Dear Marriage Supporter,
Great news: The preparations for the March for Marriage are going incredibly well!
In fact, the requests we've received from spiritual leaders has been overwhelming. We have received requests from churches for 100 buses that we don't have the funds to assist. That's thousands — many of them from Latino and African-American communities — who want to attend the march but are having trouble pulling together the necessary funds.
That's why I'm making this emergency appeal on behalf of these excited pro-marriage people who want to attend the March.
Each full bus will bring over 50 people and require a subsidy of around $1,000. That means:
Your gift today of $20 will bring another marcher to Washington DC from out of town.
Your gift of $40 will bring 2 additional marriage supporters to the march.
Your gift of $100 will bring 5 additional marriage supporters to the march.
And a gift of $500 will cover half the costs of an entire bus!
I know that some of you reading this email can give a lot more than that. Please realize that for every $1,000 you donate today, you will be responsible for bringing an entire bus full of marriage supporters and activists to the march at the Supreme Court on March 26th so they can make their voices heard loud and clear at the exact time the most important court case of our generation is under consideration.
Just because someone is not blessed with the means doesn't mean they shouldn't have a voice just like everyone else.
We need to send the strongest message possible to the political, academic and media elites of our great nation: marriage is between one man and one woman because children deserve a mother and a father!
At this moment, marriage needs courageous and self-sacrificing heroes to stand up and defend it. Please give as generously as possible to help NOM give eager and willing marriage supporters in America like you the chance to make their voices heard so their values can be respected. Thank you.
16 Comments
What happened to that very generous donor with the $500,000. That alone will cover 500 busses (if you can fill that many).
What a great idea! Looks like it's time to raid the cookie jar again
This is pretty good example of throwing good money after bad.
I'm sending in my money this is like busing the freedom riders from the South during the 1960s.
Only difference, Leviticus, was that the Freedom Riders of the 1960s sought to EXPAND civil rights for minority groups, not RESTRICT them.
Jeanette, except SCOTUS has never ruled that pseudo marriage is a civil right. This is because there is no cvil right to a civl wrong.
DEAR LEVITICUS:
Bear in mind that the word "marriage" does not occur in the Constitution. But SCOTUS overturned anti-miscegenation laws in Loving v. Virginia (much to the consternation of racists), and I'm pretty confident they will overturn Prop. 8 and DOMA (much to the consternation of homophobes).
Loving v Virginia:
Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival.
The Supreme Court ruled in Loving v. Virginia, "Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival."
No one in their right mind would contend that " our very existence and survival" was dependent upon same gender pairings masturbating against each other Jeannete.
Anther consequence not addressed is that with lowered marriage rates due to the devaluation of marriage comes a deminished pool of perspective adoptive parents.
These heathen value their depravity over life itself.
You sure like to think about gay sex a lot, Randy...
@Garrett,
Why is everything "Gay" with you? You keep using that word, I do not believe it means what you think it means.
What does it mean Randy?
The SSM side brings the gay emphasis and demand that marriage become a gay issue. Why your gay emphasis, Richard?
Hey, I'm back and it was a a fabulous dinner with great friends and lots of good discussion.
So, Chairm, I'll start with you. You say, "the gay side brings the gay emphasis and demand(sic) that marriage become a gay issue. Why your gay emphasis Richard?"
Well, let's see. I'm gay. I'm in an 18 year committed relationship, and, this July, we will officially and civilly be married in my state if Maine. Is this what you were looking for Chairm? It's an odd question you raise.
First, Richard, thanks for the response.
Second, with your gay emphasis as your guiding light, you might presume to label me as «straight», however, whether or not (you or I) affix such lebels to one another, well, that would be irrelevant to the content of our reasoning about marriage.
My emphasis is on the marriage idea and not a socio-political identity.
So the question you answered is not the question Iasked. I can see how you might have misunderstood it.
Third, please explain why you demand that marriage become a gay issue, as per my query.
Let's approach this another way: Do you agree that the law can get marriage wrong but that sometimes the law can get marriage right?
I'd expect you'd agree given that you say the law is wrong in most of the country but it is right in some parts.
Does this agreement, if you do in fact agree, mean that this type of relationship has a reality independent of the law? I think that is obvious. Your might agree on that also, if you agreed that law oan get marriage right, sometimes, and wrong, sometimes.
How else can we know right from wrong law if not for a reality that is independent of the law? The law itself must be justified or else it is an arbitrary use of governmental power.
It would follow that the marriage law ought to be drawn closely to what the marital type of relationship is -- its core -- the essential(s) without which it would not be marital. Articipants enter marriage but do not invent it one-marriage-at-a-time.
If that core merits special status, then, there is a public duty to promote that core -- the marriage idea -- rather than to obscure it. Also, societal regard for the core is what justifies the lines of eligibility and ineligibility. The boundaries are run around the core that merits its special status. Again, this goes to justification for the law so as to avoid arbitrariness.
My emphasis is on the marriage idea. The gay identity politics of the SSM campaign belies the gay emphasis with which the Revision -- the SSM idea -- is promoted. That gay emphasis ought not obscure the core of SSM -- the SSM idea itself. Yet that is what is wrong with the gay emphasis.
So, can you put your gay emphasis aside and plainly state the SSM idea -- the essential(s) of the type of one-sexed relationship that you have in mind which, you think, might justify 1) special status within the range of all other one-sexed scenarios and 2) the boundaries for ineligibility of all other one-sexed scenarios?
This is not a new query. No SSMer has managed to provide a sound explanation -- with or without a gay emphasis. I rather think that SSM supporters make the gay emphasis its oqn justification and by extension make it the supposed justification for the Imposition of the SSM idea. Hence my query, as asked, is not a request for a hyper-personalized account of your gay emphasis.
There is a conflict of ideas: the SSM idea is in conflict with the marriage idea. That is so -- with or without the gay emphasi. So why that emphasis?
Chairm, I am duly impressed with your challenging line of inquiry although, and in truth, I would counsel my students to narrow the focus; state the thesis and follow up with clarity of purpose. Having said that I zero in on the following and I trust you will not find it "hyper-personalized" although is this debate not personal to you, too? Hundreds of thousands of gay couples are married in the United States. Everyone of those couples is currently denied access to the federal benefits that are routinely given to every other married couple in America. The conflict, thus, is a Constitutional question to be addressed by SCOTUS.
Chairm, I continue (as I think this site does not allow me to post in the volume that you are allowed). I believe that there is no conflict, anymore, in the civil definition of marriage in nine states and counting. Therefore, it is incumbent on society and civil law in those states to promote marriage for gay and straight couples who choose to marry. You and I may disagree with the worth of some couples over another but a marriage license carries the same value for each couple. So, the essentials of marriage: 2 committed and loving persons of sound mind, acceptable to the legal requirements for said marriage (the law) and willing to put children first if there are any (my wish but not law). Now, the word gay is not in that definition but neither is straight. Yet both can meet the requirements.