Dear Marriage Supporter,
The GOP presidential campaign is off to the races! And NOM's Marriage Pledge is front and center.
Rick Santorum's surprise move in the Iowa Ames straw poll is having consequences.
Rick went from less than 1 percent in the polls to fourth in just a few weeks by highlighting marriage and life.
He didn't move up because of money or organization but because of message: Iowa voters care about life and marriage and candidates are taking notice.
Here's Rick on NOM's Votes Have Consequences/Values Voters Bus Tour (co-hosted by the Susan B. Anthony List and Family Research Council):
And here's a montage of the all the candidates who spoke on marriage at the Ames debate:
We will be your one-stop center for keeping track of the presidential marriage debate moving forward.
As a result of Ames, marriage has moved to a new prominence in presidential rhetoric this week.
Michelle Bachmann applauds Iowans for kicking out Iowa judges, and Herman Cain calls President Obama's failure to defend DOMA an "impeachable offense."
Bachmann, Romney and Santorum have all signed NOM's Marriage pledge—but not Herman Cain. (BTW, we have officially extended to Gov. Rick Perry the opportunity to sign NOM's Marriage Pledge—stay tuned!)
I think he's got some 'splaining to do.
What's important about NOM's marriage pledge is that it translates values into action. If the GOP's commitment to values voters is just about words, well then the other parties can fake it, and the GOP candidates can just phone it in.
Remember when Pres. Obama appeared on stage with John McCain and Rev. Rick Warren and swore he supported marriage as the union of one man and one woman?
After what's happened with Pres. Obama's relentless campaign to sabotage marriage, I swore to myself: never again.
An effective political movement has to do more than just voice values or even help elect candidates. It has to hold those candidates accountable and work hard to expose for voters the differences between the two sides.
NOM's first step is the Marriage Pledge—thank you for making what we do possible.
We are working tirelessly to make it clear to elites—including GOP elites!—that marriage is an indispensable foundation of American civilization... and a winning issue!
When you knock over a core pillar of society like marriage, and then try to redefine Biblical views of marriage as bigotry, there will be consequences. Will one of the consequences be a serious push to normalize pedophilia?
The Daily Caller raised the question by pointing us all to a high-level academic conference in Baltimore this week, "Pedophilia: Minor-Attracted Persons and the DSM: Issues and Controversies."
The DSM is the diagnostic manual that defines mental illness. You probably recall that a key moment in the gay rights campaign was the 1973 decision by the American Psychiatric Association, the organization that produces the DSM, to remove homosexuality from its list of mental illnesses.
Here's how the brochure describes the goal:
"This day-long symposium will facilitate the exchange of ideas among researchers, scholars, mental health practitioners, and minor-attracted persons who have an interest in critical issues surrounding the entry for pedophilia in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) of the American Psychiatric Association. The symposium will address critical issues in the following areas:
- Scientific and philosophical issues related to the DSM entry on pedophilia and/or hebephilia
- Effects of the DSM entry on stigma, availability of mental health services, and research
- Ways in which minor-attracted persons can be involved in the DSM 5 revision process"
When professors from Harvard and Johns Hopkins School of Medicine get together to discuss ways in which "minor attracted persons" can be involved in the DSM revision process—watch out.
Enquiring people want to know: Will pedophiles become "minor-attracted persons" in our culture? Will courts which endorse orientation as a protected class decide down the road that therefore laws which discriminate against "minor-attracted persons" must be narrowly tailored to a compelling government interest?
Here's the fundamental truth: Ideas have consequences and so do words—because they contain ideas, because they are the vehicle through which and by which human beings describe reality.
The reality that men and women need each other, and that children need a mom and dad, is the truth most at risk in the same-sex marriage debate.
MARRIED, INTACT, BIOLOGICAL FAMILY THE GOLD STANDARD FOR KIDS, SCIENTISTS SAY
A new report signed by major family scholars (some of whom support gay marriage!) lays out the deep goods for which we are fighting: "The intact, biological, married family remains the gold standard for family life in the United States, insofar as children are most likely to thrive—economically, socially, and psychologically—in this family form."
