NOM BLOG

Monthly Archives: June 2011

AP on Anti-Religious Bullying by Some Gay Marriage Activists

In an article on the increasing intolerance of some gay marriage activists, Associated Press reporter David Crary quotes our co-founder Dr. Robert George:

"Democratic politics is a messy business and sometimes it's a contact sport," said George, a co-founder of the National Organization for Marriage, which campaigns against same-sex marriage. He suggested that those who hold cultural power — in academia, the media and elsewhere — are inevitably going to try to impose their viewpoints.

"The power to intimidate people, to make them fear they'll be called a bigot or denied opportunities for jobs, only works if people allow themselves to be bullied," George said. "Conservatives who make themselves out to be victims run the risk of playing into the hands of their opponents, suggesting that their opponents' cultural power is so vast that there's no way it can be resisted."

Scott Yenor on the Nature and Purpose of Marriage

Political theorist Scott Yenor, writing in the Public Discourse, takes a long-view look at marriage, and examines how various political and philosophical trends have had an effect on it:

Family decline appears to be inevitable when viewed with a long perspective. The family has been progressively differentiated from institutions that now accomplish what was formerly within the provenance of the family. The city's gods, and eventually the Church, replaced ancestral gods. The marketplace, and eventually the modern economy, replaced the family as the unit of economic production. The city replaced primitive patriarchy. Slowly, and more controversially, the state has come to fulfill increasing portions of the family's educational mission. Even the family's "provision of social services" has come, more and more, to be a state concern.

This "loss of functions" is a rational application of the division of labor, as functions extraneous to family life devolve in the presence of institutions better suited to accomplish these goals. As the family loses more and more functions, its purposes become thinner but, it is hoped, truer to the reality of what a family is.

This stripping of functions is also, however, cause for serious worry, for the functions of the family can almost always be exported to other institutions or arrangements or the need for them can seem to disappear from human life altogether. We must know what constitutes the family's end or purpose lest we face the ultimate in family decline.

Shadowy Donor Offers Troubled Equality Maryland $500,000 to Be Taken Over

We think it's ironic that the New York Daily News just claimed NOM was a "shadowy group" when this story reveals how little transparency there is even between pro-SSM groups:

Equality Maryland’s board of directors turned down an offer by an anonymous donor to give the financially struggling group $500,000 in exchange for the board giving up its voting privilege and becoming an advisory body, with a new board to be selected by the donor.

Darrell Carrington, an Equality Maryland board member who knows the identity of the donor and acted as the donor’s representative, said he resigned from the board on Monday following the board’s decision to turn down the offer.

He said he recused himself from voting on the offer, among other things, because the donor wanted him to be part of a new board selected by the donor to help save the organization, which faces the prospect of having to lay off all of but one of its employees by July 1. -- The Washington Blade

Equality Maryland, of course, has been on the ropes ever since losing their bid to redefine marriage in Maryland earlier this year.

NY Daily News Says NOM's "Shadowy" Profile Looms Large in NY!

This New York Daily News story is so over the top, it's funny:

"A shadowy group run by religious fundamentalists is bankrolling a pitched crusade against same-sex marriage in New York.

Secretive and flush with cash, the National Organization for Marriage is igniting a culture war as it battles Gov. Cuomo and Mayor Bloomberg in their campaign to legalize gay wedlock."

It goes on from there, feel free to read and enjoy.

The author does get one thing basically right: NOM's support and supporters continue to grow stronger and stronger!

Maggie Gallagher on Americans' Declining Urge to Marry

Sarah Hamaker of the Christian Post asks NOM Chairman Maggie Gallagher to comment on recent U.S. census numbers showing that fewer people are getting married:

Maggie Gallagher, chairman of the National Organization for Marriage based in Washington, D.C., says there are a few more reasons for the decrease. “Divorce rates are high, unmarried childbearing rates are going through the roof, and people are having fewer children overall than they did in the fifties and sixties. … Overall we’ve become a less child-centered and family focused culture. We’ve separated sex, love, marriage and children to an extraordinary degree.”

