NOM BLOG

Monthly Archives: August 2011

David French at NRO: Ideology Trumps Child Welfare, This Time in Illinois

David French on NRO's The Corner blog:

The consequence [of the IL judge's decision to shut Catholic Charities out of foster care]? More than 2,000 children are in danger of removal from Catholic Charities’ care — without any evidence that its care is deficient or harmful to these children. Ironically enough, this ruling comes the same week that research from the University of Virginia’s National Marriage Project unequivocally reaffirms that children do better in married households — the very households Catholic Charities prefers.

Same-sex marriage advocates have long minimized its impact on religious liberty, but as this and other examples show, both religious liberty and child welfare are ultimately subordinate to sexual freedom.

I had to chuckle when I read this quote from Kendall Marlowe, a state spokesman: “It’s in the best interest of children that we have an orderly transition.” Really? It’s in their best interest that they move from the care of a faithful and loving Catholic institution? In reality, the state only started to think about children’s interests after it made the decision to end its relationship with Catholic Charities. The transition itself driven by ideology, only its manner is dictated by child welfare.

Daily Caller: NOM Says Herman Cain "All Talk" on Same-Sex Marriage

Alec Jacobs at The Daily Caller writes:

Herman Cain may be opposed to gay marriage, but apparently that doesn’t mean he’s earned the respect of the National Organization for Marriage...

Last week, Cain told reporters on a conference call that the Obama administration’s decision to stop defending the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in court was an impeachable offense.

...Cain’s remarks didn’t curry any favor with NOM [...] The group says Cain needs to “pledge to actions, not just words on marriage.”

Update: VA Board Votes To Delay Adoption Regs 30 Days, But No Change Is Expected

An update from the Family Foundation of Virginia on the events we have been monitoring in Virginia:

The Virginia Board of Social Services [has] voted to delay the implementation of recently approved adoption regulations under the threat of costly litigation from the ACLU and Equality Virginia (see The Norfolk Virginian-Pilot). In a not unexpected decision, the vote will allow for 30 days of additional comment, beginning September 12. As we noted yesterday, however, with Governor Bob McDonnell and Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli opposing the old proposed regulations on several grounds, opponents will only succeed in dragging out the process longer and perhaps set the stage for a legal action challenging Virginia law.

... At yesterday’s meeting, a host of representatives from the homosexual lobby spoke in favor of the additional comment period (see Washington Post Virginia Politics Blog). Some of the speakers honestly stated that they believed allowing homosexuals to adopt should take precedence over the religious liberty rights of faith-based organizations.

Herman Cain Decides to Run on Marriage -- "Impeach Obama for Not Defending DOMA"

Rick Santorum's mini-surge in the Ames Straw Poll appears to have persuaded Herman Cain he needs to amp up his marriage message--with this result:

Asked on a conference call with bloggers [...] why Republicans can't just impeach Barack Obama, Herman Cain answers that it's mostly a matter of legislative politics, Politicos's Elizabeth Titus reports:

"That’s a great question and it is a great — it would be a great thing to do but because the Senate is controlled by Democrats we would never be able to get the Senate first to take up that action, because they simply don’t care what the American public thinks. They would protect him and they wouldn’t even bring it up," Cain said, citing the administration's position on the Defense of Marriage Act as an impeachable offense.

More from his answer: "So the main stumbling block in terms of getting him impeached on a whole list of things such as trying to pass a health care mandate which is unconstitutional, ordering the Department of Justice to not enforce the Defense of Marriage Act — that’s an impeachable offense right there. The president is supposed to uphold the laws of this nation … and to tell the Department of Justice not to uphold the Defense of Marriage Act is a breach of his oath. … There are a number of things where a case could be made in order to impeach him, but because Republicans do not control the United States Senate, they would never allow it to get off the ground."

Will he sign NOM's Marriage Pledge?

NOM Founding Chairman Robert George to Moderate South Carolina Presidential Debate

On the Mirror of Justice blog:

Palmetto Freedom Forum to Feature Top GOP Candidates

Columbia, SC – U.S. Senator Jim DeMint has announced a Presidential Forum – The Palmetto Freedom Forum – to feature the top Republican candidates for President. The Forum is being sponsored by the American Principles Project and will take place on the afternoon of Labor Day (Monday, September 5, 2011) in Columbia, South Carolina, at the Columbia Metropolitan Convention Center. South Carolina ETV will broadcast this innovative event live on the South Carolina channel. Informational letters will be sent to current and prospective candidates and formal invitations will be extended based on objective polling criteria (see below).

