NOM Blog ...

NOM BLOG

Heritage Report on Threats to Conscience from SSM

April 23, 2011 at 8:00 am

Thomas Messner at the Heritage Foundation writes about emerging threats to conscience, including threats posed by SSM:

People and groups with traditional understandings of sexual morality, including the understanding that marriage is the union of one man and one woman, face at least two types of burdens on conscience. The potential for conflicts already exists under nondiscrimination laws that treat marital status, sexual orientation, and gender as protected statuses. Redefining marriage would increase the number of conflicts.

... In New Mexico, a family-owned photography business declined to photograph a same-sex “commitment ceremony” because the owners’ religious beliefs conflict with the message communicated by the ceremony. The New Mexico Human Rights Commission prosecuted the small business under the state’s sexual orientation nondiscrimination law and demanded that it pay thousands of dollars in costs.

In Illinois, “[j]ust one month after Governor Patrick Quinn signed the civil union bill into law, a homosexual couple [] filed complaints with both the Illinois Attorney General and the Illinois Department of Human Rights for the refusal of two innkeepers to rent out their privately owned bed and breakfasts for a civil union ceremony and reception.” The complaints reportedly alleged that the innkeepers violated the Illinois Human Rights Act, “which prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation by businesses open to the public.” According to one report, one of the bed and breakfasts is owned by “a Christian father of five children who has been deluged with vicious, hateful emails and phone calls.”

Conflicts like the ones in Illinois and New Mexico will only become more common if states redefine marriage or enact other legal recognitions for homosexual unions. The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty studied more than 1,000 state laws prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, gender, or marital status and found that more than “350 separate state anti-discrimination provisions would likely be triggered by recognition of same-sex marriage.”

Read the full report, with many more examples, here.

Albany Times Union: SSM Advocates Say Still 6 Votes Behind in NY

April 22, 2011 at 11:39 am

Where they say things stand now in New York:

[T]he make-up of the Senate has shifted since 2009: five senators who voted no then [on SSM] have been replaced by legislators committed to vote yes, while three yes votes have been replaced with nays. The result: advocates have 26 of the 32 votes required for passage. (Times Union)

SSM was defeated in the NY Senate 38-24 in 2009.

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

New Meme Alert from North Carolina: Has HRC Approved Your Religion?

April 22, 2011 at 11:32 am

Coming soon to a billboard near you, beaucoup bucks being spent on a new "education" campaign:

On their website, they explain they are currently targeting Catholics, Evangelicals, Southern Baptists and Mormons. But how soon before they also include the Orthodox, Conservative Jews, and well, every denomination represented on lists like this one?

By NOM Staff | Posted in North Carolina, Religious Liberty, Same Sex Marriage | Comments (20)

Conservative Party Draws A Line in the Sand For NY Republicans on SSM

April 22, 2011 at 11:06 am

The marriage debate, as we know, is heating up again in New York. This from the Wall Street Journal:

"...the [SSM] bill is still a hard sell for a number of Republicans, even those in more moderate districts. An important factor is pressure from the state Conservative Party, a small but influential third party that has given a number of vulnerable Republicans a decisive boost in tight races.

Conservative Party chairman Michael Long said the state party wouldn't endorse any Republican who votes for the bill. "I feel very strongly that we will prevail. We consider it a line in the sand and very detrimental to a legislator if he or she votes to destroy marriage as we know it," he said.

Brian Ellner with the Human Rights Campaign replied:

"We will obviously be disappointed if the Conservative Party decides to make a position of conscience a litmus test for electoral support..."

Life, marriage and religious liberty--yes, those are all issues of conscience.

By NOM Staff | Posted in New York, Same Sex Marriage | Comments (37)

Does Gary Johnson Support Gay Marriage?

April 22, 2011 at 10:59 am

Former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson threw his hat in the ring yesterday. According to the Manchester Union Leader, his announcement speech was heavy on the economy light on "social" issues (like legalizing pot, or approving "gay unions"). But does he support gay marriage?

