Dear Marriage Supporter,
You know me. You know I'm a happy warrior.
Even as we speak, voting has begun in North Carolina over the Marriage Amendment.
The vote may well be close, but only for one reason: Gay-marriage advocates in North Carolina have abandoned the idea that they can win a vote on gay marriage.
Instead, in North Carolina they've conceded defeat on the main question—should marriage be a union of husband and wife?—and are blanketing the airwaves with lies to scare voters into thinking the amendment will somehow strip women of protection from domestic violence.
We've seen this before, by the way, as the Marriage Law Foundation's president Bill Duncan points out:
"[A] majority of state marriage amendments also prohibit legal statuses that are just marriage by another name so what North Carolina is doing is hardly unprecedented. Some of these amendments have been on the books for eight years with none of the outcomes North Carolina gay-marriage advocates have predicted. On the other hand, to understand why the proposed amendment's drafters felt it necessary to include a prohibition of civil unions, one need only remember that a Ninth Circuit panel cited the fact that California had a marriage amendment and a civil-union statute simultaneously as a reason for invalidating California's Proposition 8 just months ago."
(A group of law professors at Campbell have carefully refuted these ludicrous claims in this PDF.)
Thirty-one states have marriage amendments, some with wording quite similar to North Carolina's. In none of them have women been deprived of domestic violence protection because they are not married to their abusers.
The good news is that gay-marriage advocates in North Carolina have conceded that gay marriage is a losing issue with voters. And they're not the only ones.
Washington Post blogger Jonathan Bernstein notes a strange disconnect between the triumphalist rhetoric on gay marriage in the mainstream media, and the way Democrats are treating the issue:
Greg has been reporting recently on a fascinating issue: how Democrats will handle same-sex marriage in their 2012 party platform. The general sense has been that Barack Obama is lagging behind his party on this issue, and that it'll be hard for him to block a marriage equality plank without angering core Dem voters.
That may be true. But if so, he may have company: Dem candidates for the U. S. Senate also are generally avoiding or downplaying the issue, at least if their campaign web sites are any guide.
For the first time, some polls show majority support for gay marriage. But if this is any guide, Democrats are still being extraordinarily reluctant about an issue they seem to think can still backfire on them.
(Maybe they are watching the carnage in New York state among Democrats who came out for gay marriage in conservative districts!)
On the incredible scandal and potential politicization of the IRS I have a bit of good news to report: We spoke with the Inspector General of the IRS, who has assured us that the IRS takes the misuse of taxpayers' private data very seriously and will conduct a serious investigation.
We are glad. But the IRS will only prosecute a crime if the crime was committed internally by an IRS agent. The other possibilities—that the IRS database was hacked into by an outsider, or that an individual criminally impersonated a NOM staffer to obtain this data—must be pursued by the Department of Justice.
The Human Rights Campaign scrubbed its website of any mention of NOM's stolen 990s, after our lawyers demanded they do so. The Huffington Post remains in violation of federal laws that forbid "knowingly" retailing illegally-obtained IRS data.
Thanks to Red State's Erick Erickson, the Weekly Standard, and GOPUSA for covering the story.
But thanks especially to Alliance Defense Fund's Brian Raum for his column, "In Defense of the National Organization for Marriage":
"The unfounded attacks and insults lodged against the National Organization for Marriage have increased recently by an ever ravenous opposition. The Human Rights Campaign has shamelessly published NOM's confidential IRS records, and last month a federal judge unsealed some of NOM's constitutionally protected internal reports.
"Not surprisingly, those who seek to redefine marriage immediately seized upon the opportunity to attack NOM based on these documents with salacious accusations and vilifications," writes Raum.
He goes on to ask this important question, "So why are HRC, The New York Times, and others attempting demonize NOM simply because they have sought to marshal the black and Hispanic communities to speak out for marriage...?
"The reason why NOM's opponents are so enraged is because NOM is effective."
I think he's right about that. It's not because we speak hatefully or intemperately. You and I have always bent over backwards to remind our opponents that we believe gay people are human beings like us with legitimate rights that need to be respected. But none of us have the right to redefine marriage.
Let me pause to say thank you for all the good together you’ve allowed us to accomplish. We are drawing fire because we are effective, thank God!
This week we released a new video: Is gay marriage a civil right? Listen to these African-American and Latino leaders explaining in their own words why they oppose same-sex marriage:
I defy anyone to say that leaders like these are speaking because NOM is manipulating them. That's a racist idea. Clearly these brave men and women are, like other Americans, standing up for what they believe is right for America!
