Let The People Vote! NOM Marriage News July 8, 2011


NOM National Newsletter

Dear Marriage Supporter,

The fight to take back New York begins. Now it gets serious. Now, it's also a fight to take back the Republican Party from the forces who wish to abandon marriage: the so-called new "pro-equality Republicans."

Four Republican senators in New York voted for gay marriage. But the entire Republican conference, under the leadership of Dean Skelos, helped to make that happen by voting to bring up the gay marriage bill.

NY Republican Senators who Betrayed Marriage

When the Democrats controlled the New York Senate, gay marriage lost in a landslide. After an election, Republicans took control. What did they do with their newfound power? They sold out the party's base, the party's principles, and the timeless institution of marriage.

They imposed gay marriage without a vote of the people!

Now is the time for the sunshine patriots to get out of the way, and for those of us who understand what is at stake in this marriage debate to defeat politicians who had no problem lying to get elected, then turning around and betraying the voters who helped them.

I've got really exciting news to announce to you this week: a new coalition, a new plan, a rebuilt PAC. And here's the most exciting news: a huge multi-city series of rallies and protest marches taking place across the state of New York to win a vote to protect marriage in New York's constitution!

Let the People Vote!

Save the date: Sunday, July 24, 3 p.m. Go here to get the practical details. And here's the good news: You can show up to let Albany know you've had enough of the corruption, the backroom deals, the lying, the politics as usual. Let the people vote!

Don't forget to send this link to Let the People Vote to your five best friends, the folks you know who are mad enough not to take this from Republicans and other pols lying down!

We at NOM have promised to raise $2 million to help defeat the politicians who've betrayed marriage in 2012.

The good news is that in our first week alone, hundreds of you sent donations adding up to $40,000 to NOM's NY PAC. Fight back against the GOP betrayal by donating $5, $10 or $99 to our NOM NY PAC now.

And New York state has no limit on PAC donations (although they are public knowledge if you donate $100 or more). If you really want to show the GOP politicians they made a big mistake in betraying marriage, the sky is the limit.

We are drawing a line in the sand for politicians and the Republican Party here. You cannot deal away marriage in backrooms behind voters' backs. This is not just about New York; it is about the future of marriage in America.

Republican elites like Ken Mehlman are counting on using New York as a model for pushing gay marriage—over the heads of the people across the country—unless you and I show them how big a mistake this is!

As the New York Times concedes, "the events in New York also have national repercussions: ... gay-rights advocates increasingly need Republican support if they are to change local laws elsewhere in the country."

Ken Mehlman, one of a network of Karl Rove protégés, boasted about how he used money to sway Republicans to vote for gay marriage:

"I didn't come in there saying, 'Do this for me,'" Ken Mehlman, the openly gay former RNC chairman who persuaded Republican lawmakers in Albany, told the Huffington Post. "I said, 'Do this for you.' ...We were saying, 'It is the right thing to build the party from a political perspective.'"

New York Republican elites with powerful national connections are now openly saying that abandoning marriage is the key to building the Republican Party!

I'm not making this stuff up.

A plan is in place to bring down the GOP's commitment to marriage, to create an America in which no party and no politician is willing to stand for the fundamental truth of Genesis that marriage is unique for a reason—that male and female must come together, in love, to make the future happen, and to give that future the love and care of a mother and a father.

These powerful megamillionaires want to deface the Bible by ripping Genesis out of it, and then to remake an America without a strong foundation of Judeo-Christian values. What kind of conservative movement would we have left if we let that happen?

And of course it is not just Republicans who stand up for marriage.

Sen. Rev. Rubén Díaz is a loyal, lifelong liberal Democrat who stood up fearlessly and lovingly in New York for marriage as the union of a husband and wife.

He is now facing an ongoing, continuous, thundering barrage of hatred for his courage, for his refusal to kowtow, for being unafraid and unashamed of his support for marriage.

