Dear Marriage Supporter,
Lately Sen. Claire McCaskill has been on national TV like Charlie Rose and Chris Matthews calling herself one of the lone Senate "moderates" who is working every day for veterans and our men and women in uniform, while fighting against special interests' control in Washington.
Since she raised it, it's time for Sen. McCaskill to explain why she refuses to protect the conscience rights of military chaplains and the men and women in uniform they have promised to serve.
The challenges for faithful military chaplains continue to mount. A year ago, the Navy issued new "sensitivity training" guidelines that required Navy chaplains to perform same-sex marriages. Last September, the Department of Defense issued two more memos, requiring all military facilities to be available for same-sex weddings and allowing chaplains to participate in same-sex ceremonies. Thanks to leadership from Congressmen Tim Huelskamp and Todd Akin, the Navy backed down and rescinded the guidelines, but the threats to the liberty of our military chaplains continue to mount.
And now, anti-marriage interest groups in Washington have convinced Sen. McCaskill not only to seek repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act, but also to refuse needed conscience protections for military chaplains to preach and teach in support marriage (and our service men and women to listen!) during religious services and counseling sessions.
Only pressure from special interest groups could explain why now for Sen. McCaskill, speaking in favor of same sex relationships in the US Armed Forces is protected speech, but for military chaplains and their congregants to speak in favor of marriage is forbidden and subject to punishment as disruptive to good order and discipline. Chaplains and service men and women can—and have—faced punishment for expressing their views. Faced with this situation, Sen. McCaskill offers no sympathy or support.
We respect the work that Senator McCaskill and all members of the Senate have done to support America's warriors and veterans. But when she has to make a choice between anti-marriage special interests and our warriors and their chaplains, she has sided with the special interests.
That is not moderate, not pro-warrior and pro-veteran and certainly not free of special interest influence.
If you live in the eastern half of the state call Sen. McCaskill's office in St. Louis at 314.367.1364. If you live in the western half of the state call Sen. McCaskill at her office in Kansas City at 816.421.1639. And, to make sure she gets the message, call Sen. McCaskill's office in Washington DC as well at 202.224.6154.
Tell Sen. McCaskill you are watching her votes carefully:
No chaplain or warrior should be penalized for the respectful or prayerful expression of their moral convictions and support for marriage.
We were told explicitly that the repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell would NOT lead to a gag order on Military Chaplains and their congregants, but that is exactly what has happened.
If the special interests want to say support for marriage is bad for good order and discipline, they need to prove it. They cannot.
Sen. McCaskill, we are looking to you to stand up against the special interests creating a problem where one does not exist. Tell the special interests to stop handing our Chaplains and warriors the choice between keeping quiet or facing the consequences—or come back to Missouri and explain to us why you will not.
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.
58 Comments
So my tax dollars are being spent on sensitivity training about homosexuals? What other select groups of people are my tax dollars going towards for sensitivity training?
What a mess the country is in when the government mandates how people are expected to treat one another. This is thought programming;
Civil unions were a cynical scam designed to dupe the weak-minded into a "compromise" that was never anything other than a setup for legal assault on marriage.
The repeal of DADT, and the assault on DOMA, are simply more of the same.
Our victories at the ballot box entitle us to make it very clear to politicians like McCaskell:
Ignore the voters at your peril.
14th us correct, that is a blatant lie. Why does NOM post inaccuracies that can be found and why do NOMers take in the lies, unquestioned?
Why has NOM blog not yet posted that the State of California has opened an investigation into NOM?
In other news, CNN poll shows 54% of Americans approve of SSM, a PPP poll shows a majority of Minnisotans are against the marriage amendment and starbucks stock is still on the rise.
Also notable, the IRS is still not looking into NOM's gripe.
In other news, Americans again noticed that every time pseudo-marriage has come before the electorate, it has lost.
Combined with the shocking smack down of of pollsters predicting a "too close to call" race in WI last night, the voters have apparently decided that the polls are a big "meh" as far as they are concerned.
The coming smack down of pseudo-marriage in MN, MD, and WA will provide further grounds for marriage corruption advocates to rethink their strategy, although we won;t hold our breath
Has that crystal ball working fer ya, Galileo boy?
Speaking of smackdowns, apparently that's what happens to NOM everytime they go to court, and this new investigation looks like another ones coming.
