August 23, 2011 at 3:15 pm
Jason Lewis explains in the Star Tribune why Michele Bachmann and social conservatives won in Iowa, and why they are a potent force in American politics:
For those political pundits still scratching their heads over Michele Bachmann's victory in last weekend's Iowa straw poll, here's a piece of advice. You owe it to yourself to get out a little.
... Millions of Americans who have seen their social norms vanquished on the altar of an absurd political correctness. Their social conservatism is branded as bigoted, fringe and, of course, hateful, but they no longer care, they've had enough.
That's what Bachmann represents -- a leader who will make, if nothing else, a last stand for traditionalism. Someone willing to unapologetically declare that, all things being equal, children need both a mom and a dad.
... Agree with her or not, Bachmann is riding a potentially potent backlash that has emerged from those Americans who see an activist minority imposing its version of morality on the nation.
August 23, 2011 at 12:45 pm
Today NOM Chairman Maggie Gallagher participates in a 2012 Election Symposium hosted by The Public Discourse. She argues for the importance of marriage and outlines what a president can do to defend and promote it:
The mainstream media have labeled marriage the “hottest front in the culture war.” Much to the media’s surprise, several of the GOP candidates have already signed the National Organization of Marriage’s (NOM) Marriage Pledge. They were surprised by major candidates’ willingness to sign NOM’s pledge because this was supposed to be the year the social issues did not matter.
Presidential candidates for the 2012 election need to know that marriage is not only an essential issue in this race; it is a winning issue.
Elites have sounded the death knell on the marriage debate again and again, but popular support for traditional marriage refuses to die. Americans at the ballot box have repeatedly shocked elite opinion by demonstrating that even in deeply blue states a majority of Americans continues to oppose same-sex marriage. [Continue reading...]
August 23, 2011 at 11:29 am
From the American Principles Project press release:
Texas Governor Rick Perry, Rep. Michele Bachmann (MN), Rep. Ron Paul (TX), former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, and businessman Herman Cain will attend the “American Principles Project Palmetto Freedom Forum” in Columbia, S.C. on Monday, September 5 at 3:00 p.m. EDT. The forum will provide a unique opportunity for candidates to drill down on their policy positions. It will be broadcast on SC Educational Television.
Candidates will be on the stage one-at-a-time and will participate in a question and answer session with three panelists: Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC), Rep. Steve King (R-IA), and Dr. Robert George, founder of American Principles Project and McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence at Princeton University. The event will be moderated by David Stanton, a veteran of South Carolina presidential events and respected former local news anchor.
“With the candidates being questioned one-on-one by panelists closely in touch with the grassroots, we think this event will go to the heart of the issues that concern the American people,” said Frank Cannon, president of the American Principles Project.
August 23, 2011 at 10:00 am
An interesting fantasy drummed up in the media to protect Shirley Huntley. Josh sounds like a great little guy, but New York has second-parent adoption. And stepparents (the relationship created by marriage to non-biological parents) do not necessarily have the same legal rights as parents.
If Jeff wanted to be Josh's dad he's had a lot of opportunity before gay marriage to do the paperwork. And gay marriage won't change anything.
But I'm sure they aren't telling Josh that.
When [Jeff Friedman and Andy Zwerin] started lobbying senators, they brought Josh along. One of the senators they spoke with was Shirley Huntley, a Queens Democrat who voted against same-sex marriage in 2009 and told The New York Times, “If they gave me a million dollars, tax free, I just wouldn’t vote for it.”
Last winter, though, she decided she was undecided. And when Friedman and Zwerin brought Josh to Albany one day, the 73-year-old grandmother met with them with an open mind.
... Josh was the tipping point, Huntley said later. Though she kept her new position a secret for weeks, she made up her mind that spring day.
“You say, ‘What the hell,’ ” Huntley said, throwing up her hands. “It’s wonderful.” --New York Capital News
August 23, 2011 at 9:00 am
Back in July we noted Joe Carter's essay in First Things on five steps to destroy a marriage culture:
If the goal [is] to undermine cultural institutions [such as marriage], the process for getting from Unthinkable to Policy would follow these five easy steps:
Step #1: From Unthinkable to Radical
Step #2: From Radical to Acceptable
Step #3: From Acceptable to Sensible
Step #4: From Sensible to Popular
Step #5: From Popular to Policy
This week he notes how the recent academic symposium in Baltimore to normalize pedophilia follows this same pattern:
Back in June I outlined how to destroy a culture in 5 easy steps.
