NOM BLOG

Category Archives: Children

Why Same-Sex ‘Marriage’ Will Never Live Up To The Real Thing

Two authors have penned an article at The Federalist pointing out several key reasons “why marriage deserves special attention from government – and its redefinition does not”:

ThinkstockPhotos-783213991. The Species Only Survives Because Of Heterosexual Relationships
Marriage produces more taxpayers. By providing a social stamp of approval and public policies friendly to marriage, government is encouraging the survival of the human species and the creation of more tax dollars in the environment that—study after study has found—is best for children.

 

2. Children Benefit From Marriage—Not Same Sex Marriage
[C]ontrary to popular reports, people raised by same-sex couples are not as well developed as those raised by married parents. Comprehensive research published earlier this year by Catholic University of America researcher Dr. Paul Sullins found that ‘emotional problems were over twice as prevalent for children with same-sex parents than for children with opposite-sex parents.’

3. Marriage Is Physically Healthy; Same Sex Marriage Is Not
In 2011, a survey of 90 studies found that single men die eight to 17 years earlier than married males. Life spans for single women decrease by seven to 15 years compared with their married counterparts.

Conversely, a number of studies have found lower life expectancies for same-sex sexual couples. While the invention of anti-retroviral drugs has narrowed the gap, anal sex between men has led to this small segment of society making up at least two-thirds of all HIV/AIDS cases in America.

. . .

Taxpayers have a right to not be held financially accountable for poor life decisions with predictable consequences.

4. Society Is Empowered By Marriage And Weakened By Its Redefinition
[T]he families that come from marriage create communities that empower each other. Bonds are formed, friends are made. As has been seen in Europe, Canada, and a number of U.S. states, however, redefining marriage brings persecution, reduction in liberties of speech and religion, and threatens the very fabric of equal treatment under the law.

. . .

The burden of proof to expand the government’s definition to “earn social approval, tax benefits, etc.,” of marriage is on same-sex couples. Like anyone who wants to receive a degree or a certificate, same-sex couples must make the case that they add benefits equal to those of marriage.

Alas, based upon the available science, the many benefits of marriage are not transferrable to its redefinition for same-sex couples.

Many people who advocate redefining marriage act as if it is a political institution, something that can be changed to suit changing societal whims. But marriage has intrinsic meaning – it is the union of one man and one woman – and it witnesses eternal truths: that men and women are complimentary, naturally made for each other, that only the union of men and women can create new life, and that children thrive when they receive the love of both their mother and their father.

See The Federalist for more.

Heartbreak, Lessons, and Encouragement Emerge from Religious Liberty Rally

Last week, in Des Moines, Iowa, a group of people persecuted because of their beliefs about marriage gathered for a religious liberty rally organized by Sen. Ted Cruz. Of those present, many spoke publicly about the hardships they face, as well as their faith in God. The Daily Signal reports on the event:

Iowa couple Dick and Betty Odgaard, who are Mennonite, told  how they were forced to close their business, the Gortz Haus – a wedding venue located in an historic church.

The wedding venue also served as an art gallery, flower shop, and restaurant. After declining a gay couple’s request to use their venue for their wedding in 2013, the couple became the target for attacks.

Asked why they didn’t host the same-sex wedding, Betty said, “We could not celebrate a sin.”

The Odgaards were fined $5,000 last year. In July, the couple closed the doors on the business.

. . .

Those speaking on a panel at the event included former Atlanta Fire Chief Kelvin Cochran, Oregon bakers Aaron and Melissa Klein, retired Air Force Senior Master Sgt. Phillip Monk, and Washington florist Barronelle Stutzman.

rbee_29

Iowa-based radio host Steve Deace moderated the discussion.

All of the panelists shared their stories of heartbreaks, lessons, and encouragement.

“I was never in a court,” said Aaron Klein, who has been fined $135K after not baking a wedding cake for a lesbian couple.

The Klein family owns Sweet Cakes by Melissa.

“Before all of this happened, I had a very large lack of trust in my God. I hate to admit that, but I did," Melissa Klein said. "And through this and through standing for him, I have learned to trust him so much.”

This week the Klein family baked 10 cakes to send to LGBTQ groups to show love for these individuals, even though the Kleins do not support gay marriage.