A gay blog notes the contradicting reports:

But while various sources, including Fox News, POLITICO.com and the New Mexico Independent, report that Johnson is a “strong” supporter of gay marriage, his own website disagrees.

A page devoted to civil rights at the Our America Initiative website notes that “Governor Johnson does support gay and civil unions. However, he does not support gay marriage.”

Then there are exchanges like this:

Q: Isn’t the true libertarian position to support gay marriage? Johnson: I’ve taken the position that I support gay unions.

Q: Why not marriage? What’s the difference? Johnson: Right or wrong, that’s what I’m advocating.

Q: So it might be wrong? Johnson: Look, it’s the notion that government probably shouldn’t be involved in marriage in the first place.

Q: Do you draw the line at marriage because you are religious? Johnson: I was raised a Christian. I’d like to think I have Christian values. I don’t attend church.

And finally, interviews like this (hop to 1:52 in this clip):

By NOM Staff | Posted in Election Watch 2012 | Comments (4)

Wilcox on Cohabitation and the Abuse of America’s Children

April 22, 2011 at 10:52 am

W. Bradford Wilcox, Director of the National Marriage Project at the University of Virginia and a senior fellow of the Witherspoon Institute writes in the Public Discourse that "Cohabitation does not serve the “best interest” of children, regardless of what the courts say."

[According to a new federal study,] children living with their mother and her boyfriend are about 11 times more likely to be sexually, physically, or emotionally abused than children living with their married biological parents. Likewise, children living with their mother and her boyfriend are six times more likely to be physically, emotionally, or educationally neglected than children living with their married biological parents. In other words, one of the most dangerous places for a child in America to find himself in is a home that includes an unrelated male boyfriend—especially when that boyfriend is left to care for a child by himself.

But children living with their own father and mother do not fare much better if their parents are only cohabiting. The federal study of child abuse found that children living with their cohabiting parents are more than four times more likely to be sexually, physically, or emotionally abused than their peers living in a home headed by their married parents. And they are three times more likely to be physically, emotionally, or educationally neglected than children living with their married biological parents.

... This latest study confirms what a mounting body of social science has been telling us for some time now. The science tells us that children are not only more likely to thrive but are also more likely to simply survive when they are raised in an intact home headed by their married parents, rather than in a home headed by a cohabiting couple.

By NOM Staff | Posted in Children, Culture, Parenting | Comments (4)

Santorum Makes Headway?

April 22, 2011 at 10:28 am

A communication from a good friend who LOVES Rick Santorum:

Thought you might be interested to see how Senator Rick Santorum is making headway in Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina.

New Hampshire:

Rick Santorum has been to NH 14 times. More than any other candidate. He just won a NH Tea Party Straw Poll with 26%.

He is putting together a broad spectrum coalition of supporters that include social conservative, tea party members, old guard conservatives, fiscal conservatives, second amendment supporters and establishment party folks.

South Carolina:

RJS has been to SC 15 times. More than any other candidate.

The Senator just won the largest SC straw poll (Greenville County), April 9^th. Rick appeared with Gingrich and Barbour at the straw poll and defeated them both. Rick defeated Gingrich 31% – 14% and Barbour 31% - 5% of the vote. The Greenville Straw poll was won by Huckabee in 2008.

Santorum finished 3^rd in the Charleston County straw poll a week later (4/15). Rick did not appear at the Charleston Convention and managed a strong 3^rd place finish. Barbour, who appeared at the convention won the straw poll with Romney finishing 2^nd (1% higher than Rick). Romney finished 2^nd in Charleston in the 2008 primary. Especially strong finish as Charleston is a fiscal conservative town where social conservatives typically do not fare well.

Rick finished 2^nd in the Dorchester County straw poll on 4/16. Impressive showing for the Senator since he hasn’t visited Dorchester County since May 2010 with Gresham Barrett (Dorchester went heavy for Nikki Haley).

