The Minnesota StarTribune has a lengthy profile of the Catholic Archbishop of St. Paul/Minneapolis and his good faith efforts to help pass the Marriage Protection Amendment:
"...Working aggressively behind the scenes, the 65-year-old [Archbishop John] Nienstedt has emerged as a key financial and political force for passage of the marriage amendment, which will be on the Nov. 6 ballot and is the most contentious issue in the state this election season.He has committed more than $650,000 in church money, stitched together a coalition of leaders from other faiths and exerted all his power within the church to press Minnesota's million-plus Catholics to back him.
"We wouldn't have gotten very far without him," said Frank Schubert, campaign manager for Minnesota for Marriage, the lead group pushing the amendment. "What the archbishop is doing in Minnesota is what the pope asked him to do. It's hard to overstate his importance."
On the question of Catholics who claim you can ignore the Church's teaching on marriage, here's what Abp. Nienstedt had to say:
"...When asked whether a loyal Catholic could vote against the amendment, Nienstedt said: "It would be difficult to comprehend how a person could not believe that marriage is anything but a union between one man and one woman. On this point, Catholic teaching is clear."
A survey of Tory constituency chairman has found the majority believe the UK Prime Minister David Cameron should abandon gay marriage.
It found 71% should drop the law, while nearly half say local parties have lost members as a result of the plans.
Only 3% say they have gained membership since the Conservative and Liberal Democrat coalition government announced the law, which is planned to take effect by 2015.
Anti-gay campaigners from the Coalition for Marriage conducted the poll, and it found over seven in 10 grassroots members believed gay marriage had damaged the Prime Minister’s standing in the party.
Colin Hart, campaign director of the campaign group, said: ‘What this latest poll reflects is the growing unease amongst grassroot Conservatives about the way the PM is trying to force through this policy without any electoral mandate and without any acknowledgment of the profound consequences this chance will have.’
He added: ‘If the PM continues to press ahead with this deeply unpopular, radical and profoundly undemocratic proposal, then he can expect to pay the price for this at the ballot box.’
A religious leader from Canada visited the Twin Cities Monday to speak out against gay marriage.
The Archbishop of Ottawa spoke at the University of St. Thomas, where the Minnesota Catholic Conference is underway.
Archbishop Terrance Prendergast says he’s here because of Minnesota’s upcoming vote on a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, and he’s encouraging citizens to vote yes in November.
Canada’s parliament legalized same sex marriage several years ago. Prendergast says since then, the people of Canada’s religious freedoms have been under attack.
Prendergast was among several guests from Canada who talked about what they say are consequences of legalizing gay marriage.
The archbishop says businesses have been fined for turning away same sex couples. He claims Catholic schools that are publicly funded have no choice but to allow students to be a part of gay and lesbian clubs, even though it’s something they don’t believe in.
He points out voters in Canada didn’t get a choice, but voters in Minnesota do.
School children as young as 12 who disagree with same-sex marriage have been branded as “Nazis” and “bigots”, a senior Roman Catholic official has said.
John Deighan said there is an increasing level of ill will against “very young people” because of their views about such issues.
Speaking in Brussels earlier this week Mr Deighan warned: “People are increasingly being subjected to manipulation by what I would call the equality lobby.”
His comments came at a meeting in the European Parliament which considered how churchgoers are treated in Europe.
Mr Deighan, the Roman Catholic Church’s parliamentary officer in Scotland, warned: “There is a level of hostility which is building up even against very young people.
“I know, for example, of children in Scotland, including my own 12–year–old child, who have been branded as ‘Nazis’ and ‘bigots’ because they have dared to disagree with the idea of same–sex marriage.”
Iowa Supreme Court Justice David Wiggins isn't well known outside the legal community of his state, and even inside that group, isn't particularly popular.
But the question of whether he should keep his job has become one of the most fiercely contested judicial issues on the Nov. 6 ballot because of what he symbolizes in the debate over gay marriage and the role of courts.
