NOM BLOG

The Sanctity of a Comic Book Gay Wedding, NOM Marriage News

 

NOM National Newsletter

Dear Marriage Supporter,

X-Men Comics is depicting a gay superhero wedding. "Northstar," who came out as gay in 1992, is now proposing to "Kyle."

Marvel Comics editor-in-chief Axel Alonso said, "Marvel has a long and proud tradition of reflecting the world in all its diversity, and this is just one more example of that."

Marjorie Liu, an X-Men writer, told Rolling Stone she wanted to inspire others to follow their footsteps. "Here are two people, trying to live their lives—mutant and gay, black and gay—empowered in their own ways, but also fringe-dwellers," she said. "They're living life on their own terms...The message is: You can do the same thing."

A comic book shop in New York City spotted a commercial opportunity, a chance for some nice publicity, according to LifeSiteNews.

They decided to fund an all-expenses paid wedding for two lucky guys, in their comic book store.

No, I'm not making this up.

Scott Everhart, bless him, at 39 years of age, saw an opportunity of his own. He applied online to win the comic book store wedding prize—and waited to tell his partner Jason until he was asked by the store to come in for an interview.

"That's when I broke the news to [Welker] and kind of proposed at the same time," he said.

Thor Parker, social media and events director at Midtown Comics, said, "They really stood out as super fans."

After the ceremony the store sold copies of Astonishing X-Men No. 51, which features Northstar and Kyle tying the knot.

(Same-sex weddings are becoming commonplace in comic books, from Archie to X-Men. Batwoman—originally a love interest for Batman—has become a lesbian.)

Why am I telling you this story? I don't know Scott or Jason and I wish them both well.

But something is wrong when huge companies push gay marriage into children's literature in order to make money. Something is wrong when a comic book store decides to host a wedding, again for commercial purposes. And something is really wrong when a man proposes because, well, somebody else is going to help pay for the wedding and it might mean a cool trip to New York City.

Somewhere there may be some foolish man and woman getting married in a comic book store. But nobody else is paying for it and nobody in the media is covering it.

Are we really supposed to believe in the "sanctity" of gay comic book weddings?

The promotion of gay marriage continues apace.

But so do more hopeful cultural evolutions.

The Southern Baptist Convention elected its first African-American president, the Reverend Fred Luter, Jr.

This is huge.

The Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) is the largest Protestant body in the United States and the world's largest Baptist denomination. With over 16 million members, it is also the second largest Christian denomination in the United States, after the Catholic Church.

The SBC was formed in 1845 in Augusta, Georgia following a regional split over the issue of slavery. After the civil war, black Baptists generally split off from the SBC and formed their own congregations.

Dr. Richard Land, the Oxford-educated head of the SBC's Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, reminded me a few months ago of something else about the Southern Baptist Convention: they were the first, and perhaps the only, Protestant denomination to re-form themselves along Biblical principles. (The reformers called it "the conservative resurgence" while the dissenters refer to it as the "fundamentalist takeover.")

Actually, I was at Judge Pressler's ranch this February when Dr. Land reminded me of this historic event. Judge Pressler, along with theologian Paige Patterson, launched the re-formation of the Southern Baptists along Biblical principles.

In 1995, the Convention renounced racism and apologized for its past defense of slavery and Jim Crow laws. Today about one-fifth of SBC congregations are majority non-white.

Upon his historic election, Reverend Fred Luter, Jr., told CNN's Soledad O'Brien that he will stand with the Good Book when it comes to marriage:

I'm a man of the book. I believe in the word of God. I believe in the Bible. God has specifically spoken about marriage. Marriage is between a man and a woman. That's biblical. No president whether it's a president in the White House, no governor, no mayor, no one can change that. God has already established marriage between a one man and one woman. So I would stand for that because that's what the word of God says and that's what I believe in.

He went on to say, "I support my President. He is my President. I pray for him and Michelle and his daughters on a daily basis. But on this issue, the President and I have two different opinions, for sure."

 

The day after this groundbreaking, historic event the Southern Baptist Convention went on record opposing not only gay marriage, but more specifically, the conflation of gay marriage with a civil right.

Marriage is "the exclusive union of one man and one woman" and "all sexual behavior outside of marriage is sinful."

The resolution acknowledges the "unique struggles" of gay people but goes on to affirm:

It is regrettable that homosexual rights activists and those who are promoting the recognition of `same-sex marriage' have misappropriated the rhetoric of the Civil Rights Movement.

The times they are a-changing—and not always in the way progressives predict.

