NOM BLOG

Monthly Archives: March 2011

Rep. King to propose cutting DoJ funding equal to cost of DOMA defense

Congressman Steve King has a way of making the DOMA defense budget neutral:

Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) is planning to offer an amendment to slash as much funding to the Department of Justice as would have been used to defend the Defense of Marriage Act.

"What I intend to do, and there are other solutions that are offered, and I believe that the Speaker is focused on this, as well ... is to offer an amendment on an appropriations bill that would cut the funding to the Department of Justice in an amount yet to be determined that would be equivalent to that amount that they would otherwise use to defend the Defense of Marriage Act," King said Tuesday. (source: The Hill's blog briefing room)

Speaker Boehner on FOX News: "We are going to intervene" on DOMA

Last night Speaker Boehner was asked by Greta Van Susteren about DOMA and intervention:

VAN SUSTEREN: The Defense of Marriage Act -- the president has said that he's not going to enforce it or is not going to -- he's not going to fight it in the courts, the challenges to it. You or at least the GOP on this side has said that you may hire a special counsel to do the job that the federal government -- the executive branch won't do. Are you going to hire someone?

BOEHNER: DOMA is the law of the land. It passed overwhelming in both the House and the Senate. And I think it's outrageous for the president to say, Well, we're not going to enforce it. It's the law of the land. It's the job of the Justice Department to defend the work of our government. And I just think it's outrageous. We're looking at our options, what's available to us to intervene. The short -- the long and short of this is that we are going to intervene. The question is how do we do it.

VAN SUSTEREN: Have you had any conversations with the executive branch, with the attorney general or the president about that?

BOEHNER: No.

VAN SUSTEREN: So everyone's going to find out when, later this week, what...

BOEHNER: I'm hopeful we'll have an answer here in the next couple of days. (source: official transcript)

Breaking News: State Probes Religious Foster and Adoption Agencies for Discrimination

Breaking news out of Illinois:

Though Illinois legislators championing the civil union bill earlier this year insisted that religious institutions would not be forced to bless same-sex unions, it said nothing about same-sex parents.

But what are the actual consequences?

Now, Attorney General Lisa Madigan, Gov. Pat Quinn's legal team and the Department of Children and Family Services are carefully researching the Illinois Human Rights Act, the Civil Union Act and the Illinois Constitution to determine whether they prohibit agencies from considering sexual orientation as a factor in foster care and adoption. In Illinois, all adults who adopt or become foster care providers must obtain foster care licenses.

... If they are found in violation, Lutheran Child and Family Services, Catholic Charities in five regions and the Evangelical Child and Family Agency will have to license openly gay foster parents or lose millions of state dollars, potentially disrupting more than 3,000 foster children in their care.

More consequences:

"Social intervention such as adoption laws and practices inevitably reflect their communities," said Kendall Marlowe, a spokesman for DCFS. "Illinois as a state has grown on this (gay rights) issue as evidenced by (civil union legislation). Adoption law and practice should reflect the values of the people of Illinois."

But Bob Gilligan, executive director of the Catholic Conference of Illinois, said Catholic Charities has no intention of changing its policy against allowing openly gay foster parents after nearly a century of serving children in Illinois. Catholic Charities inspired the state to take on foster care, which ultimately led to the creation of DCFS. (source: Chicago Tribune)

The Supreme Court Just Went Off the Deep End

The Supreme Court just ruled 8-1 that a fringe cult that calls itself the "Westboro Baptist Church" has a First Amendment right to use funerals (of soldiers who died serving their country) to protest.

The fringe cult calling itself Westboro Baptist (a small congregation consisting of close, and possibly incestuous, relatives of Fred Phelpsl, who calls himself a pastor) first became famous by protesting gay rights events with revolting signs suggesting that God hates gay people. (They used another offensive terms as well).

These ugly signs proved irresistible to reporters from the New York Times etc., who like to pretend this sentiment captures religious conservatives' views generally.

Eventually even the New York Times and the other MSM came to realize they were photographing the same small band of people over and over again. So Fred Phelps, in his desperate search to feel important, switched to protesting the funerals of soldiers who died serving their country.

Only Justice Sam Alito had the common sense to recognize that somewhere in our great Constitution, there has to be a way to let people bury their dead, without becoming the objects of other people's monomaniacal desire to disrupt their grieving for publicity purposes.

