NOM BLOG

It's Shaping Up To Be a "Make or Break" Year for Marriage...AND WE WILL WIN!

 

Dear Marriage Supporter,

Email Header Image

2012 is already shaping up to be a "make or break" year for marriage in America.

With a high-stakes presidential election, Congress up for grabs, legal battles headed to the U.S. Supreme Court, and state-level battles raging over same-sex marriage from Maryland to Minnesota, from New Jersey to Washington, from Iowa to New Hampshire, the stakes could hardly be higher. And all of us at the National Organization for Marriage are gearing up to fight the anti-marriage assault like never before.

And let me remind you once again: marriage HAS, CAN and WILL WIN!

But we need your help! Please donate to NOM today to help us defend marriage all across the country!

Donate Now

Look no further than the presidential campaign, where the issues of marriage and religious freedom have come up again and again, with nearly all the Republican presidential candidates issuing forceful statements in defense of marriage and the faith communities which sustain it.

During the run-up to the Iowa Caucus, NOM stepped up to make sure Iowans knew the facts about the candidates' positions on marriage.

And the result was a huge victory for marriage champions Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum in a virtual tie for first place.

In New Hampshire recently, candidates stood boldly for marriage and religious liberty. Speaker Gingrich put it most forcefully when he jumped in to the conversation to point out the media's bias in covering the subject:

You don't hear the opposite question asked: Should the Catholic Church be forced to close its adoption services in Massachusetts because it won't accept gay couples? ...Should the Catholic Church find itself discriminated against by the Obama administration on key delivery of services because of the bias and bigotry of the Administration? The bigotry question goes both ways... and none of it gets covered by the media.

(To watch the video of the candidates' comments in New Hampshire, check out the NOM Blog here).

And as for the one candidate—Texas Congressman Ron Paul—who refuses to support marriage? His campaign falters whenever NOM spreads the truth about him!

Because the fact is, Ron Paul holds extremely radical views on marriage which, if implemented, would destroy traditional marriage in America (see our website WrongOnMarriage.com for specifics).

When asked if same-sex marriage should be legal, he responded "sure."

And he's repeatedly said that the federal government should offer zero recognition of any marriages at all!

We cannot back off...not one single inch.

That's why I am asking you to please take two immediate actions:

Donate Now

Both actions are important, because dozens of fights at the state and national levels will pop up over the next two months, and we must be prepared. Already this year, major new pushes to legalize same-sex marriage have erupted in Washington State and New Jersey.

And with just days left before the South Carolina primary, we are at a critical moment in the race for the GOP nomination for president. NOM is committed to making sure voters have a marriage champion who will stand as a clear alternative to President Obama this November.

Remember, we are fighting to stop a small group of zealots from discarding 3,000 years of human history and redefining our country's biblical traditions on sex and marriage as the equivalent of bigotry.

If we lose, the result will be the absolute destruction of marriage in America...in your state, in my state, in all 50 states!

So please take action today—forward our TV ad to anyone you know who needs to see it.

And please make one urgent financial gift to help NOM continue to lead the fight for marriage.

Thank you in advance.

Contributions or gifts to the National Organization for Marriage, a 501(c)(4) organization, are not tax-deductible. The National Organization for Marriage does not accept contributions from business corporations, labor unions, foreign nationals, or federal contractors; however, it may accept contributions from federally registered political action committees. Donations may be used for political purposes such as supporting or opposing candidates. No funds will be earmarked or reserved for any political purpose.

This message has been authorized and paid for by the National Organization for Marriage, 2029 K Street NW, Suite 300, Washington, DC 20006, Brian Brown, President. This message has not been authorized or approved by any candidate.

23 Comments

  1. Zack
    Posted January 17, 2012 at 7:04 pm | Permalink

    If we are to push for a Federal Marriage Amendment(which I use to oppose), then conservatives need to gain a huge majority of the Senate and strengthen their majority in the House. Once that is done, the next step is to convince Democrats like Harry Reid who oppose same-sex marriage to vote for it. Because I don't think they are aware of the effects the litigation will have on their states.

  2. M. Jones
    Posted January 17, 2012 at 9:30 pm | Permalink

    This is ".. a character issue where we cannot tolerate compromise... Marriage is a prime example of a moral relationship, a relationship of conjugal, complimentarity that benefits all society, and particularly the children and other dependent members of a specific family. Same-sex relations come from a different ethic and represent a different morality, manifest in the infidelity and promiscuity that characterizes gay and lesbian relationships much more than conjugal unions."

