NOM BLOG

Monthly Archives: March 2012

Marriage supporters need not apply...

Email Header Image

Dear Marriage Supporter,

He founded a successful law firm in his hometown of Delano, MN, just west of Minneapolis.

He spent six years in the Minnesota House of Representatives.

He won over 900,000 votes as the GOP candidate for Minnesota governor in 2010, losing to Mark Dayton by just four-tenths of one percentage point.

Tom Emmer's resume is hardly the resume of a radical extremist.

But his belief in marriage as the union of a husband and wife was just too much for Hamline University, where he was fired from his adjunct faculty position in the Hamline School of Business last fall.

Click here to watch Tom Emmer's story
in the latest Marriage ADA video!

 

NOM's Marriage ADA was created in 2011 to expose exactly this sort of blatant anti-marriage discrimination, bringing you the stories you will never hear in the mainstream news. Whether it's a town clerk forced to choose between her faith and her job, or foster parents denied children because of their religious beliefs, or a professor fired simply for beliefs which he holds—anti-marriage radicals have launched a campaign to paint marriage supporters as the equivalent of racist bigots, unfit for any position in the public sector.

But together we're fighting back. Click here to watch Tom's story and find out how you can help.

Piers Morgan Praises Kirk Cameron's Defense of Marriage and Morality as "Brave"

Piers Morgan has been asking every social conservative who comes on his CNN program about their views on gay marriage and homosexuality.

Kirk Cameron, the star of Growing Pains, does an excellent job of reminding Piers that he's imposing his own value judgement when he asks his leading questions.

In fact, when asked about the interview later, Piers praised Kirk for being "honest to what he believed" and "brave" for sticking to his beliefs.

Here's one of their exchanges in the interview:

Morgan: "Some people would say that telling kids that being gay is a sin or getting [gay] married is a sin, that in itself is incredibly destructive and damaging in a country where seven states have legalized it..."

Cameron: "You have to also understand that you yourself are using a standard of morality to say that telling people such-and-such of a behavior is sinful. You're using a standard of morality to make that statement and say that is terribly destructive. So everyone is going to have a standard against..."

Cameron's views are his own and he defends them admirably. Watch the full exchange for yourself:

Cameron defended his comments in a statement to ABC Tuesday:

I should be able to express moral views on social issues, especially those that have been the underpinning of Western civilization for 2,000 years — without being slandered, accused of hate speech, and told from those who preach ‘tolerance’ that I need to either bend my beliefs to their moral standards or be silent when I’m in the public square. -- The Daily Caller

Studies: Children Raised by Lesbians Not Problem-Free

CitizenLink:

Over the last few years, a few published studies have claimed that children raised by same-sex couples compare favorably to — and sometimes even better than — children raised by moms and dads on measures of self-esteem and academics.

Those studies, in turn, have served as fodder for a media campaign that two loving parents are all children really need.

But a closer look at the research, says Glenn T. Stanton, Focus on the Family’s director of family formation studies, shows there are quite a few problems associated with those studies — both in the way they were conducted and in what they reveal.

According to a study published late last year in the Archive of Sexual Behavior, girls raised by lesbian mothers are seven times more likely to consider a same-sex encounter, and twice as likely to identify as lesbian or bisexual than those raised by heterosexual parents. They are also seven times more likely to use “the “morning after” pill.

“We already know that girls who grow up without fathers are more likely to be sexually adventurous, and it has a lot to do with being fatherless,” Stanton explained. “Two lesbians can be the most loving moms in the world, but they can’t give a girl the kind of positive attention and other-gendered affirmation she needs from a dad.”

While girls raised by lesbians tend to be much more sexually experimental than their peers, boys tend to be more sexually reticent.

Telegraph's O'Neill: "Gay Marriage is Now the Issue Through Which the Elite Advertises its Superiority Over the Redneck Masses"

Brendan O'Neill of the UK Telegraph:

"...gay marriage is more a tool of the elite than it is a demand of the demos [populace]. The thing motoring the gay-marriage campaign, its political engine, is not any longstanding desire among homosexuals to get married or an active, passionate demand from below for the right of men to marry men and women to marry women. No, its driving force, the reason it has been so speedily and heartily embraced by the political and media classes, is because it is so very useful as a litmus test of liberal, cosmopolitan values. Supporting gay marriage has become a kind of shorthand way of indicating one’s superiority over the hordes, particularly those of a religious or redneck persuasion.

