NOM BLOG

National Organization for Marriage Condemns Minnesota Legislature for Redefining Marriage

 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: May 13, 2013
Contact: Elizabeth Ray or Jen Campbell (703-683-5004)


"Make no mistake, this vote will bring the demise of the DFL majority and end the careers of wayward Republicans in the Legislature once voters have their say." — Brian Brown, NOM president —

National Organization for Marriage

Washington, D.C.The National Organization for Marriage today condemned the Minnesota Legislature for redefining marriage and predicted that the vote will lead to the DFL losing their majority in the 2014 election.

"Just six months ago advocates of redefining marriage said that there was no need for the marriage amendment because Minnesota already had a traditional marriage law on the books. Now, they’ve changed that law and imposed genderless marriage,” said Brian Brown, NOM’s president. “Make no mistake, this vote will bring the demise of the DFL majority and end the
careers of wayward Republicans in the Legislature once voters have their say."

In November 2012, the state narrowly rejected a proposed constitutional amendment to preserve marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Opponents of the amendment argued, among other things, that it was not needed since the state already defined marriage as the union of a man and a woman. Because of their financial advantages (outspending supporters of the amendment by nearly $7 million) they won a narrow victory.

"The people of Minnesota did not vote for gay marriage in 2012,” said Brown. “They voted to maintain traditional marriage by maintaining the status quo. Our opponents bought a victory by claiming that marriage was not under threat of redefinition, but in fact they always intended to redefine it at the soonest possible moment. Legislators who voted to redefine marriage were foolish to do so. They cast a terrible vote that damages society, tells children they don’t deserve a mother and a father, and brands supporters of traditional marriage as bigots. We predict that this vote will be career ending for many legislators in Minnesota."

NOM was the largest funder of the marriage amendment campaign in 2012.

###

To schedule an interview with Brian Brown, President of the National Organization for Marriage, please contact Elizabeth Ray (x130), eray@crcpublicrelations.com, or Jennifer Campbell jcampbell@crcpublicrelations.com, 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).

34 Comments

  1. Randy E King
    Posted May 14, 2013 at 4:45 pm | Permalink

    Ken,

    Changing the meaning of marriage destroys it; it does not protect it.

  2. Ken
    Posted May 14, 2013 at 5:01 pm | Permalink

    @Randy, you are right that anti-discrimination laws do not cover personal conduct. Suppose I am a physician practicing medicine in a city. To do that, I have to have a professional license from the state and a business license from that city. On a weekend family picnic, when I'm not practicing medicine, anti-discrimination laws do not apply to me. If I am in my office talking to a patient, they do apply to me. I can say, "I can't help you, you need a specialist in that," but the law prohibits me from saying, "I can't help you, because you are a Baptist."

    Strict scrutiny is a courtroom criterion, it doesn't have any meaning in this context.

  3. Randy E King
    Posted May 14, 2013 at 5:31 pm | Permalink

    Ken,

    Baptists are covered under strict scrutiny; however medical professionals are held to a very specific standard unique to their profession.

  4. LonesomeRhoades
    Posted May 14, 2013 at 6:33 pm | Permalink

    Homosexuality is sin.
    Leviticus 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

  5. Ken
    Posted May 14, 2013 at 7:30 pm | Permalink

    @Randy, I know that well. What I meant is the Baptist can't be discriminated against, but the doctor cannot discriminate. If it is a Baptist doctor, it works both ways. If it is a Baptist minister, then in his professional role he cannot be restricted from discriminating, but he cannot be discriminated against.

  6. Ken
    Posted May 14, 2013 at 7:53 pm | Permalink

    @Randy, Clerks of the court cannot overrule the judge. Since they are not acting in a personal capacity, they cannot exercise personal discretion and religious freedom doesn't apply.

  7. Ken
    Posted May 14, 2013 at 7:53 pm | Permalink

    @Randy, Some years ago, a couple came to me to be married. I am not the clerk of the court, so I could exercise personal discretion. I turned them down because the man revealed a problem that would have resulted in it being an abusive marriage.

  8. Forrest
    Posted May 14, 2013 at 8:12 pm | Permalink

    According to Ken's circular math and even worse logic, that means at least 250 million Anericans live in states where counterfeit marriage is not recognized.
    I maybe just a country boy but that's a 5-1 margin of people that do not live in states that want to promote sodomy based marriage.
    12 states with Democrat super majorities allow ssm, while some 35 have restrictions against it. Only in the deluded mind of a homosexual does that equate to " winning."

  9. Ken
    Posted May 14, 2013 at 8:48 pm | Permalink

    @Forrest,

    57 million Americans live states where same-sex marriage is legal, not 250 million.

    In 2012, SSM was legalized in ME, MD, and WA. In 2013, it was legalized in RI, DE, and MN. The number of states with SSM doubled in the last 17 months.

    NOM, FRC, and company, have not succeeded in banning SSM in a state where it is legal.

    That means the SSM side has taken 6 of your men and you have taken none of theirs. So far, they are winning.

