Forcing Christians Into the Closet? NOM Marriage News, October 21, 2011


NOM National Newsletter

My Dear Friends,

How quickly do the cultural inhibitions shift after same-sex marriage becomes the law?

In Connecticut, just a few years after court-ordered gay marriage became the law of the land, a public high school in Hartford chose to put on a musical featuring two boys kissing passionately.

The public school is composed of several "academies" with separate principals. One of the principals sent out a letter advising the parents in advance so they could choose whether that was appropriate for their children. But another principal, David Chambers, said he thought about and rejected that idea.

As Lifesite News reports:

Nursing academy principal David Chambers, said that he had considered sending an opt-out letter to parents before changing his mind.

Chambers said that students needed to learn empathy towards homosexuals and exposure to things that would make them uncomfortable. "Our kids are not there yet," he said. Chambers also suggested that the reaction of disgust was a good sign, indicating a release of students' inner conflict about homosexuality.

"Even though it's kind of chaotic, kind of wild and crazy, I see it as very successful," he said, according to The Courant. "Our kids never deal with this, they keep it inside, and that's that nervous energy. That's why they walked out."

Adam Johnson, principal of Hartford High's Law and Government Academy, agreed. "This is as important of a topic to discuss as anything in math, anything in social studies," Johnson said. "I'm completely glad that we did it."

Watching two boys kiss is as important as anything in math class?

In one sense, of course, we should not be surprised. The heart of the gay-marriage movement is a new moral idea: There is no difference between two men in a sexual union and the union of a husband and wife, and if you see a difference there is something wrong with you.

Of course once the government accepts the legitimacy of this position, public schools are going to reflect and promote, with your tax dollars, this new moral norm in a variety of ways, some we can predict and some we cannot.

This is a movement that has trumpeted what they believe and want, and then accuses others of lying or bad faith when they say those beliefs and demands will have consequences.

Meanwhile in New Jersey, a public school teacher posted her objections to celebrating Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender History month in her public school. Gay-marriage advocates are demanding she be fired. An "investigation" has been launched.

"She has a right to say it. But she does not have a right to keep her job after saying it," one former public official said.

What did Viki Knox say?

She did not call any person a name. She specifically called for kind and loving treatment of gay people and said that's the way she treated gay people in her life. She said she believed that homosexuality is a sign of a "perverted spirit" of this age.

Turning against the spirit of what God asks of us, she meant. Sin, she said, "breeds like cancer."

This week, for her sins, the Human Rights Campaign delivers 75,000 signatures—hardly any from her school district of course—demanding that the board act against Viki.

Thanks to your help, NOM was there at the protest in Union County, and in the next few days we'll be releasing new video footage from the protest so that you can see (through the mainstream media-haze) what these protestors really want.

Getting the word out with original videos isn't cheap. Please help us stand up for Viki and for others in her shoes by making a donation to NOM today! $5, $10, or, if you can afford it - $100 will help us leap over the MSM's biased coverage and stand up for truth and love.

The intense national public campaign to get Viki fired is another very bad sign about the intentions of gay-marriage advocates, a sign of the kind of America they believe "equality" requires.

Of course gay teens in public schools should be treated with respect. As a Christian I never forget that Christ died for each and every one of those souls. Children who bully one another need to be instructed, to be taught manners and morals.

But for the gay-marriage movement, at this point respect is not enough.

It's not a level playing field. It's second-class citizenship for Christians and other traditional faith communities.

Just a few years ago a gay teacher could have been fired. Now a Bible-believing Christian has to be "in the closet" or get fired.

In other important news, rich New York billionaires promised four GOP senators they would be "protected" if they betrayed the people they represent, the promises they made, and voted for gay marriage.

Now, as EWTN reports, "NY Senators Seen As Vulnerable for Turning Against Marriage":

"These senators campaigned with the promise that they would not vote to redefine marriage. Mark Grisanti, in fact, went as far as to promise churches that he would never vote to redefine marriage," our own Christopher Plante told EWTN. "But when they were shown the money, and they began to do the money dance, they betrayed their people's vote—for the money. Therein lies the problem."