... The bizarre emptying-out of political debate from the issue of gay marriage, and its transformation instead into a clear-cut moral matter that separates the good from the bad, shows what its backers really get out of it – a moral buzz, a rush of superiority as they declare, to anyone who will listen, that they are For Gay Marriage. In this sense, supporting gay marriage has become less a declaration of truly democratic instincts and more a kind of provocation. In declaring your support for gay marriage, you can provoke both fusty old religionists and the backward masses into expressions of disagreement or disgruntlement, and then bask in the glow of your own superior, better-informed outlook.

This is the reason gay marriage has become so central to modern political debate in America and Britain, despite there being almost no societal drive or urge behind it – because it lends itself brilliantly to expressions of a very elitist sensibility. It allows the upper echelons of society both to distance themselves from the old and the thick and to advertise their own mental, cultural and moral superiority.

North Carolina University Rules Campus Club Not Christian Enough

The New American:

Christian organizations continue to be assaulted on college campuses across the nation. At the University of North Carolina-Greensboro, a Christian club is suing the school after it ruled that the group isn’t religious and so must allow students of other faiths — or no faith — to join and even be in leadership if it wants to receive university recognition.

The Alliance Defense Fund (ADF), which is representing the group “Make Up Your Own Mind,” pointed out that the university’s non-discrimination policy includes an exemption for student groups that require their members and leaders to embrace the same beliefs. The exemption states, “Student groups that select their members on the basis of commitment to a set of beliefs (e.g., religious or political beliefs) may limit membership and participation in the group to students who, upon individual inquiry, affirm that they support the group’s goals and agree with its beliefs.”

But when the Make Up Your Own Mind club applied for recognition under the exemption, university officials denied their request, insisting that the club is not sufficiently religious because it is “not affiliated with a church but rather a local non-profit organization.” But the ADF noted that the university’s qualifications for religious organizations do not require that they be affiliated with a church, and the school recognizes other religious organizations that have no church affiliation.

Additionally, noted the conservative legal advocacy group, the Christian club has a clear religious mission and purpose, and because of that requires its leaders to agree with its statement of faith and its overtly pro-life values.

Brunswick, NC Commissioners Vote to Support Marriage Protection Amendment

Local WECT 6 reports:

Brunswick County commissioners officially supported a proposed amendment to the state's constitution that would define marriage as between a man and a woman at their Monday night meeting.

A resolution supporting the Defense of Marriage Act was a part of the board's consent agenda, which the board approved as a whole.

... Jinny Quaglia said she believes in the commissioners approval tonight. She said the elected leaders did their job by voting in favor of the majority's opinion.

"Marriage should be between one man and one woman," said Quaglia, "and I think that most people agree with that."

All of North Carolina will decide if the Defense of Marriage Act and a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage is right for the state on May 8.

UK Telegraph's Stanley: Hollywood Trying to Make Gay Marriage Inevitable

The UK Telegraph's Tim Stanley on Hollywood trying to make gay marriage culturally inevitable as the legal and political attempts to redefine marriage falter:

104111751On Saturday night, Google and YouTube will be live-streaming the premier of “8,” a play about the federal trial that overturned a California law banning gay marriage. It’s based on court transcripts and purports to tell the objective truth, although its politics are pretty brazen. The play is written by the talented screenwriter Dustin Lance Black (Milk, J Edgar) and stars anyone who is anyone who ever voted Democrat – George Clooney, Brad Pitt, Martin Sheen, Jane Lynch, Kevin Bacon, Jamie Lee Curtis and what feels like the entire cast of Glee. This is how Hollywood thinks you can change hearts and minds – by putting on a show!Tinseltown’s methods have never changed, but its politics certainly have. Can you imagine Bob Hope in 1956 throwing a telethon for transgendered rights? “Pick up your phones, folks. All we need is another $10,000 and we can make every bathroom in Burbank unisex…”

Supporters of gay marriage have wisely moved away from trying to win by the ballot box; the proposition has been rejected by citizens in 31 referendums. Now activists prefer to pursue their demands through the judiciary or local legislatures. California was an example of the former, overturning the result of a popular vote that took place in 2008.