  10. richarfd C
    Posted May 14, 2013 at 9:00 pm | Permalink

    To Forrest

  11. Will
    Posted May 15, 2013 at 12:59 am | Permalink

    @ Richard Standing Ovation

    As there is a living bible

    There is a living constitution.

  12. John
    Posted May 15, 2013 at 9:51 am | Permalink

    Two common myths related to same-sex marriage:

    (1) That homosexuality is either a simple choice or is innate. What is lost in this is that individual behavior evolves over time. Humans are adaptable animals that often experiment with their behavior and their environments, and when the experiment leads to positive feedback they become more inclined to try the behavior again. Now, an individual may have more potential to receive more positive feedback from behavior B than behavior A, but if the individual tries behavior A first and receives positive feedback, the individual might never try B or might try B with a negative attitude ensuring negative feedback, maybe even on the basis of a conclusion that the individual is of a type that only enjoys A.

    (2) That once same-sex marriage is accepted, we will have a stable and harmonious society. This is blatantly false. The radical feminists who have been pushing for same-sex marriage have been doing so with the aim of creating an all-lesbian, all-female society to follow the eradication of men. The acceptance of lesbian marriage rewards them for their efforts and encourages them to make further steps towards their goals. They will set up more girls camps and schools where they will indoctrinate girls with a belief system suggesting that only girls and women are to be valued and trusted and men and boys are to be distrusted and avoided. They hope to create further division leading to even more mistrust and even more division in a positive feedback loop. This will obviously create social instability and greatly increase the probability of catastrophic outcomes leading to human extinction, but they appear to prefer a high risk of extinction to the continuation of men and heterosexuality.

  13. John
    Posted May 15, 2013 at 12:20 pm | Permalink

    I would add to the previous post that the radical feminist movement, which has everywhere pushed for same-sex marriage, made some progress but never became a serious force until elites began to support it. Elite support has grown tremendously in the past couple of decades as elites found that radical feminism and same-sex marriage critically weakened the labor left and turned the left into a movement supporting a war between the sexes rather than a war between capital and labor, the latter being much more threatening to the elevated position of such elites. As radical feminism grows in power, the elite males will eventually find themselves threatened by it, though it might be too late for them to prevail in the conflict.

  14. John Noe
    Posted May 16, 2013 at 12:09 am | Permalink

    Let me add that I too am sad and dissapointed in MN. Since I have been following this blog I have come to have a great deal of respect for the tirelesss efforts of Barb Chamberlin and I know she is from MN.

    I would also like to congradulate Kelly Yanta and the superb work she did on the marriage videos on this blog. I really appreciated her work and just loved how she cared about children and the institution of marriage.

    In these end times we have to know that the forces of evil win. Yes we truly are in the last days.

  15. Ken
    Posted May 16, 2013 at 10:28 am | Permalink

    @John

    Calvin taught that salvation or damnation is innate; this is called double predestination. If Calvin is right and if sexuality indicates one's eternal fate, then it follows that sexuality is innate, not chosen.

    If Calvin is right that we are all depraved, then neither banning nor permitting same-sex marriage improves the human character.

    If Calvin is right about double predestination, the number of gay people cannot increase or decrease, however, their visibility can change.

    Permitting same-sex marriage creates the illusion that the number of gay people is increasing. Banning same-sex marriage creates the illusion that they are decreasing.

    Permitting same-sex marriage allows us to see things as they really are, banning it makes us tap around in an illusion. Society remains the same.

  16. Ken
    Posted May 16, 2013 at 10:36 am | Permalink

    Radical feminism is unsustainable because it lacks internal coherence.

  17. bman
    Posted May 16, 2013 at 12:02 pm | Permalink

    Ken->If Calvin is right and if sexuality indicates one's eternal fate, then it follows that sexuality is innate, not chosen.

    By that logic, a criminal could say, "But Judge, if Calvin was right, It was not my choice to rob the bank."

    To which the judge would reply, 'You are sentenced to 5 years in prison, and If Calvin was right, it was not my choice to do that either."

  18. Ken
    Posted May 16, 2013 at 12:47 pm | Permalink

    bman:

    You have a point, but we are working in two different but related theological systems.

    Calvin only said we are not free to choose our eternal destiny. Otherwise we have the freedom to choose, say, what to eat for dinner and whether to rob a bank.

    Later, hyper Calvinism became deterministic.

    What I said is Calvinism, what you said is hyper Calvinism, and of course in hyper Calvinism you are right!

    Calvin also said that only the elect can know anything about God.. He also said that you cannot know if another person is elect.

    If you cannot know if anyone other than yourself is elect, you cannot know if Calvin is elect, and if only the elect know anything about God, you can't know if Calvin knows anything about God. In other words, the truth of Calvinism is unknowable.

    Just a sort of theological joke for those of us who are not Calvinists.

  19. bman
    Posted May 16, 2013 at 1:34 pm | Permalink

    Ken->Calvin ...said..we have the freedom to choose, say, what to eat for dinner and whether to rob a bank.

