Home
|
Contact Us
|
NOM BLOG

The Archbishop Weighs In on SSM in NY

May 14, 2011 at 5:19 pm

On his blog, Archbishop Timothy Dolan of New York talks about what motivates people to defend marriage against redefinition:

We are not anti anybody; we are pro-marriage.  The definition of marriage is a given:  it is a lifelong union of love and fidelity leading, please God, to children, between one man and one woman.

History, Natural Law, the Bible (if you’re so inclined), the religions of the world, human experience, and just plain gumption tell us this is so.  The definition of marriage is hardwired into our human reason.

To uphold that traditional definition, to strengthen it, and to defend it is not a posture of bigotry or bullying.  Nor is it a denial of the “right” of anybody.  As the philosophers remind us, in a civilized, moral society, we have the right to do what we ought, not to do whatever we want.  Not every desire is a right.

To tamper with that definition, or to engage in some Orwellian social engineering about the nature and purpose of marriage, is perilous to all of us. [Continue reading]

NOM
By NOM Staff | Posted in New York, Same Sex Marriage | Comments (2)

Justice Elena Kagan Defends Paul Clement, Criticizes His Detractors

May 14, 2011 at 11:00 am

Add the newest Supreme Court Justice to the list of people who think Paul Clement did the honorable thing:

At a crowded reception at Georgetown University Law Center on Thursday for lawyers who practice before the Supreme Court, Kagan recognized former solicitor general Paul D. Clement for his “integrity, professionalism and honor.”

Kagan said it was not a surprise that Clement would resign from his law firm “rather than abandoning a client.” Those who criticize Clement “misunderstand the traditions and ethics of the legal profession,” she said. --WaPo

NOM
By NOM Staff | Posted in DOMA, Same Sex Marriage | Comments (7)

Heritage Foundation on the Inaccuracy of Calling DOMA Cases an "Evolving Legal Landscape"

May 14, 2011 at 10:00 am

Chuck Donovan, a senior research fellow at Heritage, writes on their Foundry blog:

... last November, when the Defense Department’s working group unveiled its recommendations regarding implementation of a prospective repeal of the law, it noted repeatedly that DOMA made it “legally impermissible” to treat same-sex couples as married under the military’s family policy.

The report included an acknowledgement of the federal court cases challenging DOMA and referred to them as an “evolving legal landscape”—a somewhat inaccurate locution given the fact that most state and federal court challenges to traditional marriage have been defeated...

The decision announced by the navy chief of chaplains, Admiral Mark Tidd, to suspend his previous guidance until further notice brings the navy policy back into line with those of the other service branches, which had rightly maintained their fealty to DOMA and the rule of law. As Representative Todd Akin and 62 colleagues wrote to Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus, “It is not the place of any citizen of this country to pick and choose which laws they are going to obey. We expect citizens sworn to defend those laws to set the example in their application.”

And we expect the Department of Justice to defend the laws as written too, but that seems too much to ask.

NOM
By NOM Staff | Posted in DOMA, Same Sex Marriage | Comments Off on Heritage Foundation on the Inaccuracy of Calling DOMA Cases an "Evolving Legal Landscape"

ADF Legal Scholar on Why Loving v. Virginia Does Not Establish a Right to SSM

May 14, 2011 at 9:00 am

ADF Senior Vice President Jordan Lorence writes about his experience debating marriage at Stanford recently, and debunks a persistent false argument used to promote SSM:

Last week I participated in a discussion sponsored by the Federalist Society at Stanford Law School in California on redefining marriage to include same-sex couples, and its collision with the First Amendment rights of those who define marriage as one man and one woman only. We had a great discussion [... but] what I did not expect at Stanford was a debate on the relevancy of the 1967 Supreme Court decision striking down Virginia’s law banning interracial marriage, Loving v. Virginia.