“I would just encourage you all,” Melissa continued, “stand for God and be strong because He can move in your life like you have never seen Him move before.”

The US Supreme Court has made a grave mistake in imposing same-sex ‘marriage’ on the nation. Until we are able to take the steps necessary to reverse this illegitimate decision, it is imperative that there be no more victims of persecution or punishment of people simply for standing up for the truth of marriage. We call on Congress and the states to pass the First Amendment Defense Act prohibiting government from discriminating against people who support marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

See The Daily Signal for more.

Marriage and Family: You Can't Have One Without the Other

Shortly after the Supreme Court legitimized “same-sex marriage,” the noted New York Times columnist, David Brooks, wrote a piece calling for what he termed “conservatives” to give up the fight for marriage and focus on what he viewed as a different culture war: the fight for the family.

Dr. Thomas Lickona, in an open letter to Brooks responds to Brooks' call for conservatives to end the fight for marriage:

200226088-001The two great Gospel values are truth and love.  They’re not only compatible; they’re inseparable.  If you wish to speak the truth, you must do so with love (as Christ did).  If you love someone, you must speak the truth to them.  John Paul II said we are “called to build the civilization of truth and love.”  When competing values have a claim on our conscience, It’s never either or, but always both and.

. . .

The family is the foundation of society and the first school of virtue.  The sexual revolution has been an unrelenting assault on that foundation.  Can we achieve the stable families you say we need without people who make an enduring, sacrificial commitment to each other and the children they bring into the world? Research findings suggest otherwise, with negative effects on children – as you note.

. . .

When our Center addresses educating for character in the sexual domain (not our main focus but an important part of our work), we often begin with things that are likely to create common ground.  For example, nearly all people feel that more should be taught to our young about the emotional dangers of premature sexual involvement—something that gets short shrift in most sex education.

Most people, liberals and conservatives alike, are also concerned about the sexualization of children. Stories that illustrate the sexual corruption of children by our hypersexualized culture move them to take stock of our sexual culture and the unanticipated fallout of the sexual revolution.

The best way to protect the family is to protect the institution of marriage as a union between one man and one woman. The family is the safeguard of children, so the protection of marriage and the protection of the family are interrelated. We cannot have a stable one without the functioning other.

See Aleteia for more.

Why is the Family Suffering?

What happens when a child is mistreated? Someone usually calls the local Child Protective Services. What happens when so many children are mistreated that the average Child Protective Service agent has a fifty family caseload? The local Child Protective Services sues the government for assigning an inordinate case overload.

It may sound insane, but in Indiana, that is just what is happening. And it’s not just the Hoosier State—across the nation more families cannot function without government intervention. Why this recent rash of heavily dysfunctional families? Joseph Turner of The Federalist explores the root of the problem:

ThinkstockPhotos-468044452Let’s look at single parenthood. One-parent households receive nearly twice as many CPS reports as those of married families. About 80 percent of reports are related to neglect rather than abuse. It doesn’t take much imagination to consider how the emotional, logistical, and economic demands of children could place single parents in some compromising situations. This is true even for the most loving and well-intentioned parents. Lose your five-year-old in a crowded mall? Miss a payment on your light bill? It’ll probably be okay…but you might get a knock on your door. Children are relentless, and parents are flawed. Raising kids is not meant to be a one-person task.

. . .

Let’s look at cohabitation as a marriage alternative, and by now a norm. Here, the statistics are frightening. Children living with a mother and cohabiting partner are 11 times more likely to experience physical, sexual, or emotional abuse than who live with married parents. Even children living with their biological unmarried parents are at four times the risk. Most cohabiting relationships are doomed to end eventually, exposing any children involved to the trauma of separation from parents and caregivers. And kids in the all-too-common families with one mother but multiple fathers are likely to experience any combination of the above risk factors during childhood, perhaps several times over.

We need to reeducate the populace about the importance of marriage. Devaluing the institution has left children bereft of the proper care they require. Turner offers possible solutions:

ThinkstockPhotos-126479084To protect American kids from harm on a large scale, we need to be willing to recognize a basic truth: children are safer and better off living with their married biological parents. As a society, we shouldn’t be afraid to say so. From high school sex ed on, adolescents should be warned about the dangers of unwed childbearing. The ample empirical benefits of marriage ought to be emphasized, with future children in mind. There should be pamphlets, instructional videos, motivational speakers, the works. We’re already on a mission to provide “comprehensive” sex education at ever younger ages. We encourage kids to stay in school, and educate them about college and career paths. There’s no reason we can’t fit marriage and family into the curriculum.

