NOM BLOG

A Tough Week... NOM Marriage News

 

NOM National Newsletter

Dear Marriage Supporter,

The news this week is tough. I'm not going to sugar coat it.

In Rhode Island, all five Republican state senators joined the Democrats in the state senate to pass a same-sex marriage bill. It now goes back to the House which had previously passed a gay marriage bill and the governor has promised to sign it.

The Rhode Island bill does not create a new category of marriage for same-sex couples. Rather, it completely redefines marriage for all people in Rhode Island.

Some religious liberty protections were added for churches. But as Scott Spear, a NOM Rhode Island Advisory Board member, told the press, "It won't be long before gay 'marriage' activists start pressing hard their new found rights on the faithful in Rhode Island. In Vermont, Christian innkeepers were sued. It was Christian florists in Washington state. Elsewhere photographers, bakers, event venue operators, notary publics, justices of the peace and town clerks have all been targeted for punishment if they do not agree to go along with gay 'marriage' in violation of their deeply-held beliefs."

Targeting The Children

All true. But the people I'm most concerned about are the children in Rhode Island, who for the first time will be educated by this new law to believe that the rights of adults to marry any person they love trump a child's right to a loving mom and dad.

Sometimes that education will be direct: In Red Hook, New York, parents last week were outraged to find that 13 and 14 year old girls were asked in their public school to pretend to be lesbian couples and ask each other for kisses in a school anti-bullying assembly. When parents objected, their school told them basically to stuff it!

Same-sex marriage is not just an attempt to help ordinary gay people live their private lives as they choose—it is part of a push for an aggressive new public norm that affects us all.

Continuing The State Fights

For the politicians who refused to let the people of Rhode Island vote on marriage, this is not over!

In Delaware, another blue state, a gay marriage bill passed the house, as expected, although by an unexpectedly tight margin. The fight now goes to the senate to hold the line for marriage.

If you have a moment, please click here to use NOM's Advocacy Center to send messages to your elected officials, letting them know that you support marriage:

 

We intend to make sure that every Rhode Islander knows how their policymakers voted on this critical issue. We will hold the politicians accountable for their votes.

Republicans, especially, will have to answer for abandoning marriage—a core position of the GOP platform. In New York, when the dust cleared, 3 out of the 4 Republican state senators who betrayed their constituents and voted for gay marriage were no longer in office.

And we should also point out that there were some heroic marriage champions who stood up from the Democratic side of the aisle. In particular, I'd like to thank Senator Harold M. Metts, D-Providence/Slater, who testified:

I am puzzled as to why those who seek tolerance and now acceptance are so intolerant of others' religious beliefs and rights.

I was not intimidated over the years by being called a religious bigot, or some of the phone calls I received this week... the last time I checked, this is America and we are all entitled to our opinions.

Many from my community take exception to the attempts of the gay rights activists to hitch their wagon to the civil rights movement as it pertains to African Americans. I can change my sexual preference tonight if I want to, but I can't change my color.

What people do in the privacy of their bedrooms can never compare to what African Americans went through in slavery... Our people were treated like animals, they were exploited... raped. Families were split up... There [were] lynchings. There [were] castrations. And I could go on and on. Again, for many form my community, there is no grounds for the comparison.

International Organization for Marriage

Meanwhile, despite massive ongoing grassroots protests from the French people, the French parliament voted to redefine marriage. As I told the press "Even though the same-sex marriage policy being foisted on an unwilling public is profoundly unwise and anti-family, no citizen should ever express their disapproval through violent means. We condemn in the strongest possible terms violence by anyone on either side of this debate."

NOM will continue to work with our friends in France to defend marriage.

Specifically, NOM is working with the Collectif Famille Mariage (CFM), a charter member of the International Organization for Marriage (IOM). CFM—along with a wide coalition of pro-marriage organizations—is imploring France's Constitutional Council to carefully study and limit the scope of this law, which has been rushed through the Senate and the National Assembly.

In Brussels, Belgium at a panel discussion about free speech, Archbishop Andre Leonard was abruptly assaulted by four protestors who said his "homophobia" was the reason. They squirted him with water bottles shaped like the Virgin Mary, according to the Global Post.

The story notes: "[T]he archbishop himself remained composed and apparently at prayer throughout."

The picture above shows Archbishop Leonard picking up and kissing one of the bottles following the disruption.

So Much For Tolerance

Our friends at FRC released video footage of domestic terrorist Floyd Corkins' FBI interview, where he acknowledges that he used the Southern Poverty Law Center's "anti-gay hate list" to target his intended victims.

SPLC still has the target list up, as I write this, despite its use to target decent, loving, law-abiding Americans who work in mainstream organizations.

Still Not "Inevitable"

Meanwhile in Illinois, gay marriage advocates are still scrambling to find the last few votes to ram a gay marriage bill through that blue state legislature.

Opposition from downstate Illinois Democrats is one reason. But the biggest obstacle? As a NBC Chicago columnist puts it, "The toughest votes? Black lawmakers who are under pressure from the African-American Clergy Coalition to vote no. . . .a black legislator trying to move up to alderman, county board, state senate or Congress would be denied a Sunday appearance at a conservative black church. That's a valuable endorsement in the black community, so that may be enough to make a politician hesitate before pressing 'yes.'"

And in Minnesota, polls are showing the public is rather shocked to find a gay marriage bill being pushed through the state legislature... apparently they believed the ads opponents to the state marriage amendment ran suggesting a constitutional amendment was not necessary!

