Dear Marriage Supporter,
I have exciting news — Eighteen Republicans in the Iowa Senate have introduced a measure to allow the people of Iowa to vote on Marriage!
Please send a quick email to Republicans thanking them for respecting the right of Iowans to have a say about the definition of marriage — an institution so fundamental to our society and which protects children by giving them the mother and father they deserve!
And please also email Democrats and ask them to stand with us for principle and values and NOT with the party bosses who have refused for years to allow this resolution to come to the floor for an up or down vote.
It's critical that your voice is heard in Des Moines. Gay marriage was imposed on Iowa in 2009 by judicial fiat by the Iowa Supreme Court. In 2010, Iowans won a historic victory when they unseated three of the responsible judges in a statewide retention vote.
But for the past four years Democrats have refused to even consider a measure allowing a free and fair vote of the people on marriage to reach the floor for an up-or-down vote!
That's why I'm so excited to see Republicans in Des Moines not giving up. Please honor their commitment to marriage by sending a positive message of support and encouragement to them — and encouraging more Republicans to support this resolution.
And don't forget — Democrats need to hear from you as well. The media is always trying to claim that Republicans are split on the issue of marriage (not true) but the media also hides the fact that many, many Democrats stand with us on the critical issue of marriage — these politicians need to hear from you today!
Thank you for taking time out of your day to do this important action.
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.
21 Comments
There are 24 Republicans in the Iowa State Senate. Are you saying that they couldn't get all of them on board with this measure? Does not bode well for the prospects of a popular vote, now does it?
Is Gronstal still the Senate majority leader? I remember he would not allow the marriage amendment to come up for a vote:
http://www.nomblog.com/17642/
Political theatre for the benefit of the religio-homphobes. Sigh.
I don't think its right to call everyone who disagrees with the idea of gay marriage a "homophobe." There was a time when decent society would not even discuss the gays. But I do not dislike anyone because of that. I just think it should be kept private like it always has been. I'm pretty sure that my hairdresser is a gay, but that doesn't stop me from going to his salon. When I ran into the fellow who looks after my garden and his "lover" one year at the flower show, I stopped and said hello to both of them. Disagreeing with gay marriage does not mean that you have be disagreeable.
@CRSmith...how nice you said hello to "the gays" or "a gay".....please let me know when I can vote on your marriage...regardless of the outcome, I will be sure to smile and say hello and be pleasant too-----:-)
@Barb Yes he is still the leader. Which means this effort is pointless and wasteful. But go ahead, Mr. Brown, and waste your resources here, instead of in places where they could do real damage.
Once again the National Organization "for" Marriage shows how woefully misnamed it is, being an organization devoted purely to preventing marriages, and even nullifying legal marriages that already exist.
You're not "supporting", "protecting", or "defending" marriage by opposing somebody else's, or even worse, trying to take it away.
Once again, John B. uses his Humpty-Dumpty logic to attempt to insult those who support marriage. *He's* decided that two pervs shacking up is a marriage, and thus claims that NOM is trying to prevent marriage.
John, dear, marriage is between a man and a woman. That's the law in 41 states. Two gays who got "married" in a dippy state like Maine are NOT considered married in the vast majority of this country. Self-righteous imperialists like you are the ones trying to destroy a traditional and vital institution that reflects natural law. YOU are part of the troublemakers. If Iowans got the vote on this, they would likely ban "marriage equality" (what an absurd label), and that's what's really got you upset. In your fascist little minds, only YOU and your political gang get to decide this issue. Tough luck, it's already been decided: in the vast majority of this country, "marriage equality" (*snicker*) is BANNED. Likely the Supreme Court will kick Obama in his arrogant butt and tell him that HE doesn't rule this country. The VOTERS do. And that will will strike a blow for freedom as well.
"John, dear, marriage is between a man and a woman. That's the law in 41 states"
Which means that it's legal in 9 states, plus the nation's capital! I love the brilliance that comes from the anti-gays. So the question is, why isn't it legal everywhere?
Robert, why your gay emphasis?Is gay a race-like identity? What has same-sex sexual behavior got to do with marriage law, do you think?
John B, NOM is the national organization for marriage but you are for The specious substitution of marriage, aka SSM.
You have still not justified the revision you demand.
But your gay emphasis is noted. Is gay identity mandatory for those who'd SSM where SSM has been imposed in law?
Nope. But why not?
But oh no no no there's no anti-gay animus here.