. . .

Legislators should be willing to craft policies and fund programs that encourage marriage norms. Create tax incentives for people to get married and raise their own children. Start public education campaigns. Subsidize pre- and post-marital counseling for those who need it. There’s any number of ways we could strengthen marriage culture if that’s what we decided we wanted to do. Measures like these would go further to protect our children than all the CPS workers we can fit in the budget.

Marriage is a cornerstone of society. We must protect it, for our own good, and our children’s’ good. We need strong marriages between one man and one woman. Whenever possible, children need to be raised by their biological parents: their father and mother. Our nation is far from perfect, but we can attempt to give our children the best lives possible, by encouraging marriage to be upheld as the sacred and precious bond that it is: the bond that unites a man and woman is the bond that holds together the family.

See The Federalist for more.

Children Are Not Commodities

So far, five videos exposing Planned Parenthood’s atrocities have been released. The videos show a disgusting, utterly callous affront to human life: first Planned Parenthood employees talking about aborted children in terms of paychecks and sports cars, then actual depictions of trays full of frozen baby organs. These videos demonstrate horrifically the objectification of children all too common in society and among activists on the left. Such objectification will dramatically increase as a result of the US Supreme Court’s decision in the Obergefell marriage case, which treats children merely as tools for obtaining adult pleasure. As Robert Oscar Lopez writes at Public Discourse:

ThinkstockPhotos-527616603Obergefell brings Roe v. Wade to its climax because it completes the transformation of children into objects. For children will be forced to love gay adults who are not their parents. To Kennedy, gay adults have a right not to feel lonely, which includes the right to start families. In fact, he states that they have a right to “custody” and “birth certificates” (i.e., birth certificates falsified to include two same-sex parents and erase biological parents of the opposite sex). To satisfy the human right to dignity and to thwart the civil injustice of “loneliness,” children must be produced and provided to people who want them, whether or not those people conceived the child by making love.

Children not only can, but must be manufactured. The transfers of custody must generate orphans and abandoned children, paying gamete donors and surrogates to abandon and orphan their offspring, so that this new product—the loving and obedient human being—can be delivered to paying customers.

. . .

The wine-sipping doctor of Planned Parenthood didn’t come out of nowhere. This individual was dealing with people who claimed to be doing research with the fetal tissues. She was educated by a system that framed her brutal trade as not only acceptable, but just and fruitful.

Dr. Nucatola is the inevitable offspring of a society that has no way to discuss humanity, no real lens into the history of past atrocities, no true connection to all the arts and letters left by millennia of writers about what makes us human and why humanity is precious. She is the indispensable sentinel of the society and the educational system that gave us the twin disasters of abortion and gay marriage.

ThinkstockPhotos-119998604We must protect our children and educate them so that future atrocities like the Planned Parenthood scandal will not occur. Our children deserve to know how precious every life is, how every child has a mother and a father, and how every human life is unique and irreplaceable. #AnotherBoy suffered a cruel death because our society has turned its back on its foundation: the family.

To protect our children, we must protect the family. To protect the family, society needs to protect marriage. Without marriage as the union between one man and one woman, our children will be considered “commodities.” Our society can be educated; our children can be protected. When marriage is upheld as only between one man and one woman, children are viewed as they truly are: precious humans, who are the hope for the future.

For the full article, please visit Public Discourse.

White House Witness: Protect Every Child's Right to a Mom and Dad

Join the National Organization for Marriage as we gather in front of the White House to pray the Rosary on August 15th from 10am-12pm. The purpose of this event is to give witness to the nation the glory of God's plan for marriage through prayer, fasting & sacrifice.

Our goal is to have at least 500 men (and women) gathered in front of the White House to show our support for the belief that every child has the right to a mother and a father.

Please see White House Witness for more details. We hope you can make it!

