My Dear Friends,
In a few weeks the people of Iowa will actually vote for the man or woman who will become the Republican candidate for President of the United States, and Leader of the Free World.
Wow, what a roller coaster-campaign of surprising twists and turns it's already been, with three or four different dark horses coming to prominence.
I've been reflecting with gratitude that, with the powerful exception of Ron Paul, most of the men and women who have led the field are firm defenders of marriage.
Here's Michele Bachmann, a NOM Marriage Pledge signer, defending marriage on Fox News.
Rick Santorum, a NOM Marriage Pledge signer, has been a hero of the movement.
Mitt Romney, a NOM Marriage Pledge signer, has always stood up for marriage as the union of a man and a woman, and in TV debates has demonstrated a calm comfort with speaking up for marriage and against gay marriage as a constitutional right.
(For Maggie's personal defense of Mitt from the charge that he's "flipped" on gay marriage, see her recent column: "Romney Never Flip-Flopped on Marriage.")
Newt Gingrich has supported a federal marriage amendment and has offered innovative solutions for the Supreme Court's tendency to usurp its own authority by inventing new constitutional rights on abortion and marriage.
Ron Paul's position on marriage, by contrast, is increasingly incomprehensible. One the one hand he's for "traditional marriage"; on the other hand he's for abolishing marriage as a legal status altogether. The one thing he's been clear about is that even though gay-marriage activists are now in court asking the Supreme Court to impose gay marriage on all 50 states—he won't support a federal marriage amendment. I do not understand how that is a coherent "leave it to the states" position.
In the middle of a campaign we all naturally get heated about our own preferred candidate, but to me, as a movement leader, the most important thing to remember is that in two months we will likely know who the nominee is, and then the biggest fight really begins.
Marriage is going to be a bigger factor in this campaign than in 2008 because the differences between the candidates are more clear, the starkness of the choice facing us more evident:
If President Obama is reelected then gay marriage is likely to be imposed on all 50 states by the Supreme Court. If he gets one more Supreme Court appointment then our generation's Roe v. Wade will become a reality.
Just last night the Ninth Circuit considered oral arguments in the Prop 8 case, Perry V. Schwarzenneger. Our own Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse, head of the Ruth institute, was in the courtroom. You can read her live updates at Prop8case.com.
In another state fight, Evan Wolfson, one of the chief architects of the gay marriage movement, recently shocked the gay community by announcing to a gay newspaper that his group "Freedom to Marry" was refusing to join a coalition to push gay marriage in Maryland.
His reason? Wolfson knows that unlike in New York, any gay marriage bill in Maryland will have to be defended at the ballot box. The people will have a chance to vote, and right now he sees no reasonable chance of victory.
"We are deeply committed, as we have been for years, to ending exclusion from marriage in Maryland and throughout the country," Wolfson told the Washington Blade in an email.
But he added, "In Maryland, because of the likelihood that marriage legislation can be forced onto the ballot, the key question is not just passing a bill in the legislature, but defending it against an attack campaign via ballot measure."
"Freedom to Marry has made it clear to members of the coalition and to lawmakers that our goal is to win, not simply to pass a bill, if there is not sufficient groundwork and investment in a campaign to win at the ballot," he said.
Meanwhile, in nearby D.C., the gay press is admitting that claims of an economic bonanza from gay marriage were "unrealistic." According to the Washington Blade:
"...[The District of Columbia] Council testimony and media reports during consideration of the modern marriage bill touted extraordinary local economic benefits to come once gay and lesbian couples were permitted to marry in Washington.
"Unfortunately, although no commercial benefit was—or should be—required to justify the expansion of the civil right to marry, those projections have proven overstated and the level of anticipated revenue for local businesses has not materialized.
"The shortfall is due to both unrealistic economic forecasting by some marriage equality advocates and a notably lower number of same-sex marriages performed in the District than projected."
I'd add that the idea that gay marriage is good for the economy is not only unrealistic but absurd!
We hear the most fantastic arguments trotted out as excuses for redefining marriage, but of all the fantasies of this movement, the idea that gay marriage will somehow help the economy is the most absurd.
Consider the "Small Business Survival Index 2011" just released by the Small Business Exchange council.
Only six states have same-sex marriage. But of the 15 states with the worst business environment for small business (the incubator of job growth), fully five have gay marriage. All but two of the top 15 states, by contrast, have constitutional amendments defining marriage as one man and one woman—and none have gay marriage.
A movement that cared about truth would not push absurdities like this!
A group of 100 Orthodox rabbis had to push back against a similar attack on truth—the idea that an "Orthodox Jewish rabbi" could possibly perform a same-sex wedding, as the media tried to report.