  3. Peter
    Posted January 18, 2012 at 12:22 am | Permalink

    "where the issues of marriage and religious freedom have come up again and again".

    If my religion allows same-sex marriage, how does banning same-sex marriage allow for religious freedom. Or is only religious freedom, so long as you abide by the religions we like?

  4. Zack
    Posted January 18, 2012 at 1:47 am | Permalink

    @Peter

    Your point would be considered, if any of the major religions in existence today actually supported Same-sex Marriage. Since there isn't and no such religion has existed(unless you've decided to start a cult), your argument falls apart.

  5. Gina
    Posted January 18, 2012 at 8:54 am | Permalink

    Doesn't matter if a thousand people share your religion or two do. Our constitution still protects it.

  6. Arthur
    Posted January 18, 2012 at 9:14 am | Permalink

    Zack, if Peter does decide to start a cult that allows same-sex marriage and the state he lives in has a law against it, wouldn't the state be impeding his religious beliefs which, under the constitution, is illegal?

  7. bman
    Posted January 18, 2012 at 9:27 am | Permalink

    Peter->If my religion allows same-sex marriage, how does banning same-sex marriage allow for religious freedom. Or is only religious freedom, so long as you abide by the religions we like?

    What is the name of your religion and what is its history?

    That aside, it should already be obvious to you that SSM violates traditional Judeo-Christian teaching unless you were born yesterday that is.

    Here is a Bible verse on that:

    1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
    1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence [reward] of their error which was meet [fitting].

    Also, when Maine's governor was deciding whether to sign a gay marriage bill, four law professors (supporters of gay marriage) wrote him and said it would cause a sea change in public law that would harm religion.

    A Letter from Law Professors to New York Senators on Intrusive Nature of Gay Marriage Bill was also written that said it would harm religious freedom.

    Indeed, a major problem with SSM is that it would create a new right that would interfere with deeply rooted religious rights that already exist.

    One reason I asked for the history of your religion is to show its not deeply rooted in history.

    You are now faced with your own question. Are you willing to protect deeply rooted religious freedoms that "you" do not like?

    Or, do you only permit such freedom if you like the religion?

  8. Posted January 18, 2012 at 11:14 am | Permalink

    This a children's rights issue that does not involve religion unless you are religious. Kids do best with a mom & dad.. The road to the Marriage Amendment is foir the states to call for a convention to consider this amendment an nothing else. With all the noise Congress will be pressured to pass the amendment or call the convention.

  9. kieran
    Posted January 18, 2012 at 11:21 am | Permalink

    Zack-

    UNitarians allow same-sex marriage. Or are they not "Major" enough for you? And who gets to decide what a "Major" religion is, anyway? Sounds to me like YOU'RE trying to infringe upon the religious freedoms of others by defining it as "Major".

    Les Coomer-

    Kids also do well in same-sex households. http://news.yahoo.com/why-gay-parents-may-best-parents-131902676.html, and, in fact, the main reason they may be disadvantages is due to society's reaction.

  10. Son of Adam
    Posted January 18, 2012 at 12:14 pm | Permalink

    Fundamentalist Mormons allow polygamy too, kieran. Are we not infringing upon their religious liberites by refusing to legalize that?

    And that entire article was based on highly biased sources with the overall message that children are better off without a mother or a father. That is not a moral philosophy I want the government to impose on society.

  11. Arthur
    Posted January 18, 2012 at 1:00 pm | Permalink

    Son of Adam, does that mean that you would support polygamy if Mormons did say it infringes on their religious beliefs and fought for it in court?

    Which side do you support more: traditional marriage or religious rights?

  12. Louis E.
    Posted January 18, 2012 at 1:57 pm | Permalink

    Arthur,I'm much more open to polygamous arrangements between consenting adults who are not all of one sex than I am to anything same-sex.But I'm not religious.The secular state interest served by there being such a thing as civil marriage extends only to promoting and protecting opposite-sex relationships,and can not be accomplished if alternatives are not effectively disadvantaged.

  13. Arthur
    Posted January 18, 2012 at 2:23 pm | Permalink

    Louis, my point was that many people who oppose same sex marriage do so from a religious standpoint (example: the articles on this site of same sex and its implications for religious liberties).

