NOM BLOG

National Organization for Marriage Condemns Redefinition of Marriage in Delaware

 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: May 9, 2013
Contact: Elizabeth Ray or Jen Campbell (703-683-5004)


"Lawmakers in Delaware chose to abandon and discard society's most important institution and put their pro-marriage constituents on a collision course with the law." — Brian Brown, NOM president —

National Organization for Marriage

Washington, D.C. — The National Organization for Marriage today condemned passage of same-sex ‘marriage' in the Delaware state Senate Tuesday and pledged to make sure that voters know if their lawmakers voted to redefine marriage. The Delaware Senate passed the bill by a vote of 12-9. Two weeks ago the House passed it 23-18. Even in this deep blue state, the final vote was close.

"Lawmakers in Delaware chose to abandon and discard society's most important institution and put their pro-marriage constituents on a collision course with the law." said Brian Brown, NOM's president. "The Senators and Representatives who voted for this bill have endangered people of faith who believe marriage is the union of one man and one woman. In Delaware, as in other states that have redefined marriage, it will not be long before these good men and women feel the repercussions of this new law."

This legislation does not create a new category of marriage for same-sex couples. Rather, it completely redefines marriage for all people in Delaware. While it purports to include so-called religious liberty protections, it contains no protections for many faith-based organizations, small businesses and individuals who are frequently targeted for legal punishment over their refusal to countenance genderless marriage.

In Vermont, it was Christian innkeepers. 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.

And the biggest losers in the redefinition of marriage will be children.

"For the first time, the state of Delaware is saying to its children they do not deserve both a mother and a father, and are backing a law that is designed to intentionally deprive some kids of either a mom or a dad," Brown said. "It's bad enough when families break down through divorce or death, but it's unconscionable when a state encourages this through policies that deprive children of the love of both a mother and a father. This is a very sad day for Delaware."

"This is not the end of the debate. We intend to make sure that every citizen in Delaware knows how their policymakers voted on this critical issue. We will hold the politicians accountable for their votes. Republicans like Catherine Cloutier, especially, will have to answer for abandoning marriage — a core position of the GOP platform — and many may face primary challengers, as they should."

###

To schedule an interview with Brian Brown, president of the National Organization for Marriage, please contact Elizabeth Ray (x130), [email protected], or Jen Campbell (x145), [email protected], at 703-683-5004.

Paid for by The National Organization for Marriage, Brian Brown, president. 2029 K Street NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20006, not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee. New § 68A.405(1)(f) & (h).

30 Comments

  1. RAJ
    Posted May 9, 2013 at 11:18 am | Permalink

    Brown writes:

    "Even in this deep blue state, the final vote was close."

    I remember quite recently the talking point went like this:

    "Even in deep blue states, when voters are given a chance, they reject gay marriage."

    This was always repeated with great emphasis, but since it is no longer true, Brown and NOM have shifted to the former formulation, rather than the latter.

    That we're now at 11 states (plus D,C) and counting is truly a remarkable transition.

  2. Karen Grube
    Posted May 9, 2013 at 1:16 pm | Permalink

    In Washington state, the voters had SSM imposed on them by their legislature and Governor first. Their vote would have reversed that decision. It is always more difficult to reverse bad legislation than it is to allow an honest vote in the first place. The voters know better now that they've seen the negative consequences. I'm certain they will show their outrage in the 2014 elections by removing many if not most of the legislators who voted to do this to them. Bad legislation and court rulings can always be reversed. It just takes time and effort. It took us 40 years to see the consequences of Roe v Wade, and we are now finally waking up to how wrong that was. It won't take us that long to reverse these SSM laws.

  3. Bobby
    Posted May 9, 2013 at 1:55 pm | Permalink

    Sweet dreams, Karen. Marriage equality is here to stay.

  4. J. Morales
    Posted May 9, 2013 at 2:33 pm | Permalink

    Actually, the talking point RAJ mentions was in regards to the public getting to vote, not legislatures and the public has, with the exception of some of the more recent elections, gone for marriage everytime. As NOM has pointed out, even in the states where the public voted against marriage, the votes for marriage were higher then the votes for Romney. People also tend to conveniently forget NC, which only a little more then a year ago voted for marriage even though it had gone for Obama not too long before that and nearly went for Obama again. Proud to say I did my small part to help NC stay red and to help protect marriage.