The Palmetto Freedom Forum will follow a unique format, designed to allow invited candidates to engage in a thoughtful, substantive discussion of their stances on the critical issues facing our country. Candidates will be featured on stage one-at-a-time and will engage in a question and answer session with three panelists: U.S. Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC), U.S. Representative Steve King (R-IA), and Dr. Robert P. George, founder of the American Principles Project and a professor at Princeton University. The event will be moderated by David Stanton, a veteran of South Carolina presidential events and former local news anchor.

... Founder of the American Principles Project, Robert George, said, “The South Carolina presidential forum rests on a conviction---the belief that the way forward for our country is a renewed fidelity to the foundational principles of our civilization and the constitutional principles of our democratic republic. The forum will give those aspiring to the presidency an opportunity to demonstrate the depth of their understanding of our nation's core principles, and the strength of their commitment to governing in accordance with them.”

Some Thoughts on NY Poll Claiming Majority is Okay with SSM

Recently a NY1/Marist poll claimed a majority of New Yorkers support the new same-sex marriage law.

Generally speaking, people are reluctant to change an existing law when they don't think it adversely affects them directly. Using buzz words like "allow" and "legally" also drives up favorable responses, while asking if people want to "overturn" something drives up negative responses.

More importantly, however, the poll further confirms what we've suspected -- that voting to redefine marriage is going to cost GOP Senators: 43% of Republicans are less likely to vote for a state senator who voted to pass the SSM law in NY, a 19-point intensity gap over the 24% of Republicans who are more likely to vote for a state senator who voted for the law. In other words, primaries will matter.

Of course, the only poll that matters is a free and fair vote of the people, an option that was taken off the table by those who pushed for the legislature to redefine marriage unilaterally. Our Let The People Vote campaign is about actually allowing the people of New York to decide this issue. The poll we commissioned in June shows that almost 60% of New Yorkers want their chance to vote on the issue (only 26% wanted the legislature to decide the question).

The fact that those in favor of redefining marriage refuse to join this cause of letting the people vote tells us volumes about where they think New Yorkers really stand on marriage.

Dr. Morse on Why She Isn't Using the Phrase "Same-Sex Marriage" Anymore

Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse of the Ruth Institute explains:

You may have noticed that I do not use the term “same sex marriage” very often. In fact, I am making a conscious decision not to use the term at all any more. I think the term gives away too much ground to our opponents. Continually using the term makes it possible to believe that such a thing as a marriage between people of the same sex is possible.

I don’t use the term “square circle” because such an entity is not possible. Likewise, I think it is not possible for two people of the same sex to be married to each other. So, I use another term that I believe is more accurate.

I use the phrase “redefinition of marriage” or “so-called same sex marriage,” or in a pinch, “genderless marriage,” depending on the context.

Even “genderless marriage” is questionable because it is naming something that is an impossibility. Gender is essential to marriage. The move to make same sex unions the legal equivalent of opposite sex unions requires that gender be removed from the understanding of marriage. If this legal movement to redefine marriage succeeds, it will be creating something entirely new. Nothing will be left of marriage but the name, as I have said in articles and lectures called, “The Institution Formerly Known as Marriage.” But at least the term “genderless marriage” calls attention to what is at stake in the debate.

What do you think?

Video: A Glimpse Into the Australian Marriage Debate

In case anyone is interested in what folks are saying Down Under:

Via NewsOnABC

IL Foster Parents: Judge's Decision Will Force Us To Abandon Helping Kids

In the Chicago Tribune's coverage of Catholic Charities losing its right to foster care, a human face to the story:

Casey Teckenbrock, of Herrin, said he and his wife expect any transition to delay the adoption of their foster daughter. But after that is complete, they likely will cease to be foster parents for Catholic Social Services of Southern Illinois in the Diocese of Belleville.

"If the state doesn't respect our morals, then we don't want to do work for them," Casey Teckenbrock said. "This will be a disaster for the 2,000 kids in foster care."

Update: Judge Rules Against Catholic Charities in Illinois Adoption Dispute

From the Chicago Tribune -- we will have more to say about this decision soon:

A Sangamon County judge has ruled that the state can decline to renew its contract with Catholic Charities in Illinois to provide foster care and adoption services, meaning children can be transferred to other social service agencies.

... Lawyers for Catholic Charities had urged him to prevent the state from severing a partnership that has provided publicly funded foster care and adoption services in Illinois for four decades.

