NOM BLOG

Monthly Archives: October 2011

Values Voter Bus Visits Rhode Island

The Providence Journal:

The Values Voter bus made a stop in Rhode Island on its way from New Hampshire to Ohio so speakers could talk about the importance of protecting religious liberties.

The bus stopped at Roger Williams National Memorial, named after Rhode Island's founder and champion of religious freedom, to make the point, according to Chris Plante, executive director of the Rhode Island chapter of the anti-gay marriage group the National Organization for Marriage.

Among the visitors on the bus was Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, a conservative Christian group that promotes what it considers to be family values. Perkins who walked out of a long colorful bus that serves as a mobile office said the American family must be preserved an allowed to maintain its religious freedoms.

"If we want to change the size and scope of government first strengthen the American family. We do that by encouraging family formation without policy and protecting the right of faith in the community and the right to be aggressively involved in local community."

Archbishop of Glasgow Comes Out Strongly Against SSM

The Scottish Herald:

The Archbishop of Glasgow has stepped up a campaign against gay marriage by warning any change in the law was “at our peril”.

Mario Conti said the Catholic Church will actively fight against the previously “unthinkable” issue which was being considered in a “largely post-Christian society”.

He also claimed the Scottish Government does not have a mandate to “reconstruct society on ideological grounds”.

The Government is holding a consultation on whether same-sex marriage should be introduced. A similar debate is taking place south of the border.

VP of Media Research Center: Santorum 'Google Bombing' Shows Dark Side of LGBT Movement

Catholic News Agency:

Media attacks on Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum show “just how twisted and vile the LGBT movement can be when anyone dare disagree,” said Dan Gainor, vice president of Business and Culture for the Media Research Center.

Members of the media “bash Santorum whenever possible,” Gainor said to CNA on Oct. 6.

Gainor responded to ongoing Google attacks against Santorum by gay sex-advice columnist Dan Savage.

Santorum is Catholic and has vocally expressed his support for the Church’s teaching on marriage. In recent years, Savage has lashed out at Santorum for his belief that marriage is a union between a man and a woman.

In 2003, Savage organized a “Google bomb” against Santorum, setting up a website displaying a graphic sexual term as the definition for the word “santorum.” Through extensive use of links to other sites, he then caused this site to rise to the top of Google search engine results.

... Gainor described the attacks are “part of an ongoing hate campaign organized by Savage against Santorum. It is despicable that Savage would help equate Santorum's name in such a bizarre sexual way,” he said. “And even worse that media outlets continue to work with Savage after his repeated attacks on Santorum.”

Video: Bill O'Reilly Interviews Polygamists About Marriage Rights

They claim they don't want to redefine marriage but, well, watch for yourself:

Maggie to Values Voters: "This Cause is Not Only Just, But, In the End, Will Prevail"

This weekend NOM co-founder Maggie Gallagher was part of a panel on defending marriage at the Values Voter Summit. Michelle Bauman of EWTN reports:

Leaders of organizations dedicated to preventing the redefinition of marriage said in an Oct. 8 panel that the movement to support marriage should not give up hope.

“This cause is not only just, but, in the end, will prevail,” said Maggie Gallagher, co-founder of the National Organization for Marriage.

Gallagher presented “The Case for Hope on Marriage” as part of a panel at the Values Voter Summit at the Omni Shoreham hotel in Washington.

The panel, entitled “Straight Talk on ‘Gay Marriage,’” was moderated by Tom McClusky, vice president for government affairs at the Family Research Council.

Gallagher explained that those committed to defending marriage have heard over and over again that they cannot win the battle.

However, she said, “a culture war is like any other war,” in the sense that victory comes “not when one side is annihilated, but when it gives up its wish to fight.”

Therefore, she explained, the war to defend marriage will never end as long as its supporters never lose hope.

TownHall: "Santorum Gets it Right on Failing Family Structure Ruining Economy"

Katie Pavlich, the News Editor at TownHall comments on last nights GOP debate:

Tonight's Washington Post/Bloomberg GOP presidential debate was focused completely on the economy, yet one GOP candidate managed to usher in social issues to the discussion through an economic platform. Rick Santorum pointed out near the end of the debate that economic strength starts with a two parent household, saying poverty rates skyrocket in single parent homes. Santorum is absolutely correct.

The poverty rate for all children in married-couple families is 8.2 percent. By contrast, the poverty rate for all children in single-parent families is four times higher at 35.2 percent.

... Tonight, Santorum said America must get back to promoting a strong family structure in order to get the economy back on track, and he is absolutely correct. Often times you'll hear this argument from moderates and many republicans: "I'm socially liberal but fiscally very conservative."

The problem is, it is impossible to be socially liberal and fiscally conservative at the same time.

