NOM BLOG

NOM Responds to WSJ Columnist: "It's Time To Fight For The Survival of Marriage"

Last week the brilliant and witty James Taranto at the Wall Street Journal critiqued NOM and the Let The People Vote rallies as "deceptive advertising."

Our Chairman Maggie Gallagher responded -- and Taranto was kind enough to publish her response so his readers could hear from both sides:

The National Organization for Marriage is part of a coalition of groups working on this campaign. We are not naive enough to believe that we will get sitting legislators to change their views on same-sex marriage. Our objective is to replace those legislators with ones who will support putting the issue before New York voters. We are just beginning our organizational effort and already have rallied over 10,000 New Yorkers to attend events Sunday.

The question is whether the thousands of African American and Hispanic voters who attended (and those thousands more whom we will recruit) can help unseat Sens. Shirley Huntley, James Addabbo and Carl Kruger. That will be answered in the 2012 elections. Similarly, the 2012 elections will tell us whether the thousands of conservative and GOP members we're organizing can replace Sens. Mark Grisanti, James Alesi, Roy McDonald and Stephan Saland.

We also need to make changes in the makeup of the Assembly. Is it really difficult? Absolutely. Can it be done? The New Hampshire Legislature enacted same-sex marriage in 2009. Who would have predicted then that it would become such a big issue in the 2010 elections, where Republicans gained a supermajority in both houses? Now gay marriage may be repealed in New Hampshire next year.

To compare this Let the People Vote effort to the likelihood of repealing Roe v. Wade is seriously misplaced. 80% of New York voters want the right to vote on marriage, just as voters in 31 other states have been able to do. Some cultural elites said the abortion debate was over when the Roedecision came down, and it was time to move on. But people of faith did not rest, and now a majority in this country are pro-life. With marriage, 62% of Americans already support the belief that marriage is between one man and one woman, as do a majority of New Yorkers, and an overwhelming majority of New Yorkers want to be able to vote on the issue. Those numbers do not suggest it is time for surrender. Its time to come together and fight for the survival of marriage no matter the procedural obstacles we face. That's what we at NOM and our allies intend to do.

Pro-SSM NY Democrat: "I Think There Should Be Investigations"

PolitickerNY reports on a Democrat New York Assemblyman who supports investigating the process which led to the passing of gay marriage in New York:

In an interview with the major Jewish news organization, Vos is Neias, Democratic congressional candidate David Weprin agreed with the outlet’s assertion that that some violations may have taken place in the State Senate and that the matter deserved some type of investigation.

Weprin, who voted for the bill as a member of the Assembly, said:

“I am too particularly concerned about procedural violations, if they were done. The violations that you refer to actually occurred in the other house, in the State Senate, not in the State Assembly. And I think there should be investigations and I think the process should be looked into I think from all sides point of view, people have to feel that there was a fair process, that the vote took place without coercion. Similar to when you’re in a court of law, you have to state that you’re taking a position or any kind of plea in any kind of criminal case without any threat of coercion or any undue influence. So there is no question I would be open to any kind of, you know, investigation, looking into procedural issues.”

CA Supreme Court to Hear Prop 8 Arguments on September 6th

Breaking News:

California’s Supreme Court announced on Thursday that a new hearing date, Sept. 6, had been added to the calendar in the ongoing legal challenge to the state’s voter-approved marriage amendment.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals— where the Prop 8 case is on appeal — asked the state’s high court to determine, whether under California law, marriage amendment proponents “have the authority to assert the State’s interest,” since California’s governor and attorney general refuse to do so.

“The coalition of national organizations like Focus on the Family, and state organizations like all of the family policy councils, will not be deterred on the issue of marriage,” [Ron Prentice, chairman of ProtectMarriage.com's executive committee] added, “because it involves God’s heart, society’s future and a child’s protection.” --CitizenLink

ACLU Files Lawsuit Against Innkeepers Who Refused to Host SS Ceremony Reception

The critical point in this story is how Vermont law does not offer individuals any religious protections when it comes to questions such as this one:

On July 19, the American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit against the Wildflower Inn, a 24-room facility in Vermont, for refusing to host a wedding reception for a lesbian couple from Brooklyn, N.Y. The couple is asking for $1, as an injunction against the inn’s “discriminatory practices.”