(Perhaps we could make an exception for state funerals.)

Burials happen in public (we don't actually let people bury their dead on their own property any more). But they are not public events.

These regulations designed to circumvent Fred Phelps' evil and irrational plans, are not directed at the content of speech, they are reasonable time and place restrictions that any decent society should respect.

The Constitution is not a suicide pact.

Aussie ABC News Columnist: Marriage Needs Redefining Because Monogamy Does Not Work

Or so Katrina Fox writes:

Simply allowing ‘same-sex’ couples to marry will still leave people like Wilson and many other intersex, sex and/or gender diverse (ISGD) people unable to access the same legal right. A more inclusive option is to allow individuals to get married whatever their sex or gender, including those who identify as having no sex or gender or whose sex may be indeterminate.

But it’s not only gay, lesbian and ISGD people for whom matrimony remains an unequal playing field. Marriage places monogamy at its core and this is supported by both religious fundamentalists who are against same-sex marriage and those campaigning for gay and lesbian people to have the right to marry.

Surely it makes more sense to expand the definition of marriage to include a range of relationship models including polyamory, instead of holding up monogamy as the gold – indeed only – standard. Contrary to myths that people in non-monogamous relationships are unable to commit, a poly lifestyle often involves a great deal of communication between partners and offers them an even greater level of intimacy and capacity to love.

“So many people are miserable in their relationships, and it’s about letting go of false expectations that one person can do it all,” says sex educator Tristan Taormino, author ofOpen Up: A Guide to Creating and Sustaining Open Relationships. “Non-monogamy is about exploring different parts of yourself. There’s an assumption that people in open relationships have no boundaries, but it’s quite the opposite. The way [open relationships] work and when they are satisfying is when people can recognise their limits and agree rules.”

Marriage would also benefit from being expanded to include non-sexual, non-romantic relationships, like the existing Tasmanian relationship register which allows anyone who is in a “personal relationship involving emotional interdependence, domestic support or personal care” to register that relationship. After all if procreation and sex were an essential part of marriage, then infertile, non-libidinous and old people should be barred from walking down the aisle. (source)

Illinois B&B Owners Sued for Refusing SSU Ceremony

Two bed-and-breakfast owners in Illinois are being sued after refusing to host a same-sex civil union ceremony. The harm to the gay couple is simply their emotional distress, not the lack of a nice place to hold a ceremony (because already another bed-and-breakfast has offered to host their ceremony).

In a way I can sympathize; of course it's distressing to be told that someone doesn't approve of your commitment ceremony as you are preparing for a happy day. But frankly, that's the truth of the world we live in: Many people disagree on important and deeply-felt moral issues. We don't usually let one person's emotional distress shut down another person's right to act on their own moral or religious beliefs. Unless the law decides that one person's emotional distress constitutes proof of “discrimination”--and then boy, the playing field suddenly gets unleveled very fast.

Angry SSM Protesters Target Religious Services for Protest/Disruption

Meanwhile, I wanted to make sure that in the big Obama DOMA news last week you didn't miss the latest installment of our Breaking News videos. This one is on a new tactic launched by the Gay Liberation Network in Chicago: organized protests during religious services.

“It's time to stop being nice to anti-gay bigots” is the Gay Liberation Network's new message--by which they mean it's time to start discriminating against good people like you who are standing up for the idea that to make a marriage you need a husband and wife.

Disruptive protests--coming to a church near you?

We hope not, but if so, you can count on us to be the voice for your values.

Maryland SSM Sponsors Jump Ship

Meanwhile the press and the pols were shocked this week to find suddenly that black Dems were jumping ship.

Melvin Stukes (a black Democrat from Baltimore), a co-sponsor of the bill, pulled out. When the leadership, realizing public support was evaporating, moved to push for a committee vote quickly--all of a sudden at least two black Dems from normally “progressive” districts simply could not be found.

One, Del. Jill Carter, expressed a deep underlying resentment about the priorities of the Democratic leadership in pushing this bill urgently--by holding out for more education spending for her district in exchange for her vote. Another, Del. Tiffany Alston, says she is struggling with her personal religious beliefs and the outpouring of concern by constituents.

The gay press is calling their reservations “Shameful!” and even the Baltimore Sun oddly accused them of bringing the house “into disrepute” for doing normal legislative things like bargaining for the good of their own districts.