Three years ago, Wiggins and his six colleagues ruled that the state's law banning gay marriage was unconstitutional, which made Iowa the third state to recognize same-sex unions and the first outside the coasts. The decision triggered a furor among conservatives, who mounted an aggressive campaign a year later to defeat three of the justices whose terms came up for ballot review.
Now, the future of Wiggins, whose term comes up this year, is sparking an even bigger battle as liberal groups and lawyers shocked by the outcome in 2010 fight back on his behalf.
... The opposing sides have launched "Vote Yes" and "No Wiggins" campaigns and are spending heavily to get their messages out. The National Organization for Marriage provided $100,000 for an anti-Wiggins television ad this week and conservative stars Rick Santorum and Bobby Jindal led a cross-state bus tour denouncing Wiggins as a liberal judicial activist.
Video has surfaced of Washington State Governor Christine Gregoire at a pro-Referendum 74 concert and fundraiser revealing that President Obama whispered to her back in February -- at least six weeks before his public coming out for gay marriage in May -- that he was "proud" of her signing a bill to redefine marriage, that "history will be on our side" and that "we will ensure equality in the United States."
At the same time and for weeks leading up to his public comments the president's administration continued to claim that his position on marriage had not changed.
I wonder what other politicians bent on redefining marriage have had secret support from the President.
I haven't seen other news outlets talking about this but hopefully this will generate some conversation:
Update -- Katrina Trinko of National Review blogs about this video admission here.
Update 2 -- Chris Geidner at BuzzFeed writes about this revelation as well.
Matt Birk, Center for the Baltimore Ravens speaks out in support of marriage. Birk, Catholic and a married father of six has long been a supporter of marriage as a union between one man and one woman.
"...Senator Alesi, after seeing the polls and the writing on the wall, decided not to pursue re-election and dropped out of the Senate race. The reason is because of his vote in favor of gay marriage. He knew he’d get beaten up.
Senator Roy McDonald lost his primary because of his vote for gay marriage.
Senator Saland won the Republican Primary but suffered badly – an embarrassment for sure. He almost lost the Republican Primary because of his vote for gay marriage. Yes, he was defeated at the Conservative Primary.
Senator Grisanti won his Primary race, not by much, but he's still not out of the woods. He has to face a Conservative Party Candidate and a Democratic Party Candidate in the General Election and he may lose ... all because of his vote for gay marriage.
So no matter how you spin it, the facts are the facts: two out of four Senators who voted for gay marriage are out of commission."
As pro-marriage voters prepare to participate in the presidential election, the Baptist Press has done an invaluable service by charting out the concrete actions Barack Obama and Mitt Romney have taken as well as what they have said about marriage.
Here, for instance, is what they found Mitt Romney's actions on marriage to be while Governor of Massachusetts:
-- November 2003: The same day that Massachusetts' highest court issued its first-in-the-nation decision that would legalize gay marriage, Romney endorses a proposed state constitutional amendment defining marriage as between one man, one woman.
-- March 2004: Announces his desire to ask the court to prevent its ruling from going into effect until after citizens can vote on a state constitutional marriage amendment. Massachusetts Attorney General Thomas F. Reilly, though, declines to make such a request to the court. (The court had "stayed" its ruling for 180 days, meaning it did not take effect until May 2004.)
-- April 2004: Files an emergency bill with the state legislature that would give him the power to ask the state's high court to delay its ruling until after citizens can vote on a constitutional marriage amendment. (The bill fails.)
-- April 2004: Announces that because of an obscure 1913 law, out-of-state gay couples won't be able to marry when the court's ruling takes effect in May 2004. Romney's interpretation goes further than the interpretation of the attorney general, who had limited the application of the law to only the 38 states that had explicitly defined marriage in the traditional sense. Romney said couples from any state that doesn't recognize gay marriage are ineligible.
-- May 2004: Announces he will veto any bill that allows out-of-state couples to marry in Massachusetts.
