NOM BLOG

Take Action Now! Defend Marriage and Religious Liberty in North Carolina!



Dear Marriage Supporter,

You may have heard that the North Carolina House passed a bill that would protect magistrates and registers of deeds who have deeply-held religious objections to personally performing same-sex 'marriage' ceremonies. With this legislation, government officials would be put in the terrible position of having to choose between keeping their job or being true to their religious convictions.

Unfortunately, Governor Pat McCrory (a Republican) has vetoed the bill.

Please click here to let Governor McCrory know that you disapprove of his mistaken rejection of this common sense legislation, and to urge your elected representatives to override the Governor's veto!

The bill would have make it clear that no one can be denied a marriage license, but that magistrates or clerks could recuse themselves from the process behind the scenes should they have sincere objections to same-sex marriage. The legislation treats same-sex couples and heterosexual couples equally. If an official agrees to perform a traditional marriage, he or she would also have to perform same-sex 'weddings.' However, it allows a person to opt out of performing any weddings, and thus avoiding the choice of being fired or violating their beliefs.

The reason this bill is needed is because a federal judge has imposed a redefinition of marriage despite the overwhelming percentage of North Carolina voters and legislators who acted in 2012 to enact the Marriage Amendment defining marriage as only the union of one man and one woman. We hope the US Supreme Court will reverse this illegitimate ruling when they issue their opinion in the marriage case next month. But in the meantime, it is important for states to act to protect supporters of marriage, including those like magistrates and clerks who are being put in the position of having to choose between keeping their jobs or being true to their constitutionally-protected religious views.

Without this accommodation, magistrates, registers of deeds and other government officials who refuse to take part in same-sex 'marriages' because of their sincere religious beliefs will be removed from office, and "shall" be guilty of a crime that is punishable by up to 120 days in jail.

Please spend a moment to take action right away! It is imperative that we act immediately to defend marriage and uphold religious liberty.

Faithfully,

Brian S Brown


Donate Today

North Carolina Passes Legislation Protecting Officials Against Government Coercion to Perform Same-sex ‘Weddings’

ThinkstockPhotos-99272117The North Carolina House of Representatives has overwhelmingly passed legislation to allow local magistrates and registers of deeds, the officials who perform marriages in the state, to refuse to participate in a same-sex ‘wedding’ if doing so violates their deeply held religious objections, and similarly if they refuse to perform heterosexual wedding ceremonies. The vote in the House was 67-43, following similar lop-sided passage in the State Senate. The legislation was pushed in response to the illegitimate decision of a federal judge to overturn North Carolina’s marriage amendment that was overwhelmingly adopted by voters in 2012.

Supporters of Senate Bill 2 say it effectively balances the rights of state employees who object to same-sex marriage and the rights of the couples seeking a wedding.

“This bill provides a balancing act – to make sure marriages across this state are performed in a blind fashion,” said Rep. Dean Arp, a Monroe Republican. “The question is should you be fired from a job because you choose to live your life by those religious beliefs.”

Unfortunately, Governor Pat McCrory (a Republican) has tragically promised a veto of the legislation and appears to have swallowed the false talking points of same-sex marriage activists and the left. This will likely prove to be a tremendous miscalculation on McCrory’s part. There is a real chance that the Legislature would override McCrory’s veto. Sen. Phil Berger, the President of the Senate, authored this legislation. Further, McCrory is up for reelection next year. A veto of the bill invites a primary challenge and certainly will alienate him from the conservative base of the Republican Party. NOM will be working with allies in the state to assess our options.

Gov. Pat McCrory announced Thursday afternoon that he’ll veto a bill to allow magistrates to opt out of performing marriage if they have a religious objection.

The governor’s announcement came just hours after the N.C. House approved it in a 67-43 final vote Thursday.

. . .

“Whether it is the president, governor, mayor, a law enforcement officer, or magistrate, no public official who voluntarily swears to support and defend the Constitution and to discharge all duties of their office should be exempt from upholding that oath; therefore, I will veto Senate Bill 2.”

The U.S. Constitution and federal law protect people from religious persecution and coercion, specifically requiring the government to make reasonable accommodations for people of faith. This modest legislation in North Carolina simply protects people from having to choose between keeping their job and their religious beliefs. Nobody should be forced to participate in any ‘wedding’ against their wishes:

The conservative N.C. Values Coalition, which has advocated for the bill, issued a stinging critique of McCrory’s decision Thursday afternoon.

