...anyone wishing to make the case against same-sex marriage must do so rationally. Calling its advocates rude names, or deriding their arguments, would simply weaken the case.
This view is plainly not shared by Lynne Featherstone, the Lib Dem MP who is Equalities Minister. She said the opposition expressed by prominent Christians to same-sex marriage was ‘homophobic’ and belonged in ‘the Dark Ages’. She singled out as ‘medieval’ the use of the term ‘heretic’ by a cleric to describe those advocating a change in the law.
Miss Featherstone said her own views were, by contrast, ‘progressive’ and the Government’s policy was ‘loving’.
Such blinkered intransigence — indeed, I would go so far as to call it bigotry — does not bode well for the free, pluralistic society that liberals claim to believe in. And it makes a mockery of their much-vaunted virtue of ‘tolerance’.
The truth is that a predominantly Conservative government is pursuing a social policy that is being driven by the minority Lib Dems.
The New Jersey Supreme Court heard oral argument on March 1 in a surrogate-mother suit, The Matter of the Parentage of a Child by T.J.S. and A.L.S., and in so doing, exposed the case's greatest weakness.
The class of women with the greatest rights at risk was unrepresented. While the parties and the Court pondered whether the justices could change statutory law, or declare it unconstitutional, the central issue was whether and when the fundamental constitutional liberty interests and state's rights of the unrepresented legal mothers could be terminated.
The birth mothers were not heard from. Of such stuff, bad law is made.
... The wife in T.J.S. seeks to cut off the rights of the legal mother, which are protected as an intrinsic fundamental right under the state and federal constitutions. The sperm donor, on the other hand, has no rights statutory or constitutional. T.J.S.'s wife has no rights either, by statute or either constitution.
The fact that the state does not recognize rights in an anonymous sperm donor who has no statutory or constitutional rights and who has no relationship with the child, does not compel the state to terminate the rights of a mother who has statutory and constitutional rights in the relationship she has with the child she carried for nine months under concepts of equal protection.
The two are simply NOT similarly situated. That was the conclusion of the Baby M Court.
The sad irony of T.J.S.'s argument is that it is made in the name of women's rights, while attempting to destroy well-established constitutional rights of women who went unrepresented.
Just about every major faith group has condemned the plan to redefine marriage at this point:
"...the Muslim Council of Britain said case for the government’s proposals was “strikingly weak”.
Farooq Murad, Secretary General of the MCB, said: “Whilst we remain opposed to all forms of discrimination, including homophobia, redefining the meaning of marriage is in our opinion unnecessary and unhelpful.
“With the advent of civil partnerships, both homosexual and heterosexual couples now have equal rights in the eyes of the law.
“Therefore, in our view the case to change the definition of marriage, as accepted throughout time and across cultures, is strikingly weak.
In common with other Abrahamic faiths, marriage in Islam is defined as “a union between a man and a woman”, he said. “So while the state has accommodated for gay couples, such unions will not be blessed as marriage by the Islamic institutions.” -- UK Telegraph
A Sikh peer and a senior rabbi added their voices to protests by Anglican and Catholic bishops against the Coalition’s plans to allow homosexuals to marry.
Lord Singh, head of the Network of Sikh Organisations, and Rabbi Yitzchak Schochet, who advises the Chief Rabbi on family issues, accused the Coalition of launching an “assault” on religious values.
Their intervention came as Reg Bailey, David Cameron’s adviser on family issues, said the reforms risk leading to polygamy and even marriage between siblings.
Lord Singh said the plans would “dilute” the definition of marriage in religious scriptures. He told The Sunday Telegraph he would vote against the legislation in the Lords.
He said: “It’s being changed and for no real gain because the law rightly gives every respect to a civil partnership. It is more of a sideways assault on religion, that 'we can dilute your beliefs and values’, and I find that concerning.”
Kaldi's Coffee. Caribou Coffee. Tim Horton's. Or better yet, a local family-owned coffee shop in your own neighborhood.
Where do you buy your coffee?
When Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz announced that advocacy of same-sex marriage was core to the company's mission and identity, he gave American consumers a choice: pay for Starbucks lobbying in support of same-sex marriage every time you buy a cup of coffee, or find another coffee shop.
I don't want a single dime of my money to be used to push same-sex marriage on the American people. And I suspect a lot of you feel the same way—and that's why we started DumpStarbucks.com.