A Star Tribune poll in February found just 38 percent of Minnesotans support the gay marriage bill. And as our friends at Minnesota for Marriage pointed out, the further one moves away from Minneapolis, the more the support drops.

While 57 percent of people in Hennepin and Ramsey counties support same-sex marriage, only 19 percent of those in what they call "outstate" Minnesota do.

Greater Minnesota is "very, very much opposed to the metro area's attempt to force gay marriage on the rest of the state," Autumn Leva of Minnesotans for Marriage told the press.

I promise you one thing: we here at NOM will never stop fighting for marriage, working with good people of all races, creeds and colors in every state of these wonderful United States.

In the tough times the sunshine patriots run. But you can count on us standing up to the forces seeking to undermine marriage everywhere across this great land! And now as part of a new international movement for marriage!

Together we are making a difference!

One final request for this week: I'd like to ask for your prayers for Pastor Jim Garlow of San Diego's Skyline Church whose beloved wife Carol passed away this week after battling cancer bravely for many years.

In lieu of flowers the family has asked that donations be made to the Carol Garlow Memorial Fund which supports a transitional home to help troubled adults become godly men and women.

Jim is a friend of mine and a hero of mine for standing up for marriage in the great Prop 8 battle. Carol was a great woman, a loving and much loved, wife, mother, Christian prayer warrior, and benefactor to her congregation and community. She will be greatly missed by all who knew her.

Jim, old friend, my heart goes out to you. May God comfort you and your family in this season of loss.

Thank you for standing for marriage. And thank you for your prayers for me and my family and for all those on the front lines of this great and noble fight for God's first institution.

What He has created, we will not abandon.

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.

87 Comments

  1. Richard
    Posted April 25, 2013 at 6:36 pm | Permalink

    Yes Brian, a tough week and for a reason. Your message does not register any more. As long as you throw children under the bus, florists, religious liberty and the dead in order to raise funds, well, as they say: desperate times call for desperate measures.

  2. Richard
    Posted April 25, 2013 at 7:01 pm | Permalink

    And Brian, yesterday in Rhode Island, hundreds, if not thousands of children with gay parents, received a tremendous gift. Now they are recognized by Rhode Island as the viable and contributing families to Rhode Island that they always were. You, Barb and so many others have no idea of the wonderful family dynamics because of the love shared in these families. So, continue to spout the poison. Meanwhile, the kids thrive.

  3. Randy E King
    Posted April 25, 2013 at 7:13 pm | Permalink

    Richard,

    You might as well be claiming these perverts have billions of children.

  4. RAJ
    Posted April 25, 2013 at 7:26 pm | Permalink

    Wow, reading through these threads it seems NOM's leadership, staff, and supporters have been reduced one big --- "Oh, Ain't It Awful?" --- refrain.

    Really, it's not that bad, but I suppose it's pointless to try to convince you supporters of that, the few of you that are left.

  5. Richard
    Posted April 25, 2013 at 7:48 pm | Permalink

    Randy, there are millions of caring, committed gay parents across this great country. But even one, one child loved, one child nourished, one child secure in the love of their two dads or two moms is to be celebrated and recognized by our civil government. And that most of those kids come from an abusive, unloving straight parentage is the true source of sorrow. Randy, you, truly, are the pervert.

  6. Randy E King
    Posted April 25, 2013 at 8:16 pm | Permalink

    Richard,

    You are an advocate for feeding other people's children to the wolves.

    Just the plain and simple truth.

  7. Son of Adam
    Posted April 25, 2013 at 8:19 pm | Permalink

    Willing to place children at risk by exposing them to the higher rates of violence and instability known to be present in homosexual relationships for the sake of political correctness is what's truly perverse.

  8. John B.
    Posted April 25, 2013 at 8:33 pm | Permalink

    I'm guessing that the Rhode Island state legislators know what the voters who elected them want, a whole lot better than NOM does.

  9. Son of Adam
    Posted April 25, 2013 at 8:48 pm | Permalink

    Those legislators were motivated by the political influence and wealth of special advocacy groups, not the people.

  10. TheUniverseIsATheocracy
    Posted April 25, 2013 at 8:52 pm | Permalink

    God is in control.

    "Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections." (See Romans 1:24-26)

  11. Barb Chamberlan
    Posted April 25, 2013 at 9:06 pm | Permalink

    "The essential public purpose of marriage is to attach mothers and fathers to their children and to one another.

    Marriage is adult society’s institutional structure for protecting the legitimate interests of children. Without this public purpose, we would not need marriage as a distinct social institution."

    Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse

  12. Richard
    Posted April 25, 2013 at 9:09 pm | Permalink

    Randy, SoA, continue to spout the poison yet, the kids thrive. You are lost because you are blind. You are blind because you will not see the good which is all around you. There is no good in your world because you hate. You hate because you are hurt. Think upon this: millions of kids are happy and secure tonight because a gay couple chose them to love. You missed out on his didn't you? This is the tragedy.

  13. Barb Chamberlan
    Posted April 25, 2013 at 9:18 pm | Permalink

    "The child is entitled to a relationship with and care from both of the people who brought him into being. Therefore, the child has a legitimate interest in the stability of his parents’ union. But no child can defend these entitlements himself. Nor is it adequate to make restitution after these rights have been violated. The child’s rights to care and relationship must be supported pro-actively, before harm is done, for those rights to be protected at all."

