Washington – The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) praised the Minnesota Legislature for voting in a bi-partisan fashion to put an amendment on the ballot in 2012 that would preserve marriage as the union of a man and a woman, and committed that it would support the amendment next year.
The following statement can be attributed to Brian Brown, president of NOM:
“We commend the bi-partisan majority in the Minnesota House of Representatives that voted Saturday night to put an amendment on the ballot preserving marriage as the union of a man and a woman. The House joins a bi-partisan majority in the state Senate, and the amendment will now go before voters in November 2012. NOM looks forward to supporting the campaign and lending our expertise and resources to those of allies in the state. We will have a thorough, respectful, discussion with the voters of Minnesota on all the reasons why the definition of marriage should be preserved as the union of a man and a woman, and to explain the risks to Minnesotans if they allow an activist judge or liberal legislators to redefine marriage in the future without public approval.
“The vote Saturday night represents another in a string of stinging defeats for the gay-marriage group Human Rights Campaign (HRC) and their state allies, and is further concrete evidence that the widely-reported claim that same-sex marriage is inevitable is a lie. No state in this nation has embraced same-sex marriage since 2009, and many have explicitly rejected it. In 2009, New York, New Jersey and Maine turned down gay marriage, and in 2010 voters in Iowa threw three judges off their Supreme Court who had imposed same-sex marriage. Earlier this year, Maryland and Rhode Island – two deep blue states who were said by the HRC to be likely to adopt gay marriage this year – explicitly rejected it. Now Minnesota, another liberal state, is on the path to enact a marriage amendment. We hope that the media will start to pay attention at what the American people are doing through their actions – they are rejecting same-sex marriage in droves.
“We are confident that voters in Minnesota will vote to adopt the marriage amendment preserving traditional marriage against judicial and legislative activism, just as voters in 30 other states have done. We look forward to being part of the campaign.”
30 Comments
Hopefully the voters will do the right thing and vote NO on this amendement.
Getting Catholics out to vote for marriage will be key. It is encouraging to see the bishops of MN standing up to speak to Catholics in support of the measure. If they get engaged, we will see much greater Catholic support.
It is lovely to see different religious denominations and different racial minority groups coming together to support the health and wealth of this nation by continuing to recognize that you can't make something beneficial by writing the word "beneficial" on a pretty little sticker and slapping it on.
Gothelittle, more spiteful belittling of gay Americans and their families. No wondered you are so hated. Gay people represent every race, creed, nationality, religion in all societies -- don't start implying there's something special about a pitiful coalition of hate that are whipped into a frezy by NOM and its cash.
Derek -
I don't think there's a coalition of hate, but I do think that heterosexuality and its procreational capacity is pretty special in contrast to homosexuality and its capacity to do nothing. Oh, wait, it's pretty good at spreading disease.
Mike - It's comments like yours that give re-inforce the idea that people against SSM are homophobic.
Carlos, here's your chance to show Mike up by pointing out the social and natural benifits homosexuality contributes to humanity. We're all ears.
"Gay people represent every race, creed, nationality, religion in all societies"
I know. When the California SSM activists started bullying blacks, gay blacks were among the victims.
SSM activists are sufficiently full of hatred that violence simply breaks out among them against those whom they hate. SSM activists have both homosexuals and heterosexuals among them. Their hatred and violence harm the gay community as well as the traditional marriage advocates they wish to target.
Ahhhh, Gothelittle... Her own usual hateful self, I see.
And after that, I dare NOM to whine with a straight face that it's not a hate group, and that in fact it is the gays and lesbians that are hating. No, no, we are standing tall and proud and are not ashamed to fight you and your lies, one at a time.
One thing is certain: anti-gay hate and discrimination have got to go. We will make sure they do...
I'm trying to honestly consider social and natural benefits that homosexuality contributes to society...
and I can't think of one. Interesting. I never thought about it that way.
Hopefully the voters will do the right thing and vote YES on this amendement.
Mary Ann, There are two ways to think about it:
How does it benefit society or individuals?
