NOM BLOG

Monthly Archives: August 2012

New York LGBT Group Endorses Flip-Flopper Grisanti

They are avoiding endorsing the other flip-flopping senators because they fear it will hurt their reelection chances in the Republican primary September 13th:

The Empire State Pride Agenda, the leading statewide LGBT lobbying group in New York, announced its endorsed candidates Tuesday morning, but only one of the three Republican state senators seeking re-election who voted for marriage equality appears on the roster.

The group backed Mark Grisanti of Buffalo, one of four Republican senators who voted for the bill that passed last year. Senators Roy McDonald and Stephen Saland have not been endorsed in their re-election bids. Senator James Alesi, the fourth yes vote, announced earlier this year that he would not seek re-election.

... All three Republican senators lost the support of the Conservative Party, which provides an important cross-endorsement in the state, because of their marriage equality votes, and they face primary election challenges on September 13. Grisanti’s primary opponent has not taken a stance on marriage equality, according to State of Politics, whereas McDonald and Saland face challengers who oppose it, which could make the endorsement from an LGBT group problematic. Democrats, meanwhile, are targeting Grisanti in the general election, where his marriage equality credentials could provide a boost. -- The Advocate

Federal Judge: No Right to Gay Marriage! NOM Marriage News

NOM National Newsletter

Dear Marriage Supporter,

After a week dominated by the Chick-fil-A grassroots support movement there is more good news for marriage that you will never hear on the nightly news. Earlier this week another federal judge rejected the claim that there is a constitutional right to gay marriage!

A same-sex couple tried to get Hawaii's marriage laws struck down on the grounds that they are allegedly irrational and rooted in bias towards gay people.

Hawaii, you will recall, was the original seat of the litigation wars seeking to impose gay marriage upon the American people. The population of the blue state of Hawaii responded in 1998 by overwhelmingly passing (69 percent to 29 percent) the very first marriage amendment, clarifying that the legislature has the right to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

Now a federal judge has affirmed the right of the people of Hawaii to make that determination—and in the process rejected the argument that marriage is rooted in bias or bigotry:

"Throughout history and societies, marriage has been connected with procreation and childrearing.... It follows that it is not beyond rational speculation to conclude that fundamentally altering the definition of marriage to include same-sex unions might result in undermining the societal understanding of the link between marriage, procreation, and family structure."

"In this situation," the court continued, "to suddenly constitutionalize the issue of same-sex marriage 'would short-circuit' the legislative actions that have been taking place in Hawaii."

Bottom line: "Because Hawaii's marriage laws are rationally related to legitimate government interests, they do not violate the federal Constitution."

The majority of courts, as well as the majority of citizens, recognize that our marriage laws are not rooted in hatred towards gay people or anyone else! I wish more gay marriage advocates could see this.

This same misperception was on display as the MSM tried to downplay Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day, because there was no way to cover the story without showing the huge outpouring of support for marriage and for Dan Cathy's right to his opinion.
On Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day even Fox News' Shepard Smith went so far as to urge viewers to avoid "National Day of Intolerance":

Most Americans—even those who support gay marriage—simply do not buy the extremist rhetoric emanating from Chick-fil-A opponents that opposition to gay marriage is bigoted, hateful and illegitimate.

Four big-city mayors, though—people with power—disgraced themselves by suggesting just that.

Rahm Emanuel, a former key White House official who is now mayor of Chicago, was in some ways the worst offender. His claim that Chick-fil-A violates something called "Chicago Values" produced pushback very close to home.

It was too much even for the very liberal Chicago Tribune:

Emanuel and [Chicago alderman] Moreno have changed their tone a bit over the last week, in the face of growing national criticism. But they are still exhibiting intolerance in the name of tolerance.

Moreno has called Cathy's comments "bigoted." Emanuel asserted, "Chick-fil-A's values are not Chicago values."

Mayor, many of your constituents do not support same-sex marriage. They have a heartfelt view on this. They are not bigots. But you are telling them they don't belong in their city.

Take a moment to consider what Cardinal Francis George has written: "I was born and raised here, and my understanding of being a Chicagoan never included submitting my value system to the government for approval. Must those whose personal values do not conform to those of the government of the day move from the city?"