As I write in the middle of this fast-changing situation, Del. Carter says the House leadership is lying about her and they are still at least two votes short of being able to ram that bill through.

Maryland Lawyer Erika Cole Warns MD House Against SSM

Here's another thing you didn't see on the mainstream news coverage: a respected church lawyer, Erika Cole, testifying at the House hearings, in which gay marriage advocates repeatedly urged legislators to exercise “leadership” by voting for gay marriage, whether their constituents want it or not:

We may be on the verge of another truly amazing victory in yet another deep blue state.

The politicians may ram it through in Maryland in the end, but the newly energized people of Maryland are not going to sit still for this any more. A truly rainbow coalition of people of every race, creed and color will once again stand up for marriage!

Pres. Obama's DOMA Disaster

Nationally, the biggest issue is Pres. Obama's DOMA “Disaster,” as Maggie calls it.

Obama's refusal to defend DOMA is already backfiring on him.

At NOM we try to stay ahead of the curve. Let me tell you, we have been strategizing behind the scenes for weeks with other leaders and groups on how to get a lawyer into the courtroom in this case who actually wants to defend the law.

Here's the good news: Pres. Obama just made that task immeasurably easier.

Now that Pres. Obama has thrown in the towel, the House can intervene as a matter of right.

Maggie's column this week making this point is a delight to read: “Pres. Obama, thank you. This decision will cost you votes, energize the GOP base, and increase our side's odds of legal victory on DOMA.”

Hey, and my column in the Washington Post isn't bad either:
“President Obama's announcement Wednesday that he will refuse to do his job when it comes to the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is part of this stunning pattern of rejecting the democratic process.”

Defending DOMA - Will the House Intervene?

Now the big question is: Will the House intervene to protect DOMA?

14,732 of you have already responded to NOM's urgent call to the House: Vote to protect marriage by intervening in DOMA! Don't stop now!

Take Action

Here's the latest news: On Wednesday night Speaker Boehner told Greta Van Susteren, “The long and short of this is that we are going to intervene” in DOMA.

Thank you--keep it up--we're on the verge of winning a great, great victory!

Prop 8 Case News: County Clerk Seeks Standing in Case

On the Prop 8 case, this week saw another very important and totally underreported development too: Chuck Storey, the newly elected county clerk of Imperial County, is back in court, asking the Ninth Circuit for standing to intervene to uphold Prop 8!

You may recall that the Ninth Circuit denied Imperial County's assistant clerk standing, on the grounds that she is not independently elected. So Storey's decision may change the whole legal ballgame.

Kudos and thank you to him--and to each and every American standing up for our right to vote for marriage!

That all our rights are under new attack became vividly clear this week in Illinois, where just weeks after the legislature passed a horribly-drafted civil unions bill with no religious liberty protection, legal threats are being unleashed against people with traditional views on marriage.

Maryland Vote for SSM - Not a Done Deal

As I write, the Maryland House Judiciary Committee has still not been able to vote to pass same-sex marriage, despite threats and arm-twisting from leadership.

(Or, as the gay press is reporting, “Maryland delegates ready to vote on gay marriage bill; NOM mailers spread fear”!!!)

In Maryland, the House of Delegates was supposed to be an easy vote for gay marriage. Done deal, they all said, like they always do.

Well, as our favorite political guru likes to say, “If it was a done deal, it would be done already.”

NOM swung into action, helping impressive Maryland leaders, including Bishop Harry Jackson and the Maryland Catholic Conference, alert the people that their politicians were pushing gay marriage.

The reaction has been extraordinary! The black church in particular has risen to this occasion in an extraordinary way. Whose vision and whose values count to the Democratic leadership in the Maryland legislature, black pastors are asking? Well, maybe this week they will find out!

WaPo Reporting: MD SSM Bill still in "limbo" - Del. Alston's vote uncertain

The Washington Post: "Legislation that would legalize same-sex marriages in Maryland remained in limbo Wednesday as leaders of the House of Delegates continued to delay a committee vote on the high-profile measure."

If you live in her district, Delegate Tiffany Alston needs to hear from you now!

Obama Administration Picks and Chooses when to defend DOMA

Further contributing to the general sense of lawlessness concerning the President's approach to upholding the law, the Obama administration told the court it would continue to defend DOMA in certain legal cases, but not others. The Christian Post has the story.