Did you hear the news? Brad Pitt just gave $100,000 to the four campaigns fighting to impose gay marriage next Tuesday.
What's even more distressing is that Brad Pitt's own mother Jane Pitt has been the subject of death threats and a torrent of public abuse for speaking out against gay marriage, and yet her son has still chosen to double down by pushing gay marriage on the rest of the country!
I can hardly think of a better example of a liberal millionaire trying to impose his Hollywood values on all of us, no matter the consequences.
Your contribution will help determine who has the final say on gay marriage: the $100,000 Brad Pitt just gave...or the $100,000 we raise from hundreds of pro-marriage activists like you!
Together, we can fight back against Hollywood millionaires like Brad Pitt and, with your help, we can protect the values they are attempting to dismantle and obscure.
Iowans for Freedom has been accused of inserting politics into Iowa’s judiciary by accepting out-of-state money to educate Iowans on voting “no” on Supreme Court Judge David Wiggins’ retention. Now in the closing days of the election, IFF’s biggest critic on this matter has accepted $100,000 from a Washington, D.C. based PAC whose tagline is “working for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender equal rights”.
“I am in disbelief at how Justice Not Politics has constantly criticized us for taking out-of-state money and claim we are putting politics in the judiciary for merely wanting to hold an activist judge in check,” Executive Director of Iowans for Freedom Greg Baker said. “Yet, they in the final days of the campaign, have taken $100,000 from a Washington, D.C. organization whose sole mission is to further the gay agenda. I’m sure they were hoping Iowans wouldn’t notice the hypocrisy.”
"On the same-sex marriage bill, Mainers deserve answers to two basic questions:
* With the overwhelming evidence that legalizing same-sex marriage will dramatically undermine religious freedom in Maine, why did same-sex marriage advocates intentionally omit the protections to reduce some of the threats, such as protection of religious objectors to same-sex marriage, including religiously affiliated nonprofit organizations from being penalized by loss of government contracts or in other ways because of their religious objection? And what about housing programs of religious organizations? These are bright, well-informed people, and they certainly knew that by choosing not to include protections, they were guaranteeing a deeply divisive conflict over religious freedom issues in Maine.
* Since they had to know that this decision would actually result in greater threats to religious freedom in Maine if this law is enacted, why would they try to mislead Mainers that their bill actually protects religious freedom?"
Peter Pinette of Woodland is a member of the local Coalition for Marriage Compromise and writes in the Bangor Daily News:
If there is a situation that is begging for a compromise, then it exists in the coming same-sex marriage referendum. We feel that compassion, understanding and consideration are the paramount issues in this referendum. If both sides of the debate give a truly heartfelt reflection on these issues then hopefully a just compromise can be achieved. A sincere understanding of each side’s rightful wants and consideration of values will lead to fairness.
Let us begin with the essential want of the traditional advocates. They want to retain the exclusive ownership of the marriage title. They believe it is their gift; it was ordained for those who are joined in the very foundation that God requires. They want to stress the sacredness and inalterability of the marriage title; a title that holds a deeply ingrained belief. It is the belief that marriage is a union both civilly and sacramentally of one man and one woman.
... Redefining marriage alters the basic foundation of a two-gender union that is required to merit the ordained marriage title. The marriage title cannot be shared or appropriated simply because it is not ours to share.
... In this referendum same-sex marriage advocates are looking to the people of Maine for compassion and understanding to grant them the right to marry with all the marriage entitlements. The privileges of marriage can be available to them under the title of civil unions.
"...I appeal to the intuition and experience of the people of the great state of Maine. I know this about you. You are men and women committed to your children. You are serious parents. May I propose that there is not enough data for us to safely conclude that children thrive in households with same-sex parents?Far too little is known about this new household form. For this reason alone, and for our children's sake, doesn't it make sense to wait before we institutionalize same-sex marriage?
To this point, the data shows that the safest place for a kid is in a household with a mom and dad. Common sense dictates that every child should be mentored every day with both male and female influences. Mainers United for Marriage consistently claims that they have 30 years of research on their side. Do they?
