Marriage between a man and a woman must be protected from activist judges.U.S. Congressman Mike Pence, Chairman of the House Republican Conference, released the following statement today condemning the ruling of a federal judge that overturned the will of a majority of Californians who voted for Proposition 8, which defines marriage as the legal union between a man and a woman:
“Judge Vaughn Walker’s decision to overturn Proposition 8 is an act of judicial overreach by an unelected official that silences the voice of the people. Marriage between a man and a woman is the most enduring human institution. Marriage was ordained by God, confirmed in the law, is the glue of the American family and it must be protected.
“This trend of the federal government ignoring the will of the people is becoming all too common, and the American people have grown increasingly frustrated that they are not being heard. Instead they are being ignored, especially on our most cherished values and institutions. We must defend the traditional definition of marriage in the law, in the courts and, if need be, in the Constitution of the United States.”
Speaking at NOMs Summer for Marriage Bus Tour stop in Atlanta, GA, Alveda King—niece of civil rights icon Martin Luther King, Jr.—states that the government should not stand in the way of the American people’s effort to protect marriage between one man and one woman.
ALVEDA KING: “…Government cannot govern our hearts. And so when it comes to an issue of faith, then that’s going to be “We the People,” rising up in faith, doing what we know in our heart’s is right. The government cannot mandate that, the government really cannot control that. And so, the government should not…keep people from voting.”
Speaking at NOM’s Summer for Marriage 2010 Atlanta, GA bus tour stop, Alveda King—niece of civil rights icon Martin Luther King, Jr.—called upon all to support NOMs efforts and join us at the final stop in Washington, D.C. (8/15/10) as she explains the stark disparity between the real civil rights movement her father and uncle led and attempts by same sex marriage supporters to co-opt it.
ALVEDA KING: “The question of race… there is one race on the planet and that’s the human race. And of one blood everyone was made. And so to tell two people that they can’t’ marry b/c of difference of skin color is against the foundational understanding that we are one race. So any man of any complexion can marry any woman of any complexion…now the issue of two men marrying or two women marrying, of course, is in direct opposition of what’s there. So therefore it is not a civil right…”
By NOM Staff|Posted in Same Sex Marriage|Comments Off on Civil Rights Leader Alveda King: Same Sex Marriage “is not a civil right.”
WASHINGTON, DC - In light of the decision by Judge Vaughn Walker to lift the stay on same sex marriages in California following his ruling to overturn Proposition 8, Brian Brown of the National Organization for Marriage offered the following response:
“When a lower judge makes an unprecedented ruling, that totally overturns existing Supreme Court precedent, the normal thing for that judge to do is to stay his decision, and let the higher courts decide in an orderly fashion that respects the rule of law, if he’s right, or if he’s way off-base. Judge Walker’s ruling is more evidence he is not a neutral referee, he’s an activist on this issue. He doesn’t even want his ruling ignoring Supreme Court precedent and imposing gay marriage against the expressed wishes of the electorate appealed to the Ninth Circuit. Walker feels that that only the state politicians who were against Prop 8 have standing to appeal and the over 7 million California voters who supported Prop 8 shouldn’t be able to even present their position to a higher court. It’s outrageous. The People are supposed to be sovereign, not the politicians. This stay order will be appealed to the Ninth Circuit and if necessary to Justice Anthony Kennedy, and I think it is a tactical mistake on Judge Walker’s part to display his injudicious zeal--once again--before Kennedy’s eyes.”
Writing for Real Clear Politics, noted libertarian columnist Steve Chapman notes in his column, “Overreaching on Gay Marriage:”
“…it's silly to believe only nut jobs and bigots could rationally oppose same-sex marriage, or that millions of Californians who accept other laws protecting gays were acting irrationally.”
Chapman also is the first “conservative” author to openly advocate for legalized polygamy (albeit through the democratic process)…another indicator of what support for homosexual leads to?
“ That's why I would legalize polygamy as well as same-sex marriage. But it's one thing to believe those changes would make sound policy and entirely another to think that the Constitution requires either…
The decision may very well lead the Supreme Court to rule in favor of same-sex marriage. If so, it would be the most polarizing decision since Roe v. Wade in 1973, which we are still fighting about.
Rush relates the reaction to the Prop 8 ruling that he has seen:
“The American people are boiling. The American people are furious. My e-mails are unbelievable. This federal judge yesterday, this decision, Prop 8, California, has just put people over the edge, and all of these decisions are coming one after another from all corners of the federal government. It's as if we have absolutely no say in what is going on all around us. Decisions are being made for us, in lieu of us and imposed on us.” Read more at RushLimbaugh.com.
By Brian Brown|Posted in Same Sex Marriage|Comments Off on Rush on Prop 8 reaction: “The American people are furious!”
