The San Francisco Chronicle profiles the President of Mission Public Affairs and a close ally of NOM:
To supporters of same-sex marriage, Frank Schubert's name inspires a chill.
Few political consultants are as personally associated with their advocacies as Schubert, 56. The nationally lauded Sacramento strategist masterminded California's Proposition 8 and is guiding every similar ballot campaign to ban same-sex marriage, including measures before voters this fall in Washington, Maine, Minnesota and Maryland.
To Brian Brown, president of the National Organization for Marriage, which supports marriage as between a man and woman, Schubert "gives people hope that they're not alone."
... Schubert is feared not only because he wins - voters have defeated same-sex marriage measures 32 times, including some campaigns led by him - but because he is able to seed doubt in swing voters with ads that show how legalizing same-sex marriage would affect children.
20 Comments
He is also able to twist facts and promote misinformation to push his cause. That is a very important skill for anti-SSM advocates to have. Otherwise they would have no arguments.
Exactly Bryce, that's why they have twisted the issue to be about marriage because they can't argue civil rights. Pure hate towards a group of Human Beings they can't tolerate being equal to themselves.
It'll be fun twenty years from now when this man is remembered with all the fondness of Anita Brant.
Sorry little marriage deconstruction boys, but to quote Mr. Schubert: "Before you can decree for yourself the ultimate win, perhaps you should have your first win."
A true hero for righteousness.
The man wins because the left can't win on merit nor facts.
We know the real purpose of same-sex "marriage".
In 2003, the Massachusetts Senate had certified a question to the
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court asking if a proposed civil unions bill that EXPLICITLY provides that “eligible same-sex couples the opportunity to obtain the benefits, protections, rights and
responsibilities afforded to opposite sex couples by the marriage laws
of the commonwealth, without entering into a marriage” and that
“spouses in a civil union shall have all the same benefits,
protections, rights and responsibilities under law as are granted to
spouses in a marriage”. Opinions of the Justices to the Senate, 440
Mass. 1201, 802 N.E.2d 565 (Mass. Sup. Jud. Ct. 2004)
Several gay rights groups submitted amici briefs arguing that the
civil unions bill would violate the Massachusetts ERA, on the basis
that civil unions are “separate and unequal” and a form of
“segregation”, GLAD Brief, Opinions, at 12, because they denied the
“social recognition” that comes with marriage, Id. at 24,they would
“mark [same-sex couples] as inferior to their heterosexual counterparts and diminish their status in the community” regardless of
whether they provided “the same benefits, protections,rights and
responsibilities under law as are granted to spouses in a marriage”,
Civil Rights Brief in Opinions at 12 , and that civil unions “would
not constitute equality, because their relationships still would not
be recognized by the rest of society as being as valued as
heterosexual relationships.” id. at 13
And in Li v. State of Oregon, 338 Or 376, 388, 110 P3d 91 (Or. Sup.
Ct. 2005) plaintiffs had argued that civil unions would be “inherently
stigmatizing" and "inherently separate and unequal” Reply Brief of
Plaintiff-Respondents/Cross-Appellants, Li, at 10.
And in Jackson v. Abercrombie , the plaintiffs are suing because of
the "special status" of marriage, not just
the "bundle of rights" which the civil union law would allow them. See
Complaint in Jackson v. Abercrombie, CV11-009734-ACK-KSC, at 13,
quoting Kerrigan v. Commissioner of Public Health, 289 Conn. 315 at
289, 957 A.2d 407 at 416 (Conn. Sup. Ct. 2008)
The underlying fallacies of these arguments are the assumptions that
the social recognition and social value, and social status of marriage is independent of the male-female dynamic, and that heterosexual
relationships are valued BECAUSE they are called marriages. If this be
so, it is not because of anything in the proposed civil unions acts,
but the solely due to the construction sodomist fundamentalists choose to put upon it.
In other words, the purpose of same-sex “marriage” is to make sodomist
fundamentalists feel better about themselves.
If the left can't win on merit and facts, then how have we been winning our cases in the court system? Oh, yeah, that's right. Dang activist judges. LOL.
Yes, activist judges.
Until 1995, every judge to hear 14th Amendment challenges to the definition of marriage uniformly rejected these challenges. See e.g. Baker v. Nelson, 191 N.W.2d 185 (Minn. Sup. Ct. 1971), summarily aff'd, 409 U.S. 810 (1972) It was not until 1995 that a judge opined that there might be a viable equal protection argument against the traditional definition of marriage. See Dean v. District of Columbia, 653 A.2d 307 at 333 to 356 (D.C. Ct. of App. 1995) (J. Ferren, concurring in part and dissenting in part) Ten years after Dean, a judge struck down Nebraska's marriage amendment. See Citizens for Equal Protection v. Bruning, 290 F.Supp.2d 1004 (D.Neb. 2003) rev'd, 455 F.3d 859 (8th Cir. 2006)
Exaxtly what twisted arguments are u referring to? Have u any unbiased proof to backup your statements? References?