... Lawyers for the Illinois Attorney General argued that Catholic Charities policy of licensing only married couples and single parents living alone as foster parents, while referring couples in civil unions to other agencies, violates state anti-discrimination laws that now accommodate couples in civil unions.

Liberty Counsel: Florida Teacher of the Year Suspended for Facebook Comment Against SSM

Liberty Counsel:

Jerry Buell, last year’s “Teacher of the Year” at Mount Dora High School, has been suspended from the classroom for a comment he made on his own personal Facebook page, expressing his disapproval of legalized same-sex marriage in New York. Buell commented that homosexuality is a sin and that seeing two “grooms” kissing on a news story revolted him. School officials received a complaint about Buell’s comment on Tuesday from a 2002 Mount Dora graduate, who was never even in Mr. Buell’s class. The Lake County School District responded by taking away his teaching privileges and reassigning him to administrative duties. Liberty Counsel is representing Buell and demanding that he be immediately

The school district’s response to Buell’s comments is unconstitutional, violating his right to free speech. Groups who are pushing “same-sex marriage” and “marriage equality” are claiming any speech that is contrary to their viewpoint is considered “hate speech” and should be censored.

National Organization For Marriage To Herman Cain: "Pledge To Actions, Not Just Words On Marriage!"

National Organization for MarriageFOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: August 19, 2011
CONTACT: Elizabeth Ray or Mary Beth Hutchins at 703-683-5004

WASHINGTON – GOP Presidential Candidate Herman Cain has raised the profile of marriage in his campaign by calling President Obama's views on marriage “an impeachable offense.” The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) shares Mr. Cain’s sentiment that marriage should be defended.

“We need someone who does not just talk the talk, but walks the walk on marriage. That is why we asked all the GOP candidates to sign NOM's 5 point marriage pledge. Bachmann, Santorum and Romney have. Why hasn't Herman Cain?" asked Maggie Gallagher, chairman of NOM. "President Obama claimed he supported traditional marriage but then failed to follow through. If Herman Cain wants to distinguish his position from President Obama, he should commit to concrete actions, not just rhetoric in support of marriage."

NOM's marriage pledge was offered to all serious announced candidates for the GOP nomination.

Candidates’ signed pledges can be seen here:
Michele Bachmann
Mitt Romney
Rick Santorum

To schedule an interview with Brian Brown, President, or Maggie Gallagher, Chairman, of the National Organization for Marriage, please contact Elizabeth Ray, [email protected], (x130) or Mary Beth Hutchins, [email protected], (x105) at 703-683-5004.

###

Pro-SSM NY Assemblyman Losing Key Support Among Orthodox Jews Ahead of Special Election

City Hall News:

The first New York politician imperiled by voting for same-sex marriage isn’t an upstate Republican senator – it’s a Democratic Assemblyman from New York City scrambling to hold his support in a special election.

Insiders say Assemblyman David Weprin, running in the special election for Anthony Weiner’s congressional seat, is facing a revolt among Orthodox Jews – though he himself is an Orthodox Jew – because he strongly defended same-sex marriage during an Albany debate.

... “What he said in the Assembly has been played over-and-over on YouTube,” said one well-connected neutral observer of the race. “People were really offended that he said he was an Orthodox who was supporting gay marriage.”

During the campaign, some rabbis have refused to meet with Weprin, while the newspaper Hamodia reported that others have refused to be photographed with the assemblyman. Editorial writers for Jewish newspapers and well-read blogs have blasted him.

William Duncan of Marriage Law Foundation in SCOTUSblog's Marriage Symposium

William Duncan, director of the Marriage Law Foundation, contributes to the SCOTUSblog symposium on marriage:

[One strategy to redefine marriage has been] to have a constitutional challenge to the legal recognition of the social institution of marriage brought by highly motivated and well-financed opponents with the collusion of the titular defendants who would offer none or only a pro forma defense. Thus would the voters of California and the taxpayers of the United States be deprived of a say in this most fundamental legal matter.

It worked in state courts in Iowa, California, and Connecticut. In the former, the attorney general did not bother to defend the state’s marriage law. In the latter two instances, the attorney generals’ defense was hardly robust and the failure was noted and relied on by the courts in ruling for a constitutional right to same-sex marriage.

