NOM BLOG

Minnesotans March for Marriage (Our Turn Next), NOM Marriage News

 

NOM National Newsletter

Dear Marriage Supporter,

Greetings from the state of Minnesota, where good people marched for marriage!

Hundreds of good people of every race, creed and color showed up to make it clear: Marriage is the union of husband and wife, not to be redefined by politicians.

I spoke on your behalf and on behalf of God's vision of marriage. WCCO-4 in Saint Paul, MN reported my speech this way:

"Proponents of same-sex marriage want us to believe that this is inevitable, this is going to come no matter what we do, so we might as well pack up and go back to our homes and stop fighting. We will never stop fighting for the truth," said Brian Brown of the National Organization for Marriage.

Senate Minority Leader David Hann (R-Eden Prairie,) also spoke up for marriage on Thursday: "We believe that marriage is not something that legislatures created or government created. We believe that marriage is something that God created and reflects an order that God created and it is the thing that unites children with their parents."

You'll recall that opponents of the 2012 Minnesota Marriage Amendment had promised voters the amendment was unnecessary—that you could vote "no" and nothing would change in the law on marriage. That proved about as true as promises in so many other states that civil unions and gay marriage bills would not compromise religious liberty.

Well, there is hope that Minnesotans are beginning to see through the other side's duplicity: a StarTribune poll released this week found Minnesotans oppose gay marriage 53 percent to 38 percent.

March for Marriage Update: Momentum Continues to Grow!

The March for Marriage in our nation's capital takes place on March 26—if you plan to attend, you can RSVP on Facebook by clicking here.

I was excited by the news recently reported by EWTN: "Leaders within the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops are encouraging their brother bishops to support the upcoming March for Marriage."

"We are grateful for this opportunity to express support for the Marriage for March and to encourage participation in this event," said Bishop Kevin C. Rhoades and Archbishop Salvatore J. Cordileone in a letter to their fellow bishops.

"The march will be a significant opportunity to promote and defend marriage and the good of our nation, to pray for our Supreme Court justices, and to stand in solidarity with people of good will," their letter went on to say.

NOM Leaders Remind Us What We're Fighting For

We will be on the steps of the Supreme Court as the Justices take up oral arguments on the case that could ban Prop 8 and bring gay marriage to every state in the union, including yours. I hope that you can join us and stand alongside us as we demand justice for children and respect for our Constitutional right to speak, to donate, to organize, and yes to vote for marriage as the union of husband and wife.

NOM's Chairman of the Board, the distinguished law professor and litigator John Eastman, recently took our case to the media, smacking down the legal arguments for gay marriage in U.S. News and World Report. There is no civil right to same-sex marriage, he points out, because "the Supreme Court's recognition of marriage as a fundamental right has always been grounded on what makes marriage a unique relationship." He explains:

In Loving v. Virginia (1967), the Court defined marriage as a "fundamental" right because it is one of the "'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival," a point which is only true because the institution is rooted in the biological complementarity of the sexes, the formal recognition of the unique union through which children are produced. [...] [The 14th Amendment's equal protection clause] requires that individuals who are similarly situated must be treated similarly. It should be obvious, but as long as procreation is an important part of why society lends its weight to the institution of marriage, same sex and opposite sex relationships are simply not similarly situated with respect to that important aspect of marriage.

Here's the bottom line, according to Professor Eastman: "Laws that foster the one relationship because of its unique ability to further the public good serve legitimate, even compelling governmental interests, and should be upheld."

Also recently, NOM's Communications Director, the dynamic young Thomas Peters, was on CNN, arguing the Supreme Court must respect our rights and the rights of 7 million Californians who voted for Prop 8. I really enjoyed watching him smack down the absurd meme that gay marriage is somehow important for economic growth (some people will say anything!):

Another member of NOM's family, Christopher Plante (NOM's Northeastern Regional Coordinator), was recently featured as a 'Rhode Island Power Player' in the local press, described as a person having a "large impact" on the state. As Chris told the media, "We've been told time and time again that same-sex marriage was inevitable and time and time again that has proven false. Of particular importance to us is working closely with our grassroots supporters, having them call, email, and visit their Senators, because it's the people who will ultimately hold these elected officials accountable."

They also asked him what his advice would be for the next Christopher Plante: "Have a thick skin and good sense of humor!"

Heightened Points of Interest in the SCOTUS Marriage Cases

President Obama, who has written movingly of his own longing for his absent father's love as a boy, is now in Court sadly arguing there's no evidence children need either a mother or a father.

Obama's Justice Department filed a brief "rebutting" the arguments made by supporters of Prop 8 that the ideal for a child is a mom and dad. "The [California] Voter Guide arguably offered a distinct but related child-rearing justification for Proposition 8: 'the best situation for a child is to be raised by a married mother and father,'" said the administration's brief, submitted to the court by Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli, Jr.