... Gallagher comments, “Sex, babies and marriage are not just intensely personal matters – they are civilizational ones, too.” When you add children to the mix, the stakes are even higher.
“Children are our future,” says Gallagher. “When a civilization becomes sexually disorganized, it cannot seem to channel the erotic energy of the young into making stable, loving marriages in which to raise children.

“The result is a large increase in social problems, an increasingly large government that steps in to try to solve these problems, more suffering for children, and lower levels of happiness for adults, especially for women. If the trends continue long enough, it calls into question the capacity of the society or civilization to transmit itself into the future.”

Baptist Press: Why To Be Skeptical About SSM Poll Results

The Baptist Press recently sought out NOM Chairman Maggie Gallagher's comments on recent polling claiming that a majority of Americans support redefining marriage:

It appears there is a large percentage of people who actually oppose redefining marriage but are afraid to say so to a stranger on the phone.

"I think the vigorous negative campaign to shame people into silence, starting with Carrie Prejean and now continuing with Peter Vidmar and Paul Clement, combined with the relative silence of conservative media in dealing with this issue, is starting to affect polls, although it is not affecting actual elections," Maggie Gallagher, founder of the National Organization for Marriage, told Baptist Press. Prejean was the Miss USA runner-up who publicly affirmed her believes in traditional marriage. Vidmar was pressured out of a role with the U.S. Olympic Committee for his opposition to "gay marriage," while Clement is the high-profile attorney representing the House in its defense of the Defense of Marriage Act. "... They are successfully shutting down this debate, and making people afraid to say what they think, more than they are changing hearts and minds at this point."

New polling in Minnesota -- which will vote on a constitutional amendment next year defining marriage as between a man and a woman -- supports Gallagher. A Star-Tribune poll in May that used live callers showed 55 percent of residents oppose the amendment and only 39 percent support it. But days later a SurveyUSA poll -- an automated survey -- showed the opposite, with 51 percent of voters supporting it and 40 percent opposing it. Another automated survey, by Public Policy Polling, showed a near-deadlock, with 47 percent opposing it and 46 percent supporting it.

Heritage Releases A Marshall Plan for Marriage: Rebuilding Our Shattered Homes

Here is the abstract:

Marriage and family are declining in America, following a trend well established in Europe. This breakdown of the American family has dire implications for American society and the U.S. economy. Halting and reversing the sustained trends of nearly four decades will not happen by accident. The federal, state, and local governments need to eliminate marriage penalties created by the tax code and welfare programs and instead use existing resources to better encourage and support family life.

Read the rest here.

The report goes on to lay out four principles for rebuilding a marriage culture:
  • The decision to marry is inherently economically beneficial to couples and their children, if any. Any form of financial penalty in tax policy that masks or subverts this reality and deters marriage should be eliminated.
  • Policymakers and program managers should encourage pro-marriage messaging in existing government programs and other already available resources.
  • States should recognize that a significant percentage of divorcing couples, especially those with children, would respond to reconciliation efforts and restore their marriages. States should develop policies and programs that maximize the reconciliation option.
  • Policymakers should study, recognize, and reward success in marriage, recognizing the power of the bully pulpit and civic leadership to shape consensus and define progress.

Audio: Maggie Gallagher on the Religion, Politics, & Culture Radio Show

NOM Chairman Maggie Gallagher was interviewed for about half an hour this week on the Religion, Politics & the Culture radio show with Dennis O'Donovan discussing DOMA, the future of marriage and several related topics - listen to the full interview here:

Video Round-Up: GOP Candidates for President Speak Out on Marriage

We've been featuring a few of the GOP presidential candidates and their recent statements on marriage.

