Karen Grube, an early supporter of Prop 8, with a message to the New Hampshire legislature:
In considering House Bill 437, the bill to repeal the gay marriage law passed in 2009, every member of the New Hampshire legislature needs to be reminded of why the voters elected veto-proof Republican majorities in both the House and the Senate in 2010. One obvious reason was the underhanded manner in which Democrat Senate President Sylvia Larsen violated Senate rules in order to pass the bill allowing same-sex marriage.
... Another reason they did that was to send a clear message to Governor Lynch that the voters didn’t like his deceiving them on his stand on same-sex marriage. He campaigned on his support for traditional marriage and then betrayed them by signing the same-sex marriage legislation into law. In 2010, the voters decided they didn’t want to chance his doing anything like that again.
... I would remind Representative Cohn and every member of the General Court that the only poll that counts is the one at the ballot box. When their voices were so outrageously silenced on this issue by the previous legislature and the Governor, the voters spoke as clearly as they possibly could in 2010. This time they chose to elect Republicans to the House and Senate who they believed would actually listen to them and restore the legal definition of marriage as quickly as possible to what it was prior to being redefined. Keeping that in mind, Republicans should not only vote to pass HB 437, but work together to pass it by the two-thirds majority necessary should the Governor be so arrogant as to veto it. -- Ruth Institute Blog
The Huffington Post on the split within the Democrat party over whether to put same-sex marriage in their platform:
An unexpected surge in support to place same-sex marriage on the Democratic Party platform at the August convention has energized LGBT advocates and complicated an already delicate situation facing President Barack Obama’s reelection campaign.
...Interviews with more than a dozen party officials and activists reveal that despite widespread and growing support for marriage equality among Americans, the issue is still viewed as politically sensitive in the top ranks of the Democratic Party. While many high-profile figures have publicly advocated for including strong language in the platform, the Obama campaign and the allied Democratic National Committee are searching for ways to split the difference: showing support for equality but stopping short of a full-fledged endorsement.
...Several Democratic sources working with the committee have acknowledged that conversations were already underway about how to placate the pro-same-sex marriage majority inside the party without alienating culturally conservative Democrats in states like Ohio and North Carolina, where the convention is being held.
The Chicago Tribune on the effects of same-sex civil unions and religious liberty issues playing a role in the Illinois GOP primary happening today:
The issue of religious freedom, raised by all four Republican candidates but identified most strongly with Rick Santorum, finds an interested audience as the contest reaches Illinois.
Last year in Illinois, Catholic Charities and the Evangelical Child and Family Agency were forced to pull out of the foster care business when they refused to license couples in civil unions.
... Some believe Santorum's religious rhetoric could lure socially conservative voters who feel persecuted for their religious beliefs and who argue that the nation's founding principle of religious liberty is under attack by President Barack Obama's administration. Religion is seen as a lightning-rod issue, similar to the proposed bans on same-sex marriage that drew social conservatives to the polls in 2004 and helped George W. Bush win re-election.
"The language that we hear about the Obama administration waging war against religion is both energizing and polarizing," said Ralph Keen, chair of Catholic studies at the University of Illinois at Chicago. "The person who declares that there is an Obama-led war against religion is going to be recognized as the leader of a cause that mobilizes. It's going to mobilize the religious population."
Proponents of traditional marriage say they plan to keep the political heat on state lawmakers even though the chances of forcing action on a constitutional amendment to let voters decide whether marriage should be defined as only between one man and one woman is not likely this session.
Officials with the Family Leader, CatholicVote.org and the National Organization for Marriage announced plans to host a “Let Us Vote” Marriage Rally in the state Capitol’s rotunda Tuesday aimed at keep attention on an issue that has festered at the Statehouse since the Iowa Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision in April 2009 declaring a state marriage law as unconstitutional. That paved the way for same-sex marriages to take place in Iowa for nearly three years now.
Organizers say the purpose of Tuesday’s rally is to demonstrate to state senators that marriage is important to Iowans and that Iowans want to exercise their constitutional right to vote on the definition of marriage via the Iowa marriage amendment, which would indicate the only recognized form of marriage in the state would be between one man and one woman.
The marriage amendment to the state Constitution passed the Republican-led House during the 2011 legislative session, but it stalled in the Iowa Senate, where Democrats hold a 26-24 majority. To amend the Constitution, a resolution must pass the House and Senate in exactly the same language in two consecutive General Assemblies before the ballot issue could come before voters.
First in a series of videos by the bishops of North Carolina explaining the position of the Catholic Church in support of the proposed state constitutional amendment recognizing marriage exclusively as the union between one man and one woman. Bishop Peter Jugis of Charlotte presents this video:
New Hampshire House of Representatives Will Decide the Fate of Traditional Marriage Wednesday, March 21st
Take Action: Come to the State House at 8am, March 21st to Pass Out Information and Talk To Representatives as They Enter Reps Hall to Vote on HB 437
Please come show your support for one man-one woman traditional marriage on Wednesday, March 21st. Join Cornerstone as we greet Representatives with flyers and words of encouragement outlining the reasons why they should vote to restore traditional marriage. If you can't stay for the vote, please come and greet them so they see that there are many voters that expect them to vote to sustain the traditional family unit in New Hampshire.
