NOM Blog ...

NOM BLOG

Heritage: NOM Announces New Marriage Anti-Defamation Alliance

October 5, 2011 at 1:00 pm

On their Foundry blog:

The National Organization for Marriage recently announced the launch of a new project called the Marriage Anti-Defamation Alliance. This vital project responds to growing concerns about the reprisals directed against many people who support marriage as one man and one woman.

The Heritage Foundation has documented, for example, how people who supported Proposition 8, the California marriage amendment, were “subjected to harassment, intimidation, vandalism, racial scapegoating, blacklisting, loss of employment, economic hardships, angry protests, violence, at least one death threat, and gross expressions of anti-religious bigotry.”

By NOM Staff | Posted in Marriage, MarriageADA | Comments (3)

New Poll: 59% of Maryland African-Americans Oppose SSM

October 5, 2011 at 12:00 pm

That's the finding of a Gonzales poll released yesterday: 59% of African-Americans oppose redefining marriage.

Overall, 49% oppose SSM, 48% support it and 3% offered no opinion (we presume the total equals 101% due to rounding).

By NOM Staff | Posted in Marriage, Maryland, Poll, Same Sex Marriage | Comments (15)

Readers Ask Star Tribune To Be Fair During the Minnesota Marriage Debate

October 5, 2011 at 11:00 am

Several readers of the Minnesota Star Tribune are taking the newspaper to task for its bias on the marriage debate:

Who is to decide whether or not "the state is out of step" (editorial, Oct. 1)? No poll or vote taken here in Minnesota has broached this subject that I know of.

Until that happens, no one has the right to decide what the people of Minnesota are supporting or not supporting. After all, the "people" are the "state" in a democratic society.

The Catholic Church and other denominations are firmly against gay marriage and should have the same press coverage as those who support it. I would love to see a rebuttal by one of these organizations, in bold print, in order to have a fair debate on this subject.

Christians who hold to biblical truths should have the same voice as those who don't in our free society. It is not obvious to the Star Tribune that Christians are a majority of the state's population. This would definitely frighten those who desire to let the minority rule instead of the majority.

And another:

Our culture, specifically the family unit, is in grave danger of losing all sense of morality and emotional stability. The teaching of the Bible has been a steady source of wisdom for the families of our nation over the past 300 years.

We believe the Catholic Church and all Bible-teaching churches should stand up and speak boldly against same-sex marriages as taught by the Scriptures, and that the Star Tribune shouldn't use its editorial power to stand against it unless it plans to have an equally well-positioned editorial for the churches' involvement in the issue.

We aren't going to use this venue for our arguments, as they are long and well-thought-out, but rather we want to let you know that there are millions of us in this nation who are against same-sex marriages, and we will express our voices. Please don't try to silence us.

By NOM Staff | Posted in Media, Minnesota, Same Sex Marriage | Comments (6)

No Same-Sex Weddings at West Point's Catholic Chapel, Says Military Archdiocese

October 5, 2011 at 10:30 am

CNSNews:

Will same-sex marriage ceremonies be allowed at the Catholic Chapel of the Most Holy Trinity at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point?

“The answer is ‘no,’” said Taylor Henry, director of public affairs and media relations for the Catholic Archdiocese for the Military Services, USA, and spokesman for Archbishop Timothy Broglio, who certifies all Catholic chaplains for the armed services.

Archbishop Broglio, meanwhile, has denounced directives issued last week by Under Secretary of Defense Clifford Stanley and DoD General Counsel Jeh Johnson clearing military chaplains to perform same-sex weddings in military chapels.

“The Pentagon's new policy, as outlined in these two memos, appears to ignore the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which was signed into law 15 years ago and remains in effect,” Broglio said in a statement released last week.

By NOM Staff | Posted in Catholic Church, DOMA, Same Sex Marriage | Comments (5)

Christian Family Coalition: Ros-Lehtinen Betrayed Her Constituents on Marriage

October 5, 2011 at 10:00 am

Strong words from the Christian Family Coalition, which is located in the congresswoman's district:

Florida Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R) has embarrassed and ridiculed herself by becoming the first Republican to co-sponsor on a deceptive bill to overturn the bipartisan Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). This new fraudulent legislation seeks to overturn the will of the people in Florida and all across America, by imposing so-called "homosexual marriage" on all fifty (50) states.