Riiiight.
"Robert, why your gay emphasis?Is gay a race-like identity? What has same-sex sexual behavior got to do with marriage law, do you think?"
I emphasize gayness because it's gay couples who aren't allowed to get married, in some places. I don't discuss straightness, because straight couples are allowed to get married everywhere. Not much to discuss!
I think being gay, like being straight, is an immutable characteristic, although immutability isn't especially relevant. If you want to marry someone of the same sex, there really isn't a rational reason for the government to prohibit it.
Robert, it's a fundamental fact that male and female are designed to mate with each other. People of the same gender aren't. That's one reason, among many others, why same-sex couples are considered unnatural and deviant, and why their relationships are not considered equal to the primal, vital bond between male and female. Marriage was created to celebrate and legalize THAT particular bond, no other. That bond should be set apart and above all others as being the most important because IN TRUTH it is. The phony, pandering label "marriage equality" is a basic LIE. Homosexual couples aren't equal in status and importance to heterosexual couples as far as nature is concerned. So why the hell should humans and governments consider them so?
As for those states that voted to legalize gay "marriage" (along with mind-altering drugs; somehow that figures), fine. Let the gays who want to "marry" move to those states. End of problem.
Contrary to your claim Its "same sex couples" that can't marry. So called "gayness" is not a factor for who can or cannot marry.
Marriage is based on sexual biology, not sexual orientation.
Robert,
You are aware, certainly, that there is no legal requirement for «straightness» for those who form the union of husband and wife. There is group identity requirement.
Two men show-up but are ineligible to marry even if they declare themselves «straight». On the other hand, a man and a woman show-up and are eligible even if one of them declared himself or herself to be «gay»
You might object that these are examples of different types of relationship. Well, sure, as can be seen readily where a man and a woman show-up but are ineligible to marry.
So your pro-SSM position is wrapped-up in an emphasis that highlights a difference in kind.
What is the reason for special status (marital status is a preferential status) for the gay type of relationship, do you think? If gayness is not a requirement, and if it is a race-like identity, why promote a racist-like supremacy over marriage law?
Consider that there is no group identity trump card based on race if this or that man and woman combo is ineligible. Niether is sexual attraction a trump card. So why would you expect either or both to be used as trump cards for the race-like gay identity group?
The key is the type of relationship. To marry is, for a man, to take a woman as his wife and, for a woman, to take a man as her husband. tHere is a sexual aspec, of course, but this the sexual basis for procreation and for sex integration.
The type of relationship you have in mind is defined by a gay emphasis that is not a legal requirement for those who'd SSM. It is defined not by gay identity nor bsexual attraction nor by sexual behavir for neither is a legal requirement. Rather, it is defined by the lack of the other sex. It is segrative on the basis of sexual attraction and on the basis of sex. If it is driven by a race-like purity of identity then it is segrative on that basis, also. It is a different type of relationship.
The marital relationship integrates by sex (man and woman), by sexual atttraction (both male and female attraction), and is neutral on grop idenetity -- whether race or race-like. In fact, marriage arises from integration rather than integration: there is one human race and its nature is two-sexed. Obviously the nature of human procreation (and of the generative or marital act) is both-sexed not one-sexed. And given the social nature of humankind and the dependency of children, the nature of marriage, as foundational social institution, expresses the sexual complementarity of human community.
Whateer the merits (and demerits) of your gay emphasis, it does not have much, if anything, to do with the marriage idea. Sure, as your comment says, gay identity is key to the type of relationship you have in mind for SSM law. Minus a legal requirement for gayness, of course.
Typo correction: There is no group identity requirement.
We reversed SSM in California, it was vetoed in NJ, it was repealled in Queensland, Australia. We have had a lot of great victories, its just the media focuses on the losses. I think after 4 years its finally time for a vote in Iowa
Mikhail, Prop 8 is about to be strip uk down. In NJ it was the governor not the people who vetoed the bill. The house in NJ is trying to get a super majority hat he cannot vetoed. They are close. In Queensland, it was not released, simply,failed in parliament.
What victories?
There are all kinds of relationships people can have with other people: friends, roommates, lovers, business partners, etc. There is only one relationship, however, that can result in children, and that is the relationship between one man and one woman. Thus, the state gives special preferences to this type of relationship above all others by conferring the status of marriage. The day when 2 men can make a baby, I'll support same sex marriage ( for men ).
Typo correction: "... marriage arises from integration not segregation ..."