Moreno seemed to spoil for a fight with the cardinal, calling his comments "disingenuous" and "irresponsible."

Emanuel and Moreno ought to recognize they are losing people across the political spectrum ... because they are being intolerant.

But not all were so perceptive: this display of intolerance by high government officials was actually praised by the major organizers of the gay marriage movement.

Boston Mayor Tom Menino eventually may have backtracked on his suggestion that he "...would prevent a Chick-fil-A franchise..." from opening in his city, but not before major mainstream gay rights groups endorsed and applauded his stance.

For instance, even as most Americans were uniting over a great chicken sandwich and the idea of tolerance for all, the Human Rights Campaign doubled down on using government power to exclude supporters of traditional marriage, calling on more public officials to express similar views to Menino's.

 

The HRC said, and I quote:

We applaud Mayor Menino for calling out Chick-fil-A's anti-LGBT practices. We have been asking people to make their own decisions about whether to continue supporting Chick-fil-A based on the facts available, and Mayor Menino has done just that. Mayor Menino's rebuke of Chick-fil-A sends a strong messages[sic] that their habit of supporting hateful organizations that demonize LGBT Americans are out-of-step with not just Bostonians, but the majority of fair-minded Americans. Chick-fil-A is on the wrong side of history, and we look forward to seeing more and more elected officials and businesses speak out against their discriminatory practices.

Meanwhile, far from backing down, a major Chicago gay rights group filed multiple human rights complaints against Chick-fil-A charging that Cathy's personal views violate Illinois civil rights laws.

Ironically, Anthony Martinez, executive director of The Civil Rights Agenda, said in their press release announcing the filing of the complaint, that Chick-fil-A used to be one of the family's "favorite places to eat" until Cathy's statements made them feel "completely unwelcome."

Yet, Chick-fil-A has made clear that its policy is welcoming to everyone: the only one excluding Martinez from eating there is Martinez himself and those like him, who are blinded by intolerance in the public square to any opposing views.

I think the Chicago Tribune is right: the gay marriage movement is increasingly demonstrating that the power it has is not going to be used to expand the liberty of all but to suppress dissent.

While Rahm Emanuel charges ahead, President Obama is being curiously silent, not only about Chick-fil-A, but about reports that the Democrats are going to endorse gay marriage in the party platform: Susan Crabtree of the Washington Times reports:

Democrats are asking supporters to "stand with" President Obama and the Democratic Party in solidarity on gay marriage — even though the White House and Mr. Obama's campaign repeatedly have declined to say whether the president supports efforts to write a gay-marriage plank in the party's platform.

In an opening line of an email to supporters with the subject line "Are You Proud?" Mike Ryan, the policy director of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, is clearly excited about the efforts to include a gay-marriage plank in the party's platform this year.

"The Democratic National Convention is moving forward with a plank embracing marriage equality as part of our 2012 platform!" he writes.

Both the White House and the President's campaign have declined to say whether the President supports adding the plank, or whether he believes doing so would hurt Democratic candidates in swing states.

Enthusiastic private fundraising emails combined with public silence in the mainstream media: what does that tell us? It tells us that the White House knows support for gay marriage is not a winner with the public.

WaPo's The Fix confirms this fact:

Americans remain just as divided on gay marriage as they were before President Obama's announcement in early May he now publicly supported it.

The Pew Research Center poll shows views of gay marriage remain basically unchanged since April, right before Obama announced his support for gay marriage — a reversal from his past public opposition. Support has gone from 47 percent to 48 percent since April, while opposition ticked up from 43 percent to 44 percent. Neither is even close to statistically significant."

More significantly, one-third of Democrats continue to oppose gay marriage, and 14 percent say they do so strongly.

Rev. Bill Owens (who serves as NOM's liaison to the black churches) and his wife Deborah have been organizing black pastors who oppose gay marriage as leaders of the Coalition of African American Pastors.

With support for same-sex marriage lagging in the black community, we expect more major hit pieces like Lisa Miller's in the Washington Post: Miller accused Rev. Owens, who has organized a distinguished group of black pastors in three different press conferences, of being merely "astroturf".

But the MSM cannot change the facts:  large numbers of Americans, including black Christians who are core Democrats, are very disturbed by President Obama's stance endorsing gay marriage, and they are calling on him to be faithful to their views and values.

