Dear Marriage Supporter,
As you know, President Obama is doing everything in his power to undermine the Defense of Marriage Act by pushing an aggressive, pro-gay marriage agenda in the military.
It should therefore come as no surprise that the individuals most directly and severely affected by the President's actions are heroic military chaplains.
Again we clearly see how redefining marriage puts the First Amendment rights of pro-marriage individuals and institutions in jeopardy.
Supporter, with the United States Supreme Court about to hear two historic cases this month—cases that could determine the very future of marriage in America—it is critical that we get the word out about how far-reaching and damaging the consequences are when marriage is undermined and redefined.
And please, if you are able, make a donation today of $35, $50, $100, or even $500 to help the National Organization for Marriage bring to light the real-life consequences of redefining marriage for everyday, faithful Americans like you and me.
Please also don't forget to share this video so that more Americans can see what the stakes are for marriage at this critical time in our nation's history. Use the buttons below to promote this video through Facebook, Twitter, or by emailing it to your friends:
Thank you so much for standing up for marriage and helping us get the word out about the threats we face.
54 Comments
This subject of when a soldier is required to obey his/her commander is fundamental to military order. This would include the Commander in Chief.
If a commander or superior officer ("Superior") knows how much he/she can require of a subordinate, and exactly how much he/she CANNOT require of a subordinate, then there will be a prescribed balance that would be followed automatically. Anything else would be laden with inefficiency, drop-outs and grievances. If the USA ever needs a military draft to be implemented, this matter be sorted out in advance. . .
Before any other discussion, this question must be resolved, for it impacts everything else in the military.
Certain types of orders are not allowed to be given to subordinates, and these must be known in advance, so people can make up their mind whether joining, or continuing to be joined in the military is indeed worthwhile for them, in addition to risking their lives following formal, authorized, orders - specially when their unit is not on a war mission.
For different chaplains active in the military to counsel soldiers or military officers according to their (mutual) religion, it's essential for the chaplain to be able to follow the dogma of the pertinent religion.
Otherwise, another ideology or religion (probably masqueraded as a non-religion) would be dictating what the soldier/officer must believe or receive as advice or counseling per his personal life (which is not much, in the military, anyway.)
If military service is stripped of its element of moral conscience, all that remains is a job (for a buck) which will tell you what to believe morally, one that discredits true patriotism, and replaces it with mechanical pride or nationalism (kill or be killed; obey or be expelled with dishonor).
It becomes a matter of solely doing a job, and acceptance for a brain-wash, with no Chaplain available to protect their rights of conscience, unless in accordance with the reigning ideology.
- - - - - - - - - - - -
In essence, it becomes the ejection of Chaplains of the common religions the soldiers/officers believe in, and their replacement with "chaplains" adhering to one single ideology, also a religion, one non-transparent, Constitutionally speaking. It would be the end of the most powerful military.
I offer a solution no one will propose:
Simply, set up Chaplains who profess the religion of homosexual and/or lesbian dogma. Problem solved. Next!
Religionists are free to hate gay people, teach their children to hate gay people and march in the street in gay-hatred parades, even when same-sex marriage is legal.
No worries, religionists, your hatred remains intact!
@Robert,
Where did this mythical "Gay" come from?
You keep using that word in defense of your demands for special consideration; I do not believe that word means what you thinks it means.
Randy, you are ignorant by choice. Your hatred, however, is a product of the very real you. You obfuscate the words of others because you cannot get beyond your embedded animus. Is there no love, no happiness in your world?
@Richard,
You use bastardized words to lend an appearance of acceptability to your depravity. Having animus towards predators such as yourself is nothing to be ashamed of.
Robert cannot convince me reply to any of his comments. SSm trolls abound, just here to judge, spit hate, without rational argument.
Little man and Randy, please enlighten us. What are your thoughts about the many amicus briefs as presented by both sides in the lead up to SCOTUS and its deliberations on the constitutionality of Prop 8 and DOMA. Let's elevate the discussion shall we. Please weigh in.
Oh, and Little Man, no judgement, no spitting of hate but fabulous opportunities for rational argument. Don't you think it's about time?
The briefs in support of overturning the people right to self government are mere emotional appeals void of substance rooted in this nations history and traditions.
The briefs in support of the peoples right to self government are firmly rooted in this nations history and traditions.
In other words, you have not read one of them. I thought as much.
@Richard,
I challenge you to prove otherwise
You're on Randy, please state just one specific finding from just one of the amicus briefs filed in support of Prop8 or DOMA. Please name the filers of the brief and quote the finding. I will address it through findings of those amicus briefs in opposition to DOMA and Prop 8. There, now we are to ratchet up the dialogue. It's about time.
Randy please seek the help you so badly need. The self-hating life you live is a terrible waste of a gift from the Creator.
Richaard: as Obama says: The answer is 'No'.
Why the hell would I want to second guess SCOTUS. That's dumb.
Thanks to Obama ending DADT, servicemen not only have to worry about military readiness, and unit cohesion, but a new additional burden of worrying about their back sides.
M. Jones, what do you mean by that?
@ Robert just think about it.