“Senate Bill 2 will protect the fundamental American freedom to exercise one’s religious beliefs, and it is unacceptable for any governor who calls himself ‘conservative’ to veto legislation like SB2,” spokeswoman Jessica Wood said.

The solution to this situation, of course, is for the U.S. Supreme Court to uphold the right of states to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman, which would reinstate the North Carolina Marriage Amendment and make legislation like this unnecessary. We hope that the justices are watching the chaos that is occurring in the states as they struggle with ways to deal with the damage done by federal judges who have illegitimately imposed their own views of marriage, despite the democratic decisions of voters and elected legislators.

Source and quotes via News Observer.

Principle Before Policy: The Stronger Argument

ThinkstockPhotos-484900357The transgender movement has been gliding through with almost no opposition for a while now, and the reason for that is because many democrats have stood by it on principle. They have made it to a non-negotiable issue, instead of arguing for it on policy. Furthermore, the main reason for the rise in the transgender movement is an almost complete lack of resistance from republicans. Sean Fieler from The Daily Signal, Chairman of American Principles Project and a long-time supporter of NOM, expounds on this in detail:

The rapidly growing acceptance of the previously marginal idea that underlies the transgender moment was only made possible by the Republican decision to opt out of this debate entirely.

Almost without exception, Republicans have chosen to ignore the underlying principle and logic of the LGBT movement, confident that they could win this political debate on other grounds. In retrospect, this one decision laid the groundwork for the stunning series of defeats Republicans have suffered on issues of human sexuality over the past dozen years.

Ironically, the transgender moment proves what was once a conservative insight—ideas matter. For, neither inertia, nor electoral victory, has protected Republicans from the sweeping changes entailed in the LGBT agenda. Worse still, having failed to engage at the level of principle for so long, Republicans have lost not just the debate but also the will to engage.

The decision by many republicans to not make a stand on the transgender debate will continue to wear down any of their agendas, making the resistance weaker. Instead of standing against an idea, they should be standing for an ideal:

To successfully advance this argument without appearing to oppose a small, troubled minority, Republicans will need to articulate the principle for which they stand, not just the one they oppose. Having already repeatedly affirmed that our rights come from God, not the state, Republicans are starting in the right place. They need only add the logical corollary that if we recast ourselves in a way that denies either our human nature or our Creator, we undermine the very basis of the rights we cherish and defend.

Pope Benedict put it best, “When the freedom to be creative becomes the freedom to create oneself, then necessarily the Maker himself is denied and ultimately man too is stripped of his dignity as a creature of God … ”

Please read the full article at The Daily Signal.

Texas Reaffirms Support for Marriage

200445153-001The Texas Senate reaffirmed Christian principles when passing a resolution to “affirm the preservation of the present definition of marriage as being a legal union of one man and one woman…” Although the resolution is not binding, it does make a statement to Texas and the country that they will be upholding the true definition of marriage, no matter what it might cost. It is a worthy stand for them to make, and one they know must be done:

Same-sex marriages already are prohibited by the Texas Constitution. But senators who supported the resolution 21-10 said they wanted to make a point, and take a stand on principle.

In their late-night vote, 10 years after Texans voted to ban gay marriage in the state, every Senate Republican effectively said they still support that decision - with a resolution reaffirming the state's 2005 voter-approved ban.

The proposal touched off passionate speeches for and against the measure.

We affirm the preservation of the present definition of marriage as being a legal union of one man and one woman as a husband and wife, and pledge to uphold and defend this principle that is so dearly held by Texans far and wide," the resolution read.

As the day comes closer to the Supreme Court’s decision on marriage, stands such as the Texas Senate’s will become more important. Important to show the Supreme Court that the states can decide on the definition of marriage for themselves, and that is not the right of SCOTUS to decide the beliefs of the American people.

Source and quotes via SF Gate.

