A purposefully irreverent rewriting of the Twelve Days of Christmas produced by the Heidi Harris Show lampooning political correctness in the classroom:
Franck on the Self-Contradictions in Arguments for Same-Sex Marriage
Over at Public Discourse, Matthew Franck explains eight simple points which reveal the unexplained and self-contradicting positions of those pushing to discard our marriage tradition:
Earlier this year, I was part of a Constitution Day panel discussion on same-sex marriage at Rutgers University. With seven panelists in a 90-minute program (four in favor of same-sex marriage and three opposed), we were each given just a few minutes for opening statements. I decided to make ten short observations, each of which could prompt more discussion afterward. Below are eight of those observations. (I omit two of them that were narrowly focused on the title given to our forum.)
... I concluded, the destruction of marriage as an institution, its replacement by we-know-not-what, and a mortal blow struck at the religious freedom that our country has always prized, are prices too high to pay for this revolution in the law of marriage. The American people know this, and that’s why they’ve gone to the polls and defended marriage every time they’ve been asked. We should keep asking them, I said.
Gingrich Signs NOM Marriage Pledge, Ron Paul Only Holdout, NOM Marriage News, December 15, 2011
My Dear Friends,
Really big news this morning: Newt Gingrich just signed onto to NOM's Marriage Pledge—leaving Ron Paul as the only major contender for the GOP nomination who has refused to do so.
Let's go to the good news first. Newt Gingrich has joined Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum, Rick Perry, and Michele Bachmann in committing to do five important things:
-
Support a federal marriage amendment, the only way to protect marriage.
-
Appoint an attorney general and Supreme Court justices who see marriage as the union of husband and wife.
-
Vigorously defend DOMA in court.
-
Appoint a presidential commission to investigate the increasing instances of threats to the person, property and livelihood of traditional marriage supporters.
-
Give back to the people of D.C. their right to vote for marriage, which the D.C. city government arbitrarily stripped from them.
Congrats to all the candidates who've shown they are willing to be marriage champions.
Now to the bad news: Ron Paul has dug in his heels, three weeks before Iowa holds its caucuses.
Last week, I mentioned that Paul's position on marriage is becoming increasingly hard to understand. Some of you Ron Paul fans (and I know he appeals to many social conservatives) wrote back to let me know how much you love the guy, and how hard you find it to believe that he is not really with us on the marriage issue.
Believe me, I understand. Ron Paul is a decent, honorable, and principled man who says a lot of things you and I agree with.
But I have to be an honest broker in this year's presidential contest, and I have to level with you and the press.
Ron Paul is just wrong on marriage.
It's not just that he refused to sign NOM's pledge. Ron Paul has refused to name one single thing he would do as President to prevent the courts from imposing gay marriage on all 50 states, including Iowa. He does not support the federal marriage amendment.
I'm not asking you to take my word on it. Here's the video where I ask him if he supports an FMA and he answers point blank, "no":
This is amazing given where we are today. Look, the idea that federal judges might overturn the will of the people of Iowa and other states isn't theoretical or hypothetical any more. A federal judge in California has already done it.
That case is now before the Ninth Circuit, which most people watching predict will issue a ruling in the next few weeks or months striking down Prop 8 and recognizing a federal right to gay marriage. Such a ruling would strike down the marriage amendments passed by votes of the people in Alaska, Arizona, Oregon, Idaho, and Montana, as well as laws defining marriage as one man and one woman in the states of Washington and Hawaii—all states under the jurisdiction of the Ninth Circuit.
The Ninth Circuit's decision will next go up to the Supreme Court. Advocates of gay marriage are now determined to ask the Court to impose gay marriage on every state, whether we like it or not.
Ron Paul says he's for states' rights on marriage, but he has been unwilling to champion the rights of the people of California, who are locked in a battle right now with federal courts which seek to impose gay marriage on them without their consent.
We need a president who is willing to be a champion for marriage, to go toe-to-toe with the liberal elites who call this grotesque misuse of the U.S. Constitution a new "civil right."
But it gets worse than that with Ron Paul.
Ron Paul has repeatedly said that while he personally supports traditional marriage, he doesn't have a problem with allowing gay marriage.