Military chaplains under fire? Not quite. Chaplains are in a unique situation, in that they are SUPPOSED to provide spiritual comfort and support to soldiers of ANY faith, not just their own. I would fully expect a Jewish chaplain to have enough understanding of the Christian or Muslims faiths that he would be able to provide a mortally wounded Christian or Muslim soldier spiritual comfort, without necessarily compromising his own beliefs. It would not be appropriate for a Christian chaplain to tell a mortally-wounded Jewish or Hindu soldier, “You’re going to HELL if you don’t accept Jesus as your Savior!”
Chaplains are supposed to be ecumenical than that. Frankly I wouldn’t want any chaplain, whose position is funded by taxpayers, to be preaching against Gay soldiers any more than they should be preaching against Muslim soldiers.
@Richard,
"BRIEF OF FEDERALISM SCHOLARS AS AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENT WINDSOR"
In the above brief legal scholars contend there is no right for Congress to define terms used in its own laws.
My charge: Their claim is completely without merit. If Congress can define a tomato as a vegetable for the sake of public commerce and define marriage as a union of one man and one woman in addressing Polygamy then why is it unconstitutional when they continue to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman as it relates to perverts?
Prove otherwise!
Additionally,
Ellen Degenerate filed an amicus brief that included a quote that she attributed to Benjamin Franklin:
""We're Here! We're Queer! Get used to it!"'
I challenge you to prove that Benjamin Franklin made the fore noted quote; and prove that he did not state the following:
"Freedom is not a gift bestowed upon us by other men, but a right that belongs to us by the laws of God and nature."
On an aside;
Anyone can file an Amicus Brief in support of, or opposition to, any case before the judiciary. This is what is meant by Government of, by, and for the People.
So when a group demands Government recognition of the acceptability of their depravity they are, in fact, demanding that "We the People..." recognize the acceptability of their depravity.
If you truly believe what you do behind closed doors in the privacy of your own home in nobody else's business then you should not be demanding it be everybody else's business.
We the people do not have a vested interest in what you like to masturbate against.
DADT repeal and the law of "unintended" consequences.
B De - We should just ban gay people in this country to avoid any "unintended" consequences.
@ B Decicco,
What we are seeing are the intended consequences of the repeal of DADT. Supporters of the repeal lied when they said all they wanted was to serve their nation.
What they really wanted was to destroy this nation from within.
I find it interesting that both Truman and Eisenhower opined that their rational for maintaining the zero tolerance policy as it relates to so call homosexuals was because of their propensity for treason.
As it turns out; if you are capable justifying masturbating against same gender pairings to yourself you are equally capable of justifying treason to yourself as well.
Can you say "Private Manning?"
Randy certainly not I and I doubt anyone else wants to know what you do behind closed doors. But then, I, and probably most everyone else, do not feel so compelled to dwell on married couple's personal lives as you seem to do. This is what it means to be healthy in mind and spirit, I think. The day that We the People spends even one second on personal proclivities of single or married people is one second wasted. Think how much time you've wasted Randy.
Richard,
The natural byproduct of natural parings is the next generation. The natural byproduct of same gender parings is a stain on the mattress.
We the people have no vested interest in your stain!
Well Randy, here's a little lesson for you. Ellen Degenerus wrote a letter to SCOTUS and posted it on-line. She suggested that someone might tweet it to the bench. Now, Ellen is a comedienne known for, among other things, her wit and satire. A couple of definitions for you Randy.
Satire: a literary work in which vices, follies and stupidities are held up to ridicule.
Mark twain was a master at this and, like Ellen, couched his satire in humor. Ellen's reference to Franklin was a part of this humor and satire but I shouldn't need to be teaching you this. I suspect you knew this all along. But really, is this the elevated discussion you can have around the amicus briefs? I'll pose one to you:
A certain group of Sociologists ( this site blocks the name) made up of many of the leading children's therapists, doctors and family counseling services) cites social science research that shows, "children fare just as well" when raised by same-sex or heterosexual parents. Care to comment but please don't quote a certain sociologists whose last name begins with "R" (this site also now blocks his name) because he is a member of this group. Perhaps this is why he is not referenced, much, if at all, in the proponent's briefs.
" I wish it (Christianity) were more productive of good works...I mean real good works...not holy-day keeping, sermon hearing...or making long prayers, filled with flatteries and compliments despised by wise men, and much less capable of pleasing the Deity." Benjamin Franklin, "Works", Vol. VII, pg 75.
@Richard,
So DOMA, the American Judicial system, and the United States Constitution is nothing but a joke to Ellen?
The only recognized Gold Standard peer reviewed study related to this topic disagrees with the position held by your preferred bias psychologists - biasness they freely admitted to.
And, now, I'm off for a few hours to prepare a birthday dinner party for 8. There will be laughter, conviviality and some serious discussion. All are friends, some are gay. Some are straight. Some in marriages. Some not. But love surrounds us all. Isn't this the type of inclusive society to which all of us should aspire?
Oh, Richard,
Did you miss the note about:
"BRIEF OF FEDERALISM SCHOLARS AS AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENT WINDSOR"
As per the norm; the supporters of marriage corruption have nothing substantive in defense of their demands for special consideration - only bumper-sticker slogans and double-talk.