Many who support redefining marriage to include same-sex couples are convinced that this case greatly supports their position. It does not. I have found that many people have not read the decision, or do not understand what the Supreme Court ruled in that case. The decision doesn’t help them. So it is a dreadfully flawed argument and a non sequitur to argue as many do that ”just as a ban on interracial marriage was unconstitutional, so a ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional.”

... The Virginia law only banned white people from having an interracial marriage. An African American man could marry a woman of Asian descent under the Virginia law struck down by the Supreme Court. That interracial marriage was OK because it did not include any white people. The obviously uneven application of the law based on race is why the Supreme Court struck it down. These despicable laws did not say, “whites can only marry whites, blacks can only marry blacks, Asians can only marry Asians,” etc., but many wrongly assume that is what those laws said.

... Race has not been a universally-accepted part of the definition of marriage. For example, not all states banned white people from having an interracial marriage. Some states, like Virginia, allowed whites to marry nonwhites for many decades before imposing a ban on whites marrying nonwhites. The existence of miscegenation laws is a sordid historical fact. The court decisions striking down those laws offer no principle of law that compels legalizing same-sex marriage.

NOM
By NOM Staff | Posted in Law, Same Sex Marriage | Comments (8)

When Scholars are Afraid to Say What’s True

May 14, 2011 at 8:00 am

Elizabeth Marquardt writes at FamilyScholars.org:

At the National Catholic Register reporter Steve Wetherbe has a solid story on how researchers are squelching the science, as the gay marriage debate makes scholars otherwise aware of the research on marriage, divorce and child well-being unwilling to say what they used to say.

Here's an excerpt of Wetherbe's article:

... Political correctness is involved too in the suppression of findings.

[David Blankenhorn, head of the Institute for American Values] tells of being lambasted by the head of one family research organization back in the mid-2000s for using one of that organization’s studies to support an article he wrote for the Los Angeles Times against same-sex “marriage.”

“She didn’t claim I’d used the data wrongly. She just didn’t want her research associated in any way with being anti-same sex ‘marriage.’ She actually tried to forbid me from ever doing it again.” Blankenhorn says he used “blunt language” to stand up for his right to use the data as he chose.

Diane Sollee, founder and director of Smart Marriages, a national coalition of marriage and family educators, says traditional, biological marriage is too important and beneficial for social scientists to soft-pedal.

“Society is telling people a lie: that if you married a jerk then you’ll be better off and your children will be better off if you dump him. ‘It’s not your fault: You just married the wrong person.’

“But what people need to hear is what research really shows: that your children will be much better off — much better off, according to every measure researchers can think of — if you can hang in there with the father of these children and make it work.”

For those who can “hang in there,” it gets even better: “Longevity studies show the mother will live longer, the father will live longer, and the children will live longer. They also show that the majority of couples who reported being deeply unhappy in their marriage and for whatever reason stayed in the marriage, in five years reported being happy, and many couldn’t even remember being unhappy.

NOM
By NOM Staff | Posted in Marriage, Research/Study | Comments (5)

URGENT MARRIAGE ALERT: Gay Marriage Activists Seek to Table Marriage Amendment Vote in House!

May 13, 2011 at 5:46 pm

Thanks to all of you who contacted your senators in advance of this week's 38-27 vote to pass the Minnesota marriage amendment. The bill now goes to the House where we are hearing rumors that some House members are talking of tabling the amendment until next year.

We need your help today! Gay marriage activists know they aren't likely to defeat the amendment this year—and would like nothing better than to push the vote off for another year.

Please take a moment today to contact your state representative. Let your representative know that a vote to table the amendment is a vote to undermine marriage!

The battle for marriage in Minnesota moves to the House!

Click here to send an email to your Representative today!

The people of Minnesota deserve a full and open campaign to decide the future of marriage. Putting a vote off until 2012 means an abbreviated conversation about marriage that is overshadowed in the midst of a presidential race. The only ones served by putting this vote off are gay marriage advocates, not Minnesota voters or Minnesota families.