The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. - Edmund Burke

Redefining Marriage Puts All Children at Risk

Our culture has become one focused on satisfying adult desires, no matter the cost. The recent Planned Parenthood scandal reinforces this fact, but its existence is not the cause. Of course, selling baby body parts is disgusting and an egregious offense against humanity, but it can only exist if people want it to exist. And we, as a culture, do.

ThinkstockPhotos-79072286American culture has left chastity by the wayside, thus endangering the lives of the unborn. This first surfaced in the divorce culture, then in the acceptance of abortion, and now in the legalization of same-sex marriage. Ryan T. Anderson explains this progression:

Adults must have what they want, including children. If those children cannot be conceived through a natural act of love, they must be manufactured. Far more children will be destroyed than will be born, of course, but we have decided that adult desires come first.

Giving people the right to get what they want, even a baby, sounds like an expansion of freedom. But it’s not. Activities that were once prohibited are now acceptable, protected, and even privileged. The Supreme Court ensured the legalization of contraception and abortion, for example. And now the government mandates that other people promote them. Obamacare requires employers to provide free contraception and abortifacients, and the State of California and the District of Columbia are attempting to require insurance coverage of elective surgical abortion.

ThinkstockPhotos-100614973Children should be conceived within a relationship that will provide them with the love and care of the man and woman who gave them life. The unborn child has a right to life, yes, but also deserves a mother and father, and where possible the mother and father who brought the child into being. Because of human frailty, it isn’t always possible for a child to be raised in his natural family, but that should be the ideal to which our policy aspires. And we should never intentionally deprive a child of such an upbringing. And yet redefining marriage does precisely that. That’s another reason why Justice Kennedy got the case so wrong.

The only way to ensure the safety of our children is to give them a family--a mother and a father, to love and care for them.

To read Ryan Anderson’s full article, please visit Town Hall.

NOM President Brian Brown Speaks at The FAMiLY Leadership Summit

Brian Brown, President of the National Organization for Marriage, recently joined Republican presidential candidates and conservative luminaries in addressing the 2,500 activists who attended the FAMiLY LEADER’s Family Leadership Summit, which NOM was proud to co-sponsor. In his interview, Brown discussed the Supreme Court’s Obergefell decision, and counseled conservatives on what to do next.

Brian-Brown (1)Speaking out against the current judicial tyranny ruling America, Brown outlined four key points of action for conservatives in the wake of the Supreme Court’s unjust decision:

1. We must affirm that marriage is the lifelong bond between one man and one woman for the purposes of procreation.

2. We must reject the Supreme Court’s decision vehemently in the public square. Pastors must speak out against gay marriage, average people must discuss traditional marriage at the workplace, and lawmakers must fight to repeal the Court’s decision.

3. We must overturn this decision. This point is a particularly daunting task. In the upcoming election we need to elect a president who will champion the cause for the family, and work to overturn this decision within the next election cycle.

4. Until we overturn Obergefell, we must contain the effects of the decision. There are a number of ways to contain the effects of the ruling, including FADA, a bill that guarantees first amendment rights.

Brown ended on an optimistic note, saying never to give up hope; all things are possible with God. He then said that we should be glad that we are to be persecuted—for we have an extraordinary opportunity to stand up for truth.

Watch Brian Brown’s full video interview below:

FLS15-Brown from The Family Leadership Summit on Vimeo.

After Obergefell, Support for Same-sex "Marriage" Drops

As a recent AP-GFK polls shows, 41% of Americans now disapprove of the Supreme Court’s decision to legalize gay marriage, while only 39% support the decision. As Brietbart reports, when it comes to same-sex marriage conflicting with religious liberty, the numbers are of an even greater difference:

The AP poll reveals that 42% of Americans favor legal gay marriage, while a similar poll carried out last April showed 48% in favor. Moreover, in conflicts between the interests of same-sex couples and those of religious liberty, a majority of Americans (56%) believe that government should rule in favor of religious freedom.

ThinkstockPhotos-521108245The issue of religious freedom seems to be the deciding factor in this turn in opinion. Americans do not like to see their fellow citizens mistreated and harassed by the government for committing no wrong save the crime of having moral convictions. In the past months, wedding related businesses and judges have suffered for holding to their belief in traditional marriage, causing outrage across the country. The AP’s report reflects this fact:

Specifically, more Americans believe that local officials with religious objections should be exempted from issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples, with 49% siding with the exemption and 47% saying they should be obliged to comply with the law. Moreover, an increasing number of U.S. citizens believe that wedding-related businesses with religious objections should be allowed to refuse service to gay and lesbian couples. Whereas in April 52% thought they should be accorded this option, the number was up to 59% in the recent poll.