“Science-Gilding” of Public Policy

ThinkstockPhotos-160503703The American Public Health Association (APHA) released a study as an Amicus brief to the Supreme Court offering ‘“another compelling reason” for the Supreme Court to overturn state laws that define marriage as the union of a man and a woman.’ However, the study is a sham and is an abhorrent misuse of science to back up the same-sex marriage agenda. Jason Richwine from The Public Discourse, explains the errors in how the study proceeded:

Let’s first consider the weakness of the evidence. The APHA’s brief cites only two studies that directly test the claim that marriage laws affect the health of LGB individuals. (First Study)

. . .

First, the whole exercise of comparing outcomes in two different groups of states is fraught with imprecision. Because no state-level controls are employed, the study effectively assumes that the only relevant change between 2000 and 2005 is that sixteen states passed amendments defining marriage as the union of husband and wife, while the other thirty-four did not.

And there is considerable ambiguity in the findings. Many health disorders among LGBs seemed to increase in both groups of states, but they seemed to go up more in the states that passed amendments. I say “seemed to” because the sample size of LGBs who had certain disorders is small, leading to estimates with wide confidence intervals.

He continues to cite and explain issues with the second part of the study:

The authors of this study refer to it as a “quasi-natural experiment.” Emphasis on quasi. Unlike a real experiment, this study has no control group. It focuses on a single urban clinic dedicated to serving gay and bisexual men, two thirds of whom have a college degree and almost all of whom are under sixty-five. The authors include a one-sentence reference to overall health costs in Massachusetts going up over the same time period, but that is obviously inadequate. A proper control group must resemble the treatment group.

Please read the full article at The Public Discourse.

Our Chance...



Dear Marriage Supporter,

You know what we have done together standing for the truth that marriage is the union of one man and one woman.

Whether bringing nearly 15,000 diverse supporters of marriage to our nation's capital for the March for Marriage or supporting legislation that will protect our First Freedom to act and speak freely in our support for natural marriage—we are in this fight together.

Now, as we face a most dangerous time for marriage, a generous donor has stepped up to the plate and pledged to match any gifts we may get in the weeks before the decision.

It is absolutely urgent that you stand with us now as we stand boldly for the truth of marriage. We do not have billionaire donors, but rely on your sacrificial help to fund our efforts.

Please stand with us now at this critical time with your gift of $35, $50, $100, or even $500 or more.

We have spent everything in our coffers to make the March for Marriage the great success it was.

As we move forward, it is essential that we have the resources to continue this fight to the Supreme Court and beyond.

We have critical work to do that depends entirely on your support. Here are just a few examples of what we need to accomplish in the next few weeks:

  • Issuing a Presidential Pledge to the Republican candidates, to ensure they take a strong and public stance on marriage, letting you — the voter — know their commitment to defending marriage and our First Freedoms. In addition, the pledge will help raise the profile of marriage and religious liberty while the Court is deliberating the case that could determine the constitutionality of traditional marriage laws, communicating the American people's commitment to defending marriage and religious liberty regardless of what the Supreme Court says;
  • Advance legislation at both the Federal and state level to protect the right of individuals, small businesses and organizations to act in concert with their beliefs about marriage, thus taking pro-active steps to defend our First Freedoms regardless of what the Supreme Court says;
  • Organize a diverse and massive response to the Supreme Court — whichever way they rule in June. We will need to build up our grassroots education and activism programs to ensure that everyone who believes in marriage is both informed and equipped to stand up and make their voice heard — regardless of what the Supreme Court says.

Make no mistake — we are fighting for the foundation of our very civilization and the very freedoms upon which our great nation was founded. The government — in bed with lobbyists backed by millionaires and billionaires seeking to redefine marriage — is trying to take away not only what is sacred and true about marriage... but our very right to defend it!

But NOM will defend marriage — always... because marriage will always need and deserve the very best defense possible.

Won't you join us in defending marriage today with a generous gift? It doesn't matter whether you can give $20, $200 or $2,000. All that matters is recommitting to the fight to defend marriage and religious liberty at this critical time.

Thank you in advance. And please pray for the Supreme Court as they deliberate on this critical issue. May God bless you for all you do in defense of marriage.

Faithfully,

Brian S Brown


PS: Remember, every dollar you donate will be matched, dollar-for-dollar by another generous donor! He is challenging us to renew as many members as possible leading up to the Supreme Court's fateful decision... because no matter what they rule, the fight to defend marriage and religious liberty will go on! Knowing that your donation will be matched, won't you please consider making a generous donation today?