This amounts, of course, to de facto executive nullification of the laws. Attractive to litigants, it would be a disaster for our legal system. In an adversarial system, taking a dive can amount to making law. Where the executive has not been expressly granted that authority, its exercise by that branch is illegitimate. But having seen in state courts that it may work, the temptation to overreach may be overwhelming. That temptation cannot be entertained and certainly not rewarded.

As important as marriage is, and it is foundational, it’s not the only thing at stake. If we lose not only marriage but also sustain a grievous injury to limited government in the process, that would be a double tragedy.

NOM's Marriage Pledge & Bus Tour Make Waves | NOM Marriage News

NOM National Newsletter

Dear Marriage Supporter,

The GOP presidential campaign is off to the races! And NOM's Marriage Pledge is front and center.

Rick Santorum's surprise move in the Iowa Ames straw poll is having consequences.

Rick went from less than 1 percent in the polls to fourth in just a few weeks by highlighting marriage and life.

He didn't move up because of money or organization but because of message: Iowa voters care about life and marriage and candidates are taking notice.

Here's Rick on NOM's Votes Have Consequences/Values Voters Bus Tour (co-hosted by the Susan B. Anthony List and Family Research Council):

santorum_vid

And here's a montage of the all the candidates who spoke on marriage at the Ames debate:

Debate Montage

We will be your one-stop center for keeping track of the presidential marriage debate moving forward.

As a result of Ames, marriage has moved to a new prominence in presidential rhetoric this week.
Michelle Bachmann applauds Iowans for kicking out Iowa judges, and Herman Cain calls President Obama's failure to defend DOMA an "impeachable offense."

Bachmann, Romney and Santorum have all signed NOM's Marriage pledge—but not Herman Cain. (BTW, we have officially extended to Gov. Rick Perry the opportunity to sign NOM's Marriage Pledge—stay tuned!)

I think he's got some 'splaining to do.

What's important about NOM's marriage pledge is that it translates values into action. If the GOP's commitment to values voters is just about words, well then the other parties can fake it, and the GOP candidates can just phone it in.

Remember when Pres. Obama appeared on stage with John McCain and Rev. Rick Warren and swore he supported marriage as the union of one man and one woman?

After what's happened with Pres. Obama's relentless campaign to sabotage marriage, I swore to myself: never again.

An effective political movement has to do more than just voice values or even help elect candidates. It has to hold those candidates accountable and work hard to expose for voters the differences between the two sides.

NOM's first step is the Marriage Pledge—thank you for making what we do possible.

We are working tirelessly to make it clear to elites—including GOP elites!—that marriage is an indispensable foundation of American civilization... and a winning issue!

NORMALIZING PEDOPHILIA

When you knock over a core pillar of society like marriage, and then try to redefine Biblical views of marriage as bigotry, there will be consequences. Will one of the consequences be a serious push to normalize pedophilia?

The Daily Caller raised the question by pointing us all to a high-level academic conference in Baltimore this week, "Pedophilia: Minor-Attracted Persons and the DSM: Issues and Controversies."

The DSM is the diagnostic manual that defines mental illness. You probably recall that a key moment in the gay rights campaign was the 1973 decision by the American Psychiatric Association, the organization that produces the DSM, to remove homosexuality from its list of mental illnesses.

Here's how the brochure describes the goal:

"This day-long symposium will facilitate the exchange of ideas among researchers, scholars, mental health practitioners, and minor-attracted persons who have an interest in critical issues surrounding the entry for pedophilia in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) of the American Psychiatric Association. The symposium will address critical issues in the following areas:

  • Scientific and philosophical issues related to the DSM entry on pedophilia and/or hebephilia
  • Effects of the DSM entry on stigma, availability of mental health services, and research
  • Ways in which minor-attracted persons can be involved in the DSM 5 revision process"

See the brochure here »

When professors from Harvard and Johns Hopkins School of Medicine get together to discuss ways in which "minor attracted persons" can be involved in the DSM revision process—watch out.

Enquiring people want to know: Will pedophiles become "minor-attracted persons" in our culture? Will courts which endorse orientation as a protected class decide down the road that therefore laws which discriminate against "minor-attracted persons" must be narrowly tailored to a compelling government interest?

Here's the fundamental truth: Ideas have consequences and so do words—because they contain ideas, because they are the vehicle through which and by which human beings describe reality.

The reality that men and women need each other, and that children need a mom and dad, is the truth most at risk in the same-sex marriage debate.

