NOM BLOG

Monthly Archives: July 2011

Video: Pawlenty Releases New Pro-Marriage Ad in Iowa

The race for marriage voters in Iowa intensifies!!

Orthodox Priest On Marriage, Morality, and Spiritual Warfare

Fr. Alexander W. C. Webster is a retired military chaplain and colonel in the US Army Reserve. He's also a moral theologian, parish priest and on the board of advisers for the American Orthodox Institute, and writes about the debate over marriage in the Orthodox Church:

Fr. Alexander wrote the response posted below to Fr. Alexis Vinogradov’s essay praising Fr. Arida’s advocacy of the homosexualist agenda in the Orthodox Church. A friend of mine asked me, “Why are the homosexualists bringing the culture wars into the Church?” Good question. Why are they?

Just when we begin to wonder whether some of the recent musings of OCA priests and laity on homosexuality may not be what they seem, along comes another one that raises the rhetorical ante and reminds us that we are, indeed, whether we desire it or not, engaged in spiritual warfare.

In a bizarre, presumably unintended way, Fr. Alexis Vinogradov’s latest “reflection” on the OCA”News” website is another case of the gift that keeps on giving. It affords us who cherish the moral tradition of the Church, along with all the wonderful facets of Orthodoxy as the light of the world as long as we reflect Christ the True Light, an unexpected windfall—a sobering glimpse of the way the spirit of the world (note the lower case) has captured the minds, speech, and, actions of some who would take it upon themselves to lecture and even scold us...

He has thrown down a gauntlet for all the Orthodox world to see, a public challenge to abandon ancient Christian verities under the guise of a “conversation.” I, for one, am ready—and, I hope, able—to retrieve that gauntlet, brush aside the pseudo-dialogue, and engage in spiritual combat.

Archbishop Kurtz on Marriage: "We Can Make a Difference" with "Sacrificial Love"

Archbishop Joseph Kurtz is the vice president of the US Bishops, and credits his appointment partially due to his outspoken defense of marriage and dedication to building a healthy marriage culture. Jim Graves of Catholic World Report interviews him:

What advice do you offer those who worry about the decline of marriage in our society?

Archbishop Kurtz: First, that we can make a difference. One of the first recipes for success in any venture is the commitment that somehow, by our faithful witness and work, we can help shape positive things in our lives and within the lives of others. That is empowered by the grace of Christ.

If we don’t have that conviction, then we become victims of what I call self-fulfilling prophecies of doom. There are some who throw up their hands and say that a deterioration of laws that protect marriage is inevitable. They will be inevitable if we ourselves do not have faithful witness. And that faithful witness needs to reach out in love to every human person. God has a plan for everyone. And ultimately we need to be helping everyone recognize that plan. In the case of a married couple, that plan is intimately linked with their sacrificial and generous love for each other and overflowing to their children.

... When I speak on marriage, I spend most of my time not speaking on its legal ramifications, but on the need for renewal of sacrificial love in our culture, especially within family life. In general, that’s the greatest need. Too many people place their emphasis on individual satisfaction, a turning in on oneself and one’s perceived needs. Sacrificial love, in contrast, tends to lead people to happy lives. We need more examples of marriages based on sacrificial love.

The Problem with Perry: Legal Expert Takes on Judge Walker

Thomas Clark, a former editor for the Columbia Law Review and judicial clerk on the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit takes on Judge Walker's gravely flawed arguments in Perry V. Schwarzenegger. The entire article is worth reading but here are the highlights:

Walker realizes he has to engage in some clever sleight-of-hand to overcome the fact that same-sex marriage has not only never been recognized as a fundamental right under the U.S. Constitution, but indeed had never even existed in the United States until 2004.

... [On the misappropriation of Loving v. Virginia to argue for SSM] Marriage as a union of man and woman for the purpose of procreation, far from being an irrelevancy to the Loving Court, was an assumption too obvious to need stating—and indeed was what rendered the ban on interracial marriage particularly invidious.