"As an initial matter, no sound basis exists for concluding that same-sex couples who have committed to marriage are anything other than fully capable of responsible parenting and child-rearing," the Obama administration told the court. "To the contrary,... children raised by gay and lesbian parents are as likely to be well adjusted as children raised by heterosexual parents."

There are a lot of objections you and I could make to irresponsible statements like these. But I like the response raised by a reporter who covered this story very well for CNSnews, Terence Jeffrey:

So far in the history of the human race, no child has ever been born without a biological father and mother. Now, in the Supreme Court of the United States, the Executive Branch of the federal government is arguing that, regardless of the biological facts of parenthood, states have no legitimate and defensible interest in ensuring that children conceived by a mother and a father are in fact raised by mothers and fathers.

In other SCOTUS news, Justice Anthony Kennedy—the swing vote who will likely determine whether our rights to fight for marriage in a democratic fashion will be respected and upheld, or whether our beloved Constitution will be misused as a weapon to strike down the definition of marriage in all 50 states and make gay marriage a part of our Constitution—had some interesting things to say recently.

Now, Kennedy has proved very sympathetic to various gay rights arguments and many people fear he will find a right to gay marriage in our Constitution. Of course, we won't know for sure until he actually issues a decision.

But for us, there was some hopeful news this week, when Justice Kennedy returned to Sacramento on the occasion of the opening of a federal courthouse library named for him. According to the Associated Press:

Justice Anthony Kennedy says he is concerned that the U.S. Supreme Court is increasingly the venue for deciding politically charged issues such as gay marriage, health care and immigration.

The 76-year-old associate justice said Wednesday that major policies in a democracy should not depend 'on what nine unelected people from a narrow legal background have to say.'

I couldn't have said it better myself!

Ted Olsen and David Boies must be shaking in their boots as they read those words.

Do not believe the falsehood that gay marriage is inevitable. Join us on March 26 and speak truth to power; stand up for God's vision of marriage.

Speaking of which — here are some brave military chaplains doing just that — standing up for marriage and speaking truth to power. If you haven't seen it yet, please check out our brand-new MarriageADA video released yesterday about the perilous threat to our military chaplains posed by efforts to redefine marriage. And please send these brave men a note of support for standing up and lending their voice to bring attention to this important cause!

I look forward to standing with you myself in our nation's capital later this month! With your help and God's help, we will not only stand for marriage—we will march!

Contributions or gifts to the National Organization for Marriage, a 501(c)(4) organization, are not tax-deductible. The National Organization for Marriage does not accept contributions from business corporations, labor unions, foreign nationals, or federal contractors; however, it may accept contributions from federally registered political action committees. Donations may be used for political purposes such as supporting or opposing candidates. No funds will be earmarked or reserved for any political purpose.

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.

14 Comments

  1. Barb Chamberlan
    Posted March 9, 2013 at 10:26 am | Permalink

    "Don't lie to children." Indeed, what a perfect sign. Same-sex couples in possession of children do this routinely. Do they experience cognitive dissonance when they look children in the eye and tell them they don't have a mother or father? Guilt? Or is their thought system so twisted that they believe it themselves?

    What about gay indoctrination programs taught in school? Do educators have trepidation about allowing their students to be lied to so blatantly?

    Every child has one mother and one father. This is not an opinion. It is a fact. The public interest in marriage is uniting children with their mother and father.

    Thanks, Brian, for everything you do.

  2. Jeanette Exner
    Posted March 9, 2013 at 11:13 am | Permalink

    DEAR BARB:

    Marriage equality for Gay couples will have no impact on the number of Straight couples who divorce, have children out of wedlock, give up their children for adoption, or decide not to have children at all.

    In MOST places it is perfectly legal for Gay couples and single people (Gay or Straight) to adopt children. Do you think it's preferable for unwanted children to languish in orphanages rather than giving them a chance with a single adoptive mother or father or a Gay couple? Either way, it has nothing to do with marriage equality.

  3. Randy E King
    Posted March 9, 2013 at 11:26 am | Permalink

    Dear Jeanette,

    Your rambling is completely dependent upon the use of bastardized words just to lend an appearance of acceptability to your position.

    Could you please resubmit using language as intended?

    For instance; the word "Gay" was originally intended to mean bright and happy; later use sees it used as slang for promiscuity - yet still an adjective. The use of said word as a noun did not occur until the late 1970's when it was first used by male perverts in reference to themselves.

    We now see you using this word as a noun in reference to all sexual deviants. One must surmise that you believe the bastardized form of noted word lends an appearance of acceptability to your depravity.

    "marriage equality" is, likewise, being used to lend an appearance of acceptability to the corruption of marriage; equating sexual morality with sexual immorality.

    Simply; The Emperor has no clothes and is now demanding it be unlawful to publicly acknowledge self evident truths.

    example:

    Witness: You're Naked!

    Emperor: Off with his head!