Every study has weaknesses, but here are the two weaknesses I see with these studies. First, most of this research is based on samples too small to detect genuine differences that may exist in children raised in opposite-sex partnerships versus same-sex parents; and second, much of this research is based on self-selected pools of volunteers, not a random, unbiased look at the entire population of same-sex parents."
... Mainers should vote "no" based on the serious questions that remain concerning the impact of same-sex parenting on children.
...In my opinion, this is not about kids and wanting to protect them at all. It's about adults asking the state to affirm their relationship choices. As people who care about children, Mainers must vote "no" on Question 1."
A massive outpouring of support from the faith community on behalf of marriage!
Pastors for Marriage, a member group of the coalition Minnesota for Marriage, today announced that over 500 Christian pastors and leaders have endorsed Amendment 1, the marriage protection amendment. These 500+ Christian faith leaders represent Minnesota Assemblies of God, Lutheran, nondenominational, Baptist, minority, Presbyterian, Catholic, and other churches. They outline how their faith will guide them to vote YES on Amendment 1.
Pastor Steve Goold of New Hope Church stated: “As the author and architect of marriage, God has spoken clearly that marriage is to be between a man and a woman. These are unique and urgent times that shout the need to prevent the almost incomprehensible destruction that will come to society if that definition is permitted to be conveniently altered through the legal process. Bottom line for me as a Pastor—vote, vote yes, and enthusiastically encourage others to do the same. This is right and good.”
This statement, The Christian Vote on the Minnesota Marriage Protection Amendment, follows yesterday’s announcement by Billy Graham who stated that he “wholeheartedly endorse[s]” Amendment 1. -- Minnesota For Marriage
The South Washington County Bulletin published an early report of our President Brian Brown debating marriage yesterday with Episcopalian Bishop Gene Robinson.
The event was hosted in front of an audience of over 350 and broadcast via MNPR to tens of thousands of Minnesotans:
Minnesota’s hottest election topic continues to get hotter as Election Day nears.
Whether to amend the state Constitution to ban same-sex marriage has generated the most debate and most money this election season, and a Thursday night debate did nothing to pave over differences.
“What we are talking about is marriage, just marriage,” Episcopalian Bishop Gene Robinson said.
But supporters of the proposed amendment said that having same-sex parents is not good for children.
“Children deserve having both a mother and a father,” President Brian Brown of the National Organization for Marriage said.
The debate about a subject that polls show nearly evenly divides Minnesotans was organized by Minnesota Public Radio and moderated by talk show host Kerri Miller in front of 365 people and a statewide radio audience.
... Brown said the overwhelming majority of clergy support a marriage only of a man and a woman.
Gay marriage laws in Washington state and Maryland are in danger of being overturned by voters, according to new polls that were released after traditional groups went on the air with television ads warning of the consequences of marriage redefinition.
Both new polls show traditional groups making up significant ground in the span of a few weeks.
In Washington state, Referendum 74 to legalize gay marriage is too close to call, with supporters of R-74 leading 49-45 percent, according to an Elway Poll of 451 likely voters conducted Oct. 18-21. A month earlier, supporters led, 51-37 percent.
"Opposition to Referendum 74 has grown over the past month while support has stayed at virtually the same level since July," an analysis by Elway Poll said.
In Maryland the vote on Question 6 -- which would legalize gay marriage if passed -- also is a dead heat, with 47 percent of likely voters opposing it and 46 percent favoring it. The survey of 801 likely voters was conducted Oct. 20-23 by OpinionWorks for the Baltimore Sun newspaper. A month earlier, supporters of gay marriage led, 49-39 percent.
Both states saw Democratic legislators and governors pass gay marriage laws this year, only to have citizens gather signatures to overturn them at the ballot. Neither law has taken effect.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: November 2, 2012
Contact: Elizabeth Ray or Jen Campbell (703-683-5004)
"Along with advertising and other mobilization efforts we have undertaken, which are unprecedented in their scale, we are confident that Election Day 2012 will mark a triumph for marriage and family in the United States." —Brian Brown, NOM president—
Washington, D.C.—The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) was founded to advance pro-marriage initiatives across the country through advocacy and grassroots mobilization. Today NOM issued the following statement on campaign 2012:
In the final days before voters go to the ballot box, the National Organization for Marriage and its partners are launching a major push to reach and mobilize 10 million voters with a positive message for marriage. The new campaign, with a budget of $500,000, involves robocalls to households in Maine, Maryland, Washington State, Wisconsin, Ohio and Pennsylvania. The calls feature prominent advocates for traditional marriage and family, including Dr. James Dobson, Senator Marco Rubio and former Governor and presidential candidate Mike Huckabee. Calls will be placed in both English and Spanish, targeting voters across the political spectrum who favor retaining the definition of marriage, which has characterized society for centuries.
