I just walked into the convention center, and passed a gaggle of Ron Paul supporters holding homemade signs saying "End the Central Bank!"
You gotta love those guys' passion.
I'm now in the spin room. NBC, CBS, major media -- all here. Perry is back fighting fires in Texas.
Political reporter Jon Ward at the Huffington Post:
"...the sleeper threat will be the third panelist asking questions Monday in Columbia: Robert George, a Princeton professor who [formerly chaired] the National Organization for Marriage.
George, a 56-year old constitutional scholar who leads a new vanguard of conservative culture warriors, will force each of the candidates to articulate, in detail, where they stand on both constitutional issues and also on some of the most touchy social issues of the day, pressing them when their answers are not specific or substantive enough.
... "I think we need renewed fidelity to our old principles, and I think they're all going to agree with that, in theory. They're all going to agree with that as a statement," George said in an interview with The Huffington Post. "They're all going to say, 'Oh yeah, we don't need new principles, even though we have new challenges -- in some ways, unprecedented challenges."
"OK, fine. Once we get past that soundbite, what does it mean?" he said.
In addition to Perry, the candidates taking part will be former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.), Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas), former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.), and former Godfathers's Pizza CEO Herman Cain.
... George said he is aware that many of the candidates would prefer not to talk in detail about such topics as abortion, gay marriage, and affirmative action.
"Politicians are … more comfortable talking about money than they are about fundamental principles of right and wrong," George said. "They're more comfortable talking about how to do things efficiently, how to do things rationally, where rationality is a kind of instrumental rationality: turning the economy around, getting new jobs, that kind of thing -– than they are about moral issues that are deeply controversial, that touch people in the heart, not just in the pocketbook."
Charlie Butts at One News Now:
"You know, they made this decision, and ... based on the timing of certain court filings [it looks like] it was made in concert with the homosexual activists and those who are seeking to redefine marriage," explains Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton. "... We just want to figure out what's going on."
... In a press release, the JW president goes even further: "Once again the Obama administration is playing politics with the Freedom of Information Act to avoid telling the American people the truth about one of its indefensible positions. The evidence suggests the nation's highest law enforcement is refusing to enforce the law to appease another special interest group."
Assuming the marriage question is asked, I will be blogging/ranking the candidates on their answers on marriage. Can they explain why they support marriage? Let's find out.
More evidence that same-sex marriage threatens religious liberty. Conservative MP Mike Weatherley writes to Prime Minister David Cameron:
Several campaigns are currently calling for, variously, the creation of a right to a Marriage for same-sex couples and the creation of a right to a Civil Partnership for opposite-sex couples. Such proposals may seemingly be the next logical step in the campaign for equality but, if enacted, would still leave us with a messy compromise. As long as religious groups can refuse to preside over ceremonies for same-sex couples, there will be inequality. Such behaviour is not tolerated in other areas, such as adoption, after all.
I suggest that it makes little difference if unions are called Marriages, Civil Partnerships or some other term (such as simply ‘Unions’). Until we untangle unions and religion in this country, we will struggle to find a fair arrangement. --Archbishop Cramner blog
I'm here in Columbia, South Carolina. I'll be at the debate, watching NOM's founding Chairman Prof. Robby George asking the core, principled questions.
This is the debate where conservatives take back the debate process from the media.
I don't know what will happen, but watch with me.
I am taping material for the Maggie Report. But I will be blogging live for NOM my reactions.
A consultation on the issue of same-sex marriages and religious ceremonies for civil partnerships has been launched by Scottish ministers.
The Scottish government said its initial view was that same-sex marriage should be introduced.
However, Health Secretary Nicola Sturgeon said faith groups who did not want to "solemnise" gay marriages should not be made to do so.
In National Review:
When Robert P. George, a Princeton University professor of jurisprudence, moderates the Palmetto Freedom Forum on Monday, he won’t ask about deep-dish pizza. Instead, he will urge GOP presidential contenders, as he does his students, to explore their constitutional beliefs. “The idea is to break the mold, to get away from the standard, media-run debates with their gotcha questions,” he says in a phone interview. In turn, he hopes, the candidates will drop “their stump speeches and canned answers.”
... How candidates respond to George’s queries, which will focus on the political and philosophical, could shake up a primary season that, so far, has been dominated by platitudes. The race for the GOP nomination, he says, is often cast as a scramble for the highly coveted but nebulous tea-party crown. But few voters, he laments, have a sense of how leading Republicans interpret the principles that inspire tea-party activists. [Continue reading]
This post contains details about how you can tune in to watch the debate live, Monday 3-5pm EDT.
A little nugget from the Five Towns Jewish Times:
The Five Towns Jewish Times learned last week that the Turner campaign is in possession of a letter signed by 40 Orthodox rabbis in New York which states that because of Mr. Weprin’s vote in favor of legalizing same-sex marriage in New York, it is forbidden according to Jewish law to cast a vote for Weprin in the upcoming election.
