John Croman from Minneapolis tweets this photo of "Backers of Traditional Marriage amendment gather[ing at Minnesota legislature]" yesterday:
Thanks for showing up, standing up and lending your voice to the cause! We hope to have good news to report soon!
One of the most interesting ways a mother contributes to the development of her child - by helping her husband be a better father:
... mothers influence how fathers provide their essential contributions to children’s development. Andrea Doucet’s recent analysis of caregiving found that fathers nurture development in ways that are unique to mothers by focusing on play to connect, fostering independence, promoting problem solving, and encouraging risk taking, among other things (Doucet, 2006). Mothers influence how fathers enact their caregiving through the quality of their relationship with fathers and in how they view fathers’ contributions. Fathers in turn, enable mothers to provide essential contributions to their child’s development by caring for mothers emotionally and physically. A father’s emotional care of his wife strengthens her maternal sensitivity and reduces her maternal stress, enabling her to nurture more effectively. -- Dr. Jenet Erickson writing at Love & Fidelity Network
Dear Marriage Supporter,
On Sunday, I locked arms with Sen. Rev. Rubén Díaz and marched through the streets of the Bronx.
It was like nothing I've ever done or seen before: thousands of people, of every race, creed and color, but heavily Latino, with balloons, salsa music, and Bibles, determined that their voice will be heard in New York!
The festive atmosphere and the warm response of the people in the Bronx made it seem like, well, a ticker-tape parade, if the Bronx had ticker-tape parades.
As we marched, people waved to us from the their apartments buildings, signaling, with thumbs up and high fives, their agreement with the message of the march for dignity—we march in love to protect marriage as the union of husband and wife.
On the steps of the courthouse our thousands met a tiny counter-protest—a few dozen at most—but one of them was Rev. Díaz's granddaughter, who wishes to marry a woman.
I urged the crowd not to be silenced, but to stand for marriage.
One of the most touching moments came when Rev. Díaz called his granddaughter up to our side of the podium and kissed her.
She told reporters that she respected her grandfather even though she disagrees with him.
The only TV news station to cover what the Daily News called a "massive" rally on our side was New York 1—but they captured the touching exchange.
Respect, and love, in the midst of serious and important moral disagreement. That's the way this good fight should be fought!
The powers that be are unleashing an all-out push for gay marriage in New York which is like nothing we've ever seen before.
When Gov. Cuomo decided to barnstorm the state, raising public pressure on legislators, he declared that gay marriage was one of the top three issues he was trying to push this session. The New York Times editorialized that legislators should be "shunned" if they do not pass gay marriage (with a scarlet "M" maybe?).
This week, Mayor Bloomberg went to Albany to lobby and declared that passing gay marriage was the most important issue facing New York.
I'm scratching my head thinking, huh? Do these powerful pols really think that will play outside a small narrow circle? (Call it Manhattan!)
New York's economy is in the tank, housing prices continue to fall, taxes are rising, schools are failing, there's no budget in sight, and state pols keep getting locked up for stealing from the people's purse—but the most important issue facing New York is passing same-sex marriage?
Mayor Bloomberg also promised to support any GOP senator who voted for gay marriage in the next election—and of course that means big bucks.
The irony is that while Gov. Cuomo says he makes "ethics reform" one of his other top issues, we're watching spectacularly wealthy men try to pressure legislators to vote for something their constituents don't want.
The signs show that despite this incredible pressure, it's not (yet) working.
The blog City Hall News reported this week: "By the end of yesterday, none of the missing votes [for gay marriage] had yet materialized. And with only 14 days left in the legislative session, one Democratic Senate insider acknowledged that passing a gay marriage bill may not end up viewed with the same time pressure as renewing rent regulations, which must be completed by June 15."
Not a single Republican in the senate has come forward to say they will vote for gay marriage. Dean Skelos, the GOP senate majority leader, is backtracking from an earlier promise to put gay marriage to a vote—saying this week that he will caucus first with his conference before deciding whether to vote on the bill.
This is the same bill that died 38-24 just two years ago, remember.
Conservative Party Chairman Mike Long's announcement that the Conservative Party will not endorse any Republican who votes for gay marriage helped. As the New York Times reported in a profile this morning of Long and his influence: "'He's a man of his word, and his handshake is one of the last handshakes completely trusted in New York politics,' said Bruce N. Gyory, a Democratic political consultant and adjunct professor of political science at the University at Albany. 'And when he makes a threat, it counts.'"
The Conservative Party released this print ad this week, to remind squishy Republicans what happens to Republicans who vote for gay marriage:
NOM has pledged $1 million to inform voters about any Republican senators who votes for a spokesman for gay marriage (and to help brave Dems who oppose gay marriage too!).
We can't possibly match Bloomberg's money but we don't have to. All we need is enough money to get our message out.
As Maggie told the New York Times in this May 18 story, "The Republican base is incredibly united on this issue. . . .It's a really bad idea to be for gay marriage if you're a Republican, and I don't think Mayor Bloomberg's money is going to change that."
