NOM BLOG

Monthly Archives: March 2012

Minnesota Church Loses 3/4 of Its Members For Abandoning Marriage

The left-leaning Religion News Service tries to create sympathy for a Minnesota pastor that lost most of his congregation over abandoning the great truth of marriage, even as the pastor maligns his predominantly African-American flock for "homophobia":

A small Minnesota church is finding out the high cost of standing up for same-sex equality — as well as an unexpected lifeline from the very people it decided to support.

When the Rev. Oliver White voted in favor of the United Church of Christ’s endorsement of same-sex marriage in 2005, 72 percent of his predominantly African-American flock at Grace Community United Church in St. Paul couldn’t stand with him.

The UCC’s 2005 vote, he said, was “the beginning of the end of many UCC churches.” Predominantly black churches like his suffered the most, he said, because the black community “was, and still is, very homophobic.”

Because of White’s vote, his church developed a reputation of being a “gay church” and people stopped coming. And stopped giving.

Brian Brown Responds to New Talking Points for SSM: "Our Messaging Hasn't Changed Because It's Based on Truth and Reality"

The Los Angeles Times notes that gay marriage activists have been forced to significantly revise the script they use to argue for redefining marriage:

The message "used to be one that focused on rights, parity in benefits," said Fred Sainz, vice president of communications and marketing for the Human Rights Campaign, a national gay rights group based inWashington, D.C.

Since about 2008, Sainz said, same-sex marriage activists have begun "talking about love, honor and commitment."

The emphasis on family and love was prompted, in part, by two dispiriting defeats for same-sex marriage advocates at the ballot box.

Our President Brian Brown, meanwhile, explains why NOM has never had to change its message:

"Our messaging hasn't changed because it's based on truth and reality," said Brian S. Brown, president of the National Organization for Marriage. "It's not that complicated. You don't need sophisticated talking points to present a common-sense truth."

Dan Rivoli: Same-Sex Marriage Supporters Crashing the Democrats' Party

Dan Rivoli in the International Business Times:

As Democrats continue to etablish same-sex marriage in states across the U.S., one group advocating for nationwide marriage equality says it is time to make it official: put same-sex marriage on the party platform.

"The Democratic Party at its best is a leader in standing against all forms of discrimination. And support for the freedom of gay couples to marry is a natural next step," said Marc Solomon, national campaign director for Freedom to Marry, a New York-based advocacy group.

... Even if Obama is still evolving, the next generation of Democratic leaders preparing for the national stage -- New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, Maryland's O'Malley, Washington's Gregiore and Gov. John Lynch of New Hampshire -- are full-throated supporters of same-sex marriage, with the achievements to prove it.

... As Freedom to Marry continues to reach out to bold-faced names, Solomon says there will be a focus on those down the Democratic food chain who will fill the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte, N.C.'s Time Warner Cable Arena.

"The Democratic Party is a democratic institution and there is going to be a platform committee that's going to work together to devise a platform," Solomon said. "We're going to participate every step of the way."

WSJ Law Blog: New Hampshire GOP Looks To Roll Back Same-Sex Marriage Law

Sam Favate at the Wall Street Journal's Law Blog:

There’s been a flurry of activity on same-sex marriage lately, with Washington becoming the seventh state permitting it, the New Jersey legislature approving it despite a veto threat from the governor, the Ninth Circuit ruling the California same-sex marriage ban to be unconstitutional, and Maryland poised this week to be the eighth state to make it legal.

Now, some lawmakers in New Hampshire want to be the first in the nation to go the other way. A bill to repeal the state’s same-sex marriage law appears to have a chance at passing both houses of the state legislature, the New York Times reported. Gov. John Lynch, a Democrat, has promised to veto such a bill, but Republicans have veto-proof majorities in the New Hampshire House and Senate. If the repeal overcame a veto, it would mark the first time a legislature overturned a same-sex marriage law.

The bill, which can be seen here, would define marriage as “the legally recognized union of one man and one woman.”

... A vote in the N.H. House would have to happen by March 29, which is when legislation must be sent to the state Senate. Rep. David Bates, who introduced the bill last year after Republicans took control of the legislature, said the bill would be changed to make more members happy with it.

New Jersey Supreme Court Asks: Who is the Legal Mother of Child Born Through Surrogacy?

Law.com:

In a case that puts New Jersey again in the forefront of reproductive rights, the state Supreme Court heard arguments Thursday on whether an infertile wife should be recognized as the legal mother of her husband's biological child born to a surrogate gestational carrier from a donated egg.