Brian Brown, president of the National Organization for Marriage, described the telephone campaign as "the largest national mobilization of traditional marriage voters in history. Our aim is to reach 10 million voters or more. We are proud to work with state-and national-based partners in the four states that have marriage referenda on the ballot—states where we believe the polls are trending in our favor—and in three presidential swing states, Wisconsin, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, that many pundits are surprised to find now in play.
"Even in these tough economic times," Brown said, "people know that the stability of the family is crucial and the need to preserve the institution of marriage has never been greater. These calls from leaders in public life will remind voters to go to the polls, to protect marriage, and to support public officials who will do the same. Along with advertising and other mobilization efforts we have undertaken, which are unprecedented in their scale, we are confident that Election Day 2012 will mark a triumph for marriage and family in the United States."
###
To schedule an interview with Brian Brown, President of the National Organization for Marriage, please contact Jen Campbell (x145), [email protected] , or Elizabeth Ray (x130), [email protected] , at 703-683-5004.
Paid for by The National Organization for Marriage, Brian Brown, president. 2029 K Street NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20006, not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee. New § 68A.405(1)(f) & (h).
The Los Angeles Times acknowledges the powerful effect of African-American pastors encouraging their congregations to stand up for marriage and vote against Question 6 (gay marriage):
Maryland, which just a month ago appeared poised to become the first state in the country to back gay marriage by popular vote, is now reported to be deadlocked on the issue, in part because of a drop in support from religious blacks.
Only a few weeks ago, polls were suggesting that Marylanders were leaning toward supporting gay marriage, but as November approached, the numbers tightened.
The change appears to be partly driven by black pastors in Maryland urging their congregations to vote against the measure.
During a sermon in October, pastor Harold L. Dugger of First Baptist Church in Prince George's County, Md., asked his congregation to go to the polls to cast their votes against same-sex marriage.
"No vote means you've already voted," Dugger told church members. "We stand firmly on the word of God — your faith has to do a lot with what you do at the polls."
A poll conducted in late September for the Baltimore Sun showed the measure to legalize same-sex marriage ahead by 10 percentage points, with more than 50% of African Americans supporting the idea despite a history of opposition from black churches. A quarter of black respondents were opposed.
Since then, voters in Maryland have been exposed to a media blitz, with both sides airing TV ads in an effort to swing undecided voters their way. The latest polling for the Sun, conducted Oct. 20-23 by the Annapolis, Md., firm OpinionWorks, now shows 50% of black voters against same-sex marriage, with 42% supporting the idea.
Fred D. Murray of Pikesville, MD writes to the Baltimore Sun:
I find it so amazing that the proponents of Question 6 say that passing this will help to promote a climate of tolerance. All the while they are attacking anyone, any organization or church that opposes it. The recent comments of those opposing the Rev. Robert Anderson and other pastors who oppose the redefining of marriage have been anything but tolerant ("Same-sex unions: What would Jesus do?" Oct. 25).
I understand that there have been threats made to him. Perhaps, this is just of glimpse of what to expect if this Question 6 becomes Maryland law. I guess we will have free speech, as guaranteed by the United States Constitution, as long as we agree with supporters of this ballot question. Looking back in history, I can imagine Patrick Henry being vilified if he opposed this law.
Proponents of Question 6, examine your heart and your methods. I will still pray for you and love you because that is what our God commands. What does your God command you to do?
Our reader Tim in MT shared this video with us that he had made after catching Michelangelo Signorile on SiriusXM radio yesterday.
The left-wing radio talker, twice in the segment (at about 2:15 & 3:45) advises his gay Romney-supporting caller to drink arsenic or other poison so he can commit suicide. At 2:57, he tells the young man that he should not be allowed to vote.
