Many of our friends and family will be informing themselves about the issues and getting ready to vote this weekend. Let's make sure they see this visual graphic educating them about how to vote to protect marriage by sharing it on our Facebook wall, Twitter feed and with our email list!
You can share it via Facebook (and access the full-size version) here.
Today, Minnesota for Marriage announced the release of two new radio ads. The ads will run in English and Spanish. The ads point out that people who believe in traditional marriage will face consequences if marriage is redefined in Minnesota. Some of the consequences included small businesses fined, people fired, charities closed down and churches sued.
... The Spanish ad emphasizes consequences to children as well stating that “Marriage is about children and family. It is our most important social institution. If marriage were redefined, there would be consequences for Minnesotans. The most affected would be our children who could be taught about gay marriage in school, against the desires of parents.” It also points out that “Supporting marriage as the union of a man and a woman does not make you anti-gay but pro-marriage.”Both ads encourage listeners to “vote YES on Amendment 1, the marriage protection amendment.”
Dear Marriage Supporter,
I know you're probably getting bombarded with emails this campaign season, so I'll make this brief.
You know that we've always been up against the media, Hollywood elites and a small but powerful cadre of billionaires who are all trying to push their gay marriage agenda on the country. And recently, corporate America has jumped in the fray, backing a same-sex marriage agenda that is simply bad for business.
But now, another monolith has joined them: Unions.
Please watch the story of Sarah Rowe and hear her tell, in her own words, how her union openly endorsed same-sex marriage and pressured its members to do likewise:
Here's just one quote from Sarah:
It was made known [by my union] that faith shouldn't be a part of the
discussion in the union meeting [which] made it more difficult for people
to voice their actual opinion.
Marriage Supporter, I can't adequately convey the wealth and power that is arrayed against us in this fight. I depend on ordinary Americans like you to support our work with sacrificial generosity. If you have the means to do so, could you please make a gift of $25, $50, $100 or even $500 to help NOM stop the relentless march of those trying to force same-sex marriage on the country?
Thank you.
Via FRCAction:
"Young Sarah Crank was bullied and received death threats after testifying in Maryland" [against same-sex marriage].
We've written about Sarah's story before:
Kalley Yanta of the Minnesota Marriage Minute:
"...With just a few days left before the election let me summarize what we believe exactly. Number one we believe that God is the author of marriage. He created marriage for the benefit of couples but also for the next generation. Traditional marriage has take hits from divorce and other failings but fundamentally the institution of marriage has served society well for thousands of years. We believe that children need both a mom and a dad and that marriage is our best way of encouraging that result. In fact the overwhelming body of evidence establishes that children do best when raised by the two people responsible for bringing them into the world, their parents. Marriage is at risk of being redefined by political activists, unaccountable judges and ambitious politicians with no voter input. We believe there are major consequences to society of marriage is redefined..."
A new SurveyUSA poll out today has the Minnesota Marriage Protection Amendment leading 48%-47% with 5% undecided.
We will need at least 50%+1 to win on Election Day (failing to vote on the Amendment automatically counts as a "no" vote).
Once again, only 16% of Republicans oppose the Amendment but 27% of Democrats favor it. The marriage amendment also registers strong support in all areas of the state except the twin cities metro region.
More evidence we have a winning coalition in place to deliver victory next Tuesday, with your support!
A national organization emerging as a driving force in the effort to block same-sex marriage around the country is the single-largest contributor to the group trying to pass the Minnesota marriage amendment.
The National Organization for Marriage has poured $1.65 million into Minnesota for Marriage, and nearly all of that came this month, new campaign finance records show. The group gave another $225,000 on Wednesday.
Minnesota for Marriage's press release:
Today, Minnesota For Marriage released its latest campaign finance report outlining that the committee has raised $3.6 million for the period January 1, 2012 through October 22, 2012. Since the October 22nd cutoff date for this report, Minnesota For Marriage has reported additional contributions of over $660,000. The number of contributors grew dramatically as well with thousands of new donors.
“We are delighted that our 2012 donor contributions more than doubled since our last report,” continued Helmberger. “The surge in the number of contributors and contributions has allowed us to step up our TV, billboard, and radio ads that focus on what happens to individuals, small businesses, churches – and especially children – when same-sex marriage has been imposed elsewhere.”
Gary Cecil III includes a few quotes by NOM's Thomas Peters in The Signal (the student newspaper of the University of Houston-Clear Lake):
"...Thirty-two states when given the chance have voted to protect marriage,” said Thomas Peters, cultural director of NOM. “Gay marriage has primarily been pushed with this claim that it is ‘inevitable,’ even though it goes down in defeat time and time again.”
NOM’s pledge also supports appointing federal judges who do not support same-sex marriage and putting the decision to repeal gay marriage in states that have permitted it to a popular vote.
“It’s important to prevent gay marriage because gay unions are not marriages,” Peters said. “The public purpose of marriage is and has always been to unite men and women together, and to unite them to whatever children they may have . . . any child introduced into a same-sex unit is deprived of either his or her mother or father.”"
"...Peters argues gay marriage is really not about benefits anymore and points out even in states that have granted same-sex couples all the legal rights of marriage through civil unions, activists are still attempting to redefine marriage.
“Gay unions are not marriages and however long this fiction may be perpetuated in law, the more harm to society and the next generation will result,” Peters said. “If we erase the idea and if the law treats the idea as akin to bigotry that moms and dads each matter and each contribute something unique to the well-being of children, we have lost a core human truth and society and culture will suffer as a result. Gay people have the right to live as they choose, but they do not have the right to redefine marriage for the rest of us."
Today on Public Discourse, Matt Franck discusses new analyses that confirm Mark Regnerus's findings. The second in a two-part series.
"Yesterday on Public Discourse, I described the controversy that followed the publication of the New Family Structures Study (NFSS), led by University of Texas sociologist Mark Regnerus. During a summer of unusual abuse, Regnerus remained largely silent but with his head unbowed. As autumn arrived, he found himself vindicated as an honest scientist by his university, with continued support from the journal editor who published his research.
In the November 2012 issue of Social Science Research, Regnerus has published a new article: “Parental same-sex relationships, family instability, and subsequent life outcomes for adult children: Answering critics of the new family structures study with additional analyses.”... How many children were raised by two women staying together from the child’s first birthday to his or her eighteenth? Just two. And how many such cases were there in the FGR category—of children raised by two men together for their whole childhood? Zero. This, out of an initial population of 15,000.I recite these numbers to make a point of my own that fairly leaps off the pages of Regnerus’s work: that family instability is the characteristic experience of those whose parents have same-sex relationships. This is what Regnerus is getting at when he says that critics who want him to treat stability as a “control variable” are actually “controlling for the pathways.” To go on an endless search for a sizable random sample of long-term, stable same-sex couples raising children is to miss the social reality in front of us, namely that they are conspicuously missing from the lives of children whose parents have same-sex relationships..."