I think it's really important that hate groups like NOM and Westboro Baptist Church lose this important case, if only to demonstrate to the world that America has not become the land of the hateful instead of the land of the brave.
Plus I think all kids should be raised inside of wedlock, not outside of it.
Bobby: Now that's a good idea, finally. Thanks. Never thought of it. But, yes, that's a solution.
A little sarcasm for my little friend. Should you be serious, there is always Iran, Little Man.
This goes to show how ill informed you are, Robert.
out of wedlock
: with the natural parents not legally married to each other
A same sex couple can never both be the natural parents of a child. That's why marriages have always been defined as being between a man and a woman.
On a side note: The US Supreme Court had ruled in favor of the Westburo Baptist Church 8 to 1 in Snyder vs. Phelps. So it is really no so far fetched that they might also rule in favor of NOM.
"A same sex couple can never both be the natural parents of a child."
They don't need to be; adoptive parents aren't the natural (if you mean biological) parents, either, and normal people want those adoptive parents to be married. Some states REQUIRE a couple be married before they can adopt, marriage is so important to raising a child in a stable environment. Look, if you don't like kids, just say so; it's no crime.
The Phelps case was a free speech case and the Westboro church had significant allies, such as the ACLU. That is not at all the case in DOMA and Prop 8. It's mostly hate groups that support DOMA and Prop 8 and the courts have already ruled that hatred can be the sole reason for a law.
@Robert,
"courts have already ruled that hatred can be the sole reason for a law"
The courts have never ruled any such thing. Hatred is not grounds for dismissal; nor is it grounds for the imposition of depravity.
Your desperation is showing again!
I mean seriously; people hate so that means they have to accept you?
The reason why marriage is such an ideal environment for the rearing of children is because it consists of a mother and a father - a male and female role model. SS"M", however, is a bastardization of said institution in which the promotion of the sexuality of adults takes priority over the best interests of children. And that is harmful to kids.
DOMA and Prop 8 has everything to do with the protection of civil liberties because it prevents wealthy and influential special interest groups from using the government to oppress any speech or religious principles that conflicts with their own ideology by misrepresenting them as "hate."
Here we go again, testing, testing, testing...cut off?
Still too long...SoA, your rights of free speech and religious liberty and my rights to due process and equal protection are secure in the Constitution. Marriage is ideal when love permeates, when commitment is forever, when children are put first. Let this be the gold standard and let us celebrate this. Then let's sit back and enjoy the results.
Richard,
The test really amounts to this:
Can a group prove that it is POWERLESS?
Are gays powerless?
Ed, you're a politician. SCOTUS will address the issue of heightened scrutiny the end of the month. I have my ideas on this topic but, again, SCOTUS will determine. But I am interested in your response: can a group prove that it is powerless?
Richard,
Gays have won elections individually in local, state and at the federal level.
They have also won in several states now on the issue of same sex marriage.
They have money and they have jobs.
They also have a reach into the hollywood pockets.
Tell me that they are powerless?
I don't think you can make that case.
Oh I forgot the biggie...they have the Democratic Party in their back pocket!
Yes the Supremes will rule.
But IF they rule against all of human history and nature it will be just like Roe V Wade...
Remember that a heck of a lot of Democrats stopped voting for Dems because of Roe. Ever hear the term "Reagan Democrats"?
I am quite certain the same will happen this time to.
And even more certain that it will hurt the Democrat party badly 4 years from now and then some.
"Given the near-universal view, across different societies and different times, that a principle, if not the principal, purpose of marriage is the channeling of the unique procreative abilities of opposite-sex relationships into a societally beneficial institution, it is clear that same-sex and opposite-sex couples are not similarly situated with respect to that fundamental purpose." -- Former Attorney General Ed Meese
"Marriage is ideal when love permeates, when commitment is forever, when children are put first. Let this be the gold standard and let us celebrate this."
And the best way to do that is keeping marriage between one man and one woman.
SoA and Ed, we shall see. Your arguments, my arguments aside, we shall see.
Randy, your ignorance is showing yet again!
"The courts have never ruled any such thing. Hatred is not grounds for dismissal"
Um, read Romer v. Evans, as well as Lawrence v. Texas. In the first case, the court specifically said that just because Christian hate groups don't like gay people, that is not a reason for government action. Lawrence refined that by including the concept that the state cannot compromise personal dignity. Sorry 'bout that!
Both cases pertain to gay people specifically and there are other cases that strengthen unconstitutional hate-based laws, and laws that compromise personal dignity.
Gays need not be powerless, although there sheer lack of numbers suggests they are. They are completely reliant on others to protect their rights, and have few bargaining chips with which to negotiate such rights.
Don't forget, laws that affect women disproportionately are subject to heightened scrutiny, and women are hardly a maligned minority, or powerless.
@Robert,
Kennedy's opinion has no basis in law. It was his personal opinion outlining his personal rational.
Additionally,
There is no such thing as a Gay, but you will find that out soon enough.
@Robert,
Ignorance is an ugly thing to see play out in front of you, but your prideful ignorance is disgusting.