Here's Ron Paul in a December 2007 interview with John Stossel:
John Stossel: "Homosexuality. Should gays be allowed to marry?"
Ron Paul: "Sure."
You find that hard to believe? So did I. Here's the video and the full transcript to put Ron Paul's answer in context, to be absolutely fair to him:
John Stossel: "Homosexuality. Should gays be allowed to marry?"
Ron Paul: "Sure."
John Stossel: "The State says, we believe in this?"
Ron Paul: "Sure, they can do whatever they want and they can call it whatever they want, just so they don't expect to impose their relationship on somebody else. They can't make me, personally, accept what they do, but they, gay couples can do whatever they want. In fact, I'd like to see all governments out of the marriage question. I don't think it’s a state function. I think it's a religious function. There was a time when only churches dealt with marriage, and they determined what it was. But 100 years or so ago for health reasons they claim that the state would protect us if we knew more about our spouses and we did health testing and you had to get a license to get married and I don't agree with that."
Here is Ron Paul again on July 14, 2007:
Interviewer: "So your position on issues like gay marriage, you would be supportive of that?"
Ron Paul: "I'm supportive of all voluntary associations and people can call it whatever they want."
Why? Because nobody has the right to "impose their marriage standards" on anyone else.
When an interviewer brought up these 2007 comments at the May 5, 2011 presidential debate, Paul didn't disavow or modify them:
Moderator: "Congressman Paul, in 2007 in an interview you were asked, should gays be allowed to marry? You said 'Sure. They can do whatever they want and call it whatever they want.' Are you advocating legalizing gay marriage in this country?"
Ron Paul: "Well, as a matter of fact I spent a whole chapter in a new book I've written on marriage and I think it's very important, and seeing that I've been married for 54 years now, but I think the government should just be out of it. It should be done by the church or private contract. We shouldn't have this argument, who's married and who isn't married. I have my standards but I shouldn't have to impose my standards on others. Other people have their standards and they have no right to impose their marriage standards on me. And I just don't like it. But if we want to have something to say about marriage it should be at the state level and not at the federal government. Just get the government out of it. It's one area where it's totally unnecessary and they've caused more trouble than necessary."
I don't know about you, but when someone asks a presidential candidate if gays should be allowed to marry, and the first words out of his mouth are "sure," I don't want that man to be president. Nor do I want a president who "explains" that response by adopting a radical, anything-goes understanding of marriage.
Here's what Ron Paul says about marriage in his book Liberty Defined, published this year, on pages 119-120:
"Everyone can have his or her own definition of what marriage means, and if an agreement or contract is reached by the participants, it would qualify as a civil contract if desired."
...
"There should essentially be no limits to the voluntary definition of marriage," page 120.
Polygamy? Sharia law on marriage? Paul hasn't been asked about these but the logic of his position implies, "Sure, fine, any contract you want."
Decriminalizing prostitution? That also appears to be something Ron Paul maybe could support. Watch him here with Elliot Schrage, and here with John Stossel.
Then there's Ron Paul's gaffe where he claims the government only got involved in marriage "a hundred years or so ago" for "health reasons" (the Dec. 2007 interview above—a claim he's repeated on several occasions).
In truth, before America was even a nation, we had laws about marriage. Back in 1648, one of the earliest legal charters, the "Laws and Liberties of 1648" not only acknowledges marriage, it actually gives judges the power to order marriage if a man or woman commits what was then the crime of fornication. (No, you same-sex marriage activists, court-ordered marriage is NOT a NOM position!)
Most states recognized some form of common-law marriage for much of our history, so in that sense licenses were not "required" for marriage. But formal registrations of marriage, and government definition of who can and cannot get married, have been the law and the norm in America since our very beginning.
Harvard professor Nancy Cott is a pretty liberal marriage historian. She testified against Prop 8, in fact. But Nancy Cott knows that, as the description of her book Public Vows put it, "From the founding of the United States to the present day, imperatives about the necessity of marriage and its proper form have been deeply embedded in national policy, law, and political rhetoric. Legislators and judges have envisioned and enforced their preferred model of consensual, lifelong monogamy—a model derived from Christian tenets and the English common law."