Individually, there's not much you or I can do to make the coffee giant pay attention to our concerns, but if thousands of us join together we can send them a message: Alienating your customers is bad for business!
I hope you'll visit DumpStarbucks.com today. There you can sign a petition urging Starbucks to respect the beliefs of all their customers, and then contact your local Starbucks locations to let them know why you'll be going elsewhere for your coffee from now on.
Perhaps the most important thing you can do today is this:
Make sure your friends and family know about Starbucks' campaign against marriage.
Invite your friends to join you in making a point to support local family coffeehouses. Go to DumpStarbucks.com and post to your Facebook page. Find out if your church is serving Starbucks coffee this weekend.
There are a hundred different ways you can make a difference. Let's be creative, and together send Starbucks a message!
On Tuesday I was in Des Moines, Iowa, where a huge rally took place to try to push Democratic Senate leader Mike Gronstal to permit a marriage amendment to come up for a vote.
Family Leader, along with NOM and CatholicVote.org, hosted the rally—called the "LUV Iowa rally"—(LUV=Let Us Vote!) at the Capitol.
Family Leader has up a photo of me, along with a crowded room of Iowans wearing red shirts who came to say, "Marriage matters and let the people vote!"
It was an amazing and energizing experience—especially meeting the young people. A teenager, maybe 14 or 15 years old came up to me. He had brown hair, brown glasses, and a red LUV-Iowa shirt on.
"I just want you to know how excited I am and so thankful to be here today. This is very important—we have to let people know how important protecting marriage is! Thank you!" he told me.
This teenage boy said it was a message for me, but really his thanks is for you—you are the people who make what NOM does possible.
In New York on Tuesday there was a special election for the seat of flip-flopping state Senator Carl Krueger. This was a race that was supposed to be easy for the Democrats. A shoo-in for Lew Fidler.
"Most people from the get-go thought Fidler's a shoo-in," Community Board 15 chair Theresa Scavo admitted to the New York Daily News.
"It's a bad omen," said Sen. Diane Savino (D-Staten Island). "We should not be having to compete for races in Brooklyn. It's the most Democratic county in the state."
From Capital New York:
"On paper, the race wasn't supposed to be this close. Fidler is a three-term Democratic councilman and Storobin is a 33-year-old attorney and first-time candidate for public office. According to the state Board of Elections, the district has 89,670 registered Democrats, compared to 26,994 Republicans."
This district is one of the most Democratic in the state of New York—-and yet as I write Republican pro-marriage newcomer David Storobin appears to have beaten Democrat Lew Fidler.
It's close. Very close. Storobin is leading by less than 200 votes, with absentee ballots yet to be counted.
But already the political establishment is rocking—and there is no way to deny that Fidler's support for gay marriage hurt him badly here.
"This is one community where these kinds of concerns, whether they're real concerns or exploited concerns, they apparently have some legs," admitted Bob Liff, a Democratic political consultant.
NOM invested in robocalls and advertisements, especially in the heavily orthodox Jewish sections, making sure voters knew that Lew Fidler supports gay marriage.
As I told the press, "One thing is certain—supporting same-sex marriage is a loser. This election marks the second consecutive one where a supporter of same-sex marriage was defeated. We have avenged Carl Kruger's despicable vote for same-sex marriage."
In a historic partnership, NOM teamed with the Orthodox Jewish community in Brooklyn in support of Storobin. We spent more than $25,000 on independent expenditures and ads which ran in every major Orthodox Jewish publication in the area, an automated call within the district from Rabbi Eliyahu Brog of Mirrer Yeshiva, and a direct-mail piece.
I have to express particular appreciation to Joseph Hayon, president of the Brooklyn Tea Party, for Hayon's outstanding grassroots leadership during Storobin’s campaign.
This is really a historic occasion for us at NOM and for our country. Marriage is bringing together, across lines of race, creed and party, some extraordinary people.
It helped enormously that Storobin never ran from the issue, never downplaying the "social issues," as so many pundits observed. Brooklyn Republicans watched Bob Turner's surprise victory, they are watching the troubles of the pro-gay-marriage Republicans in New York, and they are learning—or relearning—some important lessons.
The "social issues" are what originally turned Reagan Democrats into Republicans, and the same thing is happening in the most Democratic place in America!
Politicker covered the election-night party for Storobin:
Mr. Storobin's campaign was seen as a longshot, but he had heavy support from the local and state Republican Party, which was betting a campaign focused on Mr. Fidler’s liberal positions on social issues, specifically gay marriage...