... [On the false gender equality argument] It should be obvious that this distinction between genders, and consequent difference in the ramifications of same-sex and opposite-sex unions, need imply no inequality among the genders. The regrettable past invoked by Judge Walker, including the doctrine of coverture, by which a woman’s assets and legal identity were “subsumed” under her husband’s upon marriage, indeed “is passed” and rightly so. But the correction of this past inequality means assuring equal legal standing and protections for the rights of men and women in marriage, not the legal pretense that all aspects of masculine and feminine nature are to be obliterated or ignored.

... [On Walker's irrational claim of "no rational basis" for Prop 8] "Walker is callous in his summary dismissal of proponents’ arguments. Proponents submitted briefs and testimony that Proposition 8 would at least arguably serve the purposes of (1) promoting stability and responsibility in naturally procreative relationships, (2) promoting enduring and stable family structures for the responsible raising and care of children by their biological parents, (3) increasing the probability that natural procreation will occur within stable, enduring, and supporting family structures, (4) promoting the natural and mutually beneficial bonds between parents and their biological children, (5) increasing the probability that each child will be raised by both of his or her biological parents, (6) increasing the probability that each child will be raised by both a father and a mother, and (7) increasing the probability that each child will have a legally recognized father and mother.

... [On religion and nature being the ultimate objects of Walker's attack] So what exactly is the purpose of these extensive fact findings on the doctrinal tenets of major Christian groups against homosexuality? Read together with the findings that social acceptance, and not mere legal equality, is the object of plaintiffs, it becomes increasingly clear that the ground is being laid for an assault on the perceived obstacles to full acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle, which are two. First, as Walker already has quoted Segura to explain, is religion, and specifically the religious world view adopted by the above-quoted tenets that provide for a moral norm under which homosexual marriage would contravene the common good. Second, and closely aligned to it, is the natural fact that these world views interpret as counter-indicating homosexuality, namely, the sexual complementarity of man and woman.

Clark's conclusion:

Perry aims a dagger at the heart of marriage as we know it. Taking it at its word and applying principles of consistency and logic, it cannot help but result in the expansion of marriage until it encompasses bigamy, incest, wider groupings of association, and finally loses its meaning. As regrettable as this would be, it might be preferable to a regime that insisted on a sacred marriage based on sexual intimacy, but did so in a way that tried to obliterate any distinction based on gender. What would follow would inevitably be a gradual delinking of marriage and intimacy from biological procreation, and the substitution of technological means and commercialized surrogacy for traditional biological mother-and-father-based families. Ultimately, the temptation would arise for the state to take over the role of assigning children to suitable “parents,” since biological ties would no longer be recognized as dispositive. The likelihood of this progression of events can be reduced by recognizing the rationality and validity of traditional one-man-one-woman marriage and defending it. Stopping the dangerous logic of Perry in its tracks is the place to start, ideally by judicial reversal, if necessary by other constitutional means.

Join us on July 24th -- A New Chapter in a Long Fight to Reclaim Marriage in New York

LetThePeopleVote.com

I hope you will join us next Sunday, July 24th, as we join with New Yorkers from all across the state at simultaneous rallies in Manhattan, Albany, Rochester and Buffalo, calling on politicians to let the people vote on marriage.

Next Sunday is the day that New York will begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples, as the new legislation imposing same-sex marriage on the state takes effect. But this isn't the end of the battle for marriage in New York, not by a long shot. As I told the New York Times this week, this is just the start of a new chapter in a long fight for the future of marriage.

Politicians in Albany have had their say. Governor Cuomo has had his. Now it's time for the people of New York to have their own chance to vote on marriage.

Gay marriage advocates would like nothing better than to deceive the American people into thinking that the road to same-sex marriage is a one-way street, that the moment a state adopts same-sex marriage the debate is suddenly ended and it's time to move on.

Hardly.

Just ask the people of Maine, who watched their legislators adopt a same-sex marriage bill and promptly exercised their “People's Veto” before the law was ever implemented. Or the people of California who saw their state supreme court vote to impose gay marriage and quickly amended their state constitution to reverse the court ruling.