  14. Richard
    Posted April 25, 2013 at 9:18 pm | Permalink

    Barb, on this we all agree, marriage is adult's society institution for protecting the legitimate interests of children. You have a hurt in you that prevents you from understanding that a child's legitimate interests are best met by parents who love them, nurture them and protect them. Biological parents, grandparents, foster parents and gay parents can do this. All can be married and marriage cements the family bond. Like Randy, your hurt blinds you. Did you miss out on this love?

  15. Robert
    Posted April 25, 2013 at 9:19 pm | Permalink

    "The essential public purpose of marriage is to attach mothers and fathers to their children and to one another."

    Then why do we let couples who can't have, or don't have, children, get married? And is "attaching children to their parents" the only purpose of marriage? Does marriage only have one function? Why don't parents attach to their children without marriage? Don't straight people like their children???

  16. Richard
    Posted April 25, 2013 at 9:25 pm | Permalink

    Barb, you ignore, for your own selfish interests, the needs of millions of children who are abandoned, hurt, neglected and even killed because their biological parents were inadequate. Because you must have been hurt in your own life, perhaps by abandonment or worse, you simply refuse to believe that a gay couple could offer all that was denied to you. You simply refuse to believe even one gay couple could save a child. What, in heaven's name, happened to you?

  17. Richard
    Posted April 25, 2013 at 9:31 pm | Permalink

    This, then, is the Achilles' heal of the NOM argument against gay marriage. Not one of you will accept, let alone admit, that a child can find love, commitment and security with gay parents. It is too easy to ascribe horrendous results of said family but, more than ever, I think most of us now see that there was tremendous hurt in each of your lives. There is too much projection to think otherwise. The rest of us know better.

  18. Richard
    Posted April 25, 2013 at 9:40 pm | Permalink

    There is a sadness, I find, in the posts rendered by the likes of Randy, Alessandra, oldKingBlog, Barb, Ash, Leviticus and Little Man. There is a hurt that all of you must harbor. There is the indication of a shallow existence which shuns reality, social propriety and care for your fellow man. Oh, you will scream invectives at my comments but, truthfully, you carry an all-consuming pain.

  19. Richard
    Posted April 25, 2013 at 9:52 pm | Permalink

    And to Seth Thayer, thank you for your words of encouragement to all of us to sleep well and your offer of congratulations. I'm right there with you,min hopes that some mentioned above can ever find some peace, and, yes, Go Maine!

  20. Randy E King
    Posted April 25, 2013 at 9:53 pm | Permalink

    The truth is the Achilles heal of the marriage corruption supporter.

    I happen to be older than the bastardized word these miscreants use in order to lend an appearance of acceptability to their depravity; which means either my childhood was a lie, or these perverts are.

    Accusing your victims of your crimes is your modus operandi, Richard.

  21. Robert
    Posted April 25, 2013 at 10:10 pm | Permalink

    I just read Wikipedia's description of NOM and although I knew most of NOM's transgressions and lies, it still shocks the conscience to see how despicable an organization it is. Kind of makes the KKK look decent!

  22. Barb Chamberlan
    Posted April 25, 2013 at 10:12 pm | Permalink

    "We often hear the objection that some marriages don’t have children. This is perfectly true. However, every child has parents. Depriving a child of relationships with his or her parents is an injustice to the child."

  23. OldKingBlog
    Posted April 25, 2013 at 10:47 pm | Permalink

    "There is a sadness, I find, in the posts rendered by the likes of Randy, Alessandra, oldKingBlog, Barb, Ash, Leviticus and Little Man." Sadness? Son, you are both delusional and vain beyond measure. What you are (mis)reading is a growing resolve. We're only just beginning to fight.

    "There is a hurt that all of you must harbor." Dream on, little hedonist, dream on!

    "There is the indication of a shallow existence which shuns reality, social propriety and care for your fellow man:" lil richie, don't be so hard on yourself.

    "but, truthfully, you carry an all-consuming pain" Son there are two things you aren't -- you aren't a mindreader and you aren't even shallow.

  24. Posted April 25, 2013 at 11:07 pm | Permalink

    Turning Richard who is now truly very gay about Tuesday's Democrat performance, over to Randy for replies. Rhode Island and Delaware are tiny States, so are easily overtaken by outside funding against the definition of marriage. One of them is 14% bay, and the other one is mostly a sand bar. But they make big news. Question: How is it that mostly tiny States are adding the queers to marriage, and not the large States? Washington State is very big, but not Washington D.C. - But there are not any big wins with a 2/3 majority, nor any Constitutional amendments. I feel sorry for those people in those States, but it is time to wake up and counter negative change.

  25. Ash
    Posted April 26, 2013 at 12:08 am | Permalink

    Moderator: if you post my comments, please only post the long one, as the rest are just the same comment broken down into smaller pieces.

