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

Monthly Archives: July 2011

"The Church Will Not Remain Silent in the Public Square"

July 10, 2011 – 9:00 am

Jason Adkins, director of the Minnesota Catholic Conference, writes in response to those attempting to silence the churches:

We hear it in various forms. Some complain that the church should not be speaking out on divisive issues, but instead should spend its time and resources feeding the poor and spreading God’s love.

Others say the church as a religious organization should have no role in the formation of civil laws.  Still others complain that the church should not be weighing in on so many issues where there seems to be legitimate room for disagreement.

So, what is the role of the church in public policy debates?

The Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. put it well:  the church “is not the master, nor the servant, of the state, but rather the conscience of the state.”

Catholics, individually and as a community, have a religious obligation to speak out on behalf of human dignity and the common good. We are our brother’s keeper and must seek to promote laws that foster justice and human flourishing.

By NOM Staff | Posted in Free Speech, Religious Liberty, Same Sex Marriage | Comments (6)

After SSM, What's Next for Marriage: The NYT Debate

July 9, 2011 – 12:00 pm

LetThePeopleVote.comWe've already mentioned Stanford Law Professor Ralph Richard Banks view that now that New York has legalized same-sex marriage, incestuous and polygamous marriage equality ought to be sought, but here (briefly) are the other views represented in a New York Times panel debate:

Mark Regnerus, an associate professor of sociology at the University of Texas at Austin, writes about "An Imperiled Institution":

Instead, marriage today reflects several 20th-century shifts of extraordinary implications. First, the wide uptake of reproductive technology severed — in our minds, if not always in our lived realities — the generation of children from the meaning of marriage. The kids are now an option, which was unthinkable before the pill. And now making them need not even involve sex.

That is a colossal shift, and a widely shared assumption among Americans of all faiths, colors and orientations. These changes have both fueled, and been driven by, still other signal changes — the premium we place on unlimited personal autonomy, the declining need to marry and the ease of access to sex without strings. Without those developments, nothing interesting would have happened in Albany last month.

W. Bradford Wilcox, director of the National Marriage Project at the University of Virginia, writes about "Marriage Haves and Have-Nots":

The roots of this growing marriage divide are economic (the postindustrial economy favors the college-educated), cultural (less-educated Americans are abandoning a marriage mindset even as college-educated Americans take up this mindset) and legal (less-educated Americans seem particularly gun shy about marrying in a world where no-fault divorce is the law of the land). Alas, the same-sex marriage debate has crowded out any serious effort to remedy this marriage inequality.

Consequently, the United States is a nation where the privileged and powerful reap the financial, emotional and social benefits of stable marriages, whereas poor and ordinary American adults and especially their children are burdened by family lives characterized by growing instability, complexity and conflict (think “baby mama drama”). What looks to be an increasingly “separate and unequal” future for marriage in America cannot be good for the future of the nation.

Judith Stacey, a professor of sociology at New York University, writes about "Unequal Opportunity":

... same-sex marriage enthusiasts are wrong to celebrate the democratizing effects of their victory in New York. To be sure, it removes an indefensible form of discrimination against lesbians and gay men. But the upshot of celebrating marriage is to exacerbate discrimination against the unmarried and their children — a rising proportion of our population, particularly among its poorer and darker members. Same-sex marriage, like its heterosexual model, is disproportionately accessible to members of the white middle class.

As the United States gradually makes the membership rules to marriage gender-inclusive, it risks deepening our sharp class and race disparities in marriage and family life. If we wish to avoid this fate, we should not be celebrating the benefits of marriage. Instead we need to develop family policies that give greater recognition and resources to the growing array of families formed, as Nancy Polikoff titled her book, “Beyond (Straight and Gay) Marriage.”

John Corvino, an associate professor at Wayne State University, writes about "No Slippery Slope":

...for champions of equality, it’s a time to celebrate, but hardly a time to move on. Meanwhile, opponents continue to predict a slippery slope to polygamy, polyamory and other “untested, experimental” family forms.

The grain of truth in their prediction is this: recent progress reminds us that marriage is an evolving institution and that not everyone fits in the neat boxes that existing tradition offers.

