They Didn't Tell the Truth! NOM Marriage News


NOM National Newsletter

Dear Marriage Supporter,

You and I have been through thick and thin in this fight for marriage. We know how important truth is to this fight, and how so many of our opponents recoil from the very idea of truth.

There is no better example than the news this week that Washington's Attorney General Bob Ferguson is using taxpayer funding to bring a lawsuit against a small Washington state florist named Barronelle Stutzman, owner of Arlene's Flowers and Gifts. Stutzman's crime? Refusing to sell flowers for a gay wedding.

For this 'thought crime' against gay marriage, her whole livelihood is now put at the stake.

It was only a few months ago, before the November elections, when gay marriage advocates were sanctimoniously getting on television and reassuring voters that our claims of the religious persecution that comes hand in hand with redefining marriage were unfounded. Made up. Untrue.

They knew at the time they were not telling the truth. Because now, just a few months later, the ACLU and a State Attorney General are the ones at the forefront of making sure that Christians who disagree with gay marriage pay a price for acting on their convictions.

Failure to tell the truth—call it a lie—arises from the fundamental lie: same-sex unions are not marriages because they cannot ever, under any circumstances, do the fundamental, key, and irreplaceable work that marriages do: bringing together under one home, in one family, the two great halves of humanity, male and female—to create homes in which children are known and loved by their own mother and father.

Not every marriage succeeds in creating the full range of goods that marriage aims at. But when marriages succeed in doing so, it's because they combine elements and circumstances that no same-sex couple can.

Suppressing the truth is what same-sex marriage advocates have to do to "win" the debate (temporarily, anyway).

How Truth is Suppressed

That's why, when a distinguished social scientist does an ordinary act like publishing his research in a major peer-reviewed journal—all pandemonium must break loose to discredit him. Not just disagree with him. Not just contextualize or re-contextualize his data—that would be normal scientific debate. But to smear him as a non-scientist and to ignore his work.

That's the crucible University of Texas Prof. Mark Regnerus has been going through and still is going through.

C-FAM's Austin Ruse recently pointed this out in his piece on Regnerus: "Science Study Still Spooking Gay Advocates."

Ruse points to Dr. Susan Yoshihara, research director of C-FAM, who used the Regnerus study before the legislature in Rhode Island. So-called "fact-checkers" claimed her testimony was false:

Politifact, a self-styled watchdog of political truth, branded Yoshihara's claim as false. Yoshihara, however, says the Politifact piece itself backed up her claim when they quoted a "prudent scholar" who said the issue is not settled in the scientific literature, which was Yoshihara's claim in the first place.

Ruse also cites the recent claim by former New York Times executive editor Bill Keller, who said that "The study was pretty well demolished by peers."

But for me the worst was a claim in the LA Times that the Supreme Court was just silly to entertain the idea children do best with a mom and dad. Justice Scalia had made the assertion that "there's considerable disagreement" about whether "raising a child in a single-sex family is harmful or not," an assertion no doubt based in part on Regnerus's research.

"Those comments startled child development experts as well as advocates of gay marriage, because there is considerable research showing children of gay parents do not have more problems than others," the LA Times went on to report with a straight face…. '"There is a fundamental, scholarly consensus that children raised by same-sex couples do just fine,' said Stanford sociologist Michael J. Rosenfeld."

Yet I know of—and I'm no sociologist—at least 5 studies published in peer-reviewed journals whose results contest the "no difference claim": Mark Regnerus (2012), Loren Marks (2102), Douglas Allen (2012), Daniel Potter (2012), and Theresa Sirota (2009).

Listen, social science is not a "hard science," and I don't need to know from merely scientific evidence what I know in my heart from my own experience and the experience of so many children raised in fragmented families: children long for and need their mother and their father. But simply as a statement about the scientific literature, the claim there is now a "consensus" is untrue. The claim can be made only by ignoring the reputable scientists whose works disagree with that claim.

Truth matters to us, but it's not clear it matters to gay marriage advocates.

