Tomorrow the New Hampshire legislature will vote on a bill to repeal same-sex marriage.
Have your representatives heard from you this week?
Our opponents know what is at stake, and they're pulling out all the stops. New Hampshire is poised to be the first state legislature to repeal same-sex marriage. We have a chance to make history!
Two years ago, out-of-state gay millionaires flooded the state with money to buy same-sex marriage. Then the people of New Hampshire spoke, taking back their state and electing a pro-marriage majority to the state legislature.
It's time to speak once again!
Tomorrow morning, the House of Representatives is scheduled to vote on HB 437, the bill to repeal same-sex marriage. It is CRITICAL that your representatives hear from you this week.
Here's what I need you to do:
Click here to look up the phone number for your representative. Same-sex marriage activists have been phone banking and your representatives need to hear from their own constituents. Let your representatives know that you stand for marriage, and that you sent them to Concord for a purpose—to take back New Hampshire from out-of-state money and special interests. Phone calls are especially critical in these final days before the vote. (Please call the district office number to reach your state representatives.)
As further sign of how previous arguments for redefining marriage have fallen flat, a left-leaning group that claims to be centrist is trying to circulate a new set of talking points to members of Congress hoping to coach and coax them into coming out in favor of same-sex marriage:
Third Way, an influential centrist Democratic group, on Thursday provided a new memo to all House and Senate lawmakers' offices that gives advice on how to change positions on the issue without being called a dreaded "flip-flopper." It outlines three rules that will help ensure a smoother transition in support of marriage equality: share a personal story about the people in your life who have influenced your position, emphasize that marriage is about a commitment instead of rights, and allow that other people's views may be "changing at a slower pace" but that they, too, could come around soon. -- The Huffington Post
The last two tips in the document [PDF] we find revealing:
Don’t say “gay marriage” or even “same-sex marriage.” These terms can reinforce the notion that gay couples are seeking a different kind of marriage, rather than simply trying to join the tradition that is already a fundamental building block of our society. Terms like “marriage for gay couples,” “allowing gay couples to marry,” or giving gay couples “the freedom to marry” are all good options—and all avoid using an adjective modifying the word marriage.
Exercise caution in explicitly comparing marriage and our country’s journey on this issue to the civil rights movement, or saying that not allowing gay couples to marry is comparable to anti-miscegenation laws. This direct comparison can hurt more than it helps, by causing people to think about the differences between the experiences of African Americans and LGBT people, not the similarities.
...Preserve Marriage Washington, a coalition that opposes gay marriage, aims to collect 120,577 signatures by June 6 to place a ballot measure before voters in November seeking to repeal Washington's law, the group said.
If the group reaches that number of valid signatures by the deadline, the state's same-sex marriage law would be put on hold until after the matter is decided by voters in November.
Four Republican senators voted for the gay marriage bill last year: Jim Alessi, Mark Grisanti, Steve Saland and Roy McDonald.
And wealthy former Republican gubernatorial candidate Carl Paladino says he has lined up Republican challengers to primary three of them, challengers he would be expected to strongly support financially.
... In an interview at the Republican state convention in Rochester, Paladino said he has challengers lined up for Alessi, Grisanti and Saland — though the Buffalo millionaire declined to name those people at this point, saying the campaigns themselves would make the decisions about campaign announcements. The fourth senator, McDonald, appeared likely to faced a primary challenge from Assemblyman Steve McLaughlin, but the assemblyman recently decided to take a pass.
... For a whole host of reasons, Paladino is also very, very unhappy with Republican Senate Majority Leader Dean Skelos, and is actively trying to unseat him as Republican leader.
Saratoga County Clerk Kathleen Marchione will challenge state Sen. Roy McDonald, R-Saratoga, Saratoga County Republican Committee leaders said Saturday.
...“I’m actually very excited that Kathy has decided to run,” Clifton Park Republican Chairman Brian Telesh said.
...The committee recently voted unanimously to not endorse McDonald.
Conservatives have criticized McDonald for his votes last year in support of same-sex marriage, Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s tax plan and for allowing school districts to borrow to pay pension costs.
...“If you know Kathy,” Telesh said, “she’s going to run only if she knows she can win.”
Karen Grube, an early supporter of Prop 8, with a message to the New Hampshire legislature:
In considering House Bill 437, the bill to repeal the gay marriage law passed in 2009, every member of the New Hampshire legislature needs to be reminded of why the voters elected veto-proof Republican majorities in both the House and the Senate in 2010. One obvious reason was the underhanded manner in which Democrat Senate President Sylvia Larsen violated Senate rules in order to pass the bill allowing same-sex marriage.
... Another reason they did that was to send a clear message to Governor Lynch that the voters didn’t like his deceiving them on his stand on same-sex marriage. He campaigned on his support for traditional marriage and then betrayed them by signing the same-sex marriage legislation into law. In 2010, the voters decided they didn’t want to chance his doing anything like that again.
... I would remind Representative Cohn and every member of the General Court that the only poll that counts is the one at the ballot box. When their voices were so outrageously silenced on this issue by the previous legislature and the Governor, the voters spoke as clearly as they possibly could in 2010. This time they chose to elect Republicans to the House and Senate who they believed would actually listen to them and restore the legal definition of marriage as quickly as possible to what it was prior to being redefined. Keeping that in mind, Republicans should not only vote to pass HB 437, but work together to pass it by the two-thirds majority necessary should the Governor be so arrogant as to veto it. -- Ruth Institute Blog
The Huffington Post on the split within the Democrat party over whether to put same-sex marriage in their platform:
An unexpected surge in support to place same-sex marriage on the Democratic Party platform at the August convention has energized LGBT advocates and complicated an already delicate situation facing President Barack Obama’s reelection campaign.