Vote For Marriage NC is supporting the Marriage Protection Amendment which will go before the people on May 8th:
The following statement in reaction to President Obama’s opposition to the North Carolina Marriage Amendment may be attributed to Tami Fitzgerald, Chairwoman of Vote FOR Marriage NC:
“Not only did President Obama state during his election battle in 2008 that he believes marriage is the union between one man and woman, but he said that for him as a Christian, it is also a sacred union, invoking the name of “God” as his source. Unfortunately, his recommendation against the Marriage Protection Amendment would leave the definition of marriage up to an activist judge instead of the people of our State. President Obama has no business inserting himself into the people’s business in North Carolina. The people of North Carolina cannot sit by and let marriage as the union of one man and one woman be destroyed by a handful of political activists or by activist judges.”
North Carolinians interested in more information about Vote FOR Marriage NC may visit the campaign’s website: www.VoteForMarriageNC.com.
We are not surprised, of course, because Pres. Obama has continually opposed efforts to allow the people of a state to protect marriage, beginning with his opposition of Prop 8 during the 2008 campaign:
President Barack Obama today came out against the proposed constitutional amendment on North Carolina's May 8th ballot banning same sex marriages and civil unions, weighing into a fight in a key battleground state.
His campaign issued a statement saying the amendment was discriminatory.
“While the president does not weigh in on every single ballot measure in every state, the record is clear that the President has long opposed divisive and discriminatory efforts to deny rights and benefits to same sex couples,” said Cameron French, his North Carolina campaign spokesman.
“That’s what the North Carolina ballot initiative would do – it would single out and discriminate against committed gay and lesbian couples – and that’s why the President does not support it.” -- News Observer
What some call "stealthy" other would call "open deception" or "lies" -- like Democratic activists pretending to be Republicans in New Hampshire, or (as this article brags) funding ads on issues you don't care about to bring down a marriage leader like Marilyn Musgrave:
The Gill Action Fund’s new leader promises to continue the organization’s brand of stealthy, behind-the-scenes activism.
...According to a 2008 report in The Advocate, Gill Action in the 2006 election directed $2.8 million in nationwide contributions through its OutGiving program to 68 candidates across 11 states, and 56 of those candidates won. One of the more controversial ads funded by the organization was deployed against former Republican Rep. Marilyn Musgrave, author of the Federal Marriage Amendment. It depicted an actress dressed like her stealing a watch from a corpse in an open coffin, criticizing her for her vote on a tax for funeral homes. -- The Washington Blade
H8SUX.com, a gay activist and T-shirt website, launched today and released its first viral video campaign targeting school kids with an offer of a free "OK4U2BGAY" T-shirt. The free pro-gay shirt will be shipped to any teen who simply makes a special YouTube video pledge to speak out against homophobia at school and support gay marriage. Inspired by the hit show "Glee," the organization released a slickly-produced musical commercial showcasing a same-sex teen kiss and kids dancing in front of hot-pink school lockers while singing a catchy pro-gay song.
Organizers say the teen-targeted campaign is in response to who they call, "ballot box bullies" - politicians who directly inspire a climate for schoolyard bullies to torment LGBT kids. They cite initiatives to ban gay marriage in North Carolina and Minnesota...
There’s a special election tomorrow in south Brooklyn — Sheepshead Bay, Brighton Beach, Gravesend, Mill Basin — to choose a successor to ex-state Sen. Carl Kruger, the latest to march in Albany’s long line of convicted felons.
The choice is between Republican David Storobin, an attorney and political neophyte, and Democrat Lew Fidler, a typical city councilman with an extraordinarily bizarre sense of personal entitlement.
It’s a clear-cut choice: The Post wholeheartedly endorses Storobin, who would bring a breath of fresh air to Albany.
... True, his political resumé — despite years of activism — is relatively sparse.
But no record at all would be leaps and bounds better than the dismal rap-sheet compiled by Fidler, a product of the Brooklyn Democratic machine.
... By Fidler’s own account, a GOP win — on the heels of Bob Turner’s surprise victory in last year’s special House race — means that Republicans will be “coming for . . . every single one of us [Democrats] here in southern Brooklyn.”
Actually, two-party political competition sounds like a pretty good idea to us.
Which makes a vote for David Storobin that much more important.
... these leftists cannot say what marriage is, how can they be so sure about what it isn’t? If they cannot offer a definition they’re certain is right, how can they be so confident that the right definition is wrong?
But the point is this: the court obviously doesn’t accept the definition of marriage embraced by most people worldwide today. If it did, it would have ruled as indicated earlier. Yet there also is no noted alternative definition by which to go. Thus, it seems that before the judges could rule on the right to this thing called marriage, they’d have to rule on what this thing is in the first place. So have they ruled that there is a right to they-know-not-what.
... This is why the left’s actions do, in fact, threaten marriage. To fail to respect the institution’s time-honored definition and also refuse to offer any alternative definition is to seek to destroy the edifice without a plan for what will take its place. It is to imply that marriage can mean anything. And if something can mean anything, it means nothing.
As for conservatives, they have been suckered again. Without even realizing it, they have allowed the left to frame the debate — as a matter of rights — when it is first and foremost a matter of definitions. To argue it as a matter of rights is to lose the debate; to control the definitions can render that debate irrelevant.
The Public Insight Network has been recording and publishing video of Minnesotans explaining why they are voting yes (or no) on the Minnesota Marriage Protection Amendment.
Janelle and Brian Gehling, recently married themselves, explain why they are voting YES:
“That’s what the North Carolina ballot initiative would do – it would single out and discriminate against committed gay and lesbian couples – and that’s why the President does not support it.” -- 