If you doubt me, listen to the voice of the extraordinary British writer Brendan O'Neill—a one-time Marxist, a man of the Left, who has spoken out repeatedly against the use of elite power to shut down the debate over same-sex marriage across the pond:

I have been doing or writing about political stuff for 20 years, since I was 18 years old, during which time I have got behind some pretty unpopular campaigns and kicked against some stifling consensuses. But I have never encountered an issue like gay marriage, an issue in which the space for dissent has shrunk so rapidly, and in which the consensus is not only stifling but choking. This is the only issue for which he has been not only booed but threatened with death.

"Is it a good thing, evidence that we had a heated debate on a new civil right and the civil rights side won?" O'Neill asks. And then he answers his own question:

I don't think so. I don't think we can even call this a 'consensus', since that would imply the voluntaristic coming together of different elements in concord. It's better described as conformism, the slow but sure sacrifice of critical thinking and dissenting opinion under pressure to accept that which has been defined as a good by the upper echelons of society: gay marriage. Indeed, the gay-marriage campaign provides a case study in conformism, a searing insight into how soft authoritarianism and peer pressure are applied in the modern age to sideline and eventually do away with any view considered overly judgmental, outdated, discriminatory, 'phobic', or otherwise beyond the pale.

"Gay marriage," he writes, "brilliantly shows how political narratives are forged these days, and how people are made to accept them."

Narrative is the relevant word here. Not hard truths uncovered, but stories created to whose allegiance people are held by threats, by bribes, and by conformist pressures.

The editor of First Things, Rusty Reno, has a similar set of concerns for what all this means for our democratic society. "If government can reshape marriage, it can reshape everything," his article explains:

Tyranny isn't just a situation in which the government is telling you what to do at every moment. It's also a society in which government says that, if necessary, it can. In this respect gay marriage reflects a dramatic enlargement of government. If legislatures and courts can redefine marriage, what can't it intervene to reshape and re-purpose?

The tyranny of the conformists, backed by government's coercive power, were on display in Washington State when the ACLU decided independently to sue the same florist the Attorney General is pursuing.

But first they sent this poor woman a letter:

Robert Ingersoll and Curt Freed's lawyers, working with the legal powerhouse at the ACLU of Washington, sent a letter today to Arlene's Flowers owner Baronelle Stutzman saying she has two options: (1) She can vow to never again discriminate in her services for gay people, write an apology letter to be published in the Tri-City Herald, and contribute $5,000 to a local LGBT youth center, or (2) she can get sued for violating the Washington State Civil Rights Act.

Conform to our falsehood. Pretend you believe things you do not. Or face the consequences.
George Orwell, call your office.

But here's the good news in all this: It's going to get bad, we already know this. But in the end truth has a power that no narrative, no story can compete with.

Our job is to remain firmly fixed on the truth about marriage, to speak up for it with love in in our heart, and with the courage to never bow before the false gods, the untruths, the made-up stories offered to us in place of reality.

I am so honored to be fighting shoulder to shoulder with you for God's truth about marriage.
Thank you for making this enormous megaphone possible.

I treasure your friendship, your prayers, your words of encouragements, your sacrifices of time and treasure on behalf of this great cause.

Bless you!

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.


  1. Robert
    Posted April 13, 2013 at 8:52 am | Permalink

    Brian, you really do Mark Regnerus a disservice by constantly bringing up his sham study. He's already getting enough grief for this bit of poor judgment. I suspect he'd prefer the issue to just die. Freedom of Information requests from the University of Texas have revealed he conspired with his funders to reach a certain unflattering opinion of gay parents. Let the guy fall into obscurity, ok? It's probably the kindest thing that can happen to him at this point.

    Shouldn't you be job-hunting anyway?

  2. Randy E King
    Posted April 13, 2013 at 9:10 am | Permalink


    Your tyranny is not enough to undo the Gold Standard recognition the Regnerus rightfully received. You are obviously desperate for your opposition to cross the line prematurely so you can dismiss the truth by force of flaw because you know, in the end, your lies cannot hold up against the truth.