No doubt, when voters elected Congresswoman Lehtinen, this was not a part of her "agenda", she has lied to and misled her own constituents, donors and volunteers by kowtowing to an extremist agenda. As we go forward there is little doubt that the "incentives," being used to sway votes, will be exposed. This much we do know, in November, 2008, 62% of Florida voters, including in her own Congressional district, voted to amend the state constitution to protect and define marriage and all of its benefits as the union of one man, one woman, and there is not a single thing Congresswoman Lehtinen can do about that, except to obey the law!

By NOM Staff | Posted in DOMA, Florida | Comments (19)

Minnesota Catholic Conference Makes Clear: "Catholics For Equality" Not Actually Catholic

October 5, 2011 at 9:00 am

The Archdiocese of Saint Paul and Minneapolis and the Minnesota Catholic Conference recently clarified that a group posing as a Catholic group isn't actually Catholic:

The Archdiocese of Saint Paul and Minneapolis and the Minnesota Catholic Conference issued a joint statement today explaining that a newly formed group calling itself “Catholics for Marriage Equality MN” has no recognition from nor affiliation with the Roman Catholic Church.

One of Catholics for Marriage Equality MN’s expressed aims is to defeat the Minnesota Marriage Protection Amendment that will appear on the November 2012 ballot, and which defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman. The group misleadingly tries to convince Catholics that they can, in good conscience, support a state redefinition of marriage without undermining marriage itself. The Catholic Church, in keeping with Catholic teaching, reason and natural law, and in concert with many other faiths, strongly supports maintaining the current, traditional definition of marriage by voting “yes” for the Amendment during the November 2012 election.

The press release also charges that Catholics For Equality is guilty of misrepresenting and diminishing Catholic teaching:

Both MCC and the Archdiocese stress the importance of respecting the God-given dignity of all persons, which means the recognition of authentic human rights and responsibilities, while pointing out that official Catholic teaching goes well beyond what Catholics for Marriage Equality MN’s website states.

Outside groups are free to say what they want, but they aren't free to decide what Catholic teaching is.

By NOM Staff | Posted in Catholic Church, Minnesota, Same Sex Marriage | Comments (9)

National Organization for Marriage Challenges Minnesota Campaign Finance Board

October 4, 2011 at 11:00 am

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: October 4th, 2011
Contact: Mary Beth Hutchins (703-683-5004) x. 105

“The CFB cannot illegally force us to report information the law does not require.” Brian Brown, President of NOM

St. Paul, MN—The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) today told the Minnesota Campaign Finance Board they were acting illegally in attempting to force NOM and other pro-family nonprofit organizations to disclose the names of donors to the groups in order to contribute general treasury funds to a ballot question committee in Minnesota. Minnesota law does not require nonprofit corporations to disclose its members as a condition of contributing to a ballot question committee.

“NOM does not object to its donations to the Minnesota for Marriage campaign being publicly disclosed,” said Brian Brown, NOM’s president. “What we do object to is the attempt of Campaign Finance Board bureaucrats to illegally force us to report information the law does not require. The CFB does not have the legal authority to impose such requirements. Only the Legislature can enact laws, and they have repeatedly refused to do so.”

Minnesota law does not give jurisdiction to the Campaign Finance Board to regulate nonprofit corporations except to the extent they are involved in advocating the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate. The CFB has sought this authority at least three times (2004, 2005 and 2011), but the Legislature has declined to give the Board this power.

”The Board is in the process of implementing through multiple back-door, behind the scenes ‘statements of guidance’ recommendations made by the Board to the legislature over a number of years, but which have never been adopted nor enacted by the legislature into the laws of the State of Minnesota,” said Cleta Mitchell, counsel for NOM.

NOM’s September 30th letter to the Board accused it of specifically targeting NOM and other pro-family organizations supporting the proposed Marriage Protection Amendment for its proposed regulations. During its September 6th meeting of the Board, executive director Gary Goldsmith specifically discussed how the National Organization for Marriage would be impacted by the proposed regulations.

“I was appalled to listen to the Board’s discussion of NOM’s website, the language contained in NOM’s solicitations and, further, how NOM’s activities related to its support of the Marriage Referendum are to be fitted with whatever ‘make-it-up-as-we-go-along’ restructuring of Minnesota campaign finance law the Board ultimately comes up with,” Mitchell said. “The deliberate targeting by the government of a particular citizens organization such as NOM is a violation of NOM’s First Amendment rights protecting it from such government assault.”

NOM has demanded that the Campaign Finance Board produce all communications, documents, emails and other materials related to its attempts to seek legislative authority for the very changes it now proposes to illegally promulgate. It also demands all internal and external communication the Board has had relative to the National Organization for Marriage and the proposed marriage referendum.