New Hampshire voters cleaned house last November after their legislators voted to implement same-sex marriage, electing a strong pro-marriage majority in both houses of the state legislature and setting the stage for a gay marriage repeal vote next spring. And voters in Iowa, for the first time ever, tossed three sitting Supreme Court justices out of office for their votes to force same-sex marriage on the state.

Even in Massachusetts, voters very nearly succeeded in putting a marriage amendment on the ballot, and may yet have the final say on marriage.

The inevitability of same-sex marriage is a political charade – nothing more. How can a political cause be declared inevitable even before its first victory at the ballot box? Smoke and mirrors. Lies and campaign cash. That's how same-sex marriage was passed in New York, and New York voters have had enough.

If you live in New York, will you join us next Sunday afternoon at 3pm as we stand for marriage?

Full event details are available online at www.LetThePeopleVote.com, including directions to each rally, printable signs, and a chance to let us know you'll be coming.

LTPV Locations

And for those of you living outside New York, I hope you'll tell your friends and family about this kickoff rally in our campaign to Let The People Vote!

Video: Second NY Clerk Follows Conscience, Resigns Over SSM

Via CB6 Albany:

The Guilderland Town Clerk has submitted a letter of resignation for her position as the town's official marriage officer, saying her religious beliefs prevent her from marrying gay couples.

Rosemary Centi advised the town supervisor of her decision earlier this week. Citing her Catholic Faith, Centi will no longer be marrying same-sex couples when the Marriage Equality Law takes effect July 24.

Centi will remain on as the town's clerk and continue to issue marriage licenses to all eligible couples. Her resignation only affects her appointed position as marriage officiant.

Centi was elected to the town clerk position back in 2000 and was appointed as a marriage officer in 2001. She is up for re-election in November, but is running unopposed.

She is the latest government official to resign in protest of the marriage equality law.

Priest Who Defied Bishop to Oppose Prop 8 Now Selling "Catholic Nuptial Masses" for $750

Entrepreneurship?

Geoffrey Farrow, the former Fresno diocesan priest suspended from his parish for defying his bishop over Proposition 8, has gone into the marriage business – including providing “union ceremonies” for same-sex couples.

... He offers a Catholic Nuptial Mass for $750, and a simple Catholic marriage rite or a secular wedding service for $500. “All of these wedding rites may be adapted for Same-sex couples,” notes the website.

In addition to the fees noted above, Farrow charges 75 cents per mile for ceremonies performed at locations more than 60 miles away from his Studio City base. The same mileage charge applies for rehearsals if held on a date other than the wedding day. “For locations beyond a 200 miles distance, please call to discuss travel, lodging and per Diem (meals, cabs/car rental) arrangements,” says an explanation of fees on the website. --California Catholic Daily

Gay Celibate Catholic Asks: "Where Are All These Bigots I Keep Hearing About?'

Steve Gershom (a pseudonym) is a gay Catholic man in his late twenties who writes a guest post on his experiences as a gay (celibate) Catholic man:

I have heard a lot about how mean the Church is, and how bigoted, because she opposes gay marriage. How badly she misunderstands gay people, and how hostile she is towards us. My gut reaction to such things is: Are you freaking kidding me? Are we even talking about the same church?

... Where are all these bigoted Catholics I keep hearing about? When I told my family a year ago, not one of them responded with anything but love and understanding. Nobody acted like I had a disease. Nobody started treating me differently or looking at me funny. The same is true of every one of the Catholic friends that I've told. They love me for who I am.

Actually, the only time I get shock or disgust or disbelief, the only time I've noticed people treating me differently after I tell them, is when I tell someone who supports the gay lifestyle. Celibacy?? You must be some kind of freak.

Hooray for tolerance of different viewpoints. I'm grateful to gay activists for some things -- making people people more aware of the prevalence of homosexuality, making homophobia less socially acceptable -- but they also make it more difficult for me to be understood, to be accepted for who I am and what I believe. If I want open-mindedness, acceptance, and understanding, I look to Catholics.

Closing the Book on Dan Savage's Open Marriage Proposal

Professor W. Bradford Wilcox in the Washington Post shows why "Savage Love" is stupid:

.. what is the problem with a little “nonmonogamy” in marriage, so long as everyone is open and honest about it? There are at least five problems with open marriage.