John #9,
I don't get why you all ask for references. You deny any evidence that doesn't fit to you anyway. You would be better served by researching yourself and not by searching for what you want to hear.
SSM does adversely affect children, by promoting irresponsible parenting and procreation. Children have a right to be born to and raised by their own married mother and father.
For example, many promoting SSM will appeal to the need to "protect" their families, as a justification for neutering marriage, demanding marriage rights based on the sexual orientation(s) of the adults involved, forgetting or ignorning the fact that they have purposefully introduced third-party and possibly court-directed interference in their family life, which introduces instabilty to the family. Yet even were SSM achieved, many adults in SSM relationships raising children would still be barred from marriage, and not because of their sexual orientation.
For example: let's assume there are two SSM couples; one is comprised of two women who happen to claim to be "lesbian," and the other is a grandmother living with a grown daughter, and helping to raise a grandchild(ren). Pro-SSMers would go to bat for the two "lesbians," claiming "gay hatred" if they are denied marriage rights, yet remain silent on the co-equal claims of the grandmother/daughter couple, who could equally benefit from marriage benefits to protect their family (even if the grandmother and daughter both consider themselves to be "gay").
While promoters of gay identity politics would like the issue to be about gay rights, they are not formally prohibited the right to marriage, childbearing, etc. The issue is about segregating or not segregating marriage based on sex, and its affect on paternal, maternal, and children's rights to natural legal bonds with both parents.
Marriage= man + woman.
Gay columnist: let’s face it, we want to indoctrinate children
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/gay-journalist-lets-face-it-we-want-to-indoctrinate-children
Thank you Michael
If the left can't win on merit and facts, then how have we been winning our cases in the court system? Oh, yeah, that's right. Dang activist judges.
Post #8 proves that you only can win with activist judges who do not uphold the law or the constitution.
LOL you people are pathetic.
Good News:
Wherever you are, read Michael E. @ #7
This is why civil unions won't work and also why you should not look for a new word to describe man + woman marriage as you have been posting lately. That is capitulation and it wouldn't matter anyway. They will never be satisfied. If you change the word they will want that too. Also if you change the word, all the past writings, poems, music, ads, etc using the word marriage will apply to SSM if you give them the word, not the true meaning or what the writings originally intended to mean. Push back, do not give them one step more and roll back whatever we can including those sham unions in CA and all of the states that enacted/judicated SSM laws. Their friendships are delusions of love, nothing more.
Michael, your posts are very informative. I always enjoy reading #7 in particular. You got the words straight from the horse's mouth to prove that this is not about legal protections.
That's one thing that puzzles me about this debate--the narcissism of SSMers. They want the word marriage for the sake of their fragile emotions and egos. Okay, then convince the people of why this should be done.
No! The people cannot make decisions about their own societal institutions. Opponents of ssm must be compared to racists, and the executive branch of the federal government must abdicate its duty to defend laws of Congress, ALL for the sake of this group's ego.
Their lives are not at stake; just their emotions. And their emotional fulfillment is a civil right for which *everyone* must bend over backwards.
They want the message conferred by marriage, i.e. that their relationships are just as valuable as a real marriages. But they want this message at the expense of truth, and at the expense of an actual societal blessing of their unions.
They have very twisted thinking. How a handful of judicial activists forcing a change in law communicates a message from *society* is beyond me.
Perhaps they feel that the government is God. So long as the government lies and says that same-sex unions are as valuable as marriages then that's all that matters--regardless of benefits.
Regarding the courts: when a judge inserts his or her own policy preferences into the process, and decides his vote on that basis, then, that judge abuses judicial review.
Such abuse discredits judicial review rather than enables it.
This is not about activism, per se, but about adherence to the principles of good governance. The rule of law is not the rule of man (or woman) in judicial garb. The judge is not the law.
The judiciary is a branch of government. It is not the super-legislative and executive pinnacle of society that micromanages all decision-making.
The judiciary is a servant of the governed. That means it must limit its exercise of authority to that for which it was constituted. Just as a judge is not the law, neither is a panel of citizens in judicial robes the ultimate governing body of society.
Judicial restraint is not merely moving slowly in some inevitable direction or other; rather, it is a principled limitation on government power.
All branches of government, including the direct form of decision-making via referenda or via ballot measures (including constitutional amendments), require balance and that comes with the exercise of restraint. No other part of governance is as greatly restrained as the direct vote; and no other part is as independent as the judicial vote. But votes are counted and the basic principle is that better decisions are made through voting -- the judicial perhaps more narrow than lelgislative and executive and direct vote. Majority votes count.
But abuse of the process degrades the authority of the majority -- even when the majority is of judicial votes on a high court.
When judicial restraint flies out the window for the sake of an individual's policy preferences, then, the judiciary is impaired rather than activated to its allocated purpose in the scheme of a self-governing society.
Thusfar no pro-SSM court opinion has managed to reach a pro-SSM conclusion without abuse of judicial review. That speaks volumes.