The editors of the Star Tribune take Tom Emmer's side against Hamline U's discriminatory hiring process:
Hamline University officials apparently forgot to consult their own diversity policy as they weighed, then abruptly ended, former Republican gubernatorial candidate Tom Emmer's teaching future at the St. Paul liberal arts school.
According to the policy, Hamline is "committed to ... developing and maintaining academic/co-curricular programs and university climate that promises a responsible, civil and open exchange of ideas.''
Hamline's apparent bungling of employment negotiations with Emmer suggests that commitment only goes so far, thatconservatives such as Emmer are not welcome on campus.
While this page strongly differs with Emmer's strident views on taxes, health reform, state's rights and social issues, especially when it comes to the state's proposed marriage amendment, the Hamline incident raises disturbing questions about academic freedom and administrative backbone at one of Minnesota's most respected educational institutions.
Although Hamline officials declined comment for this editorial, it appears that the university reneged on at least one viable job offer, possibly two, because of last-minute faculty objections to Emmer's politics, particularly his stance on gay marriage.
... It's unclear who at Hamline ultimately quashed Emmer's employment. The university not only owes Emmer an explanation, but the broader community as well.
... while many may find Emmer's stances alarming, the reality is that 43.2 percent of those who voted in the 2010 election found him the best gubernatorial candidate. Are those Minnesotans not welcome at Hamline either?
On Jay Leno, Ron Paul again refuses to say he opposes gay marriage, refuses to say he would defend marriage if the courts order gay marriage, and again reiterates his personal hobbyhorse that he would prefer if marriage were not a legal status:
Ben Smith of Politico: "A Super PAC backing Rick Santorum is spending some real money -- $200,000 -- to boost the hardest working man in lesser candidacy, making the straightforward case to conservatives that he's the one they can trust." [watch video here]
Jennifer Rubin of The Washington Post: "A state party operative calls Santorum’s ground game “real, but it’s quiet.” He pegs Santorum’s support in the “low to mid-teens.” Well, ifthat is the case he could move up into the top few spots, becoming the “surprise” story that really wasn’t a surprise."
Des Moines Register blog: "The campaign of former U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum has sent a direct-mail piece of political to 60,000 households of likely Iowa caucusgoers in an effort to bolster his bid for the Republican presidential nomination. The piece touts the premise that Santorum won’t “surrender” on issues important to social conservatives."
The Iowa Republican: "Republican Presidential Candidate Rick Santorum released his first Iowa statewide TV advertisement, “Sing, Sing, Sing,” focusing on Senator Santorum’s commitment to traditional American values, his successes in fighting for conservative causes, and his commitment to protect America. This advertisement will begin airing across Iowa on Thursday." [watch video here]
David Catenese of Politico: "...Santorum has built up a committed base of voters who appear genuinely flattered by his willingness to visit and appeal across Iowa — to the point that he was introduced at an event Monday as the state’s “third senator.” Now, he says these people are on the verge of delivering a showing in the Iowa caucuses as surprising as his fourth-place finish in the Ames Straw Poll in August, proving that the fluctuations in the race have overlooked the core of support he’s built.
Barely half of US adults are currently married, a record low, and the continuing downward trend will result in less than half being married in just a few years, according to a study released Wednesday by the Pew Research Institute.
While the study did not examine reasons for the trend, several sociologists, cultural anthropologists, and others caution against judging the statistics superficially. They agree with the findings that many, non-romantic factors are at work – from economics to education and expanding the definition of marriage to merely delaying it – but say it would be incorrect to conclude that the institution is completely on the rocks.
Others say the decline of two-parent families with stable relationships bodes ill because it leads children to perform poorly at school, enter lives of drugs and crime, and have trouble with relationships throughout life.
Still, one social scientist sees some positive trends among the negative ones:
Galena Rhodes, senior researcher at the Center for Marital and Family Studies at the University of Denver, sees a very positive trend in young people waiting to get their act together before making the crucial decision to get married.
That there is a “rise in those young people who want to get more education and find the right partner to settle down with is a very encouraging piece of good news for this institution,” she says. She says the young people have looked at the growing number of divorces and don’t want to go down that road.