Clear and Present Danger to Christianity

ThinkstockPhotos-56382560Marco Rubio, Florida Senator and Presidential Candidate, stated to CBN News that due to the recent infringement on free speech rights, there is a real danger to Christianity in this country. Rubio, a Christian himself, sees the family as the highest form of social order in the world. He believes that the recent attempts to redefine marriage as an unnatural entity in same-sex marriage will pervert the social order, and in doing so, act against Christian principles.

Rubio comments on the attack on the family stating:

"If you think about it, we are at the water's edge of the argument that mainstream Christian teaching is hate speech," Rubio told CBN News. "Because today we've reached the point in our society where if you do not support same-sex marriage you are labeled a homophobe and a hater."

"So what's the next step after that?" he asked.

"After they are done going after individuals, the next step is to argue that the teachings of mainstream Christianity, the catechism of the Catholic Church is hate speech and there's a real and present danger," he warned.

He warns that if America doesn’t lead the world in social and economic issues that the world will spin into chaos; such as in Ireland recently.

"You don't want to be engaged in every conflict on the planet. We're not the world's policemen," he said. "But I question - what would happen in the alternative? If America doesn't lead, what happens? Well, what happens is chaos."

Source via CBN News.

If for No Other Reason, Protect the Family for the Sake of the Children

ThinkstockPhotos-466348257The media is awash with stories promoting transgenderism, touting celebrities like Bruce Jenner as being “heroic” and featuring transgender characters in several television series. But do reality shows actually depict the reality of what happens to children and families when a man denies his innate maleness or a woman denies her innate femaleness, and attempt to trick nature and “change” their gender to suit what they say is their “identity?” Denise Shick was raised by a “transgender” father, and the reality of her experience bears no resemblance to what is being pushed by Hollywood as heroic and healthy:

I am one of those children. I was raised by a transgender father.

I can testify to the emotional strain and confusion that my father’s life played in my sexual and gender identity. I sought out our neighbors for a foster father. Many times I pretended that one of my uncles or a friend’s father was my make-believe father.

I was so hungry for my father; a transgender “mom” would not fit that need no matter how badly the adult wished it to.

My father experimented with my make-up and clothes, and by 7th grade I had decided that alcohol was the easiest method to numb my own pain. By the beginning of high school, I wondered if life was worth living.

Shick continues to relate her difficulties and experiences at the hands of her “transgender” ‘parent.’ She finishes by challenging, and begging America to do the right thing, if for no other reason, than for the sake of the children:

We prioritize adult’s sexual preferences ahead of what is best for their children.

As a culture we are very willing to address the emotional distress, isolation and other negative issues of people who come out as transgender adults. But we have not even begun to discuss the issues involved and the impact this has on their wives and children.

I’m begging America to wake up to what is being done for the sake of society and for children worldwide! This cultural celebration of transgenderism, for me as a daughter of a transgender father, is misguided and insensitive.

In our country’s most recent challenge regarding gay marriage, six adult children raised in same-sex or transgender households came forward to address the importance they placed on having both a mother and a father.

I wonder if anyone is listening to the voices of the adult children that should count and be heard.

As I know from firsthand experience, all children—including those being adopted—deserve a mom and a dad.

Source and quotes via The Daily Signal.

Why to Expect More Faked Studies

ThinkstockPhotos-453892969A number of commentators have weighed in on the scandal of the widely publicized study claiming that attitudes about same-sex ‘marriage’ were permanently and profoundly changed when a gay canvasser spoke to someone at their home. However, the philosophy behind such an act as faking a study that was promulgated as irrefutable proof is one of a complete disregard for civil argument on social topics. The LGBT lobby is showing a trend in forcing their conclusions instead of relying on actual scientific data or popular approval.

As Ian Tuttle of National Review writes:

The reduction of all same-sex marriage opposition to irrational hatred is not a reasoned conclusion, but a matter of dogma among many on the left.

And the inevitable result of casting one’s opponents as sub-rational or anti-rational is the end of debate. From the position of Maggie Haberman, the Times writer so perplexed by Cruz’s visit, trying to convince Ted Cruz to support same-sex marriage is like trying to convince a caribou.

The problem, of course, is that community life is subverted when matters of public importance are removed from the realm of debate. And if I can’t convince you, I am left to appeal, finally, to force.