The crisis we face, together, is that fewer Americans are willing to speak for marriage; when you hear of a loss in the polls, it stems from the communications breakdown in the mainstream media.
At NOM we are fighting this in multiple ways, including by bringing you news you will not hear anywhere else:
NOM's Marriage Anti-Defamation Alliance now has a new spokesman, Damian Goddard.
You may remember Damian Goddard as the Toronto sportscaster who was fired one day after tweeting that he believes in the "true and authentic" meaning of marriage.
This week he introduces Daniel Glowacki, a 14-year-old Michigan boy, who was persecuted by a teacher and kicked out of his classroom for raising his hand and saying the "homosexual lifestyle" was against "my Catholic religion." Daniel was told he did not belong in a public school by this public-school teacher, according to eyewitness accounts.
When the school disciplined this out-of-control teacher, the teacher went to the press and was lionized for standing up to homophobia. The school district backed down. Daniel and his mom were left hanging.
Please watch this video. And do as Damian asks: Send a word of encouragement to Daniel and his mother. The Thomas More Law Center is defending their rights legally. But we need to send a message to Daniel: You are not alone. Together we will fight against the injustice descending on our great country.
To see the future we must fight against, all we have to do is look at our sister democracies.
In Great Britain, it's just now been ruled illegal for counselors to help clients fight unwanted same-sex attractions. If you want help controlling your sexual impulses so you can lead the life you believe is right—you have to go it alone.
As the former Archbishop of Canterbury, Lord George Carey, just warned the European Court of Human Rights, "In a country where Christians can be sacked for manifesting their faith, are vilified by State bodies, are in fear of reprisal or even arrest for expressing their views on sexual ethics, something is very wrong."
Yes, something is very wrong. Our core faith traditions are under sustained attack. But just as importantly, we are losing marriage as a social institution, under the twin pressures of the sexual revolution and the gay-marriage juggernaut.
Young people are being told repeatedly, by authoritative voices, that marriage has nothing to do with its deep, cross-cultural purpose of bringing together mothers and fathers for children. "Marriage is a right!" "Marriage is about soulmates!" "Marriage is—well, what exactly is the point of marriage?"
The young are responding by eschewing marriage in record-breaking numbers: ABC News is reporting the demographic decline under the headline, "The End of Marriage?" For the first time the Census Bureau is reporting that fewer than half of all households consist of a married couple. The numbers are from 2010—down from 52 percent in 2000 and 78 percent in 1950.
According to the National Center for Health Statistics, the number of babies born to unmarried cohabiting couples skyrocketed, from 14 percent in 2002 to 23 percent in 2006-2010.
In the Weekly Standard, Jonathan Last reports on another aspect of this crisis, in "Demography Is Destiny": an unwillingness to give ourselves to children at all.
Israel is the only developed country in the world where women have enough children to sustain the current population.
A new report shows a huge rise in middle-aged Americans entering old age alone:
The proportion of adults ages 46-64 who are not married climbed from 22 percent in 1980 to 34 percent in 2009. In 1980 45 percent of those were divorced, 33 percent widowed, and 22 percent never married. Today 58 percent are divorced, 32 percent never married and only ten percent widowed.
These are all practical problems for a society. Much suffering has already ensued and more is on the way. But the root of this crisis surrounding generativity is a spiritual crisis. At the heart of this crisis is our inability or unwillingness to commit to marriage and all it represents.
Marriage binds us together, but only on the condition that we surrender the grandiose idea that we can make up what marriage means. To put the self at the center of marriage is to surrender what marriage is and what marriage alone can do.
The untold crisis of what used to be called Western Civilization is that we have not yet found a way to revive our commitment to marriage. Not to marriage as a romantic fantasy, or marriage as a civil-rights cause, but marriage as a symbol of the great truths embedded in Genesis: We are born male and female, and ordinarily called to come together in love to make and raise the next generation.
Some truths are too precious to abandon, too foundational to surrender.
Thank you for being a leader for marriage. For being one of those Americans who understands what is at stake and who will show the Daniel Glowacki's of the world: You are not alone.
You are our future.
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.
30 Comments
Marriage licenses are issued by the state, not the church. No religion is necessary for a marriage to be legal, valid or recognized.
A mere truism.
By default, the state is obligated to issue marriage licenses in accordance with the will of the people.
The people, in turn, can look to God, morality, religion, or the natural order as they direct the state on what to do.
http://www.nomblog.com/22014/comment-page-1/#comment-102233
@ MrRoivas:
"There were many people who had deep convictions that Jew like me are greedy scum who deserve to be cleansed or converted"
-----------------------------------
The biblical fact is, bruh, that ALL of us need to be "cleansed or converted - Jew and Gentile alike...
