April 4, 2012 at 11:00 am
ADF Attorney Benjamin Bull in TownHall:
"... the justices at the Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg ruled that the two French women “did not have the rights of married people, who in France have the sole right to adopt a child as a couple.”
This decision needs to be shouted from rooftops in Europe, and in the U.S. it needs to be put before American judges who have been so very fond of selectively citing foreign law to support U.S. decisions (e.g., Lawrence v. Texas). Is foreign court precedent only important when it furthers leftist priorities?
Common sense should lead us to concur with the European Court of Human Rights in at least this much: legal recognition of same-sex “marriage” diminishes, if not completely takes away, the religious liberty of those who have moral objections to such unions. And if same-sex “marriage” is indeed legalized in Britain or France, pastors who remain true to God’s Word and refuse to perform ceremonies for such unions may soon find themselves compelled, or arrested, or both."
Megan Mcardle for The Atlantic:
"...For the most part, Europe has already spent its demographic dividend. And the recent inability of countries like Spain and Greece to hit their deficit targets illustrates just how difficult coping with financial and fiscal instability can be when growth fails to materialize as expected. Neither voters nor employers were prepared to make the necessary compromises—and as the endless, fractious negotiations over Greek debt show, it is very hard to get them to adjust to reality, even when the alternative is disastrous. We shouldn’t necessarily expect people to become more resigned to compromise as time goes on—quite possibly we should expect the opposite.
Southern Europe is already living in Twilight City. And those of us who live in Morningburg or Afternoonville should pay close attention to what happens next, because eventually, we’re all heading to that neck of the woods. The United Nations estimates that by 2030, the number of people older than 60 will be growing more than three times as fast as the general population. By 2050, one in every five people will be over 60. In the developed world, the proportion will be more like one in three. Europe (along with Japan) is at the forefront of an unprecedented shift.
“The problem,” says Canning, “is that aging is a new thing. We know quite well what the effects of going to low fertility are—but we’ve never seen this sort of aging before, so it’s hard to make predictions.”
One prediction is safe, however: aging will present challenges that, as of now, no nation has adequately prepared to face."
Some exciting news about one of the great political consultants in this country: Frank Schubert, who led marriage to victory in California and Maine, has decided to found a new firm Mission Public Affairs which will allow him to focus 100 percent of his energy on campaigns for life, marriage and religious liberty!
From his press release announcing his decision:
"Schubert, a conservative Catholic, said he would build a new national consulting practice focused on social issues such as protecting life, strengthening families, preserving traditional marriage and protecting religious liberties, along with pursuing conservative public policies that promote prosperity and liberty. A 30-year veteran of public affairs, Schubert has twice been named the nation’s most valuable political consultant by the American Association of Political Consultants, and received the Lifetime Achievement Award from the International Association of Business Communicators (Sacramento Chapter).
“My conservative ideology and my faith have been major guiding forces in my decision to work on some important but controversial issues, including life and marriage,” Schubert said. “But the firm has become much bigger than me personally. I don’t want my work on social issues to continue to overshadow the people who work for me, or the clients we serve. By stepping away from the company, I will be able to continue to work on the issues I care about while allowing the remaining leadership and staff of the firm to pursue the excellent work they are doing for clients, and to continue to grow the business going forward.”
One small step for a man--one giant leap for life, marriage and religious liberty!
Today on Public Discourse, Jennifer Roback Morse explains how getting the state out of the marriage business will result in a larger, more-intrusive government. This is the second in a three-part series from Morse on privatizing marriage:
Libertarians are being taken in by rhetoric that sounds libertarian but, in fact, will lead to a dramatic shift in the balance of power between the state and civil society, indeed between the state and the natural order itself.
In my previous article, I showed why it is impossible to get the state out of the marriage business. Marriage attaches mothers and fathers to their children and to one another. This is an irreducibly public function. Yet attempting to do the impossible is not harmless. Assigning the state an impossible task amounts to giving it a blank check.
That is because the attempt to privatize marriage will hinder the ability of marriage to perform its essential public function. Nonetheless, children still need to be attached to mothers and fathers somehow. The state will pretend to get out of the marriage business all right, but then the state inevitably will be caught up in the business of defining who counts as a parent. Up until now, that job has been largely left to Mother Nature, with the state simply recording the natural reality of parenthood.
You can see this process at work by looking at disputes between same-sex partners over child custody. These kinds of disputes are already redefining parenthood. Some of the cases involve various kinds of civil unions. Some of these cases involve agreements between the would-be parents. The difficulties these cases present illustrate how problematic it really is to attempt to “privatize marriage.”
April 3, 2012 at 11:00 am
Penny Nance of Concerned Women for America:
Over the past few years, Republicans have led the charge in passing marriage laws or constitutional amendments in various states and are batting 31 for 31 in their efforts. Now some are wondering if the GOP is backing away from fighting for traditional marriage.