-- June 2004: Appears before a U.S. Senate committee, urging passage of a federal constitutional marriage amendment defining marriage as between one man, one woman. Such an amendment would overturn the gay marriage ruling in his state.
-- November 2006: Speaks before 7,000 people at a rally in Boston supporting a state constitutional marriage amendment.
-- November 2006: Sues state legislators to try and force them to vote on a state marriage amendment. Citizens had gathered 170,000 signatures to place the amendment before the body, and the constitution requires a vote. (The court sided with Romney. The legislature subsequently passed the amendment in January 2007, although it failed to pass it again during the next session, as required. The state constitution requires the amendment to pass twice before being placed on the ballot.)
-- December 2006: Threatens to withhold a pay raise from state legislators if they fail to vote on a marriage amendment.
John Witte Jr., director of the Center for the Study of Law and Religion at Emory University, and author of a forthcoming title, “Why Two in One Flesh: The Western Case for Monogamy over Polygamy" writes in the Washington Post:
"Creationists and evolutionists don’t agree on much, but they both believe that monogamy is the most “natural” form of reproduction for the human species. This seems counterintuitive. Yes, the Bible recounts the story of creation, but it also describes the rampant polygamy of Abraham, Jacob, David, and Solomon and other titans of the faith. Yes, nesting birds, voles, and a few other animals are monogamous, but most mammals reproduce with one dominant male controlling a large harem of females. Polygamy seems “natural,” monogamy “supernatural.”
Yet, for the past millennium, Christians and post-Christian liberals alike – Aquinas, Calvin, Locke, Hume, and Jefferson -- all agreed that God created humans to reproduce by becoming “two in one flesh,” not three or four. And modern evolutionary scientists, from Claude Lèvi-Straussto Bernard Chapais, have concluded the same: that pair-bonding is part of the “deep structure” of human reproduction that humans have evolved as their best strategy for survival and success...."
Attempts by the Scottish Government to protect people who object to same-sex marriage are “unconvincing,” the Free Church of Scotland has said.
The Free Church also said the terms ‘husband’ and ‘wife’ could vanish from official paperwork.
This comes after representatives from the Free Church met with a Government official to discuss the planned legalisation of gay marriage.
... The Free Church of Scotland claims the Government disregarded its own consultation results which showed most Scottish respondents were against legalising same-sex marriage.
The first presidential debate is over, but the contest continues.
President Obama has openly embraced gay marriage—and it affects your state.
That's because (as the LGBT media outlet Keen News Service reports), there are headed to the Supreme Court "a record eight gay-related cases seeking review, all involving same-sex marriage."
We don't know yet whether the Supreme Court will take these cases, but we do know this: if this president gets a second term, the Supreme Court will be re-made in a way that will virtually ensure that gay marriage will be inserted into our beloved Constitution!
We also know that these cases headed for the Supreme Court would be without a defender in the Department of Justice in Obama's second term (as in his first).
So, we ultimately know that your vote matters more than it ever has.
We are restricted by complicated state laws from reporting to you on all the states that have gay marriage battles, but I am happy at least to share with you this exciting news out of Minnesota.
In Minnesota, marriage amendment supporters released their first two television ads, telling voters that a "yes" vote means the future of marriage is, and should remain, in their hands.
Here's some video on the ads from the local news:
Please take a moment to view the ads themselves, too:
Watch these ads. Listen to the message. And then, if you choose, you can help get the message out by donating to Stand for Marriage America.
Which brings me to the best news I have to tell you this week:
If you donate right now, every contribution you give to NOM will be tripled—that's right, NOM will receive two additional dollars (through a generous matching grant) for every $1 you give today!
This match goes for every donation between now and the November election—up to one million dollars—which means, with your help, we have the chance to raise THREE MILLION DOLLARS to protect marriage before the election!
Marriage can win across the board if we take advantage of this game-changing opportunity—we just need ordinary, faith-filled Americans like you to stand up right now and provide the funds we need to get our message out.