More from Rush Limbaugh’s August 5th commentary on Judge Vaughn Walker’s bias in the Prop 8 case:
“I don't care whether he's taken pains to disguise or advertise his orientation. What we have here is a results-oriented liberal judicial judge -- not even a judge, this is an activist -- he has taken 136 or whatever it is, 138 pages to write of his own outlook rather than a fair and faithful reading of the Constitution's text.” Read more.
By Brian Brown|Posted in Same Sex Marriage|Comments Off on Rush on Judge Walker’s bias —“This is an activist”
Over the next couple of days, we’ll be posting various clips from Rush Limbaugh’s syndicated radio program on August 5th, in which he reacted to Judge Walker’s ruling in the Prop 8 case. Our thanks to Rush and to the EIB Network for permission to use these clips.
“Judge Vaughn Walker in California did not just slap down the will of seven million voters. He put those seven million voters on trial, and he found those seven million voters guilty. Judge Walker has now said that marriage is nothing more than homophobia, codified in law.” Read more.
By Brian Brown|Posted in Same Sex Marriage|Comments Off on Rush on Judge Walker’s Slur Against Prop8 Supporters
Jonathan Rauch, a major advocate for gay marriage, today in the NY Daily news called Judge Vaughn Walker's ruling in the Prop 8 case "radical." And he didn't mean that in a good way:
"Although California's voters overturned gay marriage in 2008 (an unjust and unwise decision, in my view), they left in place the state's civil unions program, which provides all the state benefits of marriage under a different name. In effect, they said, "We'll give gay couples everything but the word 'marriage.' That final step, we'd like more time to think about." The result amounted to a flawed but reasonable compromise.
Walker was right to say that separate isn't equal. Civil unions are hardly ideal. But his decision treats civil unions as if they were trivial or worthless. By refusing to give them any weight and declaring them not just inadequate as a matter of policy but prohibited as a matter of law, Walker uses the Constitution to put compromise out of bounds."
In Tim Gill's home state, the most aggressively pro-gay marriage candidate Andrew Romanoff lost Tuesday to the slightly less aggressively pro-gay marriage, anti-DOMA candidate Mike Bennet in the Democrat Party primary for the U.S. Senate:
“I am the candidate in this race to have laid out the most progressive stance on virtually every issue that Congress now confronts, not just on the question of human rights– where my stance is more enlightened than any other candidate in this race and I would argue any candidate in the United States,” Romanoff said according to the Colorado Independent. “You can call my bluff. If you can find a candidate who is more committed to this cause [gay marriage], let me know, because I don’t think there is one.”
Bennet campaign spokesman Trevor Kincaid said the senator supports the right of states to decide on gay marriage but that he also supports the full repeal of the Clinton-era Defense of Marriage Act."
“Bennet has said that as a private citizen, if a ballot measure were to come up in Colorado [providing for gay marriage], he would support it,” Kincaid said.
Colorado emerges as another state where pro-marriage supporters have a chance to make a difference in a tight race. Ken Buck, who opposes gay marriage, won the GOP nod.
By Brian Brown|Posted in Same Sex Marriage|Comments Off on NOM Election Watch 2010: Pro-SSM Bennet Squares Off Against Pro-Marriage Ken Buck in Colorado Senate Race
House Republican Whip Eric Cantor (R-VA) today issued the following statement regarding recent court decisions on same-sex marriage:
"In recent weeks, several activist judges have issued decisions, overturning protections for traditional marriage in both a bipartisan-passed federal law and a ballot initiative passed by the people of California.
First, in Massachusetts, a judge threw out the portion of the federal Defense of Marriage Act that states that, for federal purposes, marriage is a union of one man and one woman. Then last week, a California judge overturned the votes of over seven million Californians for traditional marriage, an initiative they passed on the same ballot that sent President Obama to the White House.
Regrettably, in both of these cases, the Attorneys General responsible for defending the laws either presented the weakest possible defense or refused to take on the challenge at all.
As we look ahead to the possible appeals of these decisions, these officials owe it to the American people to do their jobs. Their failure to do so could have significant consequences, as these rulings have implications far beyond the states in which they were issued. Proponents of same-sex marriage have made clear their goals, and are seemingly achieving them one step at a time - though never through the democratic process.
As these decisions proceed through higher courts, including eventually the Supreme Court, the laws of 45 other states that have confirmed traditional marriage are at stake. Enabling this fundamental redefinition of marriage by judicial fiat must not go unchecked."
By NOM Staff|Posted in Same Sex Marriage|Comments Off on Eric Cantor v. Judge Walker
NOM released the following statement this afternoon:
National Organization for Marriage to Politicians:Gay Marriage Is a Career-Ending Position
State Senator Who Supported Gay Marriage
Defeated in Minnesota
(Washington, D.C.) – The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) today praised voters in Minnesota’s 12th Senate District for decisively ousting pro-gay marriage state Senator Paul Koering in his Republican primary race for reelection yesterday. NOM mounted a strong issue advocacy campaign in the district to inform voters of Koering’s position on gay marriage:
“Once again, voters have sent a message to politicians that supporting gay marriage is a career-ending move,” said Brian Brown, president of NOM. “We sent two district-wide mailings and paid for a newspaper ad to make sure that voters in this district knew their state Senator wanted to legalize gay marriage. As a result, Senator Koering was trounced.”