Here's a Scripps Howard story, one of many on the black pastors organizing effort:

Support for same-sex marriage is now in the Democratic Party preliminary platform. Once approved by the full platform committee and voted on at the convention, same-sex marriage will have the party's formal support.

But as Democrats institutionalize their support for same sex-marriage, their relationship with the party's most loyal constituency, black Americans, becomes increasingly uneasy.

A new survey just released by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life shows 65 percent of Democrats support same-sex marriage compared to just 40 percent of blacks.

A group of 3,700-plus black pastors, the Coalition of African-American Pastors, under the leadership of the Rev. William Owens, has moved to formally oppose the Democratic Party and President Barack Obama on this issue.

The group is spearheading a "Mandate for Marriage" campaign to gather 100,000 signatures on a petition declaring support for traditional marriage. The petition also calls for Obama "to repudiate his assertion that gay marriage is a civil right."

We will continue to work with people of all races, creeds, and political parties who support marriage.

Thank you for all you've made possible.  With God's help, we will continue to stand—and not only stand, but triumph!

Maggie Gallagher to Debate Same-Sex Marriage on C-SPAN

C-Span's Book TV will feature NOM's co-founder Maggie Gallagher and John Corvino, co-author with her of "Debating Same-Sex Marriage" on the following dates (all times Eastern):

8/25 at 10:00PM
8/26 at 9:00PM
8/27 at 12:00PM and 3:00PM

Mark your calendars!

Video #6: Minnesotans Voting Yes on the Marriage Protection Amendment

More Minnesotans giving their reasons for voting yes on the Marriage Protection Amendment this November:

Video: Shouldn't Adults Decide Marriage For Themselves?

Kalley Yanta of the Minnesota Marriage Minute answers the question you sometimes hear: "shouldn't the government get out of the business of regulating marriage and leave it to adults to decide marriage for themselves?"

She answers in part:

"Marriage is not a private matter that exists only for the benefit of adults. Marriage serves an intrinsically public purpose, to provide for the care and development of the next generation, connecting children to the people responsible for bringing them into the world -- their parents. Government did not create marriage it merely recognizes it as the important public institution that it is and as such, government has no business redefining marriage..."

Video: Ann Coulter Says Chick-Fil-A Appreciation Day A Reason to Distrust Polling on Gay Marriage

Controversialist Ann Coulter was asked to comment on Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day and what it says about gay marriage heading into the November election:


Ann Coulter on Sunday argued that comments made by Chick-fil-A President Dan Cathy "wasn't an anti-gay thing."

"He said, look, all the founders of this company are married to our first wives," she said on a political roundtable during ABC's 'This Week'. "It's genuinely a pro-marriage position to oppose gay marriage."

... "When you see crowds like that coming out [to support Chick-fil-A], no, I'm sorry, I don't believe the polls on gay marriage. Let us vote. Those polls I believe, and it makes me suspicious at the polls on the presidential election." -- The Huffington Post

Democrats Support for Gay Marriage Alienates Black Pastors

Scripps Howard News Service:

Support for same-sex marriage is now in the Democratic Party preliminary platform. Once approved by the full platform committee and voted on at the convention, same-sex marriage will have the party's formal support.

But as Democrats institutionalize their support for same sex-marriage, their relationship with the party's most loyal constituency, black Americans, becomes increasingly uneasy.

A new survey just released by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life shows 65 percent of Democrats support same-sex marriage compared to just 40 percent of blacks.

A group of 3,700-plus black pastors, the Coalition of African-American Pastors, under the leadership of the Rev. William Owens, has moved to formally oppose the Democratic Party and President Barack Obama on this issue.

The group is spearheading a "Mandate for Marriage" campaign to gather 100,000 signatures on a petition declaring support for traditional marriage. The petition also calls for Obama "to repudiate his assertion that gay marriage is a civil right."

U.S. District Court in Hawaii Upholds State's Marriage Law

Alliance Defending Freedom scores another important legal victory for marriage:

"A federal court Wednesday upheld Hawaii’s definition of marriage as one man and one woman. The court rejected a lawsuit that sought to tear down the state’s law defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman and Hawaii’s constitutional amendment that gives the legislature the power to maintain the timeless definition.

