What began as a protest against the use of the Q-word, for which the Mayor of Troy, MI has apologized, has morphed into the public position: you are not entitled to oppose gay marriage.
Watch, it's telling:
"Free speech is one thing, hateful speech is another." e.g. you should be ashamed to say that marriage is the union of one man and one woman.
Related on NOMblog: PPP Poll: Michigan Voters Oppose SSM 53%-33% (08/17/11)
Dear Marriage Supporter,
An anti-bullying curriculum in the Vancouver public schools points kids to a website featuring explicit videos of gay sex. When school board Trustee Ken Denike learned of it, he suggested periodic reviews of all online resources...and was roundly denounced by community leaders as a homophobe!
True story. See it here.
Our most recent Marriage ADA video features Vancouver School Trustee Ken Denike and mental health professional Sophia Woo, who have been trying to help concerned parents protect their children from an anti-bullying curriculum produced by Out in Schools pointing kids to online "resources" that amount to little more than gay pornography.
The request from Trustee Denike and Ms. Woo? That the school district implement a policy for periodic review of websites referenced in school curriculum, recognizing that website content can change quickly.
The school board refuses to do anything to protect kids from these explicit websites. Anti-bullying teacher Ryan Clayton, who has worked with the Out in Schools curriculum, chalks it up to a politically motivated attack. And for their efforts, Ken Denike and Sophia Woo are denounced as homophobes.
Imagine that—in our neighbor to the north, protecting 13 year old children from being exposed to pornography in public schools is now just a politically motivated attack.
Let's be clear—this is not about a student using a school computer to access pornography. This is about official curriculum recommending students visit a website containing gay pornography—and personal attacks directed at anyone who dares stand up for our kids.
The gay press understands the issue:
This is a moral question, I agree. Just as the black civil rights movement changed the rules of what is and isn't acceptable for racism, the gay rights movement is shifting norms in Canada. And with that comes a message to those who won't evolve: your outdated morals are no longer acceptable, and we will teach your kids the new norms.
"We will teach your kids the new norms." There it is—this is the whole story in eight simple words. No exemptions, no alternatives—just forcing kids to be exposed to government-sponsored porn, in an effort to shift cultural norms and reshape our kids' understanding of right and wrong.
This cannot go unanswered, but we need your help to continue this fight.
You've been a strong supporter of marriage and of NOM's efforts to protect marriage and religious liberty (thank you again), so you of all people understand how our opponents are viciously targeting people's safety, property, and livelihoods—and what we can do to fight back!
Marriage ADA will continue to release—one-at-a-time—a series of incredible new videos about other courageous pro-marriage citizens.
Our goal is to create a community of Americans who adhere to the core Gospel value: "Be not afraid!"
Thanks for acting fast,
Brian S. Brown
Executive Director
NOM Education Fund
P.S. Please forward this email to three friends right now so they can see the truth and get involved. Isolated and alone, we can be intimidated. Together we are too many to be treated as second-class citizens.
Simply visit MarriageADA.org, learn our stories, and make one urgent contribution. Thank you again, and God bless you!
P.P.S. Out in Schools has now voluntarily removed this website from new printed materials in response to concerns raised by Trustee Denike and Ms. Woo.
So their courageous stand has already had an effect!
Marc Barnes who writes the "Bad Catholic" blog at Patheos.com posts an essay on why he opposes SSM in response to a viral video of a college student who loves his two moms. He begins:
My first reaction is one of happiness. The fact that this individual came out healthier and happier and seemingly much more normal than most human beings deserves some thanksgiving. After all, his family scenario isn’t the likely scenario within the gay community. First of all, few gay relationships achieve the longevity of heterosexual relationships. Not to say that anybody’s doing great at the “maintaining relationships” thing, but the gay community is doing particularly terribly.
He concludes:
... I don’t point out all this to condemn, only to show that speech given was essentially an emotional appeal based on a singular example. Zach Wahls says there exists no difference between homosexual marriages and heterosexual marriages. Statistics say otherwise. Choose now whom you will believe. Given our current level of rationality and thought, I’ve no doubt the video — at over a million views now — will convert many compassionate, well-intentioned young people to the cause. But it is false advertising, and I — though I wish for the sake of the children of gay marriages that I could – simply don’t buy it.
