Katherine Kersten responds to a common argument used by our opponents against protecting marriage -- that doing so "limits the freedom to marry":
On Nov. 6, Minnesota voters will decide whether marriage will be protected in our state Constitution as the union of one man and one woman. Opponents' reason for fundamentally redefining our bedrock social institution appears on yard signs that dot the metro area: "Don't limit the freedom to marry."
Now, Minnesotans are nice folks, and we don't like to think of ourselves as needlessly limiting another's freedom. The truth is, however, we "limit" marriage in a variety of ways. You can't marry your sister or your father. You can't marry a 12-year-old, or two people, or someone who's already married to someone else.
Why do we "limit" the freedom to marry this way? Is it because we harbor a dislike for sisters or 12-year-olds, or for folks who wish to express their love and commitment in groups of three?
Of course not. All social institutions have boundaries, or defining characteristics, that are integrally related to the function they perform. The vital role of marriage -- in all times and places--has been to link men to women and the children produced by their sexual union, in order to create the optimal environment for rearing the next generation.
It's misleading, then, to frame the debate over one-man/one-woman marriage in terms of "limiting" the "freedom" to marry of people in configurations that aren't consistent with the institution's mission. It's like claiming that the color blue is somehow "limited" because it's not the color purple. -- StarTribune
At First Things, Greg Forster responds to another blogger’s view that there is no point in defending against gay marriage because marriage is already dead.
My take: If marriage really were dead, people would not respond so powerfully to the idea that marriage matters because children need their mom and dad.
If you despair, I respect that, but why try to get others who have hope to despair? Do the things for which you have hope. But you may be wrong about the future. Do not discourage others who have hope from acting on it.
My other reaction: Our “traditional” view of marriage was won by the Church over several hundred years of argument with pagan philosophers. What we did once, we can do again.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: October 1, 2012
Contact: Elizabeth Ray or Jen Campbell (703-683-5004)
"While we are disappointed that the US Supreme Court did not grant review in our challenge to Maine's application of campaign finance law in 2009, we will be reviewing the state's requests in light of the ruling." —John Eastman, NOM chairman—
Washington, D.C.—The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) today said that in light of a decision today by the US Supreme Court, they will review requests from the state of Maine to disclose certain donors to the organization in 2009. The Supreme Court declined to grant review of lower court rulings in the case of NOM v. McKee.
"While we are disappointed that the US Supreme Court did not grant review in our challenge to Maine's application of campaign finance law in 2009, we will be reviewing the state's requests in light of the ruling," said John Eastman, NOM's Chairman and one of the nation's leading constitutional law experts. Eastman, the founder of the Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, has represented clients in more than 70 matters before the US Supreme Court. He continued, "In their briefs before the US Supreme Court, the state appeared to have substantially narrowed the type of information they were requesting from NOM. Had the state taken the position they took recently back in 2009, this litigation might well have been avoided. We will be reviewing the requests for information that the state has made in light if the narrow interpretation the State has now provided to its own statute."
The Court's ruling has no bearing on NOM's participation in the 2012 campaign to defeat Question 1 since it relates to rulings from 2009.
###
To schedule an interview with John Eastman, Chairman of the National Organization for Marriage, please contact Elizabeth Ray (x130), [email protected], or Jen Campbell (x145), [email protected], 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).
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: October 1, 2012
Contact: Elizabeth Ray or Jen Campbell (703-683-5004)
"These key donors were inspired by the courage of Dan Cathy, CEO of Chick Fil A, who resolutely told Americans that he unabashedly believed in God's design for marriage as the union of one man and one woman."—Brian Brown, NOM president—
Washington, D.C.—Financial supporters of the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) today launched a new website to trumpet their public support for NOM's work in defense of traditional marriage, and called on Americans to join with them to publicly lend their name in support of the cause. The group launched the site www.KeeptheRepublicandMarriage.com.
"Even though donors to NOM are not subject to public disclosure, a number of our donors wanted to show that they would not be bullied and were not afraid to publicly proclaim their support for NOM as a way of encouraging others to publicly stand up to support marriage," said Brian Brown, NOM's president. "These key donors were inspired by the courage of Dan Cathy, CEO of Chick-Fil-A, who resolutely told Americans that he unabashedly believed in God's design for marriage as the union of one man and one woman."
One of the lead donors who helped draft the statement was New York City investor and philanthropist Sean Fieler. "Gay marriage activists are successfully using fear and intimidation to silence the majority of Americans who want to preserve marriage as God created it, the union of one man and one woman," said Fieler. "To stop this cycle fear and intimidation, we need courageous Americans to step forward and make public their support public."