At one of the many fetes in which establishment New York tried to persuade these four guys they are heroes, one of the New York Four, State Sen. Jim Alesi, actually explained out loud how lacking in integrity he has been and still is on this issue.

At an Oct. 18 panel hosted by the New York Times (which now loves Jim Alesi), he explained that he voted NO in 2009 because he was for same-sex marriage in 2009:

"As the State Senate Republican minority prepared to enter the chamber for the December 2, 2009 vote on marriage equality, James Alesi, a GOP member from the Rochester area, told his colleagues, 'I'm voting no. If anyone votes yes, I'm going to quit the Senate.'"

Politically, he was unwilling to take the heat for being for gay marriage in 2009. Instead, he explained that senators knew ahead of time that the votes for passage were not there.

He says now, in 2011:

"This was the best vote [for same-sex marriage] I've ever taken in 20 years, and I'll go to my grave with that."

As New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg and his coterie of wealthy establishment Republicans hosted a fundraiser showering more than a million dollars on these four pro-gay-marriage state senators, with your help the National Organization for Marriage launched a new web ad, "The Money Dance."

Under media scrutiny for selling his vote and betraying his constituents, Sen. Grisanti said a very strange thing to the press:

State Senator Mark Grisanti: "To say 'you're next,' first of all I don't know what that means, second of all it was done by an organization that's based out of Utah, that pays no taxes in New York state, that doesn't care about Western New York whatsoever."

Huh? NOM has supporters in all fifty states, including New York. Just look at the hundreds of Western New Yorkers who showed up for out Let The People Vote Rally in Buffalo:

Sen. Grisanti—these are New York taxpayers. These are your constituents.

These are the folks you betrayed when you cashed in on your vote for gay marriage.

NOM's "Money Dance" ad lampooning the pro-SSM New York Senators who betrayed the voters is already being noticed by New York media.

Times-Union Capital Confidential:
"The National Organization for Marriage is out with a JibJab-ish web ad attacking the four GOP Senators who voted for same-sex marriage last June. This is a response to the recent fund-raiser held for the lawmakers in New York City."

New York Daily News Daily Politics:
"The senators, as you can see, are Roy McDonald, Mark Grisanti, Steve Saland and James Alesi [...] As we noted here on The Daily Politics two weeks ago, NOM is also waging a billboard campaign against the Republican quartet."

WIVB Buffalo:
"The organization behind the billboard that's up along Interstate 190 also has released a new web ad called, 'Money Dance.' The ad features the four senators dancing with wealthy contributors. It's in response to a fundraiser Grisanti attended Thursday in New York City hosted by Mayor Michael Bloomberg."

Buffalo News:
"The event was used as new attack material by the conservative National Organization for Marriage, which has vowed to spend $2 million to defeat Grisanti and the other Republican senators in next year's elections. The group already has taken out billboards in the senators' districts and on Friday launched an online advertisement labeled 'Money Dance' against the four lawmakers."

Politics on the Hudson:
"The National Organization for Marriage is up with an online ad today against the four Republicans senators who voted in June to legalize same-sex marriage. [...] NOM has a 'Let the People Vote' campaign that is seeking to overturn the same-sex marriage law, which took effect in July, through a constitutional amendment."

WNED Buffalo:
"State Senator Mark Grisanti continues to be dogged by his vote in June on the Marriage Equality bill. Grisanti was one of four Republicans who sided with Democrats to get the legislation passed. Now, critics are claiming that New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg hosted a lavish fundraiser recently to pay the Senators back."

Thank you for all you do to help us break through and get the message out in all 50 states: People care about marriage!

Also in New York, Gov. Andrew Cuomo gets up and slams millions of Americans as bigots this week, claiming,

"Ultimately, there was no answer by the opposition. There isn't! There really isn't. And as soon as you ask the question, and you probe the answer, the only answer [by those opposed to the gay marriage bill] is 'I want to discriminate against gay people.'"

Really? For thousands of years human beings have recognized marriage as the union of male and female—for no reason but to hurt gay people?

Who is being irrational now? Where does this ugly mischaracterization lead?

The governor of New York, who is living openly in a home with his children and the woman he does not love enough to marry, and the mayor of New York City, whose children at least are grown but who also does not love the woman he lives with enough to marry her, are preaching to the rest of us about the reasons and rationality of marriage?