Elizabeth F. Emens, finally, a professor at Columbia Law School, writes about "A Simple Hyphen Will Do":

The summer of 2011 is a watershed moment for marriage equality in New York. To prepare for same-sex marriage, bureaucrats across the state are busily revising marriage license application forms to make the forms sex-neutral. Say goodbye to separate lines labeled “bride” and “groom.”

In the interest of gender equality, and in compliance with the law, the new forms should include prominent statements of the marital naming options.

Why? Because names matter. And right now, women who marry men have limited options when it comes to names. Sure, women can choose their names, which is better than having to take their husbands’ names, as used to be required in some states. But kids almost always have their father’s name. So a woman can either share a name with her past life and family, or share a name with her children. In other words, men get to have continuity with both past and future; women have to choose. (And of course this practice of patrilineal descent of names doesn’t provide any guidance for same-sex couples.)

By NOM Staff | Posted in Culture, New York, Same Sex Marriage | Comments (12)

After SSM, What Next? Stanford Law Prof. Argues in NYTimes for Incestuous and Polygamous Marriage Equality

July 9, 2011 – 11:00 am

LetThePeopleVote.comAlliance Defense Fund responds:

The New York Times last Sunday published an opinion piece [as part of their reaction series] by Stanford Law Professor Ralph Richard Banks that essentially argues that American society has notachieved “marriage equality” by allowing same sex couples to marry. He argues that polygamy and incestuous marriage between adults should be legalized in order to evolve to full marriage equality:

So, as I and others have argued, the real issue is “marriage deconstruction” not “marriage equality” in the debate over whether same sex couples should be allowed to marry.   In other words, the fight is between those who believe that societies have the authority to encourage people to have sex and make babies only within a pubic institution called marriage, defined uniformly for all as one man and one woman.  The opposite view is not “allow same sex couples to marry,” but to abandon any common, culture-wide definition of marriage and allow each person to do what he or she things is right in regards to marriage, sex and family.  However, the consensus of world cultures has rejected this self autonomy view of marriage because of its harmful results. The common experience of human societies since the beginning of time is that the “self autonomy” model results over time in irresponsible men exploiting women and neglecting the children the men produce.

By NOM Staff | Posted in Culture, New York, Same Sex Marriage | Comments (8)

Cardinal George Asks "Are Men and Women Interchangeable At Will?"

July 9, 2011 – 10:00 am

Via Catholic Exchange:

With the same nuptial imagery, and in accord with the natural moral law, the church recognizes that marriage is between a man and a woman, for life and for the sake of family. Marital union is based on a man and a woman becoming “two in one flesh.” Without such self-giving union, marriage is impossible. A marriage that is not or cannot be consummated in sexual union is recognized as invalid in both church and civil law. Genuine love and deep friendship are possible without two persons becoming “two in one flesh,” and love and friendship should always be respected and encouraged. But sexual activities separated from the context of the marital union are inconsistent with the order of human nature itself.

To speak of “the order of human nature itself” becomes progressively more difficult and less convincing when gender is regarded as a purely human construct, a cultural invention, and not something given in nature. Nature itself has now been mostly reduced to a field for scientific experiment and human control. Even biological differences are to be manipulated for economic profit and according to personal preferences. Whatever restricts personal choice is politically and socially unacceptable. So two men should be able to marry, if that is what they want; and women should be candidates for ordained priesthood, if that is what they believe. Women and men are interchangeable at will.

 

By NOM Staff | Posted in Culture, Same Sex Marriage | Comments (1)

Matthew Franck Asks "Is Sex Just Like Race?

July 9, 2011 – 9:00 am

Over at The Public Discourse:

Catholic University of America recently announced that it would return to single-sex dormitories. In response, a GWU law professor has announced he plans to sue CUA for reintroducing "separate but equal" and thus violating DC's Human Rights Act. Matthew Franck explains why sex is not like race, and why it is reasonable to sometimes take the former into consideration.

... [GWU law professor] Banzhaf may have a case under the D.C. Human Rights Act, or he may not. That will be for others to decide. But this parallel of his, between race and sex, is what should catch our attention. His argument, as a matter of justice and moral right, is only as good as the proposition that sex is just like race when it comes to our treatment of others. Banzhaf is sure that if it would be wrong to separate the races into different dormitories, even into facilities of identical quality, it would be equally wrong to separate the sexes.