... Deputy Attorney General Kimberly Jenkins defended the current process, saying that when a gestational carrier is introduced, a third party with rights is brought into the picture.

She said that under the Artificial Insemination Act, the sperm donor remains anonymous and has no voice in how his donation is used.

"Here, it's completely different," Jenkins said. "You have the introduction of a third party" who carries the child for nine months.

Chief Justice Stuart Rabner again noted that an infertile father is automatically treated as the father on the birth certificate, even though he has no biological connection to the child.

"We're not dealing with the same situation," Jenkins said. "The baby [created with donated sperm] is actually being born within the marriage. Here we have a third party who does have rights."

Abp. of Canterbury to World Council of Churches: Government Has No Right to Redefine Marriage

Christian Concern UK:

The Archbishop of Canterbury has stated that the Government has no right to legalise same-sex marriage, and that issues regarding homosexual rights should be “addressed at the level of culture rather than law.”

In a statement to the World Council of Churches in Geneva, Dr Rowan Williams commented that the legalisation of homosexual marriage would impose an unwanted re-definition of marriage on the whole of society, and that the law on human rights fell “short of a legal charter to promote change in institutions.”

He added: ‘If it is said that a failure to legalise…... same-sex marriage – perpetuates stigma or marginalisation for some people, the reply must be, I believe, that issues like stigma and marginalisation have to be addressed at the level of culture rather than law.’

Abp. Nienstedt Fights the Attempt to Redefine Marriage in Minnesota

Barb Ernster of the National Catholic Register sits down for a Q&A with Archbishop John Niendsted:

How do you address the claim that the Church is getting too political and detracting from its spiritual mission?

What is more central to the spiritual mission of the Church than fostering good, healthy marriages between husbands and wives and ministering to the varied challenges that they and their children face in their family life?

We have to remember, too, as the Holy Father has been reminding us of late, that the Church’s work in the public square contributes to the New Evangelization. It is not just the Church “doing politics,” but instead, constitutes her perennial task of forming consciences, promoting justice and announcing truths that are written on the human heart. In this way, we also point to the source of those truths — the eternal Word who has written them into the fabric of our human nature.

Unfortunately, it has become quite apparent, especially with the issue of the health-care insurance mandate, that there are forces desiring to exclude the voice of religion from the public square. Let’s be clear — that is discrimination.

In addition, I would say that we are not forcing our viewpoint on anyone. The point of rational inquiry and public debate is to arrive at the truth. Our view is that there cannot be one understanding of the human person for people of faith and another for people without faith. There can only be one, true understanding of the human person. Proposing those truths is the Church’s contribution to the discussion.

CitizenLink: Study Shows Social Value of Monogamy

Karla Dial at CitizenLink:

When it comes to marriage and family structure, there’s a good reason nearly every modern society has encouraged monogamy as the accepted norm: Because it’s good for society.

So says a new multidisciplinary study published in Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, the world’s longest-running scientific journal, established in 1665. Though polygamy has existed throughout history — and is still accepted in some pockets of the world — a team of authors working in the fields of anthropology, economics and psychology write that it doesn’t benefit children, women, individuals or cultures the way married monogamous relationships do.

... According to the study, monogamy yields four primary benefits:

1) It reduces crime. Numerous studies show that when they’re married, men are 35 percent less likely to commit crimes, and 50 percent less likely to commit violent crimes. The same cannot be said of polygamous cultures — or countries where men outnumber women. In China, for example, the overall crime rate doubled between 1988 and 2004 as the number of males outpaced that of females.

2) Monogamy leads to gender equality. In monogamous societies, women are generally considered equal partners in the relationship. But as the number of wives grows, the power of each in the relationship decreases.

3) Monogamy reduces household conflict. Research shows children raised in polygamous homes face far less household stability — and more conflict and violence — than those raised in monogamous relationships. As one author pointed out, “living in the same household with genetically unrelated adults [not counting adoption] is the single biggest risk factor for abuse, neglect and homicide of children.”

4) Monogamy improves children’s well-being through greater paternal investment. The more wives and children a man has, the less time he has available to spend with each of them. Even though men in modern polygamous societies tend to be wealthier, their children suffer from poorer nutrition and lower survival rates than those in monogamous households.

"Love Isn’t Enough: 5 Reasons Why Same-Sex Marriage Will Harm Children"

Dr. Trayce L. Hansen is a licensed psychologist with a clinical and forensic practice:

Proponents of same-sex marriage believe the only thing children really need is love. Based on that supposition, they conclude it’s just as good for children to be raised by loving parents of the same sex, as it is to be raised by loving parents of the opposite sex. Unfortunately, that basic assumption—and all that flows from it—is false. Because love isn’t enough!

