Category Archives: Ethics
Breaking news today via Reuters:
A U.S. judge blocked Obama administration guidance that transgender public school students must be allowed to use bathrooms of their choice, granting a nationwide injunction sought by a group of 13 states led by Texas.
Reed O'Connor, a judge for the Northern District of Texas, said in a decision late on Sunday that the Obama administration did not follow proper procedures for notice and comment in issuing the guidelines. He said the guidelines contradict with existing legislative and regulatory texts.
At a hearing on the injunction in Fort Worth on Aug. 12, lawyers for Texas said the guidelines usurp the authority of school districts nationwide. They said they were at risk of losing billions of dollars in federal funding for education if they did not comply.
U.S. Department of Justice lawyers sought to dismiss the injunction, saying the federal guidelines issued in May were non-binding with no legal consequences.
The guidance issued by the Justice Department and Education Department said public schools must allow transgender students to use bathrooms, locker rooms and other intimate facilities that correspond with their gender identity, as opposed to their birth gender, or face the loss of federal funds.
Under the injunction, the Obama administration is prohibited from enforcing the guidelines on "against plaintiffs and their respective schools, school boards, and other public, educationally based institutions," O'Connor wrote.
Disturbing news this week of some changes underway in the American Bar Associations's (ABA) "Model Rules of Professional Conduct." The first report came on Monday from Judson Phillips in The Washington Times:
In its recent meeting, the ABA changed part of the model rules regarding attorney conduct. That kind of minutia is guaranteed to generate yawns from 99 percent of Americans. But every American should be alarmed by this because the purpose of these rules is to do nothing less than drive conservatives from the legal profession and ultimately deny conservatives their day in court by denying them legal representation.
The new rule states in part, “(Paragraph G) engage in conduct that the lawyer knows or reasonably should know is harassment or discrimination on the basis of race, sex, religion, national origin, ethnicity, disability, age, sexual orientation, gender identity, marital status or socioeconomic status in conduct related to the practice of law. This paragraph does not limit the ability of a lawyer to accept, decline or withdraw from a representation in accordance with Rule 1.16. This paragraph does not preclude legitimate advice or advocacy consistent with these Rules.”
The important part is where it says discrimination includes harmful verbal or physical that manifests bias or prejudice toward others. In plain, non-lawyer English, if a lawyer happen to not approve of homosexual behavior, homosexual marriage, transgenderism, Islam or any number of other opinions and comments on them, the lawyer can lose their law license.
This rule is not limited to the courtroom. If a lawyer posts something on social media or offers an opinion that is not an approved opinion, they can and will be disciplined.
The purpose of this model rule is simple. It is to silence conservative lawyers.
Frighteningly, the ABA leaders’ statements verify that they understand — and intend — the ramifications of [the new rules]. President Paulette Brown advocates that the ABA must prevent “bias” in ways that go far beyond current law. Committee member Drucilla Ramey insists bar authorities go “to the top of the legal profession” to “incentivize” attorneys to change their views and speech on these issues, views and speech often informed by attorneys’ religion. All this, despite committee testimony that such a rule has “little relation to concerns” arising in most lawyers’ offices, could be “used tactically against someone inappropriately,” and will “have a chilling effect on something that has always been in the best traditions of the bar: representing minority views and unpopular positions or clients.”
The ABA’s un-American censorship regime is beyond draconian; it coerces conformity regarding religious and political beliefs on a level unprecedented in American history. It borders on fascism, and must be explicitly repudiated [emphases added].
NOM will keep you apprised of this situation as it develops, and we encourage all our members to remain vigilant about these kinds of encroachments on religious freedom in the name of LGBT "equality."
Following Target's decision earlier this year to institute a policy whereby biological men could on a whim gain access to bathrooms and changing rooms normally reserved for girls and women, NOM and other conservative groups launched a boycott of the store to let them know that this kind of ideological move was not only dangerous for its customers but also insulting and bad for business.