    Thanks :)

  26. David Broadus
    Posted April 26, 2013 at 4:19 am | Permalink

    This argument against gay marriage, that kids do better with a mom and dad, makes no sense. As gay people can already adopt or otherwise raise kids, whether they're married or not, not allowing gay marriage makes absolutely no difference to the number of kids being raised by gay couples. "But shouldn't we at least encourage straight marriage?" Encourage whom? It's not as if any gay person is going to be persuaded to "become" straight and get married. It's not as if any straight person is going to be persuaded into "staying" straight. So we ask the following questions:
    Q: If we ban gay marriage, how many more straight marriages will be created? A: None.
    Q: If we ban gay marriage, how many more kids will be raised by straight married couples? A: None.
    Q: If we ban gay marriage, how many fewer kids will be raised by gay parents? A: None.
    Q: If we ban gay marriage, how many kids being raised by gay parents will be harmed? A: All

  27. David Broadus
    Posted April 26, 2013 at 4:21 am | Permalink

    I should also add:
    Q: How many of the country's major scientific, medical and social service organizations have stated that kids raised by gay parents do worse than those raised by straight parents? A: None

  28. Son of Adam
    Posted April 26, 2013 at 6:16 am | Permalink

    SS"M" is based on the ideology that the sexuality of adults take precedence over the best interests of children. This notion has been degrading our culture of family values for over forty years starting with no fault divorce and our children have paid the price by seeing their families ripped apart and being raised in broken homes. Now children are being used as a political tool, a means to an end to promote homosexual identity politics, which is manipulative and corrupt in the extreme.

    Children do far better being raised by their natural parents than in the artificial constructs endorsed by either you or the government, as many articles posted on this blog attest.

  29. LHF
    Posted April 26, 2013 at 6:47 am | Permalink

    The real agenda of same sex marriage advocates is the abolition of the insitution. No SSM supporter advocates monogamy, exclusivity, and permanence because these qualities of marriage are foreign to homosexuals, both men and women. Those of us who oppose SSM must forcefully continue to make this point.

  30. Will Fisher
    Posted April 26, 2013 at 7:17 am | Permalink

    LHF, what about all the straights who support our gay fellow citizens? My wife and I both support legalizing SSM (two years in our state now). We just celebrated our tenth anniversary. We proclaim and advocate fidelity and permanence with our lives. And what about all the straights, some of them ardent opponents of SSM, who don't model monogamy, permanence, etc?

  31. Randy E King
    Posted April 26, 2013 at 7:46 am | Permalink

    The insatient use of bastardized language coupled with blatant and willful disinformation is proof enough that marriage corruption supporters argunent in defense of their demands for special consideration has absolutely no basis in historical or scientific.

  32. Randy E King
    Posted April 26, 2013 at 8:09 am | Permalink

    Fact^^^

  33. bman
    Posted April 26, 2013 at 9:07 am | Permalink

    "This argument against gay marriage, that kids do better with a mom and dad, makes no sense."
    ------
    The way forward is to go back to the days when two biological parents with children were normally married and stayed married.

    Since that existed before and worked, it makes sense that it would work again.

  34. bman
    Posted April 26, 2013 at 9:30 am | Permalink

    David Broadus->I should also add:
    Q: How many of the country's major scientific, medical and social service organizations have stated that kids raised by gay parents do worse than those raised by straight parents? A: None

    Dr. Nicholas Cummings, former president of the APA said the following:

    The APA has permitted political correctness to triumph over science, clinical knowledge and professional integrity.

    The public can no longer trust organized psychology to speak from evidence rather than from what it regards to be politically correct......

    At the present time the governance of the APA is vested in an elitist group of 200 psychologists who rotate themselves in a kind of “musical chairs” throughout all the various offices, boards, committees, and the Council of Representatives.

    The vast majority of the 100,000 members are essentially disenfranchised.

    In sum, social service agencies have lost credibility because their leaders have a pro-gay political agenda.

  35. Andrew
    Posted April 26, 2013 at 11:48 am | Permalink

    There will still be bumps on the road. But the march for equality rolls ever forward. May we continue to progress, striving for a society where all families are respected, and where the children of gay couples enjoy the same support and security as their peers.

  36. SC Guy
    Posted April 26, 2013 at 11:54 am | Permalink

    Don't get discouraged, NOM. What's happening is that SSM has become a partisan issue and the Blue states tend to have Democratic majorities so they're voting for gay marriage. We need to keep fighting. The overwhelming majority of the states continue to ban gay marriage and let's fight to keep it that way!

  37. Randy E King
    Posted April 26, 2013 at 12:19 pm | Permalink

    If language is not correct, then what is said is not what is meant; if what is said is not what is meant, then what must be done remains undone; if this remains undone, morals and art will deteriorate; if justice goes astray, the people will stand about in helpless confusion. Hence there must be no arbitrariness in what is said. This matters above everything.
    —Confucius

    The language used in defense of their demands are inconsistent with noted languages intent. These miscreants know if they were honest about who they were and what the wanted they would not succeed in their quest to create willing victims.

  38. Posted April 26, 2013 at 1:05 pm | Permalink

    I like the translation of the Confucius quote, Randy. Interesting, and how true. The one not confused was Confucius. But he must have learned that piece of wisdom from his surroundings at the time. When justice goes astray is the point at which Judges start legislating from the bench. What temptation a Judge must feel, not allowed to make law... And if the judges way up the ladder (SCOTUS) are sold out, then they dish out injustice, rather than justice. For instance, I believe Justice Kagan should have recused herself out of the DOMA and PROP-8 cases, just like Walker should have recused himself. But voters are ultimately to blame for accepting liars as elected officials, which is where the problem of appointed Judges begins. Thanks.

  39. Posted April 26, 2013 at 1:58 pm | Permalink

    Good news from Colombia!
    .........................................................
    The Senate of Colombia voted down a bill to create homosexual "marriage" yesterday by an overwhelming majority.

  40. Posted April 26, 2013 at 2:00 pm | Permalink

    The Colombian "homosexual farce of a marriage" defeat followed days of protests outside of the Senate building, with demonstrators chanting "I won't shut up, I won't shut up, marriage is between a man and a woman!"