Prof. Robin Wilson of the Washington and Lee University School of Law contributes to the SCOTUSblog symposium on marriage:
Very little is to be gained by Professor Singer’s one-hundred-percent-victory-or-none-at-all stance. Where robust exemptions have not been provided, marriage equality efforts have failed. Moreover, under our proposal same-sex couples receive the services they need from individuals in commerce and government employees – by its very terms, in a straight-up contest between religious liberty and marriage equality, religious liberty yields to marriage equality.
Dear Marriage Supporter,
You won't want to miss the next GOP presidential debate this Monday afternoon at 3pm EDT!
Hosted by the American Principles Project in Columbia, South Carolina the debate will feature presidential frontrunners and NOM Marriage Pledge signers Gov. Mitt Romney, Rep. Michele Bachmann and Gov. Rick Perry, joined by Rep. Ron Paul, Businessman Herman Cain, and former Speaker Newt Gingrich.
NOM's own co-founder Robert George will join Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) and Rep. Steve King (R-IA) in asking questions of the candidates. The debate's unique format is designed to foster a thoughtful, substantive discussion with the candidates, and will feature one candidate on the stage at a time taking questions from the panel.
I'm looking forward to the extended interaction with the candidates, and hope you'll make plans to join me in watching and evaluating each of the candidates' statements about marriage and the other critical issues of our day.
Here are two ways to watch:
We need a marriage champion to challenge President Obama next November, and the Republican frontrunners are already stepping up to the challenge. I hope you'll spend part of your Labor Day enjoying what could be one of the most substantive conversations of this presidential campaign season.
Don't miss it!
Brian S. Brown
President
National Organization for Marriage
Lord Jonathan Sacks, chief rabbi of the United Hebrew Congregations of the Commonwealth, gets to the heart of the issue:
[The rioting of youth in the UK] was the bursting of a dam of potential trouble that has been building for years. The collapse of families and communities leaves in its wake unsocialized young people, deprived of parental care, who on average--and yes, there are exceptions--do worse than their peers at school, are more susceptible to drug and alcohol abuse, less likely to find stable employment and more likely to land up in jail.
The truth is, it is not their fault. They are the victims of the tsunami of wishful thinking that washed across the West saying that you can have sex without the responsibility of marriage, children without the responsibility of parenthood, social order without the responsibility of citizenship, liberty without the responsibility of morality and self-esteem without the responsibility of work and earned achievement. --Wall Street Journal
In his weekly column for National Review:
The great divorce revolution of the 1960s and 1970s has faded. The great cohabitation revolution has begun.
The divorce rate for married couples with children is almost back to the levels of the early 1960s, before the run-up that crested in the early 1980s. Considering the decades of social turbulence buffeting the institution of marriage between then and now, this is a notable restoration.
But it only means that marriage is unraveling in a different way. According to a new study by the Institute for American Values and the National Marriage Project at the University of Virginia, cohabitation has increased 14-fold since 1970. About 24 percent of children are born to cohabiting couples, more than are born to single mothers, while another 20 percent experience a cohabiting household at some time in their childhood.
... We want to believe that all relationships, so long as they are loving and well-intentioned, are equal. It feels like an offense against 21st-century mores to say otherwise. Who are we to make invidious distinctions among loving adults? But there is simply no substitute for marriage, for the relative stability and commitment it provides, and for the environment it creates for children.
In an article produced by Stand For Children out of San Francisco:
The Reality of Marriage: Two Conflicting Understandings
Today, many people see marriage as merely an adult centric institution because there is a cultural rift in the connection between marriage and children. Many people put off having children until later in life. Others have children without getting married. Those married with children, due to smaller families and longer life spans, will spend the majority of their married lives without children at home. And, there are an increasing number of adults who never have children. So, for many:
"marriage is merely the public recognition of a committed relationship between loving adults."
However in reality, marriage is a family centric institution. It is the foundation of a stable family. Therefore:
"marriage unites a man and a woman with each other and any children born from their union."
That is what marriage is; that is what marriage does.
Notice that the first definition describes something just for adults—a private relationship with no public benefit.
The second definition, however, describes marriage as the foundation of a family, the foundation of society. Marriage described in this way incorporates the common human desire, of every person, to know and be cared for by his or her own mother and father. Marriage defined this way not only has a public interest, but also is in the interest of every child without exception. Because of this great divergence of understandings about marriage, it is important to clarify which definition you are using when discussing marriage.
Suzanne Rucker is the former chairwoman of the Cumberland County Republican Party in North Carolina. She writes in the Fayetteville Observer:
For eight years, this amendment has been introduced and ignored by the General Assembly, even though credible polling indicates that 70 percent-plus of North Carolina voters support a constitutional amendment defining the union of one man and one woman as the legal definition of marriage.
... Powerful lobbying groups who donate large sums of money are against this amendment. As a result, for eight years, the General Assembly has denied the voters the right to vote on this amendment. This is wrong. And, in my opinion, denies me my civil right to have a vote on the issue.
Yes, ours is representative government, but, for reasons mentioned above, not in this instance. Were representative government truly applied to the protection-of-marriage amendment, every legislator would vote to give the people of North Carolina the right to vote on whether or not to enact the amendment. That's what the upcoming vote is about - whether or not to allow citizens the right to vote.
