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.

66 Comments

  1. ChuckGG
    Posted June 21, 2012 at 7:25 pm | Permalink

    Since SSM has become legal in a number of states and DC, it seems reasonable the media, including comic books, address this issue. I think of young gay teens seeing far more positive role models than I saw in the 1960's as a huge step forward.

    The "threats" against religion really only deal with public institutions and should be treated in exactly the same manner in which discrimination against blacks, Jews, and other minorities were handled - nothing more, nothing less. The traditional discrimination against other minorities often contained a religious component.

    In 20 years, this issue will have blown over and people will think no more about SSM than they do currently about inter-faith and inter-racial marriages.

  2. Jim
    Posted June 21, 2012 at 7:37 pm | Permalink

    Remember Britney Spears and Kevin Federline? What about Kim Kardashian and Kris Humphries?

    Are we really supposed to believe in the sanctity of straight pop star weddings?

    And if not, should we campaign against, um, not-serious-enough "marriage" (NSE"M")?

  3. Posted June 21, 2012 at 7:58 pm | Permalink

    A comic book store.

    An uncharacteristic outbreak of honesty among the SS"M" advocates?

  4. John McLaren
    Posted June 21, 2012 at 8:42 pm | Permalink

    The homosexualists who work in the arts are always trying to foist their agenda on our children. We are forever grateful to the Rev. Jerry Falwell who alerted Christian parents to Tinky Winky, an obvious gay Teletubbie. We also honour the vigilance of James Dobson of Focus on the Family who identified SpongeBob Square Pants as a gay menace to children and family values because he sang a song promoting diversity. Never underestimate these gay characters cleverly disguised as "heroes"

  5. Shane Mahaffy
    Posted June 21, 2012 at 8:59 pm | Permalink

    And now there's singer Carrie Underwood, who is a country idol and huge favourite with teens openly supporting s-s marriage. We've had boycotts against JC Penney, Starbucks and Disney. How about burning her records and sending a loud message to the recording industry that we won't tolerate that vile propaganda directed toward our kids?

  6. Zack
    Posted June 21, 2012 at 9:07 pm | Permalink

    2012 is the high point for the battle of America's soul. Everyone keeps saying that the economy should take precedent, and yes the economy is ALWAYS important but what about the country's soul?

    "The "threats" against religion really only deal with public institutions and should be treated in exactly the same manner in which discrimination against blacks, Jews, and other minorities were handled "

    While I'm all for free speech, I disagree 100% with this excerpt from Chuck. The threats against religion are from those who wish to see morality and virtue completely and utterly destroyed in this world. Because without God, then how does one justify right and wrong? Sure you can affirm right and wrong but at that point it becomes subjective. Who's to say that murder is morally wrong?

    Sure you take the life of someone innocent but you have no moral basis with which to justify any wrong doing. What affirms morality if there is no God? Our law? What affirms our law? Society? Well then, what affirms society's ability to pass judgement and write laws?

    God matters. Gender matters, morality matters. These three things are enemies of the secular left because in their mind they represent everything that is a front to the "if it feels good do it" mentality.

  7. Zack
    Posted June 21, 2012 at 9:08 pm | Permalink

    2012 is the high point for the battle of America's soul. Everyone keeps saying that the economy should take precedent, and yes the economy is ALWAYS important but what about the country's soul?

  8. Zack
    Posted June 21, 2012 at 9:09 pm | Permalink

    "The "threats" against religion really only deal with public institutions and should be treated in exactly the same manner in which discrimination against blacks, Jews, and other minorities were handled "

    While I'm all for free speech, I disagree 100% with this excerpt from Chuck. The threats against religion are from those who wish to see morality and virtue completely and utterly destroyed in this world. Because without God, then how does one justify right and wrong? Sure you can affirm right and wrong but at that point it becomes subjective. Who's to say that murder is morally wrong?