The conviction is altogether RIGHTEOUS. It is only the laternative which is "nasty"...
-----------------------------------
@ Daniel:
"Do we determine civil rights by public opinion now?"
-----------------------------------
Apparently so. Ironically, it was God who determined this originally, as noted in the Scriptures...
@ Cherie:
I was unaware the Black church needs to sign off on something before it's allowed to be a civil rights issue.
-----------------------------------
Bein' as they are the inaugural group of ppl who fought for same, yes; their opinion is of CONSIDERABLE weight...
-----------------------------------
@ Zack:
"And to the last two posts, the left is usurping the civil rights movement to make it seem like their struggles are the same as blacks. You liberals need to open a history book."
-----------------------------------
Indeed.
@ GZeus
"...the term Civil Rights does not belong to blacks. It has a long history...(etc.)...
-----------------------------------
You admit the term is not idenitical, and yet you go on to try and MAKE them equivalent. You are intellectually dishonest in doing so.
Shame on you.
-----------------------------------
@ Daughter of Eve
"Not so--NOM understands that marriage law already allows all adults to equally enter into marriage, regardless of their sexual orientation, as is just and fair. NOM simply supports the need for all marriage unions to equally represent both men and women, by including one of each sex in each union. Now that's equality.
-----------------------------------
AMEN, sister!...
@ Nathaniel:
"I don't think I've ever seen anything as stupid before."
-----------------------------------
Then you have managed to totally escape the Left's argument in favor of gay "marriage", and FAILED to understand the Right's viewpoint as regards said issue.
Congratulations.
The fact that liberals don't want to accept is that marriage is an institution created by God-not by the state. The state has always been responsible to uphold and protect marriage and families. God, as the originator of marriage, knows how it should work.
A "crisis" huh? You guys are honestly the most ridiculous people I've ever seen around, well except the Westboro Baptist Church. Give up your fight because eventually you'll lose. Gay marriage is not a sin, it's not a threat to your own marriages, it's just two consenting adults who love one another and want the same rights you have, rights not afforded by Civil Unions or Domestic Partnerships. Get over yourself before you're left behind.
Well said Sean.
God bless the Glowacki family.
I am so glad that Daniel defended his belief about marriage.
The so-called teacher is abusing his position to bully Daniel and to silent him. Daniel did nothing wrong.
Comment to Skooter post
- you are not required to be religious in a marriage- however you need to respect the constitution of this country which states marriage is between a man and a woman. Any other union is unnatural and do not warrant any license.
Sean: Two people who love each other can be found necking in the back of my local movie theatre.
That doesn't entitle them to the benefits we reserve for married couples.
Hope this helps.
Consider a household in which a mother lives with her widowed daughter who has a child. The mother loves the daughter and the daughter loves the mother; should they not be given the so-called "right to marry," that same-sex couples demand? Of course not; a mother-daughter couple is different from a male-female couple. But, if we change marriage to include same-sex couples, what reason is there not to include mother-daughter couples?
Marriage is NOT the institution that governs the upbringing of children; marriage is the institution that joins children with their moms and dads. Any marital benefits inuring to the parents and upbringing of the children are designed to maintain that important union.
Relationships between adoptive parents and their non-offspring, if deemed worthy of governmental protection or support, can be handled under other laws, but marriage is not the venue for such regulation.
@Resist: To your knowledge has any parent and child asked for a marriage license? They already have a next of kin legal relationship that allows inheritance, hospital visitation, power of attorney, etc.
I'm curious to know if any of your heterosexual marriages have changed since SSM is legal in many parts of the World. Have your marriages been lessened, do you love your spouse any less, has it brought harm to your relationship, has it done anything to your marriage at all?
"Segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever!" George Wallace inaugural speech, 1963
eliasasm,
Fortunately for us our representatives heard our please and enacted, with overwhelming bipartisan support, legislation that protects traditional marriage from the unwanted encroachments of the marriage corruption brigade.
If these protections were not in place you can count on the fact that opposition to this tyrannical assault on the source of our freedom will make opposition to Federal mandated abortions look like a mere knee-jerk reaction.
One thing marriage corruption supporters like yourself refuse to acknowledge is the fact that the loyal oppositions rational is rooted in well over five thousand years of history and tradition; whereas marriage corruption supporters trace their poorly defined ideology all the way back to 1972.