    Anyway, there is nothing "equal" about SSM. Equality is what we already have. A person is not denied any rights when they cannot marry their biological mother. That relationship is simply ineligible for marriage, and with good reason. Homosexuality is the same way. We aren't making things more equal, we're redefining what marriage is and we're creating a situation that will lead to and has already led to religious discrimination, the exact opposite of equality and of the principles our country was founded on.

  5. Stojef
    Posted May 9, 2013 at 3:49 pm | Permalink

    Can someone please tell me how two people of the same sex who marry are denying anyone a particular parent? My husband and I are married. We don't have any kids. We're not going to have any kids.

    Does NOM think that if two people of the same sex can't get married, they'll break up, marry people of the opposite sex and have kids with them? Last time I checked, same-sex couples who aren't married can still adopt kids together.

    All I want is a clear answer about these statements. I don't want to hear about "natural marriage" and "God-designed marriage," etc. I just want to know how two people of the same sex getting married deprived children of parents.

  6. Richard
    Posted May 9, 2013 at 4:04 pm | Permalink

    Great questions and good luck Stojef. Many of us have asked this and similar questions but we never get a distinct answer. Always the responses center around imagined scenarios or statements like, "You just wait and see." We'll, we don't have to wait and we can see...and hear, testimonies from kids who love their gay parents and testimonies from professional organizations that tell us kids are fine in gay homes. "Oh no!" scream dissenters but where is the evidence?

  7. Zack
    Posted May 9, 2013 at 4:17 pm | Permalink

    @Stojef

    " Last time I checked, same-sex couples who aren't married can still adopt kids together."

    Which begs the question by Marriage needs to be redefined. In Delaware, same-sex couples are already getting all the same "rights" in Civil Unions.

    " I just want to know how two people of the same sex getting married deprived children of parents."

    Should an adoption agency prefer a male/female(Married) couple over a same-sex couple, the agency will be subject to lawsuit. The result(as we have seen in socially progressive states) is that agencies cannot adopt children to the ideal home of a mother and a father at their discretion.

  8. Ken
    Posted May 9, 2013 at 4:34 pm | Permalink

    @Zack

    Marriages are more stable and benefit the children. Many gay couples have gotten married at the behest of their children.

    If the state farms out adoption to a religious organization, they are going to run into snags. The Catholic Church, for instance, could easily set up the adoption agency as a separate entity that doesn't have to conform to Catholic sex teachings. They don't because they want to make a point.

  9. Ken
    Posted May 9, 2013 at 4:36 pm | Permalink

    @Zack

    Adoption agencies place children in the best homes that are available. The children who end up in gay homes are generally unadoptable. Heterosexuals don't want to adopt older children or children with behavioral or medical problems. Gay people tend to adopt those, which means those children don't lose a mother and father, they lose the foster care system.

    The problem is not finding children for homes, but finding homes for children. If NOM's constituency believes that gay people should not adopt, and that children need a mother and a father, adoptthe children and empty out the system so there are none left for gays to adopt. Gays can only adopt because heterosexuals don't.

  10. Stojef
    Posted May 9, 2013 at 7:41 pm | Permalink

    @Zack, LGBT need marriage because there are many benefits that are only available to spouses. And with civil unions, the couples involved are not spouses. People in civil unions can sometimes not get their partners on their health insurance because the insurance company only insures spouses. Same thing goes for paying out pensions.

    My next question for you, if civil unions provide everything that marriage does, would you give up your civil marriage license for a civil union, or is it just "good enough" for LGBT people? You'd have the rights of marriage and you could still be married in the eyes of your place of worship.

  11. Richard
    Posted May 9, 2013 at 9:31 pm | Permalink

    Great question Stojef but don't expect an answer from Zack.

  12. Stojef
    Posted May 10, 2013 at 5:52 pm | Permalink

    @Richard

    Thanks! All I'm hearing from Zack right now are the sounds of crickets chirping.

  13. Son of Adam
    Posted May 10, 2013 at 7:14 pm | Permalink

    Stojef, would you be happy being called a black man instead of a white man? Would you be happy being called a woman instead of a man? Why not if both are equal under the law? Blacks don't mind being called blacks anymore than women mind being called women. That is because they are perfectly secure with who and what they are. They don't have to pretend to be anything they are not and they don't have to get the government to coerce people into pretending that they are something they are not either.