We're waiting for Dan Savage to condemn Signorile's (repeated and egregious) advice to this young man in Utah.
Do Rawlsian principles of "political liberalism" demand the legal recognition of same-sex romantic partnerhips as marriages? I suspect that many of Rawls's conservative critics, as well as his liberal supporters, would suppose that the answer must be yes. (For the conservative critics, that would be one more count against Rawls's general theory of justice and political morality.) But now comes my former student, Matthew O'Brien, who in a brilliant article just out in the British Journal of American Legal Studies argues that the answer is actually no. In fact, he maintains that Rawlsian principles, rigorously and consistently applied, forbid the re-definition of civil marriage to include same-sex partnerships. The article, entitled "Why Liberal Neutrality Prohibits Same-Sex Marriage: Rawls, Political Liberalism, and the Family," is available online here.
Last week, I told you about the odds we face in the four battleground states—outspent, scorned in the media, with gay marriage advocates confidently predicting victory.
But thanks to millions of Americans who've sacrificed their time and treasure to stand up for God's visions of marriage, pro-marriage messages are finally getting out: through churches and synagogues, through personal conversations, through social media, through letters to the editor—and through the ads crafted by NOM's own brilliant Frank Schubert. Now I'm here to tell you...
Our Ads Are Working!
Remember last week that I told you about the sudden turnaround in polling in Washington. Polls had gay marriage winning by as much as fourteen points, but after just one week of television ads the polls suddenly tightened, showing us within the margin of error and gay marriage advocates under 50 percent!
This week, more good news: in Maryland, the miracle continues!
Don't take my word for it, here's how the never-friendly MSM Los Angeles Times reported the breaking news:
Maryland, which just a month ago appeared poised to become the first state in the country to back gay marriage by popular vote, is now reported to be deadlocked on the issue, in part because of a drop in support from religious blacks.
Only a few weeks ago, polls were suggesting that Marylanders were leaning toward supporting gay marriage, but as November approached, the numbers tightened.
The change appears to be partly driven by black pastors in Maryland urging their congregations to vote against the measure.
A late September Baltimore Sun poll showed gay marriage ahead by ten percentage points, and had African-Americans supporting the idea 2 to 1.
Since then, voters in Maryland have been exposed to a media blitz, with both sides airing TV ads in an effort to swing undecided voters their way. The latest polling for the Sun, conducted Oct. 20-23 by the Annapolis, Md., firm OpinionWorks, now shows 50% of black voters against same-sex marriage, with 42% supporting the idea.
Funny—even though the LA Times can't help but report the swing, it really doesn't tell you how good the news is by focusing on just the black vote. So, let me put it simply:
Just a few weeks ago, the Baltimore Sun had gay marriage leading by ten points (49 percent to 39 percent); and now opposition to gay marriage has closed that gap to lead by one percentage point. Amazing!
The LA Times goes on to point to our secret weapon for marriage:
There is one man who gives supporters good reason to worry. Frank Schubert, the political strategist who helped engineer the defeat of same-sex marriage measures in California in 2008, Maine in 2009 and North Carolina in 2012, is leading the charge in Maryland as well.
"32-0 is a pretty good record," Schubert said, referring to the 32 states that have defeated ballot measures to legalize same-sex marriage. He also criticized what he calls "a concerted effort to convince black voters that as Democrats they should support Question 6" on the Maryland ballot out of loyalty to the party."
You and I know that something as fundamental and as sacred as marriage should not be reduced to partisan politics.
But do you want to know what's even worse? When partisan politicians try to get between a pastor and his people!
SSM Bullies Striking the Shepherd to Scatter the Flock
Amazingly, this is exactly what's happening in Maryland right now. Pro-gay marriage donors are mostly white and mostly socially liberal—some of them Republicans (like Ken Mehlman and Paul Singer); some of them incredibly rich (like New York City's Mayor Bloomberg); some of them incredibly Hollywood (like Brad Pitt, who just dissed his pro-marriage mom by donating $100,000 to push gay marriage). And these are the types that are now spending tons of money to run a radio ad urging black Christians to ignore their pastors—and using President Obama's voice to persuade them.
Spending white people's money to urge black Christians to ignore their pastors, and to put their faith in princes instead!