    ....................

    I love the "I won't shut up! I won't shut up!"

    That's what we need to see more socon Americans doing.

  41. Richard Cortijo
    Posted April 26, 2013 at 2:21 pm | Permalink

    Alessandra, now you have Columbia, Iran, Iraq and Russia and Uganda??... What a wonderful, happy, free group, u should be proud.

  42. Posted April 26, 2013 at 2:41 pm | Permalink

    Most countries of the world don't buy into the bizarre simulation of marriage SSm advocate. For many other countries (hundreds), marriage is not just about love and unmeasurable commitment. That would be unreasonable. Imagine your daughter says one day. I am getting married only because I love my boyfriend, and because he told me he would never even look at another woman (or promised commitment forever). Yeah, right.

    Then we wonder why there's so much divorce. Guess what: love and commitment (for someone outside the marriage) is also the reason for divorce, since we don't have legalized polygamy or polyandry.

    How can the reason for marriage be also the reason for the divorce of that marriage? Dumb. But they yell it at the top of their voices, and with a straight face. Then, the problem is something else, not marriage.

    It is really disrespect for any kind of order in society - freedom from anything. Well, that's because Americans are spoiled and believe they can have whatever they want. Yeah, right.

  43. Ken
    Posted April 26, 2013 at 5:12 pm | Permalink

    The Supreme Court of Colombia ordered the legislature to clean up the marriage laws so gays could marry. They have a deadline of June 20, 2013. If the legislature doesn't do it by then, the court will do it for them.

    While I'm sure that some of the senators voted against the bill because they oppose gay marriage, the real issue is not WHETHER to institute it, but HOW to institute it. Even supporters of gay marriage would have voted against the bill if they did not think it would produce a solution that would satisfy the court.

    This vote isn't good news for anyone. It's just a sign of legislative business as usual.

  44. Randy E King
    Posted April 26, 2013 at 5:28 pm | Permalink

    @Ken,

    The sign you are seeing is that of a corrupt judiciary gamed by sexual deviants seeking to create willing victims.

  45. Ken
    Posted April 26, 2013 at 5:48 pm | Permalink

    @Randy

    That's an interesting theory, but it is highly unlikely that a corrupt judiciary could be gamed by an unpopular minority. There must be something else going on.

  46. Randy E King
    Posted April 26, 2013 at 5:58 pm | Permalink

    @Ken,

    Not so unlikely when the unpopular minority is indistinguishable from the ruling majority.

  47. bman
    Posted April 27, 2013 at 12:47 am | Permalink

    David Broadus: “This argument against gay marriage, that kids do better with a mom and dad, makes no sense. “
    -------
    What makes sense is most voters recognize that children need a father and mother.

    Voters who lean toward SSM should be asked if they intended to sanction the unethical practice of lesbians using sperm donors as fathers.

    How do they feel, for example, that some lesbians sell kids t-shirts that say, "My daddy's name is donor" as if that was supposed to be a good thing?

    You see, the issue is not simply about whether numbers will change if they vote against SSM.

    This issue is whether the voter personally wants his or her vote to sanction the principle that children do not need a mother and father.

    Does the voter personally want to be morally responsible for codifying that principle into law?

    It makes sense that most SSm voters would not have voted for it had they understood the hidden principles they were endorsing.

  48. John B.
    Posted April 27, 2013 at 8:23 am | Permalink

    If NOM is so intent on painting the SPLC as somehow responsible for the actions of Mr. Corkins, is NOM ready to admit that the anti-gay rhetoric they and their allies put out may be responsible for some of the violence done against gay people? We're seeing this pretty clearly in France lately, is NOM ready to own up to some of that?

  49. Son of Adam
    Posted April 27, 2013 at 8:36 am | Permalink

    Where on this site has NOM libeled pro gay organizations as "hate groups" and pinpointed their locations on a map?

  50. David Broadus
    Posted April 27, 2013 at 10:41 am | Permalink

    Again, gay people do not have to be married to adopt or otherwise have children, so however a voter may feel about gay parents, allowing gay people to marry has nothing whatsoever to do with it. Why is this a difficult concept for you to understand?

  51. LHF
    Posted April 27, 2013 at 10:51 am | Permalink

    Will Fisher said: "LHF, what about all the straights who support our gay fellow citizens? My wife and I both support legalizing SSM (two years in our state now). We just celebrated our tenth anniversary. We proclaim and advocate fidelity and permanence with our lives. And what about all the straights, some of them ardent opponents of SSM, who don't model monogamy, permanence, etc?"

    I ask you to name one organization and/or leader of the push for ssm who advocates monogamy, exclusivity, and permanence. With quotes please. Most homosexuals and their leaders argue for the economic and some of the social benefits of marriage (like hospital visitation), but argue that monogamy should not be a requirement. They even suggest that heterosexuals would have better marriages if they copied the "freedoms" available in homosexual relationships.

    Many people like yourself have fallen for the sentimental arguments about equality and "gay love." The problem is that homosexuals, while they sometimes do couple up, almost always, in their own description of their couples relationships, include third parties and fourth and fifth. And I don't mean children.

    Monogamy and exclusivity are alien to homosexual relationships. Not so heterosexual relationships, although some do stray. However, AIDS in particular, but other STDs too, was and is a huge problem among homosexuals, but at least in western societies, it has not spread to heterosexuals in a big way because westerners by and large are not promiscuous.

