NOM BLOG

A Reminder About Polls vs. Reality

This year, like every year we have had a vote on marriage, the media and press are obsessing about polls claiming they show gay marriage will win in a couple short weeks.

It should of course be pointed out that marriage has historically under-performed in polls by at least 6-7 points, and more importantly, that every time marriage has gone on to win at the ballot box, there have been polls (often most the polls!) showing it losing before the final outcome emerges.

That's why we highlighted this Reuters article earlier in the week: "Ahead of Gay Marriage Votes, Advocates Skeptical of Polling."

Now, the past does not dictate the future. But we should remember that in 3 out of the 4 states voting on marriage this November, it was our side that chose to bring the issue to the people (in the fourth, we had already helped the people vote once to protect marriage).

And in all the avalanche of polling we've seen recently, marriage still has a clear path to victory in all four states.

In Minnesota, the Marriage Protection Amendment is leading in the polls (in fact, it is holding even or ahead among all age cohorts including 18-34 year olds and more Democrats support the amendment than Republicans do not support it). In Maryland, Question 6 is struggling to top 50% support, a dangerous place to be. In Maine, gay marriage is similarly struggling to reach the critical 50% support threshold, despite having a near monopoly on the airwaves since the Olympics. In Washington state, even with plenty of adjustments, polling still shows our opponents just barely edging ahead. Our experience tells us that as gay marriage approaches and becomes a real possibility voters like it less, and we have been on the air in Washington for far less time.

Now, as I said, the past does not dictate the future. Might we imagine that this year, with four contests being held in deep blue states, a president who has come out in support of redefining marriage, and with even more examples of intimidation and harassment of pro-marriage individuals and points of view, that marriage might be even more seriously under-polling this time around than its actual support level?

No one knows for certain. But one thing we do know for certain and one thing that will always be true...

Polls don't win elections. Hard work and people who vote do!

Video: Minnesota for Marriage Releases 3rd VOTE YES TV Ad ("Not Live and Let Live")

Via Minnesota for Marriage (supporting a YES vote on the Minnesota Marriage Protection Amendment):

Today, Minnesota for Marriage released its third TV ad, designed to help Minnesotans understand that when marriage—the building block for all societies and the most child-centered institution we have—is redefined, there are profound consequences to society. The ad highlights real-life stories of individuals, small businesses, religious organizations who  have been impacted by the imposition of same-sex marriage in their states or countries.

Photo: Minnesota for Marriage Billboard Vandalized

Is this what "live and let live" looks like?

Yesterday, a Vote Yes billboard in Minneapolis was vandalized.  The destruction demonstrates the kind of environment Minnesotans can expect if marriage is redefined in Minnesota.

The vandalism came on the heels of a new TV ad by Minnesota for Marriage citing similar examples in six other states that have  legalized same-sex marriage including Washington, D.C., and Canada.  Like the vandalized billboard, the examples show how citizens, like most Minnesotans who believe marriage is the unique union of one man and one woman, are certainly not living in a “live, let live” society.

“This kind of disrespect is a perfect example of what Minnesotans, who simply believe marriage is between one man and one woman, can expect if marriage is redefined,” said John Helmberger, Chairman of Minnesota for Marriage. -- Minnesota For Marraige

Archbishop Cordileone's Statement on Second Federal Court Striking Down DOMA

Catholic Culture World News:

The chairman of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops’ Subcommittee for the Promotion and Defense of Marriage has called a federal court’s decision to strike down the key provision of the Defense of Marriage Act “unjust and a great disappointment.”

“The recognition that marriage is and can only be the union of one man and one woman is grounded in our nature, being clear from the very way our bodies are designed,” said Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone of San Francisco. “This recognition obliges our consciences and laws. It is a matter of basic rights—the right of every child to be welcomed and raised, as far as possible, by his or her mother and father together in a stable home.”

“Marriage is the only institution whereby a man and a woman unite for life and are united to any child born from their union,” he added. “The public good demands that the unique meaning and purpose of marriage be respected in law and society, not rejected as beyond the constitutional pale. Redefining marriage never upholds the equal dignity of individuals because it contradicts basic human rights.”

PPP: Vote NO on Judge Wiggins Ahead 43%-37% in Iowa

Encouraging news from PPP that the effort to unseat another pro-SSM Iowa Supreme Court Justice is going well:

"Iowa's Supreme Court retention election looks like it could be pretty close. Right now 37% of voters say they plan to keep David Wiggins in office, while 43% say they're inclined to remove him. With 20% of voters still undecided it could go either way, but Republicans (65%) are more committed to removing him right now than Democrats (59%) are to keeping him."

Gay Tory MP: No Demand in Gay Community to Redefine Marriage

The UK Christian Institute:

A homosexual Conservative MP says there is “no clamour” for redefining marriage within the homosexual community.

Conor Burns, an MP in the south of England, said he was baffled by the Government’s move to bring in same-sex marriage.

And he also commented that he was unconvinced that churches would be protected under any same-sex marriage legislation.