Romney Stands Tall on Life, Marriage in NH

ABC News:

The first question came from a young woman in the audience who asked, “Why is it that you feel that marriage between a man and a man or a woman and a woman is lesser than a marriage between a man and a woman?”

“I think the ideal setting to raise a child for a society like ours is where there is a man and a woman in the marriage,” Romney responded. “So I think as a society we are wise to encourage marriage between a man and a woman for the purpose of raising our kids.”

A few questions later another young woman followed up on his answer and asked why being raised by two women like she was — her grandmother and her mother raised her — was any different from being raised by a man and a woman.

“I can say, look there are a lot of folks who get raised by one parent … but in my view a society recognizes that the ideal setting for raising a child is when you have the benefit of two people working together and when one is male and one is female,” Romney said. “That’s why as a society we say we’re going to call marriage what it has been called for 6,000 years or longer — a relationship between one man and one woman.”

But the questions didn’t stop there. Right away another woman asked Romney about civil unions, to which he said he supported domestic partnerships that would provide couples the ability for hospital visitation rights.

Then, turning to another woman in the audience with her hand raised to ask a question, Romney quipped, “Yes, just so long as — no, go ahead, but if it’s the same question I don’t have a new answer.”

How Two Values Voter Attendees Changed Their Vote Because of Marriage

David Weigel at Slate filed a report over the weekend at the Values Voter conference in Washington, DC:

Inside the Omni Shoreham [hotel], there is no real anti-Cain agitprop, but there is an unhelpful one-pager at the National Organization for Marriage booth which informs people how candidates have answered the 2012 Pro-Marriage Presidential Pledge. This is the one that commits candidates to establish a special commission to investigate crimes against gay marriage opponents, among other things. And it tells us that Gingrich, Paul, and Cain have NOT signed the pledge. Will he "advance legislation to return to the people of the District"? UNKNOWN. Will he support a federal marriage amendment? NO.

I met two conference attendees, Larry and Lois Gladfeiler, who said they'd learned this, then [had] seen Santorum speak, and moved their allegiance accordingly.

What the GOP Candidates Said About Marriage at the Values Voter Summit

This weekend in Washington DC the Republican GOP candidates for President (with the exception of Jon Huntsman) addressed the Values Voter Summit, the largest annual gathering of social conservatives.

Here's what they said (or didn't say) about marriage:

Rick Perry (no mention of marriage, but some mentions of family): "The fabric of our society is not government, or individual freedom; it is the family. And the demise of the family is the demise of any great society."

Rick Santorum: "And that means standing up and defending the institution of marriage as between one man and one woman – not backing away from it, standing up for it. And there's one candidate in this race who has gone to state after state and helped fight those battles not just for the federal marriage amendment, but understanding that the – the – what the left is trying to accomplish in marriage is what they did with abortion: pick off a few states, get the courts to say, ah, we can't have different laws on the issue such – fundamental as marriage, and then have the courts decide it. We must fight in every state to make sure that marriage remains between one man and one woman. And as president, I will do that."

Newt Gingrich: "On marriage, it should be quite clear, on issues like the Defense of Marriage Act, that we should simply say it can't be [repealed], as it simply -- you -- it's very clear in the Constitution." [and also:] "But I mean in a sense of arrogance, in a sense of imposing on the rest of us, whether it's one judge in California deciding he knows more than 8 million Californians about the definition of marriage."

Hermain Cain: "I believe that marriage is between one man and one woman. And I would not have asked the Department of Justice to not enforce it. I would have asked the Department of Justice to enforce the Defense of Marriage Act."

Michele Bachmann: "And when we speak in defense of traditional marriage, it isn’t because we want to control other people’s lives. It’s because we recognize the deep roots of natural law and of revealed law and other religious traditions that have united across the centuries, and in the shared belief that it was a holy God who designed marriage for man and woman as the most loving and best environment for the procreation of children." [and also:] "People said it would never be done, but in Minnesota I fought for seven years and persevered, and we won the issue of defining marriage as one man and one woman. And it will be on the ballot in the state of Minnesota in 2012 because, you see, with a proven fighter in the White House, we will finally win on the issue of life, on marriage, on family, on religious liberty. It’s time that we score some victories for our movement."

Mitt Romney: "But we know that marriage is more than a personally rewarding social custom. It’s also critical for the well-being of a civilization. That’s why it’s so important to preserve traditional marriage, the joining together of one man and one woman. And that’s why I will appoint an attorney general who will defend the bipartisan law passed by Congress and signed by Bill Clinton, the Defense of Marriage Act."

Ron Paul (no mention of marriage, but some mention of family): "I appreciate very much this opportunity to visit with you to talk about families. Obviously family values are very, very important. And, as was mentioned in the introduction, I have delivered a few babies. And that does contribute to family, let me tell you."