MARRIED, INTACT, BIOLOGICAL FAMILY THE GOLD STANDARD FOR KIDS, SCIENTISTS SAY

A new report signed by major family scholars (some of whom support gay marriage!) lays out the deep goods for which we are fighting: "The intact, biological, married family remains the gold standard for family life in the United States, insofar as children are most likely to thrive—economically, socially, and psychologically—in this family form."

Here's what Maggie had to say about this important report by family scholars:

Children long for a mother and father who are committed to each other and to them. Failing that, children long for a mother whose attention, time and emotional space are not subdivided with men who want to sleep with her.

The "carousel of intimate relationships," as Andrew Cherlin called it, is hurting our kids.

The most important moral question every adult faces is: Which matters more to me—my love life, or my child's love life?

Most of the really bad things good people do to their kids come from burying that question, rather than facing it squarely.

Here are some of the questions we prefer not to ask ourselves so we can pursue our passions with an undisturbed conscience:

How can it be OK to have sex when I can't care for the child—my own child—my body may create? Is it OK to keep abortion as a "backup," taking my own child's (at least nascent) life, so I can keep having romantic relationships? Should I move in with my boyfriend because I'm lonely, or keep a home in which my child comes first? What if my husband bores me and my boss excites me?

The marriage crisis is a moral crisis that consists of a culture evading that main question: Which matters more to me—my love life, or my child's love life?

What kind of person could possibly answer: me, me, me?

MINNESOTA NICE MEETS MARRIAGE DEBATE

Minnesotans will decide the future of marriage in that state on the ballot in 2012. Should marriage as the union of husband and wife be protected in the Minnesota constitution?

Two ridiculous complaints against marriage supporters, including NOM, were just dismissed in Minnesota today. The Campaign Finance board dismissed, for lack of probable cause, complaints brought by Common Cause Minnesota that TV ads run by NOM highlighting Gov. Dayton's support for same-sex marriage violated Minnesota's lobbing disclosure rules.

This was not a close call. By making these legally absurd complaints, Common Cause Minnesota revealed that it has gone from being a non-partisan good-government group to, on this issue at least, becoming a partisan in a culture war.

We expect more of these sorts of attacks in coming weeks—because we are making a difference.

What happens when Minnesota Nice Meets the Marriage Debate?

A Minnesota public radio commentator found out in recent weeks when she called for more civility in the gay-marriage debate. It seems like an innocuous position—who could oppose civility? Certainly not you and me!

But because her call was posted on NOM's blog (which, by the way, aided by the amazing Thomas Peters, is a must-read for anyone who wants to follow marriage on a daily basis), she was inundated by hateful attacks.

Here's some of what Carrie wrote this week:

There must be a group of advocates who watch that website for anything that might conflict with their point of view. Within days, my words, taken completely out of context, and my message — better manners — had been used as the basis for a rallying cry: Carrie Daklin of Minnesota is a homophobe.

I am not sure how my message got so skewed. I have become the object of hate mail and really vicious comments, all in the name of etiquette. Go figure.

I found this all rather unsettling.

... What has happened in our culture, that so many of us are completely unable to accept someone who doesn't share our views? I don't agree with all that my conservative Christian friends espouse, but I support their right to their beliefs. I don't agree with a very liberal friend who said certain members of the religious right should be shot. Actually, he used the word murdered. Sadly, I think he meant it.

In retrospect, the original infraction I wrote about is positively innocuous compared to the resulting uproar. To be blunt: My article was not about gay rights, it was not about the Defense of Marriage Act, and it most certainly was not a promotion for the National Organization for Marriage.

My article was on civility, it was on manners and respect for other people, it was on public decency even toward those you might not agree with. It was about creating a conduit in our society that allows for the paradigms and values of others, so that we can get to a place of compromise. It was about working to replace anger with a tolerance that allows us to thrive.

In the last few weeks I have been a poster child for extremism — the left vilifying me, the right holding me up as some sort of hero. Both make me equally uncomfortable. Both are unwanted. If I am a poster child for anyone, it is Emily Post.

We appreciate her position: making a few comments about treating important moral disagreements with civility does not make a person either a marriage partisan, or a homophobe.

Do gay-marriage advocates agree?

Welcome to our world, NPR!

In truth our world is a great place to be: decent, loving, law-abiding Americans standing up for God's truth about marriage—and winning!

It doesn't get any better than that.

Keep fighting the good fight!

Brian Brown

Brian S Brown

Brian S. Brown
President
National Organization for Marriage

P.S. Every victory we win at NOM is really your victory—and it's achieved with your help. Please consider what you can give to make a difference for marriage today!

Contribute