...In its order in Jackson v. Abercrombie, the U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii concluded, “Throughout history and societies, marriage has been connected with procreation and childrearing…. It follows that it is not beyond rational speculation to conclude that fundamentally altering the definition of marriage to include same-sex unions might result in undermining the societal understanding of the link between marriage, procreation, and family structure.”

“In this situation,” the court continued, “to suddenly constitutionalize the issue of same-sex marriage ‘would short-circuit’ the legislative actions that have been taking place in Hawaii…. Accordingly, because Hawaii’s marriage laws are rationally related to legitimate government interests, they do not violate the federal Constitution.”

Chicago Tribune Comes to Chick-fil-A's Defense

The editors write:

"...Moreno has called Cathy's comments "bigoted." Emanuel asserted, "Chick-fil-A's values are not Chicago values."

Mayor, many of your constituents do not support same-sex marriage. They have a heartfelt view on this. They are not bigots. But you are telling them they don't belong in their city.

...Emanuel and Moreno talk as though the issue of same-sex marriage is settled. To oppose same-sex marriage is "bigotry," Moreno has said. But that's still the law of this state. This page has urged the Illinois Legislature to recognize same-sex marriage, but the Legislature has not done that.

One more time: The 1st Amendment to the Constitution says the government may not take action "abridging the freedom of speech." The alderman is using his power as an elected official to punish a company for the political views of its top executive, and the mayor has abetted him.

Over 60 Christian Leaders Tell Chick-fil-A: We're With You

The Christian Post:

More than 60 leaders of Christian and pro-family organizations signed a letter extending their support for Chick-fil-A President Dan Cathy and his biblical position on family.

"We represent some of the largest policy and faith-based organizations in the country, and we are encouraging our members to 'eat mor chikin,'" the joint letter dated Aug. 6 states.

...In a note of encouragement to Cathy, Christian leaders including Mathew Staver of Liberty Counsel, Tom McClusky of Family Research Council Action, the Rev. Samuel Rodriguez of the Hispanic Evangelical Association, and Dr. Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission commended the Chick-fil-A president for his faithfulness to biblical values.

"As you are likely aware, biblical values and companies that support them are under attack. It is incredibly important for successful men like you, representing a national brand, to unapologetically stand for God's truth as revealed in the Scriptures," they wrote in their letter. "The example of Chick-fil-A and your leadership has encouraged many.

"We hope and pray that you receive the blessings of the Lord for your faithfulness. You and Chick-Fil-A are in our thoughts and prayers."

WaPo: Obama’s Gay Marriage Support Fails to Sway Americans

The Fix's Aaron Blake:

Americans remain just as divided on gay marriage as they were before President Obama’s announcement in early May he now publicly supported it.

The Pew Research Center poll shows views of gay marriage remain basically unchanged since April, right before Obama announced his support for gay marriage — a reversal from his past public opposition. Support has gone from 47 percent to 48 percent since April, while opposition ticked up from 43 percent to 44 percent. Neither is even close to statistically significant.

And despite the Democrats’ move to add gay marriage to their party platform at the upcoming Democratic National Convention, many in the party remain opposed to such a move.

... For now, though, it remains a very divisive issue and a potentially contentious one at the Democratic National Convention — if, that is, the one-third of Democrats who oppose gay marriage elects to take a stand. Fully 14 percent of Democrats say they are “strongly opposed” to gay marriage, which suggests there is a significant group that could raise a ruckus.

The Starbucks Appreciation Day That Wasn't

An Los Angeles Times blog notes that the planned counter-protest to the wildly successful Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day started-off weak:

Gay marriage activists had a vision: Tuesday would be their clarion call for consumers to reject Chick-fil-A and its president’s comments against same-sex unions, instead crowding into Starbucks and other more sympathetic companies.

Though its still early in the day, National Marriage Equality Day – originally known as National Starbucks Appreciation Day before organizers broadened the scope – seems to be getting a mostly mild start.

A Facebook profile created for the event by Equally Wed, a lesbian and gay wedding magazine, shows more than 34,000 people signed up to attend. But a photo page populated by submissions from supportive consumers had fewer than 20 images just before noon on the East Coast.