How does it harm society or individuals? What is left out of most of the circular arguments aoout "loving" homosexual relationships , is that activist homosexuality physically harms its adherents, because human bodies were not designed (or evolved, if you prefer) for homosexual acts. Male and female bodies were designed for mating, which is the whole point of courtship and marriage - since homosexuals do not mate, there is no equal right to marriage.
@ conservativeNY & Mary Ann - Oh, how about every single social and natural benefit that OSM results in.
@ Mike Brooks - Heterosexual sex is pretty darn good at spreading disease too. Been to Africa lately?
"I'm trying to honestly consider social and natural benefits that homosexuality contributes to society..."
Maybe it's just me, but I think the Sistine Chapel is absolutely amazing. "Go tell it on the Mountain" continues to be one of my favorite novels, and I wonder how the civil rights movement would have progressed if the 1963 March on Washington hadn't happened.
I could go on and on, but I think you get the idea.
NOM is winning the marriage fight nationally and it sure looks like the will of the people will prevail. They are tolerant of homosexuals, but voters don't call it marriage.
The right vote is a "yes" vote.
How does the traditional and historical definition of marriage belittle gay Americans and their families.
Of course, if gay people were belittled for over a thousand years, they must have been doing something wrong, otherwise they would not be belittled.
@ James - "Heterosexual sex" doesn't spread disease if it is defined and recognized as one man and one woman for life, which is the whole point of marriage.
@ Bruce - The debate is not about the contributions of individuals like artists, writers, it is not about individuals at all. It is not about Individual characteristics, like race. It is not even about comparing loving relationships between two individuals, since there are many loving relationships between two "samesex" persons that are not be construed as "equal" to marriage: brothers and sisters, for example. You are dissembling: Homosexual activists first define a "couple" by heterosexuality and intercourse, and then dismiss both heterosexuality and intercourse from the argument, while claiming equality with the original definition of the couple. But if the sexuality and sex acts being compared are not the same, with the same results, they cannot possibly be "equal" to each other.
twingirl2, do you know which disease is spread by lesbian sex if lesbian sex is defined as one woman and one woman for life?
So it's hateful for me to point out that SSM activists are using threats and intimidation against blacks, even gay blacks, due to the color of their skin?
Well, I'll tell you this.
My ancestors were abolitionists. They were members of the Underground Railroad. Some of them went to jail rather than stop helping black slaves escape.
I have an entire side of my extended family that is black and half-black, because freed slaves married abolitionists in Massachusetts.
Those ancestors of mine were also hated and called hateful, by the white slave owners in the Deep South.
If you are going to call me hateful for the same reason, opposing crimes committed against a person due to the color of his skin, then I wear that label proudly along with my abolitionist ancestors. "Remember this," they tell me. "We were called hateful too."
"Of course, if gay people were belittled for over a thousand years, they must have been doing something wrong, otherwise they would not be belittled."
This is a digusting point of view, which one could use to justify all kinds of abominations, from slavery to the subjugation of women.
I'll go one step further here, because I really feel strongly about this. I don't care if you're religious. I don't care if you're politically correct. I don't care if you call yourself Conservative Libertarian. I don't care if you think your mission was handed to you by God Himself. I don't care if you're gay or straight. I don't care if you're about to Save the Universe singlehandedly.
It is wrong to harass someone for nothing more than the color of his skin.
Those who do, no matter their logic or reasoning, are kin to every other racist organization in this country, in this world.
SSM advocates, especially in California and New York, have targeted people of color for their color, because the majority of people with their color objects to SSM. Well, I'm sorry. Even if blacks are disproportionately committing crimes, as another example, I do not support the police pulling people over for "driving while black". "Some blacks commit crimes" should NEVER equate "This man deserves to be arrested because he is black." Same goes for intimidation by SSM activists.
The SSM advocates on this page had better either condemn the racism shown by other members of their activist group or understand that I will not stop championing the rights of blacks and Hispanics to walk the streets without being assaulted (verbally or physically) by SSM activists.
And if you don't like hearing it, then STOP DOING IT. (or, failing that, stop posting/reading comments on a page for a group against SSM. I don't post comments on pro-gay or pro-SSM blogs.)
We have come too far... too... far... I avoid swear words, but I have such emphasis on this that it is hard to avoid them right now... We have come too far to start oppressing minorities as a group because you don't like the family values espoused by many of them. We are not the color of our skin.