  9. Zack
    Posted June 21, 2012 at 9:09 pm | Permalink

    Sure you take the life of someone innocent but you have no moral basis with which to justify any wrong doing. What affirms morality if there is no God? Our law? What affirms our law? Society? Well then, what affirms society's ability to pass judgement and write laws?

    God matters. Gender matters, morality matters. These three things are enemies of the secular left because in their mind they represent everything that is a front to the "if it feels good do it" mentality.

  10. Zack
    Posted June 21, 2012 at 9:09 pm | Permalink

    Sure you take the life of someone innocent but you have no moral basis with which to justify any wrong doing. What affirms morality if there is no God? Our law? What affirms our law? Society? Well then, what affirms society's ability to pass judgement and write laws?

  11. Posted June 21, 2012 at 9:14 pm | Permalink

    Isn't this the same as "grooming" a child, as in pedophielia. They are grooming children for homosexuality. It is making them accepting to it and be open to it. ChuckCG no one should be descriminated as in hated, but there is to be descrimination as to what is right and wrong. According to the Bible, the Word of God, it is wrong to be homosexual, for God made the model of Adam and Eve, one man, one woman for life.

  12. ChuckGG
    Posted June 21, 2012 at 9:39 pm | Permalink

    Interesting comments. I realize I am in the lion's den here, but some individual comments;

    John: I read your letter three times. I cannot determine if you are serious or that is sarcasm - truly. I thought that whole Tinky Winky thing was resolved decades ago. Official word: TW is not gay.

    Shane: Those boycotts of which you speak have been far from successful. Look at the numbers.

    Zack: Morality? I am sure that if an Islamic cleric saw your wife right now, parading around in public with her arms bared and not wearing a burka, he would declare American morally bankrupt (if he hasn't already). And, in some cases, murder is not wrong. It all depends. You are basing your definition of morality of your interpretation of God and religion. That is not the same interpretation held by others. I know you know you are right but others think they are right - the Islamic cleric comes to mind. You feel homosexuality is morally wrong. I don't. It's that simple. I don't need your version of God and your edition of a bible to tell me otherwise.

    My partner of 15 years and our 12 year old daughter are doing just fine. We live in a normal area where people think nothing of us. We are suburban and mainstream. Frankly, kind of boring. We certainly consider ourselves moral people. Perhaps, you do not but that is your issue, not ours.

    Ultimately, in the USA, this is a legal, secular question and it will be resolved that way. Religion has nothing to do with it.

  13. GZeus
    Posted June 21, 2012 at 9:45 pm | Permalink

    Welcome to the fray Chuck. Don't expect to change anyone's mind on here, but we cannot let the distortion and outright lies and fear go unchallenged.

  14. ChuckGG
    Posted June 21, 2012 at 9:47 pm | Permalink

    Jim: Quite right. If everyone is up in arms about the sanctity of marriage (whatever that means), perhaps a chit-chat with the 50% of the divorced straight population is in order?

    And, a chat with all those (nearly 50%) of straight couples who live together without being married also is in order?

    Finally, let's look at some numbers. The religious crowd says that only 3% of the population is gay. Okay, seems low, but I'll go with it. Of that 3%, I would be very surprised if more than half opted to legally marry. So, that leaves a total of 1.5% of the population being a threat to entire planet? There are more left-handed Lithuanian jockey in the country than 1.5% of the population. All this seems like much ado over a very, very small segment of society. Who, despite their numbers, still deserve the legal rights enjoyed by the majority.

  15. GZeus
    Posted June 21, 2012 at 9:49 pm | Permalink

    Where are all the protests for the Sanctity of marriage for TV shows like The Bachelor, Bridezilla, Who Wants to Marry a millionaire, etc. that truly make a mockery of marriage?

  16. Steve
    Posted June 21, 2012 at 9:50 pm | Permalink

    Jim, is that the best arguments you ssm zombies can have?
    Labeling marital failures the failures of straight people is nonsense – it’s like labeling the crime problem the fault of minorities. It’s xenophobic. Marital problems, like crimes, are the failures of individuals, not group members. Heterosexuality isn’t the problem with marriage. People who get involved with the wrong people, make bad decisions, and act badly toward one another are the problem.

