Home
|
Contact Us
|
NOM BLOG
Home » January, 2011

Monthly Archives: January 2011

Bishop Evans on "Our Baptismal Call to Defend Marriage"

January 11, 2011 – 9:50 am

Bishop Evans is the auxiliary bishop of Providence, RI. This is his sermon from last Sunday:

I submit that today, in the State of Rhode Island, we are faced with a challenge to our baptismal promises to renounce the modern day evil works of Satan and confess our belief in Christ and His holy Catholic Church. On the day of our baptism, we chose whose side we are on. The question we must now ask ourselves is: Are we still on God’s side? And if we are, how will we prove it?

This challenge takes the form of an attempt to grant to same sex couples that recognition reserved for the oldest and the only institution God created in His own image: Man as male and female united in marriage. The essence of marriage in God’s plan is a union of one male and one female, who are so physically, emotionally, psychologically and religiously complementary that each completes the other in such a way that without the other each is incomplete. For this reason, it is a vocation, a call from God to the persons concerned as to how they are to live their lives and win their salvation.

Read the entire sermon.

By NOM Staff | Posted in Marriage Update | Comments (45)

NOM Exposed ad "possible the most laughable piece of gay propaganda ... ever"

January 11, 2011 – 9:46 am

John Jalsevac is amused:

Today I came across a video by the Human Rights Campaign “exposing” the pro-family organization the National Organization for Marriage (NOM). It has to be one of the most embarrassing and ultimately hilarious pieces of propaganda ever produced.

With the breed of creepy music, and foreboding, overstated voice-overs usually reserved for the grittiest crime shows about grisly homicides and serial killers, the Human Rights Campaign explains that while NOM would have you think that its mission is to “protect marriage” (“Ah, such a noble cause isn’t it?” says the creepy voiceover), there’s a much darker (duh-duh-duh!) purpose behind NOM.

Oh yes, the HRC has dug deep, has done its research, has snooped about in seedy bars with nothing more than a notebook, a hidden tape recorder and an instinct for a scandal; they’ve pored over the dusty records in the archives, they’ve found and interrogated anonymous sources – and they have uncovered NOM’s deep dark secret: NOM exists *gasp* to fight same-sex marriage.

In the words of HRC: “their only purpose is to deny the rights of marriage to loving and committed same-sex couples and their families.” (Well, that’s not actually true: NOM would also deny marriage to homosexual couples who can’t stand each other and aren’t committed in the least.).

Out of curiosity I immediately went to NOM’s (publicly accessible) website, and clicked on the “About us” section. And indeed, just as HRC had said, in the first sentence NOM claims that their mission is to “protect marriage.”

You have to read all the way to the second sentence to find out that NOM was founded “in response to the growing need for an organized opposition to same-sex marriage in state legislatures.”

Do you see how NOM hides its true purpose, purporting to be something that it isn’t? Can you evenbegin to grasp the level of dishonesty and depravity it takes to bury your real purpose all the way in the second sentence on your about page on your publicly accessible official website?! It takes your breath away.

But wait, there's more!

By NOM Staff | Posted in Marriage Update | Comments (21)

NH Gay marriage law could be repealed

January 10, 2011 – 5:41 pm

After just a year, gay marriage in New Hampshire could be history.

[Continue reading in The Eagle Tribune.]

By NOM Staff | Posted in News | Comments (32)

Prop. 8 legal battle has implications for all ballot measures

January 10, 2011 – 3:48 pm

From the San Diego Union Tribune:

picture... in effect, if a governor and attorney general were unwilling to defend an initiative approved at the ballot box, as in the case of Proposition 8, those two elected officials could veto the measure with their inaction.

Andrew Pugno, general counsel for the Proposition 8 Legal Defense Fund, said such a scenario would affect “any other issue decided by initiative, as well as the integrity of the initiative process itself.”

And from the other side:

Pizer added that [Lambda Legal] does not believe state law allows proponents [of an initiative] a seat in court battles.

One wonders if supporters of gay marriage would still hold to this position of denying voters standing in court if tables were reversed.