Lisa Grass has posted videos of what these candidates (and possible candidates) have said most recently about marriage: Michele Bachmann, Hermain Cain, Chris Christie (though he says he will not run), Newt Gingrinch, Rudy Giuliani (who has made some rumblings that he could enter the race), Jon Huntsman, Ron Paul, Tim Pawlenty, Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum.

U.S. House Backs Defense of Marriage Act in S.F. Court

In the SanFran Chronicle:

Congressional Republicans have opened their defense of a law denying federal benefits to same-sex spouses in a San Francisco court, praising traditional marriage and slamming President Obama for abandoning the 1996 statute.

In papers filed with a federal judge, a lawyer chosen by House Republican leaders to back the Defense of Marriage Act in the nation's courts suggested Obama acted illegally by declaring in February that he considered the law unconstitutional and would no longer defend it.

"The president's constitutional duty to 'take care that the laws be faithfully executed' ... surely includes the duty to defend as well as enforce the law," said the attorney, Paul Clement, a former U.S. solicitor general under President George W. Bush.

... Clement's brief, filed last Friday, went further. Congress, he said, could legally withhold benefits from gay and lesbian couples because "opposite-sex marriage is a deeply rooted, historic institution - and a fundamental constitutional right - and same-sex marriage is neither of these things."Congress could also rely on "basic biological differences," Clement said, because only opposite-sex couples are capable of having children, and "encouraging child-rearing by a married mother and father is a legitimate governmental interest."

Photo: Sen. Rev. Diaz's Bronx Rally for Marriage

We missed this picture showing a wide-angle view of all the supporters who braved the rain for marriage on May 15th in the Bronx!

The Worst Argument for SSM?

We've seem some pretty silly ones, but this one probably takes the cake:

The lowest temperature this year was minus 22 in January, while on Tuesday, the high was 103 -- a range of 125 degrees. We Minnesotans take that incredible diversity in stride like few other places in the world.

Can't the state that tolerates these temperature differences also embrace a wide range of marriage types? Passing a constitutional amendment to restrict marriage to heterosexual unions would be like passing an amendment restricting the weather to 68 degrees and sunny.

Both amendments would be futile and would undermine what makes Minnesota one of the most special places on Earth: our diversity in all things. --Robert Alberti in the Star Tribune

Gay Irish Candidate for President, Once Leading in the Polls, Loses Support after Revelations He Advocates Legalizing Adult-Child Consensual Sex

LifeSiteNews:

Irish presidential hopeful David Norris is fighting to maintain his candidacy amidst even more revelations that he supports “classical pedophilia” and opposes any law specifying an age of consent for sex.

On its front page yesterday, the Irish Daily Mail ran the headline, “I don’t believe in an age of consent,” and said that Norris had given an interview last year in which he said (in the words of the paper) that “prostitution and all drugs should be legalized,” and “he was pro-abortion and advocated pederasty.”

... Norris was a front-runner in the Irish Republic’s Presidential campaign until last week, when a ten-year-old interview was unearthed in the media in which he made comments supporting pederasty, calling it “classical pedophilia.”

Norris told the magazine Magill, “There’s a lot of nonsense about pedophilia.” “I think there is a complete and utter hysteria about this subject,” he said, insisting that children were capable of giving informed consent to sex, saying, “The law should take into account consent rather than age.”

He also said that child victims of sexual abuse are sometimes more harmed by the condemnation of the abuse, and said that incest should only be banned in cases where a victim could be impregnated.

Media Ignores Campaign of Hate Targeting Marriage Defenders - NOM Marriage News, June 9, 2011

Dear Marriage Supporter,

Our new Facebook page is exploding! More than 7,000 of you have "liked" our page in the last two weeks, and as I write we are at 16,383 fans. That means I need just 8,617 good, marriage-loving folks to go to:

http://www.facebook.com/NationForMarriage

Find and press the "like" button to meet our goal. Will you help me this week by "liking" our Facebook page?

And you can follow me on Twitter too!

Thanks so much!