    Second, the implication here is that we need men to marry men and women to marry women to “fix” marriage. This, again, is idiocy on your part. You don’t fix a car by dumping a garbage disposal mechanism into the engine. You fix it by using replacement parts. Institutions aren’t fixed by changing the definitions of the institutions. They’re fixed by people making better decisions.

  17. sebastian
    Posted June 21, 2012 at 9:53 pm | Permalink

    The Barna Group found that people who consider themselves liberal have
    higher divorce rates than people who call themselves conservatives. Among liberals, the divorce
    rate is 37 percent. Among conservatives, it is only 28 percent. The old canard that '50% of all marriages end in divorce' was always untrue. Another one of those self-serving left wing stats that has become ,unfortunately, conventional wisdom.

  18. Lefty
    Posted June 21, 2012 at 10:01 pm | Permalink

    "And, in some cases, murder is not wrong. It all depends."

    Murder is always wrong. Murder is wrongful homicide by definition, ChuckGG.

  19. Vickilynn
    Posted June 21, 2012 at 10:03 pm | Permalink

    Excellent article, thank you.

    NOM, I wish you would moderate the comments on this blog so the ones who desire to promote same-sex marriage could take their debate elsewhere.

  20. Randy E King
    Posted June 21, 2012 at 10:09 pm | Permalink

    So now marriage corruption supporters have become completely dependent upon the "but Johnny jumped off the bridge first" defense in support of their depravity.

    Chuck; your secular religion is not the official religion of these United States. The 1st Amendment is just the laymen’s language protections Christian's enacted to protect future generations from the Godless. Self evident truths will see us through all the background noise you are putting out.

  21. byrd
    Posted June 21, 2012 at 10:15 pm | Permalink

    Thanks, Vicki. I look at it this way, however.

    Their rantings show desperation in their cause. They've lost time after time after time at the ballot box, even in CA and ME, and support for unnatural marriage fell sharply between last year and this year.

    They come here looking for validation, of which they will never receive, that their disjointed opinions matter and that someone will notice them.
    It's a dog and pony show.

  22. Cara
    Posted June 21, 2012 at 10:16 pm | Permalink

    I stopped buying comic books years ago for the violence, swearing, and increasing sexual innuendos. Comic book sales continue to fall except for the fools who are committed to a particular series and must have it for their collection (and they're not buying for great storylines.) The move to do controversial things are publicity stunts, begging people to buy comic books. And when you post about it, or blog about it, you bring more attention to it. Let it die. The comic book will be worth 10cents in 5 years time and the marriage will likely be broken up.

  23. Zack
    Posted June 21, 2012 at 10:31 pm | Permalink

    @ChuckCG

    "Morality? I am sure that if an Islamic cleric saw your wife right now, parading around in public with her arms bared and not wearing a burka, he would declare American morally bankrupt (if he hasn't already). "

    You are grapsing at straws here. The United States was not founded on Islam, so their idea of morals and virtue do not apply to our laws. We were founded on Judeo-Christian values and it is those values that are enshrined in our Declaration of Independence and Constitution.

    "And, in some cases, murder is not wrong. It all depends. You are basing your definition of morality of your interpretation of God and religion"

    You have proved my point.

    "That is not the same interpretation held by others. I know you know you are right but others think they are right ."

    Even though our values were commonly held for the past two centuries.

    "My partner of 15 years and our 12 year old daughter are doing just fine. We live in a normal area where people think nothing of us."

    Okay then. That's fine, happy to know you are living a healthy life.

    "Religion has nothing to do with it."

    Well that's just not true at all.

  24. Zack
    Posted June 21, 2012 at 10:44 pm | Permalink

    Daggone it. I double posted by accident.....see my previous comments.