...Interviews with more than a dozen party officials and activists reveal that despite widespread and growing support for marriage equality among Americans, the issue is still viewed as politically sensitive in the top ranks of the Democratic Party. While many high-profile figures have publicly advocated for including strong language in the platform, the Obama campaign and the allied Democratic National Committee are searching for ways to split the difference: showing support for equality but stopping short of a full-fledged endorsement.
...Several Democratic sources working with the committee have acknowledged that conversations were already underway about how to placate the pro-same-sex marriage majority inside the party without alienating culturally conservative Democrats in states like Ohio and North Carolina, where the convention is being held.
The Chicago Tribune on the effects of same-sex civil unions and religious liberty issues playing a role in the Illinois GOP primary happening today:
The issue of religious freedom, raised by all four Republican candidates but identified most strongly with Rick Santorum, finds an interested audience as the contest reaches Illinois.
Last year in Illinois, Catholic Charities and the Evangelical Child and Family Agency were forced to pull out of the foster care business when they refused to license couples in civil unions.
... Some believe Santorum's religious rhetoric could lure socially conservative voters who feel persecuted for their religious beliefs and who argue that the nation's founding principle of religious liberty is under attack by President Barack Obama's administration. Religion is seen as a lightning-rod issue, similar to the proposed bans on same-sex marriage that drew social conservatives to the polls in 2004 and helped George W. Bush win re-election.
"The language that we hear about the Obama administration waging war against religion is both energizing and polarizing," said Ralph Keen, chair of Catholic studies at the University of Illinois at Chicago. "The person who declares that there is an Obama-led war against religion is going to be recognized as the leader of a cause that mobilizes. It's going to mobilize the religious population."
Proponents of traditional marriage say they plan to keep the political heat on state lawmakers even though the chances of forcing action on a constitutional amendment to let voters decide whether marriage should be defined as only between one man and one woman is not likely this session.
Officials with the Family Leader, CatholicVote.org and the National Organization for Marriage announced plans to host a “Let Us Vote” Marriage Rally in the state Capitol’s rotunda Tuesday aimed at keep attention on an issue that has festered at the Statehouse since the Iowa Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision in April 2009 declaring a state marriage law as unconstitutional. That paved the way for same-sex marriages to take place in Iowa for nearly three years now.
Organizers say the purpose of Tuesday’s rally is to demonstrate to state senators that marriage is important to Iowans and that Iowans want to exercise their constitutional right to vote on the definition of marriage via the Iowa marriage amendment, which would indicate the only recognized form of marriage in the state would be between one man and one woman.
The marriage amendment to the state Constitution passed the Republican-led House during the 2011 legislative session, but it stalled in the Iowa Senate, where Democrats hold a 26-24 majority. To amend the Constitution, a resolution must pass the House and Senate in exactly the same language in two consecutive General Assemblies before the ballot issue could come before voters.
First in a series of videos by the bishops of North Carolina explaining the position of the Catholic Church in support of the proposed state constitutional amendment recognizing marriage exclusively as the union between one man and one woman. Bishop Peter Jugis of Charlotte presents this video:
New Hampshire House of Representatives Will Decide the Fate of Traditional Marriage Wednesday, March 21st
Take Action: Come to the State House at 8am, March 21st to Pass Out Information and Talk To Representatives as They Enter Reps Hall to Vote on HB 437
Please come show your support for one man-one woman traditional marriage on Wednesday, March 21st. Join Cornerstone as we greet Representatives with flyers and words of encouragement outlining the reasons why they should vote to restore traditional marriage. If you can't stay for the vote, please come and greet them so they see that there are many voters that expect them to vote to sustain the traditional family unit in New Hampshire.
Vote For Marriage NC is supporting the Marriage Protection Amendment which will go before the people on May 8th:
The following statement in reaction to President Obama’s opposition to the North Carolina Marriage Amendment may be attributed to Tami Fitzgerald, Chairwoman of Vote FOR Marriage NC:
“Not only did President Obama state during his election battle in 2008 that he believes marriage is the union between one man and woman, but he said that for him as a Christian, it is also a sacred union, invoking the name of “God” as his source. Unfortunately, his recommendation against the Marriage Protection Amendment would leave the definition of marriage up to an activist judge instead of the people of our State. President Obama has no business inserting himself into the people’s business in North Carolina. The people of North Carolina cannot sit by and let marriage as the union of one man and one woman be destroyed by a handful of political activists or by activist judges.”
North Carolinians interested in more information about Vote FOR Marriage NC may visit the campaign’s website: www.VoteForMarriageNC.com.
We are not surprised, of course, because Pres. Obama has continually opposed efforts to allow the people of a state to protect marriage, beginning with his opposition of Prop 8 during the 2008 campaign:
President Barack Obama today came out against the proposed constitutional amendment on North Carolina's May 8th ballot banning same sex marriages and civil unions, weighing into a fight in a key battleground state.
His campaign issued a statement saying the amendment was discriminatory.
“While the president does not weigh in on every single ballot measure in every state, the record is clear that the President has long opposed divisive and discriminatory efforts to deny rights and benefits to same sex couples,” said Cameron French, his North Carolina campaign spokesman.
“That’s what the North Carolina ballot initiative would do – it would single out and discriminate against committed gay and lesbian couples – and that’s why the President does not support it.” -- News Observer
“That’s what the North Carolina ballot initiative would do – it would single out and discriminate against committed gay and lesbian couples – and that’s why the President does not support it.” -- 