1. Even today, sex often results in pregnancy.
2. Monogamous, married sex is more likely to deliver long-lasting satisfaction than the quick thrill offered by infidelity.
3. People often do not realize what they are really consenting to when it comes to open marriage.
4. Swinging increases your risk of acquiring a sexually-transmitted disease (STD).
5. Open Marriages put children at risk.

Professor Wilcox expands on each of these points citing evidence and studies, and goes on to say:

When it comes to marriage, one of the few bright spots to emerge over the last forty years is increasing public support for sexual fidelity—in both theory and practice. Indeed, social science tells us that married couples who remain faithful to one another enjoy higher-quality marriages, lower rates of divorce, and, yes, higher levels of emotional satisfaction with their sex life. Sexual fidelity also increases the odds that children are born into and reared in a stable, two-parent home.

For all these reasons, and even though Savage is right to point out that fidelity can be a difficult virtue to live, turning the clock back to the swinging seventies is a stupid idea. Better for the sake of adults, children, and marriage as an institution to keep the book closed on open marriage

Australian Christian Says Demonization of Gay Marriage Opponents Must Stop

Via International News:

“In a democratic society there must be freedom to support and advocate for marriage remaining between a man and a woman without being accused of inciting hatred, being ‘homophobic’, bigoted and now anti-Semitic.

“Sadly this is happening all too often with the unfounded attack on Mr Ferguson and the NSW Labor Senator Doug Cameron’s recent comments accusing people who do not support same-sex marriage of being the equivalent of racist supporters of Apartheid.

Mr Wallace called on the Prime Minister and the Opposition Leader to demand more civility in this debate.

“We must stop this demonisation of anyone supporting family and children as being homophobic’, anti-gay or gay haters. It is over the top and demands a response by our political leaders.”

Roland Warren: Why Aren't We Mad At the Mistresses?

Roland Warren, President of the National Fatherhood Initiative, looks at the neglected side of adultery:

Anthony Weiner is just the latest in a long line of famous men who have strayed: Arnold Schwarzenegger, John Edwards, Tiger Woods and Eliot Spitzer also have been publicly excoriated for their disgraceful behavior.

But the women with whom they cheated, who all knew they were getting involved with married men (all but one of whom were fathers), have not drawn similar criticism. In fact, the opposite is true: They have been celebrated.

We are, as a society, a long way from making such women wear a scarlet “A.” But it was not so long ago that the community of mothers was organized and vocal and got fighting mad at women who were a danger to their families [...] Our society needs similar values today.

Back then, women who preyed on other women’s husbands were shunned, shamed and excluded, not made into media darlings. They were publicly pointed out as “those kinds of women” to young girls as examples of what not to become, and to young boys as the type of women not worthy of their attention.

... Mothers knew that these women were as much predator as they were prey. That’s why they were called ‘‘home wreckers” in polite company and worse when the kids were not in earshot. These angry mothers, while rightly holding their husbands and the fathers of their children to the pledge of fidelity, realized what would happen not just to their families but also to society if this type of behavior were celebrated rather than confronted. --Washington Post

ACLU Hysterical About Florida's 2012 Constitutional Ban on Religious Discrimination

The ACLU is outraged that Republicans are allowing Floridians a chance to vote in 2012 if religious groups should continue to face discrimination when it comes to helping fund their social services outreach:

This year, the GOP-led Legislature placed a constitutional amendment on the 2012 ballot called the “Religious Freedom Act.” Sponsors of the amendment said current law withholding taxpayer funds from institutions was linked to a bigoted law aimed at Catholics in the 1800s. Rep. Steve Precourt, R-Orlando, one of the bill’s sponsors, said the bill would remove such “discriminatory language”:

“Blaine Amendments are antiquated constitutional tenants rooted in bigotry that go far beyond the separation of church and state envisioned by our founding fathers,” Precourt said. “If we don’t take action now, millions of dollars in quality state programs- from Bright Futures to voluntary pre-kindergarten – may be jeopardized.” --Florida Independent

A separate Florida Independent account details the breath of Catholic social services in the Sunshine State:

For the past 25 years, the Catholic church in Florida has provided Catholic health services that include 10 acute-care hospitals, three rehabilitation hospitals, nine nursing homes and a hospice organization. The church also has a robust welfare service program with 148 Catholic charity service centers and 92 specialized housing and day care centers that help out almost 350,000 people in need. The Archdiocese of Miamialso runs a state-funded crisis pregnancy center network called Respect Life. Even though the center receives states dollars, like most CPCs, they receive minimal oversight from the state.