But is sex just like race?

By NOM Staff | Posted in Culture, Same Sex Marriage | Comments (2)

Tony Perkins on The Frum Flip Flop

July 8, 2011 – 6:03 pm

Tony Perkins in FRC's Washington Update:

David Frum is a writer who, in 1997, engaged in a spirited online debate with homosexual writer Andrew Sullivan over the topic of homosexual "marriage." In over 5,500 words of text, Frum was articulate, cogent, and compelling in his opposition to radically redefining marriage, saying that "this request isn't just misplaced, but is actually logically impossible." Now, however, Frum has changed his mind. In a short CNN op-ed last week, he wrote that "the case against same-sex marriage has been tested against reality. The case has not passed its test."

Tested? Only five out of the fifty states (soon to be six, when New York's new marriage law takes effect) and the District of Columbia currently allow same-sex "marriage." Of those, only one (Massachusetts) has had it for more than three years. It's ludicrous to think this provides enough data to tell us definitively what the institution of marriage and the American family would look like, say, fifty years from now if the U.S. Supreme Court mandates legalization of homosexual "marriage" in all fifty states (as would be the case if U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker's decision from last year is upheld). It took a generation for the devastation wrought by the public policy of no-fault divorce to become clear. Homosexual "marriage" did not initiate the separation of lifelong commitment, marriage, sex, procreation, and parenthood--which were once viewed as normally a package (occurring in that order). But redefining marriage would affirm the institution's deconstruction, when it desperately needs to be reconstructed instead. Frum knew this in 1997. Sadly, his decline to political correctness is more likely the result of peer pressure from the self-styled intellectual elites than from the evidence of any "test."

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

Michele Bachmann First to Sign Iowa Family Leader Marriage Pledge

July 8, 2011 – 5:48 pm

Slate makes fun of Michele, naturally, for taking the lead on this (as we reported earlier). But women know a thing or two about how women--and children--are abused by human trafficking and the sex industry generally.

Your snark won't hurt Michele.

By NOM Staff | Posted in Election Watch 2012, Marriage, Marriage Election Watch, Same Sex Marriage | Comments (5)

Let The People Vote! NOM Marriage News July 8, 2011

July 8, 2011 – 5:00 pm

NOM National Newsletter

Dear Marriage Supporter,

LetThePeopleVote.com

The fight to take back New York begins. Now it gets serious. Now, it's also a fight to take back the Republican Party from the forces who wish to abandon marriage: the so-called new "pro-equality Republicans."

Four Republican senators in New York voted for gay marriage. But the entire Republican conference, under the leadership of Dean Skelos, helped to make that happen by voting to bring up the gay marriage bill.

NY Republican Senators who Betrayed Marriage

When the Democrats controlled the New York Senate, gay marriage lost in a landslide. After an election, Republicans took control. What did they do with their newfound power? They sold out the party's base, the party's principles, and the timeless institution of marriage.

They imposed gay marriage without a vote of the people!

Now is the time for the sunshine patriots to get out of the way, and for those of us who understand what is at stake in this marriage debate to defeat politicians who had no problem lying to get elected, then turning around and betraying the voters who helped them.

I've got really exciting news to announce to you this week: a new coalition, a new plan, a rebuilt PAC. And here's the most exciting news: a huge multi-city series of rallies and protest marches taking place across the state of New York to win a vote to protect marriage in New York's constitution!

Let the People Vote!

Save the date: Sunday, July 24, 3 p.m. Go here to get the practical details. And here's the good news: You can show up to let Albany know you've had enough of the corruption, the backroom deals, the lying, the politics as usual. Let the people vote!

Don't forget to send this link to Let the People Vote to your five best friends, the folks you know who are mad enough not to take this from Republicans and other pols lying down!

We at NOM have promised to raise $2 million to help defeat the politicians who've betrayed marriage in 2012.

The good news is that in our first week alone, hundreds of you sent donations adding up to $40,000 to NOM's NY PAC. Fight back against the GOP betrayal by donating $5, $10 or $99 to our NOM NY PAC now.