Divider

The media is finally beginning to pay a little attention to the outpouring of hatred directed at good, loving, law-abiding and honorable Americans who believe that in order to make a marriage you need a husband and a wife.

Mostly, of course, they are pooh-poohing it—but before they can dismiss it, they have to at least note what is happening.

We can thank New York's Sen. Rev. Rubén Díaz not only for his staunch leadership for marriage, but for being willing to call out the press for failing to report the ugliness directed at him and his family.

On May 10th, one activist upset over the legislator's May 15th Rally to Protect Marriage wrote on Twitter that he wanted to sexually assault Díaz's daughter. And an online forum called The New Gay is organizing a "F*** Ruben Diaz Festival" in Brooklyn for June 11th.

The group called for written entries in which contestants are to "imagine a day" in Díaz's life. "Is he downtown scoring poppers? ... Is he waking up in a tangle of hard man-bodies after a raging orgy? ... Feel free to put Ruben in whatever ridiculous scenario you want," they write.

"I don't see this as a personal attack so much as one of those kind of 'laugh to keep from crying' sort of things," organizer Andrew Steinkuehler told the New York Daily News.

(I pause to say: I recognize that this kind of really ugly stuff is not coming from all or most supporters of gay marriage, much less gay people in general.)

Contrast that with the spirit displayed by Sen. Rev. Díaz himself at his rally in the Bronx.

Video Screenshot

Rick Barnes, head of the Catholic Conference in New York, was one of the few people who have stepped forward to defend Sen. Rev. Díaz.

"Where is the outrage in the media? Where is the cry for tolerance and justice for Rev. Díaz against these hate purveyors?" Barnes asked. "The answer, sadly, is that there is no outcry. Are they saving it for after something truly awful happens to this good man? Until the hate that is being incited boils over into violent behavior?"

"The entire campaign to enact same-sex marriage is conducted under a banner of acceptance, and equality and respect for others," Barnes continued. "Yet behind that banner of tolerance is another campaign—of intimidation, threats and ugliness. What at first appears to be simple juvenile behavior by a few is becoming a culture and climate of abusiveness toward those who disagree."

"Is this the future we look forward to in our state? Intolerance masquerading as tolerance, intimidation in the name of respect?" he added. "I hope not, but the wind certainly seems to be blowing in that direction."

As Americans, can we disagree, even (or especially) on deeply held and important moral issues, without hating one another?

Hatred and threats openly directed at gay people is widely (and justly) acknowledged to be a social problem.

Hatred directed at marriage supporters is culturally invisible, almost never reported by the media, and takes place with the apparent tacit approval of many powerful voices in "society." When fear leads people to decline to tell pollsters what they really think, that's celebrated by the New York Times as a sign of moral progress.

In fact, many responsible voices justify this hatred on ideological grounds. "You sow what you reap," an anonymous legislator reportedly told the New York Daily News explaining why so few voices have come to Sen. Rev. Díaz's defense.

Part of the trick is the increasing tendency of respectable voices and respectable news outlets to directly or indirectly blame marriage supporters for every suffering.

Divider

The latest example? The CDC released a report showing that teenagers who self-identify as gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender engage in much, much higher rates of behavior suggesting social, emotional, or psychological distress, including smoking cigarettes, binge drinking, and attempting suicide.

The media and many experts were quick to say social stigma is the main culprit. Surely it plays a role.

But buried in the same report are data from two different states, Wisconsin and Massachusetts. One has had gay marriage since 2003, and the other has had a marriage amendment since 2006.

Which do you suppose is a safer place for LGBT teens?

The answer: Wisconsin by a mile. For example, about 25 percent of Massachusetts teens who self-identify as "gay" said they had missed schools because they felt unsafe, compared to 14 percent of Wisconsin teens. More than half (50.5 percent) of Massachusetts gay teens said they felt "sad or hopeless" compared to 29 percent of Wisconsin teens. Thirty-three percent of Massachusetts gay teens attempted suicide, compared to less than 20 percent of Wisconsin teens. Massachusetts gay teens were about twice as likely as Wisconsin gay teens to commit a suicide attempt serious enough to require medical care (15 percent to 8 percent). (By contrast, heterosexual teens in both states were about equally likely to have committed a suicide attempt that required medical care: around 2 percent.)