@Rick: Oh so every heterosexual couple shouldn't get entitled to marriage either. The amount of times I've seen heterosexual couples "necking" almost to the throws of sex in a public place could astound you compared to same-sex couples. Most same-sex couples aren't almost making love in public (except for a few who do but again, there's more heterosexual couples doing that than homosexual), and yet you're saying those who are practically having sex in public and making out all over the theatre should have the ability to get married. Yes that makes complete sense Rick. Bravo. But as usual, those close-minded people prefer to put more blame on same-sex couples than actually looking at their own group of heterosexual people and see there is a higher majority of heterosexual couples doing this than same-sex. Can't wait to see your next statement, hopefully it makes me chuckle like your last did.
elias - You're thinking too small. The damage from redefining marriage takes time to manifest itself in society; decades, even. It's important to anticipate those changes.
What happens to other peoples' marriages today is irrelevant. Consider this: Say all 16 year olds decided on Facebook to commit suicide. It wouldn't affect MY kids who are only young, so might as well let the 16 year-olds kill themselves, right?
We do know that changing the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples leads to teaching homosexuality in schools, thereby teaching impressionable youth to experiment with dangerous sexual behaviors that lead to anatomical damage the spread of illness, and death. Social health issues end up being paid by the taxpayers, i.e., me.
You're really missing the big picture here, elias.
Resist, are you suggesting that homosexuality can be taught? Furthermore, are you suggesting that gays forming monogamous relationship leads to more, not less, promiscuity? It seems like people would be having sex on the down low when they were faced with severe social stigma, no?
Scrounger -
No, I'm not suggesting that homosexuality can be taught, I'm declaring it.
As far as two guys forming monogamous relationships, well that's just a big laugh and a half for me in my experience with homosexual men. And there's literature suggesting that many "committed" relationships between guys involve a stipulation on committed sexual activity. That is, we're committed to one another, but we can still have sex with whomever we want.
So, please, if you're suggesting that promiscuity would drop if only guy couples could call themselves "married," you must be smokin' crack.
The sexual antics of homosexual men is no secret to anyone who has witnessed a clip of a gay pride parade. Are you suggesting that there would be a social stigma for a man of a gay couple having sex outside his so-called "marriage?" You gotta be kidding me. What gay circles do you hang in, anyway?
Scrounger,
You need to back off of the "no it isn't" and "so what" blanket responses you like to fall back on; they are not working for you any more.
@OvercameSSA: Well you're just a funny person are you. Maybe next time brush up on the divorce rate of heterosexuals and how many cheaters there are in your society, just a thought before you claim gays are the promiscuous ones. Get a life.
Sean,
So what you are saying is that nobody has the right to point out how wrong marriage corruption supporters are because their are other people out their who are just as wrong as you are?
Sean -
"Oh, but you do it, too, nya, nya, nya" is not a rebuttal.
Sorry y'all, but you are not helping me here. You all have your reasons but the observable fact remains that homosexuality is a fact of Life. It has existed for all time and will for all time. Homosexuality is a part of all of our lifes. It exists all around you, everyday of your life, and always has and always will. Your lives are not going to be any different than they are right now. Every where in the World where homosexuality is acknowledged as a part of our lifes, there have been no life altering repercussions to anyone or anything anywhere, nothing. Nothing has happened to make anyone be anything different than they are and nothing is going to. It just seems like you are fighting a war that doesn't exist. That's fine if you think homosexuality is a negative, that's your choice, but no time in the history of Life has homosexuality had a negative effect. It doesn't prevent the existence of Life. Your lives are not in jeopardy because of homosexuality anymore today than the day you were born and until the day you die.
But Eliasasm, what is the moral argument for homosexual behavior? It's true there are those with SSA, but what is the moral argument for sex outside of marriage between a man and a woman? All kinds of sexual perversions are a "fact of life," but we don't change important social institutions, such as marriage, to accommodate them.
You say, "no time in the history of Life has homosexuality had a negative effect," but I think the CDC would beg to differ.
Eve, I find no logic in your comment. A moral argument has nothing to do with gay-marriage. Gays are no more or less moral than straights.
Does the CDC say that homesexuality created AIDS?
The public purpose of marital law is to codify the moral values of society regarding the procreative sexual relationship of a man and woman.
Thus, a legal marriage also means a couple's sexual relationship has society's moral stamp of approval.
Gay sexual relationships are not morally approved by society, however.
That kind of sexual relationship is not entitled to society's moral stamp of approval that marriage was designed to bestow and to regulate.
"Eve, I find no logic in your comment."
Doesn't mean it's not there.
What is the justification for we-the-people to recognize same-sex unions as marriages? A sex-segregated union is intrinsically different than a sex-integrated union. Why should we treat them as the same? What is the rationale for compelling society to treat them both as the same and labeling them both as "marriage?"