The Black Church has always been the conscience, not just of African-Americans, but of all Americans. Listen, then, to the incredibly offensive tactic used in this ad and tell me: doesn't it make your blood boil?
2012: The Marriage Election
Meanwhile, gay marriage activists are trying to attack Mitt Romney by circulating this video of him from 2004, saying he stood up against an effort to take "mom and dad" off Massachusetts birth certificates, affirming every child deserves a mom and dad if possible.
The miracles unfolding for marriage may well end up boosting Governor Romney in this election, just as we saw President Obama's pro-gay marriage position cost him support in North Carolina.
Take Minnesota.
No Republican candidate for President has won Minnesota since Richard Nixon's 49-state landslide against George McGovern in 1972.
And yet, a startling new Star Tribune poll released Sunday shows Mitt Romney in a statistical dead heat with President Obama—with the president under 50 percent!
National Review's Robert Costa notes that the marriage amendment battle in Minnesota is likely one reason for the momentum.
Democrats are nervous. For months, their electoral calculus has categorized Minnesota as reliably blue. This week, the Washington Post and ABC News reclassified it from "safely" Democrat to "lean Obama." To stanch the bleeding, Democrats are spending more, and sending in former president Bill Clinton, who will stump near the Twin Cities.
Obama adviser Jim Messina is pushing back; he told reporters on Monday that the idea Romney could win Minnesota is "wishful thinking." But Republicans' rising expectations are grounded in more than poll numbers. As Hot Air's Ed Morrissey reports, there are "two key referendums on the ballot," and they are dominating the debate and stoking participation.
One measure would amend the state constitution to require photo identification for voting, and the other would constitutionally define marriage as between a man and a woman. Outside groups on both sides have poured in money. These referendums, more than Republican Kurt Bills's underfunded challenge to Senator Amy Klobuchar, have Republicans enthused [emphases added].
Our own Frank Schubert just published a Halloween op-ed in The Hill urging Team Romney to capitalize on this momentum: "In the final stretch, social issues can help Romney," he writes. "With polls showing the presidential race to be dead even, Mitt Romney would do well to remind voters in key swing states of his position on social issues like marriage, life and religious liberty. They could tip the scale in this election."
[Of course, I know many of our fellow marriage champions in state battles will vote for Pres. Obama while voting against gay marriage. I want to say welcome and thank you! Marriage transcends partisan politics (or should!) and brings together an amazing coalition of people of all races, creeds, and even political parties to defend ultimate values.]
But here's the point Frank is making that I want to underline: Republicans should recognize that standing up for traditional values is an electoral asset, not a problem, an opportunity we can't afford to let slip!
As Frank puts it: "The Karl Rove wing of the GOP and the Republican elite have succeeded in keeping social issues off the table in this general election, deeming them to be ‘divisive.' They've understandably focused their campaign on the Obama record, especially as it relates to the economy. But Obama also has a record on social issues, and that record puts him at odds with a large majority of voters in key swing states. Unfortunately, voters in those states haven't heard much about the Obama record on marriage, life and religious liberty."
Other Major Voices Speaking Up On Marriage
Syndicated radio host Dennis Prager is a marriage champion, part of the amazing coalition across creeds for marriage. When Maggie Gallagher went on his show, he asked that she would make sure NOM passed along to you the chance to read his new column on marriage.
Let me tell you a little about Dennis. He's one smart dude, fluent in Russian and Hebrew; he has taught at Brooklyn College, was a Fellow at Columbia's School of International and Public Affairs, and worked as a media fellow at Stanford's Hoover Institution.
In his recent piece on marriage, he writes eloquently about what history teaches us on marriage:
The history of left-wing policies has largely consisted of doing what feels good and compassionate without asking what the long-term consequences will be; what Professor Thomas Sowell calls "Stage One Thinking." […]
By redefining marriage to include same sex couples we are playing with sexual and societal fire. Just as the entitlement state passes on the cost of our good intentions to our children and grandchildren… so, too, same-sex marriage will pass along the consequences of our good intentions to our children and grandchildren—gender confusion and the loss of motherhood and fatherhood as values, just to cite two obvious consequences.
It is not enough to mean well in life. One must also do well. And the two are frequently not the same thing.
