NOMblog: The Official Blog of the National Organization for Marriage

NOM BLOG

Monthly Archives: November 2012

Today is Election Day: How To Protect Marriage!

November 6, 2012 – 5:00 am

If you live in one of the four states voting on marriage today here is how to protect it!

By NOM Staff | Posted in Election Watch 2012, Maine, Marriage, Marriage Election Watch, Maryland, Minnesota, Same Sex Marriage, Washington | Comments Off

New Poll Shows: We Have the Momentum for Marriage in Maine!

November 5, 2012 – 9:00 pm

A new poll out tonight by MPRC which surveyed likely voters Nov 1st-3rd has us only 4 points behind in Maine! Previous polls to this one have had us down by 7-8 points. Polls before the Maine vote in 2009 had us losing by 6 points, when we went on to win on election night by 6 points.

This is hugely encouraging news and shows that if pro-marriage supporters turn out tomorrow we will win!

On Question 1 (=gay marriage) MPRC found Mainers answering:

Yes: 50.5%
No: 46.5%
Undecided: 2.9%

To learn more visit www.ProtectMarriageMaine.com.

By NOM Staff | Posted in Maine, Marriage, Same Sex Marriage | Comments (1)

Almost There! 7 Hours Left to Put Us Over the Top!

November 5, 2012 – 5:06 pm

Marriage Supporter,

There are only a few hours remaining to triple your donation to uphold God's definition of marriage!

We're only $8,728 short of our $3 million goal—will you help us close the gap now?

This is your absolute last chance to contribute.

By NOM Staff | Posted in Election Watch 2012, Marriage Election Watch, Same Sex Marriage | Comments (2)

WaPo's George Will: Marriage Amendment Will Help Romney Win Minnesota

November 5, 2012 – 1:00 pm

The Daily Caller:

Add Washington Post George Will to the landslide column, along with Fox News Channel’s Dick Morris and the Washington Examiner’s Michael Barone.

On this weekend’s broadcast of “This Week with George Stephanopoulos” on ABC, Will revealed his prediction and added a bonus surprise by saying traditional Democratic state Minnesota would go for Romney, as well.

“I’m projecting Minnesota to go for Romney,” Will said. “It’s the only state that’s voted Democratic in nine consecutive elections, but this year, there’s the marriage amendment on the ballot that will bring out the evangelicals, and I think could make the difference.”

By NOM Staff | Posted in Election Watch 2012, Marriage, Marriage Election Watch, Minnesota, Mitt Romney, Politics, Same Sex Marriage | Comments Off

Video: Matt Birk on Voting Against Question 6

November 5, 2012 – 12:00 pm

Via the Maryland Catholic Conference:

Baltimore Ravens has been a champion of marriage and encourages Marylanders to uphold marriage as a union between one man and one woman. It is possible to be tolerant of the rights of others without redefining the legal definition of marriage. Vote AGAINST Question 6.

By NOM Staff | Posted in Marriage, Maryland, Same Sex Marriage | Comments Off

"Same-Sex Marriage Ten Years On: Lessons from Canada"

November 5, 2012 – 11:00 am

Bradley Miller, associated professor of law at the University of Western Ontario, has written an extensive piece in Public Discourse on what same-sex marriage has wrought in Canada -- here's the brief introduction:

"The effects of same-sex civil marriage in Canada—restrictions on free speech rights, parental rights in education, and autonomy rights of religious institutions, along with a weakening of the marriage culture—provide lessons for the United States."

By NOM Staff | Posted in Canada, Marriage, Same Sex Marriage | Comments (10)

Last Chance to Help Turn out the Vote!

November 5, 2012 – 9:45 am

Marriage Supporter,

Our unprecedented get out the vote (GOTV) effort to mobilize up to 10 million pro-marriage Americans to go to the polls tomorrow is well underway. This is a quick note to remind you that today is your absolute last chance to giveto our Million Dollar Match for Marriage campaign.

If you donate immediately, your contribution will automatically be tripled to ensure that NOM turns out every pro-marriage voter to spoil election night parties for the homosexual marriage lobbyists!

We're so close to reaching our goal of raising $3 million for marriage!

Follow this link to make an urgent donation of $50, $100, $250, or more and every dollar you give for marriage will be tripled to fund our get-out-the-vote campaign.

Can I count on your help in this critical hour?

By Brian Brown | Posted in Election Watch 2012, Same Sex Marriage | Comments Off

Video: Minnesota Marriage Amendment Will Not Affect Rights and Benefits of Gay Couples

November 5, 2012 – 9:00 am

Kalley Yanta of the Minnesota Marriage Minute:

"Some people have wondered what impact passage of the marriage protection amendment might have on rights and benefits for gay couples. The Marriage Amendment has no impact on rights and benefits for gay couples -- all the amendment would do is put our definition of marriage of one man and one woman which has always existed in Minnesota into our state constitution so that is protected from being redefined by activist judges or politicians."