“The fact that kids do best when they grow up with both married parents is one of the strongest findings of psychology,” she says.
She would like to see relationship counseling be an education staple for youth well ahead of getting married. “Part of the reason that fewer are married is that they are waiting longer for the right reasons.”
Eugene Volokh, who runs the popular legal blog Volokh Conspiracy, writes about the situation of Tom Emmer and Hamline University:
If the university did indeed refuse to hire Emmer because of his views on same-sex marriage, that would be a very serious breach of traditional and sound academic freedom norms, and a sign that the Hamline business school is seeking to be an ideological cocoon — for its faculty and its students — rather than a place where debate and academic freedom are genuinely present and valued. Of course it would send a pretty poor message to its students, who would rightly wonder whether a faculty that does this to an appointments candidate would likewise retaliate against students who express unorthodox opinions. And naturally it would have an effect far beyond the question of same-sex marriage: Students and prospective family members who see an institution being willing to exclude someone who shares the same views as about half the country would likely worry even more that it would exclude or retaliate against people who have (certain kinds of) less popular views.
Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich pledged Thursday to push for a Constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.
The former U.S. House speaker was asked about the volatile issue at a campaign stop just hours before the GOP presidential debate here. Gingrich said amending the Constitution to define marriage as between man and woman would resolve legal conflicts created by judicial rulings and a patchwork of state laws.
Iowa, site of the first-in-the-nation caucuses, is among several states that have legalized same-sex marriage. Gingrich questioned whether those unions would be recognized if they moved to states with traditional marriage laws.
"We as a country have to sort this out, because we can't have 50 sets of rules," Gingrich told an audience of about 40 people at Luciano's restaurant, a few blocks from site of Thursday night's debate at the Sioux City Convention Center.
His comments came on the same day the National Organization for Marriage said Gingrich signed its anti-gay marriage pledge, which calls on candidates to advocate for a Constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage and to appoint a commission to investigate claims of supposed harassment against individuals who oppose marriage equality.
A LETTER signed by more than 70 of Scotland's largest evangelical churches will be handed over to St Andrew’s House today, opposing plans to introduce same sex marriage.
The event will be marked with a rally and backed by the campaign group Scotland For Marriage, which wants to maintain the traditional definition of marriage.
... "Our chief concern is that Scottish society will be the poorer if the definition of marriage is rewritten. Marriage is foundational and so much else rests upon it.
"You cannot radically alter the definition of marriage without it having knock-on effects on so much else in our society."
A Scottish Government consultation asking if marriage should be allowed for gay people through a civil or religious ceremony closed earlier this month after attracting more than 50,000 responses.
Dave Greatorex, of Scotland for Marriage said: "Once again we see how widespread the opposition to redefining marriage really is."
The authors came up with five qualities that happily married parents share. Moms were more likely to be happy in marriage if they had, in order:
Sexual satisfaction
Commitment
Generosity to husband, including small acts of service like making coffee for him in the morning, expressing affection, and being willing to forgive
Good attitude toward raising kids (i.e., she wanted them)
Social support from family and friends
The top five predictors for happily wed dads were the same, except for No. 5, which was a shared "marital spirituality"; e.g., the couple says God is at the center of their marriage. Other characteristics of a content couple included having a similar faith and sharing the chores. (My personal favorite sentence in the report: "[W]omen are more likely to report that they are sexually satisfied when they report that they share housework with their husbands."
Married life can be full of distractions. "Life Coach" Jim Fannin explains how focusing on your family at certain times can help build strong relationships:
"Faith in America" a North Carolina group which allegedly includes Christians committed to eliminating "faith-based bigotry" actually wants major corporations to fire people who oppose same-sex marriage:
“We want these two companies, who have been recognized as LGBT-friendly, to rethink their evaluation of Frank Turek,” Faith in America Executive Director Brent Childers said in a release on Wednesday. “Specifically, we want Bank of America and CISCO to publicly denounce the unique and very harmful stigma and hostility that Frank Turek endorses and promotes..."