By NOM Staff | Posted in Same Sex Marriage | Comments (27)

The Economist Debate: Me and Evan Wolfson

January 10, 2011 – 1:00 pm

Evan WolfsonLast week Evan Wolfson and I debated on The Economist website. I have some regrets: the moderator's comments were not forwarded to me. I can easily answer his argument: "why do we let infertile couples marry?" I did not answer it because I was responding to the arguments that Evan presented, which were all I was presented with.

I'm most proud of the fact that as the debate progressed more people supported our position. Many of the commenters on their blog are just appalled - appalled! - that even a third of Economist readers support our views. That's our achievement.

I was helped by Evan Wolfson resolute refusal to engage ANY argument. I can understand gay marriage advocates who argue their view of marriage is superior to my own. Understand at least the disagreement.

But Evan is totally committted to the intellectually absurd idea "there are not arguments for marriage."

If you want to follow the debate check it out here.

By Maggie Gallagher | Posted in Marriage Update | Comments (57)

In 2011 a Vote for a Democrat Anywhere has Become a Vote for Gay Marriage Everywhere

January 10, 2011 – 12:56 pm

This column by Ed Holiday is causing waves in Mississippi, one of the few states with elections in 2011. Why? Because of this line: "In 2011 a vote for a Democrat anywhere has become a vote for gay marriage everywhere."

By NOM Staff | Posted in Marriage Update | Comments (8)

What a Dying Culture Looks Like

January 10, 2011 – 9:00 am

Fewer marriages leading to fewer births, as reported by the Economist:

"... in the 1950s, fertility started to plummet. Since the 1980s, when the birth rate fell below 1.5 children per woman, Japan has, in effect, had a one-child policy—though, unlike in China, it was self-imposed.

It came as a shock to demographers when the 2005 census showed that the number of deaths exceeded that of births for the first time: the population had started to shrink two years ahead of schedule. The 2010 census results are currently being processed and preliminary results are due in February 2011."

Fewer marriages resulting in fewer children also results in less individuals investing themselves in society and that society's future:

“A growing percentage of the population, both married and never married, without children has no vested interest in society, with hitherto unknown consequences for its self-image and sense of purpose,” [Florian Coulmas of the German Institute for Japanese Studies in Tokyo] writes. And even if policymakers managed to reverse those choices and persuade the Japanese to have many more children, the benefits to the workforce would not be felt for 20 years.

By Thomas Peters | Posted in Culture | Comments (16)

Deciding Not to Decide What Marriage Is

January 9, 2011 – 10:00 am

Does this sound familiar?

“Why am I being punished? Why did someone throw him in my path when I can’t have him?"

As Kevin Staley-Joyce writes in First Things' On The Square, here is the quote in context:

Something of an exposition of the attitude that love makes a marriage took shape in a New York Times “Weddings/Celebrations” column the week before Christmas. Carol Anne Riddell and John Partilla, both married, Upper West Side professionals, met each other through their children’s kindergarten and, struggling with increasing mutual attraction, exercised their emotional rights as trumps indeed, and so crassly as to make clandestine affairs look prudent.

As Riddell and Partilla explained, their choice was fixed: They could either give in to their feelings for each other, or suppress them and live dishonestly. Further moral confusion seemed evident, with Riddell feigning a crisis of conscience: “Why am I being punished? Why did someone throw him in my path when I can’t have him?” The two soon abandoned their spouses and children and married each other, hoping, apparently, for the best.

To be sure, the couple’s alleged decision between adultery and dishonesty was a false one, and their reasoning solipsistic. But what if their story is not just an anomaly? What if our culture’s emphasis on personal satisfaction in marriage helped tip their mental scales in favor of adultery and against the needs of their children for stability and parents with imitable marital commitment? [Continue reading]

By NOM Staff | Posted in Culture, Divorce, Parenting | Comments (12)

Will Tolerance Help RI’s Economy?

January 8, 2011 – 12:29 pm

GoLocalProv News Editor Stephen Beale gives you his take.

By NOM Staff | Posted in Same Sex Marriage | Comments Off on Will Tolerance Help RI’s Economy?

Weekend Question: Do Dead People Also Have a Right to Procreate?

January 8, 2011 – 9:00 am

Brazil's new IVF law says yes.