Here's what Maggie had to say about this important report by family scholars:
Children long for a mother and father who are committed to each other and to them. Failing that, children long for a mother whose attention, time and emotional space are not subdivided with men who want to sleep with her.
The "carousel of intimate relationships," as Andrew Cherlin called it, is hurting our kids.
The most important moral question every adult faces is: Which matters more to me—my love life, or my child's love life?
Most of the really bad things good people do to their kids come from burying that question, rather than facing it squarely.
Here are some of the questions we prefer not to ask ourselves so we can pursue our passions with an undisturbed conscience:
How can it be OK to have sex when I can't care for the child—my own child—my body may create? Is it OK to keep abortion as a "backup," taking my own child's (at least nascent) life, so I can keep having romantic relationships? Should I move in with my boyfriend because I'm lonely, or keep a home in which my child comes first? What if my husband bores me and my boss excites me?
The marriage crisis is a moral crisis that consists of a culture evading that main question: Which matters more to me—my love life, or my child's love life?
What kind of person could possibly answer: me, me, me?
MINNESOTA NICE MEETS MARRIAGE DEBATE
Minnesotans will decide the future of marriage in that state on the ballot in 2012. Should marriage as the union of husband and wife be protected in the Minnesota constitution?
Two ridiculous complaints against marriage supporters, including NOM, were just dismissed in Minnesota today. The Campaign Finance board dismissed, for lack of probable cause, complaints brought by Common Cause Minnesota that TV ads run by NOM highlighting Gov. Dayton's support for same-sex marriage violated Minnesota's lobbing disclosure rules.
This was not a close call. By making these legally absurd complaints, Common Cause Minnesota revealed that it has gone from being a non-partisan good-government group to, on this issue at least, becoming a partisan in a culture war.
We expect more of these sorts of attacks in coming weeks—because we are making a difference.
What happens when Minnesota Nice Meets the Marriage Debate?
A Minnesota public radio commentator found out in recent weeks when she called for more civility in the gay-marriage debate. It seems like an innocuous position—who could oppose civility? Certainly not you and me!
But because her call was posted on NOM's blog (which, by the way, aided by the amazing Thomas Peters, is a must-read for anyone who wants to follow marriage on a daily basis), she was inundated by hateful attacks.
Here's some of what Carrie wrote this week:
There must be a group of advocates who watch that website for anything that might conflict with their point of view. Within days, my words, taken completely out of context, and my message — better manners — had been used as the basis for a rallying cry: Carrie Daklin of Minnesota is a homophobe.
I am not sure how my message got so skewed. I have become the object of hate mail and really vicious comments, all in the name of etiquette. Go figure.
I found this all rather unsettling.
... What has happened in our culture, that so many of us are completely unable to accept someone who doesn't share our views? I don't agree with all that my conservative Christian friends espouse, but I support their right to their beliefs. I don't agree with a very liberal friend who said certain members of the religious right should be shot. Actually, he used the word murdered. Sadly, I think he meant it.
In retrospect, the original infraction I wrote about is positively innocuous compared to the resulting uproar. To be blunt: My article was not about gay rights, it was not about the Defense of Marriage Act, and it most certainly was not a promotion for the National Organization for Marriage.
My article was on civility, it was on manners and respect for other people, it was on public decency even toward those you might not agree with. It was about creating a conduit in our society that allows for the paradigms and values of others, so that we can get to a place of compromise. It was about working to replace anger with a tolerance that allows us to thrive.
In the last few weeks I have been a poster child for extremism — the left vilifying me, the right holding me up as some sort of hero. Both make me equally uncomfortable. Both are unwanted. If I am a poster child for anyone, it is Emily Post.
We appreciate her position: making a few comments about treating important moral disagreements with civility does not make a person either a marriage partisan, or a homophobe.
Do gay-marriage advocates agree?
Welcome to our world, NPR!
In truth our world is a great place to be: decent, loving, law-abiding Americans standing up for God's truth about marriage—and winning!
It doesn't get any better than that.
Keep fighting the good fight!
Brian S. Brown
National Organization for Marriage
P.S. Every victory we win at NOM is really your victory—and it's achieved with your help. Please consider what you can give to make a difference for marriage today!