Why does the IRS ignore NOM's plea but everyone's happy to investigate NOM. Looks like we know where the real criminal activity is taking place.
GayNN's polls are used as a tool to give the impression that public opinion is changing with respect to so-called SS"M." I think all these polls really do is make people answer polls differently from what they really believe.
Last night's Wisconsin clean sweep was quite a sight to behold.
Today, of course, the opposition is claiming it's not that big a deal.
Even though they dumped 10s of millions into the recall.
Barb, that has nothing to do with marriage, so not sure why that's relevant. And yes, money buys elections; NOM's been saying the same thing for years.
Incidentally, Walker wants to deny hospital visitation rights to LGBT citizens. I'm sure you and other NOM supporters would agree that this is going too far, yes?
@Scott Rose- That's a great question. The investigations into NOM are expanding to the west coast. Here's the letter to Karger: http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Oz2AzM-xhEk/T8-0tjYx3LI/AAAAAAABZRM/L9yUhbgUx_w/s1600/CANOM.jpg
It just shows the level of dishonestly, deceit, and disdain for the law behind the pro-bigotry lobby's activities.
It's almost enough to make one feel sorry for the marriage corruption movement.
Has there ever, at any time in all of history, been a more stupefyingly impotent string of political defeats, than that accomplished by the marriage corruption movement?
I can't think of one......
It is excellent news to see the marriage corruption movement frantically attempting to silence NOM with their hilarious impotent "investigations".
We'll just keep right on winning the war, and you guys let us know how it works out for you.
"Has there ever, at any time in all of history, been a more stupefyingly impotent string of political defeats, than that accomplished by the marriage corruption movement?"
The Spanish inquisition
The crusades
Slave trade in europe
Slave trade in north America
Segregation
The American Indian reservation system
I think the pattern is telling.
Katie: If it has to do with Democrats, it has to do with civil marriage and pseudo-marriage. Where have you been? Deny hospital visitation to whom? Do they perform sexally at the hospital to be given automatic 'family' status?
Heh heh heh.....Pete, I suspect the pattern is indeed telling.
None of your examples were political outcomes- not a one of them were decided by a free people in the exercise of their political rights at the ballot box.
Which renders your post another in a fine series of examples of the logical fallacy in which you specialize:
the non sequitir
But now that you've opened it up, we could of course call to mind similar examples of futility as that exemplified in the record of the marriage corruption movement:
Columbia Lions football= 44 straight losses
Cleveland Cavaliers basketball= 26 straight losses
Anthony Young baseball pitcher= 27 straight losses
Marriage corruption= 33 straight losses.
Well, Pete, if you love company, at least you've got some
Little man: So you don't support same-sex partners being able to visit each other in the hospital? That is what Walker wants to deny. Here, if you need a source (I hope Forbes isn't too "liberal" for you):
http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2011/05/17/wisconsin-governor-scott-walker-to-prevent-same-sex-couples-hospital-visitation-rights/
Umm, Katie, just in case you hand;t noticed, we have become fully acclimated to the Trojan Horse tactics of the marriage corruption movement.
We learned our lesson well with civil unions, and will now fight everywhere against any attempt to smuggle legal pretexts into the law, which serve only to smooth the way forward for legal assaults on marriage.
It was a nice little scam while it lasted, but you can kiss it goodbye now.
Umm, Katie, just in case you hadn't noticed, we have become fully acclimated to the Trojan Horse tactics of the marriage corruption movement.
We learned our lesson well with civil unions, and will now fight everywhere against any attempt to smuggle legal pretexts into the law, which serve only to smooth the way forward for legal assaults on marriage.
It was a nice little scam while it lasted, but you can kiss it goodbye now.
Scott Walker is very wise to recognize the Trojan Horse strategy so often employed my the marriage corruption movement.
The civil unions scam will never work again.
Katie -
There was a new law at issue that permitted "domestic partnership registries" that included hospital visitation privileges for same-sex partners. Such registries were in direct conflict with the state constitution. Walker was against the law because of it was unconstitutional.
Anyone can set-up a medical power-of-attorney for someone to make medical decisions on his/her behalf. Here's a free form: http://www.expertlaw.com/library/estate_planning/medical_power_of_attorney.html
Great news, another federal court today declared DOMA unconstitutional. This is the Edie Windsor case.
Boehner and BLAG are wasting tax payers dollars and time.