  52. Randy E King
    Posted April 27, 2013 at 11:12 am | Permalink

    @David,

    The perverts you protect are prohibited by law from adopting other peoples children in no fewer than 31 States in the U.S. and over one-hundred-and-fifty countries world wide.

    A handful of nations have forgotten the destruction your religion brings to society and have let their guard down. But the corrosive affects that are inherit with your depravity will become undeniable in a very short time.

    Gay is adjective; not a people!

  53. Robert
    Posted April 27, 2013 at 12:53 pm | Permalink

    Huh? Gay people can adopt children in all 50 states, Randy! Who do you think is picking up the pieces of failed straight parents? Gay people! I can't imagine the anguish of children languishing in orphanages if gay people weren't allowed to adopt. Thank god they can!

  54. Randy E King
    Posted April 27, 2013 at 1:08 pm | Permalink

    @Robert,

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_adoption

  55. bman
    Posted April 27, 2013 at 1:22 pm | Permalink

    David Broadus->"Again, gay people do not have to be married to adopt or otherwise have children, so however a voter may feel about gay parents, allowing gay people to marry has nothing whatsoever to do with it. Why is this a difficult concept for you to understand?"

    ------
    I answered but you apparently did not understand so I will explain differently this time.

    First, your claim that SSm won't affect any numbers is not something you can rightly predict.

    By default, any principle voted into law today will cause trend variations in the future.

    Since SSM entails the principle that children do not need a mother and father, we must presume a public trend would emerge to mirror that principle if SSm was voted into law.

    We can also presume SSm would energize the existing trend for lesbians to use sperm donors fathers.

    Second, since no one can foresee the actual future, we must vote today on the principles we want to shape the future.

    If we believe children need a mom and dad, then we must vote that principle into law today. That way, we can bias public action toward the needs of children.

    What doesn't make sense is the idea that society can vote a bad principle into law today that won't pose harm later.
    .
    What doesn't make sense is that you expect others to trust your ability to predict numbers won't change when you don't have the ability to make that prediction.

    What doesn't make sense is that you want people to stop voting on the principles, when that is the most reliable tool they have to shape the future.

    Its actually your argument that doesn't make sense, therefore.

    Third, voters are morally responsible for the principles they vote into law.

    They are responsible for public trends and actions that later mirror their vote.

    Hence, it makes perfect sense for voters to sanction the principles they believe are right by their vote.

    In conclusion, none of us can predict the future. We must vote on the principles.

    Someone's feigned ability to tell the future is not a proper justification to vote, especially when right principle is at stake.

  56. Randy E King
    Posted April 27, 2013 at 1:47 pm | Permalink

    Marriage corruption supporters are completely dependent upon blatant lies, falsehoods, and bastardized language just to lend an appearance of acceptability to their demands for special consideration.

    A veritable house of cards.

  57. Will Fisher
    Posted April 27, 2013 at 3:24 pm | Permalink

    Bman: "by default...."
    Yeah, just like how when the US Govt and many state govt began really cracking down on marijuana use (war on drugs, Rockefeller drug laws, etc) made such a huge impact on marijuana use.

  58. Posted April 27, 2013 at 5:30 pm | Permalink

    Russia's politics on homosexuality are great in terms of not letting homosexual activists spread their corrupt homosexuality agenda. Although I favor broader freedom of speech, there is no freedom of speech in academia and schools here - in practice. So Putin's prohibition of homosexual propaganda is quite good for Russia.

    And socons are not discriminated for jobs and education in Russia as they are here. How ironic that Russia is promoting a much more wholesome and sane sexuality culture and the US is going directly into the ditch- because Americans hate to face how dysfunctional and perverted so many people are regarding sexuality.

  59. Posted April 27, 2013 at 5:43 pm | Permalink

    Richard Cortijo said: Alessandra, now you have Columbia, Iran, Iraq and Russia and Uganda??... What a wonderful, happy, free group, u should be proud.
    .............................

    when you normalize homosexuality, you get a s0xually violent society- of which LGBT people are a significant component. It's funny that Richard Cortijo should point his finger at these other countries, when LGBT people here do so much violence. Living in a s0xually violent society is not my idea of a happy, free society.

  60. Posted April 27, 2013 at 5:45 pm | Permalink

    You know that LGBT people have perpetrated millions of acts of vlolence (IPV) in their interactions in the US alone? (and that's not counting all the disease spreading, and the other p0rverted behaviors they have towards heterosexuals and children).

  61. David Broadus
    Posted April 27, 2013 at 6:04 pm | Permalink

    Alessandra, you are seriously psycho. Now you're painting gay people as inherently violent? The sad part us I think you actually believe the hate that comes out of your mouth. I actually just pity you.

  62. Randy E King
    Posted April 27, 2013 at 6:13 pm | Permalink

    @David,

    But you are the one that is hiding sexual depravity behind a bastardized word you use as a façade of acceptability.

    Sexual depravity does not turn you into a species of man unto yourself.

  63. bman
    Posted April 27, 2013 at 6:25 pm | Permalink

    bman: "By default, any principle voted into law today will cause trend variations in the future.

    Will Fisher:"Yeah, just like how when the US Govt and many state govt began really cracking down on marijuana use (war on drugs, Rockefeller drug laws, etc) made such a huge impact on marijuana use."

    The phrase "by default:" does not mean "by necessity," so your reply seems off point.

