John Jessup of CBN News produced a special report for the 700 Club on NOM's decision to sue the IRS:
"...Dr. Eastman's group believes someone in the IRS illegally gave its private donors' list to the Human Rights Campaign, a gay rights group that supports same-sex marriage.
HRC posted the donor information on line during the 2012 election campaign. CBN News contacted the HRC for comment, but it did not respond."
Our Chairman John Eastman told Rep. Blumenauer during his testimony before Congress that the congressman's claim was "preposterous" that groups such as NOM should not be considered a social welfare group. Politifact Oregon agrees with our Chairman and rated Rep. Bluemenauer's claim false:
"Blumenauer said that "the statute a hundred years ago said that they were prohibited." There was no prohibition in the 1913 Act. The 1913 Act was silent on political activity, for whatever reasons. We rate his statement False."
Another British Catholic adoption agency is being threatened with closure by the government for refusing to toe the government’s line of support for the homosexualist political agenda.
St. Margaret’s Children and Family Care Society, associated with the Catholic archdiocese of Glasgow, has lost a ruling in its argument with the Scottish government’s charity regulator, which is demanding the charity drop its policy of adopting only to mothers and fathers who have been married for at least two years.
The Office of the Scottish Charity Regulator (OSCR) has found St. Margaret’s in violation of the Equality Act 2010, saying that its policy "discriminated unlawfully" against same-sex couples. St. Margaret’s is remaining defiant, however, saying that they will fight the decision.
The Christian Institute campaign group quoted a St. Margaret’s board member saying, “The ultimate irony is that apparently in the name of tolerance, societies such as Saint Margaret’s are no longer to be tolerated.”
Dear Marriage Supporter,
What is our relationship with our own bodies? Father's Day is an occasion for meditating on the important reality of our bodies, what they tell us about who we are and how we should live our life.
I write this not because, as the father of 8, I need some outside force to speak to me but because we live in a time and a place where the obvious is often obscured.
Witness the New York Times blog piece by Florida International University professor Laurie Shrage, seeking to recruit men to the ideology of "choice."
"If a man accidentally conceives a child with a woman, his choices are surprisingly few," this women's and gender studies woman professor intones. Shrage goes on to say:
"In consenting to sex, neither a man nor a woman gives consent to become a parent, just as in consenting to any activity, one does not consent to yield to all the accidental outcomes that might flow from that activity."
In other words, in choosing to engage in the act which creates new life — neither men nor women should be held accountable to that new life.
I understand the impulse. I understand it and I reject it, as a man.
We cannot pretend that what is not true, is true.
This is true: The sexual act creates new life.
Not always, not every time, but often enough that we who choose to be responsible human beings need to acknowledge that reality, to love our children more than our lusts.
And to know that doing so is the heart of being a good man or woman, and a happy man or woman.
Here I am on Sean Hannity:
"If they can do this to us, they can do it to anyone!" I say, and it's true.
It's also true that a culture of harassment, intimidation and threats has emerged among gay marriage advocates that is poisoning our democracy.
The latest example is NYC mayoral candidate Erick Salgado, who received death threats after NOM endorsed his candidacy.
"[The emails] said that I'm a rat and I deserve to die," Mr. Salgado told Politicker after the forum. "It was because that day I got the official endorsement, the NOM, they mentioned that [in the email]."
"It makes me nervous, because of my children, I get nervous," he said.
As Politicker notes, Mr. Salgado is the only Democrat in the race opposed to same-sex marriage. He is attempting to build a coalition of conservative Latinos and Orthodox Jews and has the backing of a prominent Russian-American media mogul in south Brooklyn.
Meanwhile, in Great Britain the consequences of gay marriage become ever clearer. Parents of a 3 year old boy came forward to say state-sponsored child care workers told their son he could marry a boy or a girl.
The letter said: "Many of your commentators have speculated as to what the wider implications of allowing same-sex marriages will be on society."
"I was given a stark illustration of this at the weekend."
"In response to my three-year-old son's question as to what marriage was, I told him that it was when a man and woman loved each other very much and wanted to spend their lives together."
"My son then told me that 'boys' could get married, too. As he doesn't read the newspapers, I was keen to understand how he had formed this view."
"Apparently, his carer at nursery, a homosexual, told the entire class that he had great news: when they grew up, they could get married to a girl, or a boy."
"Surely, my son is too young to have this discussion? If I were to complain, however, I would be labeled a bigot."
Let me close by thanking Peggy Noonan, the former Reagan speechwriter, for her columns calling attention to the IRS scandal and what it means.
"The most compelling evidence that the IRS targeted conservatives is what happened to the National Organization for Marriage. Its chairman, John Eastman, testified before the House Ways and Means Committee and the tale he told was different from the now-familiar stories of harassment and abuse," she wrote.