Ian continues to give examples and proofs of his point that the LGBT lobby prefers to use force instead of civil discourse. He ends the article on a sobering note, referring to how our country should be able to resolve these matters, but most likely won’t due to malicious agendas:

The health of a democratic polity depends in no small part on the generousness of its civic discourse — that is, opposing sides ought to give one another the benefit of the doubt. If same-sex marriage proponents allowed that same-sex marriage opponents might, just might, be motivated by something other than animal hatred, we might be able to reach solutions that balance the competing interests unavoidably present in any political body.

But our discourse is growing increasingly ungenerous. We ought not be surprised when the result is less debate and more dishonesty and coercion.

Source via National Review.

A New Level of Intolerance in Canada

We are all too familiar with the reality of how anyone who does not wish to participate in celebration of a same-sex ‘wedding’ – whether they be florists, bakers, photographers, inn keepers or what-have-you – are targeted by the LGBT community. Also, they are increasingly targeted by government officials for harassment and punishment, sometimes under threat of losing all their personal assets. The message has been that the law must force everyone to participate in the “celebration” even if it violates a business owner’s deeply held beliefs. Now comes word from Canada – which has been dealing with the consequences of redefining marriage for over a decade – that it’s not even enough for a business owner merely to participate in the celebration.

ThinkstockPhotos-471991807Steve Weatherbe from LifeSite News wrote:

Nicole White and Pam Renouf liked the service they got from Esau Jardon of Today’s Jewellers in Mount Pearl, Newfoundland and Labrador, who took their deposit and proceeded to design and build them two engagement rings. They even recommended the store to friends.

But by the time one friend went there, the Mexican-born Jardon had put up a sign in his shop window marking Mother’s Day—and his strong, traditional Christian beliefs: “The Sanctity of Marriage IS UNDER ATTACK; Help Keep Marriage Between Man & Woman,” it read.

In redefining marriage, Canada has opened up private citizens to serious discrimination for their own personal beliefs, marking the end of freedom of speech:

Referring to recent decisions by courts and human rights tribunals against Christian vendors who refused to serve homosexuals, Dreher (Blogger at The American Conservative) concluded on an ironic note. The pressure on Jardon to return the deposit marked “the next phase in the March of Progress. You must not only bake the cake, or arrange the flowers, or make the ring, you must hold the correct opinion when you do it.”

Jardon defends his right to his own opinion. “One of the reasons my family chose to move to Canada was the rights that it offered, the freedom of religion and freedom of speech, both of which at the time seemed to be very limited in Mexico,” he said.

The United States needs to pay attention: as Canada is clearly exemplifying, everyone is affected when marriage is redefined.

A Blessed And Grateful Nation



Dear Marriage Supporter,

Today the nation honors those heroes who made the ultimate sacrifice, members of the military who gave their lives in defense of the principles upon which our nation was founded. I hope that each of you will take a moment to pause and pray for those brave men and women, and their families, whose ultimate sacrifice through the generations proves the truth of what President Reagan once observed, "Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same."

America Founding - Quote

At the core of the American founding was the principle of religious liberty — the right to participate in society according to your sincerely held religious beliefs. Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal said it brilliantly in Iowa the other day: "The United States of America did not create religious liberty. Religious liberty created the United States of America."

We live in a challenging time, one where our national leaders increasingly seem to deny the importance of some of our founding national principles, not the least of which is religious liberty. Indeed far from being willing to fight to defend this core foundational principle so that is passed to the next generation, some national leaders seem intent on undercutting it. Indeed, we've seen baseless charges of "bigotry" and "discrimination" leveled at those with sincerely-held religious objections to participating in things like same-sex 'wedding' ceremonies and providing health insurance coverage for abortion-inducing drugs. For a large number of governmental and cultural elites, the concept of "religious liberty" is being reduced to being able to worship in private, but not to actually live your faith principles in the public square.

Presidential candidate Hilary Clinton took this even further recently when she said that the nation had to change its views on religion if we are to make progress on "women's rights" and other ideological causes favored by the left. Far from being a protector and defender of our first principles — the most important of which is a recognition that our rights derive not from government but from the divine Creator — so that they may be passed on to the next generation, she seems determined to change them to suit her vision of government.