Meanwhile, the gay press acknowledges NOM's role in getting the companies to adopt nondiscrimination policies towards people on all sides of the gay marriage debate:
Turek later teamed up with the anti-gay National Organization for Marriage and their new Marriage Anti-Defamation Alliance. In videos posted to NOM’s site and in action alerts emailed to supporters, Turek claimed he had been discriminated against solely because of his views on marriage.
The Thomas More Law Center filed a federal lawsuit yesterday afternoon against the Howell Public School District located in Howell, Michigan, and teacher, Johnson (“Jay”) McDowell, for punishment and humiliation heaped on a student after he expressed his religious belief opposing homosexuality when asked by the teacher during class. [copy of lawsuit]
The student, Daniel Glowacki, a junior at Howell High at the time of the incident, was specifically asked by McDowell about his feelings on homosexuals. Daniel responded that as a Catholic he was offended by the gay and lesbian lifestyle. Because of his answer, Daniel was ordered to leave the classroom under threat of suspension.
As news of the incident spread, homosexual activists across the country hailed McDowell as a hero and vilified Daniel and his family, as “bigots”, referring to Daniel’s religious objections to the homosexual agenda as “hate” speech. McDowell is head of the school’s teachers union. The Michigan Education Association, the state teachers’ union, supported McDowell’s actions.
National lesbian TV host, Ellen DeGeneres got in on the anti-Glowacki campaign. Daniel even became the subject of a school assembly.
The incident occurred on October 20, 2010, the day that Daniel’s Economics class teacher, Jay McDowell, wore a purple “Tyler’s Army” t-shirt, as part of a national campaign promoted by the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation to highlight alleged “bullying” of homosexuals.
A purposefully irreverent rewriting of the Twelve Days of Christmas produced by the Heidi Harris Show lampooning political correctness in the classroom:
Over at Public Discourse, Matthew Franck explains eight simple points which reveal the unexplained and self-contradicting positions of those pushing to discard our marriage tradition:
Earlier this year, I was part of a Constitution Day panel discussion on same-sex marriage at Rutgers University. With seven panelists in a 90-minute program (four in favor of same-sex marriage and three opposed), we were each given just a few minutes for opening statements. I decided to make ten short observations, each of which could prompt more discussion afterward. Below are eight of those observations. (I omit two of them that were narrowly focused on the title given to our forum.)
... I concluded, the destruction of marriage as an institution, its replacement by we-know-not-what, and a mortal blow struck at the religious freedom that our country has always prized, are prices too high to pay for this revolution in the law of marriage. The American people know this, and that’s why they’ve gone to the polls and defended marriage every time they’ve been asked. We should keep asking them, I said.
Really big news this morning: Newt Gingrich just signed onto to NOM's Marriage Pledge—leaving Ron Paul as the only major contender for the GOP nomination who has refused to do so.
Let's go to the good news first. Newt Gingrich has joined Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum, Rick Perry, and Michele Bachmann in committing to do five important things:
Support a federal marriage amendment, the only way to protect marriage.
Appoint an attorney general and Supreme Court justices who see marriage as the union of husband and wife.
Vigorously defend DOMA in court.
Appoint a presidential commission to investigate the increasing instances of threats to the person, property and livelihood of traditional marriage supporters.
Give back to the people of D.C. their right to vote for marriage, which the D.C. city government arbitrarily stripped from them.
Congrats to all the candidates who've shown they are willing to be marriage champions.
Now to the bad news: Ron Paul has dug in his heels, three weeks before Iowa holds its caucuses.
Last week, I mentioned that Paul's position on marriage is becoming increasingly hard to understand. Some of you Ron Paul fans (and I know he appeals to many social conservatives) wrote back to let me know how much you love the guy, and how hard you find it to believe that he is not really with us on the marriage issue.
Believe me, I understand. Ron Paul is a decent, honorable, and principled man who says a lot of things you and I agree with.
But I have to be an honest broker in this year's presidential contest, and I have to level with you and the press.
Ron Paul is just wrong on marriage.
It's not just that he refused to sign NOM's pledge. Ron Paul has refused to name one single thing he would do as President to prevent the courts from imposing gay marriage on all 50 states, including Iowa. He does not support the federal marriage amendment.