Someone in the IRS gave legally protected information to our — and your! — political enemies!
The IRS is stonewalling. But we will not give in or give up.
We will fight for your right to participate in the democratic process on an equal basis.
And we will fight the tyranny that says government can punish you if you believe in traditional marriage.
Bless you and thank you for your support. It is precious to me.
If God has given you the means, please consider prayerfully giving again.
John Smoot, a trial court judge of Boston’s Probate and Family Court from 1990 to 2012, currently serves as a mediator at Boston Area Mediation. He writes in the Public Discourse that "Redefining marriage will make it harder for our children to develop their self-understanding and will sanction procreative methods that treat children like commodities":
"Chauncey is right; we transformed the “Normal.” We created a “new Normal.” The mantra of the revolution, “If it feels good, do it,” ultimately weakened the institution of marriage with its inherent restraints and responsibilities, ballooned the divorce rate, and brought the number of out-of-wedlock births to 40 percent of all children born in America. All of which translates into poverty, crime, and suffering.
Over the course of twenty-one years as a judge in Boston, I granted thousands of divorces and heard thousands of cases involving children of unmarried parents. Yes, there were adults and children who benefited from divorce just as there were children of single parent families who did fine or excelled. Overall, however, the revolution that encouraged “pleasure, freedom, [and] self-expression” brought an immense amount of pain and misery. Was it bad for everyone? No. Was it bad for millions? Yes.
Social policy and cultural change have an impact on all of us. And clearly, the impact is not always for the good. Now, we are transforming marriage by eliminating its inherent gender distinctions."
Republican Party Chairman Reince Priebus on the revelations made by NOM's Chairman John Eastman:
"...The IRS’s targeting of conservative groups, it seems, may go beyond just harassing those groups applying for 501(c)4 tax-exempt status — the letters, the ridiculous demands, the intrusive questions. They may also have been leaking (illegally) private tax information about certain groups as well.
That was the charge from National Organization for Marriage Chairman John Eastman. A list of the organization’s donors and other confidential information appeared on another political group’s website last year. Eastman says there’s no way they could have gotten that information without someone at the IRS providing it.
If that’s true, it’s an insidious violation of the First Amendment, which should bother Americans of all political stripes — especially if the IRS takes no action in response to it.
...Surely the self-proclaimed “most transparent administration in history” isn’t comfortable with that happening on their watch. So why do they refuse to get to the bottom of it?
On Sunday, Democratic Congressman Elijah Cummings, the ranking member on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, was interviewed about the IRS scandal and said that “the case is solved.” It’s understandable that President Obama’s allies would like to sweep this all under the rug. But the case won’t be “solved” until the questions have been answered." (NewsMax)
A new study in the Journal of Epidemiology followed 6.5 million Danish persons for nearly 30 years (for a total of 112.5 million person-years) looking at how living arrangements (being single, cohabiting, married, widowed or in a same-sex union) affected their health outcomes.
From the official abstract:
"[Hazard Ratios] for overall mortality changed markedly over time, most notably for persons in same-sex marriage. In 2000–2011, opposite-sex married persons (reference, HR = 1) had consistently lower mortality than persons in other marital status categories in women (HRs 1.37–1.89) and men (HRs 1.37–1.66). Mortality was particularly high for same-sex married women (HR = 1.89), notably from suicide (HR = 6.40) and cancer (HR = 1.62), whereas rates for same-sex married men (HR = 1.38) were equal to or lower than those for unmarried, divorced and widowed men. Prior marriages (whether opposite-sex or same-sex) were associated with increased mortality in both women and men (HR = 1.16–1.45 per additional prior marriage)."
The conclusion of the authors:
"Our study provides a detailed account of living arrangements and their associations with mortality over three decades, thus yielding accurate and statistically powerful analyses of public health relevance to countries with marriage and cohabitation patterns comparable to Denmark’s. Of note, mortality among same-sex married men has declined markedly since the mid-1990s and is now at or below that of unmarried, divorced and widowed men, whereas same-sex married women emerge as the group of women with highest and, in recent years, even further increasing mortality."
Commentary from the English Manif blog:
"During 2000 to 2011, Danish male-female married couples were the healthiest and least likely to die at various ages compared with individuals who were unmarried, divorced or widowed. In contrast, same-sex married men in Denmark were no healthier than unmarried men. Same-sex married women had much higher mortality rates than other women, including the ones who were unmarried, divorced or widowed. There was no apparent marriage “benefit” in terms of better health or longer life for these same-sex married women.
While this is just one study that needs to be supplemented by more research, it does suggest that the health benefits of marriage may be unique to the male-female union. Governments may try to legislate a revised version of “marriage,” but they cannot legislate the health and longevity benefits that come from a man marrying a woman."