  64. Robert
    Posted April 27, 2013 at 7:07 pm | Permalink

    Randy, your link only refers to couples. I'm talking about gay individuals, who are free to sire children, or adopt children, in all 50 states. And gay couples can raise children together in all 50 states, though some states prefer that children be raised outside of wedlock, for some reason, and don't let same-sex couple parents get married. I know, it makes no sense, but it is what it is!

  65. Richard
    Posted April 27, 2013 at 7:38 pm | Permalink

    David, I have posted a few times. There are inherent terrorists who post on this site. Allesandra and Randy are two of the more prominent. You nailed it with your post # 61. Let's keep them talking.

  66. Will Fisher
    Posted April 27, 2013 at 7:46 pm | Permalink

    bman, my point was that law doesn't always influence culture. Sometimes, even the opposite.

  67. Randy E King
    Posted April 27, 2013 at 8:57 pm | Permalink

    Robert,

    My link included references to all types of non-traditional coupling as it relates to adoption. No individual is capable of producing a child on their own; it requires the natural act of procreation.

    How is it you were never taught about the birds and the bees; public education?

  68. bman
    Posted April 27, 2013 at 9:57 pm | Permalink

    Will Fisher->bman, my point was that law doesn't always influence culture. Sometimes, even the opposite.

    Law influences culture by default. That does not mean cultural changes can't also influence law.

    Indeed, if we suppose a cultural change at the margin of society resulted in the law being changed, the process of change would still continue as the law moves the change from the margins of society to the core of society.

    And so, even a cultural change in the law comes back full circle to law influencing the culture.

  69. Robert
    Posted April 27, 2013 at 10:23 pm | Permalink

    Randy, again, as usual, you're blathering and not making sense. Gay people can adopt and raise children. In all 50 states. They can also raise their own biological children. What I'm wondering, then, is, why do you want these children raised outside of wedlock? Why do these children deserve such a fate?

  70. John B.
    Posted April 27, 2013 at 10:56 pm | Permalink

    Does Brian Brown realize there are only 48 stars on that flag? Or is he trying to tell us something about the direction he wants to take this country?

  71. Randy E King
    Posted April 27, 2013 at 11:23 pm | Permalink

    Robert,

    Are you a freaking moron...?

    Justice Kennedy questioned this very same point in the DOMA orals; questioning how this will effect states the have outlawed homosexual adoption.

    I pointed you in the direction that would supply you with the undeniable evidence any idiot would need. Sexual depravity does not turn you into a species of man unto yourself sicko.

  72. Posted April 28, 2013 at 3:10 am | Permalink

    David Broadus said: Alessandra, you are seriously psycho. Now you're painting gay people as inherently violent?
    .............................

    Concerning IPV alone, the stats are 30-50% regarding homosexuals and bisexuals. That is a lot of violent, p0rverse people who have perpetrated millions of violent acts.

    That's just one category of destructive attitudes and behaviors from LGBT people.

  73. Posted April 28, 2013 at 3:12 am | Permalink

    Who controls the discourse, controls the narrative about what kinds of harm and violence are going on in society.

    This is one reason why the liberal homosexuality agenda is particularly harmful - they are the Joe Paternos of homosexuality, who constantly work to minimize, lie, and cover up all kinds of harm done by LGBT individuals in society.

  74. Posted April 28, 2013 at 3:16 am | Permalink

    David Broadus said: Alessandra, you are seriously psycho. Now you're painting gay people as inherently violent?
    .............................
    No, not inherently violent. I am, however, stating numbers that have been reported in grounded studies on all kinds of harmful and destructive behaviors. If you put all kinds of violent harm together, the percentage is high for LGBT - which doesn't mean it's inherent.

  75. Posted April 28, 2013 at 3:19 am | Permalink

    Where do we have a more violent society? That's a very interesting question. Concerning LGBT individuals engaging in millions of harmful behaviors, it's certainly in the US - not Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq (or any of the other "crazy" and "despotic" countries out there).

  76. Will Fisher
    Posted April 28, 2013 at 9:05 am | Permalink

    John B, it's nostalgia.

  77. John B.
    Posted April 28, 2013 at 12:51 pm | Permalink

    For a time when the government had more power to tell people who they could or could not marry? Or for a time when the government allowed, enforced, and in some cases even mandated discrimination against a subset of its own citizens?

  78. Posted April 28, 2013 at 3:10 pm | Permalink

    I have an idea! Let a gay man marry a lesbian woman, or vice versa. Then we'd all be happy (gay), and don't have to redefine the marriage license conditions. We can tell SSmers "if it creeps you out just get over it." :)

  79. Posted April 28, 2013 at 3:31 pm | Permalink

    Joke of the day by Will (he Will not stop): "my point was that law doesn't always influence culture". :)

    We are talking marriage law, dummy.

  80. Posted April 28, 2013 at 3:44 pm | Permalink

    Alessandra is correct about comparison of violent societies, in different countries. Overall, the country with the least incidence of violence is a dictatorship. When all else fails, a country falls into dictatorship out of pure necessity. Any country who would go to war against another is, by definition, a "violent" society. Well, that's 100% of the countries in the World. So what's new? But we are talking tangentially.

    I looked a bit into it when the subject of the 2nd Amendment (US Constitution) came up at the White House (the only white house in the country, i guess), and expected the big metropolii to be more violent. It turns out Chicago beats NY City and even Mexico City.

    What Alessandra is mentioning is about 'dometic violence', and in that respect "gays", able to 'reason' only in emotional terms (on average) would certainly get to blows: They have the pettiness of a woman, and the upper body strength of a man. Put the two together and you got a setting for some bloody 'engagements' (no pun intended :))

  81. Posted April 28, 2013 at 4:03 pm | Permalink

    typo: domestic violence.