Over at Public Discourse, in the second part of her two-part essay (read part one here) Helen Alvare explains how changes in family law over the past 50 years have been detrimental to child wellbeing:
Family law has changed during the past 50 years to the detriment of child well-being, paving the way for the arguments in support of same-sex marriage. But there is a new strategy available to us to respond to this situation.
The first part of this series summarized two centuries of Supreme Court opinions identifying the state's interest in marriage with its interests in children, their formation for self-government, and the building of a decentralized society. Today, however, those who demand state recognition of same-sex marriage either ignore or minimize the relationship between marriage law and children's welfare. In light of the Supreme Court decisions discussed here yesterday, this seems a foolish strategy, bound to fail.
From the Alliance Defense Fund:
An Alliance Defense Fund allied attorney representing a central Illinois bed and breakfast filed answers Friday to complaints filed against it with the state’s Human Rights Commission. Two men filed the complaints after TimberCreek Bed and Breakfast told them that it does not host “civil union” ceremonies, but only weddings, on its premises.
“No business owner may be forced to violate his sincerely held religious beliefs merely because someone demands it,” said Steve Amjad, one of more than 2,100 attorneys in the ADF alliance. “Constitutional and state laws guarantee religious freedom for every American, including business owners. These complaints ignore those fundamental freedoms and are further examples of the threat the homosexual legal agenda poses to every American’s basic rights.”
Dear Marriage Supporter,
Tomorrow afternoon beginning at 2:30 pm PT / 5:30 pm ET, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit will be hearing oral arguments on California's Proposition 8.
The three-judge panel, while continuing to deliberate on the constitutionality of Prop 8, will additionally be hearing oral arguments on whether Judge Walker broke the law when he allowed the public release of videotapes of the original Prop 8 trial and whether Judge Walker's decision to overturn Prop 8 should be reversed because he was involved in a same-sex relationship at the time.
Ruth Institute Founder and President, Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse will be in the courtroom providing live updates via the NOM blog and Twitter (follow us @NOMtweets).
Check the blog tomorrow afternoon and on Friday for updates to get a full report on the proceedings.
The path to this point has been circuitous to say the least...last December the court heard arguments on the case's merits, but because Governor Jerry Brown and Attorney General Kamala Harris have refused to defend the law, in January the 9th Circuit asked the California Supreme Court to decide whether the Protect Marriage coalition had legal standing to defend Prop 8.
Just last month, the California Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the Prop 8 proponents did have standing in the case. The 9th Circuit will now take the California Supreme Court's unanimous decision on the standing question into consideration in their deliberations.
Please follow along with us on the NOM blog and on Twitter as we continue to uphold and defend the people's right to protect marriage at the ballot box and in our nation's highest courts.
Brian S. Brown
President
National Organization for Marriage
We welcome Wolfson's comments, acknowledging that a majority of Maryland citizens are opposed to redefining marriage. Legislators of Maryland, take note!
This from The Washington Blade (a gay newspaper):
The head of the national advocacy group Freedom to Marry startled leaders of Maryland’s campaign to pass a same-sex marriage bill in 2012 when he implied this week that organizers weren’t doing the work needed to defeat an expected voter referendum to overturn such a bill.
Evan Wolfson, executive director of Freedom to Marry, told the Washington Blade on Monday that his group chose not to join a coalition of local, state and national groups called Marylanders for Marriage Equality. The coalition is leading efforts to lobby the Maryland Legislature to approve a same-sex marriage bill when it convenes in Annapolis in January.
“We are deeply committed, as we have been for years, to ending exclusion from marriage in Maryland and throughout the country,” Wolfson told the Blade in an email.
But he added, “In Maryland, because of the likelihood that marriage legislation can be forced onto the ballot, the key question is not just passing a bill in the legislature, but defending it against an attack campaign via ballot measure,” he said.
“Freedom to Marry has made it clear to members of the coalition and to lawmakers that our goal is to win, not simply to pass a bill, if there is not sufficient groundwork and investment in a campaign to win at the ballot,” he said.
“We have continued to press for clarity and progress on benchmarks for success, and have urged elected officials, national organizations, and advocates on the ground to show the plan, investment, and activities needed now to build public support and succeed at the ballot, not just the legislature,” he told the Blade in his email message about the Maryland marriage campaign.