Vermont, which legalized same-sex marriage in 2009, also has a Fair Housing and Public Accommodations Act, which keeps inns, motels and hotels with five or more rooms from turning patrons away based on their sexual orientation.

... The state law contains an exemption for religious organizations — but offers no protections for religious individuals.

“No one’s focusing on the willingness of these owners to hire or rent rooms to homosexuals,” noted Bruce Hausknecht, judicial analyst for CitizenLink. “To me, this is a case of the activists wanting to make sure no Christian gets any consideration at anytime, anywhere, for their religious beliefs.” --CitizenLink

New York's No-Fault Divorce Law Accelerating Marital Breakdown by 12%

In the New York Post:

While New York's gay couples are lining up to get hitched, straight ones are increasingly untying the knot.

Divorce filings are up 12 percent since the state last October adopted no-fault separations, which allows couples to split without having to prove why.

"It's still going to the dentist," said lawyer Raoul Felder. "But now you go to a painless dentist. There's a certain percentage of people who do it now that wouldn't have before."

There were 37,015 divorce filings statewide from October 2010 through this May, compared to 33,160 in the year-ago period, according to court data.

Controversial Canadian "Equity" Policy May Force 4,000 Families Out of Toronto Schools

Patrick Craine at LifeSiteNews draws attention to the fall-out among Catholic schools in the Toronto area as new government policies begin to be implemented:

The Coptic Orthodox Churches in Toronto are threatening to withdraw 4,000 families from the Toronto Catholic District School Board if it does not amend its controversial equity policy to protect Catholic teaching in the schools. According to one expert in Ontario education, if the threat were carried out, the board could lose upwards of $40,000,000 in annual public funding, and over 150 teachers.

... The equity policy, passed earlier this year as part of the Ontario government’s sweeping equity and inclusive education strategy, has sparked an unprecedented mobilization of parents who fear that it will give homosexual activists a foothold in order to further subvert already weak Catholic sexual teaching in the schools.

Michigan Makes Strengthening Families & Marriage A Priority

Michigan is going on the offensive when it comes to rebuilding a healthy marriage culture:

Strengthening Michigan’s families, while transcending partisan politics.

That’s the emphasis of five marriage- and family-related bills introduced in the Michigan Senate last month.

The five bills “provide incentives for premarital education, require divorce effects programs for divorcing couples with minor children, create parenting plans and eliminate legal barriers to clergy engaging in marriage and family counseling.”

Brad Snavely, executive director of the Michigan Family Forum (MFF), said, “The decline of the family has played a significant role in virtually every major social problem facing our state.”

While there are many issues worthy of the Legislature’s time and attention next session, he said addressing the fragmentation of the family must be a priority if legislators are serious about securing a bright future for Michiganders. --CitizenLink

Video: Rick Santorum: "There Are Not 50 Definitions of Marriage"

At the Western Conservative Summit in Denver last week, GOP presidential candidate Rick Santorum continues to push on the same-sex marriage question and explains some of its history.

As we mentioned in our newsletter last week, Gov. Rick Perry's clarification shows that this debate matters deeply in the presidential race.

Politico: “Move over, Ovide,” Kevin Smith Won the Month

According to Politico:

“Might there be an intraparty, generational fight brewing over who is best positioned to take on Democratic Gov. [John] Lynch, if he pursues a fifth term,” asks Politico writer David Catanese in his monthly rundown of the hottest gubernatorial races in the country.

“Move over, Ovide,” writes Catanese. “[T]he head of the conservative group Cornerstone Action, Kevin Smith, is contemplating a run for the Republican nod in 2012. There’s even a draft site up and humming.”