There are also currently 206 Catholic schools in Florida serving more than 82,000 students from kindergarten to high school. According to Sheedy, about 10 percent of those students are in those schools today because of the existent voucher program.

SSM, Lies & Campaign Cash - NOM Marriage News July 14, 2011

NOM National Newsletter

LetThePeopleVote.com

Dear Marriage Supporter,

My latest unexpected hero is Adam Kaiser, the young man in Buffalo who told the New York Times that he was for gay marriage—but that, nonetheless, he would never vote for Sen. Mark Grisanti again because he's against lying.

I thought about him in part because of the aggressive, ongoing push to make heroes of Mark Grisanti and James Alesi and the other Republican politicians who pushed gay marriage in New York without a vote for the people.

Here's Alesi being lauded at the Human Rights Campaign's victory party:

And here's Alesi again, standing next to Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who is helpfully pointing out that Dean Skelos is responsible for passing gay marriage in NY:

Mayor Bloomberg is trying to defend GOP Senate Majority Leader Dean Skelos and the New York Republican Party from reporters who want to slam the party because more senators did not vote for gay marriage: "There was enough to pass the bill, and that's all that matters."

I think a lot of New York politicians are going to find the mayor's praise pretty faint come election time, when they face the voters they lied to.

But Mayor Bloomberg and Ken Mehlman and other pro-gay-marriage GOP elites aren't counting on kind words to detach the Republican Party from marriage. They are counting on cold, hard cash.

The Buffalo News reports this week, "Grisanti's Coffers Grow After Gay Marriage Vote":

"Advocates of gay marriage pumped about $50,000 into the political campaign account of Republican State Sen. Mark J. Grisanti of Buffalo after he voted June 24 in the historic session that legalized same-sex marriage in New York.

"The donations included $10,300 from New York City Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, who was a strong proponent of the new law, and $10,000 from Colorado resident Tim Gill, who heads a group that has promoted gay marriage laws here and in other states.

"Other donors to Grisanti who have publicly backed gay marriage rights include $5,000 from Miami-area resident Jonathan Kislak, $2,000 from Carol Master of Massachusetts, $10,000 from Albany-area resident Frank Selvaggi and $5,000 from Manhattan real estate developer Donald Capoccia."

$50,000 in big checks from rich Manhattan and out-of-state donors, the buddies of Bloomberg and Tim Gill.

What we have here is a massive public campaign to normalize infidelity in both senses of the word—to make cash the payoff for selling out voters.

They expect us to take this lying down, to roll over, let marriage go, and give up the idea of a Republic governed by nature and Nature's God, replaced by their new vision of an America in which Genesis is redefined by powerful elites as bigotry.

I say no. Will you stand with me and fight back?

Thanks to you we are fighting back! NOM has emerged as the leading national organization willing to commit substantial resources of time, energy, expertise, and volunteers—and money—to prevent the takeover of the Republican Party by pro-gay-marriage elites.

On July 24 we will join LetthePeopleVote.com in multiple rallies across New York state, the beginning of a prolonged campaign to fight for marriage and for democracy in the Empire State.

Even the New York Times has had to take notice: "Settled in Albany, Gay Marriage is still Drawing Opposition."

Thanks to you, more than $60,000 in small donations have poured into NOM's NY PAC in just the last two weeks. I need you to speak up loud and clear to Mayor Bloomberg and Mark Grisanti: We will not accept your attempt to take over marriage, drown the voice of the people, and makeover the Republican Party in your image. I need 100 of you to give $10 today, 10 people to give $100, and one soul, blessed by God with means, to give $1000 to take back marriage in New York.