By NOM Staff | Posted in Parenting | Comments (89)

Chafee, Fox Ignore Bishop's Statement; re-affirm their commitment to SSM

January 7, 2011 – 6:48 pm

FROM THE PROVIDENCE JOURNAL: "Responding to criticism from the Roman Catholic Bishop Thomas J. Tobin, Governor Lincoln D. Chafee promised on Friday that if passed by the General Assembly this session, he would sign legislation recognizing same-sex marriage." [Continue reading.]

By NOM Staff | Posted in NOM Marriage News | Comments (28)

West Virginia - Family Group Announces Introduction of Marriage Protection Amendment

January 7, 2011 – 6:28 pm

A bipartisan coalition of lawmakers during the upcoming legislative  session will for the sixth straight year introduce and sponsor a Marriage Protection Amendment to the state constitution, a statewide family values group that authored the amendment said Thursday [continue reading]

By NOM Staff | Posted in NOM Marriage News | Comments (24)

Statement of Bishop Tobin on R.I. push for SSM

January 7, 2011 – 5:09 pm

From the Diocese of Providence website:

"As the State of Rhode Island enters into a more intense debate about ‘gay marriage,' with all the emotions surrounding that issue, I first want to re-affirm that the Catholic Church has nothing but the utmost respect and care for individuals with homosexual orientation. They are children of God and our brothers and sisters. We seek God's blessings upon them; they deserve the same respect and love afforded to others.  At the same time, the push to legalize the marriage of homosexual persons is morally wrong and detrimental to the well-being of our State. I am deeply disappointed that Governor Chafee and leaders of the State House are rushing this legislation without the full consent of the citizens of the State.

The proposal to change the traditional definition of marriage and thus alter the fundamental building block of our society is an enormous decision with profound consequences. If the debate is to happen at all, it deserves a full, robust and open discussion. The citizens of our State must have the opportunity to vote on something that is so basic to the social fabric of our community and the well-being of our families, especially our children." [Continue reading]

By NOM Staff | Posted in Rhode Island, Same Sex Marriage | Comments (6)

Should Judge Reinhardt Recuse Himself?

January 7, 2011 – 4:37 pm

Legal expert Ed Whelan analyzes Reinhardt's memo explaining his refusal to recuse - and says the Judge comes up short:

By NOM Staff | Posted in California, Prop 8, Same Sex Marriage | Comments (2)

GLAAD to CNN: On gay issues, abandon fairness

January 7, 2011 – 4:30 pm

Most gay activists have nothing left of substance to say, so they are now focusing on trying to silence those who do:

The Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) has created a petition in an effort to convince CNN to stop inviting what the organization deems “anti-gay” guests onto the network. In fact, GLAAD aims to fight against CNN’s inclusion of the “anti-gay industry” as a whole when it covers issues and debates relevant to gay and civil rights issues.

Is there anything more extraordinary than trying to claim the other side of an issue doesn't even have a right to be interviewed in public about their views? GLAAD's petition goes squarely against our proud American tradition of free speech. If they were actually confident in their arguments winning the debate they would feel no need to silence those who disagree with them. Let me show what I mean: watch for yourself the interview that Maggie had on CNN with Anderson Cooper last August:

This is what GLAAD finds so offensive? As you can see, it's hardly the case that Maggie was allowed to submit any of her opinions unchallenged. In fact, Cooper's interview style was combative and demanding with Maggie ("how do you know he's biased?"), while with Evan he simply floated questions that would help Evan's talking points. In GLAAD's eyes, Maggie (and other people who agree with her, for instance, that children deserve to be raised by their biological parents) should not even be allowed to appear on air and have their views challenged by a CNN anchor! Can you imagine how this segment would have gone if, instead of someone like Maggie, they had invited another pro-SSM talking head on screen? GLAAD's attempts to marginalize those who believe in traditional marriage raise other disturbing questions for us: Do we really want to live in a world where "dissenting" views are silenced and forbidden? This represents a fast track to undermining our democracy, if you ask me. Maggie and others who share her point of view have always acknowledged that SSM advocates have a right to express their views in public. So much for fair and equal treatment in return. As for the rest of us, losing our core right to free speech is nothing to be glad about.

By Thomas Peters | Posted in Free Speech, Same Sex Marriage | Comments (187)
Home NOM Blog Donate Advocacy Center
Copyright 2011