By Politico’s estimation, Smith won the last month in this very early Republican horserace. --NH Journal

MN Public Radio Commentator: Sen. Franken Wrong to Ambush Tom Minnery at DOMA Hearing

Carrie Daklin, an independent commentator for Minnesota Public Radio writes:

I [would] hope that if I did have to testify before the Senate, whoever was questioning me would be kind, would recognize that this was his sandbox, not mine, and that, as a representative of our country, he would not embarrass me for his own purposes.

Sadly, when Tom Minnery testified, that was not the kind of treatment he received from Al Franken.

Sen. Franken [...] chastised Minnery's assumption of the definition of nuclear families, and stated, essentially, that if Minnery had so misinterpreted the information in the HHS report, then all of his testimony was subject to question.

A fine performance, Sen. Franken, but here's the rub: In case you missed it in those DOMA hearings, the federal government doesn't recognize same-sex marriage. So I would think it might have been reasonable for Minnery to assume that a federal report had followed federal law.

... Humiliation and respect are mutually exclusive. I am afraid that in his zest for the issue at hand, Sen. Franken, wittingly or not, fostered humiliation instead of respect.

The point here is not where you fall on DOMA or gay marriage. The point is that Franken, sadly, did exactly what we as a nation are finding so frustrating in government today: He polarized the situation. He escalated it. And that is not an appropriate role for the powerful position he occupies.

Franken's response no doubt delighted supporters of same-sex marriage. But people who are on the fence may have had a very different reaction. Anyone who wanted to hear and understand the subject with an open mind likely would have been offended by Franken's dismissal of Minnery and would have had all the excuse they needed to walk away.

Girgis on Philosophy, Marriage, and Moral Grandstanding

Continuing the high-level debate on marriage in The Public Discourse, Sherif Girgis responds to two of his academic critics who label views like his homophobic and bigoted, and hope to drive people like Girgis out of the academic world:

No serious philosopher would deny, in so many words, that to demonize opponents is to betray the vocation of philosophy. Yet some academic philosophers are so bound to the cause of redefining civil marriage that they would marginalize dissenters with epithets and analyze them as specimens of psychological pathology. Chappell, though he goes on to ask serious questions, is at pains to deny that he deems our argument worth engaging. For him, it is, like misogyny, merely unreasonable, subrational, and bigoted. Linking to Chappell’s critique, Brian Leiter repeats the charge and presumes to diagnose us.

The fervent policing of this newfound academic consensus, with its chilling effect on discourse, might be defensible if proponents of the conjugal view were, like Nazis or cannibals, advocates of ideas and policies repugnant to deep, enduring principles of our civilization. Yet even within the small, unrepresentative society that is academic philosophy, the very idea of same-sex marriage would have seemed mostly baffling (perhaps even patriarchally motivated) less than a generation ago. One might see the striking subsequent development as an epiphany of timeless moral principle denied the human race (including the sexual-traditionalist Mahatma Gandhi and other partisans of cruel and complacent class ideologies) these several millennia; or one might judge the cause of redefining civil marriage to be a fashionable application of a perfectly disputable view of sex and human goods that has grown to dominate in the academy from its proximate roots in the ’50s and ’60s, in Sanger and Hefner, Kinsey and Reich.

Divorce Reform Expert: Are Stay-At-Home Parents At Financial Risk During Divorce?

Beverly Willett, Vice Chair of the Coalition for Divorce Reform, asks the question in HuffPo:

... stay-at-home parents are vulnerable to substantial financial risk during divorce. Time Magazine recently reported that unemployed men faced a greater danger of being left by their wives, particularly working wives. And though a wife's employment status had no bearing on risk, neither does the law provide stay-at-home moms sufficient protections either, especially under our unilateral divorce laws.