    I was just asking, suppose a certain section of Mormons were to sue the government for the right to polygamy based on their religious beliefs. Would these same religious leaders fight for polygamy because they are all for religious liberties, or would they oppose polygamy and, if so, what would that say about their stance on religious liberty?

  14. maggie gallagher
    Posted January 18, 2012 at 2:28 pm | Permalink

    The flaw in the research being wildly over touted is that a. none of it has been done on motherless kids raised by gay men and b. almost none of it has been done on random samples, which means we have very little idea whether the children being studies are representative of how the average child with gay parents fare.

    I suspect there are huge selection effects in this literature because, well gay parents know they are in the middle of a cultural battle. They are going to be strongly motivated to give positive responses and (if their children are in trouble) they are not going to jump to volunteer for these studies.

    We do know that some gay parents are good parents, that's true. But I suspect when the science is done this claim is going to look about as reliable as all the 1970s scholars who claimed divorce doesn't hurt kids at all.

  15. Zack
    Posted January 18, 2012 at 3:18 pm | Permalink

    @Keiran

    Unitarian Universalism doesn't have a long history and is rather modern compared to most major religions. In case you don't know what the "major" religions are, they are the three theologies descended from Abraham; Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Hope I clarified that for you.

    Now I'm not for impeding the religious freedom of a group, but if the Unitarians have churches that are willing to perform ceremonies and sanction same-sex unions as "marriages", then why seek State recognition of marriage? Seems to me that this unacceptable to you that you want Synagogues, Mosques and Churches to-by the will of the government-be forced to go against their teachings.

  16. Ash
    Posted January 18, 2012 at 3:53 pm | Permalink

    Thanks, Maggie. It can be tiring to repeat the same things about the inadequacy of the same-sex parenting literature to ssm supporters over and over. Unfortunately, this flawed body of research is being "wildly over-touted," as you say, to the point where many are accepting the results as indisputable.

    You do well to remind us that there was "evidence" in the 1970s that divorce doesn't harm kids. Also, reputable people claimed, during that same time, that single parent families were better than two parent families. History is repeating itself. But we can hope that this new body of flawed research doesn't gain enough of a foothold to create a widespread belief that children don't need a mother or father.

  17. Son of Adam
    Posted January 18, 2012 at 4:19 pm | Permalink

    "Son of Adam, does that mean that you would support polygamy if Mormons did say it infringes on their religious beliefs and fought for it in court?"

    Of course not. I support the definition of marriage as it has been established by the people over the centuries of accumulated experience and wisdom. Not the government enforced redefinition of it, which only leads to civil and religous liberty conflicts.

    Besides, Mormons have already petitioned the US government to redefine marriage to include polygamy in the 1800s - and lost!

  18. Arthur
    Posted January 18, 2012 at 4:47 pm | Permalink

    Son of Adam, yes, they lost. But my point is, shouldn't they have won because it is part of their religious liberties?

    If their religion allows polygamy, should the government be allowed to stop it through law?

  19. Arthur
    Posted January 18, 2012 at 4:50 pm | Permalink

    Not allowing Mormons to marry multiple partners IS government redefining marriage (for them).

  20. Son of Adam
    Posted January 18, 2012 at 6:34 pm | Permalink

    Wrong again, Arthur. It is the government declining to redefine marriage to suit the wants of a special interest group. The government simply recognizes marriage as the way it has ALREADY been defined by the PEOPLE over the generations of accumulated experience and wisdom. If the government does more than that and redefines it, then it will compromise civil and religious liberties. And that's unconstitutional.

  21. Claude
    Posted January 18, 2012 at 9:55 pm | Permalink

    If you recognize civil same-sex marriage equality, the issue will get out of your face day, after day, after day. In jurisdictions where same sex marriage is recognized by the law, Christians do not have it in the media every day. They can ignore it. Peaceful co-existence in secular society ... now that's a thought.

  22. Louis E.
    Posted January 19, 2012 at 1:04 pm | Permalink

    Claude,if the same-sex couples stop claiming their relationships are entitled to be treated as if of no lesser worth than marriages,the issue will get out of our face in the way it needs to.A secular society has a duty to recognize and reward the superior importance to humanity of opposite-sex relationships and to urge all same-sex couples to break up.

  23. Posted January 19, 2012 at 3:03 pm | Permalink

    "They can ignore it. Peaceful co-existence in secular society ... now that's a thought."

    Unfortunately, it hasn't worked out that way.