It's a tough fight, and it will go down to the wire.
Meanwhile, we're momentarily expecting good news from the formerly blue state of Minnesota. And in North Carolina, 3500 people rallied to demand the same right to vote for marriage. Kudos to Bill Brook and the North Carolina Family Policy council, Tony Perkins of FRC and all the good people who came together for that impressive rally.
Let me close with some words of encouragement. Over at Patheos, Maggie Gallagher responded to a Christian who wanted to give up on the fight for "civil marriage":
"Once we decide to give up on the public fight on marriage, what's next? What's next is shaming, punishing, and economically harming those who speak up for the biblical view of marriage—as the fates of Peter Vidmar and Damian Goddard have recently illustrated. What's next is the use of government, through the public schools and other avenues, to teach that the biblical view of marriage is discredited bigotry. See 'Can We Please Just Start Admitting That We Do Actually Want to Indoctrinate Kids' for evidence."
She goes on, "Gentlemen may cry truce, truce, but there is no truce. Those who decide to submit or withdraw or to mute themselves and their beliefs, under the heat now being generated against those who stand, will find it hard to find a principled place, later on down the very short road, on which to stand."
Maggie's always eloquent, but I also resonate to the gruffer wisdom of Mike Long, who explained to the New York Times:
"I can't go around life making everything a deal breaker. But there are certain things that you have to stand for. If we don't stand for this, then why are we in business?"
Thank you for helping us make victory possible, in His name,
Semper fi,
Brian S. Brown
President
National Organization for Marriage
P.S. Every victory we win is really your victory, because we rely on your support. With every dollar you donate we help make your voice heard so that your values are upheld. Whether you can give $20 or $200, or perhaps a monthly donation of just $10, you can contribute to these great victories for marriage!
As you know, NOM has been pushing on all fronts these days -- in Minnesota to introduce a marriage amendment, in Rhode Island to oppose the bad civil unions bill proposed there, and in New York to stop a push there to redefine marriage.
Here are some of the stories that may have been lost in the shuffle, along with an overview of our recent New York, Minnesota and Rhode Island headlines!
Op-Eds/Commentary:
Studies/Polling:
Consequences of SSM:
Prop 8/California & DOMA:
Election 2012:
International News:
New York:
Minnesota:
Rhode Island:
The New York Times on Mike Long, chairman of the state's Conservative Party:
“He’s a man of his word, and his handshake is one of the last handshakes completely trusted in New York politics,” said Bruce N. Gyory, a Democratic political consultant and adjunct professor of political science at the University at Albany. “And when he makes a threat, it counts.”
Mr. Long’s opposition has been a source of frustration for same-sex marriage supporters.
... “In order to get the endorsement of the Conservative Party, one of the deal breakers is traditional marriage,” Mr. Long said in an interview last week. “You say ‘I’m not for traditional marriage,’ you’re not going to get our endorsement. It’s as simple as that.”
It is not an idle threat.
... no Republican has won statewide office without the Conservative Party’s support in more than three decades. When Republicans won control of the State Senate last year, five of the Republican candidates won by a margin less than the number of votes they received on the Conservative line.
David Valdes Greenwood - a gay man married in MA - tries to cherry-pick stats about national divorce rates to promote his claim that SSM in Massachusetts is the cause for why heterosexual couples are divorcing there less than couples in other states with marriage amendments.
Greenwood's argument is re-treading territory already explored (in more detail) by NOM Chairman Maggie Gallagher. Here's the relevant part:
The tiny number of liberal northeastern states that have embraced gay marriage tend to have high per capita incomes, because they are much older, supporting fewer children, and much whiter, and better educated than average. They are older in part because with so little job growth, young adults with families move elsewhere, most likely to a southern state with a marriage amendment that enjoys more robust economic growth.
One of the things we are learning about marriage is that is increasingly becoming a "luxury" of the middle and upper-middle class -- and that's never a good thing. Underprivileged persons, after all, suffer the most when a marriage culture decays - the increasing numbers of children growing up without their father because their parents never married bear this out.
As for Greenwood's point that the marriage debate is forcing people to reexamine the importance of marriage in society, we absolutely agree. But why should the aging north and the minority of states that have legalized SSM have more of a say about what makes for a vibrant marriage culture that the vast majority of states from coast to coast that have recently reaffirmed traditional marriage as the true way forward?
Finally, the majority of divorces happen in the first 8 years of marriage--meaning they happen to younger people. You want to lower your divorce rate? Make your state unlivable for young families.
The local press seems reluctant to provide a photo showing the full size of the crowd which gathered to support a marriage amendment in North Carolina on Tuesday, but the capital police put their numbers at least 3,500!
Here's a slideshow of photos from the event (click on "gallery') and here is a video report filed by local TV:
The chances for passage look good, with the normal hard work and perseverance from our side!