In Minnesota, the amazing Kalley Yanta just released a new video explaining the consequences of gay marriage that experts predict, including a "flood of litigation."

 

(The incredibly amazing Frank Schubert of Mission Public Affairs—who led the fight for Prop 8 among many other great victories—is heading up the fight in that state to pass the Marriage Protection Amendment.)

I thought about Kalley's video when I ran across a little news story—no big deal, you won't hear about this on Fox News, or from Sean Hannity or NBC. A federal lawsuit was just filed against St. Joseph's Medical Center, a Catholic hospital in Westchester, New York, because the Catholic hospital doesn't provide spousal benefits for same-sex unions. It's yet another lawsuit challenging DOMA, the federal Defense of Marriage Act. Religious charities, who do good work and are now facing litigation threats, are just collateral damage to gay rights activists intent on using the law to impose their vision of "equality." It quickly becomes clear, like in George Orwell's famous dystopian novel Animal Farm, that some are more equal than others.

"I remember almost a year ago when this bill was signed into law, we were told that it would have no impact on religious freedoms," my friend the Rev. Jason McGuire, executive director of New Yorkers for Constitutional Freedoms told Citizen Link. "Less than a year later it's very clear that gay marriage is indeed having an impact on religious freedom here in the Empire State."

St. Joseph's Medical Center's insurance plan is self-financed, which means it falls under federal law rather than the laws of New York State. Catholic hospitals self-finance in order to avoid state laws that require them to fund abortions and other acts the Catholic church considers immoral. Striking down DOMA (which protects their right to limit spousal benefits to husbands and wives) is the first step to imposing a new orthodoxy of gay "equality" on every organization in America.

I want to thank Sen. Mitch McConnell personally for speaking out against the abuse of power against nonprofits, including a suspicious attempt by the IRS to force disclosure of donors whose names are not required under federal laws. And for specifically mentioning the leak from the IRS of NOM's confidential tax documents:

The head of one national advocacy group has released documents which show that his group's confidential IRS information found its way into the hands of a staunch critic on the Left who also happens to be a co-chairman of President Obama's re-election committee. The only way this information could have been made public is if someone leaked it from inside the IRS.

Thanks Sen. Mitch McConnell, for speaking truth to power!

Let me promise you—with your help and with God's—we will not be deterred or intimidated from standing up now and forever for God's truth about marriage.

This fight, this good fight, continues. We know Who wins in the end, don't we?

Thank you for all that you have made possible—with your prayers, with your letters, with your kind words of encouragement and with your financial contributions.

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.

16 Comments

  1. Bruce
    Posted June 22, 2012 at 11:56 am | Permalink

    Overcame:
    "Research demonstrates that development of homosexuality is, at the very least, influenced by environment; that is, it is LEARNED BEHAVIOR."

    Not necessarily. Hormonal influences in the womb are thought to be a possible factor in determining sexual orientation, but that's clearly not learned behavior. And even if sexual orientation is to some extent learned, that doesn't mean it's changeable. Speech is clearly a learned behavior. Have you ever heard of someone who "unlearned" to speak English?

  2. Austin
    Posted June 22, 2012 at 12:59 pm | Permalink

    @Randy

    In reading above, did I really see you use the term "secular religion"? REALLY? Come on dude. "Secularism/Atheism is much a religion as OFF is a television channel"

  3. Randy E King
    Posted June 22, 2012 at 1:06 pm | Permalink

    A system of belief is a religion; any basis you use that guides your life’s work is a religion.

    As repeatedly pointed out:

    Marriage corruption supporters are going to have to change the meaning of most every word in the English language if they are to succeed and lending an appearance of acceptability to their depravity.

    "You know you are right over the target when you start receiving flak" Anonymous WWII Bomber Pilot

  4. Austin
    Posted June 22, 2012 at 2:11 pm | Permalink

    So lack of a belief mean you have a belief? Just like not having a million dollars makes me a millionaire?

    I love how Christians think that you can't be moral without religion.

  5. Ash
    Posted June 22, 2012 at 3:29 pm | Permalink

    AM, thanks for sharing the article.

    I have a question for you. Do you remember the article shared on the NOM Blog where the author talked about how redefining marriage necessitates the redefining of organic terms like "husband" and "mother"?

    Although we've discussed several things on this blog, you and I were discussing that particular article on a certain thread; and the content was related to your post above.

    But I can't find it! If you remember that thread, or run across it by chance, could you paste the link here?