Even victory in New York has not sated some gay-marriage advocates' thirst to somehow humiliate a brave leader like Sen. Díaz, as he made clear in a statement released this week, "Unashamed to Be a Christian." It's worth reading in full (warning: he is very blunt about the kind of hate mail he is receiving, in language no one should have to read), but here's one part I want you to see, to know what he's going through and to share in his passion:

"I was the only Democrat in the Senate to vote against this legislation, and I wear my vote as a badge of honor.

"Although Republican Senate Leader Dean Skelos ushered the gay marriage vote to the floor in order to make the 11:00PM news, and even though the vote passed, the hatred that has spewed in my direction before June 24th continues.

"Yesterday I received a series of five emails in my Senate account from one person that read like homicidal rantings: 'You eat sh*t. You are sh*t.' 'There is no worse person on Earth than you. God has told me so.' 'You worthless pile of human excrement!!!' 'I hope you die! I hope you die soon! I'm waiting for you to die!'...

"Those messages suggest that even though the gay marriage vote passed, that author did not get what he wanted which suggests to me that for some reason, I am the embodiment of his disappointment. He may also be upset because I am unashamed of my vote.

"...After the June 24 vote, so many people who disguise themselves as victims and decry bullies hide behind their computer screens and demonstrate what is called 'keyboard courage' by posting hateful and vicious comments about me.

"For my part, I will continue to be unashamed to be a Christian."


NOM is committed to helping brave Democrats like Sen. Díaz, too. Stand with Sen. Díaz and show that you too are unashamed, by making a public donation of at least $100 to NOM's NY PAC today.

On Sunday July 24 evangelicals, Orthodox Christians, Catholics, and Jews will come together in love all across the state to take back marriage from the politicians who betrayed it. Join us.

Already, Republicans are quietly protesting the dishonesty of the four Republican senators who voted for same-sex marriage:
"'He's not honest,' said Ray Akey, 66, a retired sales engineer and a Republican who had voted for Jim Alesi in the past," the New York Times reported. He told the Times he would not vote for him again.

"Asked to sum up his feelings about his senator, Mr. Akey said: 'It's not real pretty. I'd have to put some cuss words in there.'"

The Grisanti flip-flop in Buffalo is creating the most voter anger, in part because Mark Grisanti ran so publicly and vocally as an opponent of gay marriage.

Adam Kaiser, 27, is actually a Republican in favor of gay marriage, but he's still so disgusted by Grisanti that he would never vote for him again: "All politicians are liars, but you got to do a better job of pretending like you're telling the truth," Kaiser told the Times. "I think it's a ticket out of office for him."

Paul Smith, a 60-year-old in Niagara Falls, agreed: "Logic and truth and moral fiber, it's being taken away from us right now. No matter what opinion he gives you publicly on TV, you don't know if he's being honest."

Voters are disgusted with the lying and no one lied more flagrantly or repeatedly than Mark Grisanti.

Dr. Kevin Backus wrote on the blog of the Grand Island Conservative Party that he had lunch before he endorsed Mr. Grisanti and his position on same-sex marriage was the top of the list of items they discussed. "I've spoken with the senator on this issue repeatedly since he took office. I've been assured by him personally and been asked to assure others that he'd never vote for anything with the word 'marriage' in it. Mark committed himself to that position. As recently as 11 days before the vote was taken, Mark was firm in this position."

Dr. Backus says Grisanti is now hinting that Gov. Cuomo may be very helpful to him when it comes to redistricting in ways that could help him keep his seat.

In our fight in New York, Michael Long has made it clear that no Republican who betrays marriage will get the Conservative Party endorsement.

Have voters had enough of politicians who cut secret backroom deals while lying to voters?

We'll find out.

Big things are happening.

The quiet protests among the grassroots are going to get louder and clearer. and ring out from New York City to Niagara Falls—and all the way to Washington: Don't mess with marriage!

In politics, money talks. We do not have the billionaires on our side, the rich Republic mega-donors like Ken Mehlman pushing the party towards this disaster. But we do have you and I, and thousands of other hardworking, loving, decent people of all races, creeds, and colors, willing to sacrifice their time and treasure to protect the precious gift that is marriage.