It's not just about New York. If the Republican elites can do this in New York, they will start doing it everywhere. This is crunch time for those of us who love marriage and our country's proud Judeo-Christian heritage.

Politicians who lie should not be rewarded with re-election. Republicans who support gay marriage are not conservatives. Once the American tradition has been redefined to exclude traditional Christian beliefs—what do they think will be left to conserve?

The first victims, the front-lines of the marriage debate, are the town clerks. They invested years in jobs where they never expected to have to help solemnize gay unions. In most states they end up fired if they quietly refer a gay couple to the clerk next to them. But in New York, elites are upping the ante considerably. Katherine Rice, Nassau's district attorney, sent out a letter to town and city clerks saying that any clerk who refuses to help a gay couple get married will face jail time: "The religious exemptions in the Marriage Equality Act are inapplicable to town and city clerks serving in their license-granting roles, and a public official's intentional refusal to issue marriage licenses to qualified same-sex couples may constitute Official Misconduct, a Class A misdemeanor defined in section 195.00 of the New York State Penal Law."

"I want to ensure that our local officials appreciate that there will be ramifications in our county for exercising a personal, discriminatory belief," Ms. Rice told the New York Times.

As the Times reports,

Laura L. Fotusky, the town clerk in Barker, N.Y., a small community north of Binghamton, looked at the calendar, looked at her Bible and knew what she had to do.

She drafted a letter to the Town Board and said she would resign on July 21, three days before same-sex marriage becomes legal, because she could not in good conscience issue marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples.

"I believe that there is a higher law than the law of the land," she wrote. "It is the law of God in the Bible."

Ms. Fotusky's resignation is the starkest illustration yet that the same-sex marriage debate, although settled in Albany, is continuing to roil New York.

Laura's letter of resignation is up at the website of our friends at New Yorkers for Constitutional Freedoms.

Polygamy decriminalized, conscience penalized, infidelity normalized, lying rewarded.

Welcome to the world gay-marriage advocates are trying to create.

New York's new push to normalize political infidelity is being accompanied by a new push to de-normalize that other kind of fidelity, faithfulness to your spouse.

Ten years ago, when Stanley Kurtz wrote that gay marriage and the ideas behind it would lead to new support for polygamy, he was derided by gay marriage activists for making wild and unsubstantiated claims.

Now gay-marriage advocates aren't even trying to hide the connection.

Here's Dan Savage with a crude and vulgar image of himself and his partner engaging in a threesome. (Do not let your children see this, although millions saw it aired on the "Colbert Report.") That's the new Savage idea of redefining fidelity.

The New York Times Magazine is lovingly retailing the Savage view that the way to save marriage is to jettison fidelity as an integral part of the vow.

A reality TV show's polygamous group is now in court, with the ACLU challenging Utah's anti-bigamy statutes.

And today we learned of another Utah lawsuit, spearheaded by renowned libertarian/"conservative" law professor Jonathan Turley, who argues that Lawrence v. Texas's prohibitions on criminalizing same-sex sodomy also apply to polygamous relationships.

It is not the Mormons who are dismantling laws against bigamy; it's the grand alliance of sexual liberals/libertarians, led by Justice Anthony Kennedy's rash decision to insert a right to gay sex into our constitution under the privacy penumbras.

Meanwhile, in Illinois, Sen. David Koehler—the politician who spearheaded the civil union bill—is expressing what sounds like genuine anguish that civil unions are being used to shut out Christian adoption agencies.

He says that's not what he meant. He promised voters on the floor over and over again that the civil unions law would protect the rights of social service agencies, including adoption agencies.

In fact, Equality Illinois, the major gay marriage organization pushing the bill, promised that too, on its website:

"5. How would the Act affect religious affiliated adoption agencies?

"Answer: The Act would not impact faith-based adoption agencies or adoption procedures. The Act does not amend the Adoption Act, which governs both public and private adoption agencies."

Equality Illinois knew they were lying. They didn't care.

Who are the victims of this deceit?