By NOM Staff | Posted in Debating Marriage, Marriage, Minnesota, Same Sex Marriage | Comments (1)

Ryan Anderson on Why the Promotion of Marriage is Critical to Limited Government

November 5, 2012 – 8:00 am

Ryan Anderson writes at America's Future Foundation in response to a libertarian argument that government should not regulate marriage:

"...Shelton reaches her conclusion that marriage supporters “are essentially advocating for the Church and the State to be one and the same. They are fighting for bigger government and cronyism in marriage, although they claim to want more individual freedom and personal liberties elsewhere. The inherent contradiction is astounding.”

But there is no contradiction here once one considers the actual arguments advanced by Shelton’s opponents and left unaddressed by Shelton herself.

In our article in the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy “What is Marriage?” my co-authors and I have argued philosophically that marriage by its very nature is a union of a man and a woman. (Later this month Encounter Books will release an expanded and enhanced version of the argument.)

At the heart of the argument is an understanding that natural (not supernatural, sacramental, or religious) marriage is a pre-political institution springing from human nature itself. Prior to any governmental diktats, marriage has its own essential structure and norms and serves its own ends. Our marriage law should reflect the truth about what marriage is."

By NOM Staff | Posted in Debating Marriage, Law, Marriage, Politics, Same Sex Marriage | Comments Off

First Business Owners...Next, Parents...

November 4, 2012 – 8:00 pm

Dear Marriage Supporter,

I just wrote you this morning about the O'Reillys, telling you about how the state targeted their right to run their business according to their values and religious principles.

Well, unfortunately, that's not even approaching the line for same-sex marriage regimes bent on imposing their radical agenda on you and all of America.

Meet the Parkers, who had to suffer the indignity of arrest and prosecution because they didn't want their kindergartener learning about same-sex marriage in school!

I said it before, and I'll say it again: this is not an isolated instance. And it's only getting worse.

Just yesterday, we learned that young children in Maine public schools have been subjected to graphic instruction on homosexual sex—without any notice to their parents.

Wherever same-sex marriage is enacted as the law of the land, it puts businesses, parents and churches holding to the idea that it takes a man and a woman to form a marriage in direct conflict with the State.

Marriage Supporter, we MUST take a stand for marriage and religious liberty!

Please make a donation of $50, $100, $500 or even $1,000, if you have the means, to help the National Organization for Marriage defend marriage and religious liberty across the country… for the Parkers; for the O'Reillys; and for you and your family.

And please pray for all of us at NOM and the work that we are doing.

By Brian Brown | Posted in Election Watch 2012, Marriage Election Watch, Same Sex Marriage | Comments (5)

NRO: "Social Conservatives Turning Out to Remove [Pro-SSM] Judge May Deliver the State to Romney"

November 4, 2012 – 6:00 pm

Betsy Woodruff writes at National Review:

It’s certainly not a sure thing, but the fate of one David Wiggins could play a key role in determining, on November 6, who becomes the leader of the free world.

David Wiggins is a justice on the Iowa Supreme Court, and this fall he’s up for a retention vote. A controversial decision about gay marriage has given rise to a sizeable grassroots movement among Hawkeye social conservatives who want to push him out. Their get-out-the-vote efforts could mobilize otherwise unmotivated conservative voters and tip the balance in Iowa. It’s a state where Mitt Romney was not expected to win, but he now trails by just two points in the Real Clear Politicsaverage.

This is happening because of the Iowa Supreme Court’s controversial 2009 decision on the state’s restricting its marriage licenses to straight coouples. The seven justices on the court ruled unanimously that the statute denied same-sex couples equal protection and didn’t serve a compelling state interest. But the kicker for conservatives, according to former Iowa GOP political director Craig Robinson, came when the court also stipulated that same-sex couples had now won the right to marry. The unconstitutionality of one statute doesn’t imply that its inverse is law, Robinson notes, but that was the result of the court’s ruling. Opponents of the ruling argue that in legislating from the bench, the justices overstepped their constitutional bounds and deserve to be thrown out.

By NOM Staff | Posted in Election Watch 2012, Iowa, Law, Marriage, Marriage Election Watch, Mitt Romney, Same Sex Marriage | Comments (1)

Sen. Addabbo Flip-Flops on Marriage --Again!-- Before Facing Voters on Tuesday

November 4, 2012 – 5:00 pm

New York Daily News:

When it comes to gay marriage, state Sen. Joseph Addabbo was against it before he was for it — and now he seems to be against it again.

Last year, the Queens Democrat’s position-changing vote helped legalize same-sex marriage.

But now, Addabbo is locked in a tight reelection fight with Republican City Councilman and gay-marriage opponent Eric Ulrich. And the senator recently told the Far Rockaway Jewish Alliance during an endorsement interview that he’d again vote no if given the chance, according to two Jewish publications.

Why? Because his newly redrawn district is suddenly more conservative.