Stand with us, and stand up to the backdoor back-dealing politicians in both parties, by giving just $10 for marriage to NOM's NY PAC.

Next week, we'll be announcing some big new plans for the GOP presidential race as well—to help you and other voters find out whether the candidates who claim to be for marriage will fight or, like the New York Republicans, fold on marriage.

I walked outside of a TV studio in Arlington, Virginia today and saw on the news chyron these flashing words in big red lights: "Politico: Republicans Fall Silent on Gay Marriage."

The mainstream media thinks it's over. They think they can silence half the population, and create an America without a party for marriage. The mainstream media is going to find out how wrong they are.

And so will the Republicans who betrayed marriage.

Count on it.

Keep fighting the good fight!

And God bless you, and God bless America.

Brian Brown

Brian S Brown

Brian S. Brown
National Organization for Marriage

P.S. Show pro-gay marriage politicians how big a mistake it is to lie to voters and betray the people. Anything you can give will help us stand up to Ken Mehlman and the GOP donors who want to drive the party into the arms of gay marriage, to take away our voice and to reduce your power. Fight back today with a generous gift of $9 to $99.

And remember, if you are a person with the means, you can give an unlimited gift of $500, $1,000, or $10,000 more to NOM NY PAC. Thank you! Let the people vote!


  1. Miriam Johnson
    Posted July 8, 2011 at 8:19 pm | Permalink

    The County Clerk's office in Monroe County, Rochester, NY is opening its office on SUNDAY July 24 to issue Marriage Licenses to SSM couples.

    Since when does a Governmet office open on a Sunday to issue marriage licenses? It has never opened for heterosexual couples. Why open for SSM couples?

  2. Eileena M. Robinson
    Posted July 8, 2011 at 10:19 pm | Permalink

    I have always voted republican because they have always seemed to have some morals ! I am starting to wonder about them!! If God intended for us to marry same sex he would have made just one sex! He said marriage was between a man and women ,period!! God distroyed Sodom and Gamorrah for the homasezually activity, why wouldnt he do the same to us?

  3. OhMyWord
    Posted July 8, 2011 at 11:46 pm | Permalink

    @Miriam Johnson. But Miriam, the doors have been open for straight couples to marry for years and years and years. So there's nothing new there.

    What I find puzzling is that you would think folks at the National Organization for Marriage would celebrate more people getting married! It's a limitless resource we can all participate it!

  4. Patrick Hogan
    Posted July 9, 2011 at 12:08 am | Permalink

    "They imposed gay marriage without a vote of the people!"

    You make it sound as though they are forcing everyone to marry a gay.

    The fact that New York will now allow gay and lesbian couples to marry no more "Imposes gay marriage" on everyone than the fact that we have National Parks imposes camping and hiking on everyone. Less, in fact, since national parks are funded and maintained by the government, whereas marriages -- whomever the parties -- are merely licensed and recognized by the government.

  5. Andrew D
    Posted July 9, 2011 at 12:12 am | Permalink

    Eileena M. Robinson, you're only considering two extremes. What do you think God would have made us if he intended for 95% of us to marry opposite sex, for 4% of us to marry same sex, and for 1% of us not to marry at all?

  6. terrific
    Posted July 9, 2011 at 12:51 am | Permalink

    go NOM!

  7. Comey Arifidly
    Posted July 9, 2011 at 8:43 am | Permalink

    History shows what happens when traditional practices are re-defined. Look at what happened to traditional voting when women were allowed to vote. More paperwork, more votes, longer lines and additional resources. Now look at the government we have!

  8. Garrett
    Posted July 9, 2011 at 10:11 am | Permalink

    Oh, those damned women...

  9. Barb
    Posted July 9, 2011 at 10:44 am | Permalink

    @Miriam Johnson. Can you imagine how much this will cost New York taxpayers? This is not equal treatment, it's special treatment.

    @Eileena M. Robinson. King Bloomberg and the Cuomosexuals only worship at the alter of themselves.

