Comments on: Marriage Pledge Update: And Tim Pawlenty Makes 4!

By: Marriage Champions Emerge in Presidential Race! NOM Marriage News, August 4, 2011 | NOM Blog

Wed, 10 Aug 2011 20:07:32 +0000

[...] - thanks to your calls, Gov. Pawlenty signed the Marriage Pledge. Bravo, marriage [...]

By: The Moz

The Moz — Sat, 06 Aug 2011 13:54:14 +0000

Wonderful response Louis E. to the hateful, irrational anti-religious and anti-humanity bigotry and bullying of Andrew. If France, the most secular country in secular Europe can definitively re-affirm real marriage, so can the rest of the civilized world. Marriage is unique. If two people of the same sex can provide evidence for the creation of even 1 new life, new person, out of the 16 billion or so that have ever lived on planet earth I will be the first to re-assess my convictions.

By: John B.

John B. — Sat, 06 Aug 2011 02:26:45 +0000

Wait, is it "let the people vote" or is it "take the vote away from the states and from the people with a constitutional amendment"? (You do realize there is no popular vote when it comes to constitutional amendments, right?) Aren't you talking out of both sides of your mouth here?

By: ione oden

ione oden — Sat, 06 Aug 2011 01:03:05 +0000

Andrew, apparently you have spent way too much time reading the homosexual agendas propaganda. NOM is about love and protecting God's time tested truth about marriage.

By: John Noe

John Noe — Fri, 05 Aug 2011 23:49:01 +0000

This is good news to see that now Gov. Pawelty has signed on, just need Mr. Cain and Governor Perry of Texas to sign on. These are the six strongest candidates in the Republican field.
The Tea Party and other conservaties need to understand that it is imperative that they work with us. We can then take back the Senate, expand our representation in the House, and take back the White House.
If we stop this awful homosexual marriage in all of the states at least we can contain it so that this evil thing does not spread across the country.

By: Matthew

Matthew — Fri, 05 Aug 2011 23:33:52 +0000

If NOM supports the right of citizens to vote directly on same-sex marriage, why is it pushing a Constitutional amendment which citizens are Constitutionally forbidden to vote on directly — an amendment that would prevent citizens from ever voting directly on same-sex marriage?

By: Dan

Dan — Fri, 05 Aug 2011 22:35:56 +0000

Well, I know who I'm voting for this time! He's got my vote for sure.

By: Louis E.

Louis E. — Fri, 05 Aug 2011 22:07:01 +0000

Standards of conduct are not "bigotry",and the responsibility to cement in law the uniquely important status of male-female relationships is not a religious issue.There is no excuse for according "equality" between right and wrong,or claiming that "hate" motivates the efforts to correct the behavior of the "gay".

By: Daughter of Eve

Daughter of Eve — Fri, 05 Aug 2011 22:02:28 +0000

The handwringing and self-victimization of sexual identity politics demonstrates the need to distance the subject of marriage neutering from that of homosexuality. Legally, SSM makes no requirements as to sexual orientation, and most reasonable Americans, when reminded of that fact, can clearly see that the issue isn't about defining marriage based on sexual attraction, but about the common sense definition of marriage--what makes that particular relationship different than any other human pairing; what are its parameters, eligibility requirements, and core meaning? Two straight men who choose to enter into an SSM are no more part of a "gay" marriage, than a "gay" man who marries a "gay" woman, part of a "gay" marriage. Marriage isn't "gay" or "straight;" it's opposite-sexed. Arguing for or against homosexuality takes the focus off the real issue: does America value having one of each gender equally represented in each marriage union, and if we cease to do so, what are the consequences?

By: Fedele Razio

Fedele Razio — Fri, 05 Aug 2011 21:06:27 +0000

Defending marriage as the union of a man and a woman is defending democracy and freedom.

Signing the marriage pledge should be a minimal requirement each voter should require from each candidate.