SCOTUS: On Same-Sex Adoptive Parents Case, 5th Circuit Ruling Stands

Reuters:

The Supreme Court refused on Tuesday to consider the rights of same-sex parents in a setback for two gay men who wanted both of their names listed on their adopted son's birth certificate.

In a case closely watched by gay rights advocates, the high court rejected without comment an appeal by Oren Adar and Mickey Ray Smith, who sued to be listed as parents on a Louisiana birth certificate of the infant they adopted.

The justices let stand a ruling by a U.S. [5th Circuit] appeals court that a Louisiana registrar's decision not to list both men does not violate the child's right to equal protection under the law and does not deny legal recognition of the New York adoption.

Gov. Perdue's Jobs Plan for NC: Vote No on Marriage Amendment

This meme shows up again:

“My top priority is creating jobs. Too many people are out of work and I’ve heard from several business leaders who’ve told me that the proposed constitutional amendment will harm our state’s business climate and make it harder to grow jobs here..." -- Gov. Bev Perdue

Rep. McKeon: No Defense Bill Without DOMA

Josh Gerstein at Politico:

House Armed Services Committee Chairman Buck McKeon (R-Calif.) said Friday he'd rather see Congress fail to pass a defense authorization bill for the first time in half a century than give ground on contentious provisions that seek to direct suspected terrorists into military custody and to [authorize] gay marriages by military chaplains.

McKeon made the comments in a "C-SPAN Newsmakers" interview with POLITICO's Charles Hoskinson and John Donnelly of Congressional Quarterly. (Video posted here.)

Asked whether his convictions on both issues are so strong that he would rather not have a defense authorization bill than strip out the gay-marriage and detainee language, McKeon replied firmly on each point, "Yes."

"I'd like to see the Senate move on the bill," McKeon said. "We passed the bill months ago. We're waiting on the Senate."

Ros-Lehtinen’s Constituents Unhappy With Her Flip-Flop on Marriage

The Miami Herald:

[Anthony Verdugo, executive director of the Christian Family Coalition in Miami-Dade County] said Ros-Lehtinen’s conservative constituents are not happy. “When they voted for Ros-Lehtinen, this isn’t what they signed up for,” he said.

... Ros-Lehtinen was among 342 “yes” votes for the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996. Now, she has become the 124th co-sponsor of the bill to repeal it.

... During the summer of 2008, Ros-Lehtinen told Miami gay Republicans that she opposed Florida’s Amendment 2, which passed the following November and banned gay marriages, civil unions and state-recognized domestic partnerships.

Later, she learned that daughter Amanda had come out as a transgender man named Rodrigo.

Related on NOM blog: Will Pro-Gay Marriage Millionaires Divide and Conquer the GOP?

Cornerstone/FRC Values Bus Host Rally to Support Restoring Marriage in New Hampshire

From their action alert:

The Family Research Council Values Voter Bus will host a Marriage Rally in light of the pending legislation to restore the natural definition of marriage in New Hampshire. The New Hampshire rally will take place in front of the Holiday Inn in Concord at 9:00 AM on Wednesday, October 12. Tony Perkins and the FRC will be joined by some special guests: Representative Michele Bachmann and former US Senator Rick Santorum.

Matthew Franck's Hypothetical Showing Why Judge Walker Ought To Have Recused

Matthew Franck writes at NRO's Bench Memos blog:

I have caught up with the appellants’ brief to the Ninth Circuit in Perry v. Brown (the Prop 8 case), filed on Monday by Charles Cooper, and noted here on Tuesday by Ed Whelan. It’s a brilliantly argued brief, building an irrefutable case that Judge Vaughn Walker flagrantly violated a duty either to disclose his longstanding same-sex relationship with a partner over the last decade, or to recuse himself quietly by instructing the clerk of the district court to transfer the case to another judge. The brief also explodes, point by point, the excuses made for Judge Walker by Judge Ware, chief judge of the district court, who seems to get everything wrong about the ethics of recusal.

Try this out as a hypothetically parallel case: Imagine a judge in a tort case, asked to sit in judgment on a bench trial of whether General Motors should be required to pay, in a class action, damages to all owners of Cadillacs between 5 and 10 years old, on demand of the owner. Unbeknownst to the parties in the case, the judge has a 2004 Cadillac sitting in his garage. Deciding the case against GM, he then retires, and discloses his ownership of the relevant Cadillac, but says that during the trial it never crossed his mind whether he might, in the event of GM’s losing, claim his own damages as a member of the class. As of this writing he’s still thinking it over . . .

Who would not say that the judge had violated a duty to disclose and to recuse? Who would say it is an outrageous intrusion into the judge’s personal affairs even to raise the issue?