In the months since, with stories cropping up regularly of how the policy was backfiring, Target has definitely felt the pressure, and this week comes news that the store is at least beginning to see the errors of its ways. From the Chicago Tribune:
Target said Wednesday that it is preparing to spend $20 million in coming months to add single-stall bathrooms along with men's and women's restrooms in its stores, a move meant to accommodate shoppers concerned about the retailers' policy of allowing customers and employees to use the bathroom that corresponds to the gender they identify with.
The story goes on to note some of the staggering statistics of Target's reported sales and projections which show that the boycotts have had a serious impact on the store, as much as the corporate execs and the media would like to downplay this.
However, this move by Target is only a beginning of righting the wrong of enforcing a dangerous gender ideology that puts women and girls at least in a very uncomfortable and unseemly - if not dangerous - situation of needing to undress in front of members of the opposite sex. (You'll note that this new "accommodation" of single-occupancy facilities is ironically for those who feel uncomfortable being in such a situation with members of the opposite sex, rather than the small minority of those who don't identify with their own biological sex!)
So, we need to keep up the pressure!
If you still haven't pledge to "Say No To Target," we encourage you to do so today. It's working!
From the BBC comes a disturbing report of a meteoric rise, over the past six years, on referrals to clinicians of children under the age of 18 for treatment to help them make "gender transitions."
The startling figure for the whole age group of one- to eighteen-year-old referrals is the rise from 94 in 2009-2010 to 969 in 2015-2016: an increase of 930%! This includes a stunning rise in referrals for children between the tender ages of five and nine years old: within that age group, the rise in referrals over the period studied has been nearly 600%!
In explaining the phenomenon, the BBC quotes the Gender Identity Development Service (GIDS), an official specialized service provided under England's National Health Service (NHS):
GIDS, based in north London, is the NHS's dedicated gender identity development service for children and takes referrals from GPs, paediatricians, mental health services and schools across the country.
Its director, Polly Carmichael, said in recent years more younger children were making gender transitions and there was no "right or wrong approach", with many families reporting their child was happier living in another gender.
In terms of the general increase in referrals, GIDS said there could be a number of reasons, but increased awareness and acceptance of gender issues - particularly via the media and social networks - was a likely factor.
The article also notes that Carmichael acknowledged that, "research published in the Netherlands suggest[s] that 'for some young people who make an early social transition it may be difficult to de-transition if their gender identity develops in another direction'."
We hope that the lesson of that research is taken to heart and that those to whom these poor children are referred do not push them into making a life-changing decision which they are mentally and emotionally too immature to grasp. Indeed, we have already seen in many ways how "gender transition" decisions can be regretting in a very high percentage of cases.
In any case, this article points to a troubling trend of how the permeation throughout our culture of radical LGBT ideology is beginning to have a problematic impact on the youngest and most vulnerable in our society.
From Ed Whelen at NRO's "The Corner" blog:
On Friday, the NCAA announced that cities interested in hosting NCAA championships must fill out a questionnaire on whether they have laws (state or local) that govern use of bathrooms and locker rooms. Questions include:
- 3. Does your city, county/parish and/or state regulate choice of bathrooms or locker rooms that may affect student-athletes, coaches, administrators, or game officials during the Event?
- 4. Does your city, county-parish and/or state regulate choice of bathrooms that may affect fans attending the Event?
- 6. If the Event is planned to be held on institutional/campus property, does your institution have provisions that interfere with any person’s choice of bathroom or locker room?
Whelen goes on to point out that not only is the NCAA putting politics before safety with its dangerous new bathroom agenda, but it is also illogically and incoherently departing from the Obama Administration when it comes to the question of sports teams. The moral of the story seems to be that the fabric of untruth and imagination upon which radical gender ideology is trying to construct a coherent legal paradigm is bound to unravel. The only question is how much damage will be done before that finally happens?