The ads above get the truth about marriage out: Marriage was not made by government, but by God, for the creation and care of the next generation.
But our opponents plan to use government to remake society and impose their own values on the next generation.
So when a new study demonstrates that stable gay couples are very rare, HRC responds by claiming that reporting the truth is the equivalent of insulting gay people.
You probably won't read about this new study by Charles Lau in your local newspaper—it was published in the October issue of the venerable Journal of Marriage and Family. Looking at nationally representative data in Great Britain, Lau's study finds that married unions of husband and wife are five to seven times more stable than same-sex couples' unions. Even merely cohabitating opposite-sex couples are twice as likely to stay together as same-sex couples.
But what was HRC's response? It's "an insult" to speak the truth.
Nevertheless, more and more Americans are recognizing that NOW is the time to speak the truth—or instead be forced forever to hold our peace.
I want to personally thank NFL great Matt Birk for speaking up on behalf of marriage.
Matt is a six-time Pro-Bowl Center from Minnesota, who plays now for the Baltimore Ravens (how great is God to call out a hero for two states voting on gay marriage this November?!).
Matt is a gracious man, married father of six, who grew up in St. Paul, and he wants everyone to know that he respects people who hold different views—but also that he's called to give his own views, especially after a teammate came out for gay marriage:
I took a stance like other guys have done before me. [...] In doing so, it's really not my aim not my goal to engage in any debates with any one person or persons. Obviously, we all have opinions. They have their opinions. It just so happens that we disagree on what marriage is in the public forum. It's certainly a very inflammatory, very hot topic, because it's important. I understand that. Out of respect to my teammates and my team and the organization, this isn't going to turn into a circus. It probably won't be the last time that I publicly take a stance on it. I'm just asking you guys out of respect for everybody that my focus and our focus here is on football and on winning football games.
I let Brendon know that I respect him because I've known Brendon for a while and I played with his brother [Obafemi Ayanbadejo]. And I like Brendon and I respect him a lot. I told him on Friday that I was going to have a piece coming out. I wanted to let him know so he wouldn't be blindsided by it. I haven't had a chance to talk to him today.
You can see Matt speaking here:
Let me close today with the voices of ordinary Americans who, like Matt, have been called to speak up in this debate.
Connie Rossini of New Ulm, MN writes to the editor of the New Ulm Journal:
The proponents of same-sex "marriage" would have us believe that marriage is all about how two adults feel for each other. It's not. It's about the well-being of children. Throughout history, there have been many types of relationships—sexual or notmdash;among adults, but few have been called marriage. Marriage has always had an exclusive role in society. It ties mothers and fathers to their biological children and gives the children their best chance to thrive.
In Maryland, schoolteacher Eric Lee writes to the Baltimore Sun with a unique analogy, pointing to why it is wrong, plain and simple, to redefine marriage:
Now, imagine if I went into my favorite vegetarian restaurant tomorrow and found out that there was a movement under way to start selling hamburgers there, while still calling the restaurant vegetarian. I go up to the manager and protest: "Hamburgers are not a vegetarian food — they're meat! How can you serve this in a vegetarian restaurant?" He replies: "I am redefining what it means to be a vegetarian." To which I would respond, emphatically: "But being a vegetarian is something special, something different from being someone who eats meat. It's been this way ever since the term vegetarian was invented! If you want to serve hamburgers, then you can do it, but you're not a vegetarian restaurant anymore."
Lee goes on to say, "What I and other traditional marriage supporters are standing for is the uniqueness and goodness that by nature manifest themselves only in a marriage between a man and a woman."
And finally, in Maryland, the Gazettereports on a new group of African Americans who have founded a group dedicated to explaining why marriage—not gay marriage—is the first "civil right":
"God's word states that marriage is between one man and one woman," said Alethia Williams, [Jump the Broom for Marriage's] campaign manager. "That's what our organization is about."