Our president was recently on a special segment of Hannity on FOX News and shared his story. When he said "Our donors are not going to be intimidated, we're going to fight this" the studio audience broke out into applause:
The authors of What is Marriage? One Man, One Woman, a Defense write in National Review Online that the conjugal view of marriage leaves everyone just as free to pursue companionship:
"...Now then, the supporter of same-sex marriage asks, shall we deny all this [the benefits of marriage] to the thousands of men and women in same-sex relationships?
We shouldn’t, and we don’t. Whether or not these companionate ideals are all equally healthy to seek, all in one bond, and all specifically in marriage, the general desire that animates them — to know and serve one who knows and serves us — is the desire to love. No aim is nobler.
But traditional marriage law denies these companionate ideals to no one. It does not discourage anyone from seeking them. Its more specific view of what makes a marriage can even liberate us for emotional intimacy in other bonds. And even if companionate bonds are impaired if deprived of public status, it does not follow that they require legal status. Remarkably, then, one of the most common and powerfully felt objections to conjugal-marriage policy is also one of the easiest to answer. The law simply has much less to do with this than people commonly suppose. We can unpack this all."
Robert Oscer Lopez writes in the Public Discourse:
Photo Credit: MA Mouterde
"...The French resistance to same-sex marriage has demonstrated that an ostensibly progressive nation that had little issue with homosexuality as a moral question can change its mind, not based on ignorance of reality, but based on knowing more about what same-sex marriage really means.
... The drop in support for same-sex marriage came with education and broader public debate. As the French knew more gay people individually and learned more about the ramifications of their legalized marriage on the community at large—especially children and poor communities overseas targeted for adoption and surrogacy—they liked the idea of same-sex marriage less and less.
...France proves that no opinion trend on any graph can be taken for granted as perpetual. In the United States we knew this already; we simply weren’t aware that we knew it. We know from the abortion debate that what seems like a steady march of acceptance can actually grind to a halt or reverse.
The Gallup polls on abortion show how unpredictable the trends in opinion can be, for the number of “pro-choice” Americans peaked in 1996 at 56 percent, then declined to 45 percent today, while pro-life opinion gained significant ground, albeit in fits and starts (only 33 percent of Americans were pro-life in 1996, compared to 48 percent today).
If we take a step back and examine how the international LGBT lobby has fought for same-sex marriage, we see that the lobby’s leaders must be equally aware that nothing is inevitable about acceptance of same-sex marriage, regardless of what they say publicly. Rather than patience, haste has characterized their tactics.
Last week Ryan Anderson responded to the latest efforts to cut short the marriage debate by declaring SSM "inevitable":
Still, no one can deny that Americans’ support for marriage is not what it once was. This is largely because we have done an insufficient job of explaining what marriage is, why marriage matters, and what the consequences will be if we redefine marriage.
To fill this void, we have worked with our allies at the Alliance Defending Freedom, the Family Research Council, and the National Organization for Marriage to produce an easy to read pamphlet to explain why marriage matters in everyday language. Download a free e-book version today at TheMarriageFacts.com.
Marriage is founded on the anthropological truth that men and women are different and complementary, the biological fact that the union of a man and woman also creates new life, and the social reality that children need a mom and a dad.
For decades, social science has shown that children tend to do best when reared by their married mother and father. Government recognizes marriage because it is an institution that benefits society in a way that no other relationship does.
Marriage is society’s least restrictive means to ensure the well-being of future citizens. It protects children by incentivizing adults to commit to each other and take responsibility for their children.
All the polls in the world cannot undo the truth about marriage. But they can obscure the truth and make it less likely that men and women commit to each other permanently and exclusively. This in turn reduces the odds that children will know the love and care of their married mothers and fathers.
Whatever pollsters and pundits may tell us about “inevitability,” the only way to guarantee a political loss is to sit idly by. We should frame our message, strengthen coalitions, devise strategies, and bear witness. (Heritage)
Dear Marriage Supporter,
"Welcome to Washington."
That's how Rep. Paul Ryan begins his statements in last week's hearing about the ongoing IRS Scandal.
His comments followed Rep. McDermott's, who incredibly claimed that marriage supporters shouldn't be allowed to participate in the public square because (unlike the Human Rights Campaign, Freedom to Marry and Planned Parenthood, I suppose) we were "highly political" and "entrenched in some of the most controversial political issues in the country."
Thankfully, Rep. Ryan cut through the political gamesmanship and got to the heart of the issue: the IRS is claiming the power to determine which ideologies are in the public interest!
What's more — NOM's story, presented by our Chairman, John Eastman, has become, in the words of Gov. Mike Huckabee on his radio show recently, "the smoking gun" in the IRS scandal.