It's hard to be a gay teen, but if you are going to be one, it's much better to live in Wisconsin, a state which passed a marriage amendment by 60 percent, than Massachusetts, a state which has gay marriage.

Why is this stark clear evidence that marriage is not responsible for gay teens' suffering never, ever considered worthy of mention in the debates over bullying?

Mind you: All these numbers are far too high. These are clearly kids who need help, each one a precious child of God.

The point I am making here is how information is being systematically presented in a biased way to foster a false view of reality in which support for marriage equals hatred against gay people and is responsible for their suffering.

Once you have cultivated this mindset, the open hatred directed against good people like Sen. Rev. Díaz is merely "righteous anger."

And it's building.

Divider

Take a look at this video produced by Tradition, Family, Property.

Video Screenshot

It's only a sign that got ripped in half, thank God—but the absolute certainty that he's entitled to behave this way displayed by the man who does this is disturbing, to say the least.

This kind of minor display of violence is a signal: For too many gay-marriage advocates, the future of marriage is not an important battle about which good people disagree. For too many of these advocates, those who oppose gay marriage are not only wrong (we all think that about people with whom we disagree)—they are bad, wicked, irrational bigots who must be silenced and stigmatized.

In a lot of ways I hesitate to even focus on this problem myself. I'm a pretty sunny kind of guy and for me, fighting the battle for marriage is awe-inspiring and even fun.

Divider

Here's Maggie at the Faith and Freedom conference in D.C. last week on a panel on the Catholic vote led by Deal Hudson, explaining three great reasons why activists and candidates should fight for marriage:

Video Screenshot

  1. Marriage is a necessary social institution, the way we bring men and women together to make the future happen.
  2. Gay marriage redefines not only marriage; it also redefines the relationship between America and the Judeo-Christian tradition. For the first time in American history, a powerful political movement is attempting to make ordinary Christian views on sex and marriage taboo in polite society and the public square.
  3. Winning is fun! Especially when you are told time and time again that your victories are "impossible"!

The very best part is working together in a genuine spirit of love with good people like you.

The fight for New York is now ticking down to the wire. If you live in New York, could you write a letter to the editor today standing for marriage and calling for respect for differences of opinion in New York?

NOM makes it easy.
I think we owe it to the Sen. Rev. Díazes of the world to acknowledge the heat they take in standing up for marriage.

Pray for Sen. Rev. Díaz and for all who are standing up for marriage—and, this week, please pray for our opponents too.

God bless you and keep you. This is a fight they cannot win unless we give up. And that I promise you we will never do.

Semper fi, and keep fighting the good fight!

Brian Brown

Brian S Brown

Brian S. Brown
President
National Organization for Marriage

P.S. Can you help us today as we seek more great victories for marriage? Whether you can give $20 or $200—or maybe a monthly donation of just $10—know that you can make a difference for our country.

MN Archbishop Nienstedt: "Marriage Amendment Deserves Our Support"

In The Catholic Spirit:

The Minnesota Catholic Conference, made up of the seven Catholic bishops from the state, support this amendment not for prejudicial or political reasons, but rather for reasons that are theological, biological and pastoral.

... Pastorally, children flourish best in the context of having both a mother and a father. Every scientific study confirms this reality. We know that many single parents strive mightily to raise children in as normal a context as possible — and many do an excellent job at this. Nevertheless, it is a proven fact that boys and girls develop better with the influence of a mother and a father, living in the same home.

It should also be remembered that the teaching of the church is always meant to uphold and enhance the inherent dignity of the human person as a son or daughter of God.