  25. M. Jones
    Posted June 21, 2012 at 10:55 pm | Permalink

    Once Romney wins the presidency, I don't think we will hear much from the marriage corruption and morality destroyers. To whence they came, back in the closet and away from our children.

  26. Jim
    Posted June 21, 2012 at 11:23 pm | Permalink

    Steve - I was sarcastically poking fun at NOM's finger wagging. They are highlighting a single example of a comic book store paying for the wedding of a gay couple in an effort to question the sanctity of gay marriages in general.

    I wasn't making reference to the failure of BS and KK's weddings; instead, my sarcasm is rooted in the fact that both of those weddings were essentially publicity stunts.

    The point I was hoping would be extracted from my comment is this: Some weddings--gay and straight--are exploited for publicity, but that doesn't give use grounds to question the sanctity of marriage--gay or straight--in general.

  27. Jim
    Posted June 21, 2012 at 11:30 pm | Permalink

    Zack - I think ChuckCG's point is this: We live in a country that respects all religious beliefs. Christians don't have a monopoly on faith; Muslims, Jews, Mormons, Buddhists, Sikhs, Hindus, etc., are just as convinced that their religions preach Truth.

    If we start basing our laws on religious beliefs, what makes you so sure that we will happen to base our laws on Christian beliefs? Or even *your* interpretation of Christian beliefs? (There are, after all, many denominations of Christianity, some of which support marriage equality!)

    The point is that laws are secular, and if we are to deny legal protections and/or benefits to some group of people, we must be able to defend that discrimination with secular reasoning.

  28. Vickilynn
    Posted June 21, 2012 at 11:42 pm | Permalink

    Y'all,

    I'm really dismayed at the tone and verbiage in some of these messages.

    Those of us who support true marriage as one man, one woman, should never be attacking and name-calling to people who believe differently. We do not agree. That does not make them "zombies" and other rude characterizations.

    Those of us who support marriage as G-d's design according to the Bible as one man, one woman should be an example of G-d's love, while standing firm on His Word.

    To those who are here to promote same-sex relationships as "marriage", please know that there are more appropriate venues for your debates. Whether the law approves or not is not the issue. The laws of people do not ever supersede the holy law of G-d which states that marriage is His design and plan of one man, one woman,

  29. ChuckGG
    Posted June 21, 2012 at 11:46 pm | Permalink

    Sebastian: I checked the Barna Group and found it to be another religious-based website. Searching for something actually factual and neutral, I discovered the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) publishes these numbers.

    http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/divorce.htm

    According to their statistics which I am far more inclined to trust, we see the following:

    Marriage and Divorce

    (Data are for the U.S.)

    Number of marriages: 2,077,000
    Marriage rate: 6.8 per 1,000 total population
    Divorce rate: 3.4 per 1,000 population (44 reporting States and D.C.)

    Source: Births, Marriages, Divorces, and Deaths: Provisional Data for 2009, table A

    By my calculations, 3.4/1000 is half of 6.8/1000, or 50%.

    Now, Liberal vs. Conservative? The CDC didn't track that ditty. Let's say I'm disinclined to trust a self-serving site such as the Barna Group.

  30. ChuckGG
    Posted June 21, 2012 at 11:59 pm | Permalink

    Jim - thanks for your very astute statement of what I was trying to convey. Very well stated.

    Vickilynn: Two points - this is NOM and I would think the point is to debate the issue. NOM tried for a long time to play down the religious aspects of disagreement with SSM, but it has become evident that 99% of the argument against SSM is religious based. You can see that in this column alone.

    I know you will disagree with this, but for those of us who are not religious, this religious argument has no standing in our secular government. And, I can tell you that from what I have seen of all the court cases of late, not one has ever found in favor of the anti-SSM side and no argument using religion as a basis for continuing the ban against SSM has ever been successful. There is ample reason for that in law.

    This is why I rarely hear the NOM people bring up religion as a justification against SSM. They haul out everything else, but hardly ever religion directly because they know this never will hold up in court.