What makes a SSM unique from all other same-sex relationships?
I never claimed that "homosexuality CREATED AIDS." In fact, I don't believe I mentioned AIDS. However, the CDC directs that men who have sex with men be barred from donating blood. Clearly, homosexual behavior is rife with danger and risk; the sexual orientation of the participants is irrelevant to the dangers of homosexual behavior.
eliasasm,
"the observable fact remains that homosexuality is a fact of Life"
Murder, rape, theft, and adultry are facts of life as well. Do you propose that we warmly embrace all depravities just because they exist?
Question for you eliasasm:
You consistantly reference morality; yet you never reference the source of your morality. Could you please provide a link to the source of the morality to which you prescribe?
"Homosexuality is a part of all of our lifes. It exists all around you, everyday of your life, and always has and always will."
The word "homosexual" was coined in 1887 by one person in reference to an ideology that has never been fully defined. "It" has not always existed and "it" does not exist today; in so much as you have never defined what "it" is - you might as well be calling yourself "Goony-ga-ga."
"Nothing has happened to make anyone be anything different than they are and nothing is going to."
In the past it was legal to not associate with sexual deviants such as yourself in public commerce. Your "no it isn't" and "so what" responses in defense of your depravity were not acceptable when you where five years old and they are not acceptable today.
"Pay no attention to that man behind the green curtain" did not work for the Wizard of Oz and it most certainly will not work for you.
"Gays are no more or less moral than straights."
You are correct, and I did not claim them to be more or less moral than "straights." But homosexual behavior is considered immoral, no matter the sexual orientation or political identity of participants.
Probably a good idea to get the labels straight:
SSA means a person is sexually attracted to someone of the same sex, but not required nor compelled to act on those feelings in either a platonic or sexual manner.
Homosexual: sexual relations between two people of the same sex; individuals may or may experience SSA. in order to engage in homosexual behavior.
Gay: political identity, completely optional
SSM: wherein the state recognizes the public union of two people of the same sex as being "married." The individuals may or may not be "gay," may or may not engage in homosexual sex, may or may not identify as being "gay." Legally, their sexual orientation is of no interest to the state
"gay marriage" doesn't actually exist; the state would have to make a law requiring one or both participants to be "gay" in order to be eligible for a "gay marriage." No state, to date, makes sexual orientation or political identity an eligibility requirement for marriage.
Eve, Doesn't mean it's not there. Ah, perfect, that right there is what the problem is. Your logic is logical to you because that's your logic. That is your point of view. That does not mean your logic is correct nor does is necessarily mean you are wrong. It's just your pov. I assume your reply to that would be that my pov is just that, my pov, of which you would be correct. But, believe it or not, there is a difference. My pov acknowledges that everyone has a pov whereas is seems as though your pov is that everyone should have your pov, because it's logical to you. How could something that is logical to me not be logical to everyone else? How could someone possibly believe something different than what I believe? Again I assume your reply to this would be, well X number of people believe the same as me so I must be right. Not necessarily. Fox News is the #1 watched cable news channel. People like to believe that since they are #1 they must be right. Just because most news watchers watch Fox (which amounts to only .06% of the US population, btw) does not give it credence. Most people who pay attention see what Fox is all about infact Fox is not allowed in Canada. Just because people say, well this is the way we have always done this and we don't want it to change especially in the way we do not like. Well, not to burst anyone's bubble but Life changes whether you want it to or not. It's always been that way. It will always be that way. That's what Life does and it can't be stopped. If Life didn't change, there would be no point. That would be the end. Now on the gay-marriage issue, the World is changing, it's moving forward, as Life does. Gay issues and gay-marriage issues are becoming less of issues. Why? Because as LIfe continues to move forward it becomes apparent that some things that were issues no longer seem to be. It seems absurd to me that NOMies want to keep making all this an issue where the issue is lessening by the day. And again why? Because nothing is happening. Nobody's lives are being forced to change, nobody is living their lives any differently than before. Gays are not going to live their lifes any differently if handed a legal document. They are going to get up in the morning, go to work, come home, have dinner and go to bed just like everyone else. They are not out to turn the World or anyone in it gay. That's not possible. You can't make someone be something they are not. So please, just acknowledge that everyone has a pov and that your pov is just that, your pov and that someone else's pov of view is just that, their pov. And please don't stand in the way of those that do not share your pov, which is what NOM is all about. Nobody is standing in your way and nobody is forceing you to change and nobody is forceing you to be anything different than who you are. Thanks for listening.
If DOE is not necessarily wrong then the logic can be there but you didn't find it, as she stated above.