“What the Supreme Court did is jeopardize our religious freedoms,” said Michael Boehm, 61, an industrial controls engineer from the Detroit area who describes himself as a conservative-leaning independent.

“You’re going to see a conflict between civil law and people who want to live their lives according to their faiths,” Boehm said.

The poll was conducted in the aftermath of the landmark Obergefell v. Hodges decision, in which the Supreme Court erasing state laws defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman, effectively making same-sex marriage the law of the land.

Americans will not let the forces of injustice trample upon them. We must never compromise our core beliefs. We must always stand up for truth. The Obergefell decision attacks among other things, the institution of the family, marriage, and religious freedom; the Obergefell decision will not stand.

See Breitbart for more.

"SCOTUS is Not the Final Word on Marriage"

NOM President and co-founder Brian Brown discusses the future of marriage today in the Washington Examiner:

Words in FamilyThis not the first time that the Court has relied on its own conception of liberty to justify a decision. One of the best examples of this phenomenon was the Dred Scott v. Sandford case in which a majority of the Supreme Court ruled that restrictions on slavery were unconstitutional because of the implied right of slaveholders. African Americans were thus not people entitled to the rights of citizens, but instead property subject to the will of their masters.

In terms of its legal reasoning, the marriage case, Obergefell v. Hodges, is the Dred Scott decision of our time. It is illegitimate and completing lacking in constitutional authority. It is the product of unaccountable judges legislating from the bench, usurping the role of elected officials and voters and imposing a social policy on the nation because they think they know best.

And like Dred Scott, America need not accept it as the final word, the "law of the land" or even a decision worthy of respect.

...The decision last week is by no means the final word concerning the definition of marriage. NOM is committed to overturning this ruling and containing its effects.

This is only the beginning of the next phase in the struggle to protect marriage. Read on to learn about three major steps that NOM is taking to reverse this unjust ruling. We will not rest until the injustice of this decision is undone and marriage is restored to our nation's laws as it exists in reality — the union of one man and one woman.

 

How to Respond to SCOTUS Ruling on Marriage

This is judicial activism: nothing in the Constitution requires the redefinition of marriage, and the court imposed its judgment about a policy matter that should be decided by the American people and their elected representatives. The court got marriage and the Constitution wrong today just like they got abortion and the Constitution wrong 42 years ago with Roe v. Wade. Five unelected judges do not have the power to change the truth about marriage or the truth about the Constitution. - Ryan Anderson

While the decision of the Supreme Court is both tragic and unsurprising, marriage supporters should not give up hope. While the ruling is a disappointment, it is by no means the deciding outcome in the war on marriage. Marriage has always been defined by nature as between one man and one woman. No matter what laws the Supreme Court Justices change, they cannot change the truth.

Ryan Anderson offers encouraging words and advice on how marriage defenders can continue the fight to defend marriage as it has always been defined - the union between one man and one woman:

Marriage will always the union of one man and one woman

Marriage will always the union of one man and one woman.

For marriage policy to serve the common good it must reflect the truth that marriage unites a man and a woman as husband and wife so that children will have both a mother and a father. Marriage is based on the anthropological truth that men and woman are distinct and complementary, the biological fact that reproduction depends on a man and a woman, and the social reality that children deserve a mother and a father.

The government is not in the marriage business because it’s a sucker for adult romance. No, marriage isn’t just a private affair; marriage is a matter of public policy because marriage is society’s best way to ensure the well-being of children. State recognition of marriage acts as a powerful social norm that encourages men and women to commit to each other so they will take responsibility for any children that follow.

Redefining marriage to make it a genderless institution fundamentally changes marriage: It makes the relationship more about the desires of adults than about the needs—or rights—of children. It teaches the lie that mothers and fathers are interchangeable.

Because the court has inappropriately redefined marriage everywhere, there is urgent need for policy to ensure that the government never penalizes anyone for standing up for marriage. As discussed in my new book, “Truth Overruled: The Future of Marriage and Religious Freedom,” we must work to protect the freedom of speech, association and religion of those who continue to abide by the truth of marriage as union of man and woman.