"The truth is, the representatives in Albany let us down, they let us down. They were bought off on this issue by a very strong lobby," Rabbi Isaac Levi said. "We're going to take corrective action, we're going to go out against all these State Assemblymen in our area of Brooklyn that voted for gay marriage. They're going to face primaries or elections and they're going to rue the day that they ever voted for gay marriage."
Republican City Councilman Dan Halloran chimed in:
"I think we need to start sending messages. Respect for God is part of the American tradition, however you choose to see God. I think a lot of people feel that we've moved so far towards a secular state that we've forgotten that this is one nation founded under God."
While New York Republicans are beginning to acknowledge support for same-sex marriage is a loser, it is with a heavy heart that I must report that New Hampshire Republicans, who swept control of the legislature in 2010 in part on a promise to repeal the same-sex marriage bill rammed through by the Democrats (with a major flip-flop from their governor), just sided with Democrats to defeat a measure that would repeal same-sex marriage, by a vote of 211 to 116.
There is a major push behind the scenes from inside the Republican Party to accept and promote same-sex marriage. We saw this pattern first in New York state, where Republicans took control of the legislature and yet agreed to bring up a same-sex marriage bill. Four Republican defectors provided the key margin for victory.
I do not yet know all the facts, but I do know one thing:
Republicans (or Democrats) who betray the core values of their constituents will face consequences.
Ask Mark Grisanti.
Meanwhile, as I was flying to Iowa, Maggie Gallagher and Jonathan Baker (head of NOM's Corporate Fairness Project) were flying to Seattle for the annual board meeting of Starbucks. In late January Starbucks announced it was endorsing gay marriage in the state of Washington. An executive, claiming to be speaking for the company, announced that henceforth gay marriage is "core" to Starbucks values.
We went to the opera house of Seattle with a genuine question: Is promoting gay marriage really the policy of the whole corporation?
We wanted to know, before taking action, because I find the tactics of our opponents really reprehensible. They have been willing to target whole business enterprises if any one individual partner exercises his or her personal right to donate or to speak for marriage.
Businesses can only work well when people of diverse views come together to work for the good of the company—in this case: making a great cup of coffee!
But when Jonathan Baker asked Howard Schultz the question, he said, in essence, yes: The decision to promote gay marriage was the policy of the corporation.
Schultz seemed nervous when asked by another shareholder how this is possibly prudent, how it is in the best interests of the shareholder, especially overseas in countries where same-sex marriage is unthinkable.
Schultz nervously replied that since Starbucks endorsed gay marriage in the state of Washington in late January, he hadn't had any negative reactions.
We are asking thousands of Americans—including you!—to reach out to Starbucks. Go to the website above and you can call your local Starbucks. Call the corporate headquarters, and let them know that millions of their customers—decent, law-abiding, loving people—do not support gay marriage.
If you haven't yet gone to DumpStarbucks.com can you please do so? And spread the word to a friend or family member: Let Howard Schultz know that endorsing gay marriage is not good for business! As of this writing, over 3,000 of you have already taken action!
Already the news of our engagement with Starbucks is spreading:
A company built on conscience ought to respect the consciences of all its customers, employees, and vendors. Corporate America needs to know: We are here, we buy coffee, we believe in marriage, get used to it!
NOM's protest against Starbucks is not just a national one—it's an international protest, because we are going to reach out to customers in the areas where Starbucks is seeking to expand: to China and the Middle East.
Stay tuned!
Why do we fight so hard?
I get asked that question a lot. With seven children, these kind of multi-state battles against a seemingly implacable foe are never easy.
NOM's Marriage Anti-Defamation Alliance just released another video that reminds us why we fight—because it reminds us what kind of America many advocates of gay marriage are seeking.
We interviewed former GOP candidate for governor of Minnesota Tom Emmer, whose teaching position at Hamline University was stripped from him when faculty learned he opposed same-sex marriage.
Take a few moments and hear Tom Emmer's story:
More and more Americans are recognizing gay marriage is a crucible—a test of our courage to speak and to act for the values we hold dear.
Last June I made you a promise—that I would not rest until the voters of New York had the final say on marriage. Step one was replacing the seven turncoat New York Senators who brought same-sex marriage to the state.
Tuesday evening, in Brooklyn, we took the first major step toward keeping that promise with an incredible victory in a special election for State Senator!