To schedule an interview with Brian Brown, president of NOM, contact Elizabeth Ray (x. 130) or Mary Beth Hutchins (x.105) at 703-683-5004.

By NOM Staff | Posted in Minnesota, Press Releases | Comments (8)

Lesbian Parents Authorize Hormone Blocking to Prevent 11-Year-Old Son's Puberty

October 4, 2011 at 10:00 am

The UK Daily Mail reports on a situation in California that is grabbing headlines and plenty of media attention:

The lesbian parents of an 11-year-old boy who is undergoing the process of becoming a girl last night defended the decision, claiming it was better for a child to have a sex change when young.

Thomas Lobel, who now calls himself Tammy, is undergoing controversial hormone blocking treatment in Berkeley, California to stop him going through puberty as a boy.

... At age seven, after threatening genital mutilation on himself, psychiatrists diagnosed Thomas with gender identity disorder. By the age of eight, he began transitioning.

This summer, he started taking hormone-blocking drugs, which will stop him from experiencing puberty.

Related -- Wesley J. Smith writes at a First Things blog: "Human Experimentation is the Real Issue in Stopping 'Transsexual' Boy's Puberty."

By NOM Staff | Posted in California, Children, Culture, Parenting, Science | Comments (72)

National Post Apologizes for Pro-Family Ad, Donates Proceeds to Gay Activist Group

October 4, 2011 at 9:00 am

Since when does a national magazine have to apologize and make amends for publishing a pro-family ad?

The Canadian National Post, which until the advent of SUN news network was thought to be the most conservative national mainstream media outlet in the country, has shocked conservatives by apologizing for running a pro-family advertisement. Moreover, the National Post says it will be donating the thousands of dollars paid for the ad by the pro-family group to a homosexual activist group.

The ad, sponsored by the Institute for Christian Values, depicted a large picture of a little girl with the header, “Please! Don’t confuse me.” Below the photo, the youngster said, “I’m a girl. Don’t teach me to question if I’m a boy, transsexual, transgendered, intersexed or two spirited.” The ad specifically addressed the Toronto District School Board’s policy of forbidding parents to opt out of its pro-homosexual curriculum. --LifeSiteNews

By NOM Staff | Posted in Canada, Civility, Media | Comments (10)

NY GOP Leader Skelos, After Permitting SSM Vote, Suddenly Realizes His Majority May Be in Danger, Talks to Flip-Flopper Grisanti

October 3, 2011 at 2:00 pm

We tried to warn him...

State Senate Majority Leader Dean G. Skelos will be coming to town on Oct. 7, and, according to several GOP sources, it's a sure bet he will sit down for a conversation with his Republican colleague (for the moment at least) Mark J. Grisanti of Buffalo.

That's because Grisanti holds a key position in maintaining the GOP majority in the Senate, and speculation continues that he may join the Independent Democratic Caucus -- a group of four renegade Democrats who are nonetheless Democrats when majorities and minorities are determined.

The sources say Skelos will make his case for Grisanti remaining in the party, even though no reapportionment lines have yet been drawn. And since Grisanti is a Republican in an overwhelmingly Democratic district, party labels are bound to prove important in the election of 2012. --Buffalo News

By NOM Staff | Posted in New York, Same Sex Marriage | Comments (5)

"I was in Favor of Gay Marriage Until Last Week"

October 3, 2011 at 1:15 pm

A reader writes to the Poughkeepsie Journal in New York -- we don't agree with everything said, but we respect the honesty and courage it took to write this:

I was totally in support of Gay Marriage until last week. It was not the presenters of the Ring Makes a Difference that changed my mind, it was the responder/attackers that cause me to rethink my position. It appears that this is no longer a human rights issue for everyone, but more a human rights issue only for those who think that the wants of a few should be more important than the needs of the many.

Even though same sex married couples contend that their rights do not violate others, there are already lawsuits against agencies that will not allow a same sex couple to adopt a child. Why are these individuals trying to deny others of their religious freedom? Personally, I do not oppose same sex couples adopting; however, they should seek a non-religious adoption agency. Most of the same sex couples who are whining the most are white, upper middle class individuals who feel that everyone should accept their relationship as normalized and that if others do not, it is discriminatory.