Does this really make any sense at all?

Finally, disturbing news out of Washington State. The Secretary of State's office on Monday began making public the names of 137,500 people who signed Referendum 71 petitions two years ago to repeal a civil union law.

The lawsuit designed to prevent the disclosure of these names, given the organized efforts to harass and threaten petition signers in Prop 8 and in Massachusetts, may have failed for now. But the two-year delay, we hope, has given the zealots time to cool their tempers and re-evaluate a strategy designed to intimidate people for exercising their core civil rights.

Please pray for each of the 137,500 and for the people who disagree with their views. Democracy demands a culture of civic respect even when we passionately morally disagree.

So much is happening behind the scenes, and under the radar screen. So many decent, good people are gathering their courage to face the onslaught that is coming.

So many victories, unpredicted and unheralded, to be fought for and won.

Thank you for all you do to make this possible.

Alone, we can be frightened and intimidated. Together we are too many to be deterred, discouraged, or defeated!

God bless you and thank you again for your prayers, your emails, your letters, and your financial sacrifices, on behalf of God's truth about marriage!


Brian Brown

Brian S Brown

Brian S. Brown
National Organization for Marriage

PS: If what you read here has renewed your strength and desire to fight for marriage, act now! No matter what you can give, you can make a difference by donating to NOM. You are fighting for the future of marriage in this country, for your children and grandchildren and the generations to come.



  1. Davide
    Posted October 21, 2011 at 2:50 pm | Permalink

    did it dawn on anyone that the principle is a pedophile?

  2. Davide
    Posted October 21, 2011 at 3:05 pm | Permalink

    meant to say could be

  3. Reuben
    Posted October 21, 2011 at 4:46 pm | Permalink

    I have a real problem with all of this. This school was just trying to combat an environment of hate and bigotry that is abundant in this country. Some people think that any time they’re presented with homosexuality, they’re being indoctrinated. But homosexuality is something that many people are born with, and unlike bigots, gay people are able to live perfectly normal lives and do not try to impose their lifestyle on anybody else. You’re applauding these students who walked out of this play, but all they were doing was closing themselves off to anything different from themselves and perpetuating ignorance.

  4. Aaron
    Posted October 21, 2011 at 5:10 pm | Permalink

    Please do not allow the above two comments by "Davide" to stand, as making entirely speculative comments of such an incriminating nature against a man that we may be sure that "Davide" has never met is at the very least unhelpful and at the most career destroying. Malicious gossip spreading is entirely un-Christlike and destroys lives.

  5. Garrett
    Posted October 21, 2011 at 5:18 pm | Permalink

    Hateful, Davide.

  6. Randy E King
    Posted October 21, 2011 at 8:36 pm | Permalink

    Forcing Christians into the closet?

    Throughout the blogosphere I have been told by supporters of marriage corruption that Christians are responsible for more mass murders than anyone else on the planet.

    Which leads me to ask:

    You know this and yet you continue to poke the bear?

    Maggie's tact is to keep this from turning into the reckoning she knows will come if marriage corruption is permited to continue; out of love for her son.

    Christianity is based on five thousand years of tradition; whereas marriage corruption is based on forty years of decadence.

    Decadence: a period of decline

  7. Little man
    Posted October 21, 2011 at 10:27 pm | Permalink

    Davide: The spelling is "Principal" and usually starting with capital P, but what you mean is understood by the context. Principle vs Principal is something a speller checker won't catch 🙂 Per: 'principal David Chambers, said that he had considered sending an opt-out letter to parents before changing his mind.' Most adult humans have an instinct to protect any young human in every way. Children in Westerns (TV or movies) would adopt a child without much ado, simply because they needed a home. Some would adopt them to abuse them, of course. Without this instinct to preserve our species young, and even some animal orphans, humanity might not exist. A pedophile, on the other hand usually is secretive and engages children on a one-to-one basis (no, i am not one), and somehow does not have this adult instinct to protect the children. Instead, he protects his/her own (sometimes sexual) interests. Today, even downloading pictures of mid-age children in scanty, provocative clothing is an Internet crime. Why? Because there is mostly a consensus that children are not to be abused, and most children cannot judge whether a person is trying to be nice or entrapping them. Pedophiles don't seek public exposure jobs such as Principals of schools, in general. Teachers are highly warned not to be alone with a student child, off hours, like taking them to an event, even a school event, because children are so extremely protected by society it only takes a whisper from them to put a teacher in to deep trouble with the law, whether they are innocent or not. Messing with a kid can bring about the direct and partially justified rage from the natural father. More policemen die as a result of trying to take away a child from his father who has lost physical custody, than from all robberies, murders, and drug addicts arrested. The father might go to prison, or be shot, but at that point instinct dominates over reason, and he'll leave a few policemen's children fatherless in his rage. No pedophiles don't become Principals. If so, they don't last long. Thanks.