    Thanks! 🙂

  6. AM
    Posted June 22, 2012 at 4:06 pm | Permalink

    Ash
    I remember someone ( Rick DeLano?) posted the redefinition of marriage proposed in Maine. The bill's language de-gendered the terms Bride, Groom, Husband and Wife.
    That's the only thing I can recall and I don't know which thread it's in. 🙁

  7. leehawks
    Posted June 22, 2012 at 4:17 pm | Permalink

    I was waiting for Randy or is it Rick (?) to point out for the umpteenth time that our govt was not founded on secularism because that didn't exist until after the civil war.
    It is silly to say that this govt was not based on christianity since just about everyone was a christian then. President and Founder, John Adams said: "Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the govt of any other." And to that I add, "AMEN"

  8. Ash
    Posted June 22, 2012 at 4:28 pm | Permalink

    Thanks, AM.

    I recall Rick's post. But this was an article written by someone.

    Darnitt!

    I'll find it some day 😉

  9. Heather
    Posted June 22, 2012 at 7:34 pm | Permalink

    The Batwoman who was a love interest for Batman decades ago is not the same character as the lesbian Batwoman of the present. And NONE of the main DC and Marvel comics are geared towards children. There are a handful of special kid-friendly titles that are published and are out of continuity, but books like Astonishing X-Men are all rated Teen+.

    But why let things like facts get in the way when you're all delusional hate-mongers anyway?

  10. Posted June 23, 2012 at 9:23 am | Permalink

    Speaking of delusional hate mongers:

    http://gloria.tv/?media=301724

  11. Zack
    Posted June 25, 2012 at 2:20 am | Permalink

    @Jim

    "Zack - I'll check out Dennis Prager."

    Do let me know what you think.

  12. byrd
    Posted June 25, 2012 at 4:52 pm | Permalink

    Chuck, you spin alot of fairy tales, my friend.
    Maybe they help you sleep better at night, I don't know, but let's review.

    Over 30 states have chosen to protect and preserve traditional marriage. In California and Maine, such measures passed by a margin equal to or greater than the margin by which Barack Obama won the presidency. "Slim" margins don't mean a thing when it comes to voting victory.

    The predictions for the future made by homosexual activists don't have a very good track record. Prop 8 wasn't going to get on the ballot. It wasn't going to be passed by voters. Homosexual "marriage" was a "done deal" to be legislated into existence in Maine and Rhode Island, but not so much. Better take your crystal ball back to where you bought it and ask for your money back.
    All three of the Supreme Court judges up for a retention vote in Iowa were kicked off the bench by a vote of the people.

    Despite the best efforts of the HRC to discourage law firms from defending DOMA, the U. S. House of Representatives has retained counsel to vigorously defend it.

    In only a small number of states have partisan politicans who get big bucks in contributions and influence, or judges concerned about their careers after their time on the bench, been able to impose gay "marriage" on those states. Legislatures in two states, Iowa and New Hampshire, are working on repealing their gay "marriage" laws or supplanting them with an amendment to their state constitutions defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

    A key weakness in your argument is that you harp on the happenings in California and the Northeast and are falling into the oft-made idiotic assumption that these regions represent mainstream America which is no longer the case. The hidden truth is that CA and Northeast are both in sharp decline, losing both political, economic and moral clout to the South, Midwest and Rocky Mountain West.

    It is what it is.

  13. byrd
    Posted June 25, 2012 at 4:57 pm | Permalink

    Chuck, what does it matter if the Barna group has some religious affiliation? To me, that would make their studies seem more honest and less biased. The truth, no matter where it comes from, is the truth.

    Try to open up your horizons beyond your usual left-wing propaganda, in which most of the time you are being misled.
    http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/d/divorce.htm

  14. Chairm
    Posted July 3, 2012 at 5:24 am | Permalink

    An SSMers said the following:

    "Ask every single gay man or woman in America whether or not they knew another gay person in their childhood. The answer will overwhelmingly be "no"."

    Overwhelming? The high prevalence of having been sexually abused by someone of the same sex rather speaks against your claim.

  15. Chairm
    Posted July 3, 2012 at 5:26 am | Permalink

    The comic book ploy is aimed at children. Just as the other books aimed at children by gay advocates who wish to impose the gay agenda on schoolchildren.

    Why would they bother to deny the obvious targetting of children? Perhaps they do understand that such a thing would be immoral and so best to deny, deny, deny --- even as they make excuses, excuses, excuses for what they deny.

  16. Chairm
    Posted July 3, 2012 at 5:29 am | Permalink

    Bruce,

    Sexual attraction is a good thing. Same-sex sexual attraction is a disorder of a good thing. Your talk of inborn same-sex sexual attraction is an irrelevancy.

Comments are temporarily disabled. Please try back later.