Let me close by sharing another miraculous blessing: The great Rev. Billy Graham is still with us, and his voice—one of America's great moral voices—is ringing still, and most recently ringing with God's truth about marriage!
On November 6, the day before my 94th birthday, our nation will hold one of the most critical elections in my lifetime. We are at a crossroads and there are profound moral issues at stake. I strongly urge you to vote for candidates who support the biblical definition of marriage between a man and woman, protect the sanctity of life, and defend our religious freedoms. The Bible speaks clearly on these crucial issues. Please join me in praying for America, that we will turn our hearts back toward God.
I pray that the good people of Minnesota will show their support for God's definition of marriage, between a man and a woman. I wholeheartedly endorse the Marriage Protection Amendment, and urge you to vote Yes to pass Amendment 1.
Billy Graham has never been a political preacher. By stepping forward now, he is underlining the serious and sacred nature of the battle we are fighting.
I just want to say thank you, Rev. Graham—and thank God for your blessed 90-year witness to kindness and to courage!
So many good people of all races, all creeds, all colors and all political parties will be inspired by your witness to once against stand up for God's truth for marriage.
We Need Your Help In These Final Days!
NOM is putting everything we have into these victories.
Of course, as always, I want to acknowledge and all the good organizations out there fighting for marriage. Marriage is too great to be fought by only one person or one organization.
But take a look at these news stories, and you'll see just how deeply NOM is involved in these fights, how much we are putting in to winning these victories for marriage, to being your voice for God's values.
In Iowa, where a fourth pro-gay marriage judge is now facing the voters three years after he ruled to impose gay marriage on the state, this World-Herald story lists the many groups working to oust David Wiggins: Citizen Link, Rick Santorum's new Patriot Voices, CatholicVote.org are all helping The Family Leader fight in this cause. But the same article also notes that, of the $248,000 spent in the campaign to date, "[NOM] has spent about $140,000, most of it on television ads advocating Wiggins' ouster."
Opponents of same-sex marriage raised nearly $950,000 in October, a major push toward the end of the campaign as voters get ready to head to the polls Nov. 6.
The bulk of the money came from the National Organization for Marriage, which donated $800,000, and the Knights of Columbus, which chipped in $100,000, according to a campaign finance report filed with the state just before midnight Friday.
In Minnesota, the Star Tribune reports on Oct. 31 that of the $3.7 million the pro-Minnesota for Marriage raised to fight for the 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."
In Washington state, the National Catholic Register reported on Oct 31: "Preserve Marriage Washington, the state campaign organization leading the effort to block the passage of a state law legalizing same-sex ‘marriage,' raised about $2.4 million, including $1.1 million from the National Organization for Marriage.
We are throwing everything we have—heart, soul, body and time and bank-account—into this fight to keep what God has created: marriage as the union of husband and wife; marriage as the foundation of a society ordered to the good of children; marriage as a living emblem of the love the Creator has for us all.
Here's Kelly Yanta in Minnesota speaking for millions about what you and I believe in standing for marriage:
These last few days are quite a whirlwind. Tonight, I'm in Minnesota, where I'll be debating Episcopal Bishop Gene Robinson on the Minnesota marriage amendment at 7pm. The debate, sponsored by Minnesota Public Radio, is free and open to the public, so if you live in the Minneapolis area, come down to the Fitzgerald Theater in St. Paul at 7pm for a lively debate (details here).
* With the overwhelming evidence that legalizing same-sex marriage will dramatically undermine religious freedom in Maine, why did same-sex marriage advocates intentionally omit the protections to reduce some of the threats, such as protection of religious objectors to same-sex marriage, including religiously affiliated nonprofit organizations from being penalized by loss of government contracts or in other ways because of their religious objection? And what about housing programs of religious organizations? These are bright, well-informed people, and they certainly knew that by choosing not to include protections, they were guaranteeing a deeply divisive conflict over religious freedom issues in Maine.
Let us begin with the essential want of the traditional advocates. They want to retain the exclusive ownership of the marriage title. They believe it is their gift; it was ordained for those who are joined in the very foundation that God requires. They want to stress the sacredness and inalterability of the marriage title; a title that holds a deeply ingrained belief. It is the belief that marriage is a union both civilly and sacramentally of one man and one woman.