    Please show where Calvin said anything like that.

  20. Ken
    Posted May 16, 2013 at 2:15 pm | Permalink

    It's in his Institutes. I don't have a copy.

  21. bman
    Posted May 16, 2013 at 2:55 pm | Permalink

    Ken->Permitting same-sex marriage creates the illusion that the number of gay people is increasing.

    Would it affect the numbers of youth solicited by homosexuals?

  22. bman
    Posted May 16, 2013 at 3:06 pm | Permalink

    Ken->It's in his Institutes. I don't have a copy.
    -----
    I think Calvin was what you call "hyper-Calvinist" and the institutes do not support the distinction you claim for Calvin's system.

  23. bman
    Posted May 16, 2013 at 6:13 pm | Permalink

    Permitting same-sex marriage creates the illusion that the number of gay people is increasing. Banning same-sex marriage creates the illusion that they are decreasing.

    That is an unproven hypothesis at best.

    Besides, an Ssm law would likely increase sexual immorality around children and by children by eroding the moral restraints that protected society in the past.

  24. Ken
    Posted May 16, 2013 at 9:53 pm | Permalink

    @bman, the people who mess with kids are mainly married men in their 20s and 30s and their victims are their children, nieces, and nephews. Go check with your police department. Gay people are less likely to solicit children. If anything, the rate would go down. I read that gay men are becoming much less promiscuous because of gay marriage.

    It's not an unproven thesis that the number of gay people is constant and that marriage merely makes them more visible, That is the life experience of any gay person who remembers the early 1970s..

  25. Ken
    Posted May 16, 2013 at 9:55 pm | Permalink

    bman, Calvin was not a hyper Calvinist, because it is a a variant of Calvinism that originated long after his death. Read his Institutes and read about the Synod of Dort and you'll see.

  26. Ken
    Posted May 16, 2013 at 10:00 pm | Permalink

    bman -> "an SSM law would likely increase sexual immorality around children and by children by eroding the moral restraints that protected society in the past."

    Sounds vaguely plausible but that not what we observe in jurisdictions with SSM. SSM laws place the restraints of marriage on gay people, thus adding moral restraints. The child molestation in Belgium and the Netherlands was caused by Catholic priests, not by married gays.

  27. bman
    Posted May 17, 2013 at 11:40 am | Permalink

    Ken->Read his Institutes and read about the Synod of Dort and you'll see.

    I do not recall anything like your bank claim being in those documents.

    Bottom line is you didn't quote anything, and so your point was not proved.

    Of course, my point was not proved ether.

    Since it doesn't affect SSM either way, its a question for another day and place.

    BTW, those you call hyper-Calvinists will say they are simply Calvinists. They would say your view of Calvin came later.

  28. Ken
    Posted May 17, 2013 at 11:53 am | Permalink

    @bman, If you don't have access to theological reference materials, you'll have to ask a systematic theology professor at an accredited seminary.

  29. bman
    Posted May 17, 2013 at 11:59 am | Permalink

    bman: ....an Ssm law would likely increase sexual immorality around children and by children by eroding the moral restraints that protected society in the past.

    Ken: ...If anything, the rate would go down. I read that gay men are becoming much less promiscuous because of gay marriage.

    You missed the point I was making.

    I was not simply referring to homosexual conduct, but to irresponsible sex in general increasing around children and being practiced by children because the morality that once protected society from sexual anarchy would be eventually eradicated by SSm law.

  30. bman
    Posted May 17, 2013 at 12:25 pm | Permalink

    Ken: "If you don't have access to theological reference materials, you'll have to ask a systematic theology professor at an accredited seminary."

    Different professors would give different answers.

    Besides, you already said you do not have copy. I have a copy along with numerous books on both sides of that debate.

  31. bman
    Posted May 17, 2013 at 12:46 pm | Permalink

    Ken: "It's not an unproven thesis that the number of gay people is constant and that marriage merely makes them more visible..."
    ----
    Your claim remains unproven in this discussion.

  32. John Noe
    Posted May 18, 2013 at 12:20 am | Permalink

    Thanks bman for helping me out. This Ken bonehead did not even bother to fully read my post. It was directed at Barb from Minnesota as an encouragement to her and an appreciation of her hard work. It was directed at Kelly as I absolutely loved her superb videos shown on the MMA blog. All of her videos redone her by NOM shows what a loving and caring woman she is about marriage and children.

    I was simply giving some comfort and encouragement to my fellow Christians. This was foretold in the last days. I just watched a video on the RFID chip on YouTube. One more example of the last days and the mark of the wild beast.

  33. Posted May 20, 2013 at 7:24 am | Permalink

    Defend pro-gender marriage. Because gender matters to everyone, including those with same-sex attraction.

  34. bman
    Posted May 21, 2013 at 10:01 pm | Permalink

    Will->As there is a living bible There is a living constitution.

    The Constitution is essentially a contract between the states regarding the formation of a shared federal government.

    Like all contracts, the original meaning is retained unless otherwise amended.

Comments are temporarily disabled. Please try back later.