I am sorry, there is nothing normal about a same sex couple having either a surrogate mother (maybe outsourced to India at the bargain rated of $15,000) or by insemination by a sperm donor so that the child has as many as 70 siblings. Doesn't a child have the right to have some sort of connection with their parent? Doesn't that parent have the right to be more than a commodity? No one is saying that 2 consenting adults can not love each other and a child. I also don't believe that these individuals should not be denied certain legal protections, but for them to demand that everyone must agree with them and seek to redefine marriage to suit their wants is not more important that other basic human rights such as to know a parent or to have food, shelter, healthcare, work and education.

By NOM Staff | Posted in Culture, New York, Same Sex Marriage | Comments (52)

After SSM, What Next? Mexico Mulls Legalizing "Temporary Marriage"

October 3, 2011 at 12:38 pm

Interesting to note: the same group that pushed for gay marriage in Mexico City is now pushing for "time-limit marriage":

Mexico City lawmakers want to help newlyweds avoid the hassle of divorce by giving them an easy exit strategy: temporary marriage licenses.

Leftists in the city's assembly -- who have already riled conservatives by legalizing gay marriage -- proposed a reform to the civil code this week that would allow couples to decide on the length of their commitment, opting out of a lifetime.

The minimum marriage contract would be for two years and could be renewed if the couple stays happy. The contracts would include provisions on how children and property would be handled if the couple splits. --Reuters

The BBC adds:

"...the bill has attracted criticism from families campaigner Consuelo Mendoza. She attacked the initiative as contributing to a "throwaway culture" in respect of society's institutions and said it would put children through the anguish of wondering whether their parents would stay together."

By NOM Staff | Posted in Divorce, Marriage, Mexico, Same Sex Marriage | Comments (4)

Census Shows Same-Sex Households Only Increased by 5,000 a Year Since 2000

October 3, 2011 at 12:00 pm

Digging into the data behind the headlines of the recently revised-downward U.S. census figures on same-sex households reveal that they increased only a minuscule amount over the past 10 years:

The Census Bureau now says the 2010 Census found that there were 131,729 same-sex married couple households and 514,735 same-sex unmarried partner households in the United States--for a total of 646,464 same-sex-couple households.

In 2000, the number of same-sex households, as calculated by the 2000 Census, was 594,391. --CNSNews

In other words, only 52,073 more same-sex households over a period of 10 years, so 5,207 per year.

In the same time-span, the total U.S. population increased by over 27,000,000, or 2,700,000 a year.

By NOM Staff | Posted in Culture, Media, Statistics | Comments (14)

Rep. Jared Polis Announces With Pride His Child Has No Mother

October 3, 2011 at 11:00 am

We have no clue whether it was a planned motherless family or whether he and his partner stepped in to give a motherless child a family--since he will not say.

But he and his partner are proud to announce they were both "very excited to become new parents."

By NOM Staff | Posted in Children, Parenting | Comments (90)

Federal Judge Makes Abundantly Clear to Lower Courts: Lawrence Case Did Not Create Any New Fundamental Rights

October 3, 2011 at 10:00 am

SCOTUSblog reports on a legal ruling that has potentially significant consequences for numerous legal debates happening across the country:

Accusing a federal trial judge of misusing her authority when she struck down the military’s ban on gays and lesbians in the service, a federal appeals court judge on Thursday lectured the rest of the judiciary against creating new rights for homosexuals out of the Supreme Court’s famous ruling eight years ago in Lawrence v. Texas. Circuit Judge Diarmuid F. O’Scannlain did so as the Ninth Circuit Court threw out that lower court judge’s ruling interpreting Lawrence broadly.

... Apparently not content to have the judge’s ruling simply off the books, Judge O’Scannlain wrote a 10-page concurring opinion in order to provide what he called a “guidepost for responsible decision-making” for courts dealing with claims to gay rights based upon Lawrence.

... Noting that the Log Cabin Republicans had stated that they intended “to use the district court’s judgment” in other cases, the panel responded: “We will be clear: It may not."

... Seldom does a higher court use such sweeping language toward a lower court judge’s ruling, while wiping it off the books. Simple erasure of the ruling, apparently, was not enough — a sentiment that is perhaps further illuminated by the displeasure openly displayed by Judge O’Scannlain in his concurring opinion.

... Judge O’Scannlain, however, wrote explicitly that “Lawrence did not establish any fundamental right.” It did not give lower courts any basis, the judge added, for creating any new fundamental rights for gays. He lambasted Judge Phillips for the legal rationale she had used for nullifying the military gay ban, contending that she had not followed the formula that the Supreme Court itself had laid down for judging claims of violations of so-called “substantive due process” guarantees.

The decision is here -- it includes Judge O’Scannlain’s separately added views.