I'm not asking you to take my word on it. Here's the video where I ask him if he supports an FMA and he answers point blank, "no":
This is amazing given where we are today. Look, the idea that federal judges might overturn the will of the people of Iowa and other states isn't theoretical or hypothetical any more. A federal judge in California has already done it.
That case is now before the Ninth Circuit, which most people watching predict will issue a ruling in the next few weeks or months striking down Prop 8 and recognizing a federal right to gay marriage. Such a ruling would strike down the marriage amendments passed by votes of the people in Alaska, Arizona, Oregon, Idaho, and Montana, as well as laws defining marriage as one man and one woman in the states of Washington and Hawaii—all states under the jurisdiction of the Ninth Circuit.
The Ninth Circuit's decision will next go up to the Supreme Court. Advocates of gay marriage are now determined to ask the Court to impose gay marriage on every state, whether we like it or not.
Ron Paul says he's for states' rights on marriage, but he has been unwilling to champion the rights of the people of California, who are locked in a battle right now with federal courts which seek to impose gay marriage on them without their consent.
We need a president who is willing to be a champion for marriage, to go toe-to-toe with the liberal elites who call this grotesque misuse of the U.S. Constitution a new "civil right."
But it gets worse than that with Ron Paul.
Ron Paul has repeatedly said that while he personally supports traditional marriage, he doesn't have a problem with allowing gay marriage.
Here's Ron Paul in a December 2007 interview with John Stossel:
John Stossel: "Homosexuality. Should gays be allowed to marry?"
Ron Paul: "Sure."
You find that hard to believe? So did I. Here's the video and the full transcript to put Ron Paul's answer in context, to be absolutely fair to him:
John Stossel: "Homosexuality. Should gays be allowed to marry?"
Ron Paul: "Sure."
John Stossel: "The State says, we believe in this?"
Ron Paul: "Sure, they can do whatever they want and they can call it whatever they want, just so they don't expect to impose their relationship on somebody else. They can't make me, personally, accept what they do, but they, gay couples can do whatever they want. In fact, I'd like to see all governments out of the marriage question. I don't think it’s a state function. I think it's a religious function. There was a time when only churches dealt with marriage, and they determined what it was. But 100 years or so ago for health reasons they claim that the state would protect us if we knew more about our spouses and we did health testing and you had to get a license to get married and I don't agree with that."
Interviewer: "So your position on issues like gay marriage, you would be supportive of that?"
Ron Paul: "I'm supportive of all voluntary associations and people can call it whatever they want."
Why? Because nobody has the right to "impose their marriage standards" on anyone else.
When an interviewer brought up these 2007 comments at the May 5, 2011 presidential debate, Paul didn't disavow or modify them:
Moderator: "Congressman Paul, in 2007 in an interview you were asked, should gays be allowed to marry? You said 'Sure. They can do whatever they want and call it whatever they want.' Are you advocating legalizing gay marriage in this country?"
Ron Paul: "Well, as a matter of fact I spent a whole chapter in a new book I've written on marriage and I think it's very important, and seeing that I've been married for 54 years now, but I think the government should just be out of it. It should be done by the church or private contract. We shouldn't have this argument, who's married and who isn't married. I have my standards but I shouldn't have to impose my standards on others. Other people have their standards and they have no right to impose their marriage standards on me. And I just don't like it. But if we want to have something to say about marriage it should be at the state level and not at the federal government. Just get the government out of it. It's one area where it's totally unnecessary and they've caused more trouble than necessary."
I don't know about you, but when someone asks a presidential candidate if gays should be allowed to marry, and the first words out of his mouth are "sure," I don't want that man to be president. Nor do I want a president who "explains" that response by adopting a radical, anything-goes understanding of marriage.
Here's what Ron Paul says about marriage in his book Liberty Defined, published this year, on pages 119-120:
"Everyone can have his or her own definition of what marriage means, and if an agreement or contract is reached by the participants, it would qualify as a civil contract if desired."
...
"There should essentially be no limits to the voluntary definition of marriage," page 120.