In a wild attempt to come up with some other explanation besides---legislators were hearing massive objections from their constituents--the gay press is posting a conspiracy by gay marriage advocates to scuttle gay marriage in Rhode Island. GoLocalProv reports:
Amid the fallout over the failure to pass a gay marriage bill, a national gay news site has published a controversial report accusing the very organization that was leading the fight—Marriage Equality Rhode Island—of actually undermining the cause.
The report, which was published yesterday in the national gay news site, the EDGE, cites numerous sources who say that, even though MERI has consistently and publicly advocated for gay marriage, behind the scenes some MERI officials struck a deal with current and former Democratic legislators to scuttle the legislation in favor of a civil unions compromise.
Larry Berman, a spokesman for House Speaker Gordon Fox, told GoLocalProv there was no merit to the report.
... Joe Siegel, the author of the [EDGE] report, said he stands by the story. He said he ultimately received confirmation of his story from five separate sources—all with ties to MERI.
“There was absolutely backroom deals with Gordon Fox to pass the civil unions bill and delay the passage of the gay marriage bill until after the 2012 election,” Seigel told GoLocalProv.
Via LifeSiteNews (based in Canada):
Debate is heating up over the adoption of a controversial “homophobia/heterosexism” policy in the Burnaby School District of British Columbia.
Concerned parents say Draft Policy 5.45 would promote homosexuality to their children and discriminate against those who oppose a homosexual lifestyle. Trustees, on the other hand, maintain the policy merely ensures a safe and caring environment.
Parents have also expressed frustration that trustees have not met their demands for transparency on the policy specifics.
The draft policy, approved by the board of trustees February 22, 2011, defines “heterosexism” as a “mistaken assumption” that “all people are heterosexual and that heterosexuality is superior and the norm by which all other sexual orientation and gender identities are measured.” It says it “perpetuates negative stereotypes and is dangerous to individuals and communities.” (For previous LSN coverage click here)
Via Save Califronia, a remarkable consensus: no.
The question posed was: Do you think Harvey Milk's birthday should? Or should not? Be recognized statewide as a "day of significance?"
Source: SurveyUSA News Poll #15 (sponsored by KPIX-TV San Francisco)
Criss-crossing NY, connecting with voters:
Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse of the Ruth Institute picks apart the incoherent position on marriage espoused by the Libertarian Party of Minnesota.
A sample:
We believe that marriage is a fundamental human right, How can you believe that, if you don’t know what marriage is, or why we need it in the first place? The essential public purpose of marriage is to attach mothers and fathers to their children and to one another. Marriage exists to protect the legitimate interests of children, who cannot protect their own interests. Without this public purpose, we wouldn’t need marriage at all. And that is why marriage is more than a collection of individuals, and why family law is not simply a subset of property and contract law. Alas, poor libertarians: they don’t know how to think without a contract metaphor.
The AP on the harsh reaction RI House Speaker Gordon Fox is provoking among his former supporters:
The protests started as soon as Rhode Island House Speaker Gordon Fox sounded the death knell for gay marriage legislation and said he'd back civil unions instead. A cop-out, gay marriage supporters said. A compromise for no one. One man made a sign proclaiming, "Fox Hunting Season is Open."
... "In my opinion he's a self-loathing homophobe," said Gary D'Amario of Cranston, who attended a rally at the Statehouse called after Fox made his decision.
As Governor Cuomo and NY Mayor Bloomberg try to convince Republicans to vote for SSM the Conservative Party is running this ad reminding politicians that there is a price to be paid for supporting the redefinition of marriage (click on the image for a larger version):
Past = prologue?
Dear Marriage Supporter,
We’ve just received word that the decisive vote could come as early as this afternoon in the Minnesota House of Representatives, allowing the voters of Minnesota to preserve marriage as the union of a man and a woman. Voters in 31 other states have already been able to vote on the definition of marriage, and Minnesota voters want the same right. Surveys show that 74% of voters want the ability to decide the marriage issue themselves.
Gay marriage advocates are mounting a furious last-minute assault on Republican legislators in an effort to cow them into delaying the vote authorizing the marriage amendment until sometime next year. They are rallying supporters all around the country to contact Minnesota legislators asking them to stop the marriage amendment.
Here's what I need you to do:
First and foremost, if you live in Minnesota, contact your legislators immediately! Republican legislators especially need to hear from you! We've set up an action alert so that you can easily send your message to your own state representative, with a copy going to every member of the Republican Caucus in the House. Even if you've contacted your representative already, please send another email today reminding them how urgent this is. Click here to send your message urging them to let the people vote!
Remind them that legislators are not being asked to cast a vote on same-sex marriage, they are being asked to let the people decide! And let them know that any vote to postpone or block the vote will be considered a vote against the amendment.
Minnesota State Capitol
10:30am, Thursday, May 19th75 Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd.
St. Paul, Minnesota 55155
Please act right away. This issue could be taken up by the House of Representatives as early as this afternoon. We urgently need thousands of our supporters to email Republican legislators in Minnesota right away. Please click here to take action right now!
Thank you for your help!
Faithfully,
Brian S. Brown
President
National Organization for Marriage