  10. CuriousGeorge
    Posted July 9, 2011 at 10:54 am | Permalink

    @ Barb,

    Oh, it is probably a huge will for the New York taxpayers! The more licenses issued, the more caterers will serve (and taxes paid), the florist delivering centerpieces and corsages (and taxes paid) the more clothes bought and hotel rooms rented (and taxes paid) - a huge win for the NY taxpayer.

    As not special treatment - they will be issuing marriages to traditional couples as well as same sex couples - equal treatment.

  11. Daughter of Eve
    Posted July 9, 2011 at 11:04 am | Permalink

    The "right" for a same sex couple to get a license to discriminate against the opposite sex in a public institution of marriage, thus engaging in gender segregation, is definitely something for which the public should vote.

  12. L. Marie
    Posted July 9, 2011 at 1:03 pm | Permalink

    "What I find puzzling is that you would think folks at the National Organization for Marriage would celebrate more people getting married! It's a limitless resource we can all participate it!"

    Do you know what marriage is and why it is unique among all human relationships? Until you do, you'll never realize why viewing marriage as a "limitless resource" demeans it. Marriage is not a "limitless resource" to be exploited by every group who wants moral approval. Redefining marriage away from family, and the principles society is based on, redefines it into oblivion.

    If society loses marriage, we all lose.

  13. Sheryl Carver
    Posted July 9, 2011 at 1:42 pm | Permalink

    Letting serial adulterers (hetero, or course), convicted child molesters, people with multiple divorces, etc, get married is much more demeaning to the sacredness of marriage than does allowing 2 people who happen to be the same sex, who have been in a committed, loving relationship for years, and quite likely raising 1 or more children.

  14. TC Matthews
    Posted July 9, 2011 at 1:48 pm | Permalink

    Sheryl, the government doesn't "let" or "not let" people marry. Marriage is open to everyone, as defined, regardless of orientation. There is no litmus test for sexual orientation at the licensing desk.

  15. TC Matthews
    Posted July 9, 2011 at 1:49 pm | Permalink

    If you don't like child molesters getting married, lobby the prison system for better standards. Imagining there are no people of low standards in any community you choose to define is ridiculous. That doesn't mean that marriage shouldn't be between a man and a woman, or that a loving mom and dad are not the best environment for children to be raised.

  16. bill cope
    Posted July 9, 2011 at 2:12 pm | Permalink

    Actually, recent studies show that lesbian moms make better parents.. Go figure..

  17. TC Matthews
    Posted July 9, 2011 at 2:19 pm | Permalink

    Actually Bill, if you dig into that study beyond the sensationalism of the headline, the methodology is inherently flawed. Ask any random number of mothers how their children are doing and 9 out of 10 will tell you little Johnny is a star student, dwarfing the statistical standard.

  18. mc
    Posted July 9, 2011 at 2:43 pm | Permalink

    Interesting how quickly NOM-this so called 'Christian' organization can get donations to 'fight back against back room deals' but then one has to wonder isn't this back door dealing? This block is so fired up about the threat to mariage and family-oone also must wonder where are all of the donations to prevent homelessness. Each year there are some where between 1.3 and 2.6 million (yes million) children and youth who become homeless. Homlessness among the group could the the result of a number of things to include but not limited to: lack of access to resources, low wage paying jobs, lack of insurance (potential need to divert money to cover cost of unexpected health care from needs like food-shelter...), abuse (verbal, physical, and sexual). A pretty significant number of homless youth live in unsafe environments (on the streets away from their 'family') because of thier idendification along the LGBTQ spectrum of gender/sexualities. But see there are n funds being made to address homelessness or it's causes nor is this 'Christian' group interested in addressing hate and intollerance. No, it's interests rest in saving marriage from dooms day threats of dissolution. In its current form, marriage has a 50/50 chance of success among hetero couples and yet you believe that LGBTQ folk will cause it to end. Yeah-during a time when many families struggle to make ends meet you all have your prioritites together. The good lord is appreciative of your efforts...