The presidential candidate who says otherwise simply does not know very much about marriage. (What New York Times op-ed did Ron Paul borrow that false factoid from? I don't know, but maybe this November 2007 piece by by leftist marriage scholar Stephanie Coontz, "Taking Marriage Private." Prof. Coontz has long argued that children don't need a mom and a dad, and that family structure doesn't matter; it's far more surprising to see this meme picked up by a presidential candidate for the GOP nomination.)
Why is government involved in marriage? Because the public interest in responsible procreation is so overwhelming. That's why you can't just make up your own private marriage contract that says: no children allowed. You can't write into your marriage contract a private right to commit adultery, and you can't embed Sharia law into the marriage contract either.
Paul's vision would not only fail to support marriage from the courts, it would radically destabilize marriage by entirely privatizing it, embracing not only gay marriage contracts but any kind of contract two (or more?) people want to call a marriage.
He hasn't yet been pushed about where he would draw the line—but given his support for legalizing prostitution, I would not be comfortable making predictions. Ron Paul's vision of marriage—at least as he's stated it so far, repeatedly, in public—is: anything goes.
I don't know about you, but I do not want a president who opposes a federal marriage amendment, who offers nothing to stop courts from imposing gay marriage—or one who, when asked if gays should be allowed to marry, starts his answer with, "Sure."
Let me repeat: Ron Paul is admirable man in a lot of ways. He's more or less pro-life, he has been married for 54 years, and he's that rarest of things, an honest politician, standing up for what he believes in over the years.
But in all honesty I have to report to you: Ron Paul does not believe in defending marriage, as the union of one man and one woman, from the federal courts.
Ron Paul is not a marriage champion.
You and I know that marriage is the union of husband and wife for a reason: We need these unions because they are the only kind which can make new life and connect those babies to a mom and a dad, who love each other and their children.
The American people deserve a candidate able and willing to stand up for our faith and our values, especially on the hottest hot-button issue of our time: gay marriage.
What awaits us and our liberty if we do not find a champion?
Tom Emmer, who ran for governor of Minnesota, knows. The faculty of Hamline University just vetoed his appointment as a professor at the business school, according to press accounts, because he supported the right of the people to vote for Minnesota's marriage amendment.
"Political bigotry," Emmer calls it.
More evidence that gay-marriage advocates believe in threatening the livelihoods of those who disagree with them.
We will be following that story and other stories closely on NOM's Marriage Anti-Defamation Alliance website.
More proof that champions of liberty in this day and age need to be champions of marriage.
Thank you for all you do to stand up for God's truth about marriage, in your homes and in the public square.
Thank you—I'm in awe of all that we've been able to accomplish together.
Yours, faithfully,
Brian S. Brown
President
National Organization for Marriage
P.S. Will you stand up for marriage today? When you give to NOM—whether you can give $20 or $200—you are making sure that your voice and your values will be heard in the corridors of power.
Emmer: Hamline U. Guilty of "Political Bigotry"
Jim Bonilla, Hamline University's consultant on diversity in higher education and founding director of their "Race, Gender, & Beyond" program confirmed Emmer's charge that Hamline refuses to let him teach there because he supported the Minnesota Marriage Amendment:
For [Jim] Bonilla, listed on the school's website as a consultant on diversity in higher education and the founding director of Hamline's "Race, Gender & Beyond" program, there is a business case and a social justice case to be made against Emmer.
... hiring someone stridently opposed to gay rights goes against the school's ethic of nondiscrimination and works against training the staff does on creating safe spaces for gay and lesbian students, Bonilla said.
"That would be money wasted," he said. -- Pioneer Press
Hamline is a private university, which states its mission is rooted in United Methodist values, according to their website.
The United Methodist Church, by the way, supports laws defining marriage as one man and one woman.
Gay Marriage Founder Andrew Sullivan Endorses Ron Paul!
Back in 1989, Andrew Sullivan launched the gay marriage movement with a cover story in The New Republic called "The Conservative Case for Gay Marriage." Yesterday, he endorses Ron Paul for president.
Prominent blogger Andrew Sullivan announced Wednesday that he would endorse libertarian Ron Paul for the GOP nomination, scoring the Texas congressman an unconventional advocate for his steadily improving campaign.