  8. Davide
    Posted October 22, 2011 at 10:57 am | Permalink

    I am sorry it was a low blow and I wish to retract my comment but it is creepy...

  9. Davide
    Posted October 22, 2011 at 11:02 am | Permalink

    Little man thanks for the comment and clarification. However public school systems is one of the main sources for child sexual abuse outside the home. I recently read a report that 10 percent of educators abuse children or the 10 percent of the abuse happen in public school settings. NYC had a huge sexual child abuse scandal about 10 years ago, thanks

  10. Louis E.
    Posted October 22, 2011 at 12:59 pm | Permalink

    Reuben,the PRACTICE of same-sex sexual activity merits unanimous condemnation,and schools should teach children that it can never be justified.The trumped-up excuse of "being gay" should not be validated by our educational system.Those afflicted by same-sex sexual attraction need help,but sympathy toward them becomes harmful to them if ever extended to attempts to gratify their attractions.We don't encourage alcoholics to get drunk,nor is it "bigotry" to insist that they stay sober!

  11. Barb Chamberlan
    Posted October 22, 2011 at 2:20 pm | Permalink

    I applaud NOM's efforts to counter the many simultaneous affronts to marriage, and I can only imagine the amount of time and money that's required.

    Just a few dollars from every marriage supporter will go a long way in helping NOM continue its valiant work. I know there are many here who already contribute, and I challenge all my fellow marriage supporters to take the next step. As Brian said, every dollar makes a difference, and every one of US makes a difference.

  12. Little man
    Posted October 22, 2011 at 7:46 pm | Permalink

    Yes, my wife told me that sexual child abuse happens in Public Schools to a significant degree/rate. I don't know the statistics, and i would think the statistics would show only the tip of the iceberg so to speak. Yet, 'child abuse' can take many forms, and does not coincide always with sexual abuse. Even 'sexual abuse' could be some form of indirect verbal sexual innuendo. This subject is very hard to discuss openly. In Hawaii, the max. imprisonment for the molestation of a minor, the sexual act is 20 years. For an verbal sexual innuendo?.... 20 years. When society tells a child not to believe what their parents say, as in the case of this public school, it unknowingly sets up a situation where the parents can no longer protect the child from external influence. When the school violates the parents' trust, and begins to usurp parental know-best, it makes the children more vulnerable to external influences ranging from which brand of cereal food to buy, to trying sexual jokes, to trying sexual acts with their other minors. In higher grades, teachers might not be able to resist temptation. It's a terrible breakdown, often with both parents working full-time, leaving the baby sitting to after-school care, etc. But parents still keep cross-checking, and ultimately straighten out the educational context/system. Schools fear parents the most.., but if a generation gap can be set up, then children don't communicate with their parents anymore, and bang!, they become easy prey. Thanks.

  13. Rob
    Posted October 22, 2011 at 7:51 pm | Permalink

    The process of normalizing human sexual orientation (heterosexuality is further along than homosexuality) continues, as it should.

  14. David in Houston
    Posted October 23, 2011 at 10:18 am | Permalink

    I'm still waiting to hear how marriage equality negatively affects anyone else's marriage or family?

    After 7 years, you'd think every marriage in Massachusetts would have been destroyed because Sam and John got a marriage license at their city hall. Oddly enough, straight couples are still getting married there... even non-religious straight couples. Imagine that.