Compared to Haley, Newt, and Bachman, Rick has spent 1/10^th the resources in SC and still has managed to win and run strong in the heavy GOP counties like Greenville, Aiken, Horry, Charleston and Dorchester.

Iowa:

Senator Santorum has been to Iowa eleven times since late 2009 and will be returning again on Monday, April 25.

"Former Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA) announced today that Cody Brown, former campaign manager for Ben Lange's congressional run (IA-1) will manage Senator Santorum's testing the waters effort in Iowa. Cody will be joined by Lucas Draisey, former Chairman of the Iowa Federation of College Republicans, who will serve in a field director role. Cody and Lucas will join consultants Nick Ryan and Jill Latham of the Des Moines, IA-based Concordia Group LLC who have served as advisors to Senator Santorum for the past several months."

By Maggie Gallagher | Posted in Election Watch 2012 | Comments (3)

The Mystery of the Missing Tim Gill Quote on Fox News (cont.)

April 22, 2011 at 10:09 am

Kevin Jones writes in a community blog for The Denver Post:

The death of a proposed civil unions bill in the Colorado House of Representatives' Judiciary Committee deeply angered Tim Gill, the multi-millionaire gay activist whose smartly targeted campaign spending has helped re-shape Colorado politics.

Gill's lawyer Ted Trimpa said Gill will now be spending millions more to defeat Republicans across the state, starting with GOP members of the statehouse, Fox 31 News reports.

"It might be a difference of, before, spending $200,000 [on 2012 House races], and now spending $2 million," Trimpa said.

Or at least, that's what he said before Fox 31 edited the story to remove the quote.

The National Organization for Marriage blog caught the edit.

... An inquiry about the edit sent to Fox 31 and Mr. Stokols received no reply.

... When an obsessed multi-millionaire aims to change the political landscape and rewrite the social constitution of our state, his activities deserve more media scrutiny, not less. Fox 31's edit suggests the news media is telling us less than we deserve to know.

By NOM Staff | Posted in Colorado | Comments (6)

The Video YouTube Won't Let You See

April 22, 2011 at 8:00 am

TFP says because it's effective in exposing hatred among some gay marriage supporters at Brown University.

Do you agree?

Pro-Homosexuals at Brown University Respond to Peaceful TFP Rally with Violence from Brian Brown on Vimeo.

By NOM Staff | Posted in Religious Liberty, Same Sex Marriage | Comments (37)

Former Solicitor General Heads Up DOMA Defense! - NOM Marriage News April 21, 2011

April 21, 2011 at 7:20 pm

Dear Marriage Supporter,

Great news! Former Solicitor General Paul Clement will lead the House's defense of DOMA!

As I said in our press release (which got picked up by the LA Times, CNN, ABC News, the Wall Street Journal, the Baptist Press, the Christian Broadcasting Network, and Politico, among others), "At last we have a legal eagle on this case who actually wants to win in court! Paul Clement is a genuinely distinguished lawyer, a former Solicitor General of the United States, who we are confident will win this case."

Thanks to Speaker Boehner's actions, President Obama's attempt to sabotage the legal defense of DOMA will fail.

What is a Solicitor General, you might ask? Well, he's the guy at the Justice Department who argues cases before the Supreme Court. In his seven years of service at Justice (longer than any Solicitor General since the 19th century), Clement has argued more than 50 cases before the Supreme Court. He has won a gazillion awards, including the 2010 Trial Lawyer of the Year Award, as well as the ranking "Supreme Performer" in American Lawyer magazine's 2007 "Top Litigators Under 45."

As one legal eagle I consulted put it: "Paul Clement's the best; Boehner could not have made a better choice."

As Maggie said in her syndicated column, Speaker Boehner this week hit a "home run, or two"–the second being the demand that the cost of this litigation be deducted from the Department of Justice's budget, after Attorney General Eric Holder and President Obama refused to defend DOMA.