All else being equal, children do best when raised by a married mother and father. It’s within this environment that children are most likely to be exposed to the emotional and psychological experiences they need in order to thrive.

Men and women bring diversity to parenting; each makes unique contributions to the rearing of children that can’t be replicated by the other. Mothers and fathers simply are not interchangeable. Two women can both be good mothers, but neither can be a good father.

So here are five reasons why it’s in the best interest of children to be raised by both a mother and a father:

... First, mother-love and father-love—though equally important—are qualitatively different and produce distinct parent-child attachments.

... Secondly, children progress through predictable and necessary developmental stages.

... Third, boys and girls need an opposite-sexed parent to help them moderate their own gender-linked inclinations.

... Fourth, same-sex marriage will increase sexual confusion and sexual experimentation by young people.

... And fifth, if society permits same-sex marriage, it also will have to allow other types of marriage.

Certainly homosexual couples can be just as loving as heterosexual couples, but children require more than love. They need the distinctive qualities and the complementary natures of a male and female parent.

The accumulated wisdom of over 5,000 years has concluded that the ideal marital and parental configuration is composed of one man and one woman. Arrogantly disregarding such time-tested wisdom, and using children as guinea pigs in a radical experiment, is risky at best, and cataclysmic at worst.

Same-sex marriage definitely isn’t in the best interest of children. And although we empathize with those homosexuals who long to be married and parent children, we mustn’t allow our compassion for them to trump our compassion for children. In a contest between the desires of some homosexuals and the needs of all children, we can’t allow the children to lose.

Read her full article here.

YNN Video: Same-Sex Marriage Vote Could Hurt Senate Republicans

Your News Now adds to the outlets reporting the post-SSM woes of the four flip-flopping Republican senators in New York:

Their votes in favor of same-sex marriage garnered them praise and campaign cash from advocates. But two of the four Republican senators who broke ranks and voted for the law are now facing challenges from their right flank.

Assemblyman Steve McLaughlin, a Republican from the Capital Region, is gearing up to face Senator Roy McDonald. Senator Mark Grisanti, a Buffalo freshman, lost the coveted endorsement last week of the Erie County Conservative Party.

...McLaughlin, who said Wednesday in telephone interview that he was planning to make a decision on the race soon, is picking up support from the Saratoga County GOP establishment.

It's a potentially troubling development for Senate Republicans, who hold a narrow 32 to 29 majority. But lobbyists opposed to gay marriage said the opposition to the incumbents is more complicated than just their yes votes.

"Particular with Senator McDonald it's an issue of really a flip flop on tax increases, there's been some union issues there that Republican voters are concerned about. In Buffalo with Grisanti it's a question of integrity. People there are saying if you can't trust him on the vote for same-sex marriage, what can you trust him on," said Rev. Jason McGuire, from NYers For Constitutional Freedoms.

Maggie Gallagher on Maryland SSM: "Democrat Leaders Looking to Please Big Money Constituencies"

The Baltimore Sun interviewed NOM co-founder Maggie Gallagher briefly about same-sex marriage in Maryland:

Opponents nationally are also keeping an eye on Maryland. National Organization for Marriage founder Maggie Gallagher said the Old Line State is the one she's "least worried about." She said voters in Maryland will see the same-sex marriage bill as an example of "Democratic leaders looking to please one of their big-money constituencies."

And, she said, opponents have defeated same-sex marriage bills every time they've gone to referendum. "There is no big call for this among voters," she said.

Several powerful local opposition forces joined Wednesday to push the drive to gather the 56,000 signatures needed to put the Maryland same-sex marriage law on the ballot. The coalition includes the Maryland Marriage Alliance, which is a group of mostly African-American ministers, the Maryland Catholic Conference and MDPetitions.com, an organization headed by Del. Neil Parrott, a Western Maryland Republican.

Maryland's Board of Elections approved the groups' proposed petition form Wednesday, the first step before they can start collecting signatures.

McCoy, of the Maryland Marriage Alliance, said the organizers are focused and motivated. The groups will be training volunteers next week and will be in churches gathering signatures by next Sunday, McCoy said.

Gay rights advocates acknowledge that they haven't had success nationally at the ballot box...

Stop the Sneak Attack on Marriage in North Carolina!

Email Header Image

Dear Marriage Supporter,

I'll keep this short, but the need in North Carolina is urgent.