All of Ontario’s Catholic and public schools will be required to set up gay-straight alliances if students request them, Ontario’s education minister said Thursday as Dalton McGuinty’s Liberal government unveiled its new bill to crack down on homosexual bullying.
Education Minister Laurel Broten told Xtra that there is “no more debate” on gay-straight alliances. “If students want a GSA, it must be provided,” she said. “I’m confident our Catholic schools will work with students on this.”
... The move could set up a showdown with Ontario’s Catholic school system. While the bishops have agreed to set up the homosexual “anti-bullying” clubs previously mandated by McGuinty’s government, they drew a line in the sand over gay-straight alliances (GSAs).
Helen Alvare of George Mason School of Law and a senior fellow at the Witherspoon Institute argues in this first part of a two-part series for The Public Discourse that "The Supreme Court was more right than it knew during the past two centuries as it identified the state’s interest in marriage as children and their formation":
Why is there a gulf between those who see same-sex marriage as an impossible legal and cultural revolution, a bridge too far, and those who see it as the logical next step on a path well-trodden in family law? In part, it is the difference in perspective between those familiar with classical expressions of the goods and goals of marriage found in over a century of Supreme Court decisions, and those with their eyes fixed upon more recent legal developments that call those goods into question or ignore them.
Those who champion marriage between a man and a woman would like to see the Supreme Court settle the matter according to a long series of precedents treating procreation and child-rearing as primary state-recognized goods of marriage. But given that one ought to be realistic about judicial willingness today to ignore precedent in favor of some perceived zeitgeist, an additional strategy to preserve the link between marriage and children in the Court’s reasoning is warranted.
New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo blew into Hollywood Friday for a fundraiser and left with at least $500,000 in contributions and the sort of rave reviews that bring press agents -- and political strategists -- to tears.
... Friday’s event -- dinner for 40 and a reception for about 80 guests -- was held at the home of interior designer and White House decorator Michael S. Smith and and his partner, HBO executive James Costas. The couple, who also maintain a residence in New York, also are major Democratic fundraisers, who have collected more than $1 million to support President Barack Obama’s reelection campaign.
... Attendees included: MGM co-chairman Roger Birnbaum, Chelsea Handler, producer John Goldwyn and his parter Jeff Klein, who owns the Sunset Tower Hotel, Hard Rock Cafe owner Peter Mortin, Cynthia Sikes Yorkin, Vanessa Williams, Los Angeles City Controller and mayoral candidate Wendy Greuel, Occidental Petroleum CEO Ray Irani, director James Burrows, and producer Jennifer Todd.
Peggy, a 40-something woman who was in a relationship with another woman for over ten years, writes for the Marriage Matters blog of the Minnesota Catholic Conference:
...I grew up Catholic and abandoned my faith for 18 years, the last ten-and-a-half years of that period in a monogamous lesbian relationship. I considered myself married to my partner and organized my life accordingly. In the end, though, I recognized a deep spiritual emptiness, had a change of heart and left the relationship. (After her own spiritual struggle and devastation from the end of our relationship, my former partner ultimately reconnected with her faith, too, and today we remain friends.)
At no time during my relationship with my former partner did I feel cheated or at a disadvantage by not being able to marry her. We knew that we needed to take steps to insure that we prepared for our future, with or without each other, in the case of sickness or death.
My living will and medical proxy gave her the ability to speak for me and make medical decisions. We were the beneficiaries on each other’s life insurance policies and retirement accounts. If for some reason I needed to add her to my benefits at work, I could. We could have had a commitment ceremony performed by a minister at any number of gay-affirming churches in the Twin Cities, attended by our family and friends who loved and supported us. I considered myself married. I didn’t expect the state or the federal government to extend to me the same benefits a husband and wife received.
It leaves me wondering how exactly extending the civil definition of “marriage” to same-sex couples truly helps society as a whole when that change would affect such a small percentage of Minnesotans (10,207 households are same-sex couples in Minnesota, according to the 2010 Census). This is compared to more than a million husband-wife households who would have the public definition of their relationship altered so that their benefits could be extended to same-sex couples. After all, civil benefits for married households are fundamentally meant to support and promote the ideal environment for the raising and rearing of children, our future citizens.
The Church of Scotland has rejected proposals to legalise marriage for gay men and lesbians, claiming the Scottish government's proposals undermine society and the meaning of marriage.
