NOM BLOG

NFL's Matt Birk: Let's Protect Marriage, and Speech

 

Matt Birk, Minnesota native, former center for the Minnesota Vikings and current center for the Baltimore Ravens, boldly speaks out for marriage and for free speech:

"...I think it is important to set the record straight about what the marriage debate is and is not about, and to clarify that not all NFL players think redefining marriage is a good thing.

The union of a man and a woman is privileged and recognized by society as "marriage" for a reason, and it's not because the government has a vested interest in celebrating the love between two people. With good reason, government recognizes marriages and gives them certain legal benefits so they can provide a stable, nurturing environment for the next generation of citizens: our kids.

Children have a right to a mom and a dad, and I realize that this doesn't always happen. Through the work my wife and I do at pregnancy resource centers and underprivileged schools, we have witnessed firsthand the many heroic efforts of single mothers and fathers -- many of whom work very hard to provide what's best for their kids.

... Same-sex unions may not affect my marriage specifically, but it will affect my children -- the next generation. Ideas have consequences, and laws shape culture. Marriage redefinition will affect the broader well-being of children and the welfare of society. As a Christian and a citizen, I am compelled to care about both.

I am speaking out on this issue because it is far too important to remain silent. People who are simply acknowledging the basic reality of marriage between one man and one woman are being labeled as "bigots" and "homophobic." Aren't we past that as a society? -- Star Tribune

Matt also appears in this video explaining his personal views on marriage, and the importance of moms and dads:

20 Comments

  1. Jeff
    Posted October 1, 2012 at 11:44 am | Permalink

    I would like to see what players that do support traditional marriage & what player that support the sick & perverted lifestyle of the gay agenda.

  2. Anonygrl
    Posted October 1, 2012 at 11:49 am | Permalink

    I would like to see which players support equal rights and protections for all citizens and which support sick and disgusting bigotry of the Jeff's agenda.

    Do you see what I did there, Jeff? Good.

  3. Paul Mc
    Posted October 1, 2012 at 11:49 am | Permalink

    Jeff, you mean some kind of Fantasy NFL tables?

    Yes, sport should be all about religion. Forget all about that athletiscism, prowess and skill nonsense.

  4. Paul Mc
    Posted October 1, 2012 at 11:49 am | Permalink

    Err... sarcasm.

  5. Posted October 1, 2012 at 12:14 pm | Permalink

    Jeff:

    "With good reason, government recognizes marriages and gives them certain legal benefits so they can provide a stable, nurturing environment for the next generation of citizens: our kids."

    Anonypartner1:

    "sick and disgusting bigotry"

    At least the lines are clearly drawn.

  6. Daughter of Eve
    Posted October 1, 2012 at 12:24 pm | Permalink

    Fantastic! Individuals in high-profile careers can alert a lot of people to the dangers facing marriage (the bedrock of our society), and free speech--an unalienable right, endowed by our Creator. Time for society to wake up and take a stand for liberty.

  7. Barb Chamberlan
    Posted October 1, 2012 at 12:31 pm | Permalink

    "No child should be intentionally deprived of knowing their mother and their father."

    Thanks, Matt. Your calm statement of fact is the biggest threat the marriage redefiners have. All they can do in response is shriek that children have no rights, that the desires of adults supersede the non-rights of children.

    All they can do is screech that they demand the "freedom to love," a freedom they already possess.

    The opposition must sever the link between marriage and procreation. They attempt to do this by pointing out that some children are already separated from their mother or father. They try to use the exception as a tool to sever the link altogether.

    Their raucous voices are like fingernails on a chalkboard.

  8. Laura H
    Posted October 1, 2012 at 1:06 pm | Permalink

    This man states the facts: children have rights, too, and they supercede those of gay adults who want society to bless them. I also believe deliberate single parenting should be discouraged through, at the very least, societal disapproval. Children are entitled to both biological parents, whenever possible. Who doesn't want to know where they came from, who their mom and dad are???

  9. HV
    Posted October 1, 2012 at 1:53 pm | Permalink

    A startling admission from someone opposed to SSM: "Marriage is in trouble right now -- admittedly, for many reasons that have little to do with same-sex unions."