Please, click here to send an email to your state representative today. Tell your representative it's time to vote on the amendment now!

Brian Brown
By Brian Brown | Posted in Minnesota, Same Sex Marriage | Comments (2)

BP: As States Debate SSM, Consequences of Legalization Become Clear

May 13, 2011 at 2:58 pm

Michael Foust of the Baptist Press reports:

Conservatives have long argued that "gay marriage" legalization would have negative consequences on religious freedoms, and they may have found another example in Canada, where "gay marriage" is legal and where Sportsnet TV host Damian Goddard was fired the day after he stated his opposition to marriage redefinition in a Tweet.

... Goddard's firing followed another controversy that combined sports and "gay marriage." In April Olympic gold medalist gymnast Peter Vidmar signed on as the United States' "chief of mission" for the 2012 London Olympics. But once it became public that he had donated $2,000 in 2008 to help pass California Proposition 8 and appeared at two rallies in support of it, homosexual groups began pressuring him to step down.

NOM
By NOM Staff | Posted in Same Sex Marriage | Comments (32)

Queensland's First Surrogate Mother: "I Should Never Have Given Him Up"

May 13, 2011 at 2:42 pm

A heart-wrenching story from the Australian Herald Sun:

As Queensland's first child born under the state's altruistic surrogacy laws, Connor Harris's arrival was a moment of unbridled happiness for his parents.

For his biological mother "Rosie" (not her real name), there has been nothing but heartache and regret since that historic day last May 11.

"As soon as the baby was born it all changed," the married friend of the couple said.

"I was crying in hospital when he was having his first bath, I couldn't watch, I thought what the hell have I done?"

"I never thought having a child and giving him away would make me feel like this.

"I regret everything, I don't regret Connor, I regret the decision very much, I just wish I'd never done it."

Matt said things changed after Connor was born, with Rosie wanting to be called b-ma (biological mother) instead of auntie Rosie as agreed before the birth.

NOM
By NOM Staff | Posted in Adoption, Australia, Parenting | Comments (9)

College Grad Calls Out Fellow MN Students for "Bullying" 3M Over Political Donations

May 13, 2011 at 2:12 pm

Hundreds of students and staff from Macalester College and Carleton College in Minnesota attended a 3M shareholder meeting in St. Paul to protest 3M's donation to MN Forward, a group that supported Republican candidate Tom Emmer, and their protests took up most of the meeting, according to the Pioneer Press:

"We're not moralizers; we're a company," [3M Chief Executive George] Buckley said. After the sixth or seventh question from the Carleton and Macalester groups, Buckley joked that "I do compliment Macalester College for having 427 students come here and ask this question."

After the meeting, Buckley said he's "kind of a live-and-let-live guy" on social issues and reiterated that the company doesn't get involved there.

... As for the proposal that the groups from Carleton and Macalester were there to support? Shareholders voted down the proposal from Trillium Asset Management Corp. that would have required 3M to give a more detailed reporting of its political contributions each year.

David Hottinger wrote in response to the story about the protest at 3M's stockholder meeting:

Just out of college myself, I think it's safe to assume most undergrads aren't holding too many shares of 3M Co. stock. So I'm a little sickened by the Carlton and Macalester students' actions at 3M's shareholder meeting May 10 ("3M meeting lite," May 11).

It's one thing to disagree with a company's political contributions. But to hijack a company's shareholder meeting in order to let it know that if it donates to a Republican it is going to pay for it until the Republicans cave on gay marriage?

That's not protest; that's bullying.

NOM
By NOM Staff | Posted in Minnesota, Same Sex Marriage | Comments (2)

A Canadian Hero Emerges

May 13, 2011 at 12:06 pm

Patrick Craine reports from Canada about Sportsnet firing Damian Goddard after he used his personal twitter account to express his views on marriage:

One of Canada’s leading TV sports broadcasters fired one of its anchors Wednesday after he voiced support for true marriage on Twitter.