At the federal level, the First Amendment Defense Act is a good place to start. It says that the federal government cannot discriminate against people and institutions that speak and act according to their belief that marriage is a union of one man and one woman. States need similar policies.

Recognizing the truth about marriage is good public policy. Today’s decision is a significant set-back to achieving that goal. We must work to reverse it and recommit ourselves to building a strong marriage culture because so much of our future depends upon it.

You can read Anderson’s full article at The Daily Signal.

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke

Our Very Way of Life is on the Line

By now you should be prepared for the worst. There is a strong possibility (many say high likelihood) that the Supreme Court will impose same-sex ‘marriage’ on the entire nation either tomorrow or Monday. While this would be an illegitimate and lawless ruling (because there is no constitutional authority for it), we must remember that man-made law never supersedes natural law. “Marriage” will ever remain the union between a man and a woman because its unique meaning and purpose is to bring together the two halves of humanity to provide the best environment for raising children.

Conservative talk show host Steve Deace, a longtime friend of NOM’s, has penned a provocative article in Conservative Review where he points out that a negative ruling will prove to be a boon to the marriage movement over time, just as Roe v. Wade reinvigorated the pro-life movement. The first benefit, he predicts, will be to separate out the true conservatives in the field of GOP presidential candidates from those who are only pretending to be conservative:

stk308123rkn

All of our other options of faux coexistence and kicking the can down the road are over. The age of feigned tolerance is at an end and – behold! – the age of forced compliance is now at hand.

We are about to find out why there was so much bravery at the Alamo—because there was no backdoor. There will be no fence to straddle. There will be no neutrality. There will be no polls or elections we supposedly have to win with a gutless establishment Republican we rationalize as an excuse to punt. There will only be “choose ye this day whom you will serve.”

No less than our very way of life is on the line. Such as:

-Marriage, the most fundamentally important institution of a civilized society
-Federalism, which is our most basic form of governance
-The constitutional rule of law and separation of powers
-The will of the people, as in the over 50 million Americans that voted to enshrine marriage in their state constitutions
-The Bill of Rights, with the First Amendment's religious freedom protections in clear and present danger

Any so-called Republican or religious leader that is willing to respond to such a blitzkrieg on liberty with tripe like “the courts have spoken” or “it’s time to move on” is a charlatan, and there’s no way they’d defend our liberties against any other Leftist assault, either.

You can read the full article at Conservative Review.

What is the Real Goal of “Marriage Equality”?

Even states that issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples continue to distinguish between marriage and same-sex “marriage” for many purposes.

In an article on The Public Discourse, Adam MacLeod, an associate professor at Faulkner University’s Thomas Goode Jones School of Law, asks the crucial question: What do proponents of “marriage equality” really want?

ThinkstockPhotos-75461595Massachusetts and New York continue to treat marriage and same-sex coupling differently. Despite eliminating from law the fundamental predicate that every marriage involves a man and a woman and binds the father and the mother of any children that result from the union, the courts and lawmakers of Massachusetts and New York have left in place incidents of marriage that presuppose this predicate. Yet proponents of marriage equality are not flooding the Massachusetts or New York courts with lawsuits to eliminate those incidents.

This raises a question: What do proponents of “marriage equality” want? If they are asking for governments to make marriage and same-sex couples the same in law, then they are asking for governments to eliminate the incidents of marriage that connect children to their natural parents. If same-sex “marriage” proponents are not asking governments to eliminate those legal securities for children, then they are not asking for full marriage equality.

. . .

The reality of same-sex “marriage” has not yet caught up with the logic; for now, Massachusetts still distinguishes between real marriage and same-sex “marriage.” But even if some of the incidents securing the rights and duties of parents and their children remain in place, the inchoate effort to achieve marriage equality harms the culture of marriage and thereby harms the children whom marriage is supposed to protect, particularly the least well-off.

These are costs of the as-yet-unsuccessful effort to make marriage and same-sex couplings the same in law. The law teaches, and people are prone to learn from it. The law of same-sex “marriage” is that man and woman, husband and wife, father and mother, are fungible. A marriage can be a marriage without one or the other, according to the desires of the adults involved. Thus, the law of states such as Massachusetts reinforces a culture that devalues fathers and mothers as people with distinct duties toward their children.