Jump the Broom for Marriage takes its name from a traditional African-American wedding ritual that dates back to slavery, and its website defines the act as "the first civil right." In the upcoming vote on the law, the black vote will make the difference, Williams said.
Standing for marriage requires courage, no doubt; but the gifts that come from standing for marriage are extraordinary.
People of every race, creed, and color coming out in solidarity to speak truth to power. That's the marriage movement you've helped create in supporting NOM!
I'm profoundly grateful to you, and to God!
One of the great voices for marriage has been Bishop Salvatore Cordileone. I met him in 2007, when Prop 8 was just a gleam in a group of San Diego citizens' eyes. It was one of the great honors of my life to get to know him, and to help him defend marriage.
Yesterday, he was installed as the Archbishop of San Francisco. He will find many admirers, but still no doubt face a hostile local government with an uncertain commitment (at best) to freedom of speech or the free expression of religion.
Pray for the new Archbishop. Pray for everyone on the front lines of the marriage debate.
And, if you can spare some of your treasure, please support us today, as we have just a month to get our message out.
We've proved again and again that when Americans hear the truth, they respond and stand for marriage. And, with your help, we'll prove it again in unprecedented ways this November!
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: October 5, 2012
Contact: Elizabeth Ray or Jen Campbell (703-683-5004)
Washington, DC—The following statement can be attributed to John Eastman, Director of the Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, former Dean (and current professor) of Chapman University School of Law, and current Chairman of the National Organization for Marriage (NOM):
"The same-sex marriage group Mainers United is falsely implying that NOM has a legal obligation to disclose its full list of donors. This is false. The US Supreme Court denied review of NOM's case, leaving in place a First Circuit Court of Appeals decision and not addressing the merits of NOM's significant constitutional challenges one way or the other. Even the First Circuit, whose ruling was left in place, has not required that NOM disclose donors to its general treasury, any more than the Supreme Court and other courts have required disclosure of donors to the ACLU or Human Rights Campaign which are supporting Question 1. It is irresponsible for Mainers United to misrepresent a decision of the US Supreme Court. The same rules that apply to the ACLU and the HRC also apply to NOM. What Mainers United wants is for NOM to have to play by a separate set of rules that are not applicable to allies of Mainers United.
"The issue addressed by the recent court decision has nothing to do with the current campaign. NOM has not solicited donations in order to contribute to the Protect Marriage Maine campaign. Instead, we have asked our supporters to contribute directly, and have provided web links for them to do so. Additionally, NOM has made organizational contributions to the effort from our general treasury, and all those contributions have been fully disclosed by both NOM and Protect Marriage Maine.
"NOM has always been willing to fully disclose any donations it receives that are earmarked for a particular campaign. The issue in the 2009 case concerns how the state characterizes donations in this regard. We will be working with the state to discuss any remaining issues."
###
To schedule an interview with Dean John Eastman, Chairman of the National Organization for Marriage, please contact Elizabeth Ray, [email protected], (x130) or Jen Campbell, [email protected] (x145) at 703-683-5004.
Paid for by The National Organization for Marriage, Brian Brown, president. 2029 K Street NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20006, not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee. New § 68A.405(1)(f) & (h).
"...Working aggressively behind the scenes, the 65-year-old [Archbishop John] Nienstedt has emerged as a key financial and political force for passage of the marriage amendment, which will be on the Nov. 6 ballot and is the most contentious issue in the state this election season.He has committed more than $650,000 in church money, stitched together a coalition of leaders from other faiths and exerted all his power within the church to press Minnesota's million-plus Catholics to back him.
Speaking in Brussels earlier this week Mr Deighan warned: “People are increasingly being subjected to manipulation by what I would call the equality lobby.”
But the question of whether he should keep his job has become one of the most fiercely contested judicial issues on the Nov. 6 ballot because of what he symbolizes in the debate over gay marriage and the role of courts.
-- November 2003: The same day that Massachusetts' highest court issued its first-in-the-nation decision that would legalize gay marriage, Romney 