  15. Louis E.
    Posted October 23, 2011 at 12:19 pm | Permalink

    As a non-religious heterosexual who would never marry in any state (including my own) that has replaced bona fide marriage with something same-sex couples are eligible for,I regret that opposite-sex couples are not moving their weddings to other jurisdictions where it is still possible to be legally husband and wife rather than Partner One and Partner Two or Spouse A and Spouse B.It is not individual marriages that SSM destroys,but the essence of marriage itself.

  16. Little man
    Posted October 23, 2011 at 2:17 pm | Permalink

    David in Houston: You are in Texas, and so ask around. If you were shown how civil marriage is affected by same-sex marriage, you wouldn't listen, so what's the use?

  17. Skooter McGoo
    Posted October 23, 2011 at 2:29 pm | Permalink

    The 1st Amendment protect me FROM religion as much as your right to practice your own.

    Just a reminder, Francis Bellamy did NOT include, "Under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance when he wrote it, and he was a Christian Baptist minister.

    It seems NOM is more against gay people than just a marriage issue with it's postings.

  18. Randy E King
    Posted October 23, 2011 at 4:53 pm | Permalink

    Francis Bellamy did not see the need to include 'under God" in th pledge of aligiance because at that time it was universally understood that this nation was founded under Gods laws as handed down through Moses.

    "We hold these TRUTHS to be self evidident that all men are CREATED equal, that they are endowed by their CREATOR with certain unalienable rights...

    "...And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor."

    The source of our unalienable rights dictate in which context our unalienable rights are intended.

    "In God We Trust" is the OFFICIAL national motto of the United States of America; which serves to reinforce this nations dedication to the source of our unalienable rights.

    Marriage corruption supporters are demanding the right to use their God given gift of freedom to deny their countrymen access to the source of our freedom.


    The theroies of evolution and secularism did not even exist until sevent five years after the founding of the United States.

  19. Louis E.
    Posted October 23, 2011 at 6:05 pm | Permalink

    It's same-sex sexual relationships,not "gay people",that merit condemnation from religionist and secularist alike.

  20. bman
    Posted October 23, 2011 at 7:58 pm | Permalink

    The 1st Amendment protect me FROM religion as much as your right to practice your own.

    The 1st amendment was originally intended to separate the federal power from having authority in matters of religion while allowing the states to do so.

  21. David in Houston
    Posted October 23, 2011 at 11:29 pm | Permalink

    @ Little man: Apparently, my question was so unbelievably difficult to answer, that you weren't able to do so in a couple of paragraphs. So instead you tell me that some people in Texas know the answer, so just ask around. Really?

    So if I were legally married to my partner in California, then married opposite-sex couples in Texas would... Get divorced? Have their families torn apart? Confuse children about marriage, even if they're straight? Tempt straight people to try gay marriage?

  22. bman
    Posted October 24, 2011 at 12:26 am | Permalink

    David in Houston->I'm still waiting to hear how marriage equality negatively affects anyone else's marriage or family? After 7 years, you'd think every marriage in Massachusetts would have been destroyed because Sam and John got a marriage license at their city hall. Oddly enough, straight couples are still getting married there... even non-religious straight couples. Imagine that.

    This is like asking, "How would the official endorsement of men having sex with men as normal behavior by the public school system hurt society?."

    The question presumes it would take time for the new generation to undergo indoctrination before the hurt would statistically manifest.

    Since those raised under the old teaching would not be molded by the new teaching, we should expect the old ways to be practiced until the new generation replaced the older generation.

    Thus, your reference to Massachusetts fails to allow adequate time for the process.

    I think we can also obtain a clearer perspective if we pose the question this way, "Would it hurt society if a whole generation was taught to disregard traditional sexual morality?

    That question is not "unbelievably difficult to answer" as you claimed.

    Indeed, by default, one would naturally expect the obvious answer to be, "yes, it would hurt society."

    If you want a question that is "unbelievably difficult to answer" try proving it would not hurt society!

    Since it 's intuitively obvious that it would hurt society, your job does not look easy at all.

  23. Louis E.
    Posted October 24, 2011 at 2:29 am | Permalink

    David in Houston,it certainly does confuse the definition of marriage if anything other than uniting males to females (which creates the only public interest in such a thing as marriage existing) is seen as its primary purpose.

Comments are temporarily disabled. Please try back later.