Koering was beaten by Paul Gazelka by a margin of 43-57.
“NOM has undertaken issue campaigns to defeat pro-gay marriage politicians such as U.S. Senate candidate Tom Campbell in California; state Senator Dede Scozzafava in New York; and now state Senator Paul Koering in Minnesota,” Brown said. “We’re committed to exposing any politician who abandons traditional family values to support gay marriage. Marriage is the union of one man and one woman, and we intend to hold politicians accountable to that position.”
The National Organization for Marriage is a nonprofit organization with a mission to protect marriage and the faith communities that sustain it. Founded in response to the growing need for an organized opposition to same-sex marriage in state legislatures, NOM serves as a national resource for marriage-related initiatives at the state and local level. For decades, pro-family organizations have educated the public about the importance of marriage and the family, but have lacked the organized, national presence needed to impact state and local politics in a coordinated and sustained fashion. NOM seeks to fill that void, organizing as a 501(c)(4) nonprofit organization, giving it the flexibility to lobby and support marriage initiatives across the nation. Find out more at www.nationformarriage.org.
To schedule an interview with Brian Brown, President of the National Organization for Marriage, please contact Elizabeth Ray, [email protected], (x130) or Mary Beth Hutchins, [email protected], (x105) at 703-683-5004.
Michael Medved answers Judge Walker's false charges including this one:
“Recognizing gay marriage would do nothing to harm existing opposite sex marriages.”
TRUTH: The problem with government endorsement of same sex marriage isn’t damage it would do to current heterosexual couples, but the profound change it would bring to the institution of marriage itself. In every civilization known to historians and anthropologists, marriage involves the union of man and woman—and the recognition that combining the two genders produces a durable unit that is very different from any all-male or all-female combination. The argument for gay marriage depends on the discredited and destructive idea that men and women are identical—that your marriage will be the same whether you select a male or female partner. Gay marriage also separates the institution of marriage from the process of childbearing, at a time when we need to reaffirm that children fare best within a marriage, and marriage becomes more significant when it produces children.
"[T]wo cartoons summed it up. The first one featured the calligraphic initial words of the Constitution, “We the People…” crossed out and replaced by the cursive words, “I, Judge Walker…” The second presented the author of the U.S. Constitution, James Madison, seated at a table in Philadelphia as he was drafting our nation’s foundational document. One of the founding fathers surrounding him is pointing at the parchment underneath Madison’s feathered pen and declaring, “Let’s put gay marriage here, between abortion and socialized medicine.” Both cartoons make the same essential point: that modern judges, like Judge Walker, are inventing “constitutional rights” that not only are absent from the text of the Constitution and its amendments but would be totally opposed to what the founding fathers and amenders intended and enshrined. . .
The dangers posed by Judge Walker’s decision, therefore, go beyond what constitutes marriage and family and which understanding of marriage and family needs to be promoted and protected for individual flourishing and the common good. They include perils to religious freedom as well as to the fundamental underpinnings of our constitutional republic, when the opinion of one conflicted judge fabricating constitutional violations takes on greater weight than the vote of seven million of his fellow citizens. It cannot be overturned on appeal fast enough."
It would be easy to take cheap shots at Herbert Hoover's great-grandaughter giving Republicans advice on how to win elections – for the heart of her argument is the nakedly political--the idea that the next generation will turn against the GOP. “With polling definitively indicating that Americans under age 30 overwhelmingly favor gay rights, with a majority supporting gay marriage according to the Pew Millennial Attitudes report published in February this year, there are multiple reasons for conservatives to think carefully before digging in their heels against gay marriage.”
Hmmm, so that's what we should do? Poll the 18 years olds and do whatever they think is right? In that case, maybe conservatives should give up on capitalism, too. Because the polls of the next generation on that issue are also unfavorable.
In his new book, The Battle, AEI President Arthur Brooks points out that the "culture war" has moved into core economics and foreign policy issues too. The 30 percent coalition of liberal elites and their followers is trying to ignore the majority views and "europeanize" America. And he points out "the vital core of the 30 percent coalition is young people – adults under 30 . . . and this group has exhibited a frightening openess to statism in the age of Obama. ‘Socialism’ may sound bad to you, but it is not a dirty word to many of today's young people." In March 2009, the Pew Research Center asked people to choose between capitalism and socialism. Only 13 percent of those over 40 favored socialism. Adults under 30 were "almost evenly divided." In a January 2010 Gallup poll, a majority of young adults under age 34 had positive views of socialism.
Bottom line: we've got some education to do with the next generation. If we decide to just poll folks under 30 and do what they think, we're in bigger trouble than Hoover can even imagine.