This upcoming presidential election will thus be a pivotal moment in our nation's history. It will be, to borrow another quote from President Reagan, "a time for choosing." Will we as a nation choose to uphold the principles upon which America was founded, particularly religious liberty, that have made us the greatest force for good in the history of the world, or will we choose to follow a secularist path that effectively eliminates religious principle from social policy so that a leftist agenda can be more easily pursued?

This is not a mere rhetorical question. The next president will not only have tough decisions to make about how government policy will respond to issues of same-sex unions, abortion, gender identity and claims of sexual orientation discrimination, but he or she will very likely appoint several new justices to the US Supreme Court who will have a say in the critical constitutional issues involved.

As we embark upon this critically important national debate and discussion that will culminate in 2016 in the election of a new president, we do so with great reverence and respect, and immense gratitude, for all those who made the ultimate sacrifice to defend the principles that have made America the beacon for liberty she is throughout the world. Let us give thanks to these heroes, and pray that their sacrifice will not be forgotten, but will be protected and defended so our national principles are passed to the next generation for them to do the same.

Faithfully,

Brian S Brown

Press Release Regarding Ireland Vote

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Saturday, May 23, 2015
The following statement may be attributed to Brian Brown, president of the National Organization for Marriage in Washington, DC: "We want to thank David Quinn and The Iona Institute for fighting the good fight running the No campaign against tremendous odds in Ireland. We are disappointed but not surprised with the apparent passage of a referendum in Ireland providing for the redefinition of marriage in that country. This is a reflection on the increasingly secularized nature of Ireland, together with the utter abandonment of principle by every political party in the nation, all of whom endorsed the referendum. This, combined with intense harassment of any group or individual who spoke out in opposition to the referendum, made it difficult for opponents. Despite this, hundreds of thousands of Irish citizens stood to vote to uphold the truth of marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Even with this decision in Ireland, the idea of same-sex marriage has been widely rejected by the community of nations around the world, where only 18 nations recognize same-sex 'marriage', almost all of them in the west, which represents less than 10% of the nations in the world. If there is any relevance to the Irish vote for people here in the United States, it is that the US Supreme Court should take note that the people of Ireland at least had the opportunity to vote. This is what we demand of our justices — respect the right of people to define marriage in the law for themselves. If that occurs, we are confident that the American people will continue to support marriage in the law as it exists in reality — the union of one man and one woman in order to provide the ideal environment for any children born of their union."

###

The Effects of Same-sex "Marriage" on Children's Mental Health

ThinkstockPhotos-471188516While social scientists are busy faking studies to show growing support for redefining marriage, or designing studies with a small number of participants who have an interest in the outcome of the study, it’s striking to note what they are not studying: the mental health impact on students of the cultural and media movement to proclaim all things gay to be good and healthy. An article at The Federalist reviews this phenomenon in the field of social work, a field that ordinarily would be expected to help assess mental health issues among their clientele:

Joseph Turner, who has a masters in social work, comments on the adverse effects the current political correctness can have on the mental health of people:

Mental health treatment requires close analysis of every aspect of a person’s life. We put together the puzzle pieces that make up a human being. We inquire how many hours someone slept last night and how often he or she woke up. We form theories around their precise level of eye contact or rate of speech. We ponder how closely they were held as infants. To declare that all claims to sexual orientation are above scrutiny is to analytically cripple ourselves. We’ve replaced the microscope with rose-colored glasses.

. . .

We live in a society where LGBT has saturated both political agenda and popular culture. Broken family structures, abuse, and relationship instability are tragically prevalent. In such a climate, reported same-sex attraction could occur for a lot of reasons. Some of them might be uncomfortable. To demand its blind, universal acceptance is both delusional and damaging to mental health. Dogmatic affirmation of all claims to sexual preference might well encourage behavior rooted in pathology.

He continues to suggest that the effects on children can be devastating, especially if it was the choice of the “parents” to switch from a heterosexual relationship to a same-sex relationship:

ThinkstockPhotos-477399995The mommies (or daddies, as the case may be) might do everything “right” to give their children a healthy, stable upbringing, yet the kids are still at risk to grow up troubled and unsure how to relate to the world around them… nobody among my colleagues acknowledged a problem. There was no questioning of the arrangement, no hint of concern. Everyone involved with the family was wholly positive about the mommies, even as they scratched their heads and wondered what was making the kids angry or depressed or confused.