NOM's Chairman Maggie Gallagher testified before Congress last Friday at the DOMA hearing called by Rep. Trent Franks.

Here's Rep. Franks's able opening statement:

"... [N]ever has a President refused to defend a law of such public importance, on a legal theory so far beyond any court precedent, for such transparently political reasons."

Rep. Jerry Nadler, who represents the People's Republic of Manhattan, on the other hand, responded by saying he can't believe anyone will defend "this immoral and abhorrent law." Um, marriage as one man and one woman is immoral and abhorrent, Rep. Nadler? Is that the House Dems' new view?

Just before testifying (you can read her testimony here), Maggie was accosted by a similarly angry gay marriage advocate who wanted to get an "ambush" interview and engage in a little fire and brimstone moral condemnation of Maggie for standing up for marriage.

Now, folks don't usually publish "ambush videos" made by the other side on their own website or newsletter, but I think Maggie did such a wonderful, graceful job of responding to this one angry dude that I want you to see it and judge for yourself:

Certainly one person in this video looks a little on the hating side, but I don't think it's Maggie! Will gay marriage strengthen marriage or hurt marriage? Well, the Netherlands, the first country ever to adopt gay marriage, did so exactly ten years ago. So happy birthday to same-sex marriage; now, after ten years, how is Dutch marriage doing?

"Dutch Gays don't take advantage of opportunity to marry," as a Global Post headline put it.

After a decade, just 20 percent of gay Dutch couples have married (compared to 80 percent of opposite-sex couples). The story reports that Vera Bergkamp, head of a Dutch gay rights organization, "sees three main reasons for the lack of nuptial enthusiasm among gay couples: less pressure from family and friends, fewer gay couples marrying to have children than their straight counterparts, and a more individualist, less family-orientated mindset among many homosexuals."

What proportion of all gay people (not just same-sex couples) have ended up legally tying the knot?

About 15,000 homosexual couples have entered legal marriages. An estimated 2 percent of 13 million Dutch adults are gay or lesbian, or about 260,000 people. Assuming that every single person who married in the Netherlands was in fact a Dutch resident (not likely in places like Amsterdam), at best around 10 percent of gay and lesbian people have chosen to marry. In other words, a full ten years after gay marriage became law, 9 out of 10 gay people have rejected same-sex marriage personally.

What about marriage itself in the Netherlands?

Marriage is not doing very well, sadly: Ten years after same-sex marriage, Dutch men and women are much less likely to get married, stay married, or to have their children inside of marriage. See for example here and here (PDF).

Out of wedlock births are way, way up. In 2000, 25 percent of Dutch births were out of wedlock; by 2008, 41 percent were.

Of course we can't prove that gay marriage caused the decline of marriage–it may well be a symptom of a society embarking on the rejection of marriage as a key social institution for children. On the other hand, the so-called "conservative case for marriage" touted by Jonathan Rauch and Andrew Sullivan (that gay marriage will somehow help strengthen and revive marriage) has clearly just gone down in flames!

(Speaking of going down in flames, did you see the latest outrageous claim Ted Olson is making in court in the Prop 8 litigation? The formerly conservative lawyer known as Ted Olson is now actually saying the Constitution requires televising trials!)

My last short litigation note: The Village Voice is reporting that Miss California pageant director Keith Lewis is telling some whoppers:

"Well, now we're being sued by NOM," [Keith Lewis] informed me, meaning the National Organization for Marriage group that Carrie had been a spokesperson for.

The suit has something to do with NOM accusing the pageant of releasing damaging (i.e. true) info about Carrie, as opposed to the press having dug it up by itself.

"Huh?" I screeched. "NOM is suing you? But NOM fired Carrie too!"

Just for the record: No, NOM is not suing Keith Lewis. (But then NOM never fired Carrie either, because she never worked for us.)