  19. TC Matthews
    Posted July 9, 2011 at 2:54 pm | Permalink

    @MC, there are many good causes in the world. To say that those who are engaged in the defense of marriage are not also engaged in these other humanitarian causes, or that Christianity ought to abandon marriage and families in order to address larger, more pressing issues is patently false.

    "In families more than anywhere else children learn the values, practical life skills, manners, and fundamental truths that enable them to rise up and be successful in the world. They learn the all-important attributes of love, unselfishness, sharing, giving, and hard work that someday will be essential for them to form families of their own and to rear up a new generation in order that the great wheel of life may roll onward. So vital is the family to the cycle of human life and the renewal of each generation that it is fair to say that if the family breaks down, everything breaks down. If families do not fulfill their divinely appointed purpose of carrying on the light of truth and the torch of civilization to the next generation, then we can throw any amount of money or ideas or programs at our world’s problems, and we will assuredly fail."

    There is no cause greater, or more deserving of attention, than family.

  20. Sheryl Carver
    Posted July 9, 2011 at 3:35 pm | Permalink


    Yes, the government DOES "let" or "not let" people marry, because in order to be legally married, you must first get a marriage license. In most state, this is not possible if you wish to marry the person you love & you both happen to be of the same sex.

    Your argument that marriage as defined is open to everyone was used to argue against interracial marriage: "everyone has the right to marry a person of the same race."

    And the Supreme Court ruled that marriage is such a fundamental right that people in prison, for whatever reason, can get married. So prison reform has nothing to do with this.

    There are NO rational reasons to prevent LGBT couples from marrying. People can believe it is sinful, but that is not a basis for law, anymore than the Catholic belief that using birth control is a sin should be a basis for preventing the sale of birth control pills.

  21. Sheryl Carver
    Posted July 9, 2011 at 4:06 pm | Permalink

    BTW, TC, re: your contention that, in the study of Lesbian parents, the methodology is inherently flawed, there was a control group, & both the teens in both groups contributed information:

    The teens, average age 17, completed questionnaires. The moms were interviewed and completed lengthy checklists about their children's activities, social life, school and academic performance, and overall competence.

    The researchers compared the results of the participants with those from a comparison group of 93 teens, also average age of 17, from another research sample that included maternal reports on the same topics.

    The teens raised by lesbian parents were rated higher in social, school, academic, and total competence, Gartrell found, while they were rated lower than the peers in the comparison group in engaging in problem behaviors such as rule-breaking and aggression.

  22. TC Matthews
    Posted July 9, 2011 at 4:08 pm | Permalink

    Sheryl, the methodology of self reporting is inherently flawed and unscientific. Sorry.

  23. Posted July 9, 2011 at 4:09 pm | Permalink


    "King Bloomberg and the Cuomosexuals..."

    OMG!! What a great shot!!

  24. TC Matthews
    Posted July 9, 2011 at 4:10 pm | Permalink

    Sheryl, the government does not go around testing each couple to see if they are worthy of marriage or parenthood. Marriage law is the same for everyone, regardless of differences. Saying there are no reasons to support marriage vs. redefinition doesn't make it so.

  25. TC Matthews
    Posted July 9, 2011 at 4:13 pm | Permalink

    "Your argument that marriage as defined is open to everyone was used to argue against interracial marriage: "everyone has the right to marry a person of the same race.""

    Sexual preference is not race. In the case you were referring to, the court specifically upheld that race was not an issue in marriage precisely because marriage was between a man and a woman and race did not prohibit that. You have to selectively hand pick quotes from the Loving case in order to support your view, and discard, wholesale, all the rationale behind it.

  26. Posted July 9, 2011 at 4:16 pm | Permalink

    The glbt community's comparison of laws forbidding interracial marriage to laws that forbid same-sex "marriage," is wrong due to the fact that the laws that forbade interracial marriage only forbade White people from marrying outside of their race.

  27. Sheryl Carver
    Posted July 9, 2011 at 4:41 pm | Permalink

    I find it fascinating that people who oppose equal civil rights for LGBTs without any rational reasons, only religious ones (THEIR religion) or "it's always been this way" (it hasn't) or "the sky will fall" (it won't), accuse equality supporters of cherry-picking or "saying it's so won't make it so."