Delano and NOM, see you in court and bring all that evidence! LMAO
Rick, you are lying. In 2006, Arizona voters smacked you down. In 2008, they approved a watered down gay marriage ban. Stop lying, pal. Like when you claimed your son's income as your own when you donated to Yes On 1 in Maine.
Don't forget when Rick called a friends lawyer pretending to be his own lawyer. Or when he made that bet with Anna and disappeared when he lost. Yeah, the "values"'people .
Poor Pete.
All of those "intelligence files" of yours.......
Really, I honestly wonder what could have gone so terribly wrong for some of these marriage corruption fanatics.
Ah well.
Nothing for it but to simply roll over them politically, and try and find some decent accommodation for them after the necessary basis for our civilization- marriage- has been secured.
One thing I have learned about these marriage corruption drama queens:
Always know that you are doing a great job if you become the object of their....err.....ministrations.
It is an excellent thing when the Alinskyites consider you worth expending their hilariously futile threats upon
"It is excellent news to see the marriage corruption movement frantically attempting to silence NOM with their hilarious impotent "investigations".
Sure it is Rick. I'm sure you were thrilled to hear that NOM's activities are once again under investigation. Who do you think you're fooling? We may want to expose NOM and see them brought to justice for illegal activity but we're not trying to silence them. In case you haven't noticed, it's gay rights advicates that are repeating, reporting, and re-posting NOM's lies and distortions each and every day.
14th:
And yet you continue to lose, every time your neighbors are extended the right to express themselves on the question.
This is not a small thing, 14th.
It is a very, very big thing.
Now.
You run along and get your inspector's hat on and we'll button things up here in MN, MD, and WA.
Then we can compare notes and see how it all worked out.
My, my, that Delano doest protest too much, doesn't she.
I hear you much loved among the parish as well.
"And yet you continue to lose, every time your neighbors are extended the right to express themselves on the question."
Just as interracial marriage would have had there be Rovian politics in the 50s and 60s. Your hatred is right up there with racism. And just as ugly, Rick.
Awwww, what's the matter Ricky? Are you upset about today's ruling in which yet another court declared your cherished DOMA unconstitutional? Talk about a losing streak!
"wwww, what's the matter Ricky? Are you upset about today's ruling in which yet another court declared your cherished DOMA unconstitutional? Talk about a losing streak!"
Cue the conspiracy theories and dawn the tin hats, Delano and company will explain the injustice!
14th,
You have become completely dependent upon the race card in defense of your proclivity; how very parasitic of you.
Pete,
You do realize that those lower court DOMA findings you write of based their decisions on the recent 1st and 9th Circuit opinions; that your entire house of cards will fall when either gets blown over by SCOTUS?
Enjoy your trip down the river Denial Peter.
Completely dependent on the race card? Huh? I have four posts above, none deals with race.
Parasitic? You support (work for?) an organization that profits financially from taking away rights, persecution of a minority, preying on the uninformed and ignorant, and fueling fear, hate, bigotry and intolerance. NOM is mining the worst elements of human nature. If that's not parasitic, I don't know what is!
"You do realize that those lower court DOMA findings you write of based their decisions on the recent 1st and 9th Circuit opinions;"
You really don't know what you are talking about, nothing new here.
"Marriage corruption= 33 straight losses."
NOMers conclude that LGBT people are politically powerless and need protection under higher scrutiny.
They also protrait themselves as Goliath.
14th,
The rulings you cheer each go to great lengths to clarify that there is no constitutional right to marriage corruption; yet here you are insisting that there is. Don't you think that is just a tad hypocritical of you?
14th,
I'm a bold financial backer of NOM, ADF, and Protect Marriage Proposition Gr8 legal defense fund; not a blood sucking cur like yourself. I can kind of understand why you would not be able to tell the difference between the two; you can’t even discern the intent of your own reproductive system.
Randy, You din't know what you're talking about. Clearly you either haven't read the decisions supporting marriage equality (which is quite a lot of reading!) or you don't understand it.
And of course you're a financial supporter of NOM. Like I wrote, they prey on the informed and ignorant (hint: that's you).
I have read the rulings concerning marriage corruption and I do understand them - contracts are what I do for a living. Here we have a Federal entity ruling that the Federal government violated the constitutional right of the State to dictate Federal policy.
When you read contracts all day there is no such thing as a lot of reading; reading is just something you do.