  14. Ken
    Posted May 10, 2013 at 9:59 pm | Permalink

    @Son of Adam, I'm white but a black person once asked me if I was black. I was flattered. Someone once said I would make someone a nice housewife, but that was a compliment for my cooking. I don't mind being called what I'm not because I am secure in my identity and comfortable in my skin.

    Hate me if you like, you have the right to poison your own soul. Call me names, if you like; it's just noise in the air. I do care if your hate turns to actions; if you meddle and interfere in things that are not your business.; if you impair people's lives and remove their access to public institutions. You are not the Approval Authority of the Universe.

  15. Posted May 11, 2013 at 2:12 am | Permalink

    Stojef,

    I see that you are a little too stupid to read past NOM threads which have addressed about a thousand times the question of children's rights and adoption.

    Can anyone tell us why you are a little too stupid to read?

    I just want a clear answer as well. Should people have to repeat the same topic on every thread because you are a little too stupid to read?

    Let's not hear about how you are "too busy" or "too retarded" to read the blog - although that's obvious. Just a clear answer on why you insist on being a little too stupid to read the answers posted to your question in past threads would suffice.

  16. Son of Adam
    Posted May 11, 2013 at 2:59 am | Permalink

    "I don't mind being called what I'm not because I am secure in my identity and comfortable in my skin."

    Most people are a little more grounded in reality than you are, Ken. That is why they don't like being coerced by the government into calling things that they are not and then called names if they don't comply.

    Whatever delusions you indulge in are your business. But when you recruit the government to pressure people to share those delusions, then it becomes everyone's business.

  17. Son of Adam
    Posted May 11, 2013 at 3:05 am | Permalink

    And if your philosophical outlook in life is genuine, Ken, why should homosexuals mind having their relationships called "civil unions" instead of "marriages?"

  18. Chairm
    Posted May 11, 2013 at 10:22 am | Permalink

    Stojef said: "I just want to know how two people of the same sex getting married deprived children of parents."

    There are many correct ways to respond to your question.

    Does your getting a license to SSM directly deprive a child of her mom and dad? No, but you surely do not expect that is the problem that people mean to raise to public attention.

    The meaning of marriage is obscured by the SSM impositon. That is an odd thing to encourage Government to do especially given that the marriage law is for marriage.

    Where marriage has declined there has been an increase in sex-segregation and in disunity of motherhood and fatherhood. If you put aside the gay emphasis, for a moment, and consider what it means to society that non-marital trends have risen and have stubbornly remained high, you might recognize that these trends divide men and women in many tragic ways; and that divided homes detract from the common good -- especially in terms of the well-being of children. The no-fault divorce revisions and related government polices have done much to undermine the public understanding of the marital type of relationship. Likewise laws and government policies that have equated unwed and married childbearing.

    Okay, so the point here is that the laws governing marriage can influence marital and non-marital trends. To gain plausibility, the SSM imposition depends on non-marital trends becoming entrenched not just in the culture but in the law and in government policies. It is imposed upon the diminishment of sex integration and upon the diminishment of the unity of motherhood and fatherhood.

    Equating SSM with marriage is unjust because it draws the law farther and farther away from the core meaning of marriage. Doing that sort of thing has already provided loads of empirical evidence that is not a good thing in practical terms. Not good for the adults and not good for their children. Indeed, it has led to the trends that deprive children of either mom or dad -- and sometimes both mom and dad.

    Did you cause this? No, no such direct claim is made.

    On the other hand, we now see in California, for example, that the advocates of SSM have introduced revisions that would redefine infertility in such a way as to equate homosexuality with an actual disability of reproductive powers. This is proposed for the sake of obscuring further the significance of the type of relationship that is procreative in kind. Supposedly the redefinition of fertility and infertility will make gay people equal to non-gay people -- or somesuch. This is the line of thinking that has led some people to push for redefining marriage.

    But neither SSM nor the redefinition of infertility actually achieves the equivalence -- not morally nor legally -- however it does set gay identity politics over and above what the law is suppposed to be about. Marriage law is for marriage and the laws governing fertility are for fertility and its treatments. Neither is a sort of affirmative action plan for the gay population.

    Yet we have also see how adoption policies have been revised along the same lines. Not for the sake of children nor for the sake of uniting motherhood and fatherhood. But for the sake of pressing gay identity politics into all areas in which the type of relationship that is procreative in kind has special standing. And that negates the reason for that special standing. Instead special standing is given to group identity. This is pressed with the open intent of depriving children of either a mom or a dad.