Political newcomer and marriage supporter David Storobin has pulled off a major upset (subject to a recount) against long-time councilman Lew Fidler in New York’s Senate District 27.
NOM played a major role in this week's special election to replace disgraced (and incarcerated!) former Senator Carl Kruger—who voted last June to legalize same-sex marriage in New York. A previously unknown, pro-marriage, Russian immigrant, David Storobin shocked the political establishment by winning Tuesday's vote count in a deeply blue district. He was overwhelmingly outspent by his opponent, the pro same-sex marriage City Councilman, Lew Fidler.
Absentee ballots still have to be tabulated, and due to the incredibly close race, the votes will be recounted. But regardless of the final vote count, this election made one thing crystal clear:same-sex marriage is a losing proposition for politicians.
As we have so many times in the past, we were able to level the playing field in a heavily Democratic district. NOM's issue ads, automated phone calls and hard-hitting mailings to targeted audiences proved pivotal in this race.
Perhaps most importantly, this race cements a new relationship between traditional marriage supporters and the Orthodox Jewish community, forced to choose between principled support for marriage and their traditional political loyalties.
I am especially grateful for the courage and leadership of Rabbi Eliyahu Brog of Mirrer Yeshiva who recorded our automated phone calls to Jewish households throughout the district—and for Joseph Hayon, president of the Brooklyn Tea Party, whose creativity, limitless energy and outstanding grassroots leadership helped make sure our efforts were focused effectively down to individual homes and neighborhoods.
As the New York Post so succinctly put it, Fidler "got hammered for his support of gay marriage, an unpopular position in the district."
It seems so patently obvious, but to the political establishment who prefers to operate behind closed doors and broker back room deals that impose a radical social agenda on their constituents, Tuesday's result came as a surprise.
And NOM will continue hammering home the point until the politicians wake up and realize it as well. Same-sex marriage is a losing proposition.
Please join us in celebrating this great victory, and please consider making a donation today to help us bring about more of these kinds of results all across the state.
PolitickerNY took an extensive look at the critical dynamics which shaped the Storobin v. Fidler race -- and the future of New York politics:
"... Mr. Storobin’s campaign was seen as a longshot, but he had heavy support from the local and state Republican Party, which was betting a campaign focused on Mr. Fidler’s liberal positions on social issues, specifically gay marriage, could be a success among the large numbers of Russians and Orthodox Jews in the district.
Same-sex marriage was legalized in Albany last June, but Mr. Levi said the Orthodox community still hopes to fight the issue by voting out politicians who support gay marriage and forcing a referendum.
“The truth is, the representatives in Albany let us down, they let us down. They were bought off on this issue by a very strong lobby,” Mr. Levi said. “We’re going to take corrective action, we’re going to go out against all these State Assemblymen in our area of Brooklyn that voted for gay marriage. They’re going to face primaries or elections and they’re going to rue the day that they ever voted for gay marriage.”
Senator James S. Alesi, one of four New York State Republicans who voted in favor of same-sex marriage last year, is unlikely to receive the nomination of the main Republican committee in his district, setting the stage for a difficult re-election race that could have implications in the fight for control of the State Senate.
Two Republicans in Monroe County, where a majority of Mr. Alesi’s district sits, said that Mr. Alesi, an eight-term senator, had no support from local party leaders, in large part because of a lawsuit that he filed last year against two of his constituents and that many considered frivolous. The Republicans, who requested anonymity to discuss a developing process, said that Mr. Alesi’s support of same-sex marriage also was a factor, but that it was not decisive.
... Other Republicans who favored same-sex marriage have seen some consequences.
The Republican committee in Wilton, the hometown of Senator Roy J. McDonald, endorsed a potential opponent. The Erie County Conservative Party endorsed a Democrat to challenge Senator Mark J. Grisanti. But, unlike the others, Mr. Alesi’s marriage vote is not his greatest problem.
Following a shareholders' meeting of the Seattle-based coffee giant on Wednesday, the Washington, D.C.-based National Organization for Marriage announced a "Dump Starbucks" protest.
The group says it will place ads throughout the country, as well as in the Middle East and Southeast Asia, urging consumers to boycott the company. The group is supporting a referendum effort to overturn a recently passed law legalizing same-sex marriage in Washington state.
... [Starbucks CEO Howard] Schultz was asked by three shareholders about the company's stance, with one asking: "Is it prudent to risk the economic interests of all the shareholders for something that might affect the private lives of a very small percentage of our employees?"