The website www.KeeptheRepublicandMarriage.com is a place for Americans to lend their name in support of marriage and in opposition to fear and intimidation as political weapons to be deployed against people of faith. The site notes that Dan Cathy was attacked simply for articulating a personal view that marriage is ordained by God as the union of a man and a woman. The site also reviews unrelenting harassment against Professor Mark Regnerus of the University of Texas after he published a scientific paper calling into question the legitimacy of the oft-quoted position that there is "no difference" between children raised by same-sex parents and those raised by married parents in an intact family. Regnerus' study found that on two-thirds of outcomes measured, young adults raised by a parent who had engaged in a same-sex relationship fared worse than those who had been raised by married parents in an intact, traditional family.
"Gay marriage bullies have held sway for too long and it's time for faithful Americans to put their name on the line to publicly support traditional marriage," Brown said. "While NOM will never disclose the names of any donors against their wishes, this is a great opportunity for people who wish to be recognized publicly as supporting our work to defend that which is incredibly good and so much in the public interest—marriage as the union of one man and one woman."
###
To schedule an interview with Brian Brown, President of the National Organization for Marriage, or Sean Fieler, National Organization for Marriage donor, please contact Elizabeth Ray (x130), [email protected], or Jen Campbell (x145), [email protected], 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).
A poll of MPs shows that most voters who write to them about the plans to redefine marriage are opposed to the measure.
The poll also shows that eight out of ten MPs want the freedom to vote according to their conscience.
And only one in four MPs think the Government should redefine marriage “irrespective” of the public opposition in the official consultation on the issue.
... Colin Hart of the Coalition for Marriage said: “This poll will make uncomfortable reading for David Cameron and Nick Clegg, who continue to want to force through these undemocratic proposals regardless of what those who elected them say.
“It shows a growing sense of unease at the way redefining marriage is being handled, not least how the concerns of ordinary people have been ignored.”
Matt Birk, Minnesota native, former center for the Minnesota Vikings and current center for the Baltimore Ravens, boldly speaks out for marriage and for free speech:
"...I think it is important to set the record straight about what the marriage debate is and is not about, and to clarify that not all NFL players think redefining marriage is a good thing.
The union of a man and a woman is privileged and recognized by society as "marriage" for a reason, and it's not because the government has a vested interest in celebrating the love between two people. With good reason, government recognizes marriages and gives them certain legal benefits so they can provide a stable, nurturing environment for the next generation of citizens: our kids.
Children have a right to a mom and a dad, and I realize that this doesn't always happen. Through the work my wife and I do at pregnancy resource centers and underprivileged schools, we have witnessed firsthand the many heroic efforts of single mothers and fathers -- many of whom work very hard to provide what's best for their kids.
... Same-sex unions may not affect my marriage specifically, but it will affect my children -- the next generation. Ideas have consequences, and laws shape culture. Marriage redefinition will affect the broader well-being of children and the welfare of society. As a Christian and a citizen, I am compelled to care about both.
I am speaking out on this issue because it is far too important to remain silent. People who are simply acknowledging the basic reality of marriage between one man and one woman are being labeled as "bigots" and "homophobic." Aren't we past that as a society? -- Star Tribune
Matt also appears in this video explaining his personal views on marriage, and the importance of moms and dads:
A veteran and supporter of the Minnesota Marriage Protection Amendment comments to the press about having his free speech rights censored by thieves who stole his lawn sign. We've seen this happen in every state that has asked its voters to vote on marriage and exercise their freedom to speak and organize on marriage:
Supporters are helping to spread the 'Vote Yes' message, but it's been irritating for some.
Neighbors woke up Thursday morning to find that something went missing along Lakewood Road, their first amendment rights.
"My neighbor and I, we came out to the drive way and all of sudden we seen our 'yes vote' signs gone," said Jeff Hellesvig.
According to Minnesota for Marriage it's a state wide trend that also includes vandalism.
"I think it just demonstrates that that type of behavior s hows that two competing definitions of marriage doesn't really coexist peacefully," said Leva.
The neighbors say the signs represent their freedom of speech.
"That's one reason why I'm a veteran and I served this country so that we are able to do this," said Hellesvig.
Their replacements are already up.
"That is one of our replacement "Yes Vote" signs in which my neighbor, he just figured that what he would do is put it up on the tree and let them if they can jump up to get that one." -- Northland's News Center
John McAllister also comments in the Duluth News Tribune on the rash of sign stealing and vandalism:
"...It is an organized and well-orchestrated campaign to remove from some citizens a basic right: the right to an expression of free speech. Although one may argue that freedom of marriage is significant, that freedom is not in our Constitution and does not reach the magnitude of freedom of speech.