Polygamy? Sharia law on marriage? Paul hasn't been asked about these but the logic of his position implies, "Sure, fine, any contract you want."
Decriminalizing prostitution? That also appears to be something Ron Paul maybe could support. Watch him here with Elliot Schrage, and here with John Stossel.
Then there's Ron Paul's gaffe where he claims the government only got involved in marriage "a hundred years or so ago" for "health reasons" (the Dec. 2007 interview above—a claim he's repeated on several occasions).
In truth, before America was even a nation, we had laws about marriage. Back in 1648, one of the earliest legal charters, the "Laws and Liberties of 1648" not only acknowledges marriage, it actually gives judges the power to order marriage if a man or woman commits what was then the crime of fornication. (No, you same-sex marriage activists, court-ordered marriage is NOT a NOM position!)
Most states recognized some form of common-law marriage for much of our history, so in that sense licenses were not "required" for marriage. But formal registrations of marriage, and government definition of who can and cannot get married, have been the law and the norm in America since our very beginning.
Harvard professor Nancy Cott is a pretty liberal marriage historian. She testified against Prop 8, in fact. But Nancy Cott knows that, as the description of her book Public Vows put it, "From the founding of the United States to the present day, imperatives about the necessity of marriage and its proper form have been deeply embedded in national policy, law, and political rhetoric. Legislators and judges have envisioned and enforced their preferred model of consensual, lifelong monogamy—a model derived from Christian tenets and the English common law."
The presidential candidate who says otherwise simply does not know very much about marriage. (What New York Times op-ed did Ron Paul borrow that false factoid from? I don't know, but maybe this November 2007 piece by by leftist marriage scholar Stephanie Coontz, "Taking Marriage Private." Prof. Coontz has long argued that children don't need a mom and a dad, and that family structure doesn't matter; it's far more surprising to see this meme picked up by a presidential candidate for the GOP nomination.)
Why is government involved in marriage? Because the public interest in responsible procreation is so overwhelming. That's why you can't just make up your own private marriage contract that says: no children allowed. You can't write into your marriage contract a private right to commit adultery, and you can't embed Sharia law into the marriage contract either.
Paul's vision would not only fail to support marriage from the courts, it would radically destabilize marriage by entirely privatizing it, embracing not only gay marriage contracts but any kind of contract two (or more?) people want to call a marriage.
He hasn't yet been pushed about where he would draw the line—but given his support for legalizing prostitution, I would not be comfortable making predictions. Ron Paul's vision of marriage—at least as he's stated it so far, repeatedly, in public—is: anything goes.
I don't know about you, but I do not want a president who opposes a federal marriage amendment, who offers nothing to stop courts from imposing gay marriage—or one who, when asked if gays should be allowed to marry, starts his answer with, "Sure."
Let me repeat: Ron Paul is admirable man in a lot of ways. He's more or less pro-life, he has been married for 54 years, and he's that rarest of things, an honest politician, standing up for what he believes in over the years.
But in all honesty I have to report to you: Ron Paul does not believe in defending marriage, as the union of one man and one woman, from the federal courts.
Ron Paul is not a marriage champion.
You and I know that marriage is the union of husband and wife for a reason: We need these unions because they are the only kind which can make new life and connect those babies to a mom and a dad, who love each other and their children.
The American people deserve a candidate able and willing to stand up for our faith and our values, especially on the hottest hot-button issue of our time: gay marriage.
What awaits us and our liberty if we do not find a champion?
Tom Emmer, who ran for governor of Minnesota, knows. The faculty of Hamline University just vetoed his appointment as a professor at the business school, according to press accounts, because he supported the right of the people to vote for Minnesota's marriage amendment.
More proof that champions of liberty in this day and age need to be champions of marriage.
Thank you for all you do to stand up for God's truth about marriage, in your homes and in the public square.
Thank you—I'm in awe of all that we've been able to accomplish together.
Yours, faithfully,
Brian S. Brown President National Organization for Marriage
P.S. Will you stand up for marriage today? When you give to NOM—whether you can give $20 or $200—you are making sure that your voice and your values will be heard in the corridors of power.