The most heartbreaking are the abandoned children whose placements are threatened by this callous disregard of religious liberty and conscience.

The Chicago Tribune interviewed Becky and Stan Wilhoit, an evangelical couple who foster children through Catholic Charities—and they are very concerned about the impact of the proposed shut down on the kids they are trying to help:

From Becky Wilhoit's perspective, [Judge] Schmidt's ruling [to give both sides more time to argue their case] buys the three sisters — ages 6, 7 and 9 — in her home a little more time to heal before they return home.

Thrust into the foster care system just six months ago, the girls' caseworkers and counselors haven't yet gained their trust to pinpoint roadblocks and help them overcome their challenges, said Wilhoit, 39, of McLean. Transferring them from Catholic Charities could turn back the clock, she said.

It's enough to make Wilhoit and her husband, Stan, reconsider their calling to be foster parents 18 years ago.

"It's a very small issue to shut an entire agency down that's doing so much good in a community," said Becky Wilhoit, an evangelical Christian who is not Catholic. "We specifically chose Catholic Charities as the agency we wanted to work with knowing they were religious and that they had resources to provide what we needed for our family. We know other agencies in the town can't provide that for us. It becomes an issue for us to continue fostering."

Why would any sane movement seek to shut out people like the Wilhoits, recruited through Catholic Charities, from helping abused and abandoned children?

Many good groups work on marriage and religious liberty, and I applaud you for supporting them all. But I think it is fair to say that, with your help, NOM has become the one national organization that dives in deep wherever needed, to help big-time with practical resources—to make it clear to politicians, especially Republican ones, that we are not going to sit back and take it. We are not going to stand by while you normalize infidelity—either the personal or the political kind.

We can win this fight, by the grace of God, with your help!

Thank you for all you do.

Brian Brown

Brian S Brown

Brian S. Brown
President
National Organization for Marriage

P.S. I am asking you today to fight back against those who want to decriminalize polygamy, penalize conscience, normalize infidelity, and reward lying. Please be one of the 100 who contribute $10, the ten who contribute $100—or give more for marriage today!

Fighting Sen. Diaz Comes Out Swinging Againt the Republican Four

LetThePeopleVote.comFrom his press release today:

It appears that State Senators Stephen Saland, Mark Grisanti, James Alesi and Roy McDonald sold their votes to the Mayor of New York City Michael Bloomberg for $10,300 each.

At least this is the impression and feeling everyone is getting by reading the city newspapers that two weeks after their vote, Mayor Bloomberg, who previously declared his intentions to support and help finance any senator who would vote in favor of gay marriage and complied with his edict, sent a check to each one of them for the maximum amount allowed by law.

If this is not a quid pro quo, please tell me what this is?

... Last year when the Democrats controlled the Senate, the message that editorial boards all over were declaring was that the Albany legislature was corrupt and dysfunctional and that it needed someone to help bring things back to straighten things out.

... I wonder if these rumors and accusations are reason enough for the Attorney General to start an investigation and for the editorial boards to have the integrity to declare that the Senate in Albany is still corrupt.

Jonathan Turley Files Second Lawsuit Against Utah's Anti-Bigamy Laws

Is there a constitutional right to polygamy?

The ACLU's lawsuit challenging Utah's anti-bigamy statutes are now joined by a prominent libertarian/Federalist Society law professor, Jonathan Turley, who has introduced new lawsuit for the Browns (the polygamous family attempting to overturn Utah's anti-bigamy law).

He writes on his personal blog about how he intends to argue the case before the court:

“We believe that this case represents the strongest factual and legal basis for a challenge to the criminalization of polygamy ever filed in the federal courts. We are not demanding the recognition of polygamous marriage. We are only challenging the right of the state to prosecute people for their private relations and demanding equal treatment with other citizens in living their lives according to their own beliefs. This action seeks to protect one of the defining principles of this country, what Justice Louis Brandeis called ‘the right to be left alone.’ In that sense, it is a challenge designed to benefit not just polygamists but all citizens who wish to live their lives according to their own values – even if those values run counter to those of the majority in the state.