    If it didn't impact the lives of LGBT couples AND THEIR CHILDREN, it would actually be funny.

  28. TC Matthews
    Posted July 9, 2011 at 5:26 pm | Permalink

    I don't see anything to laugh at Sheryl, marriage means something, something you don't agree with, and that is indeed a difference we have. Your animus toward other people's religious beliefs has nothing to do with the holes in your arguments. If you can't make the case for SS"M" then just say so. Is your position so weak that you have to ridicule others to make your case?

  29. Marty
    Posted July 9, 2011 at 5:55 pm | Permalink

    Sheryl, the only thing stopping "LGBT couples" from marrying is their bias against the opposite sex.

    NOM certainly isn;t preventing these people from marrying. Certainly their children deserve BOTH a mom and a dad.

  30. Sheryl Carver
    Posted July 9, 2011 at 6:01 pm | Permalink

    The only animus I have is using religious beliefs in an attempt to harm other people, INCLUDING the children you claim to care so much about. Marriage does mean something to me, & obviously to all LGBT couples who want so desperately to marry. Many religious organizations, including some Christian ones, accept same-sex marriage. What right do you have to prohibit THEIR religious freedom? Or do you think they do not deserve protection because they believer differently than you?

    Indeed, it is YOUR position that is weak, as was so apparent in the Prop 8 trial, where the pro-8 attorney could not even come up with ONE way that allowing marriage equality would impact heterosexual marriage. Read the transcript.

    I realize there is no way to use rational arguments to get through to anyone who holds a belief for irrational reasons, so I'm done with this particular discussion.

    May you some day come to see that CIVIL marriage rights for all in no way harms anyone.

  31. Sheryl Carver
    Posted July 9, 2011 at 6:09 pm | Permalink

    The only animus I have is toward those who would use their particular beliefs to harm other people AND THEIR CHILDREN!

    There are many religious organizations who fully accept & support same-sex marriage, including many Christian ones. Are your beliefs the only ones that should be used as the standard of right & wrong? Oh, there's also that little matter of separation of church & state.

    You clearly are not responding to rational arguments. Not surprising, which is why this will likely be settled in the courts, where rationality & facts are required.

    May you some day come to realize that allowing ALL people access to ALL CIVIL rights does not harm you or anyone in any way.

  32. TC Matthews
    Posted July 9, 2011 at 6:37 pm | Permalink

    "The only animus I have is toward those who would use their particular beliefs to harm other people AND THEIR CHILDREN!"

    Sheryl, did you mean "disagree with other people"? Because I see no harm happening here. The harm to children of same sex couples is happening regardless of who disagrees with your views on the subject.

  33. TC Matthews
    Posted July 9, 2011 at 6:46 pm | Permalink

    "Indeed, it is YOUR position that is weak, as was so apparent in the Prop 8 trial, where the pro-8 attorney could not even come up with ONE way that allowing marriage equality would impact heterosexual marriage. Read the transcript."

    I have read the transcript in entirety, several times, have you? Have you, in addition, read the mountain of documentation also presented to the court in addition to the testimony, which includes years of relevant case law, studies, and binding precedent?

    Your issues have been answered as you've presented them. Perhaps you just didn't like the answers? On the other hand, you and other SS"M"ers on this thread have yet to answer the questions presented. You have tired talking points, lots of name calling and plenty of ridicule to toss about, but where is the evidence? What about SS"M" makes it equal to marriage? We already know that people are equal, and that everyone has equal access to marriage, as defined--- we also know that life choices are not equal. Where is your case?

  34. CuriousGeorge
    Posted July 9, 2011 at 7:51 pm | Permalink

    "The harm to children of same sex couples is happening regardless of who disagrees with your views on the subject."

    Repeating the lie over and over doesn't bring it any closer to being true.

    Countless studies show that children raised by stable, committed same sex families are as well adjusted and do just as well as children raised by stable committed traditional families.