...Despite consistent public opposition, there is a growing sense of inevitability about gay marriage. And Hollywood should take credit, for beneath the political radar it has affected a cultural revolution. Turn on the TV in America and you are bombarded with images of homosexuality as a social norm. Shows that showcase gay characters include American Horror Story, 30 Rock, Modern Family, Being Human, Game of Thrones (yes, really), Broadwalk Empire, Law and Order, Downton Abbey and Southland. A significant number of these (including Glee, Vampire Diaries, Teen Wolf) are aimed at teenagers. Even the comic Archie featured a homosexual union in its latest edition. The result is that while adults huff and puff about the ethics of gay marriage, a lot of youngsters are growing up acculturated to it.

Hawaii Governor Refuses to Defend State Laws Protecting Marriage

CitizenLink explains how respect for the rule of law is also a casualty of the push for gay marriage under any means necessary:

On Thursday, the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) filed a brief asking permission to officially defend a Hawaii constitutional amendment on marriage and a state law defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

Gov. Neil Abercrombie has declared publicly that since he supports same-sex marriage, his administration won’t defend the law or the state constitution. Three people filed a lawsuit in January seeking to strike down the marriage-definition amendment, as well as another Hawaii law allowing homosexuals to enter into civil unions. According to the lawsuit, Jackson v. Abercrombie, civil unions granting same-sex couples all the rights and privileges of marriage aren’t enough.

Now, ADF — which represents the Hawaii Family Forum — is hoping for another court victory. The group was part of a team that was given the right to defend California’s marriage amendment, Prop. 8, when the state refused to do so.

AP: Same-Sex Custody Battle Could Redefine Legal Motherhood

The Associated Press:

A custody battle in Florida between two lesbians could fuel the growing national debate over the definition of motherhood.

... The women, now in their 30s and known in court papers only by their initials, were both law enforcement officers in Florida. One partner donated an egg that was fertilized and implanted in the other. That woman gave birth in 2004, nine years into their relationship.

But the Brevard County couple separated two years later, and the birth mother eventually left Florida with the child without telling her former lover. The woman who donated the egg and calls herself the biological mother finally tracked them down in Australia with the help of a private detective.

Their fight over the now 8-year-old girl is before the state Supreme Court, which has not announced whether it will consider the case. A trial judge ruled for the birth mother and said the biological mother has no parental rights under state law, adding he hoped his decision would be overturned.

... in a blistering dissent, Judge C. Alan Lawson said the trial judge got it right. A child can have only one mother, he wrote.

The court shouldn't recognize two mothers "unless we are also willing to invalidate laws prohibiting same-sex marriage, bigamy, polygamy or adult incestuous relationships on the same basis," Lawson said.

New Hampshire State Rep. David Bates on the Effort to Restore Marriage

The National Catholic Register interviews NH State Rep. David Bates on the effort to restore the real definition of marriage:

“We have, right now, an illegitimate definition of marriage in our state,” said Bates, the lead sponsor of a bill that would turn back the 2009 law that legalized same-sex “marriage” in his state. If the bill passes, it would mark the first time that a legislature will have reversed itself on the contentious issue.

The New Hampshire Legislature is expected to vote later this month on Bates’ bill, which appears to have enough support to pass the Republican-controlled state House and Senate. Gov. John Lynch, a Democrat who opposed same-sex “marriage” before reversing his position and signing the law in 2009, has vowed to veto the bill.

“I’m sure (the bill) will go to the governor. I’m sure he will veto it. We’ll deal with that when the time comes,” said Bates, adding that it was preliminary to speculate whether there is enough support in the legislature to override a veto.