Addabbo, who is Catholic, cast a nay vote that contributed to the death of a gay marriage bill in 2009. After Gov. Cuomo, the Democratic standard-bearer in New York, aggressively pushed the issue after taking office last year, Addabbo changed his position, explaining his shift by saying that he polled the matter in his district and found his constituents supported gay marriage.

Cuomo cited the “courage” Addabbo showed in changing his position when he endorsed the senator earlier this month over Ulrich, a Catholic who once considered entering the priesthood. Addabbo’s pro-gay marriage stance also won him the backing of the Empire State Pride Agenda, the state’s largest gay advocacy group.

But the Legislature redrew Addabbo’s district lines following last year’s gay marriage vote, bringing into his territory more conservative enclaves in Far Rockaway, Kew Gardens and parts of Forest Hills — and leading to his second flip on the issue.

By NOM Staff | Posted in Marriage, New York, Politics, Same Sex Marriage | Comments (3)

Maine Youth Group Almost Run Over For Sign Waving in Support of Marriage

November 4, 2012 – 4:00 pm

An incredible Letter to the Editor from a 14-year-old girl in Maine about her youth group being harassed and imperiled for sign waving in support of marriage:

Recently our youth group, ages 7 to 17, felt called to take a stand for marriage, as traditionally defined by all previous generations. We decided that for the next four weekends we would hold signs along Payne Road in Scarborough, asking Mainers for their support.

We consulted the police and followed their safety recommendations. As we stood along the sidewalk, a tremendous number of people enthusiastically showed their support. But many of the opposition were extremely hostile.

On one occasion, a middle-aged man with children in the back seat of his SUV deliberately drove up onto the sidewalk. He was dangerously near the children as he continued accelerating, plowing over 15 of our marriage signs and covering a span of more than 100 feet. The little ones were very scared.

He pulled off only to avoid hitting a telephone pole, and we saw him laughing as he sped away. The police chased after him and when confronted, the man claimed that he was "distracted." Thankfully, a nearby store captured the entire crime on video.

On another occasion, a car drove by and the passenger leaned out the window, exposing his private parts. I was embarrassed by this lack of decency.

We children endured people calling us names, throwing things at us and hundreds upon hundreds of people sticking up their middle fingers and screaming X-rated profanities. And they call us hateful people?

In the name of "tolerance," I have been insulted, disrespected and bullied, simply because of my beliefs: that marriage is between a man and a woman and that children need both a mother and a father. In spite of all this, I am determined to continue exercising my First Amendment rights and standing up for the true meaning of marriage. -- Portland Press Herald

By NOM Staff | Posted in Civility, Law, Marriage, Same Sex Marriage, Youth | Comments (14)

Bishop of Maine to Catholics: "Vote Your Faith on November 6"

November 4, 2012 – 3:00 pm

Bishop Richard Malone of Maine issued this letter to all Catholics in Maine. Here is the conclusion:

As we prepare to make these decisions on Election Day, we need to be asking ourselves if our vote will serve to advance human dignity, support life in all of its stages of development, and serve the common good.

A Catholic whose conscience has been properly formed by scripture and Church teaching cannot justify a vote for a candidate or referendum question that opposes the teachings of the Church. The definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman, open to the birth of children, is a matter of established Catholic doctrine. Any Catholic who supports a redefinition of marriage—or so called “same-sex marriage”—is unfaithful to Catholic doctrine. The group calling itself ‘Catholics for Marriage Equality’ does not speak for the Catholic Church, any more than does ‘Catholics for a Free Choice’, another dissident group that promotes so-called ‘abortion rights’. Faithful Catholics will give no credence to either.

Vote your faith on November 6.”

By NOM Staff | Posted in Same Sex Marriage | Comments (3)

Baltimore Sun LTE: "Yes, Gay Marriage Will be Taught"

November 4, 2012 – 2:00 pm

A letter to the editor in the Baltimore Sun from a Maryland teacher:

In response to Jean Marbella ("Just who's 'teaching' gay marriage?" Oct. 31), I would point out that in a teacher-student relationship, teaching happens actively and passively. If the idea of "values" has been taught, and there is the expectation that the teacher will identify evil values from good, then some kind of active and passive communication applying values will be given on relevant topics as needed. I cannot imagine a literature analysis course being taught without active and passive values analysis and judgment given to the characters in the books. So when in elementary school, the class reads, "Heather has two mommies," values will be examined and assigned.

Teachers do not teach as values neutral agents regarding human behavior choices just because something seems to be simply "a choice" without harm to another. When teachers give tests, they do not remain values neutral if a student pulls out a cheat sheet during the test. Using the cheat sheet is just a choice of response to the test, and brings no harm to any others, right? But teachers, at least the ones I know of, do not allow such personal choices. Instead, they address that response — a response that does not interfere with anyone else's "values response" — as unacceptable.

I am in schools 95 percent of the days they open. I see what students actively and passively infer about protocols, behavior and values. And if the teacher says nothing, or does nothing regarding a particular behavior, they infer that it is acceptable. Teachers know this and consciously attach values once they realize that if they are passive, then a student might default to a wrong value.