An academic symposium in Baltimore comprised of just such a cluster of professoriate and perverts is meeting today to shift the acceptance of pedophilia from “unthinkable” to merely “radical”...
With the euphemism “minor-attracted persons” they are also including Step #2: “From Radical to Acceptable — This shift requires the creation and employment of euphemism.”
... Remember when conservatives were mocked and derided for claiming that Lawrence would lead to the normalization [of] polygamy and pedophilia? Now some of those same people who sneered at us are using the decision to promote . . . polygamy and pedophilia.
August 22, 2011 at 2:22 pm
Miranda Devine is an Australian journalist commenting in the Herald Sun on the national debate over same-sex marriage taking place in that country now:
...On ABC-TV's Q&A on Monday night came an extraordinary question from an audience member who said: "The criticism of Senator Wong is based on the homophobic idea that a child is entitled to having both a father and a mother."
So there you have it. It is homophobic to say a child is entitled to a mother and a father.
Yet not one person on the panel could find the courage to knock the assertion on the head.
On Facebook someone published a list of my Facebook friends on a page called: "Stopping psychotic extremists who want to kill minorities". Inviting people to bully and harass my Facebook friends is this person's way of trying to silence an opinion he (or she) doesn't like.
A cursory glance at these rage-flecked responses offers an insight into the illiberal mindset of those who pretend to demand tolerance. Or rather ram it down our throats. This is not tolerance but jackboot totalitarianism, the tyranny of the minority.
Jackie Stricker, the lesbian partner of Dr Kerryn Phelps, wrote a letter to this newspaper calling for me to receive "urgent counselling" and saying my columns shouldn't be published.
That's right. Let's censor the unfashionable opinions, especially those held by the mainstream.
August 22, 2011 at 12:30 pm
David French on NRO's The Corner blog:
The consequence [of the IL judge's decision to shut Catholic Charities out of foster care]? More than 2,000 children are in danger of removal from Catholic Charities’ care — without any evidence that its care is deficient or harmful to these children. Ironically enough, this ruling comes the same week that research from the University of Virginia’s National Marriage Project unequivocally reaffirms that children do better in married households — the very households Catholic Charities prefers.
Same-sex marriage advocates have long minimized its impact on religious liberty, but as this and other examples show, both religious liberty and child welfare are ultimately subordinate to sexual freedom.
I had to chuckle when I read this quote from Kendall Marlowe, a state spokesman: “It’s in the best interest of children that we have an orderly transition.” Really? It’s in their best interest that they move from the care of a faithful and loving Catholic institution? In reality, the state only started to think about children’s interests after it made the decision to end its relationship with Catholic Charities. The transition itself driven by ideology, only its manner is dictated by child welfare.
August 22, 2011 at 12:00 pm
Alec Jacobs at The Daily Caller writes:
Herman Cain may be opposed to gay marriage, but apparently that doesn’t mean he’s earned the respect of the National Organization for Marriage...
Last week, Cain told reporters on a conference call that the Obama administration’s decision to stop defending the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in court was an impeachable offense.
...Cain’s remarks didn’t curry any favor with NOM [...] The group says Cain needs to “pledge to actions, not just words on marriage.”
August 22, 2011 at 11:30 am
An update from the Family Foundation of Virginia on the events we have been monitoring in Virginia:
The Virginia Board of Social Services [has] voted to delay the implementation of recently approved adoption regulations under the threat of costly litigation from the ACLU and Equality Virginia (see The Norfolk Virginian-Pilot). In a not unexpected decision, the vote will allow for 30 days of additional comment, beginning September 12. As we noted yesterday, however, with Governor Bob McDonnell and Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli opposing the old proposed regulations on several grounds, opponents will only succeed in dragging out the process longer and perhaps set the stage for a legal action challenging Virginia law.
... At yesterday’s meeting, a host of representatives from the homosexual lobby spoke in favor of the additional comment period (see Washington Post Virginia Politics Blog). Some of the speakers honestly stated that they believed allowing homosexuals to adopt should take precedence over the religious liberty rights of faith-based organizations.
August 22, 2011 at 10:57 am
Rick Santorum's mini-surge in the Ames Straw Poll appears to have persuaded Herman Cain he needs to amp up his marriage message--with this result:
Asked on a conference call with bloggers [...] why Republicans can't just impeach Barack Obama, Herman Cain answers that it's mostly a matter of legislative politics, Politicos's Elizabeth Titus reports:
"That’s a great question and it is a great — it would be a great thing to do but because the Senate is controlled by Democrats we would never be able to get the Senate first to take up that action, because they simply don’t care what the American public thinks. They would protect him and they wouldn’t even bring it up," Cain said, citing the administration's position on the Defense of Marriage Act as an impeachable offense.
