The New York Times covers an often ignored story -- the young men and women who are active in the fight to protect and promote marriage in politics and culture! Ryan Anderson, co-author of "What is Marriage?" and our Communications Director Thomas Peters were interviewed for this article, as were many inspiring young pro-marriage voices:
"...opponents of same-sex marriage say they must argue in favor of traditional marriage, not against gay people or gay rights. “It’s really a broader defense of marriage and a stronger marriage culture,” said Will Haun, 26, a lawyer and member of the Federalist Society.
In the highest-profile effort, the National Organization for Marriage is gearing up for a march on the National Mall on Tuesday, the day the Supreme Court is scheduled to hear arguments on California’s 2008 voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage.
Last week, the Heritage Foundation released a report by Ryan T. Anderson, 31, in defense of traditional marriage,"Marriage: What It Is, Why It Matters, and the Consequences of Redefining It.” Mr. Anderson, a Heritage Foundation fellow, has also held briefings for members of Congress, their staff and others to explain his arguments against same-sex marriage, and he and two co-authors released a book last year laying out their case in depth.
...“If you take the longer view of history — I’m not talking just 15 years, I’m talking 40 years or even 100 years — I can’t help but think that the uniqueness of man-woman marriage will be adjudicated over time,” said Andrew Walker, 27, a policy analyst at the Heritage Foundation.
Either way, they are not planning on giving up any time soon.
“Even if we are doomed, and I’m totally naïve, I think it’s important that I do this work anyway,” Mr. Teetsel, of the Manhattan Declaration, said. “If what I believe is true is true, then I’ve got a responsibility to be on its side for as long as I can be.”
15 Comments
It's dismaying to see the American Academy of Pediatrics come out in support of genderless marriage "for the children." Is there a back story?
God bless these young men and women. We will all have our prayers answered when the Supreme Court strikes down this gay marriage nonsense once and for all.
I responded earlier but the post went into moderation probably due to the links I added.
I will leave out the links this time. One can probably obtain the links by doing a web search on the quoted text.
---
Several years ago a leaked email from within AAP revealed a disconnect between AAP members and the AAP leadership.
It said,
It appears political activists are at the helm of the AAP and the membership has been disenfranchised.
Dr. Nicholas Cummings, former president of the APA, lead agency for the psychological profession, described a similar situation within that agency.
By the way, the American College of Pediatricians, a different group than the AAP, represents former members of the AAP who the left it because of AAP's gay activism preventing good science.
As someone under 30, I was blessed reading about these other young marriage supporters. I agree with Eric Teetsel that, even if we were to lose (which I don't think we ultimately will), it's always best to fight for what one believes is right.
Every one in this battle is fighting for what they think is right. Results are what counts. Look to trends. Look to shifts in allegiance. Look to SCOTUS. It is a great country we live in, don't you think?
@Richard,
What do you base your belief on?
If you truly believe you are right you must have a basis for said belief; what is the basis of your system of belief; your religion?
Randy, Richard's flaps his mouth about his beliefs for just two reasons: 1) to keep his lower regions well exercised without guilt, and 2) to show us how self-important he is. These are the sources of his beliefs.
Do you mean its unnecessary for SSMers or the court to presume animus or hatred for NOM and Prop 8 supporters?
If so, thank you for supporting Prop 8 and NOM with your comment!
How about bman we look at it this way. You, NOM, Randy, OKB, Leviticus, and others have, consistently through your posts made the contention that what you think is right is to spread nothing less than animus in support of your vilification of gays. So, absolutely not bman. The courts must and will presume animus on the part of the likes of you and for a very simple reason...animus is what you spout. This is the right that you and so any others profess.
Are you another Richard?
Where is the Richard who said, "Every one in this battle is fighting for what they think is right.."?
Same Richard, same answer. What you, bman, fight for is the right to deny gay couples the federal benefits of marriage. (We have marriage.) And you profess the right to use animus, disguised at times as logic, to push your agenda. Others I have named on this site, are, to be sure, more blatant than you about this but, at its core, animus is the driving force. The Great Lie of the opposition is a pretend concern for children. It's shameful that some would clothe their animus in kid's cloaks. Shameful!
ash said: I agree with Eric Teetsel that, even if we were to lose (which I don't think we ultimately will), it's always best to fight for what one believes is right.
You couldn't have said it better.
@Richard,
"You Keep Using That Word, I Do Not Think It Means What You Think It Means "
Animus: : basic attitude or governing spirit
Animus is not unconstitutional. If it were then murder, rape, theft, pedophilia, and the like would all be legal in the new nation of Anarchy.
Same Richard, same answer.
I think its the same Richard. And that confirms the point I was driving at.
Since its the same Richard, what shall we make of your statement, "Every one in this battle is fighting for what they think is right."?
By it itself, that sounds reasonable and tolerant.
When we compare it to your unjustified accusations of animus toward myself and others, however, we see that intolerance was actually behind those words.
Maybe you should step back and listen to yourself.
People have intuitively believed a child is entitled to a mother and a father long before SSM was ever a political issue.
You might as well accuse people of animus who lived a hundred years ago for believing a child is entitled to a mother and a father.
Its an intuitive and natural belief, by default.
Its not even reasonable that you would presume animus as the default.
The real animus is on your part it seems.