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/438294/ncaa-transgender
Another sad story of the "tolerance" of the LGBT movement comes to us today from Bill Donohue of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, writing at CNSNews.com:
In May, Javier Chavez, senior store detective at the Macy's store in Flushing, New York, received a phone call stating that a male had entered the ladies room with a female companion. A female customer, and her daughter, were afraid to enter because of the male's presence. A security employee who reports to Chavez advised the man to leave and use the men's room. He left claiming to be a female. He then complained to store officials that he was asked to leave.
Chavez was subsequently told by an Assistant Store Manager that certain males can use the ladies restroom. This was news to him. A few days later, an assistant security manager told him that transgender persons can use the bathroom of their choice.
He said he had just become aware of this policy, stating that it was contrary to his religion and the Bible. But he hastened to say that he would nonetheless enforce Macy's policy.
That's where one would think the story would end: but it doesn't:
Macy's would not leave this alone, and this is where it crossed the line.
Chavez was then summoned to meet with the Human Resources Manager, who suspended him. He was later terminated.
"After my employer learned that I was a practicing Catholic, with religious concerns about this policy," Chavez says in his formal complaint, "I was terminated because of my religion, in violation of the New York State Human Rights Law."
This is just another example of why we need so urgently Congress and state legislatures to enact protections for people of faith who simply want to conduct their lives - at home and at work - in accord with their beliefs about marriage and God's design for men and women. Now would be a good time, if you haven't already done so, to join us in this effort and sign our petition to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform urging them to pass the First Amendment Defense Act!
Without FADA, stories like this will unfortunately only become more and more commonplace.
In a shocking story out of the UK, a university postgraduate student on a path to become a social worker was expelled for posting on his personal Facebook page his opposition to gay 'marriage.' The "fitness to practise" panel at Sheffield University told student Felix Ngole, a committed Christian, that his post, "may have caused offense to some individuals" and that his publicly stated views would jeopardize his ability to operate as a social worker. They promptly demanded he turn in his student ID card.
Triggered by a single complaint, Sheffield University's action effectively closes Christian students out of the social work profession and is the latest in an ongoing effort to marginalize supporters of traditional marriage. Apparently realizing the totalitarian nature of their action and the fact that it is illegal, the university went to length to explain that it's position was not based on Ngole's views per se, but the fact that he expressed them! This is little comfort to the hundreds of millions of Christians across the globe who fervently believe that marriage is what God said it was - the union of one man and one woman.
If stating views that cause "offense to some individuals" is the standard for fitness to enter the social worker profession, then presumably those who support same-sex 'marriage' are not eligible to be social worker either since there are so many people, likely a majority, who believe in traditional marriage. Of course no action has ever been taken by Sheffield University or anyone else against anyone for expressing support for redefining marriage, showing the university's position to be nothing but a smokescreen to punish a view of marriage that is not politically correct.
Ngole promises that litigation will follow. Please keep him in your prayers.
Many colleges today unfortunately see themselves as the standard bearers of "progressive thought" and "equality." Following the trend of popular culture, universities believe it is their role to spread the acceptance of same-sex "marriage" as well as new theories on gender and race relations. When students refuse to acquiesce to their ideologies, however, colleges often react in unjust and intolerant ways. LifeSiteNews reports on one such case:
Gender and homosexuality politics are among the areas the professors are looking to influence the young people in their classes, along with race and immigration ideology.
The affronting terms that could land students in hot water in a number of Washington State University classes include “illegal alien” and “illegals,” CampusReform.org reports, but also considered oppressive and hateful by one teacher are the very definitions of gender, “male” and “female.”
A Marquette University student was prohibited from articulating his Biblical view of marriage last year, and a tenured professor was fired from there last year as well for voicing his view in support of marriage.
Johns Hopkins University denied a pro-life student organization recognition in 2013 until threatened with legal action.
Religious freedom banners were prohibited at Sinclair College in Ohio a year earlier.