And New York state has no limit on PAC donations (although they are public knowledge if you donate $100 or more). If you really want to show the GOP politicians they made a big mistake in betraying marriage, the sky is the limit.

We are drawing a line in the sand for politicians and the Republican Party here. You cannot deal away marriage in backrooms behind voters' backs. This is not just about New York; it is about the future of marriage in America.

Republican elites like Ken Mehlman are counting on using New York as a model for pushing gay marriage—over the heads of the people across the country—unless you and I show them how big a mistake this is!

As the New York Times concedes, "the events in New York also have national repercussions: ... gay-rights advocates increasingly need Republican support if they are to change local laws elsewhere in the country."

Ken Mehlman, one of a network of Karl Rove protégés, boasted about how he used money to sway Republicans to vote for gay marriage:

"I didn't come in there saying, 'Do this for me,'" Ken Mehlman, the openly gay former RNC chairman who persuaded Republican lawmakers in Albany, told the Huffington Post. "I said, 'Do this for you.' ...We were saying, 'It is the right thing to build the party from a political perspective.'"

New York Republican elites with powerful national connections are now openly saying that abandoning marriage is the key to building the Republican Party!

I'm not making this stuff up.

A plan is in place to bring down the GOP's commitment to marriage, to create an America in which no party and no politician is willing to stand for the fundamental truth of Genesis that marriage is unique for a reason—that male and female must come together, in love, to make the future happen, and to give that future the love and care of a mother and a father.

These powerful megamillionaires want to deface the Bible by ripping Genesis out of it, and then to remake an America without a strong foundation of Judeo-Christian values. What kind of conservative movement would we have left if we let that happen?

And of course it is not just Republicans who stand up for marriage.

Sen. Rev. Rubén Díaz is a loyal, lifelong liberal Democrat who stood up fearlessly and lovingly in New York for marriage as the union of a husband and wife.

He is now facing an ongoing, continuous, thundering barrage of hatred for his courage, for his refusal to kowtow, for being unafraid and unashamed of his support for marriage.

Even victory in New York has not sated some gay-marriage advocates' thirst to somehow humiliate a brave leader like Sen. Díaz, as he made clear in a statement released this week, "Unashamed to Be a Christian." It's worth reading in full (warning: he is very blunt about the kind of hate mail he is receiving, in language no one should have to read), but here's one part I want you to see, to know what he's going through and to share in his passion:

"I was the only Democrat in the Senate to vote against this legislation, and I wear my vote as a badge of honor.

"Although Republican Senate Leader Dean Skelos ushered the gay marriage vote to the floor in order to make the 11:00PM news, and even though the vote passed, the hatred that has spewed in my direction before June 24th continues.

"Yesterday I received a series of five emails in my Senate account from one person that read like homicidal rantings: 'You eat sh*t. You are sh*t.' 'There is no worse person on Earth than you. God has told me so.' 'You worthless pile of human excrement!!!' 'I hope you die! I hope you die soon! I'm waiting for you to die!'...

"Those messages suggest that even though the gay marriage vote passed, that author did not get what he wanted which suggests to me that for some reason, I am the embodiment of his disappointment. He may also be upset because I am unashamed of my vote.

"...After the June 24 vote, so many people who disguise themselves as victims and decry bullies hide behind their computer screens and demonstrate what is called 'keyboard courage' by posting hateful and vicious comments about me.

"For my part, I will continue to be unashamed to be a Christian."

Wow.

NOM is committed to helping brave Democrats like Sen. Díaz, too. Stand with Sen. Díaz and show that you too are unashamed, by making a public donation of at least $100 to NOM's NY PAC today.

On Sunday July 24 evangelicals, Orthodox Christians, Catholics, and Jews will come together in love all across the state to take back marriage from the politicians who betrayed it. Join us.

Already, Republicans are quietly protesting the dishonesty of the four Republican senators who voted for same-sex marriage:
"'He's not honest,' said Ray Akey, 66, a retired sales engineer and a Republican who had voted for Jim Alesi in the past," the New York Times reported. He told the Times he would not vote for him again.

"Asked to sum up his feelings about his senator, Mr. Akey said: 'It's not real pretty. I'd have to put some cuss words in there.'"