The smack down will be epic. I predict that each of the jurists siding with marriage corruption will follow Walker’s lead and retire soon after Romney's inauguration and just before the SCOTUS smack down.
Notice that not one of the anti-gay posters here addressed my very much on topic first comment which pointed out a false claim in Brown's above post. I even provided a link to prove that he was lying. But instead of dealing with the issue (and lie) in question...
- Overcame posted about "thought programming"
- Rick changed the subject to the reliability of polls, the Walker recall election, and future attempts to amend state constitutions.
- Barb started posting about Scott Walker.
Is there a single NOMer here willing to admit that NOM's claim about chaplains being required to marry gay couples is false?
"Is there a single NOMer here willing to admit that NOM's claim about chaplains being required to marry gay couples is false?"
Nope. Nor will they admit to the myriad of other false and misleading statements... churches being forced to perform gay marriages and adoption agencies being forced to close are two that come to mind.
It's called "lying for God" and they somehow think it is ok to do. Beats me why they think so, but I am not a member of their church.
14th,
Everybody seems to believe that even a blind squirrel finds an acorn every once in a while.
I'm sorry Randy, but does that answer 14th's question? Maybe you should be a bit more direct so everyone else can understand what you've just said.
It is absolutely essential that the freedom of conscience of pastors and ministers *not* to officiate at pseudo-marriages is explicit.
The resistance to explicitly incorporating this freedom of conscience into military guidelines is an excellent example of the Alinskyite tactics of the marriage corruption movement.
NOM is doing an excellent job mobilizing calls to pols, so they understand we are watching and will not be diverted from this issue.
I agree with Rick DeLano. Chaplans not agreeing to perform SSM ceremony which the military stated "MAY" be held, could be easily harassed as biased.
Clear statement that Chaplans have the right not to recognize SSM is needed.
Rick, you seem to be fighting a battle that you have already won there... since NO one is saying anything to the contrary.
No ministers are even being ASKED to officiate if they choose not to. So where's the beef??
There is no need to be "diverted from this issue" simply because the issue itself does not even exist.
AnonyGirl:
Ah, that's a relief.
So happy to conclude, then, that you will join with us in our call for these conscience rights to be *explicitly* protected in the guidelines!
Welcome aboard!
I'm admittedly unfamiliar with the Navy's sensitivity guidelines, but if there is no mandatory chaplain requirement, I would bet that at some point there was one that was subsequently removed because of illegality.
And if you think that there is no intent to force the issue, you should read this about Nancy Pelosi's perspective:
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/05/23/Pelosi-Forcing-Military-Chaplains-To-Perform-Gay-Marriages?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+BigGovernment+%28Big+Government%29
Homosexuality is unnatural.
Homosexuality is immoral.
Homosexuality is sin.
Homosexual behavior is a choice and people who choose to act out these behaviors need to stay in the bedroom or seek help.
Bring back, restore DADT!
Say it again LonesomeRhoades.
What next, forcing people to choose a religious view that is approved by the government? Religious liberty and freedom is at stake in the next election.. We need to re-instate a policy that was working well and protect our military.
AnonyGrl: What you see here is the typical 'get outraged first, find something to be outraged about later' tactic of the religious right. The anti-gay lobby is having a really tough time proving that they are harmed by marriage equality (see Prop 8 defense). So they twist reality and just plain make up crap in an attempt to provide proof of the "consequences" of gay couples having the right to marry. But they're all lies. And as soon as anyone provides proof that they're lying (as I did in post #1), they change the subject. Of course tomorrow, in another post, they'll make all the same claims again.
"What next, forcing people to choose a religious view that is approved by the government?"
M.Jones: Please connect the dots for us. How does the government providing a memo that states that chaplains are permitted, not required, to participate in a ceremony - a memo that protects religious liberty by clarifying that chaplains are permitted to engage in and not prohibited engaging in, ceremonies consistent with their personal beliefs - provide proof that we are moving toward a nation in which people will be forced to choose a government approved religion?
I trust that those reading NOM Blog who are on the fence about marriage equality are taking note. Equality supporters come here with facts and logic. NOM supporters rely on hyperbole, absurd "what ifs", name calling, lies, fear mongering and misinformation.
It is typically not a great sign, 14th, when you must act both as presenter and peanut gallery for your own assertions here.
Empirically, the facts on the ground are certain.
Your arguments do not resonate with your fellow citizens, who have rejected them thirty three straight times and will do so again this November.