A lawsuit was filed against Los Angeles Community College District in 2009 after a professor censored and threatened to expel a student who had given a speech on marriage and his Christian faith in a public speaking class. The professor had also told his class they were a “fascist (explicative)” if they voted for California’s Proposition 8 in defense of marriage.
It is a great hypocrisy when the so-called proponents of "tolerance" become worse than the very people they claim to be fighting. Help us expose these deceitful ideals and bring the hypocrisy about "equality" to an end.
The rash of bakery-closings on account of charges of "discrimination" has been appalling. Now, same-sex marriage activists have plans to shut down all Chick-fil-A locations in Denver—an act in the same vein as closing bakeries, but on a much larger scale. The Federalist explains the twisted logic behind this movement:
Now, in an effort to save everyone some time, the cultural imperialists at the Denver City Council—which, to be fair, have long exhibited authoritarian impulses—have decided to skip the pretense of some trumped-up injustice and jumped right to discriminating against a businesses solely because of the beliefs of its CEO.
The Denver Council’s Business Development Committee has stalled a seven-year deal with Chick-fil-A because CEO Dan Cathy spoke out against gay marriage back in 2012. Cathy, after being flogged for this misconduct, backed off , saying he regretted getting involved. But that won’t do. There are no prisoners in this culture war. So the council will meet in couple of weeks to take up the topic again. Not so the members can take time to chew over the significance of a city punishing its citizens for their thoughts and beliefs, or even to weigh the importance of tolerance in a vibrant city like Denver. They’re waiting to have a closed-door committee hearing with city attorneys, who will brief them on the legal implications and practicality of shutting down apostates.
Denver Councilman Paul Lopez, who is leading the intellectual charge for the ban—a task that meshes poorly with his skill set—says that, in the end, opposition to the chain at DIA is ”really, truly a moral issue.” Now, when the Founders told us that government can make no law respecting an establishment of religion, I took it to mean that the belief system of a union-installed sock puppet on a city council would be completely irrelevant in matters of expression and faith. Really, truly.
Now, everyone is free to boycott and protest whomever they please. Citizens and elected officials have every right to work to cut off taxpayer funding to businesses and institutions they find morally distasteful. But if the city council of Anytown, USA were to concoct reasons to deny permits to gay business owners who supported same-sex marriage, many Americans would find that rightfully appalling. If you’re okay with the idea of a city council denying orthodox Christians who believe in traditional marriage the same freedom, you’re a massive hypocrite—and probably worse.
There is a glaring double-standard when it comes to "equality." When it comes to marriage, the idea of equality only exists for those who agree with a redefined understanding of marriage: those who disagree are to be punished. This is another example of why Congress and the states need to pass the First Amendment Defense Act to protect people from discrimination for supporting marriage as the union of one man and one woman.
See The Federalist for more.
NOM Chairman John Eastman, one of our nation’s most distinguished constitutional law scholars, has watched the marriage litigation of the last several years unfold from a front row seat. Dr. Eastman is a former US Supreme Court clerk, former Dean and current Professor of Law at the Fowler School of Law at Chapman University and Founding Director of the Claremont Institute’s Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence. He knows how the legal system is supposed to perform, which is why it has been so disheartening and disillusioning to see how it was manipulated by the left to advance the cause of redefining marriage.
Dr. Eastman has written a brilliant article, Cheating Marriage: A Tragedy in Three Acts, which documents the unbelievable collusion between elected officials, litigants and judges in the cases that invalidated Proposition 8 in California and the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which served as the foundation to redefine marriage for the entire nation. The article has recently been published in the Ave Maria Law Review, and is also available for download on SSRN.
We encourage all NOM supporters to download and read this articulate, carefully researched and highly enlightened article. Below is a small abstract from SSRN:
In his dissenting opinion in United States v. Windsor, Justice Scalia accused the Court of “cheating,” because it decided an issue that properly belonged to the voters. But the cheating that went on in the case, and the parallel case involving Proposition 8 in California, was also of the vintage variety. This article tells the largely untold story about the many machinations by elected officials and judges to produce the end result in favor of same-sex marriage, from conflicts of interest, to collusion by nominally “opposing” counsel, and finally to an aggressive refusal by high-ranking government lawyers (including one who would then cast the deciding vote in the case) to defend laws for which there were perfectly reasonable defenses well-rooted in then-existing precedent.