Speaking to a Northern Irish newspaper, the Ulster-born Conor Burns said: “I marvel at why we’re bringing this forward; there is no clamour for this at all within the gay community.

“I’m very concerned – and I’m going to need some serious convincing about this – that while the Human Rights Act remains in place we cannot give the guarantees that I would want to see that churches would not ultimately be forced under human rights legislation to conduct such ceremonies.

NEW VIDEO: School Counselor Targeted for Supporting Marriage!

Email Header Image

Dear Marriage Supporter,

It was his life work—a vocation he loved. He had 36 years of exemplary service to students at Nokomis High School. He was nominated for Maine Teacher of the Year.

But in 2009 Don Mendell stood up for marriage, appearing in a TV ad urging Maine voters to reject a bill on same-sex marriage.

And within weeks the work he loved had turned into a nightmare. Gay marriage advocates filed formal charges, attempting to strip him of his professional license. Colleagues turned on him. He was denied committee assignments, then shuttled from school to school.

Don sat down with the Marriage ADA video team recently to tell his story.

Click here to watch Don's story.

The treatment Don received after speaking out for marriage is OUTRAGEOUS! Please take a moment right now to watch Don's story of courage and grace under fire...and then forward this to 3 friends who care about marriage and our freedom to speak out for what we believe.

Grisanti Opponent Has Knocked on 7,000 Doors

As Mark Grisanti continues to seek out campaign contributions from gay marriage activists in Manhattan and around the country, his challenger Charles Swanick is quietly knocking on the doors of his constituents and making his case:

Charles M. Swanick has resumed campaigning for the State Senate after losing last month’s Democratic primary for the seat held by Republican Mark J. Grisanti and, for the first time, says he would have opposed legalizing same-sex marriage had he served in Albany for the 2011 vote that approved it.

Despite the Democratic primary loss, Swanick is running as the Conservative Party candidate.

He has won elections during his political career on the Democratic, Republican and minor party lines (Conservative and Independence) in a career that included chairmanship of the Erie County Legislature.

While he acknowledged to The Buffalo News editorial board this week that he faces a “daunting” challenge, he is conducting a walking campaign that has so far taken him to the front doors of about 7,000 homes.

... “I do think the gay community was involved in this as well,” [Swanick] said, adding that Grisanti’s spending $1 million in the primary campaign also entered the picture. Grisanti voted for legalizing same-sex marriage. -- The Buffalo News

"Ahead of Gay Marriage Votes, Advocates [of SSM] Skeptical of Polling"

A good headline from Reuters that reminds us -- polls don't win elections! Hard work and those who vote win elections!

In Maryland, Maine and Washington, voters appear to be warming to the idea of legal marriage of same sex couples, raising the likelihood that come Election Day at least one of those states will join six others that have approved gay marriage.

That is, if the polls are to be believed.

Gay marriage activists suspect voters - especially those who believe marriage should be only between a man and a woman - might be unwilling to voice their true feelings in polls.

They fear there may not be as much support as polls suggest for gay marriage initiatives, particularly since many believe those in the "undecided" column will wind up in the "no" column.

The November 6 election could mark the first time that voters themselves decide same-sex marriage should be legal in their state. While six states, as well as Washington, D.C., now recognize such marriages, the change was made either by state legislatures or the courts. -- Chicago Tribune

PMW: Referendum 74 Proponents Lie to Seniors Saying They will Lose Their Pension Benefits

Preserve Marriage Washington, which is fighting to Reject R-74 (gay marriage):

Preserve Marriage Washington announced today that the campaign is appalled by a campaign advertisement that supporters of Referendum 74 mailed to senior citizens recently. The mailer suggests that if R-74 is rejected “many seniors would lose hard-earned health care, military or pension benefits” or “have to pay higher taxes on their Social Security benefits.” That is not true. See the mailer here.

As clarified in the official explanatory statement in the Secretary of State Voters Guide, if R-74 is rejected there will be no impact on domestic partnerships for seniors, nor will there be any impact on domestic partnerships for same-sex couples. Read the Voters Guide explanatory statement here.

“Domestic partnerships for seniors and for same-sex couples will remain exactly the same as they are now. Seniors and same-sex couples will continue to be able to have domestic partnerships, and the benefits that come along with them,” said Joseph Backholm, chairman of Preserve Marriage Washington.

UK: Gay Couple Win B&B Case Against Christian Owners

PinkNews:

A gay couple who were turned away from a B&B have won their court case.

Michael Black, 64, and John Morgan, 59, were prevented from sharing a room together at the Swiss Bed and Breakfast in Cookham, Berkshire.

They began legal proceedings against the owners, Susanne and Mike Wilkinson in January 2011.

... The couple called the police over her refusal and were told they could make a civil claim against the Wilkinsons.

The Press Association reported on Thursday, the couple from Brampton near Huntingdon, were awarded £1,800 each at Reading County Court for “injury to feelings”.

... The judge accepted that Mrs Wilkinson was genuine about her Christian beliefs and had also stopped unmarried heterosexual couples from sharing a double bed.

... The Equality Act makes it illegal to refuse people goods and services on the grounds of sexual orientation.