... Maggie Gallagher, co-founder of NOM, said the main focus of the group's protest is to make sure Starbucks knows that not all of their customers agree with their philosophy on gay marriage. Gallagher said that in addition to ads, the plan is to have customers call Starbucks managers around the state to let them know how they feel.
"We would be satisfied if, in the future, they would refrain from entering in these hot-button moral issues," she said.
"...The First Lady [said at a fundraiser last night] that Obama’s appointees to the Supreme Court will uphold the right to “love whomever we choose.”
Though her aides say she has said this before, gay rights advocates are seizing on the language for the first time. One prominent advocate, Richard Socarides, says the language will be received as code for saying that Obama’s Supreme Court appointees will uphold the right to gay marriage. Several cases involving gay marriage may be headed for the highest court, so to advocates, Ms. Obama’s language seems telling.
But the First Lady has repeatedly denied backing marriage equality. And a campaign official insists to me the new language isn’t significant."
Yesterday, Fox News Nation re-posted part of our press release announcing our campaign --and we're grateful!-- but I want to focus on a revealing exchange that took place in the comments. One pro-SSM activist posted this:
currenti: How many people who were regular customers are actually going to boycott Starbucks based on a website created by a certified hate group?
But someone quickly responded:
I_Vote: I cannot believe you actually said it out loud -- people who believe in traditional marriage are certified "haters." I'm a Starbucks customer, but since reading your comment I think NOM deserves a visit from me.
For the record, NOM is not a "certified hate group".
But we appreciate "currenti" for pointing out how much is at stake in this fight -- lovers of free speech and fair discourse are welcome to join us, too!
Statement of California Democratic Party Chairman John Burton on President Obama’s Opposition to Discriminatory Same-Sex Marriage Ban in North Carolina:
California Democrats proudly support President Obama for taking a stand against a divisive ballot amendment that seeks to codify discrimination against same-sex couples into North Carolina’s constitution.
As Democrats across the nation make plans to gather in Charlotte, North Carolina for the 2012 Democratic National Convention, it’s imperative that we send a clear and united message against all such efforts that seek to divide Americans and enshrine discrimination. California Democrats stand ready to help and we will soon be in touch with ways that Democrats here can start getting the word out to voters in North Carolina about the need to defeat Amendment One.
National Organization for Marriage, which spent more than $25,000 on independent expenditures for Republican candidate David Storobin in his tight special election last night, is cheering his narrow 120 vote lead for the State Senate in southeastern Brooklyn.
“One thing is certain—supporting same-sex marriage is a loser,” the president of the organization, Brian Brown, said in a statement today. He then referenced Congressman Bob Turner’s upset special election victory last summer over Democratic Assemblyman David Weprin, noting, “This election marks the second consecutive one where a supporter of same-sex marriage was defeated.”
...Mr. Brown sees the anti-gay marriage message extending well beyond Brooklyn in New York State.
“We have avenged Carl Kruger’s despicable vote for same-sex marriage. Mark Grisanti, Roy McDonald and James Alesi will be next,” he added, referring to the Republican State Senators facing competitive primaries Upstate this year.
The Heritage's Foundry blog overviews recent developments in the fight to protect marriage:
The institution of marriage has seen better days in America. The question now is how Americans will think about, shape, and participate in marriage going forward. Will Americans seek to strengthen marriage, including through laws and policies that promote the public goods of responsible childbearing and the faithfulness of husbands and wives to each other and their dependent children? Or, will Americans reject the traditional understanding of marriage and replace it with mere government recognition of whatever private arrangements two or more people wish to make?
... As the debate about marriage continues, increasing numbers of Americans will be forced to confront and decide fundamental issues of law, morality, and culture. On the one side of this debate is the view that marriage as one man and one woman is a form of institutionalized bigotry no better than racism. In this view, it is unjust for the state not to bless same-sex unions with both the benefits and label of “marriage.” Private institutions and individuals who object to facilitating or expressing moral support for same-sex marriage could face potential civil liability and discrimination in access to government benefits. Too often, those who disagree with redefining marriage are also subject to public derision and even threats, intimidation, and other harms.
The class of women with the greatest rights at risk was unrepresented. While the parties and the Court pondered whether the justices could change statutory law, or declare it unconstitutional, the central issue was whether and when the fundamental constitutional liberty interests and state's rights of the unrepresented legal mothers could be terminated.