A recent letter from the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention to the Senate Majority Leader, Sen. Mitch McConnell, and Speaker of the House, John Boehner, implores the Congress to pass the First Amendment Defense Act (FADA) immediately. With the imposition of same-sex ‘marriage’ by the US Supreme Court, religious freedom has come under fire. The letter succinctly characterizes the need for this act:
The First Amendment Defense Act will help to ensure the protection of the core American value of religious freedom. The bill bars the federal government from taking “any discriminatory action against a person, wholly or partially on the basis that such person believes or as in accordance with a religious belief or moral conviction that marriage is or should be recognized as the union between one man and one woman, or that sexual relations are properly reserved to such a marriage.” Such adverse action includes federal government discrimination in such areas as programs, grants, contracts, and tax treatment against individuals and organizations that believe on religious grounds that marriage is between a man and a woman. The bill also provides crucial protection for our nation’s faith-based institutions.
Governmental discrimination on the basis of religious belief and practice about marriage will have devastating effect on people of faith, their institutions, and the communities they serve. Millions of law-abiding, faithful people are likely to be suddenly deemed bigots and social outcasts. Their institutions will be crippled and many may cease to exist. Most distressing, millions of people will lose the safety net and affirming services they depend on each and every day, from daycare to meals to job training to adoption.
Failure to pass FADA will result in the alienation of millions of Americans, and will render the United States fundamentally unjust. Urge your congressmen to support FADA and to support religious freedom.
Kelsey Harkness of The Daily Signal exposes actions by the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Basic Rights Oregon to persecute the small business of Sweet Cakes by Melissa. Sweet Cakes held to their religious beliefs by turning down business that involved a wedding cake for a same-sex ceremony, before same-sex marriage was even legal in Oregon.
It appears that the advocacy group and the government agency had been holding meetings, as well as exchanging emails and texts, to conspire against Sweet Cakes before same-sex marriage was legal, and in a completely biased manner.
The Daily Signal has exclusively learned that the government agency responsible for enforcing Oregon’s anti-discrimination law appears to be working closely with a powerful gay rights advocacy group in its case against Aaron and Melissa Klein, owners of Sweet Cakes by Melissa.
Communications between the agency, the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries, and the LGBT organization, Basic Rights Oregon, raise questions about potential bias in the state’s decision to charge the Kleins with discrimination for refusing to make a cake for a same-sex wedding.
Communications obtained through a public records request show employees of the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries—which pursued the case against the Kleins—participating in phone calls, texting, and attending meetings with Basic Rights Oregon, the largest LGBT advocacy group in the state.
Harkness explains the issues in these discriminating communications:
“That’s a clear conflict of interest,” Hans von Spakovsky, a senior legal fellow at The Heritage Foundation, told The Daily Signal.
State agencies have a duty to represent the best interests of the general public, not the interests of one particular advocacy group. The relationship shown by these communications is inappropriate and raises basic questions about the objectivity, bias, and fairness of this agency and its proceedings.
According to emails, Avakian met with Basic Rights Oregon on multiple occasions.
Read the full article at The Daily Signal.
There are proponents in academia who have suggested that parents who educate their children to the best of their ability, is “unfair” to other children who do not receive the same opportunity. As ridiculous as this idea seems, it is an honest, though outlandish, theory that some want put into practice. Adam Swift (Prof. at University of Warwick) is a key proponent of this theory, and he seems to have backing from other academics such as Peter Singer (Ethics Prof. at University of Princeton) as well as public figures such as Pres. Barack Obama:
President Obama used language of inequality to critique parents who send their kids to private schools and health clubs just this week.