More from his answer: "So the main stumbling block in terms of getting him impeached on a whole list of things such as trying to pass a health care mandate which is unconstitutional, ordering the Department of Justice to not enforce the Defense of Marriage Act — that’s an impeachable offense right there. The president is supposed to uphold the laws of this nation … and to tell the Department of Justice not to uphold the Defense of Marriage Act is a breach of his oath. … There are a number of things where a case could be made in order to impeach him, but because Republicans do not control the United States Senate, they would never allow it to get off the ground."
Will he sign NOM's Marriage Pledge?
August 22, 2011 at 10:00 am
On the Mirror of Justice blog:
Palmetto Freedom Forum to Feature Top GOP Candidates
Columbia, SC – U.S. Senator Jim DeMint has announced a Presidential Forum – The Palmetto Freedom Forum – to feature the top Republican candidates for President. The Forum is being sponsored by the American Principles Project and will take place on the afternoon of Labor Day (Monday, September 5, 2011) in Columbia, South Carolina, at the Columbia Metropolitan Convention Center. South Carolina ETV will broadcast this innovative event live on the South Carolina channel. Informational letters will be sent to current and prospective candidates and formal invitations will be extended based on objective polling criteria (see below).
The Palmetto Freedom Forum will follow a unique format, designed to allow invited candidates to engage in a thoughtful, substantive discussion of their stances on the critical issues facing our country. Candidates will be featured on stage one-at-a-time and will engage in a question and answer session with three panelists: U.S. Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC), U.S. Representative Steve King (R-IA), and Dr. Robert P. George, founder of the American Principles Project and a professor at Princeton University. The event will be moderated by David Stanton, a veteran of South Carolina presidential events and former local news anchor.
... Founder of the American Principles Project, Robert George, said, “The South Carolina presidential forum rests on a conviction---the belief that the way forward for our country is a renewed fidelity to the foundational principles of our civilization and the constitutional principles of our democratic republic. The forum will give those aspiring to the presidency an opportunity to demonstrate the depth of their understanding of our nation's core principles, and the strength of their commitment to governing in accordance with them.”
August 22, 2011 at 9:00 am
Recently a NY1/Marist poll claimed a majority of New Yorkers support the new same-sex marriage law.
Generally speaking, people are reluctant to change an existing law when they don't think it adversely affects them directly. Using buzz words like "allow" and "legally" also drives up favorable responses, while asking if people want to "overturn" something drives up negative responses.
More importantly, however, the poll further confirms what we've suspected -- that voting to redefine marriage is going to cost GOP Senators: 43% of Republicans are less likely to vote for a state senator who voted to pass the SSM law in NY, a 19-point intensity gap over the 24% of Republicans who are more likely to vote for a state senator who voted for the law. In other words, primaries will matter.
Of course, the only poll that matters is a free and fair vote of the people, an option that was taken off the table by those who pushed for the legislature to redefine marriage unilaterally. Our Let The People Vote campaign is about actually allowing the people of New York to decide this issue. The poll we commissioned in June shows that almost 60% of New Yorkers want their chance to vote on the issue (only 26% wanted the legislature to decide the question).
The fact that those in favor of redefining marriage refuse to join this cause of letting the people vote tells us volumes about where they think New Yorkers really stand on marriage.
August 20, 2011 at 11:00 am
Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse of the Ruth Institute explains:
You may have noticed that I do not use the term “same sex marriage” very often. In fact, I am making a conscious decision not to use the term at all any more. I think the term gives away too much ground to our opponents. Continually using the term makes it possible to believe that such a thing as a marriage between people of the same sex is possible.
I don’t use the term “square circle” because such an entity is not possible. Likewise, I think it is not possible for two people of the same sex to be married to each other. So, I use another term that I believe is more accurate.
I use the phrase “redefinition of marriage” or “so-called same sex marriage,” or in a pinch, “genderless marriage,” depending on the context.
Even “genderless marriage” is questionable because it is naming something that is an impossibility. Gender is essential to marriage. The move to make same sex unions the legal equivalent of opposite sex unions requires that gender be removed from the understanding of marriage. If this legal movement to redefine marriage succeeds, it will be creating something entirely new. Nothing will be left of marriage but the name, as I have said in articles and lectures called, “The Institution Formerly Known as Marriage.” But at least the term “genderless marriage” calls attention to what is at stake in the debate.
What do you think?