Romney Spokeswoman Confirms Governor's Support For Federal Marriage Amendment

Liberal groups are trying to make a big deal about this but we are happy to see Governor Romney's campaign stand by his promise to support a federal marriage amendment:

A top Romney adviser disavowed remarks and a position reported this past week that appeared to be a reversal of the campaign's support of the Federal Marriage Amendment, which would bar states from allowing same-sex couples to marry.

Although campaign officials did not respond to inquiries prior to publication, Bay Buchanan issued a clarification to BuzzFeed this afternoon following initial publication of this story, writing, "Governor Romney supports a federal marriage amendment to the Constitution that defines marriage as an institution between a man and a woman. Governor Romney also believes, consistent with the 10th Amendment, that it should be left to states to decide whether to grant same-sex couples certain benefits, such as hospital visitation rights and the ability to adopt children. I referred to the Tenth Amendment only when speaking about these kinds of benefits – not marriage." -- Buzz Feed

Minnesota University Professor Thanks Catholic Archbishop for "Defending Society's Cornerstone"

Stephen J. Heaney is an associate professor of philosophy at the University of St. Thomas, and while he does not speak for it, he is happy to share his personal views as a Catholic and as a resident of Minnesota:

Thanks, Archbishop!

John Nienstedt, who leads the Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis, has been subjected to much disrespectful criticism -- from members of his flock, and even from a Lutheran bishop -- regarding his lead role supporting the marriage amendment. He stands accused of forcing his religion on everyone, and of forcing the consciences of his fellow Catholics. Though not unexpected, the charges are unfair.

What is the dispute about? One side holds that marriage is a vow of a man and a woman before the community to engage in a project that is greater than the couple, and that the community should hold them to it. This has been the universal view of marriage since time immemorial. The other side thinks that marriage (or civil union) is an expression of the desires of two people (their gender doesn't matter), and that the community must support them whatever they choose -- to have sex (and perhaps children) within marriage or not. To accept one definition, one must reject the other.

Due to the encroachments of the revisionist view of marriage into law, typically by judicial fiat, the institution is in some danger. Thus, those who wish to protect that time-honored institution seek to define it in the state Constitution.

This essentially is their argument. There is only one reason the community is interested in the friendships and sexual arrangements of human beings: When a man and a woman are united sexually, the natural (and frequent) result is children. Children on the whole do best, by any measure, when they are united with their biological parents, who are themselves united before the community to each other. If sex did not lead to children, no one would ever have thought up the institution of marriage. It would be a strange, intrusive insinuation of the community into the lives of its citizens. On the other hand, this union of man and woman, and the resulting children, are the cornerstone of every society that has ever existed. -- StarTribune

"Children Crave and Long for the Presence of Both a Mother and a Father"

Rev. Paul Erickson writes to the editor of the Pioneer Press that, when it comes to raising kids, "stability is not enough":

"...Stable relationships are, of course, vitally important for the well-being of children and the good of society, but simple stability is not enough. Equally important is the loving presence of both mom and dad, even as it must be acknowledged, with great pain, that in certain circumstances such an ideal is impossible. But tragic exceptions should not provoke us to ignore the basic fact that children crave and long for the presence of both a mother and a father. The marriage amendment implicitly acknowledges this fact, a claim of reason and common sense."

Heritage's Ed Meese: A Summer of Liberal Intolerance

Former Attorney General Edwin Meese of the Heritage Foundation ties events surrounding Chick-fil-A, the Regnerus study and the FRC shooting together and describes it as a "summer of liberal intolerance":

"As summer faded to fall, a Chicago alderman’s fury toward Chick-fil-A finally seemed to be cooling. But fall is fickle in the windy city, and Proco Joe Moreno once again is threatening to stall the chicken chain from opening in his ward.Moreno, Mayor Rahm (“Chicago Values”) Emanuel and other big-city officials piled on Chick-fil-A after Dan Cathy, the company’s president and COO, publicly supported the biblical definition of marriage. As they were soon reminded, though, for a public official to deny a business license because of the businessman’s marriage views would amount to unlawful discrimination against his viewpoints.

Sadly, controversies such as the one that Moreno’s overblown comments helped create grow more frequent, and Chick-fil-A is only the most visible target. Advocates for “tolerance” increasingly push traditional ideas on marriage, family, life and faith out of public life.

In June, sociologist Mark Regnerus at the University of Texas-Austin, became the target of a blogosphere blaze of character assassination.

... Groups across the political spectrum condemned the [FRC shooting]. Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank suggested more, though. He argued that the leftist Southern Poverty Law Center, among others, had been “reckless” in labeling the conservative council a “hate group”—and so implying the research and education organization is outside the pale of legitimate debate.

This summer, long lines of Chick-fil-A patrons similarly rebuked the intolerance of Chicago’s Moreno and Emanuel. The freedom to uphold “Chick-fil-A values” continues to draw wide support. The City of Broad Shoulders – indeed, every town in America – ought to have room for those values. They represent the very principles on which this nation was built. Surely even those who don’t celebrate them can tolerate them. --- LifeSiteNews