The Grisanti flip-flop in Buffalo is creating the most voter anger, in part because Mark Grisanti ran so publicly and vocally as an opponent of gay marriage.

Adam Kaiser, 27, is actually a Republican in favor of gay marriage, but he's still so disgusted by Grisanti that he would never vote for him again: "All politicians are liars, but you got to do a better job of pretending like you're telling the truth," Kaiser told the Times. "I think it's a ticket out of office for him."

Paul Smith, a 60-year-old in Niagara Falls, agreed: "Logic and truth and moral fiber, it's being taken away from us right now. No matter what opinion he gives you publicly on TV, you don't know if he's being honest."

Voters are disgusted with the lying and no one lied more flagrantly or repeatedly than Mark Grisanti.

Dr. Kevin Backus wrote on the blog of the Grand Island Conservative Party that he had lunch before he endorsed Mr. Grisanti and his position on same-sex marriage was the top of the list of items they discussed. "I've spoken with the senator on this issue repeatedly since he took office. I've been assured by him personally and been asked to assure others that he'd never vote for anything with the word 'marriage' in it. Mark committed himself to that position. As recently as 11 days before the vote was taken, Mark was firm in this position."

Dr. Backus says Grisanti is now hinting that Gov. Cuomo may be very helpful to him when it comes to redistricting in ways that could help him keep his seat.

In our fight in New York, Michael Long has made it clear that no Republican who betrays marriage will get the Conservative Party endorsement.

Have voters had enough of politicians who cut secret backroom deals while lying to voters?

We'll find out.

Big things are happening.

The quiet protests among the grassroots are going to get louder and clearer. and ring out from New York City to Niagara Falls—and all the way to Washington: Don't mess with marriage!

In politics, money talks. We do not have the billionaires on our side, the rich Republic mega-donors like Ken Mehlman pushing the party towards this disaster. But we do have you and I, and thousands of other hardworking, loving, decent people of all races, creeds, and colors, willing to sacrifice their time and treasure to protect the precious gift that is marriage.

Stand with us, and stand up to the backdoor back-dealing politicians in both parties, by giving just $10 for marriage to NOM's NY PAC.

Next week, we'll be announcing some big new plans for the GOP presidential race as well—to help you and other voters find out whether the candidates who claim to be for marriage will fight or, like the New York Republicans, fold on marriage.

I walked outside of a TV studio in Arlington, Virginia today and saw on the news chyron these flashing words in big red lights: "Politico: Republicans Fall Silent on Gay Marriage."

The mainstream media thinks it's over. They think they can silence half the population, and create an America without a party for marriage. The mainstream media is going to find out how wrong they are.

And so will the Republicans who betrayed marriage.

Count on it.

Keep fighting the good fight!

And God bless you, and God bless America.

Brian Brown

Brian S Brown

Brian S. Brown
President
National Organization for Marriage

P.S. Show pro-gay marriage politicians how big a mistake it is to lie to voters and betray the people. Anything you can give will help us stand up to Ken Mehlman and the GOP donors who want to drive the party into the arms of gay marriage, to take away our voice and to reduce your power. Fight back today with a generous gift of $9 to $99.

And remember, if you are a person with the means, you can give an unlimited gift of $500, $1,000, or $10,000 more to NOM NY PAC. Thank you! Let the people vote!

By Brian Brown | Posted in Let The People Vote, New York, Same Sex Marriage | Comments (54)

Maggie's Column -- Can We Keep Our Republic?

July 8, 2011 – 3:23 pm

NOM Chairman Maggie Gallagher's latest column:

... Over the long Independence Day weekend, I re-read Tom Holland's "Rubicon" -- a history of the fall of the Roman Republic.

More than any history of the period I have read, Holland's narrative illuminates Friedrich Hayek's great truth that we all, even the most practical hard-headed realist among us, are prisoners of dead thinkers.

The Roman Republic, like any republic, any nation, is simply an idea in the heads of people. An idea that is strong enough to influence people's ideals, how they strive to achieve them and, as important, what they are not willing to do to achieve them.

All our institutions are made up of air -- of symbols, dreams, stories, mere nothings created by poets, dreamers, intellectuals, novelists and speechwriters, and fashioned into enduring modes of living by the airiest of bonds: the bonds of meaning in the heads of living human beings.