Let me close by asking for your help.

The battle for New York is on!

Remember last time in 2009, when gay groups promised their supporters on the day of the vote that they had won? Instead, the New York state senate decisively rejected gay marriage, by a lopsided vote of 38 to 24.

Well, this time gay groups are sparing no expense and pulling no punches, desperate to avoid a repeat humiliation. Four gay marriage groups came together to announce a $1 million campaign, as well as a coordinated lobbying effort.

There is no good or urgent reason that New Yorkers have to watch their government get distracted from urgent economic, budget and yes, corruption issues to fight about gay marriage.

Is the New York Times publishing headlines about how Dems are wasting time on social issues, rather than focusing on the core concerns of voters? Oh, of course not.

(Speaking of distraction, watch the way Rhode Island's Democratic Speaker Gordon Fox responded to Minority Leader Bob Watson's demand to stop letting gay marriage distract the legislature from the budget.

(Yes, he literally pulled the plug on Rep. Watson rather than have to explain to Rhode Island voters, for whom passing a gay marriage bill is pretty low down the list of priorities, why he's continuing to make it his priority.)

Gov. Andrew Cuomo, who clearly wants to be president some day and thus wants to please an important part of the national base of donors for his party, just as clearly has no problem spending time and political muscle on an issue way down the list of New Yorkers' priorities.

But thank God for Democratic State Sen. Rev. Rubén Díaz (D-Bronx), who came out swinging against Cuomo's misplaced priorities:

"I am deeply offended that during this Holy Week, which is a most sacred time to millions of New Yorkers, Governor Andrew Cuomo is working hard to mobilize elected officials to legalize homosexual marriage in New York.

We all know that Governor Andrew Cuomo's Budget, which was done in haste to beat the clock, will cause tremendous suffering to countless New Yorkers–especially Black and Hispanic communities. ... Now Governor Cuomo is targeting communities of faith in an effort to redefine marriage. ...I must ask, if Governor Cuomo is ethically allowed to use public resources during these serious financial times to raise funds (by having his staff raise money) and to use his staff (who are paid for with tax dollars) and his office (for weekly meetings) to promote a radical agenda, then shouldn't we all be able to use our offices and staffs to raise resources for issues that matter to us?

I implore my colleagues in New York's government and my fellow religious leaders in New York State to oppose Governor Cuomo's blatant and shameful attack on New York's people of faith. I encourage all New Yorkers of faith to raise your voices in prayer and in action to prevent Governor Cuomo from redefining marriage." Together you and I have won victory after victory the press and the pundits said was impossible.

We are not giving up on New York.

But the battle is going to be tough, so please pray for Sen. Díaz, and for all who stand on the front lines of this fight for God's truth about marriage. Pass this letter on to a friend.

And above all, if you live in New York–or know anyone who does–stay tuned for marching orders!

Semper fi,

Brian brown

Brian S. Brown
President
National Organization for Marriage

PS: You can defend marriage for your children, and your grandchildren! Whether you can give $20 or $200, know that you are helping us to make sure that your voice is heard in the corridors of power. With your help, we can fight and win!

By Brian Brown | Posted in Same Sex Marriage | Comments (1)

CBN Video: Boehner Hires Bush Lawyer to Defend DOMA

April 21, 2011 at 2:16 pm

CBN quotes NOM President Brian Brown in this segment on defending DOMA:

Full story here.

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

Pro-SSM LA Times: DOMA Deserves a Good Defense

April 21, 2011 at 2:12 pm

This Los Angeles Times editorial, while stressing often that they oppose DOMA, still rebukes the Human Right's Campaign's efforts to harass those who believe DOMA deserves the best defense:

The Human Rights Campaign has been a powerful force for the rights of gays and lesbians, but the organization has stumbled in objecting to the hiring of a former solicitor general to defend the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act. The tradition of lawyers defending unpopular or controversial clients is an honorable one.