"I feel the same way about him on the right in 2012 as I did about Obama in 2008. Both were regarded as having zero chance of being elected. And around now, people decided: Why not? And a movement was born," Sullivan writes on his blog for the Daily Beast.
Sullivan, who describes himself as conservative and emphasizes his support for a flat tax, privatization of Social Security, and deficit reduction, supported President Barack Obama in 2008. Critics from the right have argued his support for gay marriage (Sullivan himself is gay) and criticism of Bush-era interrogation techniques betray liberal sensibilities. -- The Hill's Briefing Room blog
Video: Brian Brown Asks Ron Paul If He Will Support a Marriage Amendment
At the Thanksgiving Family Forum co-hosted by NOM recently, our President Brian Brown asked Ron Paul if he would support a federal marriage amendment -- here is a video of the exchange:
Here is our unofficial transcript of the exchange:
Brian Brown: “Hi, I’m Brian Brown, president of the National Organization for Marriage. My first question is for Dr. Paul. We’ve heard from others of their support of a federal marriage amendment. Would you support an amendment to the U.S. Constitution defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman?”
Ron Paul: “No, I have taken a position that I would not support. I support DOMA, the Defense of Marriage Act but I would prefer under our system of laws that all these problems be taken care of in a constitutional manner which I would defer to the states. But actually I would go even a little bit further; me personally, my personal beliefs, although it’s not likely to be achieved in my lifetime, is traditionally throughout our Judeo-Christian history, it was usually dealt with by the church and I think the reason that we fight and fume over this is because we have too much government everywhere so I would say that the church should make this decision. That’s the most important place to determine marriage.
When you think about in the Old Testament when the God that led the people out of Egypt was not a king, they didn’t have a king and then when they got to the holy land, they had judges they didn’t have kings dictating and ruling but the family dealt with this and the family dealt with marriages but they had a judge to determine this. Matter of fact, when the people came to Samuel and said ‘look we need more rules and more laws, we want more government to tell us what to do and we need more of this.’ Samuel was old and ready to retire and he says ‘no that’s a bad mistake you don’t need more rules and more government, you don’t need this, the government will overreact and today I think this is what has happened to us. We have deferred to the federal government. We have way too much government. We should go in the other directions.
Before you know it the next step; what if the next step is wouldn’t it be wonderful if the United Nations defined marriage? I don’t want to go up that way, I want to go back down all the way to the family and the church. Believe me, it would a happier and more peaceful world if we went in that direction rather than asking the government and asking the king to solve all these problems. We need the family to deal with it and we can take our message and learn something from the Old Testament how there was such a strong emphasis on the patriarchal society and the disputes settled by judges rather than looking for big government.”
"Ultimate Betrayal" Says Wife of Alabama Official Who Donated Sperm to Lesbian Couple
A former Republican official in Alabama who crusaded against same-sex marriage anonymously donated his sperm to lesbian couples while doing relief work in New Zealand, according to a shocking new report.
Bill Johnson, who made a failed bid for governor in 2010, used the online alias "chchbill" to meet with women who needed help to get pregnant, according to the New Zealand Herald.
The newspaper reports at least nine women received sperm donations from Johnson. Of them, three are now pregnant.
Johnston acknowledged to The Herald he donated his sperm, and that he did it because having children of his own was "a need that I have."
... Despite his assertions about how his wife feels, Kathy Johnson described his actions as the "utmost betrayal," according to The Herald. "My heart is broken."In a statement to the Mobile Press-Register in Alabama, she said, "This is a really, really difficult time for our family... I'm still in disbelief and very hurt, and our family has a lot of healing to do."
Minnesota College Republicans Ask: Why Can't Emmer Teach at Hamline?
Joe Kimball of MinnPost.com shares this statement in support of Tom Emmer by Ryan Lyk, chairman of the Minnesota College Republicans:
“This sends the wrong message to conservative students at Hamline, and any students looking to apply there. Hamline University is a school that allegedly stands for diversity of opinion, but apparently that only applies if you meet the standards of the liberal activists who are already faculty. This is just another example of an educational institution attempting to insulate itself from anything that might challenge its engrained liberal beliefs of practices. Gay marriage has absolutely nothing to do with business law or Emmer’s abilities to teach it. If liberal activist David Schultz can work there, why can’t Tom?”