    I would ask you if a straight couple, being married by a Justice of the Peace in a civil ceremony are married by your definition? There is no mention of God or blessing or anything religious whatsoever in a civil ceremony (unless the couple says something, but the State doesn't care). Is that couple married? Well, to many they are not, but to the State, all other States, the Federal Government, and all other countries, that couple is legally married.

    That, in a nutshell, is all we want. We don't really care if a church recognizes SSM or not. There are plenty of churches out there that will perform SSM, if a couple so desires, but it is not needed for a civil ceremony.

    Do you understand where we are coming from on this?

  31. Posted June 22, 2012 at 12:22 am | Permalink

    Here's some insight for you all: 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". In fact, most will tell you that we didn't even have a word to describe our sexual/romantic attractions until after high school.

    Stop spreading the awful lie that gay men and women recruit children. It's disgusting, untrue, and intended only to incite hatred towards gay men and women throughout the world.

    Face it: When it comes to the representation of family in America, gay couples have a place. When learning about different compositions of families in this country, it is appropriate to represent ALL types of families. This is presenting a true picture of the world - not 'indoctrination of children into homosexuality'.

    Also, for the most part comic books are not exclusively children's literature. In fact, there are quite a few comics that, because of the violence portrayed, are not appropriate for children.

  32. Zack
    Posted June 22, 2012 at 12:29 am | Permalink

    Jim you have missed my point entirely....

    @ChuckCG

    "but it has become evident that 99% of the argument against SSM is religious based"

    Most arguments coming from people of faith are religious arguments. The arguments made in defense of Marriage as a matter of law are generally very secular.

    I implore you to listen Dennis Prager. He can make a stronger case than most people I listen to. And he's a devout Jew that makes secular arguments.

  33. ChuckGG
    Posted June 22, 2012 at 12:30 am | Permalink

    GZeus: Your comment:

    "Welcome to the fray Chuck. Don't expect to change anyone's mind on here, but we cannot let the distortion and outright lies and fear go unchallenged."

    No, I doubt I will. I try to present facts and reality when I post on forums such as these. Granted, most of my postings are on regular news sites and not on NOM since they are heavily moderated and I rarely (until today) have had anything of mine actually posted, despite how mundane it was.

    The reality of all this is that SSM will soon enough be the law of the land. The polls indicate at better than 50% acceptance. What is more telling is that among young people, SSM is accepted in the 70+% area whereas the over 50 crowd often is under 50%. Well, right there, you can see through attrition the change will occur. DADT has been successful (again, a young crowd) and the court cases have been favorable. The boycotts are not working, and in the case of Starbucks, have backfired and increased sales and stock value. More and more large companies are on-board with spousal benefits. Even the Catholic church in Maine has abandoned the 2012 ballot initiative this time around. "Good money after bad," I suppose.

    With the exception of NC (bible belt and GOP Primary ballot), states are coming on-board. The polls not matching the states votes is not surprising. Some of those "32 of 32" votes took place years ago. It would be interesting to see the polls by state when that state voted against SSM and see those same polls again today per state. I think the trend would be obvious. Much progress has been made in the past 3 years alone - NY is onboard, Prop-8 shot down twice, DOMA in its death throes, DADT repealed, to name a few.

    I suspect after SSM is the law of the land, NOM will morph into National Organization to Restore Marriage (NORM) and then become another toothless tiger like the Klan and the John Birch Society - mostly surviving to pay its leaders and beat the drum for a dwindling audience.

  34. Reality
    Posted June 22, 2012 at 12:34 am | Permalink

    If gays were really born gay, why r they unable to produce life naturally? They have desires fo rmarriage
    & kids, yet they must enlist the opposite sex to have a child. So in other words, u were born with desires u r unable to fulfil "just the way u were born".