    There are no peer-reviewed studies that show any harm to children raised by stable same sex families.

  35. Randy E King
    Posted July 9, 2011 at 7:57 pm | Permalink

    Sheryl Carver wrote:

    The only animus I have is toward those who would use their particular beliefs to harm other people AND THEIR CHILDREN!

    Are you refearing to the LGBT community that is demanding that millenia old social consturcts be obliterated just so an organized well heeled horde of miscreants can remake society in their image?

    It is your beilief system that is harming society Sheryl; your depravity is your religion and you are demanding that your religion be afforded greater protection and consideration from government of the people in direct opposition to the peoples will.

    Must you pervert the world around you just to lend the appearance of acceptability to your depravity?

  36. TC Matthews
    Posted July 9, 2011 at 8:09 pm | Permalink

    I'm just curious George... What study have you seen that shows kids don't need a dad? What study shows they don't need a mom?

  37. bill cope
    Posted July 9, 2011 at 8:50 pm | Permalink

    TC, the exact same studies states use to allow gay and lesbian and single parent adoptions.

  38. Chairm
    Posted July 9, 2011 at 10:14 pm | Permalink

    bill cope, your off of a list of studies is now on the table. The standard to which you have readily invoked is "the exact same studies" which were available prior to the change in adoption policy. The 'prior to' stipulation is decisive, according to your claim as stated by yourself.

    Also you have conflated single adoptors with same sex twosomes; and further you have made a claim that the lack of either a mom or a dad makes the single adoptor no different than the samesex twosome specifically due to that twosome being either gay or lesbian.

    That last point is decisive in your comments. Supposedly nongay and nonlesbian same ssex twosomes are significantly different when it comes to outcomes for adopted children.

    These are the decisive points intrinsic to your claim regarding your exacting list of studies used to change adoption policy.

    That claim hinges on the supposed certainty that children do not need either mom or dad. Perhaps you would clarify your understanding of "need" as per your list of studies. If not, then you have yet to answer TC Mathew's query ... list of studies or not.

  39. Randy E King
    Posted July 9, 2011 at 10:31 pm | Permalink

    To say children do not need a mother and a father is to refute the very notion. No child will ever be the product of a same-sex union;it happens to be a scientific impossibility.

    No matter how many words you redefine, no matter how many elected representatives you corupt, or how many professional organizations you infiltrate just so you can release a statement claiming your organization has come to its senses; will you ever be able to create life within the constructs of yout arangement.

    And do you honestly believe the children intrusted to you will never figure this out for themselves? You are obviously constructing a facade; a maike believe world were your pathology is somehow beneficial to society.

    I do not know who you think you are fooling; in the end you are only fooling yourself.

  40. bill cope
    Posted July 9, 2011 at 11:05 pm | Permalink

    The purported assumption is that children "need" a mom and a dad. If so, state public policy would make sure that happens. Single-parent and gay and lesbian adoptions would be prohibited. Public policy is normally based upon scientifically valid studies on what children need. Additional required items items could be food, shelter, clothing and financial support.

  41. Comey Arifidly
    Posted July 10, 2011 at 2:30 am | Permalink

    Charim, its simple really, not that difficult. Either children need a mom and a dad or they don't. The state determines what children need in adoption cases. This public policy is based on studies that follow the scientific method. If children need a mom and a dad, then certainly the state would not allow single or gay and lesbian adoptions. They also need food, shelter, and financial support and the state public policy is geared towards making that happen through laws and adoption regulations.

    No need to make this complicated, children either need a mom and a dad or they don't. Yes or No.

  42. j
    Posted July 10, 2011 at 6:39 am | Permalink

    God's angels will cast these HATERS into the boiling lakes of blood from the hanging bodies of the dead children.

    Your fates are sealed in the Bible.

    The consequences of your reckless beliefs and projections of hatred will be revisited on you in eternity.

  43. j
    Posted July 10, 2011 at 6:49 am | Permalink

    Question: Should single parents be banned from adoption?

    According to the U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services, 33% of children adoption from Foster Care is by a single parent (U.S. DHHS, 2000).