Why is it, Holland thinks to ask, that most Americans never stop to wonder: Why on a continent the ancient Romans never even knew existed there stands a new Senate, upon another Capitol Hill?

Like our Founding Fathers, we have much to learn from Rome: how to achieve a republic that lasts for 400 years --and then how in the space of a generation or two, to lose it.

Continue reading at RealClearPolitics.

By NOM Staff | Posted in Culture, Same Sex Marriage | Comments (5)

NOM Praises Bi-Partisan Coalition In US House For Passing Foxx Amendment Upholding DOMA In The Military

July 8, 2011 – 2:43 pm

WASHINGTON - By a large and bipartisan majority of 248 to 175, the House of Representatives voted late Thursday night to approve the Foxx Amendment, which affirms that DOMA, the Defense of Marriage Act, remains the law of the land for all federal agencies, including the military.

The amendment, which prohibits the use of Pentagon funds in contravention to DOMA, was spurred by a memo since rescinded from the Navy to require military chapels on federal property to host same-sex wedding ceremonies in certain states. The Navy has stated the matter requires further review.

“By a large and unexpectedly bi-partisan margin, the House has confirmed that DOMA is not a dead letter, it is the law of the land,” said Brian Brown, president of the National Organization for Marriage (NOM). “This is good news for marriage, good news for the Supreme Court, and good news for those politicians who braved political correctness to vote once again for DOMA. We thank Rep. Virginia Foxx and all who voted for DOMA, and pledge to stand by them in 2012. Now we know by this vote, who are the friends of marriage and who are not. Politicians who ignore the wishes of their constituents and vote for gay marriage to please millionaire donors are going to find themselves in trouble come election time.”

Six Republicans voted against the amendment: Reps. Judy Biggert (R-Ill.), Mary Bono Mack (R-Calif.), Mario Diaz-Balart, Richard Hanna (R-N.Y.), Nan Hayworth (R-N.Y.) and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.).

Additionally, 19 Democrats voted in favor of the amendment: Reps. Jason Altmire (D-Pa.), John Barrow (D-Ga.), Sanford Bishop (D-Ga.), Dan Boren (D-Okla.), Ben Chandler (D-Ky.), Jerry Costello (D-Ill.), Mark Critz (D-Pa.), Henry Cuellar (D-Texas), Joe Donnelly (D-Ind.), Gene Green (D-Texas), Tim Holden (D-Pa.), Larry Kissell (D-N.C.), Dan Lipinski (D-Ill.), Mike McIntyre (D-N.C.), James Matheson (D-Utah), Collin Peterson (D-Minn.), Nich Rahall (D-W.V.), Mike Ross (D-Ark.) and Heath Shuler (D-N.C.).

By NOM Staff | Posted in DOMA, Law, Press Releases | Comments (19)

Iowa Family Leader Introduces Marriage and Family Pledge for 2012 Candidates

July 8, 2011 – 2:15 pm

From the Des Moines Register:

The Family Leader, a prominent Iowa group that promotes Christian conservative social values, said Thursday it is asking all presidential candidates to sign a pledge regarding their personal convictions on traditional marriage.

The pledge is entitled, “The Marriage Vow – A Declaration of Dependence upon Marriage and Family.”

The organization’s chief executive officer is Bob Vander Plaats, a conservative evangelical leader who was the state chair of Mike Huckabee’s Republican presidential campaign when he won the 2008 Iowa Caucuses. Vander Plaats said the Family Leader will not support any candidate who declines to sign the pledge.

“If you are looking at being a leader of our great country….we would like to have you pledge personal fidelity to your own spouse and a respect for the marital bonds of others,” Vander Plaats told reporters at a news conference on the steps of the Iowa Statehouse.

... Presidential candidates who sign the pledge must agree to personal fidelity to his or her spouse, the appointment of “faithful constitutionalists” as judges, opposition to any redefinition of marriage, and prompt reform of uneconomic and anti-marriage aspects of welfare policy, tax policy and divorce law.

The Marriage Vow also outlines support for the legal advocacy for the federal Defense of Marriage Act, humane efforts to protect women and children, rejection of Sharia Islam, safeguards for all married and unmarried U.S. military service members, and commitment to downsizing government and the burden upon American families.

