My Dear Friends,
This week the Senate Dems began to debate a bill repealing the Defense of Marriage Act, the one federal law that protects marriage as the union of one man and one woman.
And this week 86 House members have stood up to ask that the Defense Department authorization re-affirm DOMA. Missouri's Todd Akin leads the charge, saying, "The Defense of Marriage Act was passed by a bipartisan vote in Congress and signed into law by President Clinton. Unfortunately, this current administration is now directing the Department of Defense to ignore this law and perform gay marriages on military bases. I think this is wrong, which is why I offered an amendment to the House-passed defense bill making it clear that DOMA applies to the DOD. This letter calls for the Senate to add a similar amendment to their version of the bill. The Department of Defense should not be allowed to simply ignore laws they do not like."
Obama's essentially post-modern lawlessness is on display. Laws all consist of words. If you can redefine the meanings of words you need bow your head to no law, making a mockery of the rule of law itself.
Speaking of mockeries, what do you think of Kim Kardashian's announcement that she is ending her 72-day "marriage" to NBA player Kris Humphries? For many this is just the latest example of the degree of disrespect and indolence which Hollywood and the cultural elite in this country show for the institution of marriage.
Kim Kardashian makes untold millions being, well, a Kardashian. From reality TV shows to special appearances, fashion bags, a fragrance line and even paid Twitter posts, she's become Kardashian, Inc. It's said she spent $10 million on her "dream" wedding to Humphries, but reportedly collected $17 million from sponsors who purchased the exclusive TV and magazine rights to cover the event.
Perhaps it's not surprising that someone who sees her wedding as a money-making opportunity doesn't really mean it when she vows, "until death do us part."
Funny how so many of these Hollywood celebrities support gay marriage, as Ms. Kardashian does.
The two most prominent straight guys I know of pushing for gay marriage, Andrew Cuomo and Mayor Bloomberg have one thing in common: Neither of them apparently want to marry the person they love.
It’s probably no accident. Just as the same people who advocated gay marriage in Mexico City now advocate for something called time-limited marriage. Rather than pledging "til death do us part," these activists for gay marriage now urge redefining marriage to a vow of "two years perhaps" (which is, of course, longer than some celebrity marriages!).
From Manhattan to Hollywood and Mexico City, too many of these "marriage equality" activists make it clear by their actions that their intent is not to bring marriage as we have traditionally known it to same-sex couples, but to fundamentally change marriage itself into a completely new institution which does not value monogamy, does not value a life-long commitment, does not view childbearing and child-rearing as a primary purpose, and replaces the concept of mutual sacrifice with self-love.
In other words, it doesn't bear the slightest resemblance to the institution of marriage which God authored and which virtually every human society has endorsed since the dawn of civilization.
There's no question that the institution of marriage has taken some hits. It needs to be strengthened. Too many people enter into it casually and leave just as casually. Too many children are born out of wedlock. We ought to have a national conversation about laws and policies which will reinvigorate a true marriage culture. Those of us committed to preserving marriage as the union of a man and a woman must make just as strong a commitment to strengthening the institution we are trying to preserve.
But to make the case, as advocates of gay marriage do, that because marriage has been weakened in today's society means it should be further warped beyond recognition, makes no sense.
We all agree that marriage should be strengthened, particularly in its capacity to bring children the love and care of a committed mom and dad. Same-sex marriage leads us in the opposite direction.
Thank you to each one of you who viewed NOM's Marriage Anti-Defamation Alliance's latest shocking and heart-rending video.
When I first learned that the gay-marriage movement is right now actively working to shut down religious foster care and adoption agencies in Illinois, my heart dropped. I could not believe it. So I sent a crack filmmaker out to Illinois to investigate, and above you can watch the new video which tells you the unvarnished truth: The new gay "rights" agenda includes the right to deprive children of loving foster homes, if those homes are found by religious adoption agencies which refuse to do gay adoptions.
Wonderful folks like Randi Craigen, who with her husband Clive fostered and adopted Zeb and Trinity: "I felt that was a place I could serve God and help a child."
Now that Evangelical Child and Family Agency is shut out of working with foster children, Randi is really, really concerned about the impact on her own foster kids and others like them: "It's bad for children first of all because now there's an agency that is not going to be able to provide families for them, and there are already not enough families," Randi tells us. Foster father Mike adds, "If those [Christian] people don't have a logical place to go there will be less parents helping these children."
Fewer parents helping abused and orphaned kids?
You and I should be very concerned too.
I'm the father of seven children myself. As a Christian I know we have a special obligation to the orphaned and abused child.
If you haven't yet seen this video, please go there now, and also pass it on to your friends!
It's on the front page of http://www.marriageada.org.
The intentions of too many in the gay-marriage movement are becoming crystal clear. This kind of shutdown of Christian foster agencies is not a side effect of "equality," including "marriage equality"— it's part of the point.
That was proved this week in Michigan where Democrats, prompted by gay rights groups, vigorously contested the passage of an anti-bullying bill because... hold your hats... because it specifically protected teens' First Amendment rights to express moral and religious views in appropriate ways.
"The law includes a section noting it doesn't abridge First Amendment free speech rights or prohibit expression of religious or moral viewpoints—a provision Democrats fear could be used to justify harassment of gay, lesbian or transgender students," the Detroit News reports.
Has it come to that? Are some major political players openly now asserting that protecting gay children from bullying—a worthy goal—requires giving the government the right to prohibit thoughtful and civil expressions of religious or moral viewpoints?
What would become of our democracy if we accepted this reckless premise?
I hope Michigan's effort to civilize children by repressing bullying becomes a landmark of a new effort to genuinely address the legitimate concerns of parents—including parents with gay teens—without heavy-handed use of government power to repress and exclude Christian views on sex and marriage.
Let me finish with a bit of underreported good international news: Chile's high court rejected a constitutional right to gay marriage by a vote of 9-1.
The majority of courts as well as the majority of people have rejected Ted Olson's and David Boies's insane claim that nothing but bigotry and hatred explains our marriage tradition.
Until next week, stay strong (and stay sane)!
Brian S. Brown
National Organization for Marriage
P.S. You can act now to defend marriage! When you donate to NOM you are fighting for the future of marriage—not just for yourself, not just for your children, but for your grandchildren and the generations to come.