"In response to a recent 'Orthodox' same-sex marriage ceremony conducted in Washington, D.C. by Rabbi Steve Greenberg—who is openly gay, and married Yoni Bock and Ron Kaplan at the 6th & I Synagogue in Washington in November—over 100 Orthodox Rabbis—among them some of the most prominent rabbinic figures in the Orthodox Jewish world, including Rabbi Hershel Schachter and Rabbi Hershel Reichman of Yeshiva University and Rabbi Elie Abadie of the Safra Synagogue—issued a statement declaring that, 'By definition, a union that is not sanctioned by Torah law is not an Orthodox wedding, and by definition a person who conducts such a ceremony is not an Orthodox rabbi.'"
The "public should not be misled into thinking that Orthodox Jewish values on this issue can change, are changing, or might someday change... any claims to the contrary are inaccurate and false."
Once you believe that by redefining words you can change reality—you do not accept any constraints on power.
"If it sounds good, say it" seems to be the rule; and the amazing thing is the way the mainstream media retells these intellectual absurdities without any pushback.
Par for the course, and part of what makes what you do by reading this newsletter, passing it onto friends, and supporting the work of NOM so important.
Thank you.
I'd like to end with a small post on the Minnesota Catholic Conference's "Why Marriage Matters" website, from a woman who spent ten years in an exclusive relationship with another woman. She rediscovered her faith, left that relationship, now supports the traditional understanding of marriage—and through the painful breakup process, perhaps most amazing of all, her former partner also rediscovered faith.
God works in mysterious ways but always calls each of us back towards Truth itself, to be united with love, which is who He is.
God bless you and keep you and your family always safe. Pray for all those standing up for marriage, keep love in all our hearts—and pray for those who disagree with us, that they may find a pathway to truth.
Yours, faithfully,
Brian S. Brown
President
National Organization for Marriage
P.S. Will you stand with us to defend marriage today? Whether you can give $15 or $150, your donations to NOM help to build the future—by protecting the truth about marriage for your children, your grandchildren, and this great country.
14 Comments
No, a supreme court trial on this could never be like Roe v Wade.
In that case, it was about the rights of one person vs the rights of another. While I firmly believe the decision was wrong, both sides had reasonable arguments, some people would be hurt and others helped no matter what the decision. There was an actual discussion.
In this argument? Only one side is actually affected. If you lose, it won't hurt you at all.
There is only one side with any arguments, only one side with any value. It's the rights of certain people vs... what's on the other side? I dunno, beyond people who *don't* want those others to have rights.
This isn't Roe v Wade, it's Loving v Virginia. Real live people are only harmed if you win, only helped if you lose. There's nobody on the other side of the scale.
You even borrow some of your arguments from that case, no?
"We are deeply committed, as we have been for years, to ending exclusion from marriage in Maryland and throughout the country," Wolfson told the Washington Blade in an email.
It's awfully hard to end exclusion when one isn't excluded in the first place. Supporters of man+woman marriage will faithfully defend that incontrovertible fact to anyone who will listen.
"The shortfall is due to both unrealistic economic forecasting by some marriage equality advocates and a notably lower number of same-sex marriages performed in the District than projected."
When one understands how intrinsically moral and human capital are tied to economic capital, one understands that the healthiest societies both socially and economically are built on a foundation of man+woman marriage, and the children that they produce, and the family virtues and work ethics which are the natural product of these kinds of families, which we call human and moral capital. No society can thrive without them.
Pat said, "Real live people are only harmed if you win, only helped if you lose. There's nobody on the other side of the scale."
I agree. If SSM "wins," then we lose presumption of paternity which protects women and children, and which also protects paternity rights for men (even for homosexuals who procreate). If marriage between a man and a woman wins, then marriage is still available to everyone regardless of sexual orientation, children continue to have the right to be raised by both a mom and a dad, and women have the protection of knowing their husband must take responsibility for the wife's offspring.
Pat,while Loving vs. Virginia was decided on the basis of sweeping away the intrusion of a restriction irrelevant to the purpose of marriage,it would destroy the entire purpose of marriage to treat the requirement that partners be of opposite sexes as subject to change.It is the "gay" side that has no argument except its own selfishness.You need to realize that same-sex sexual activity is to the homosexual as drunken stupor is to the alcoholic,possibly the first thing they want,but absolutely the last thing they need or have a "right" to be accommodated in.
What gets me is how SSMers always love to pretend that the pro-marriage side's arguments are laughable. But look at their arguments! Gay marriage will help the economy? And that's just one silly argument. I recall reading a marriage decision from a case wherein which SSMers claimed that denying a marriage license to same-sex couples violated their right to free speech! (Of course, this was duly smacked down by the judges.) But, as noted by Brian, the mainstream media will simply regurgitate the lunacy of the ssm side, and thus perpetuate myths about how the case for ssm is locked.