It seems that the dangers of not only same-sex marriage, but also the same-sex mind control in popular culture is real and adversely affects the average person.

But the mental-health field is mostly professional, and thus subject to the academic and political authorities. It’s aimed at the practitioner rather than the pioneer. This leaves it unknowingly vulnerable to the powerful LGBT lobby. Even as we work to build people from the ground up, we blindly accept the ideas coming from the top down. If a professor or a textbook states that all sexual or gender orientation is above question, then so be it. The contradiction this presents to our greater body of psychological thinking goes unnoticed.

As any devoted parent will attest to, all parents want what is best for the child. While it can be hard for some to admit, the facts are there: children do best with a mom and a dad. And when they are told that gender is irrelevant, it is the children who suffer the devastating effects.

Jeb Bush Stands Up For Right Not To Be Coerced

ThinkstockPhotos-chariastThe beginning stages of the presidential campaign are starting to bring the views of the various candidates into focus. Jeb Bush recently told CBN that he supports the right of a Christian small business owner to decline to provide services for a same-sex ‘wedding.’ He correctly understands that people ought to remain free to exercise their beliefs about marriage and that this is not discrimination. He also reiterated his position that same-sex ‘marriage’ is not a constitutional right:

"A big country, a tolerant country ought to be able to figure out the difference between discriminating someone because of their sexual orientation and not forcing someone to participate in a wedding that they find goes against their moral beliefs," Bush said.

Shouldn’t it be obvious that as our own free arbiters of what we support, we should also be able to choose what not to support? Americans being forced to conform to other people’s opinions on social issues, is a brazen attack against individual rights:

In recent months, the question of service provision, religion and sexuality has become a hot button issue, with court cases arising over incidents of people being refused service because of their sexual orientation, or business owners being forced to provide services to same sex partners despite their religious convictions.

The issue was further fanned by the recent signing of Religious Freedom Restoration Acts, which allow business owners to cite religious rights as a reasons for refusing service. Gay rights group have condemned the acts, and cited them as a form of discrimination.

Source via Christian Today.

Marriage And Religious Liberty In The Early Presidential Race



Dear Marriage Supporter,

One of NOM's primary goals in the coming months and year is to raise the profile of the marriage and religious liberty issues in anticipation of the coming presidential election next year — particularly in key swing and early voting states like Iowa.

And we've been remarkably successful in the early going!

While reading through the media's "reporting" (which seems more often than not to be taken directly from sources like the Human Rights Campaign blog) is aggravating, listening to the actual Republican candidates' words has been extremely encouraging.

Boldly Speaking the Truth

Senator Ted Cruz of Texas is always courageous and unintimidated when it comes to speaking the truth. Which makes following the media's "news coverage" of him a continuous exercise in frustration and incredulity.

Recently he fired back at the media for "being obsessed with sex" after repeatedly asking about same-sex marriage to the exclusion of almost every other issue, offering a fresh and direct way to respond to not-so veiled attacks on common-sense positions shared by a majority of the country and world.

You can click here to watch the video of his exchange with the reporter in question.

Ted Cruz

The most absurd and unbelievable aspect of the story is the headline that the "news" agency chose to attach to the report: "Cruz refuses to deny animosity toward gays."

The entire exchange simply highlights the ridiculousness of the media's coverage of marriage and is the clearest indication possible that the media is, indeed, "obsessed with sex."

Not Just Talk

But Senator Cruz isn't the only one championing marriage and religious liberty.

Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal, who is strongly considering a presidential run, recently took dramatic action to defend marriage and people of faith who understand its true nature.

The Louisiana state legislature cowered away from passing House Bill 707, which would have blocked the government from penalizing companies because of the owner's stance on same-sex marriage.

So Governor Jindal stepped to the plate and announced that he would issue an executive order accomplishing what the bill was aiming to do: protecting people of faith who believe in marriage as the union of one man and one woman from unjust Governmental coercion and potential punitive measures for their beliefs.

The executive order will prohibit the state from denying or revoking a tax exemption, tax deduction, contract, cooperative agreement, loan, professional license, certification, accreditation, or employment on the basis the person acts in accordance with a religious belief that marriage is between one man and one woman.