"Are we backing down from advocating for marriage between a man and a woman? Absolutely not," said Concerned Women for America CEO Penny Nance. "Look, we've had to work smarter on fighting those who want to redefine marriage as between a man and a woman. Fortunately, we're still winning the battle."
A recent article in Politico quoted several unnamed congressional staffers who maintained that House leaders had quietly killed several amendments that were opposed to gay marriage so that more controversial social issues would not distract from the leadership's economic agenda.
"People need to understand that to pass a constitutional amendment defining marriage was between one man and one woman takes a large majority in both chambers and a president willing to sign it," Nance added. "Hopefully we have it after November but we don't right now."
Nance said that the focus of proponents of traditional marriage is to win battles at the state and local levels such as the upcoming votes in North Carolina and Minnesota. -- The Christian Post
April 3, 2012 at 10:00 am
Glenn Stanton of Focus on the Family:
"...Gay activists have conducted their focus groups and message-testing and realized there is one message that works better than all others. In fact, the gay magazine OUT explained in the mid-1990s that the phrases "marriage equality" and "freedom to marry" were "actually something that activists began using on the advices of a Los Angeles PR firm, based on how well they believed it would play in the heterosexual mainstream."
The genius is that while the average American might not personally like the idea of same-sex "marriage," they are hard-pressed to offer meaningful reasons for why it shouldn't be adopted in society. Compound this with the very deliberate and widespread accusation that opposition to same-sex "marriage" and parenting is tantamount to hate-filled bigotry at its worst and back-woods ignorance at its best. With that gambit, this movement has really accomplished something. Show of hands: Who wants to be seen as hateful or ignorant?
But here is the truth. Same-sex "marriage" advocates have largely gained their ground through deception, emotional manipulation and diverting the public's attention away from the thousands of scientific studies that tell us healthy child-development requires the two different models of human parents: mothers and fathers. They have manipulated us by high-jacking civil rights language for their own narrow purposes. And as a result, millions of boys and girls will be subjected to intentionally motherless and fatherless families for no other reason than to fulfill the desires of adults who want such radical homes." -- The Baptist Press
Across the pond in Great Britain, elite efforts to redefine marriage have run into a major stumbling block: the British people.
At this writing, over 365,000 UK citizens have signed a petition telling the government "Don't play politics with marriage!"
How did this happen?
It's the same old story we've seen happen again and again.
First, a few courageous private individuals decided to take a stand for marriage, even if they had to do it alone. They managed to convince a few of their close friends to join them. They went public and did everything they could to get the word out. Then the churches added their critical moral authority and, once that critical mass was achieved --activism leaders and faith leaders-- everyday people began to join the pro-marriage cause now that it had been made "safe" for them to associate with because the first group of activists had proven that fighting for marriage would not be a lonely, losing cause.
And then it just grew and grew and grew from its own inertia.
At a certain point, others British citizens frustrated by the way they see their national politics and moral values decaying realized that marriage is the perfect issue to take a stand on for these reasons as well and began to join the cause -- one massive coalition united by a shared sense of urgency that marriage is worth saving and that the truth is worth defending by saying so in public.
Those standing up for marriage here in America should take inspiration from what a small, passionate group of individuals have managed to accomplish already in England in so short a time.
Media elites seem to imagine NOM is responsible for the wedge between blacks and gays on the issue of gay marriage.
But the reality on the ground in North Carolina and so many other places is that black church leaders are bravely standing up for what they think is right. It is insulting for the elite media to imply they are NOM puppets, just like it would be arrogant for anyone at NOM to imagine we are responsible for this show of support.
We are grateful to people like Pastor Patrick Wooden for their courage and leadership:
"The Amendment One debate at Meredith College Monday night began as “nonpartisan,” but it did not end that way.
The panel discussion quickly devolved into heated arguments about religion, family — and race.
... The front of the room, reserved for students, was mostly white, young and female. They cheered for Eichner’s arguments about the amendment denying benefits for domestic partnerships and the personal appeal by Caroline Mann, a lesbian psychology professor at Meredith College.
...the rest of the first floor was dominated by members of the Upper Room Church of God in Christ — mostly black and middle-aged — and vocally opposed to same-sex unions.
Patrick Wooden, the pastor at Upper Room, was a panelist at the event who had members of his congregation present in support.
But their views reflect a larger demographic of the state: black, Democratic and opposing same-sex marriage.
... [Panelists] referencing past laws against interracial marriage, [hoped] to frame the issue in a civil rights light.