    The push for the supremacy of gay identity politics is done in your name, Stojef, if you openly identify as gay. Perhaps you are appalled at such a thing because you might understand that history is full of tragic outcomes where group identity is held supreme (I am not referring just to gay identity politics, by the way) and in which many people -- especially children -- have suffered unnecessarily as a result.

    Provisions for designated beneficiaries need not be based on group identity -- indeed have not been so based, ever. Such provisions have long-existed without changing the marriage law. Such provisions are not premised on homosexuality nor on sexuality of any form. Rather, these provisions are based on protections for types of relationships -- espefcially those with children -- in which certain vulnerabilities are experienced due to the diminishment of sex integration and the diminishment of responsible procreation.

    The solution to the one-sexed scenario -- whether or not it is gay -- is the provision for designated beneficiaries based on the need for protections.

    The solution to non-marital trends is not the entrench those trends by revising the marriage law. Rather it is to reaffirm the core meaning of marriage in both law and policy. That core: 1) integration of the sexes, 2) provision for responsible procreation, and 3) these essentials -- the unitive and the procreative -- combined as a coherent whole (i.e. the bedrock social institution of civil society). Reaffirmation draws the law back to the marriage idea rather than distancing it more and more.

  19. Chairm
    Posted May 11, 2013 at 10:40 am | Permalink

    Ken you have made a typical mistake when you said:

    "The Catholic Church, for instance, could easily set up the adoption agency as a separate entity that doesn't have to conform to Catholic sex teachings. They don't because they want to make a point."

    1. Catholicism is lived both within and outside of organizations directly sponsored or run under the auspices of the Catholic Church. This is in itself a teaching of the Church. We are not compartmentalized beings. Further, charitable works in adoption services is not a political statement by individual Catholics nor by the Church. Catholic Charities provided adoption services that were far above the basic standards for licensing by government.

    Pushing Catholic Charities out of adoption services is a direct and open political statement by gay advocates. That is the point of the denial of adoption licenses.

    And not just a point against the Catholic Church in that state but against all -- Catholic or not, religious or irreligious -- who prioritize the mom-dad scenario over other scenarios -- including but not limited to the gay-centric scenarios. That political point is that gay identity politics reigns supreme over all other considerations.

    2. In MA, for example, Catholic Charities were the largest and most well-respected adoption services in that state. They did exemplary work. This was built on charitable donations of time, materials, and funds drawn from Catholics living the teachings of the Catholic Church. It was not built on government funding nor on governmental policies. It was not built on group identity politics -- many Jews and others participated based on shared principles that aligned with Catholic teachings. Group identity was not definitive.

    3. You might do well to consider the obvious example of an unwed mother who would give-up her child for adoption rather than abort her pregnancy. I think this example would provide you some insight into what items 1 and 2 mean in terms of living the teachings of the Catholic Church.

    If you truly desire to chase churches out of the public square, then, you might as well be more forthright in stating your desire. If you truly think it is good and just to impose non-Catholic -- and indeed anti-Catholic -- policies on Catholic Charities as the price for adoption licenses, then, your comment is an affirmative forewarning to society.

  20. bman
    Posted May 11, 2013 at 11:09 am | Permalink

    Stojef,

    Chairm gave a carefully explained response in post 18 that you and SSmers have a duty to at least try to answer.

    This is especially true for you since the post was addressed to you and you said, "All I'm hearing... are the sounds of crickets chirping."

    Not just any reply will do, and especially not sarcasm or innuendo.

    You need to quote something from Chairm's post, restate it in your own words to show you understand what the quoted excerpt means, and then try to refute it with premises or facts that properly lead to a different conclusion.

    Try to provide the kind of answer a fair minded jury should accept.

  21. bman
    Posted May 11, 2013 at 11:33 am | Permalink

    Chairm->"If you [Ken] truly think it is good and just to impose non-Catholic -- and indeed anti-Catholic -- policies on Catholic Charities as the price for adoption licenses, then, your comment is an affirmative forewarning to society.."
    -----
    Gays often ask, "How does the private marriage of two gays down the street affect your marriage?"

    We should ask them, "Why does the "marriage" of two gays down the street harm the Catholic adoption agency down the street?"

    Why does SSM law harm the right of a biological mother to have her child placed with a loving mother and father who can provide for them?

    If SSM was simply about live and let live, everyone should be able to continue the same as before as if nothing happened.

    That is not what we are seeing, however.