... New York recently recognized the inherent unfairness of this financial disparity when it came to the ability to defend oneself in a lawsuit for divorce. It amended its domestic relations laws to establish a rebuttable presumption that the monied spouse be required to pay for the non-monied spouse's attorney and experts during the pendency of litigation. Regrettably I had no such statutory protection during my own divorce. In other states, stay-at-home spouses without independent means are generally subject to the proper exercise of discretion by the judicial system to award them sufficient funds both to defend themselves and for support.

...  I believe the push for alimony reform has gone too far. That our divorce laws also fail to take into account current economic and unemployment realities as well as the need to protect stay-at-home parents. And shouldn't unemployment benefits kick in, too, when alimony ends for stay-at-home parents who are unable to secure employment?

US Bishops' Aide Tells Catholics: Be Ready for a Legislative Fight to Defend DOMA

All hands on deck:

A spokesman for the US bishops' conference has challenged all American Catholics to "step forward and advocate for the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) as federal policy," after President Barack Obama announced his support for repeal of the legislation.

"We just can't simply sit back," said Daniel Avila, a policy advisor to the bishops on marriage issues. While he acknowledged that repeal of DOMA is not imminent, he urged Catholics to stay alert: "All those concerned about the preservation of marriage simply need to pay attention, stay tuned, and be ready to respond."

10,000 New Yorkers to Politicians: Let the People Vote! - NOM Marriage News July 28, 2011

NOM National Newsletter

Dear Marriage Supporter,

On Sunday the people of New York laid down a marker: Politicians cannot sell out their base, sell out their principles, lie to their people, and pass a law which is a lie about human nature, without consequences.

Votes have consequences.

Thousands of New Yorkers turned out on a very hot Sunday, with a threat of thunderstorms, to make the message clear.

We estimated 10,000 people across the five cities that had rallies. I was in Albany and Maggie was in Manhattan, along with Sen. Rev Rubén Díaz and a number of local pastors organized by (evangelical) Bishop Joe Mattera. The Associated Press said there were "thousands."

And even a Wall Street Journal editor who is deeply skeptical of our capacity to get a marriage amendment through the legislature to the people had to admit:

"We happened to run into the group's New York City march yesterday as it crossed Second Avenue, and the turnout was impressive. It was the biggest demonstration we can remember seeing in the neighborhood, which gets a lot of them thanks to its proximity to the U.N. Most interesting, it was a very diverse crowd—we'd say a quarter to a third black, with lots of Hispanics."

We generated massive media on a day the mainstream media had set aside to celebrate gay marriage in New York.

More than 150 different radio and TV outlets, from WABC News to "This American Life," included a mention of "Let the People Vote" rallies, which were sponsored not only by NOM but by a coalition of local state groups.

International Business Times: "More than 10,000 supporters of "Let The People Vote" rallies marched in New York City, Albany, Rochester and Buffalo starting 3 p.m. on Sunday, urging the Legislature to put the issue of gay marriage before voters in a statewide referendum."

BBC/Reuters: "The National Organization for Marriage held rallies in New York City, Albany, Rochester and Buffalo on Sunday, accusing Mr Cuomo and lawmakers of redefining marriage without consulting voters."

Bloomberg News: "One of the rally's organizers, the National Organization for Marriage, also held events in Albany, Buffalo and Rochester. The group has pledged to spend millions of dollars ousting lawmakers who voted in favor of same-sex marriage."

Of course not everybody in print media got the story right. UPI was probably the worst: "Opponents of gay marriage maintained a low profile. The Times said an informal poll of New York clergy found the vast majority did not intend to address the issue in their Sunday sermons."

... a low profile?

LTPV Rally

We carefully did not aim our protest at individuals hosting private ceremonies, but at politicians in Albany who passed gay marriage without a vote of the people.

In Buffalo, for example, pastors confronted Mark Grisanti, the state senator who had repeatedly said he was "unalterably" opposed to gay marriage before voting for it.

In Buffalo, "You say that the Church now has special protection," Mount Olive Baptist Pastor Rev. William Gillson called out to Mark Grisanti. "Before you voted, I didn't need special protection."