In addition, candidates are asked to recognize that “robust childrearing and reproduction is beneficial to U.S. demographic, economic, strategic and actuarial health and security.”

Michele Bachmann was the first to sign the pledge. [Update: Rick Santorum is second to sign.] Tim Pawlenty is reviewing the pledge, a spokesman said. Jon Huntsman said he never signs pledges. A Ron Paul spokesman said the congressman had reservations. Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich and Herman Cain have not yet commented. A representative of President Barack Obama's democratic campaign committee declined comment.

NOM is a co-sponsor of the Presidential Lecture Series in Iowa with the Family Leader.

By NOM Staff | Posted in Election Watch 2012, Marriage, Marriage Election Watch, Same Sex Marriage | Comments (13)

Lawsuit Documents Real Threats and Vandalism by Pro-SSM Activists in Washington State

July 8, 2011 – 1:15 pm

Bob Unruh reports:

A federal court in Tacoma, Wash., has been asked to order that the names of signatories of a state petition seeking to protect traditional marriage be redacted to protect them from death threats from homosexual activists.

"What is becoming increasingly evident," said James Bopp of the James Madison Center, "is that some groups and individuals, certainly a minority, have resorted to advancing their cause, not by debating the merits of the issue but by discouraging participation in the democratic process itself.

"The First Amendment was designed to ensure that all groups, whatever their persuasion, could participate fully in our republic," he said. That breaks down when some groups or individuals are cowed into silence for fear that they or their families will be targeted or threatened if they speak up."

The issue is the some 138,000 Washington state residents who signed a petition in 2009 to repeal a law that gave same-sex partners all the legal rights of married couples. The petition forced a referendum vote in November of that year in which voters decided to sustain the law.

But because the state considers such petitions "public records," homosexual activists are demanding the names and addresses of the signers in order to post them on the Internet and "publicize on their web sites, in searchable format, the identities of every person who signed the … petition," according to a new filing seeking nondisclosure of the names.

The groups announcing the plans were KnowThyNeighbor.org and WhoSigned.org, according to the filing.

The filing on behalf of Protect Marriage Washington explains the real problem is the documentation of actual threats that have been made against those who support traditional marriage, a litany of what the Los Angeles Times described as a "vengeful campaign."

Among the documented threats:

  • "I will kill you and your family."
  • "Oh my God, This woman is so f---ing stupid. Someone please shoot her in the head, again and again. And again."
  • "I'm going to kill the pastor."
  • "If I had a gun I would have gunned you down along with each and every other supporter…"
  • "We're going to kill you."
  • "You're dead. Maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but soon … you're dead."
  • "I'm a gay guy who owns guns, and he's my next target."
  • "I warn you, I know how to kill, I'm an ex-special forces person."
  • "Get ready for retribution all you bigots."
  • Burn their f---ing churches to the ground, and then tax the charred timbers."

The evidence included churches marred by graffiti, swastikas on lawns and walls, bricks thrown through windows and doors, adhesive poured into locks, suspicious packages of white powder sent in the mail – "all for nothing more than supporting traditional marriage."

"On two occasions, both in Washington state, a group called Bash Back! boldly accepted credit for vandalizing houses of worship, writing in one case, 'when we [graffitied your walls] and glued all the doors shut, we threw open our own doors and tattooed those words on hour (sic) hearts. Welcome to our world s---heads.'"

According to the filing, "When some activists could sense that intimidation was not working … they resorted to threatening the families – even the children – of supporters. In one case, the perpetrator threated to 'kill' the supporter's child and the whole family; in another, to 'harm' the supporter's family; and in another, to rape the supporters' daughter."

The reason for the demand for the names and addresses was made clear earlier, according to the filing.

By NOM Staff | Posted in Civility, Law, Same Sex Marriage, Washington | Comments (10)

How Low Can We Go?

July 8, 2011 – 11:00 am

In Great Britain, a fertility "charity" launches a government-approved "Win a Baby" lottery for infertility services:

A controversial IVF lottery will launch in Britain this month giving prospective parents the chance to win thousands of pounds toward expensive fertility treatments in top clinics.