... The Diocese of Manchester in New Hampshire has thrown its support behind Bates’ bill, though it would restore the civil unions that same-sex couples in New Hampshire received before the 2009 law. The diocese said the bill was an “incremental improvement” toward the goal of the “full restoration of justice” and urged Catholics to contact their local representatives.

Adam MacLeod: "The Rule of Law is the First Casualty in the Judicial Assault on Marriage."

Over at Public Discourse, Adam MacLeod, an Associate Professor at Faulkner University’s Thomas Goode Jones School of Law, argues that the rule of law and the legitimacy of the judicial branch are causalities in the push for courts to recognize a right to same-sex marriage:

... As Matthew Franck pointed out in Public Discourse, Judge Reinhardt’s decision rests upon an elision. In order to make the case appear as if it came within existing U.S. Supreme Court precedent, Judge Reinhardt treated the pronouncement of a simple majority of the judges of the California Supreme Court as if it were the state constitution itself. On Reinhardt’s logic, the California court’s decision, which Proposition 8 overruled, rendered Proposition 8 unconstitutional. Reinhardt thus reads the U.S. Constitution to prevent citizens from overruling state supreme court decisions that they believe are errant. This is a novel theory indeed.

As one supporter of same-sex marriage has observed, Reinhardt’s argument is dishonest. Indeed, Judge Reinhardt’s decision has earned criticism even from those who support the result he reached. It is not difficult to see why. Supporters of same-sex marriage are not content with mere rulings in their favor. They understandably want to see courts make principled rulings in their favor. (It is interesting to note in passing that scholars who hope for legal recognition of same-sex marriage also cannot agree on any principled ground for that position. If the case for same-sex marriage is inexorably entailed in some provision of law, then one would expect it to appear obvious to those who are most inclined to find it persuasive.)

No one should want to see the judicial branch sacrifice its legitimacy for any cause, let alone in an attack upon a foundational institution of public life. The rule of law is the first casualty in the judicial assault on marriage.

David vs. The Establishment

Email Header Image

Dear Marriage Supporter,

If you've been reading the newspapers or watching the evening news, you already know what we're up against:

  • President Obama

  • HHS Secretary Kathleen Sibelius

  • Governor Perdue

  • Lt. Governor Dalton

  • Senator Hagan

  • Representatives Renee Ellmers, David Price and Brad Miller

Even the NAACP and 75 corporate CEOs—and they're all urging North Carolinians to vote against marriage on May 8th. Couple that with the mountains of cash from out-of-state radicals and the expected advertising blitz coming from opponents of the Marriage Protection Amendment, and we have our work cut out for us.

Sometimes it feels like David vs. Goliath.

Political leaders, business leaders, and even a few religious leaders have all rejected God's truth about marriage. But at the end of the day, it's not about a handful of giants and their assault on marriage. It's about ordinary citizens like you and me, and what we know to be true.

In two months, when voters go to the polls, every person gets one vote. We can lose only if we fail to step up to the challenge and engage the battle. Victory is within reach, but we can't sit back and expect others to win the battle for us.

Will you stand up against Goliath today?

Donate now

Even as David rejected the traditional trappings of war, he did not go to battle against Goliath empty-handed. He still took 5 smooth stones and a sling.

Marriage Supporter, your gift today is a "smooth stone" that will help to ensure we have the resources to win this battle, with God's help. We don't have to match our opponents dollar for dollar—but we can't win empty-handed, either.

Please make your most generous gift of $50, $100 or even $1000 or more today. Every dollar counts—and more importantly, it's your support that will help make the difference in these final two months.

We have just two more days to reach our goal of raising $100,000 for marriage in North Carolina. And every dollar raised for the Vote for Marriage NC campaign before midnight tomorrow will be matched dollar for dollar with a gift from NOM's general funds.

Have you answered the call? Please do whatever you can right now.

Then tell a friend about this important fight to defend the truth about marriage.

With God's help, we know who wins in the end!