Local TV news coverage was generally fair, especially in upstate New York.

Here's Megan Cruz's YNN coverage of the hundreds at the Albany rally, where I spoke.

BB Video

But the national network news coverage was biased in the extreme, incompetent, and, well, just plain dreadful, which may be no surprise.

A Culture and Media analysis of 239 programs aired on CNN from June 15 to July 15 found that pro-gay-marriage supporters were quoted or interviewed nearly four times more often than critics.

That's no surprise. Here's the real surprise: Of the major networks, CNN's biased coverage of our rally, was actually the least slanted. That's right—ABC, NBC, and CBS did an even more biased job than CNN.

Liberal analyst Howard Kurtz, on his "Reliable Sources" show on July 3, acknowledged "the media's celebration—there really is no other word—of the gay marriage debate in New York."

On the Today show and Good Morning America, ABC News and NBC News actually featured a tiny, infamous "Westboro Baptist" contingent of haters and blasphemers (for saying that God hates is to take His name in vain)—showing their photo and not even mentioning the massive "Let the People Vote" rally held around the corner.

Poor Elizabeth Hasselbeck of the View, whom we admire for sticking up for David Tyree (even though she's pro-gay-marriage), was one of those misled, attacking gay marriage protests as in "bad taste." (Pretty strong words for a Midwestern Christian!)

And on Fox News it was as if the massive rallies simply did not exist. We note with growing concern how rarely Fox News reports in a balanced way on the gay marriage issue—with a few shining exceptions like Bill O'Reilly.

If this were a one-off we might be more worried about what the mainstream media said. But let me assure you that this is just the beginning of an 18-month campaign to make sure that politicians in Albany cannot sell out marriage without consequences.

How are the politics unfolding? Well, Shirley Huntley, a black democrat from Queens who flip-flopped to vote for gay marriage, recently told reporters she thinks gay marriage will help flip the Senate back from Republican to Democratic control. Gov. Cuomo is expressing similar confidence that the gay marriage vote will be helpful politically.

"What I've said is that I believe [that for] the legislators who voted for marriage equality, this is actually going to be an asset to them in their campaign; I believe that," he said.

Meanwhile Republicans are justifiably nervous. One of the upstate Republicans who voted for gay marriage, Jim Alesi, was at the press conference with Gov. Cuomo and was nervously trying to forestall a primary challenge. "...Alesi has had a strained relationship with both the Republican and Conservative parties in his home district, for a variety of reasons predating his marriage vote, but cautioned Republicans against trying to oust him in a primary." reported PolitickerNY. "I don't think this is the make or break issue here," said Alesi. "I think it's important to understand for someone like me, if I were the loser in a primary, I don’t know of anybody else in my district that is going to hold this seat. ...So a loss in a primary for me, I think, would be disastrous for the Republican majority."

This is one of the things that Dean Skelos, a majority leader, ought to have considered when he agreed to bring gay marriage up for a floor vote. It's the majority leader's job to protect his caucus, not to win plaudits in the New York Times or help Andrew Cuomo run for president.

At the rally a reporter tried to relay the absurd meme that politically it was "good" for the Republicans to have helped pass gay marriage. Mayor Bloomberg's and Tim Gill's cash flowed into their coffers immediately after the vote, and a new lawsuit brought by our friends New Yorkers for Constitutional Freedom even alleges an illegal quid pro quo (very hard to prove).

Greg Ball, who voted against gay marriage, has raised three times the money of any other freshman, including Grisanti.

We don't have to argue with mainstream media types. In 2012 New York will have an election. These senators will face their voters, in primaries and in general elections. We will find out if New Yorkers in Buffalo, Rochester, Syracuse, Long Island, and New York City really like electing politicians who lie, flip-flop and then brag about how noble it was to sell out their base and their constituents.

Will GOP elites nationally be misled by this absurd new meme that it's safe for Republicans to vote for gay marriage—not to mention abandoning the other social issues?