  4. Richard
    Posted March 9, 2013 at 12:15 pm | Permalink

    Barb it's time for you and me to engage in a discussion surrounding "gay indoctrination programs taught in schools". I believe I am amply prepared to discuss this since I am in my 39th year as a public school teacher. Fire away, what specifically are these gay indoctrination programs. (BTW, I have waited for this discussion for so long because your canard is so often thrown out as bait on this site but debate on it is rarely allowed. For some reason, I have been allowed to blog on this site for the last two days after having been denied for the last year or so. I welcome the exchange.

  5. Richard
    Posted March 9, 2013 at 12:18 pm | Permalink

    And while I am on the subject of permission. If all of a sudden you see no posts from me it will be because I have been cut off again. Believe me when I say, I very much want to engage in elevated discussions with bloggers on this site. There has been too little of it of late.

  6. chris from CO
    Posted March 9, 2013 at 12:20 pm | Permalink

    I don't think for one minute that the courts don't have a say on marriage. Even when it is a politcally charged issue civil marriage of any sorts has a connection with the courts. There are many laws and protections married couples have hince the reason for this debate. The courts MUST weigh in on this issue both at a state and federal level. No matter wich side wins in this WE ALL want the final answer. It is the last place in our government that needs to weigh in on it. I am for marriage equality I want my marriage in Iowa to be recognized in Colorado were we live and certainley by the fedral gov't. The courts can't brush this issue under a rug. It's time they lay out where the line is drawn. Even if they stand on your side it MUST be answered.

  7. bman
    Posted March 9, 2013 at 1:46 pm | Permalink

    Post blocked responding to Richard on gay indoctrination in schools.

    Richard said he is free to post now "for some reason" after being blocked for a year.

    Well, "for some reason" my posts are getting blocked more often than before.

  8. Randy E King
    Posted March 9, 2013 at 1:57 pm | Permalink

    @Chris

    Your posts, for the most part, appear sincere and pertinent. Please refrain from using "I don't think..." because you obviously do.

    Thank you.

  9. john
    Posted March 9, 2013 at 4:55 pm | Permalink

    It would seen the gay lifestyles would be better off going for a civil union since that is what it is. They can add what benefits they want, like the government does any way. Since science has proven there is no gay genre know they we're not born that way. Human rights does not apply to ones chosen lifestyle if that would be the case it would have to cater to all lifestyles.

  10. Robert
    Posted March 9, 2013 at 5:54 pm | Permalink

    Human rights most certainly applies to chosen lifestyles: religionists are protected from discrimination. Religion is chosen and fluid, and people move in and out of various religions during lifetime.

  11. Posted March 9, 2013 at 6:16 pm | Permalink

    O-Bama's crew writes:
    "As an initial matter, no sound basis exists for concluding that same-sex couples who have committed to marriage are anything other than fully capable of responsible parenting and child-rearing,". . .
    In other words, they appoint themselves the authority, as they do about anything under the Sun (nihilism), to prove the negative "no sound basis exists. . ." - Now, that's a pretty falsifiable statement. It would be a risky argument were it not for attributing themselves also the authority to judge what "sound basis" or "fully capable" means, for everyone.

    But the Presidency doesn't have this prerogative, not even the Queen in England, today, and she would disagree. . . "Fully capable" just means capable. It does not mean statistics support the idea that they in fact utilize that capability, on average. Oh, how the Executive Office plays with words, as if was trying to sell us a used car.

    What are they 'capable' in? Forgot to mention how capable they are to 'engender' children. Ups! (That's the nitty-gritty, of course.)

    O-Bama/Hold-er are no masters of deception. We all can see the missing information, the missing element or topic. Humans are expert at noticing lying body language, and eye movement; and experts at noticing hype and hidden weaknesses in a sales-pitch in writing.

    Congress opposes Ou-Bama, and I'm waiting to see the US Supreme Court, the most powerful court in the World, give him the 'spanking' he never got, but deserves.

  12. john
    Posted March 10, 2013 at 2:48 pm | Permalink

    my comments keep getting filtered out. but, hey, when all you can manage is a few hundred people for a demonstration, it's not a good omen.

  13. Richard
    Posted March 10, 2013 at 7:13 pm | Permalink

    Again too long...but I wanted to thank this site for allowing me (almost) unfettered access to the blog. Sometimes, we allow our responses to sink to the level of playground retorts but I accept this as evidence of the anxiety and concern many have for what SCOTUS will decide. Let's keep the discussion elevated, then when SCOTUS rules we can weigh our stands against the Constitutional principles that SCOTUS must address.

  14. Posted March 15, 2013 at 1:20 am | Permalink

    "Do you think it's preferable for unwanted children to languish in orphanages rather than giving them a chance with a single adoptive mother or father or a Gay couple?"

    Just ask Frank Lombard - a man with a homosexual problem, "married" to another man with the same problem, and who specifically adopted two black boys in order to rape them on a daily basis and to pimp them out to other homosexuals. He only got caught because he bragged about what he was doing on the Internet. But that was after intense abuse of the boys.

    Lombard worked at a university where liberals thought he was a nice "gay" man and were so happy to have him among them.