  35. Amanda
    Posted June 22, 2012 at 12:37 am | Permalink

    I don't agree with your point of "...huge companies push gay marriage into children's literature..." IMO comic books (at least the big 2 companies of DC & Marvel) are no longer marketing to children. DC's reboot has pretty much been agreed that they were marketing to 18-35 yr old white dudes.

    Batman comics (that arent' based on the animated series at least) are super grim/dark/gritty/violent in the past 10-20 years. Yeah kids may know Batman or watch the movies..but I'd argue that Batman is considered "children's lit."

    And haven't X-Men always been toeing that line of the mutant struggle and all the hate and protest against mutants mirrored the struggles of LGBT people? Is that not something eveybody knows? And besides they have murders and terrorists and a girl who self harms in thier group. Shouldn't we be more worried about kids reading about that stuff then a gay marriage?

    Don't like this 1 single comic book issue with a gay marriage, don't let your kid buy this issue. Or don't let them buy X-Men at all to show your nonsupport with your money. If it's considered kid's lit, parents should be in charge of monitoring it. Let the rest of us Adult comic fans buy our issues in peace.

  36. Reality
    Posted June 22, 2012 at 12:42 am | Permalink

    Also, as a woman I no during intimate moments, the entire body wants satisfaction. If I were with a woman she doesnt have the equipment to satisfy, which is y they buy objects. A woman was created for a man in everyway. For me, objects wont due. I need the real
    thing, apparently so does the lesbian.

  37. Vickilynn
    Posted June 22, 2012 at 1:06 am | Permalink

    You are free to make your choices but you are not free from the consequences of those choices

  38. ChuckGG
    Posted June 22, 2012 at 1:31 am | Permalink

    Well, I had another comment, Vickilynn but it would not post. I guess I'm "moderated," once again.

  39. Jim
    Posted June 22, 2012 at 3:04 am | Permalink

    Vickilynn- Thanks for abstaining from name-calling, and for asking other pro-traditional marriage folks to do the same.

    I'm a 28-year old gay guy who loves teaching, doing science research, and rock climbing. I also love my boyfriend, who I live with and have been dating for several years.

    I tell you this so that you might understand why I post on NOM's site. I sometimes feel vilified by the pro-traditional marriage crowd; I feel mis-characterized as a pedophile or a person with plans to destroy the church. I'm neither of those things; I respect youth and religious freedom.

    Posting on NOM's site lets me have a voice. It lets me feel like my voice and opinion are represented, even if most people here disagree with me.

    I'm grateful that the moderators let people like me participate in these discussions, though it's hard to predict what they'll let through...

    Anyway, thanks again for your commitment to civility.

  40. Jim
    Posted June 22, 2012 at 3:07 am | Permalink

    Zack - I'll check out Dennis Prager.

  41. Posted June 22, 2012 at 3:34 am | Permalink

    It requires no religious faith at all to understand that the human race is constituted in two complementary genders, both of which are necessary for the procreation of children, and for the best nurture of those children.

    The pseudo-marriage movement cannot prevail against this truth, howsoever much they try.

    See you in November.

  42. Posted June 22, 2012 at 6:41 am | Permalink

    Jim:

    Please be assured that all of us are mystified by the ineffable algorithm of NOM moderation.

    This being said, NOM makes no assertions concerning your personal behaviors.

    NOM exists to preserve our civilization from the disastrous lie of same sex pseudo marriage.

    I hope you and all rational persons will join us.

    SSA disorder is a significant, but not insuperable, obstacle to the defense of humanity's most ancient and important institution.

  43. Ash
    Posted June 22, 2012 at 8:42 am | Permalink

    ChuckGG, your calculation of the divorce statistics from the CDC is faulty, and is the source of the 50% divorce rate myth.

    But, thankfully, the NOM Blog has already addressed this myth! See the post below, in addition to comment #1 from me.

    http://www.nomblog.com/17210/

  44. ChuckGG
    Posted June 22, 2012 at 8:54 am | Permalink

    Ash, Vickilynn, and Zack - I posted 3 responses but I've been "moderated."

