriage culture. Reuters reported back in 2007, for instance, that in Ontario, a child may have three parents on their birth certificate:
In a ruling released on Tuesday, the Ontario Court of Appeal said the female partner of the child's biological mother could be legally recognized as the boy's third parent.
It is not inconceivable, following this sort of logic, for a child to have five parents legally recognized: what if two men hire a man and woman they know to conceive a child through In Vitro, and then ask another woman to carry that child to term?
Over the weekend the 