Since the theft of lawn signs does constitute a property crime, the police department should be involved in apprehending these culprits. We don’t know for certain the guilty party’s identity, but it must be someone who does not want a “yes” on the marriage amendment."
Minnesota for Marriage, meanwhile, has been posting pictures of vandalized Yes signs for some time, for instance here and here.
Government has a responsibility to recognize and protect institutions which it does not create, George Weigel argues, otherwise it oversteps its bounds and acts in a totalitarian manner:
"...a state that asserts the authority to redefine marriage has stepped beyond the boundaries of its competence. And if that boundary-crossing is set in constitutional or legal concrete, it opens up a Pandora’s box of undesirable results. For if the state can decree that two men or two women can make a marriage, why not one man and two women? Two women and two men? These are not paranoid fantasies; the case for polyandry and polygamy is now being mounted in prestigious law journals.
And if the state can define marriage by diktat, why not other basic human relationships, like the parent-child relationship, the doctor-patient relationship, the lawyer-client relationship, or the priest-penitent relationship? There is no principled reason why not. Thus gay marriage is another expression of that soft totalitarianism that Benedict XVI aptly calls the “dictatorship of relativism.”
Conscientious voters will keep this—and the Democratic Party platform’s endorsement of gay marriage—in mind on Nov. 6." -- First Things
Riley Balling, a Minnesota attorney, writes in the Star Tribune:
"In the marriage debate, people frequently argue that how one chooses to define marriage doesn't affect other people's definitions of marriage, and because my definition is as good as yours, it should also be promoted by society.
Many times it is stated: "What I choose to do in my marriage doesn't affect your marriage." However, same-sex marriage affects all of our marriages.
...For many of us who favor traditional marriage, marriage is about raising children in a healthy environment. Thus, any change to the definition of marriage affects our marriage. Our "traditional" marriages and the children they produce are our greatest source of happiness, and we desire that our children will live in a world that will promote their ability to make the same choices that brought us happiness.
There are many who tout the modern definition, and we are susceptible to these influences. As we listen to these influences, we change our view of marriage and our marital relationship accordingly. Same-sex marriage will only increase these influences and make it harder to promote traditional marriage.
Although not all are able to participate in a traditional marriage that yields children, we all benefit by its establishment in creating strong homes for the next generation with strong direction from self-sacrificing parents. The disestablishment of this ideal affects us all."
We as a people will elect a president of the United States: Either a man who will appoint judges that impose gay marriage on all 50 states...
...Or a man willing to fight for the values and views that you and I hold dear.
More importantly: a man willing to stand up for God's view of marriage as the union of husband and wife—and who will give us a fighting chance at the Supreme Court.
In November, the people of several deep blue states will have a chance—thanks to you!—to vote to protect marriage as the union of husband and wife.
And in Iowa, the people will have a chance once again to express their disapproval of the activist judges who imposed gay marriage on that state against its citizens will!
Here's a snapshot of me with Gov. Bobby Jindal on the "No Wiggins" bus.
Iowa is accustomed to being a central battleground in politics, being first among the nation's caucuses; but now Iowans have a chance not only to help elect a new president, but to un-elect an activist judge!
Here's Bobby Jindal, telling the people of Iowa about this great opportunity:
I am continually amazed by the resiliency of the American people in standing for marriage.
Gay marriage proponents have the mainstream media. They have more money than we do—sometimes what feels like overwhelmingly more money—and yet, we have a fighting chance, because we stand for truth, for love, and for God's own vision of marriage!
In one of the states where marriage is on the ballot this fall, our opponents have been on the air for three weeks with the best ads money can buy—but the polls are showing that the more ads they air, the less people like gay marriage.
In Minnesota, the people's continued success in fighting for marriage is provoking some among the opposition to vandalize churches. Yes, sad—but true, as the media reports: "Police are searching for the person responsible for vandalizing multiple churches in Buffalo, Minn., over the weekend."
The Buffalo Police Department responded to incidents at several local churches between Saturday and Monday, with four of those incidents involving placement of handwritten posters containing inflammatory messages.
Police found damage to church buildings at five locations. Police say nothing in the posters left behind referenced the upcoming marriage amendment vote, but most of the churches targeted define marriage as between a man and a woman.
... Rob Jarvis, pastor of Hosanna Lutheran, said he found a poster depicting Jesus as being gay.
"It was (the suspect's) idea of Jesus and then describing homosexual acts, and things like that," Jarvis said, as his church's doors were busted out 24 hours later.