But Wooden’s reply, redirecting the argument back to religion, showed the stronger influence for many black voters in the state. -- The Daily Tarheel
Today on Public Discourse, Jennifer Roback Morse explains why the state can't get out of the marriage business. This is the first in a three-part series from Morse on privatizing marriage:
We cannot escape the fact that marriage is an intrinsically public institution. We can’t avoid making collective decisions about its meaning and purpose. If we don’t do it explicitly, we will end up doing it implicitly.
As a libertarian myself, I have been quite disappointed that the “default” libertarian position on marriage has become little more than a sound-bite: “Let’s get the state out of the marriage business.” With all due respect, this position is unsound.
I will not be able to respond to this sound-bite with another sound-bite. The issues surrounding marriage are too deep. But I am not deterred from trying to persuade thoughtful readers who are up to the task of following a complex and unconventional argument wherever the search for truth may lead.
I make three points in this series of articles. First, in today’s article, I show that it is not possible to privatize marriage. Second, in tomorrow’s article, I show that the attempt to privatize marriage will not result in an increase in freedom, but will actually increase the role of the state. Finally, in the third article, I show that attempting to privatize marriage will perpetrate great injustices to children. Any of these reasons is sufficient to put an end to the “get the government out of the marriage business” mantra. All three of these reasons taken together form a compelling case for absolutely opposing the redefinition of marriage and for working tirelessly to create a robust cultural norm of one man, one woman, for life.
April 2, 2012 at 12:30 pm
Frances Kelley, a conservative writer in Vermont, asks "Which came first: The SSM Wedge or NOM?"
"Answer: The wedge was already there.
Same-sex marriage activists are disturbed that the National Organization for Marriage reached out to enlist the help of minorities to defend pro-gender marriage.
... The elephant in the room is the big fat wedge that existed long before NOM came into existence to defend marriage from activists who want to change it entirely by removing the gender-integrated component. Perhaps they believe that if they keep blaming NOM, no one will notice that it is same-sex marriage itself that pits American against American, creates a new minority of gender-segregated "married" couples, and divides families by deliberately preventing children from having a relationship with both a mother and a father.
... Which came first, the pro-gender position or the wedge?
For millennia, people have honored gender integration in marriage. Don't blame NOM. Gay rights activists are the ones pushing segregation. The biggest wedge of all is separating men and women in marriage." -- Renew America
April 2, 2012 at 12:00 pm
Ken Shepherd of NewsBusters:
"Gallagher deserved an apology for Roberts's unprofessional antics and baseless accusations. She didn't get one and perhaps is one to let the slights roll off her back. That's her prerogative, but we reserve the right to call Roberts on the carpet for his breach of journalistic integrity."
Christopher Santarelli of The Blaze:
"Roberts is tangled in controversy once again over an interview stunt and comments he made about a scheduled guest, calling further attention to questions regarding journalistic objectivity at MSNBC."
Noah Rothman of Mediate:
"Had Roberts been aware of the mistake, it is unlikely he would have ran with the empty chair. However, his staff should have informed him of the error prior to airing this embarrassing segment. To his credit, Roberts displayed some contrition after the fact, but by then the damage was done."
By NOM Staff
|
Posted in Media
|
April 2, 2012 at 11:00 am
WJLA ABC 7 reports on the impressive grassroots organizing already taking place in Maryland on behalf of protecting marriage:
"...The Catholic Conference and the Maryland Family Alliance are leading the effort to get the 56,000 signatures needed to take same sex marriage to a ballot referendum.
For the first time since the civil rights movement, Jacqueline Stewart is becoming an activist—but this is a different cause.
"I believe the majority of citizens in Maryland believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman,” Stewart, an Accokeek, Md. resident said.
Stewart is one of more than 200 volunteers trained in the last week in the protocol for collecting signatures as part of the effort to bring Maryland’s new same sex marriage law to a ballot referendum. Opponents need 56,000 signatures, but the goal is 150,000.
... “We put a training out within hours and all the sudden we had multiple people show up. We had almost 50 people show up to a training almost instantaneously,” said Derek McCoy of the Maryland Family Alliance."
Find out how you can join the cause at www.MarylandMarriageAlliance.com!
April 2, 2012 at 10:00 am
An update from one of our local supporters in Minnesota. The Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party is basically the Democratic party in Minnesota:
DFL Minnesota State Rep Lyle Koenen, one of three DFL state legislators to vote to put the Minnesota Marriage Protection Amendment on the ballot, won the DFL primary for the MN Senate District 20 special election by a landslide!
Politics in Minnesota adds more:
Koenen, who is serving his fifth term representing House District 20B, defeated longtime DFL activist and campaigner John Schultz on Tuesday evening with more than 66 percent of the vote. A special election was called in the district following the death of Granite Falls DFL Sen. Gary Kubly, who held the seat for more than 10 years.
Koenen will now head to an April 10 special election, where he will face off against Independence Party candidate Leon Greenslit, and Gregg Kulberg, a Republican from Hector.