  22. Posted May 11, 2013 at 12:21 pm | Permalink

    bman said: If SSM was simply about live and let live, everyone should be able to continue the same as before as if nothing happened.

    That is not what we are seeing, however.
    =============

    A very important point, bman.

    You and all social conservatives in society will not be able to get a job in the social sciences in academia if you make your views known as it is. This is not how things were one or two generations ago.

    You will lose your current job or be discriminated against in getting a new job in many corporate environments for the same reason. This is not how things were one or two generations ago.

    Legalizing homosexual marriage affects heterosexuals in a number of harmful ways - all of which are unethical.

  23. Ken
    Posted May 12, 2013 at 1:51 pm | Permalink

    Alessandra, all your dire predictions are already true without gay marriage.

  24. Ken
    Posted May 12, 2013 at 1:59 pm | Permalink

    bman:

    "Why does the "marriage" of two gays down the street harm the Catholic adoption agency down the street?"

    It doesn't. They are performing a government function that has been contracted out to them. The government is not under any obligation to deal with them.

    Why does SSM law harm the right of a biological mother to have her child placed with a loving mother and father who can provide for them?

    If the child is being placed into a foster or adoptive home, it's because the mother is either dead or her paternal rights have been revoked because of repeated drug abuse or child abuse. The child has a right to live in a better environment.

    The only reason gay people can adopt children is because not enough heterosexuals do. How many adopted children do you have.

    If SSM was simply about live and let live, everyone should be able to continue the same as before as if nothing happened.

    If it were live and let live, you could marry whom you choose, and I could marry whom I choose, and Fred can marry whom he chooses.

    That is not what we are seeing, however.

    No, we don't see live and let live. You can marry, but you prevent others from marrying. That is live and prevent live.

    If two people are getting married, and you are not one of the people, and you are not performing the ceremony, it is simply none of your business.

  25. zack
    Posted May 13, 2013 at 2:20 am | Permalink

    @Stojef

    If there was a greater push to nationalize civil unions for everyone, id be tempted to sign that and be conofrtable with God recognizing my Marriage.

    @ken

    Civil unions offer all the same protections and arent any more stable than a marriage. Statisically speakng gay "marriages" are more like to end in divorce.

  26. bman
    Posted May 13, 2013 at 4:42 pm | Permalink

    bman: Why does the "marriage" of two gays down the street harm the Catholic adoption agency down the street?

    Ken: It doesn't. They are performing a government function that has been contracted out to them. The government is not under any obligation to deal with them.

    You are missing the point.

    SSM law takes away pre-existing rights from others and so it harm others.

    Catholic Charities previously had the right to provide adoption services according to Catholic moral and religious beliefs but that was taken away by the fact gays down the street could "marry."

    Why do gays think it causes no harm to impose your "morality" on the Catholic agency down the street and on all the biological mothers who also want to choose and adoption agency with Catholic values?

  27. bman
    Posted May 13, 2013 at 5:02 pm | Permalink

    bman: If SSM was simply about live and let live, everyone should be able to continue the same as before as if nothing happened.

    Ken: If it were live and let live, you could marry whom you choose, and I could marry whom I choose, and Fred can marry whom he chooses.

    ----
    Live and live does not mean government must formally recognize whatever form of marriage you or others want.

    The mere fact you can privately contract a gay "marriage" with a partner you choose satisfies live and let live, especially since granting SSm law would interfere with the pre-existing rights of others.

  28. Ken
    Posted May 13, 2013 at 7:40 pm | Permalink

    @bman, the issue is that the Catholic adoption agency is taking public money then using it to violate public policy. They could fund themselves. They could spin off a non-profit corporation that can obey the law.

    No one has a right to a government contract. No one has a right, even a religious right, to sign a contract, agree to its terms, then take the money and break the contract. The Catholic Church's religious freedom is checked in this case by their own religious belief that deception is wrong.

  29. bman
    Posted May 13, 2013 at 9:59 pm | Permalink

    Ken->@bman, the issue is that the Catholic adoption agency is taking public money then using it to violate public policy.

    The exercise of religious freedom by Catholic Charities didn't "violate public policy" before SSM.

  30. bman
    Posted May 14, 2013 at 12:24 am | Permalink

    Ken->... They could fund themselves.

    Even if they funded themselves, aren't there terms they must sign to become licensed which, if followed, would effectively cause them to violate their Catholic teachings?