Judicial Analyst Suggests Why Olson and Boies Are Scared of a Ninth Circuit Rehearing ... and SCOTUS

Bruce Hausknecht, judicial analyst for CitizenLink, explains why the legal case for gay marriage is, contrary to what we often hear, on very shaky ground, and why Olson and Boies know it:

Last week, the proponents of Prop 8 asked for an “en banc” re-hearing of the decision rendered by a three-judge 9th Circuit panel last month, authored by the ultra-liberal Judge Stephen Reinhardt. In a response filed this week, the lawyers for the homosexual couples who brought the case have asked the 9th Circuit to deny the request for a rehearing.

The brief submitted by pro-gay marriage attorneys Ted Olson and David Boies for the most part does what you’d expect: It argues that a re-hearing is unnecessary because the decision rendered by the three-judge panel (which upheld the August 2012 trial court decision striking down Prop 8 ) was correct.

But the part of the brief I find remarkable begins on page 13, in the section labeled: III. REHEARING MAY REQUIRE THE COURT TO REACH ALTERNATIVE GROUNDS FOR AFFIRMANCE ADDRESSED IN THE DISTRICT COURT OPINION. In that section, Olson and Boies warn the 9th Circuit that should it agree to the re-hearing, it may have to look at and address all of the other issues that were raised by Olson and Boies in the case from the beginning, but which the three-judge panel ended up not addressing. Since the two super-lawyers have been arguing those issues since the case began, it seems odd that they would now warn the entire court that possibly having to address them would be a bad thing.

Of course, there’s strategy in all this. Though I’m not privy to the thought processes of Olson and Boies, I assume they’re sending a message to the other liberal judges on the 9th Circuit – to stand down. Every judge on the 9th Circuit is aware that any Reinhardt opinion is fodder for a Supreme Court reversal. There likely are several other sympathetic liberals on the larger court willing to grant a re-hearing just to write a new opinion – without Reinhardt’s name on it. Even though that would make it less radioactive to the Supreme Court, I believe Olson and Boies don’t want the case to end up there any more...

... For those or perhaps other reasons, it would seem that the legal strategy from Olson and Boies has become a lot more cautious in the Prop 8 case.

Bishops of England & Wales Plan to Rally 1 Million+ Catholics for Marriage

The UK Telegraph on a massive showing of support for marriage in the UK:

The Roman Catholic Church is planning to enlist the support of more than a million regular worshippers in opposition to Government plans for same-sex marriage.

Senior bishops are preparing to draw up a letter to be read at Masses across England and Wales when the Government consultation on plans to redefine marriage gets under way later this month, it is understood.

It would be only the second time in recent history that a joint pastoral letter on behalf of all Catholic bishops in England and Wales has been issued on an issue of political importance.

Meanwhile the Sun reports:

an e-petition opposing gay marriage is expected to hit 100,000 signatures this week — which would trigger a Commons debate on the issue.

Coalition of Marriage spokesman Colin Hart — who started the petition — said: "This shows how many people care about marriage.

"Those who signed the petition come from all walks of life — religious and non-religious — and are all united by their support for the traditional definition of marriage."

Senior British Catholic on Move to Redefine Marriage: "We Cannot Afford to Indulge this Madness"

Cardinal O’Brien is President of the Bishops’ Conference of Scotland in the UK Telegraph:

...Since all the legal rights of marriage are already available to homosexual couples, it is clear that this proposal is not about rights, but rather is an attempt to redefine marriage for the whole of society at the behest of a small minority of activists.

Redefining marriage will have huge implications for what is taught in our schools, and for wider society. It will redefine society since the institution of marriage is one of the fundamental building blocks of society. The repercussions of enacting same-sex marriage into law will be immense.

But can we simply redefine terms at a whim? Can a word whose meaning has been clearly understood in every society throughout history suddenly be changed to mean something else?

If same-sex marriage is enacted into law what will happen to the teacher who wants to tell pupils that marriage can only mean – and has only ever meant – the union of a man and a woman?

Will that teacher’s right to hold and teach this view be respected or will it be removed? Will both teacher and pupils simply become the next victims of the tyranny of tolerance, heretics, whose dissent from state-imposed orthodoxy must be crushed at all costs?