Emmer claims he was denied a job over his pro-marriage views.
Gingrich Signs NOM's Marriage Pledge, Leaving Only Paul Among Major Candidates Not To Have Signed
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: December 15, 2011
Contact: Mary Beth Hutchins (703-683-5004 ext. 105)
NOM will begin advertising in Iowa to communicate with Iowa voters who is pledged to stand with them to defend marriage
WASHINGTON — The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) today announced that presidential front-runner Newt Gingrich has signed the organization's presidential marriage pledge, leaving Ron Paul as the only major candidate not to have signed the pledge. The pledge, which commits candidates to take several concrete actions as President of the United States, has been signed by Gingrich, Mitt Romney, Rick Perry, Rick Santorum and Michelle Bachmann. NOM also announced it would launch advertisements in Iowa to publicize those who are pledge to defend marriage as the union of one man and one woman.
"We commend Newt Gingrich for signing NOM's presidential marriage pledge, committing himself to play a leadership role as president to preserve marriage as the union of one man and one woman," said Brian Brown, NOM's president. "Mr. Gingrich joins all the other major candidates who have made a similar commitment, save for one—Ron Paul. Now we will embark on an intensive communications program to inform Iowa voters who will stand with them to preserve marriage, and who has abandoned them on marriage."
Preserving traditional marriage is a major issue in the presidential campaign. In 2010 Iowa voters removed three justices of their state Supreme Court, including the Chief Justice, who voted to redefine marriage in Iowa and thus imposing same-sex marriage. NOM's marriage pledge commits the candidates to:
Support an amendment to the United State Constitution defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman;
- Appointing Supreme Court Justices and an Attorney General who will apply the original meaning of the Constitution;
- Vigorously defend the federal Defense of Marriage Act in court;
- Establish a presidential commission on religious liberty; and
- Advance legislation to return to the people of the District of Columbia their right to vote on marriage.
"Many of Ron Paul's supporters in Iowa believe that he is on their side when it comes to preserving traditional marriage, but he isn't," Brown said. "While Paul says he personally believes in traditional marriage, he has refused to sign our pledge and, worse, has said that marriage is strictly a private affair and that government has no role in regulating marriage. This is a dangerous position with profound consequences for society."
Left to its logical conclusion, if marriage is strictly a private affair as Paul has said, homosexual, polygamous and incestuous marriages among adults would be considered just as valid as traditional marriages. Moreover, should the United States Supreme Court decide to redefine marriage to impose same-sex marriage, just as they imposed their will on abortion, Paul would do nothing about it.
"NOM is not going to endorse a candidate in Iowa, but we will be making it clear through online ads, telephone calls and other actions that Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, Mitt Romney and Michele Bachmann stand with Iowans on defending traditional marriage, and Ron Paul does not," Brown concluded.
(Related: see Ron Paul answer Brian Brown's question about supporting a federal marriage amendment)
To schedule an interview with Brian Brown, President of NOM, please contact Elizabeth Ray, [email protected], or Mary Beth Hutchins, [email protected] at 703-683-5004 ext. 105.
###
UK Government Leaves Christian Registrar Out in the Cold Before European Court Trial
Lillian Ladele, a Christian registrar who was disciplined for her stance on civil partnerships, will not receive the backing of the UK Government when her case reaches Europe.
Miss Ladele’s case is one of a quartet of religious liberty cases involving Christians that are set to appear before the European Court of Human Rights.
The Government has decided not to support her, instead backing previous rulings from British courts on the matter.
Supporters of Miss Ladele say there were plenty of registrars at Islington Council who could have easily provided a civil partnership service without requiring her involvement.
They say there could have been a ‘reasonable accommodation’ of her religious beliefs that would not have affected service delivery.