(A previous response on this by me seems to have gotten stuck in moderation...I really wish NOM would try harder to avoid using the term "gay marriage",which implicitly validates the mischaracterization of SSM by its supporters...that people identify as "gay" has no bearing on their right to marry).
Four of the Loving justices were faced with a 14th Amendment challenge to the definition of marriage.
How did they vote?
Ash you are so right. One of the biggest problems is that the mainstream press does not report on a lot of what is going on out there. If I did not get e-mails alerts from the various organizations that track these things, I would be completely in the dark. Whenever I tell people what is really going on, they don't believe me because they didn't see it on the news or in the newspaper. And when the press does print something, it's always slanted in a pro-gay way. The NY Daily news is the worst of the lot. When 10,000 people marched against gay marriage in New York, they claimed it was just "a few naysayers" and when Bob Turned defeated Weprin, the Daily News gave all these bogus reasons except the real reason which was because Weprin voted for gay marriage, which the people in his district loudly stated from day one.
Over and over again our courts have determined that gender is an essential part of marriage. Marriage under civil law acknowledges this foundational relationship in defining the roles of women and men in the marital relationship. The State has a public policy role to prescribe, preserve and maintain, essential opposite gender roles within marriage for they are the very foundation of life itself.
Johnny- I wish Fox would discuss this issue more. They have more viewers than the other television networks combined. It would be great to hear a Fox discussion on ssm.
Before Loving v Virginia, people of all races could get married. The law did not prevent them from doing so, it only restricted *to whom* they could be legally married.
So, actually, DoE's supremely stupid argument that gay people can have a sham wedding so they aren't being denied any rights holds even less water than it appears at first glance--it's not just a sieve, it's a tube.
And nobody has ever argued that allowing gay couples to legally wed will help the economy and that that is a reason to do it. No, they've noted that it likely will, but that's never been a reason. The real reason is very simple: Because all people should be treated equally and fairly, and you can't deny something to somebody without a very good reason.
But, anyway, while Loving v Virginia is supremely relevant to this case, that's not even why I cited it. The reason I cited it was because it is one of the few cases where it was people who wanted something on one side vs... people who didn't want them to have it, I guess. The opponents had no stake. The outcome of the case was entirely irrelevant to them, and affected them not at all once they lost.
Most cases involve somebody vs somebody else. Loving v Virginia, like arguments about legally recognized marriage between same-sex couples, are outliers in the fact that they, in fact, do not.
There are only actual people on one side; the other side contains.. spectators, people who desperately want them to lose (I'd say largely out of hatred, but your motives are yours to discern), but who themselves have no stakes and are not actually involved in any way.
You're involved in the *argument*, but not in what the fight is actually about. Like Loving v Virginia, but not like Roe v Wade (well, okay, the people opposing abortion in that case were mostly not personally involved either, but they were fighting for the rights of those who were; y'all ain't fightin' for nobody).
Pat said, "So, actually, DoE's supremely stupid argument that gay people can have a sham wedding so they aren't being denied any rights holds even less water than it appears at first glance--it's not just a sieve, it's a tube."
Ahem. Can you produce a piece of legislation, or even an application for a marriage certificate that prohibits a person who identifies as gay, from getting a marriage license? Until you can, your argument is not just a sieve, but a tube.
You'll recall that SSM doesn't provide equality to ALL same-sex relationships; there are still those unions which would not be considered marriages. Would you chalk that up to some kind of gay-bashing?
Can you explain what happens to presumption of paternity, when marriage eligibility is organized on the basis of sexual orientation, rather than on sex, or when sex segregation is introduced into the public institution of marriage? Let's hear your explanation.
Pat,marriage exists to unite males to females.The Loving vs. Virginia decision swept away an obstacle to that purpose,though not one as significant as those seeking to legalize SSM are trying to create.
You could say the same thing about any alternative form of marriage, polygamy, trio marriages, sibling marriages etc.
You could say it about nudists who feel their rights are restricted by decency laws, or "artists" who feel their rights are restricted obscenity laws.
All such cases are about the rights of "certain people" vs. "what's on the other side."
On the other side is the right of the community to preserve its purposes, values, character, religion, culture, and traditions from hostile takeover by a minority whose purposes, values, character, religion, culture, and traditions are alien to the community.
Its about whose values and purposes will be perpetuated for future generations by our laws and institutions.
Will it be those held by the community, or those of a hostile minority.
And that is not even dealing with whose values are better for guiding youth for future generations.
If we get into that question, the morality of "who says so" offered by gay sexists has no serious potential for guiding or improving future society.
At best, "who says so" is a formula for misguiding youth, and for the eventual deconstruction of society.