We got a very troubling, albeit only preliminary, warning sign from Gov. Rick Perry. We love Gov. Perry, who has a very strong record on life and marriage—but on the other hand, this just happened.

It happened at the Aspen Institute, a very upscale, insider gathering, where people from both sides of the aisle comes together to share ideas, rub elbows, and confirm one another as members of the cosmopolitan elite.

It was at this venue that Gov. Perry was asked about New York's gay marriage bill, and according to multiple reports he said he was "fine" with it because such decisions should be left up to the states.

Fine? Fine with gay marriage?

Somebody should ask him: Is he fine with Ruth Sheldon being threatened with criminal prosecution if she does not do gay marriages? Is he fine with Illinois attempting to drive Catholic adoption agencies out of business, too?

Will social conservatives really stand by and select as their standard-bearer a man or woman who is just fine with Republicans selling out their base to pass gay marriage in New York?

Rick Santorum, God bless him, immediately came out swinging, tweeting: "So Gov Perry, if a state wanted to allow polygamy or if they chose to deny heterosexuals the right to marry, would that be OK too?"

Here's more on Rick standing up for marriage:

Video

A gauntlet has been thrown down. The battle has been joined! Will other leading GOP candidates stand up for marriage?

Fortunately, as I write, we're getting the good news that Gov. Perry has taken the time to make it clear that he's not really "fine" with gay marriage in New York. In a just-released interview with the Family Research Council's Tony Perkins, Gov. Perry reaffirms his support for a federal marriage amendment, saying, "I probably needed to add a few words after that 'it's fine with me,' and that it's fine with me that a state is using their sovereign rights to decide an issue. Obviously gay marriage is not fine with me. My stance hasn't changed." On the marriage amendment, he said, "That amendment ... defines marriage as between one man and one woman, and it protects the states from being told otherwise. And it respects the right of the people in the state by requiring that three-quarters of the states vote to ratify. It's really strong medicine."

It's up to you and me to make sure Republicans insiders do not lead good men and women into imagining they can and should drop marriage and life from the Republican Party's mission. (Just as in New York we joined hands with Democrats seeking to hold their leaders accountable.)

As Maggie pointed out in her column last week, no issue unites Republicans more than the social issues, including life but especially marriage.

Even the latest polls, which show that the mushy middle can be pushed into saying they support gay marriage, show Republicans standing united, with 88 percent in the "not fine with gay marriage" camp.

One thing we promise you: We will not sell out the core truths of Genesis, not for any price.

Together you and I have done amazing things for marriage.

We will never give up, never give in, never sell our souls or our votes for a mess of pottage; we will continue to be, with love and clarity, your voice for your values.

Here's me, Maggie, and Sen. Rubén Díaz at last Sundays rallies

Videos

As Maggie said, "In the end, I promise you, truth and love will prevail."

God bless you!

Brian Brown

Brian S Brown

Brian S. Brown
President
National Organization for Marriage

PS: Will you stand with us to protect marriage? Whether you can give $15 or $150, you can make a difference to preserve marriage for your children and grandchildren.

Contribute

Breaking News: Rick Perry Clarifies Comments on NY SSM

Katrina Trinko at NRO's The Corner blog reports:

Rick Perry clarified his remarks calling New York’s legalization of gay marriage “fine” in an interview today.

“I probably needed to add a few words after that ‘it’s fine with me,’” Perry told Family Research Council president Tony Perkins, “and that it’s fine with me that a state is using their sovereign rights to decide an issue. Obviously gay marriage is not fine with me. My stance hasn’t changed.”

... Pointing to his promotion of Texas’s Defense of Marriage Act, Perry said he had governed as a traditional marriage advocate.

He also noted that he has “long supported” the Federal Marriage Amendment.

“That amendment … defines marriage as between one man and one woman, and it protects the states from being told otherwise. And it respects the right of the people in the state by requiring that three-quarters of the states vote to ratify. It’s really strong medicine,” Perry said