Please take a moment to listen to Rep. Ryan's questions and comments during last week's incredible hearing:
It's always disappointing to see some representatives like McDermott attempt to make marriage partisan when it is not. We proudly collaborate with many democrats who support marriage. In fact, during the same hearing Rep. Rangel (D-NY) proposed working together with Eastman to help make sure the mess at the IRS is cleaned up.
And make no mistake — Dr. Eastman's testimony about NOM's story is our best chance yet to get to the bottom of what happened inside the IRS — and to find out who may have known about it outside the IRS and was an accomplice to the crime.
Please watch this brief video of Rep. Paul Ryan's questions to NOM's Chairman, Dr. John Eastman, and listen to the incredibly powerful responses he gives.
And then, please consider making a generous contribution to support our work to defend marriage and the rights of ordinary Americans like you to speak and organize freely and participate in the political life of our great nation.
For marriage and freedom.
Mark Regnerus, associate professor of sociology at the University of Texas at Austin, responds to the Atlantic Monthly's cover story on how redefining marriage will change marriage, arguing in the Public Discourse that "the sexual permissiveness of men will emerge a winner in the contest of ideas as same-sex marital norms begin to shape the larger institution of marriage":
"...Stacey notes this gatekeeping function as well in her ethnography of gay relationships in Los Angeles, quoting early gay activist and journalist Randy Shilts’s remark that among gay men there was “no moderating role like that a woman plays in the heterosexual milieu.” Furthermore, Shilts, author of And the Band Played On, asserted that “so much of the gay community’s sexuality . . . seemed more defined by gender than sexual orientation.”
The Add Health data concur, revealing that the subject of monogamy and its discontents is not limited to gay men. Shilts described how “some heterosexual males privately confided that they were enthralled with the idea of . . . immediate, available, even anonymous sex...if they could only find women who would agree.”
This phenomenon, I suspect, has the unique potential to genuinely shape or affect heterosexual marriage. Why this one? Because it’s the only one of the side effects Mundy notes that is exclusive to men. And why does that matter? Because—as I’ve written elsewhere—men have gained a decided advantage in the wider mating market." (Public Discourse)
Ian Tuttle of National Review Online gives one of the most thorough explanations to date about what we know about the IRS leaking NOM's confidential tax returns:
"...[An] investigation could help to determine whether the impetus for the leaks came from within the IRS or from elsewhere. Eastman notes that one month before the leak, Joe Solmonese, HRC’s outgoing president, was tapped by the Obama reelection campaign to fill one of 35 national co-chair positions. “Then all of a sudden,” Eastman told Cavuto, “magically, our donor list shows up on their [HRC’s] website.” For NOM, then, “the central question is, did the IRS do it on their own, or was this part of a broader effort with campaign involvement?” It was very likely a coincidence — but an investigation is what NOM needs, and an investigation is what seems not to be happening.
... many defenders of traditional marriage refuse to be cowed by attempts to shame or intimidate them. After its donor lists were leaked last year, NOM set up Keep the Republic and Marriage, a website that encourages donors to give to NOM and publicly state their support for traditional marriage. The list currently has more than 1,400 names.
...At the June 4 Ways and Means hearing, Washington congressman Jim McDermott sneered that “Republicans are looking for a conspiracy where there isn’t one.” Connect the dots, congressman. It’s not paranoia when they’re really out to get you."
Peggy Noonan devotes her popular weekly column in the Wall Street Journal almost entirely to NOM's allegations against the IRS, saying our case offers the most compelling evidence that conservative groups were targeted and their rights violated:
Some ask, "Don't conservatives know they have to be questioned like anyone else?" Yes, they do. Their grievance centers on the fact they have not been. They were targeted, and their rights violated.
The most compelling evidence of that is what happened to the National Organization for Marriage. Its chairman, John Eastman, testified before the House Ways and Means Committee, and the tale he told was different from the now-familiar stories of harassment and abuse.
... Some person or persons made the decision to target, harass, delay and abuse. Some person or persons communicated the decision. Some persons executed them. Maybe we're getting closer. John McKinnon and Dionne Searcey of The Wall Street Journal reported this week that IRS employees in the Cincinnati office—those are the ones tax-exempt unit chief Lois Lerner accused of going rogue, and attempted to throw under the bus—have told congressional investigators that agency officials in Washington helped direct the probe of the tea-party groups. Mr. McKinnon and Ms. Searcey reported that one of the workers told investigators an IRS lawyer in Washington, Carter Hull, "closely oversaw her work and suggested some of the questions asked applicants."
"The IRS didn't respond to a request for comment," they wrote. There really is an air about the IRS that they think they are The Untouchables.