Andrew, try http://www.avert.org/lesbians-safe-sex.htm
List of diseases and conditions for which lesbians are at risk. Many of them are based on the polygamous/bisexual actions of the typical lesbian, but there are some nasty things (yeast infections being the most benign) that can happen to a monogamous woman and can be passed to a lesbian partner.
"I know. When the California SSM activists started bullying blacks, gay blacks were among the victims."
You nailed it Gothelittle.
"The desire to scapegoat blacks for Prop 8's defeat has exposed the now not-so-latent racism in our movement."
http://www.pamshouseblend.com/diary/8077/
That's why when they use terms like, "bigot" to silence us we need to know one thing, they're just projecting.
http://renwl.org/gayle-king-hosts-dan-savage-the-tragic-disconnect-between-black-media-and-black-sglgay-america/11760/
Many of the most prominent gay leaders have a well recorded history of not so thinly veiled racism, when things don't go the way the like.
http://conversations.blackvoices.com/gay-brothers/8f504633687140a0b70d16f87ff42bd6/racist-white-gay-po%20.../78f7943bf3c04610879f85c7ebdb0566
Gothelittle, seems like you point out hate only to be called a hater. Kinda feels like third grade all over again.
You keep going. It must be neat having abolitionists among your ancestors.
You make me sick NOM
Waisting money just to stop people from falling in love and sharing a life together.
SHAME SHAME ON MOM
History will show you for the bigots you are.
Gothelittle - I am not sure why you are resting on your family's laurels but just because your ancestors were abolishnists does not mean you are on the right side of history now nor does it mean you get to criticize other people's behavior.
Edgwaterprog, if I was resting on my family's laurels, then I'd be sitting back and feeling quietly and smugly proud of myself INSTEAD OF coming out on sites like this to explain firmly to SSM protestors that I do not and will never condone their racist actions. I'm not resting on any laurels. I'm continuing their work.
And yes, my family being abolitionists and the descendants of freed slaves *does* give me *every* right to criticize other people's racist behavior, especially when hate crimes are being committed. In fact, I don't *need* to have abolitionist ancestors to have the right to criticize anybody for targeting people for threats and intimidation due to their skin color.
Nobody should feel that way. Even if your ancestors were all white slave-owners in Alabama, you should feel empowered to speak out against racism today.
It amazes me, edgwaterprog, that you are willing to defend racism. Don't you realize that your people are targeting *their own people*... black and Hispanic gays and lesbians... because they can't see past these people's skin color?
If I truly did not care about gays and lesbians at all, if I was truly bigoted, if I was truly racist, I would not care if you fall upon each other like wolves. However, I will not condone violence or death threats made to anyone gay or straight, by anyone gay or straight, especially due to skin color, and I am frankly horrified that you do.
Same thing every day. Just reading all of the thoughtfull posts from Gothelittle, the three Michael's, twingirl, MaryAnn and the others, you notice two things in common.
(1) They present great arguments against SSM, and ask what is the benefit to society?
(2) The pro SSM advocates as always do not have any answers to disprove the above posts. Every day they play the hate card. Attacking the messenger instead of refuting the message.
On another blog I just got through watching the same sex marriage debate between Small and Brown on YouTube. Mr Brown cleaned his clock. The pro SSM advocate could not come up with one benefit to society.
Great for the people of Minnesota who finally get to vote on this and here is hoping for a Yes vote in 2012.
The post#26 has to be the most absurb post on this blog. Our normal society criticizes human behavior and conduct all the time. We even pass laws regulating this human conduct and behavior.
Gothelittle knows her family history, and is proud of her heritage. That is awesome! SSM denies children in their households the same right of sharing the family history on both the mother's and father's sides. Marriage between a man and a woman unites both sides of the family tree, and gives children a sense of their place in their family's history. Proponents of SSM are quick to speak about love, but what message does a child living under that circumstance receive, when he/she sees both of the parents of their friends sticking around to raise the kids? Sooner or later, the child of SSM is bound to ask why their own opposite-sexed parent didn't love them enough to stick around, when other kids' parents, do.