DOMA, which defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman and permits states to refuse to honor same-sex marriages performed in other states, is wrongheaded, and we welcomed President Obama's decision not to defend it. But that doesn't mean the House of Representatives, which took over defense of the law from the administration, shouldn't retain the ablest counsel available. Former Solicitor Gen. Paul D. Clement, a renowned Supreme Court litigator, qualifies.

Congrats to the LA Times!

By NOM Staff | Posted in California, DOMA, Same Sex Marriage | Comments (20)

Maggie's Column: On Defending DOMA, Boehner Hits a Home Run, Or Two

April 21, 2011 at 12:30 pm

NOM Chairman Maggie Gallagher's latest column:

This week, House Speaker John Boehner came out swinging with two announcements: Former Solicitor General Paul Clement would represent the House in its effort to defend the federal Defense of Marriage Act, and the Justice Department should pay for it.

Two swings, two home runs.

Continue reading at Real Clear Politics.

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

AZ Gov. Jan Brewer Signs Mom & Dad Adoption Preference Bill

April 21, 2011 at 12:15 pm

The Arizona Republic reports:

Married couples will have preference when it comes to adopting children under a new measure signed into law by Gov. Jan Brewer on Monday.Senate Bill 1188, which was sponsored by Sen. Linda Gray, R-Glendale, would require an adoption agency to give primary consideration to adoptive placement with a married man and woman, with all other criteria being equal.

The bill applies to both state and private adoption agencies. Previously, only Utah has a law requiring priority for married couples, though several other states have bans on adoptions by same-sex couples or by unmarried couples.

... Cathi Herrod, president of the Center for Arizona Policy, and a strong advocated of SB 1188 said Monday that the bill was among those that dealt with "critical issues of life, marriage and religious liberty," and said she was "grateful" for the governor's support.

The Institute for Marriage and Public Policy, which works to "strengthen marriage for a new generation" (and has our own Maggie Gallagher as its President) has similar model legislation available for other state legislatures interested in pursuing marital preference policy in adoption regs.

By NOM Staff | Posted in Adoption, Arizona | Comments (7)

Politifact RI rules "1,700 rights to marriage" claim "Barely True"

April 21, 2011 at 11:45 am

Back in 2004 Josh Baker at the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy examined the claim that civil marriage confers 1,138 distinct benefits and rights. Here was one of his conclusions:

"... a preliminary analysis clearly shows that the claim there are “1,138 federal marriage benefits” is simply incorrect ... Couples who marry expecting to receive “1000 federal marriage benefits” are likely to be disappointed."

The only thing that has changed since 2004 is that now gay marriage groups are claiming even more benefits and rights are attached to marriage: 1,700 is the new number some use.

This week the Associated Press picked up on a Politifact RI review which ruled that this claim about 1,700 benefits is "Barely True." Some highlights from their review:

... we were surprised to discover that the GAO had simply done a search of the U.S. Code to identify laws that use words or word fragments like "marr" (for marriage), "spouse," "widow" or "survivor."

In fact, the report itself cautions that "some of these laws may not directly create benefits, rights, or privileges." It also warns that "no conclusions can be drawn … concerning the effect of the law on married people versus single people. A particular law may create either advantages or disadvantages for those who are married, or may apply to both married and single people."

... out of the 45 federal and state laws we examined, 31 clearly offer a benefit for someone who is married. But under 3 other laws, a married person may actually face a disadvantage. And in the remaining 11 cases, it doesn't appear that the distinction affects people's rights at all, a fact the GAO itself acknowledged when listing federal statutes.

... To assert that any law referring to "marriage" or "spouse" or "divorce" or a comparable term marks a point of discrimination and, as a result, warrants inclusion on the list strikes us as a stretch.

Politifact RI's conclusion: "when numbers like these are thrown around, we expect advocates to have more to back them up than a rudimentary word search that fails to say what right or benefit might be at stake."