    Whoever conceals hatred with lying lips and spreads slander is a fool. Proverbs 10:18

    if a man is but a fool, a blight on society, it would be better for all if he were dead. Proverbs 26:1:11

    The wise don't make a show of their knowledge, but fools broadcast their foolishness. Proverbs 12:23

  3. Son of Adam
    Posted April 13, 2013 at 9:12 am | Permalink

    The Regnerus study is attacked for its results, not for its flaws. Though the opposition will try to suppress this study with emotion and propaganda, Regnerus has the truth on his side. That is why his study will persevere.

  4. Tom
    Posted April 13, 2013 at 9:13 am | Permalink

    Sorry Robert, but gays cannot be parents, only a mother & father are true parents of a child.

  5. Tom
    Posted April 13, 2013 at 9:14 am | Permalink

    Ok, maybe in your sick / twisted / perverted liberal world they are.

  6. Randy E King
    Posted April 13, 2013 at 9:19 am | Permalink

    Whoso is trusting in his heart is a fool, And whoso is walking in wisdom is delivered. Proverbs 10:18

    A fool finds pleasure in evil conduct, but a man of understanding delights in wisdom. Proverbs 10:23

    Better to meet a bear robbed of her cubs than a fool in his folly. Proverbs 17:12

    Do not speak to a fool, for he will scorn the wisdom of your words. Proverbs 23:9

  7. Chris
    Posted April 13, 2013 at 9:54 am | Permalink

    You're abusing the Sirota study. Dr. Sirota's article is about the impact of a homosexual father raising a girl in a heterosexual marriage. It has nothing to do with same-sex couples, nothing to do with same-sex adoption at all.

  8. John Blatzheim
    Posted April 13, 2013 at 4:11 pm | Permalink

    Quick question, would a landlord have the right to refuse to rent to a same-sex couple because he believes homosexual acts are immoral and doesn't want them committed on his property? What lines, if any, do you draw in restricting religious liberty? Can someone who believes that interracial marriages violate God's (or the gods) plan refuse services to an interracial couple for their marriage? Can a Southern Baptist refuse services to people entering a second or third marriage after divorce?

  9. Robert
    Posted April 13, 2013 at 4:55 pm | Permalink

    Don't waste your time, John. It has nothing to do with religious liberty, and everything to do with homophobia. There people are suffering from it and refuse to get medical attention. They couldn't care less about religion.

  10. Richard
    Posted April 13, 2013 at 5:57 pm | Permalink

    Truth is not suppressed. The Attorney General and the ACLU never abrogated their responsibilities to uphold state civil and federal laws. The day their hands are tied is the day if true anarchy.

  11. Posted April 13, 2013 at 6:24 pm | Permalink

    Oh, John B:

    I thought your questions at #8 were serious and against SSm. But I now see you think the answers to all are "NO".

    The answer to all is a rotund "yes", if the subject matter is marriage at a church, or officiate by a priest or pastor, without need of a marriage license. The couple would be married before God, and make their vows to God, not to each other. That is Christian marriage in the ultimate, and "yes" that religion could answer all your questions with a "yes".

    And, furthermore. You don't know beans about Southern Baptists (or Northern Baptists), or Biblical divorce. I guess you catch some ignoramus off guard with your bogus questions.

  12. John Blatzheim
    Posted April 13, 2013 at 6:38 pm | Permalink

    "The answer to all is a rotund "yes", if the subject matter is marriage at a church"

    Um...that wasn't the subject matter, my first question had to do with a landlord, and none of them had anything to do with whether a church had to right to choose who it does and does not marry.

    "And, furthermore. You don't know beans about Southern Baptists (or Northern Baptists), or Biblical divorce."

    What would you know what I do and do not know about Southern Baptists? I read John Piper on a regular basis and follow SBC politics and theological debates closely. I'd wager I know more about the SBC, Calvinism and the Reform movement than you.