As I mentioned yesterday, when our elected public officials take such bold action to represent our values — knowing that they will be targeted by special interests and widely castigated by the media — they must hear from us and know that they have our support.

If you haven't done so already, please take a moment and click here to send Governor Jindal a quick email thanking him for his brave leadership in defense of marriage and religious liberty.

Governor Jindal Action Alert

And then, please forward the link to this alert to your family and friends so they can similarly take action.

But that's not all!

This week, the American Future Project launched a 30-second ad that will air in Iowa highlighting the Governor's dedication to defending our precious First Freedoms — the freedom of religion, the freedom of speech and the freedom to act in accord with our beliefs about marriage without fear of reprisal from the government.

You can watch the ad here.

Governor Jindal Ad

And all of this follows his editorial last month in the New York Times opinion page, I'm Holding Firm Against Gay Marriage.

Others Speaking Out For Marriage And Religious Liberty

Other candidates are also making strong statements to reassure the American people that they represent their values on marriage.

Governor Scott Walker was recently in Washington, DC to meet with legislators and heads of social conservative groups to discuss social issues.

I was one of those who met with him to discuss the marriage issue.

As I noted in the column linked above, while some of his past statements have left people like you and me with serious questions as to his commitment to defending the truth about marriage, his recent statements — in particular, those about backing a federal marriage amendment — should have us feeling better about his political views. We will give him, and all the candidates, a chance to concretely demonstrate their support by signing NOM's Presidential Pledge, which will be issued soon.

Similarly, former Florida Governor Jeb Bush reiterated in much clearer terms his commitment to marriage last weekend in Dubuque, Iowa, where he was interviewed by CBN's David Brody.

What is becoming clear is that as all the potential and announced Republican candidates get away from their handlers and get out talking to voters and activists, they are all realizing that marriage is a core value of the American people and worthy of defending. They are realizing that redefining marriage is presenting incredible challenges to not only our First Freedoms, but also to our future cultural and economic wellbeing.

And, perhaps most importantly, they are realizing that redefining marriage is directly at odds with our precious faith traditions. Hillary Clinton recently said as much (see her remarks at around the 8:20 mark) when talking about the left's agenda pushed over the past several years needing "resources and political will" to overcome the "deep seeded, cultural codes, religious beliefs and biases" that "have to be changed."

There you have it: you and I must be forced to change our religious beliefs to accommodate the left's radical agenda.

Thank goodness we have some brave candidates willing to stand up and defend marriage and religious liberty.

More Hypocrisy

One final note on a news story that broke recently but received very little news.

A study that came out a few months ago received widespread acclaim for its impact in helping shift attitudes toward accepting same-sex marriage. It found that a 20-minute, one-on-one conversation with a gay political canvasser could steer voters in favor of same-sex marriage. Not only that, but these changed opinions lasted for at least a year and influenced other people in the voter's household, the study found.

Of course, the media trumpeted this far and wide... it was obvious, they said. People just need to meet and talk to gay rights supporters and they will immediately become amenable to redefining marriage.

The only problem? The study was faked. The data used to support the conclusions was simply made up.

While this development is no doubt embarrassing for advocates of redefining marriage, sadly, I am not surprised by this situation.

It is reminiscent of all the phony studies that have been conducted using small "convenience" samples of lesbians and gays who have an interest in the outcome of the study showing that lesbian and gay parenting makes "no difference" for children. To no one's surprise, these studies are touted as "proof," and become fodder to redefine marriage.

But whether a study is completely faked or conclusions are just fudged, it's justified in the minds of many who want to redefine marriage. You see, to many such activists everything in life — freedom of speech, religious principles, even the truth — is secondary to the "good" of advancing their agenda.

That is why the coming election (and, indeed, all elections) matter.

I look forward to sharing our presidential pledge with you in the coming months and making an impact on next year's election.

Faithfully,

Brian S Brown


PS: In case you hadn't heard, right now we have a new matching gift challenge running! A donor, incredibly enthused by the success of the March for Marriage and how oral arguments before the Supreme Court went, has offered $200,000 in matching gift funds to help us make a major statement in defense of marriage before the Supreme Court issues its ruling. Won't you please renew your NOM membership today to help us reach our goal?