  45. OvercameSSA
    Posted June 22, 2012 at 8:55 am | Permalink

    So-called SS"M" leads to teaching in public schools and pressure on religious schools to teach that homosexual relationships are the same as homosexual ones.

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

    So, we as People need to decide whether we want children to be encouraged to experiment with homosexual acts and even learn to be homosexual through government teaching; or whether we want schools to be silent on the issue. The only way to secure the latter is to prevent changing the definition of marriage. THE ONLY WAY.

  46. OvercameSSA
    Posted June 22, 2012 at 8:58 am | Permalink

    Chuck - This site is a little screwy when it comes to posts appearing; there seems to be no rhyme or reason to why some posts do not appear immediately. My posts are all against so-called SS"M," and I've had posts that have never appeared, but usually my posts are just held back (sometimes for 24 hours), and then appear within the string of comments instead of at the end.

    That said, I believe there is some filtering of comments that are non-productive.

  47. Randy E King
    Posted June 22, 2012 at 9:00 am | Permalink

    @Chuck,

    "The polls indicate at better than 50% acceptance"

    The latest AP poll from this morning shows support for marriage corruption at 40% and opposition at 42% with 15% no comments. Considering the fact that the AP has proven itself to be yet another marriage corruption cheerleader in the media you can pretty much bet on the poll containing a fifteen point bias in favor of marriage corruption. When you couple that with the historic data showing undecided supporting traditional marriage at the polls by over 90% then what you will see is that the for and against numbers have not budged one inch since 1970: 38% in support of; 62% opposed.

    Coincidentally; this is near to the exact same spread -on average- as realized on Election Day.

    Point being:

    The actual do not support your ridiculous assertions to the contrary.

  48. Layne
    Posted June 22, 2012 at 9:32 am | Permalink

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

    There you go again with the widely discredited Exodus International talking points.

  49. AM
    Posted June 22, 2012 at 10:09 am | Permalink

    The understanding of marriage as a union of one man and one woman does not require Christian faith or any faith. The rational for this understanding of marriage is accessible to all; by way of history, common law and biology. Same- sex marriage at best weakens the legal link between children and their biological parents, and when taken to it’s logical conclusion, destroys the legal basis of natural parenthood.

    Douglas Farrow, in his book Nation of Bastards:
    “The advent of same-sex marriage, trumpeted as a great triumph of human rights, marks an important milestone on the path to state tyranny. For same-sex marriage makes bastards of us all, and as a nation of bastards, we are all wards of the state.”
    “How so? The change in definition uncouples marriage from procreation. From now on, then, no one will be born a bastard, and everyone will be born a bastard. From now on, the connection between biological parenthood and legal parenthood will be supported by no institution. The claims of blood will not have the same standing at law that they once did. Natural relationship will not be primary at law; legal constructs will take their place….Everyone, for legal purposes, will be first of all a ward of the state, and the state will become our primary community…”

    Of course, when the attempts to force ssm on an unwilling populace fail, advocates rely on judges and lawyers to do their dirty work:

    http://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/301836/unnatural-reasoning-ed-whelan

  50. Bruce
    Posted June 22, 2012 at 11:53 am | Permalink

    Randy E. King:
    "Chuck; your secular religion is not the official religion of these United States."

    Actually, it sort of is. Of course, secularism isn't a religion, in fact, the dictionary definition of secular is "the state of being separate from religion." We have a secular government, one which requires the state to neither promote nor exhibit hostility to any particular religion. Given how much you claim to value the true definitions of words, I'm surprised that you'd make such a glaring mistake.

  51. 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?

  52. 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"

  53. 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

  54. 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.

  55. 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! :)

  56. 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. :-(

  57. 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"

  58. 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 ;)

  59. 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?

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

    Speaking of delusional hate mongers:

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

  61. 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.

  62. 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.

  63. 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

  64. 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.

  65. 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.

  66. 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.