We've just learned that gay marriage supporters in North Carolina have been stockpiling mountains of cash.

It's looking almost certain that in the final days before the election, they will launch an all-out air war, blanketing North Carolina TV and radio with ads full of lies and misinformation about the Marriage Protection Amendment—using scare tactics to maximum effect before we have a chance to respond.

It's a bold strategy—but we can't let it succeed. And the only way we can fight back is if we have the resources to get our message out to voters. In a fair fight, the truth will prevail—but without the resources to mount an aggressive ad campaign of our own, it won't be a fair fight.

Please, we need to start purchasing air time very soon. Please make your most generous gift directly to the Vote for Marriage NC campaign right now. Whether it's $50 or $500—or perhaps even $5000 or more for some of you—your gift is critical. Please click here to donate right now.

Donate now

If our opponents were to steal victory in North Carolina, it would be devastating for the cause of marriage nationwide—and they know it.

Thank you for standing with us.

AP on HRC's New President Chad Griffin

The Associated Press:

A political strategist from California who has played a leading role in trying to overturn the state's same-sex marriage ban was named Friday as the new president of the Human Rights Campaign, the nation's largest gay rights lobbying and education group.

The Washington-based campaign's directors voted to hire Chad Griffin, 38, to replace outgoing president Joe Solmonese, who announced last year that he would step down after seven socially transformative and sometimes internally stormy years at the organization's helm.

... With annual revenues of about $40 million and a staff of 150, the Human Rights Campaign is recognized in Washington as the nation's most influential gay rights group. President Barack Obama has twice spoken at its annual fundraising dinner, and the organization claims credit for a host of gay rights advances that have taken place under Obama's watch, from the passage of a law making violence against gays a federal hate crime to new rules guaranteeing same-sex partners hospital visitation rights.

But HRC also has been criticized within the gay rights movement for being too cautious and representing only the interests of financially well-off gays. Solmonese was heavily criticized in 2007, for example, when the group agreed to support a congressional bill that would have extended job and housing protections to gay men and lesbians but not transgender people.

Freedom to Marry Files for SSM Referendum in Ohio

With this move, perhaps gay marriage activists will finally drop their complaint that putting marriage to a vote of the people is wrong? This makes the second state they are doing so, after all (Maine was the first):

A proposed constitutional amendment to undo Ohio’s 2004 same-sex marriage ban will be submitted today to Attorney General Mike DeWine.

The Freedom to Marry Coalition expects to file more than 1,700 signatures of registered Ohio voters; 1,000 valid signatures are required in the first step of placing a constitutional issue before Ohio voters this fall or possibly next year.

The proposal would change the Ohio Constitution — amended in 2004 to block same-sex marriage — to say that the state and political jurisdictions define marriage as “a union of two consenting adults, regardless of gender.”

... Phil Burress, of the Cincinnati-based group Citizens for Community Values, said that if same-sex marriage supporters put the issue on the ballot this fall “they can kiss (President Barack) Obama goodbye.” Burress’ group was instrumental in passing the 2004 amendment defining marriage as between a man and woman, an issue credited by some with helping President George W. Bush to win a second term.

“I guess they’re feeling their oats because seven states have same-sex marriage,” Burress said. “ They’re going to have their hands full. We’re prepared to meet them on the field of battle.” -- The Columbus Dispatch

Tom Minnery: CO Civil Unions "Unnecessary and Risky"

In the Denver Post, Tom Minnery of Focus on the Family argues that civil unions are proving to be a slippery slope to redefining marriage:

... Proponents argue that civil unions are no threat to the state's constitutional amendment defining marriage. All one has to do is look to the west to see that's not the case. In 2010, a federal judge ruled that California's attempt to grant civil union-like benefits to same-sex couples created a "second-class citizenship" — and he ordered same-sex marriage as the way to fix the "problem" despite California's state marriage amendment which is virtually identical to Colorado's. That's the same "problem" civil unions would create in Colorado, taking the definition of marriage out of the hands of the people and inviting a federal court challenge like California's.

Every time a state has passed civil unions, demands to the legislature or the courts from gay activists to legalize same-sex marriage have followed — every time. To say civil unions are not about marriage is to disregard these facts.

Colorado voters already rejected a ballot referendum virtually identical to the civil union bill when they voted down Referendum I in 2006. Alongside Ref I on the ballot that year was Amendment 43, which defined marriage as one man and one woman. Voters said yes to marriage and no to domestic partnerships because it represented a counterfeit to marriage, just like the pending civil union bill.