The importance of battles like this is why NOM was founded. Thank you for making the fight for God's truth about marriage possible. We are committed to being your voice for timeless values everywhere across this great land.
In the state of New York, we have a great victory to report:
Kathy Marchione has defeated incumbent Sen. Roy McDonald in the GOP primary for the New York State Senate!
That's incredible. Republican incumbents almost never lose primaries. In fact, they almost never face opposition. But McDonald was one of four GOP senators who supported gay marriage and passed gay marriage in that state.
Sen. James Alesi, who also did so, retired rather than face the voters' music.
Now Roy McDonald has announced his attention to retire from politics and support Kathy Marchione in the general election.
Then there's Sen. Steven Saland, who was expected to sail to easy victory in his nomination, but appears only to have eked out a win by the narrowest of margins over feisty challenger Neil DiCarlo.
Saland outspent DiCarlo 40 to 1 in the primary, feeding on the money pro-gay marriage advocates wafted his way—more than thirty pieces of silver to reward him for his pro-gay marriage vote.
But here's the good news: DiCarlo is not giving up! He won a write-in vote for the Conservative Party nomination, and so he has another chance to take on Saland in November.
Along with Saland, Mark Grisanti (the other pro-gay marriage Republican in New York) will also face a Conservative Party challenger in November.
And as DiCarlo said in his press release this week, "Despite being outspent $700,000 to my $25,000 I have shown that integrity matters and that ideas and morals matter more than money.... Having won the majority of votes in the primary, [adding up the GOP and Conservative Party line,] I look forward to winning the general election in November and serving the people of the 41st with integrity as their State Senator."
City&State's weekly round-up of winners and losers proclaims me—and therefore you, and NOM PAC NY—a "winner" this week:
"...Brian Brown won a larger battle—rendering LGBT rights groups incapable of claiming that no Republican legislator who voted yes on same-sex marriage has ever been defeated because of it ... the example of Roy McDonald will probably serve as a cautionary tale."
Of course, we've defeated politicians who have waffled on or betrayed marriage before, but it's good to see the media is noticing for a change!
I told you this would be a big month for marriage. I want to share with you an initiative NOM just launched—"Keep the Republic and Marriage"—a place for pro-marriage heroes like you to PUBLICLY support NOM's work. You can learn about Sean Fieler, the courageous man who was the first to sign his name to this document here. I urge you to join him today and join our fight to keep the republic and marriage!
Voting begins this week in Minnesota. And so let me leave you with a few words from Kelley Yanta, the face of Minnesota Marriage Minute:
Truth matters. Integrity matters. Money matters, but it does not trump the first two things.
Thanks to you—and to the hundreds of thousands of other Americans who join you in supporting NOM—we are able to get the word—the Word—out!
Brian Brown – Kathy Marchione may have won her state Senate primary in upstate New York, but National Organization for Marriage President Brian Brown won a larger battle – rendering LGBT rights groups incapable of claiming that no Republican legislator who voted yes on same-sex marriage has ever been defeated because of it. Initiatives against same-sex marriage in other states might not come about in exactly the same way – through floor votes in a Republican-led legislature – but the example of Roy McDonald will probably serve as a cautionary tale, making it that much harder for bills to pass in the short term.
Actually NOM has unseated numerous politicians before who have waffled on or betrayed marriage, but it's good to see that the media is taking note of our recent victories in New York.
You can vote for Brian Brown as a winner this week in City&State's poll here (scroll down).
At a campaign stop recently, responding to a question from the audience, veep candidate Paul Ryan said:
"The things you talk about, like traditional marriage and family and entrepreneurship, these aren't values that are indicative to any one person or race or creed or color these are American values these are universal human values and so what Mitt and I are offering is an agenda is prosperity for everybody to have a chance."
Now, Minnesotans are nice folks, and we don't like to think of ourselves as needlessly limiting another's freedom. The truth is, however, we "limit" marriage in a variety of ways. You can't marry your sister or your father. You can't marry a 12-year-old, or two people, or someone who's already married to someone else.
Brian Brown – Kathy Marchione may have won her state Senate primary in upstate New York, but National Organization for Marriage President Brian Brown won a larger battle – rendering LGBT rights groups incapable of claiming that no Republican legislator who voted yes on same-sex marriage has ever been defeated because of it. Initiatives against same-sex marriage in other states might not come about in exactly the same way – through floor votes in a Republican-led legislature – but the example of Roy McDonald will probably serve as a cautionary tale, making it that much harder for bills to pass in the short term.