    And as far as divorce, I've read Mark 10:1-12, have you recently? Pretty sure the majority of people entering second marriages didn't end their first because of infidelity.

  13. John
    Posted April 13, 2013 at 6:46 pm | Permalink

    You know what I would like to see? I would like to see a debate, televised on all the national channels, on same sex marriage. Actually, a three part debate similar to the presidential debates. The best from both sides. I grow tired of hearing nothing but screaming and vile threats from the others side. It's time they step up and see if they have the guts to defend their views in front of a national audience, rather than hiding behind a wall of money, threats, hatred, noise, and liberal media.

  14. Richard
    Posted April 13, 2013 at 7:28 pm | Permalink

    John, up until you used the word liberal I was certain you were referring to fundamentalists.

  15. Posted April 13, 2013 at 7:35 pm | Permalink

    How much would you wager? per:

    "I'd wager I know more about the SBC, Calvinism and the Reform movement than you."

    How would you know? Is Mark10 the only Gospel dealing with the subject of divorce? How would you know a SB minister doesn't marry a couple without a marriage license? Do you also have access to Heaven's vital statistics?

    You asked a quick question. So I gave you a quick answer. Now you are complaining. Write your questions unambiguously, for clarity. For example: A landlord could decide NOT to rent (a room) to anyone at all, just so he/she wouldn't be required to rent to any pair he suspects would not use the premises according to his liking. The landlord could, for instance, rent a room to his aunt and her niece (same-sex couple) for $1, and raise the price for other couples he suspects of possibly destroying his property, or using it in ways he/she doesn't care for. I mean, isn't this America?

    This thing of forcing businesses to service people they do not want to serve for any reason, is bad business. How would anyone know sexual orientation in a same-sex couple, or opposite-sex couple?

    Anyway, thanks for your reply.

  16. Bobby
    Posted April 13, 2013 at 11:01 pm | Permalink

    John - One has only to look through most any newspaper or periodical - liberal. conservative or moderate to see on article about marriage equality especially given the recent hearings before the SCOTUS. Do you feel people are uniformed on the issue? I see the issue as a human issue and not a political issue. It is not red vs blue. Most Americans have gay family members and/or work colleagues. Interaction with gay people inevitably factors into one's thoughts on marriage equality.

  17. bman
    Posted April 13, 2013 at 11:02 pm | Permalink

    John Blatzheim->Quick question, would a landlord have the right to refuse to rent to a same-sex couple because he believes homosexual acts are immoral and doesn't want them committed on his property?

    Ehow says: "Maine also bans discrimination because of sexual orientation, which the federal government does not..."

    It may be a state by state issue as opposed to a federal issue, therefore.

    Additionally, ehow reports,"Valid reasons for eviction include...using the apartment for .... "a house of ill fame."

    Thus, if a potential gay tenant had a reputation or notorious sexual behavior, the landlord should avoid renting to that person.

  18. Bobby
    Posted April 13, 2013 at 11:29 pm | Permalink

    And what if a heterosexual person had a reputation for notorious sexual behavior (whatever is meant by that term)?

  19. Ash
    Posted April 13, 2013 at 11:47 pm | Permalink

    "Freedom of Information requests from the University of Texas have revealed he conspired with his funders to reach a certain unflattering opinion of gay parents."

    That's a lie.

  20. Robert
    Posted April 13, 2013 at 11:50 pm | Permalink

    Nope, not a lie, Ash. Google it. That's how I learned about it. Both Salon and the American Independent (which submitted the Freedom of Information request) are reporting on it. And they only have about half the emails so far! The Witherspoon Institute directed Regnerus in what his findings should be. They also gave him a "media guide," to make him appear impartial, in case he was asked questions.

  21. bman
    Posted April 13, 2013 at 11:52 pm | Permalink

    The term "open notorious behavior" comes from an Illinois law:

    "A person commits fornication when he or she knowingly has sexual intercourse with another not his or her spouse if the behavior is open and notorious. ...."