    I appreciate his honesty in admitting that gay people are not to blame for the problems of people in straight marriages. So why oppose SSM? Surely opening marriage to all people will strengthen the institution.

  10. Zack
    Posted October 1, 2012 at 2:43 pm | Permalink

    "Same-sex unions may not affect my marriage specifically, but it will affect my children -- the next generation. Ideas have consequences, and laws shape culture. Marriage redefinition will affect the broader well-being of children and the welfare of society. As a Christian and a citizen, I am compelled to care about both."

    Finally! Someone says it. Bless this man!

  11. Ronnie M
    Posted October 1, 2012 at 3:55 pm | Permalink

    It is very important to deconstruct the most powerful tool marriage redefiners have: semantics and empathy-mongering.

    The U of Kansas and the Mark Regenerus studies have confirmed the poor outcomes gay parenting translates to (kids fared poorly in 77/80 developmental areas).

    Marriage redefiners want to discount and trivialize the essence and virtue of what marriage truly is, often dissing it by the high rates of divorce.

    Gay marriage is the fulfillment of Karl Marx's vision: The best way to bring down an empire is to abolish the nuclear family. It all comes back to deinstitutionalization - abolish and redefine societal norms, in this case, to cater to the reckless whims of a tiny minority. It's also about their definition of "Equality", which is really UNILATERAL equality - where the door swings but one way, attaining inclusion by way of excluding - excluding the will of "We the People" by undermining their will and getting gay marriage forced upon them by gay activist judges. Gay rights and the Democratic Process are mutually-exclusive. Open homosexuality and open Christianity are also mutually exclusive. One must be abolished for the fruition of the other.

    Team Obama and Liberals are making dead sure that it's Christians being left out of this equation.

  12. Seaborn Roddenberry
    Posted October 1, 2012 at 3:55 pm | Permalink

    Ah yes. The Helen Lovejoy defense.

  13. Paul McMichael
    Posted October 1, 2012 at 6:34 pm | Permalink

    Ronnie, unfortunately for you, Regnerus didn't study parenting at all. Regnerus states that himself in the study.

    The clue in the title "New Family Structures".

    He found that broken partnerships have the same impact on children as broken marriage.

    Duh.

    What a complete waste of $1m.

  14. rtm
    Posted October 1, 2012 at 7:34 pm | Permalink

    Barb: "All they can do in response is shriek that children have no rights,,,"

    Barb, please point me to same-sex marriage advocate shrieking that children have no rights.

  15. John N.
    Posted October 1, 2012 at 9:48 pm | Permalink

    Thank you Barb: As one who supports the rights of children may I say Amen to that.

    This New England Patriots fan would like to say thank you to the center of the Baltimore Ravens for standing up and being courageous on this issue. I can only hope other NFL players including my Patriots will do the same.

  16. Publius
    Posted October 1, 2012 at 9:59 pm | Permalink

    HV,

    "Surely opening marriage to all people will strengthen the institution."

    Would you agree that opening marriage to polygamists would strengthen the institution?

    Would redefining string quartets to include all musical ensembles strengthen real string quarters?

  17. Zack
    Posted October 1, 2012 at 10:16 pm | Permalink

    Great news to report:

    Jerry Brown vetoed the bill that would have recognized more than two legal parents for children.

  18. Ronnie M
    Posted October 1, 2012 at 11:02 pm | Permalink

    Extending the football narrative/metaphor, I envision the debate between marriage redefiners and traditional marriage advocates as translating into a football game inside a stadium - one team pitted against the other. And, do you know what cheer the cheerleaders for the gay marriage advocates would be chanting? I do.

    "Obfuscate!-Obfuscate!-Obfuscate!-Obfuscate!"

    For, the only way that marriage redefiners can sell the American People on gay marriage is to dumb it down into a muddled realm of semantics.

  19. Beth
    Posted October 6, 2012 at 10:19 pm | Permalink

    I wonder just what complaining to their creator that there is not equality because two men or two women can not produce children would bring them.

  20. Steph
    Posted October 7, 2012 at 12:53 am | Permalink

    So glad to see people are standing up! Can't wait to see people start waking up and realize that marriage is between one man and one woman!!