Gov. Cuomo Mocks Marriage Supporters, Misrepresents Their Arguments to GQ Magazine
As part of Governor Cuomo's victory lap for redefining marriage, he sat down for an interview with GQ Magazine, where he proceeds to mock supporters of marriage and mischaracterizes their arguments for preserving our marriage tradition:
GQ: And you got the [marriage equality] activists to work together—
Andrew Cuomo: Yeah. Because they were a fractured group. But I mean, you look at the injustice of the issue. [switches voices, mimicking the opposition] "You can't get married if you're gay." Why? "Well, because you're gay." And? "And, well, you can't make babies." That's the argument. Oh, really? So then we should change the law to say, "Only people who can and want to make babies can get married." So an infertile man can't. A woman who can't, she can't get married. People who don't want to make a baby, they can't get married. So let's change the law so it says, "Only people who can and will make babies." "Well, we don't want to do that. You can get married if you don't want to make a baby or if you can't--except if you're gay!" There's no logic.
Hat tip: HuffPo
Tom Emmer: Hamline University Won't Let Pro-Marriage Professors Teach
Tom Emmer's pro-marriage views played a big role in his race for governor against Mark Dayton. Now he says Hamline University rescinded a job offer over his marriage views, as the Pioneer Press reports:
Former Republican gubernatorial candidate Tom Emmer is accusing Hamline University of caving to faculty opposition and reneging on an agreement for him to teach at its business school.
Emmer said Tuesday that the St. Paul school agreed to hire him for the job and to fill an "executive in residence" position earlier this fall. But, he said, the school backed away after a small group of staff, including business school professor David Schultz, objected to his political views, including his opposition to same-sex marriage.
Emmer said the school should admit it did not honor the agreement because staff did not want a conservative like him teaching there.
In a letter to Hamline President Linda Hanson, Emmer said, "Madam President, is there a requirement that every faculty member at Hamline conform on the issue of marriage? Is there only one point of view allowed? Is there no political or religious freedom recognized at Hamline? I thought the 'mission' at Hamline University was to educate - not to inculcate.''
... Emmer said, he read a Dec. 6 newspaper report that he had never been hired. He characterized the story as "outrageous and unnecessary.''
Among other things, it made a reference to Schultz saying faculty members were concerned Emmer was simply being selected by McCarthy, which goes against the faculty handbook, and that he held "political positions that were incompatible with the university's mission, specifically his stance on same-sex marriage.''
"Isn't this exactly what certain segments of our population call bullying?'' Emmer asked.
Minnesota Chamber of Commerce Says They Will Remain Neutral on Marriage Amendment
The Post Bulletin Political Notebook blog:
Looks like the Minnesota Chamber of Commerce is going to stay on the sidelines in the political fight over the marriage constitutional amendment — at least for now.
Bill Blazar, the chamber's senior vice president of public affairs and business development, told Rochester business leaders on Friday that the chamber doesn't plan to take a position on a proposed constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage. The proposal will be on the ballot in 2012.
"The current thinking of the Minnesota chamber is not to take a position on that amendment, that we don't see it as a business issue," Blazar said.
Election Watch 2012 - Iowa
Less than 20 days to go until the Iowa Caucuses:
National Public Radio: Iowa Evangelicals Are Divided Over GOP Candidates
Associated Press: Social Issues Bubbling Up in GOP Campaign
Des Moines Register: Pastors: Newt Gingrich Is Empty Suit With Broken Zipper
Andrew Breitbart Resigns from GOProud After They "Out" Perry Adviser
Matt Lewis at Daily Caller:
A prominent conservative voice has resigned from the advisory board of the gay conservative group GOProud after a leader of the organization “outed” a top Rick Perry adviser on Twitter.
A source who received a copy of the resignation email from Andrew Breitbart sends this along:
It is with sincere regret that I announce I must step down as a GOProud advisory member. On numerous occasions I have spoken with [GOProud leaders] Jimmy LaSalvia and Chris Barron of the significant impact the practice of “outing” had in my evolution from the political left to the right. I was under the absolute impression that both agreed. I have a zero tolerance attitude toward the intentional infliction of vocational and family harm by divulging the details of an individual’s sexual orientation as a weapon of political destruction. As an “Advisory Board member” I was not consulted on this extreme and punitive act. Clearly, there are more productive means to debate controversial ideas and settle conflicts. Therefore, I cannot in good conscience stand with GOProud. I still stand by gay conservatives who boldly and in the face of much criticism from many fronts fight for limited government, lower taxes, a strong national defense as well as the other core conservative principles.