  22. Ash
    Posted April 14, 2013 at 1:44 am | Permalink

    I have read the documents, Robert. They do not prove that Regnerus "conspired with his funders to reach a certain unflattering opinion of gay parents."

    Brad Wilcox held a nice title at the Witherspoon Institute, which mainly involved writing and research work, despite the weighty title of "Director of Marriage, Family and Democracy." He was not an employee of the institute and had no say in the payment given to Regnerus for the study. Regnerus paid him money for collaboration on the study.

    Now, how much sense does this make:

    The Witherspoon Institute offers Regnerus money to conduct a study.

    Regnerus accepts the offer.

    The Witherspoon Institute sends Brad Wilcox to shadow Regnerus and ensure that the desired results are attained.

    Regnerus takes a cut out of the money Witherspoon pays him in order to funnel it to the man who is charged to shadow him. In essence, Regnerus pays to be monitored and constrained by his funders!

    Notwithstanding how ridiculous the above sounds, the emails actually show a recurring desire to create a diverse body of study collaborators--those who have differing views on same-sex parenting. That's a far cry from a conspiracy to create negative results.

  23. Chairm
    Posted April 14, 2013 at 9:47 am | Permalink

    Brian Brown said it right:

    "Our job is to remain firmly fixed on the truth about marriage, to speak up for it with love in in our heart, and with the courage to never bow before the false gods, the untruths, the made-up stories offered to us in place of reality."

    A citizen has the duty to seek the truth and to speak the truth. One need not be avowedly religious to forthrightly pursue to the truth and to expose falsehoods.

    When an SSMer agrees that the public discourse must be about the truth of marriage, then, that invites more than the empty rhetoric of the SSM campaign and the unsound arguments of the leading voices of the SSM idea. Such agreement entails a commitment to a disciplined approach to accurately representing all sides of the discussion rather than throwing up diversions and strawman arguments.

  24. Randy E King
    Posted April 14, 2013 at 9:47 am | Permalink

    "That's a far cry from a conspiracy to create negative results."

    At least they finally admit the study uncovered negative correlations with same-sex "parenting."

  25. Robert
    Posted April 14, 2013 at 9:47 pm | Permalink

    No study has ever found "negative correlations" with same-sex parenting (no need for the childish scare quotes, really). None.

  26. leviticus
    Posted April 15, 2013 at 12:43 am | Permalink

    So lets ask the University of Texas about the Regenerus study and it's results. Been there done that. Let's ask the editor of the journal of social science research. Been there done that. Let's ask the publisher of the Journal of social science research About the validity of the study in harms children encounter when exposed to homosexuals. Every complaint has been dismissed. The study is valid as confirmed by three separate independent reviews.

  27. bman
    Posted April 15, 2013 at 9:09 am | Permalink

    Robert->No study has ever found "negative correlations" with same-sex parenting...None.

    An article dated March 2013 by The American College of Pediatricians states:

    "Research has demonstrated considerable risks to children exposed to the homosexual lifestyle."

  28. Robert
    Posted April 15, 2013 at 5:49 pm | Permalink

    The America College of Pediatricians is a religionist extremist group. About 60 "Christian" doctors, all anti-gay and evidently anti-child, since they prefer to see children raise outside of wedlock.

  29. Son of Adam
    Posted April 15, 2013 at 6:13 pm | Permalink


    — out of wedlock
    : with the natural parents not legally married to each other

  30. bman
    Posted April 15, 2013 at 8:30 pm | Permalink

    Robert->The America College of Pediatricians is a religionist extremist group. About 60 "Christian" doctors, all anti-gay and evidently anti-child, since they prefer to see children raise outside of wedlock.

    Just a gay pride extremist calling others extremist who oppose the gay agenda. Nothing new there.

    They also prefer children raised within true wedlock, but not your maladaptive definition of it.

    Lastly, the researchers referenced in their article are independent sources and so the research can be verified.

  31. leviticus
    Posted April 15, 2013 at 10:11 pm | Permalink

    The simple obvious truth or common sense, is that when homosexuals target children they are going to be harmed.