  44. j
    Posted July 10, 2011 at 6:59 am | Permalink

    Children aside, why should a homosexual individual be prohibited from the dignity of a marriage? Marriage is the recognition of a committed relationship based on the same affection, attraction, and bonding of a heterosexual couple. Family is strengthened by marriage, and marriage strengthened by family. However, family does not require marriage, and marriage does not require family.

  45. Daughter of Eve
    Posted July 10, 2011 at 9:38 am | Permalink

    The govt. is famous for creating policy that caters to furthering political agendas, such as identity politics, while ignoring both common sense and justice. Children's needs can best be met, we less govt. meddling, through a married mom and dad taking their stewardship as parents, seriously. "No other success can compensate for failure in the home," and no govt. policy (nor SS couple) can replace what a child's own married parents can provide.

  46. Marty
    Posted July 10, 2011 at 9:53 am | Permalink

    Bill Cope lives in a strange kind of utopia I guess...

    No, the State doesn't have to be nearly so totalitarian as you hope Bill. Simply affirming Mother Nature's design for the family by sanctioning and encouraging Man+Woman marriage does a pretty good (certainly not perfect) job of meeting children's needs without stepping on the toes of every adult in sight.

    If you want to deprive your child of a mom because of your own bias against women -- well, it's a free country. But please don't expect the State (aka We The People) to approve, encourage, or reward such behavior.

  47. Comey Arifidly
    Posted July 10, 2011 at 10:06 am | Permalink

    D of E, so why then, is NOM ONLY focused on marriage policy and not the adoption policies of all but two US states? That is, if NOM really cares about a Mom and a Dad....

  48. TC Matthews
    Posted July 10, 2011 at 10:45 am | Permalink

    Comey, is NOM's actions your only source of authority? Hm. Odd. Has NOM come out with a position on adoption policy? Perhaps NOM is only focused on marriage policy because it's the "National... Organization... For Marriage". Oh.

  49. al rotundo
    Posted July 10, 2011 at 6:25 pm | Permalink

    In AMERICA, we believe in EQUALITY. If you don't like it, MOVE,

  50. Daughter of Eve
    Posted July 10, 2011 at 9:56 pm | Permalink

    What T. C. said. ;). As a voting citizen, when I get the chance, I gladly vote for adoption policies that favor a married opposite sexes couple over other scenarios.

  51. Comey Arifidly
    Posted July 11, 2011 at 1:16 am | Permalink

    TC, perhaps NOM's marriage policy is somewhat lacking then if it wont help comprehensively insure children's need for a mother and father are met. Leaving the back door wide open while fighting to close the front marriage door to homosexuals. Just sayin...

  52. Louis E.
    Posted July 11, 2011 at 1:42 am | Permalink

    Marriage exists to unite males to females,and its usefulness to society rests on that purpose.No one has a "civil right" to have a same-sex relationship treated as qualified for benefits that are deserved specifically by being male-female.

    I am a New York Democrat opposed to same-sex marriage,and on July 24th my state ceases to offer any kind of marriage I can enter into in good conscience,since I am not religious.

    I call on all persons who want to be legally husband and wife to marry legally ONLY in states that do not make them a "spouse one" and "spouse two".If enough opposite-sex couples from pro-SSM states moved their weddings to states without SSM the alleged argument that SSM is good for the economy would be utterly exploded.

  53. Fedele Razio
    Posted July 11, 2011 at 3:37 am | Permalink

    The goal SS"M" is forcing intercheangeability between men and women, and destroying any legal recognition of the biological relationship between mother, father, and childrens.

    It's a totalitarian nightmare, and free people must fight to get rid of this nightmare as soon as possible.

  54. Zak Jones
    Posted July 11, 2011 at 8:41 am | Permalink

    There is a problem with the "Let the People Vote" philosophy...

    In California, Proposition 13 was put on the ballot which stated the property tax cannot change as long as you own your home. Of course, the people voted for this initiative. Now California is broke. People with multi million dollar homes are paying less tax than others with $200k homes.