The scheme, which the media have dubbed "win a baby," has already run into trouble on ethical grounds with critics calling it inappropriate and demeaning to human reproduction.

Britain's Gambling Commission has granted a license to fertility charity, To Hatch, to run the game from July 30.

Every month, winners can scoop 25,000 pounds' ($40,175) worth of tailor-made treatments at one of the UK's top five fertility clinics for the price of a 20 pound ticket bought online. The tickets may eventually be sold in newsagents.

The lottery is open to single, gay and elderly players as well as heterosexual couples struggling to start a family.

If standard IVF fails, individuals can be offered reproductive surgery, donor eggs and sperm or a surrogate birth, the charity says, though the winner will only be able to choose one treatment. --Reuters

By NOM Staff | Posted in Children, Culture, Parenting, Science, United Kingdom | Comments (1)

Dan Savage V. Monogamy

July 8, 2011 – 10:30 am

Ross Douthat on his New York Times blog highlights Eve Tushnet's response:

I thought these points from Eve Tushnet were worth highlighting:

1) … I was struck by the conflation of forgiving adultery and understanding nonmonogamy such that there is nothing to forgive in the first place. These actually seem to me like opposite moral positions, but both Savage and Oppenheimer (in his role as sympathetic conveyer of someone else’s position) consistently conflate them.

2) … On a related note, I’m struck by how the only players in this story are a) the adults (in the magazine story as printed it’s really only the adults in the marriage, but even in Oppenheimer’s comments here he only looks at e.g. the mistress, her boyfriend, or other adult parties who might be affected emotionally) and b) the children within the marriage. Have we really forgotten that sex still makes babies? There will be children of affairs, too, and so framing (heterosexual) adultery as a stay-together-for-the-kids plan strikes me as a great way to enhance the inherent inequality between children of the marriage and those outside it. Out-of-wedlock children, in this worldview, become unfortunate side effects of the sexual license designed to protect the marital children.

3) … But couldn’t we all just be rational actors, contracepting demi-perfectly and backing it up with abortion? Then no worries!

But of course the whole weird premise of Savage’s claim is that eros is so powerful and irrational, sexual fulfillment such an obvious non-negotiable, that… we should talk things out like rational adults before we get married and then stick to our rational rules and goals. Eros is simultaneously overwhelming—breaking down the strong norm of marital fidelity—and easily-tamed, contained within little well-contracepted well-communicated honest and generous mini-affairs.

Eve in turn points to this great piece on Dan Savage's ethics.

By NOM Staff | Posted in Same Sex Marriage | Comments (5)

The Advocate: The Right Wingers Might Be Right About How SSM Will Change Marriage

July 8, 2011 – 10:00 am
The Dan Savage meme continues (note -- The Advocate is a gay magazine and some language used in the article may be offensive to our readers):

By designing a relationship that doesn’t fit a typical married couple, Megan and Colin have joined a small but growing number of straight couples who are looking to gay male relationships as the model for long-term, nonmonogamous unions.

Anti-equality right-wingers have long insisted that allowing gays to marry will destroy the sanctity of “traditional marriage,” and, of course, the logical, liberal party-line response has long been “No, it won’t.” But what if—for once—the sanctimonious crazies are right? Could the gay male tradition of open relationships actually alter marriage as we know it? And would that be such a bad thing?

... Welcome to Queer (Roving) Eye for the Monogamous Straight Couple Lie, brought to you in part by writer Dan Savage, who coined the term monogamish to signify committed relationships in which the partners are, he explains, “mostly monogamous, but there’s a little allowance for the reality of desire for others and a variety of experiences and adventure and possibility... People primarily want stable, long-lasting partner bonds. They want safety.” They also want to [have sex with] other people, whether a relationship is open or closed.

... Sex therapist Timaree Schmit says she can understand gay couples’ desire to conform—at least outwardly—to the kind of conventional relationship that society deems “deserving” of marriage rights. “It’s been a big part of campaigning for marriage equality to repeatedly prove the ‘normalcy’ and stability of same-sex couples. People may feel pressure to make their relationship fit into a more acceptable box.”

By NOM Staff | Posted in Culture, Same Sex Marriage | Comments (4)
Home NOM Blog Donate Advocacy Center
Copyright 2011