Ultimately, the goal of the “marriage equality movement” is to destroy the family. When you take away the one man and one woman stipulation from marriage, you turn marriage into a mere legality signifying the preferences of two adults, and you demean children into “options.” We will never stop defending marriage as the union between one man and woman, because we believe that men and women are both uniquely different and essential, and children are not “mere options,” but the embodiment of hope for the future.

For the full article, please visit The Public Discourse.

Big Surprise: Abstinence and Monogamy Are Best For Society

While the Federal Government has always admitted that monogamy and abstinence is a “reliable” way to prevent the transmission of STDs, they are now conceding that abstinence before marriage, paired with monogamy, is the most reliable way to prevent spreading STDs.

ThinkstockPhotos-462354181Even though the Federal Government would never dare to state it, in advocating monogamy and abstinence, they are tacitly confirming that what is best for society is marriage between one man and one woman, who are exclusive to each other, and are examples to their children of how the complementarity between a man and a woman lays the foundation for our society to flourish.

As reported by The Daily Signal:

The federal government is now calling abstinence and monogamy “the most reliable way to avoid transmission of STDs,” rather than just “a reliable way.”

This change was made in the Federal Center for Disease Control and Prevention’s latest version of its Sexually Transmitted Diseases Treatment Guidelines, released earlier this month.

Beyond avoiding STDs, there are multiple other benefits from abstinence and monogamy.

For example, researchers at the Austin Institute report, “High numbers of sexual partners, as well as concurrent sexual partners, are not only a public health concern because of the risk of spreading sexually transmitted infections, but have also been linked to higher rates of depression, anxiety, and substance abuse.”

. . .

A strong culture of marriage—where sex is linked to marriage and marriage is linked to childbearing—provides benefits for both adults and children, including better health, more stable and happier marriages, and protection from poverty and negative life outcomes for children. Leaders at every level should look for ways to help build and maintain a healthy culture of marriage.

For the full article, please visit The Daily Signal.

The Decision on Marriage Should Not Be Rushed

"Expanding the definition of marriage away from the way cultures and civilization have always defined it can only lead to further confusion.” - Rev. Russell Moore

As the world readies for the Supreme Court’s decision on same-sex marriage, defenders of marriage are urging the justices to take into account all the known effects that redefining marriage would bring upon our nation.

Proponents of same-sex marriage are arguing that now is the time for marriage to be redefined, because the “popular opinion” promulgated by the media is that marriage should be redefined. In contrast, marriage champions are asking the Supreme Court to look at the facts, look at what is actually written in the constitution, and look at what is best for the children.

While the media may very well be against us, NOM will never give up fighting for marriage, for freedom, and for truth.

ThinkstockPhotos-494897031The idea that same-sex marriage might have uncertain effects on children is strongly contested by those who want the court to declare that same-sex couples have a right to marry in all 50 states. Among the 31 plaintiffs in the cases that will be argued at the court on April 28 are parents who have spent years seeking formal recognition on their children's birth certificates or adoption papers.

But opponents, in dozens of briefs asking the court to uphold state bans on same-sex marriage, insist they are not motivated by any prejudice toward gays and lesbians.

"This is an issue on which people of good will may reasonably disagree," lawyer John Bursch wrote in his defense of Michigan's gay-marriage ban. Bursch argued on behalf of the states that same-sex couples can claim no constitutional right to marriage.

. . .

The concern for children is among several threads that run through the legal, political, social and religious arguments being advanced in support of upholding the same-sex marriage bans.

"If children don't do as well when they are raised by same-sex parents, why would we want to establish or encourage that as a social norm?" asked the Rev. D. Paul Sullins, a Catholic University sociology professor. Sullins has analyzed data in government surveys and concluded that children brought up by two parents of the same sex have a higher rate of emotional problems than their peers raised by heterosexual parents.

Sullins has been harshly criticized by sociologists who support same-sex marriage, but he said he stands by his data. "I don't know of any Catholic way to compute the equation," he said. "The idea that there are no differences is emphatically mistaken. I don't know how else to say that."

For the full article, please visit 12NewsNow.