The church, the most influential within Scotland, has added its weight to a growing backlash against same-sex marriage by religious groups. It claimed that allowing gay marriages contradicted the fundamental and historical basis of the institution.
Its intervention is a further blow to Alex Salmond's government, and follows the launch on Wednesday outside the Scottish parliament of a new multi-faith campaign against the reform called Scotland for Marriage led by Scotland's most senior Catholic, Cardinal Keith O'Brien, and a senior Church of Scotland figure, Ann Allen.
The Catholic church, many senior Muslim figures and evangelical churches have now formally opposed the proposal, while a grouping of smaller churches, including liberal Jewish groups, Quakers, the Pagan Federation and Unitarians, have supported the measure.
Over at my personal blog I reported yesterday on the Cardinal Newman Society's new report which connects the dots between gay-activist money and a series of conferences sponsored at Catholic universities designed to confuse Catholics about what their faith really says about marriage and family.
This from the Newman Society release:
In a special investigative report released today, The Cardinal Newman Society (CNS) provides evidence of “a well-orchestrated attempt to undermine the Church’s doctrine and its stand against homosexual ‘marriage’” at a series of conferences co-sponsored by two Jesuit universities and funded by a radical foundation.
The presidents of Fordham and Fairfield Universities had promised New York Archbishop Timothy Dolan and Bridgeport Bishop William Lori that the “More Than a Monologue” conference series would “not be a vehicle for dissent,” according to the New York Archdiocese. However, Newman Society reporters found evidence of dissent, sacrilege and opposition to the bishops’ efforts to protect marriage.
[Continue reading Press Release] [Click here for the full report]
My reaction and suggestion:
"... in the interest of transparency, the presidents of Fordham and Fairfield should reveal their correspondence with Archbishop Dolan and Bishop Lori and explain how this happened on their watch. Did they, for instance, make any serious effort to supervise the planned content of the events and review the speaker list? It is, after all, a very serious matter that these presidents of Catholic universities promised the bishops that these conferences would not violate their responsibilities and then failed to follow-through on that promise.
As I’ve written before, there’s a very clear project underway which, financed by well-moneyed gay rights activists, seeks to undermine the Church’s teaching on these issues from within, by sponsoring events such as the “CatholiQ Eucharist” and “More than a Monologue” conference and by funding Catholic organizations that allow their name and institutions to be co-opted by this agenda.
Catholic laypeople who care about the identity of our Catholic institutions ought to work with the bishops to demand a response from the administration of these two schools and to see that proper reparations are made. Issuing a formal apology, promising not to allow this to happen again, and sponsoring a second round of conferences where the Church’s teaching on these issues is articulated and defended properly are all good places to start."
Catholics have a right to believe what their Church teaches and to expect that their institutions will fairly present that teaching as part of their mission.
Mark Lee writes in the Washington Blade (a gay newspaper):
...[The District of Columbia] Council testimony and media reports during consideration of the modern marriage bill touted extraordinary local economic benefits to come once gay and lesbian couples were permitted to marry in Washington.
Unfortunately, although no commercial benefit was — or should be — required to justify the expansion of the civil right to marry, those projections have proven overstated and the level of anticipated revenue for local businesses has not materialized.
The shortfall is due to both unrealistic economic forecasting by some marriage equality advocates and a notably lower number of same-sex marriages performed in the District than projected.
In response to a recent “Orthodox” same-sex marriage ceremony conducted in Washington, D.C. by Rabbi Steve Greenberg, – who is openly gay, and married Yoni Bock and Ron Kaplan at the 6th & I Synagogue in Washington in November – over 100 Orthodox Rabbis – among them some of the most prominent rabbinic figures in the Orthodox Jewish world, including Rabbi Hershel Schachter and Rabbi Hershel Reichman of Yeshiva University and Rabbi Elie Abadie of the Safra Synagogue – issued a statement declaring that, “By definition, a union that is not sanctioned by Torah law is not an Orthodox wedding, and by definition a person who conducts such a ceremony is not an Orthodox rabbi.”
They also dispelled any doubt over possible flexibility on the matter in the future, writing, “We strongly object to this desecration of Torah values and to the subsequent misleading reportage…the public should not be misled into thinking that Orthodox Jewish values on this issue can change, are changing, or might someday change…any claims to the contrary are inaccurate and false.”