... Compare that with Chick-fil-A  Appreciation Day last week, which was launched by former presidential candidate Mike Huckabee. The event, inspired by comments from Chick-fil-A President Dan Cathy backing the “biblical definition of the family unit," created traffic jams, out-the-door lines and record sales for the chicken chain. More than 670,000 people signed up on Facebook to attend.

A pro-SSM blogger in NYC had to admit by mid-day that the event wasn't going as planned, writing:

"...Either we've become too complacent about this issue or the event just wasn't organized and promoted with enough vehemence.

And now it seems like we may have lost this particular battle, especially since the haters cagily framed their actions as being pro-freedom-of-speech."

Today it appears the Starbucks Appreciation Day was a complete bust. This marks the second failed attempted to counter-protest the Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day last week (the first attempt was the failed Chick-fil-A "kiss-in"):

"The Chick-fil-A controversy has left the gay rights movement with the proverbial egg on its face. First it was the ill-fated national “kiss-in.” Then it was Tuesday’s “Starbucks Appreciation Day” – or rather, “National Marriage Equality Day.” Activists were asked to change the name by Starbucks’ execs who were worried about getting filleted in the Chick-fil-A-related melee.

Both counter protests were met with an unexpectedly tepid response from gay rights supporters in contrast to last Wednesday’s record-setting avalanche at Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day." -- William J. Kelley of the Washington Times

All of which is a good reason to continue keeping the pressure on Starbucks by helping us get to 50,000 pledges at Dump Starbucks!

Video: Stuart Shepard on "Freedom Chicken"

Stuart Shepard of CitizenLink offers his recap of the first Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day:

Rush Limbaugh Talks to Caller Intimidated by Door-to-Door Gay Rights Activist

RushLimbaugh.com:

CALLER: Hi, Rush.  It's so good to be on your program today calling from beautiful Lakeville, Minnesota.  And I'm calling because I am a conservative Christian stay-at-home mom who believes in liberty and freedom of speech and freedom of religion.  Three nights ago I had a gentleman come knocking at my door wanting me to sign a petition that would be against the voter amendment which will appear on Minnesota ballots in November that defines marriage as one man and one woman and then also the voter ID.  And when I told him that I could not sign that petition because I, as a Christian, believe in one man and one woman as the definition of marriage, this young man literally went berserk.  He flipped out and got so angry to the point where, even his countenance, I felt like I was just looking at a very evil person.  And then he started accusing me that I was for the suppression of women and just going way off the wall.  It was profound.RUSH:  What?  What?  How in the world is that --

CALLER:  And then I came back to him and said, "You know, I do support your right and your liberty to express your viewpoint.  And then I also have my viewpoint."  And then he really went off the wall and started yelling and screaming and shouting and waving his arms.  I started to fear for my safety, and I told him promptly that I was gonna have to end this conversation.  And I'll be really honest, Rush.  I mean, I'm a former schoolteacher, and I can spot a bully a mile away...

Robert VerBruggen Comes to Prof. Regnerus' Defense

Robert VerBruggen of NRO:

previously wrote about the frivolous ethics complaint against Mark Regnerus, the author of the recent study on gay parenting. Now, the journal that published the study, Social Science Research, has conducted an internal audit. The audit will be published officially in the journal’s November issue, but it’s already made its way into the hands of numerous journalists, including yours truly. I have also read an accompanying essay by the journal’s editor, James Wright.

The audit is not nearly as critical — or revelatory — as Regnerus’s opponents seem to think. It merely bolsters the basic conclusion that every fair-minded observer came to long ago: Regnerus’s research certainly has its flaws, but so do the other studies on this topic.

The audit’s main purpose is to evaluate the publication process — the auditor was given access to all the correspondence relating to the study. Of course, the underlying issue is whether the Regnerus study is so unsound that it should not have been published.

One of the allegations against the journal is that when it chose scholars to publish responses alongside the study, it picked two people who had been involved in the study itself — a conflict of interest. Ironically, the person chosen for the audit, sociologist Darren E. Sherkat, is also not a neutral observer: He has been hurling scatological references at the study since it was published. One blog post he wrote was titled “The Gold Standard for Right Wing Propaganda” and called the study a “piece of sh[**].” The comments he’s made since the audit are in precisely the same vein.