    In a typical marriage (at the Federal level) the man generally is equipped with the greatest upper-body strength, while the woman is equipped with great lower body strength (but bruise easily).

    I mean, have you looked at a woman trying to do some push-ups? :) (not that some woman are not upper strong, but I mean comparatively). The Olympics don't mix men and women for a reason.

    This has nothing to do with women being able to hold jobs which do not require upper body strength. Have you noticed women may get into boxing, but there's never a boxing match between a conditioned man and a conditioned woman? There's something ugly in that which society doesn't allow, though society (illegally) allows dogs biting each other to pieces (or roosters).

    A man and a woman attract each other because opposites attract. Even "gay" ("sad") men or lesbians pick someone as opposite in personality as they can find. Opposites attract, because they are complementary. A man knows the woman is not going to be around if he beats her. The woman knows her man will protect her with his strength, but she better not try to hit him too hard. The man knows the woman is better at diplomacy, and will cede to her in certain circumstances with other people.

    This foreknowledge, understanding, allows for a non-violent relationship - because each gender knows the strengths of the other within their relationship. In fact, that's why each was chosen by the other.

    My point is: since opposites attract, then opposite-sex relationships are more stable (and therefore less violent domestically). Good data Alessandra. We needed someone well-read on those statistics on this blog.

  82. Will Fisher
    Posted April 28, 2013 at 6:19 pm | Permalink

    Little Man, still, do you have any evidence that straight people either turn gay or stop marrying/having babies when SSM is legalized? If your state legalizes SSM, will suddenly go out an find some dude to marry? It's the same comical argument your side has been making all these years. If its true, find some winesses that you can put on a stand. "Well, I was happily married to my wife, but then when my state legalized SSM, our marriage fell apart."

  83. Randy E King
    Posted April 28, 2013 at 9:29 pm | Permalink

    Will,

    Do you have any real proof that bastardizing the word "gay" so as to lend an appearance of acceptability to sexual depravity turns promiscuous people into a species of man unto themselves?

  84. Little Man
    Posted April 28, 2013 at 11:47 pm | Permalink

    Will, you have no will power. You stoop to stupidities.

    It doesn't matter whether opposite-sex marriages will be affected or not by adding SSm to marriage. Note: It is not a reason for doing so. It is your excuse for adding them for NO reason. Not every sentence you write is necessarily rational, beware. Have some Will power.

    Your stupidity is so profound, it takes a while to see how you could arrive at that excuse.

    Actually, if SSm is added, people won't think much or marriage, and the motivation to marry and become regulated will diminish. Marriages won't break up. Less number of marriages would be the reasonable prediction.

    Can't you see through your own argument? SSmers need a reason to add SSm to civil marriage. A "lack of reason" is not sufficient grounds.

    You disappointed me. That's what I get for reading your comments. (learn the hard way).

  85. bman
    Posted April 29, 2013 at 3:14 am | Permalink

    Will Fisher->... do you have any evidence that straight people ...stop marrying...when SSM is legalized?

    Its more rational to think it would likely reduce marriage rates than to think it would not.

    As noted earlier, SSm entails the principle that children do not need a mother and father.

    By default, law is a teacher that shapes the morals of society.

    Thus, its rational to presume an SSM law would reshape the collective consciousness of society toward the principle that children do not need a mother and father, which would make marriage less important.

    Less importance means less marriage between men and women.

    Less marriage means a long list of social ills - more irresponsible sex, more abortions, more unwed child births, more teen pregnancies, more fatherless homes, less respect for moral and legal authority, more juvenile delinquency, more welfare, higher taxes, larger government, and such.

    It doesn't stop there. It logically gets worse from one generation to the next because each new generation would feel less need to marry than their parents before them!

    We are told by Ssmers that SSM would provide children with "married" parents.

    Its rational to believe, however, that more and more children would be hurt by SSm law as each generation felt less need to marry than the generation before.

    In principle, whoever votes for SSM effectively votes that children do not need their mother and father to marry, which implies long term harm to children caused by a generational erosion of marriage over time.

  86. bman
    Posted April 30, 2013 at 10:26 am | Permalink

    Furthermore, how could a society restore marriage after a collapse?

    It would have to return to religion and Christian morality, it seems.

  87. Chairm
    Posted May 4, 2013 at 4:40 am | Permalink

    Will Fisher said: "so however a voter may feel about gay parents, allowing gay people to marry has nothing whatsoever to do with it".

    Gay people can form the union of husband and wife, today, without the SSM imposition. This is a fact.

    There are plenty of types of relationships out there that lack either a husband or a wife. Gay is not definitive of the full range of the types of relationships that populate the non-marriage category. This is also a fact.

    What is missing from your comments, Will, is a solid reason for distinguishing the gay subset of nonmarriage from the rest of nonmarriage. As noted above by another commenter, you lack sound reasoning for what you demand of society.

    Marriage entails mutual consent to the sexual basis for the marital presumption of paternity. That is superfluous to any one-sexed relationship -- sexualized or otherwise. Merging non-marriage with marriage is a huge change -- and SSMers insist that this change in law is meant to change the culture profoundly. So you want to abolish the sexual basis for marriage and you want to abolish the direct link to childbearing and childraising. That is huge. That you think it is minimal is unsurprising but that speaks more to what the SSM campaign teaches than to what, if anything, might justify the imposition of SSM.