Damian Goddard, the now-former host of “Connected” on Rogers Sportsnet, had tweeted his support of Burlington hockey agent Todd Reynolds, who created a stir this week when he criticized New York Rangers hockey star Sean Avery for shooting a TV ad backing gay “marriage.”

Sportsnet had distanced themselves from the comments on their own Twitter account.  They announced Wednesday that Goddard had been fired and did not specify the reasons.

... Nevertheless, Goddard is standing by the comments.  “In terms of what I said, I stand by it,” he told the Toronto Star. “I’m a devout Roman Catholic. It’s not about hate at all.”

NOM
By NOM Staff | Posted in Canada, Free Speech, Religious Liberty, Same Sex Marriage | Comments (15)

Protecting Marriage in Pennsylvania

May 13, 2011 at 12:00 pm

OneNewsNow reports:

Advocates for traditional marriage are working to let Pennsylvania voters decide how the state should define marriage.

Pennsylvania State Representative Daryl Metcalfe (R) has introduced the Marriage Protection Amendment, which defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman and bans other forms of "marriage," including civil unions and domestic partnerships.

 

NOM
By NOM Staff | Posted in Pennsylvania, Same Sex Marriage | Comments (7)

IL Religious Adoption Agencies Push for Right to Help Kids

May 13, 2011 at 11:44 am

From the National Catholic Register:

Catholic leaders in Illinois are scrambling for a last-minute fix to prevent a showdown between the state and Catholic Charities of Illinois.

They want lawmakers to amend the state’s civil-union bill, set to take effect June 1, in order to assure that child welfare agencies such as Catholic Charities can continue turning down applications from cohabiting couples, whether homosexual or heterosexual.

“We want to see legislative action occur quickly so we can preserve our adoption and foster-care services for the thousands of children and families we serve,” said Carolyn Matheson, director of advancement for Catholic Charities of the Diocese of Peoria. “The spin is that we’re anti-gay, but that’s not true. We’re against cohabitation, regardless of sexual orientation, which is in keeping with Catholic teaching. We’re not denying anybody the right to adopt or serve as foster parents, but we’re not going to process such applications ourselves.”

NOM
By NOM Staff | Posted in Adoption, Illinois, Religious Liberty | Comments (4)

Video: UM Law Grad Says Debating SSM Anymore is "Ridiculous"

May 13, 2011 at 11:09 am

More than 100 newly graduated lawyers walked out of their own graduation at the University of Michigan Law School on Saturday to protest the commencement speech by Ohio Sen. Rob Portman.

One newly-minted lawyer spoke about how she believes the law community is done debating issues as fundamental as marriage:

That's some education at work.

NOM
By NOM Staff | Posted in DOMA, Law, Same Sex Marriage | Comments (11)

Portugal's 2009 Supreme Court Ruling: No Right to Gay Marriage

May 13, 2011 at 10:00 am

We were, until quite recently, unaware of this ruling (overshadowed perhaps by the legislature's decision to accept gay marriage).

Also, we don't speak Portugese.  Any readers who do?  Let us know!

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

Gay Author: People Who Believe in 1M1W Marriage Should Be Shamed

May 13, 2011 at 9:00 am

Candace Chellow-Hodge, author of "Bulletproof Faith: A Spiritual Survival Guide" and pastor of a United Church of Christ in South Carolina, writes at Religion Dispatches about the dignity she thinks defenders of marriage don't deserve:

"To win civil rights, one of the last steps is to make it shameful to be against the rights of the group fighting for recognition."

In this case, she means it must become "shameful" for people to believe that children deserve a mother and a father, and that marriage is between one man and one woman.

NOM
By NOM Staff | Posted in Culture, Free Speech, Same Sex Marriage | Comments (4)
Home NOM Blog Donate Advocacy Center
Copyright 2011