“Kids start going to private schools, kids start working out at private clubs instead of the public parks, an anti-government ideology then disinvests from those common goods and those things that draw us together,” he said.
“One way philosophers might think about solving the social-justice problem would be by simply abolishing the family,” he (Adam Swift) continues, cheerfully. “If the family is this source of unfairness in society, then it looks plausible to think that if we were to abolish the family, we would create a more level playing field.”
The article continues to explain the folly of holding ‘equality’ as the highest good:
Sarcasm aside, we owe Swift a real debt of gratitude for demonstrating the folly of Progressive equality-worship. Although his ideas are at the extreme end of the Progressive spectrum, the language of “equality” and the decrying of “inequality” is pervading our culture.
Of course, American liberty was founded on the idea that all men are created equal. But when people speak of equality these days, they usually mean not fundamental equality before the law, but rather state-engineered equality of socioeconomic outcomes. Perhaps by seeing this ideology taken to its insane extreme, we can recognize its failings more clearly.
The idea is to take all power, even from the parents, and center it into the State (Federal Government) so that it may decide what is best in all things.
It’s hard not to see that beneath all the egalitarian language lies a bald-faced power grab. Swift—and those who share his worldview—believe they are entitled to make mandatory rules for others which they refuse to adopt for themselves… Swift is operating squarely within the tradition of all Marxist dictators past and present, who style themselves champions of the common man but never deny themselves the luxuries of the ruling class.
Full article available via The Federalist.
In an article recently posted on The Public Discourse, James Phillips, an assistant professor of law at Brigham Young University, highlights and responds to errors made by pro-same-sex marriage justices Kennedy and Sotomayor. Phillips points out that there were 6 major errors in logic, precedent, and history made to support the passing of a same-sex marriage bill last week.
This post will outline these 6 errors, as well as the arguments against them.
Error #1: Massachusetts Marriage Rates Have Stayed the Same
Justice Sotomayor claimed that Massachusetts’ heterosexual marriage rates have remained constant since the state allowed same-sex marriage. If she had paid attention to an opposing amicus brief filed by 100 Scholars of Marriage, she would have seen that data clearly tells us otherwise, for instance:
Marriage rates have dropped by 8.9 percent since the state [MA] redefined marriage. And Massachusetts is not alone. The marriage scholars were also able to obtain data on opposite-sex marriage rates from three other states that have legalized same-sex marriage… Vermont (-5.1 percent), Connecticut (-7.3 percent), and Iowa (-9.2 percent).
Error #2: Because Some Men Leave Their Wives and Children, Marriage Does Not Help Keep Fathers Around
Justice Sotomayer argued that marriage between a man and a woman doesn’t actually increase the likelihood of creating a stable family life:
‘Marriage doesn’t do that on any level. How many married couples do fathers with the benefits or the requirements of marriage walk away from their children? So it’s not that the institution alone does it and that without it that father is going to stay in marriage.’
But as Phillips points out:
This is a classic example of the exception fallacy. Of course some men and women walk away from their marriage and their children. But that is the exception, not the rule, and it is certainly counter to the social norm of marriage.
Error #3: The Purpose of States’ Recognizing and Regulating Marriage is to Bestow Dignity on Couples
When Mr. Bursch brought forth the argument that the states are not in the marriage business to bestow dignity, Justice Kennedy expressed surprise at this, stating that he believed that whole purpose of “traditional marriage” was to bestow dignity on both man and woman. Now same-sex couples want that same “ennoblement.” But as Phillips explains:
Justice Kennedy was missing the point. He was confusing the reason that a couple may desire to be married with the reason that a state would want to recognize and regulate marriage. Those are distinct.
Even assuming, for the sake of argument, that states were interested in bestowing dignity on couples by allowing them to marry, that would be a means to enticing couples to marry. The end or purpose of encouraging marriage in this way would still be the fact that society—particularly children—benefits when men and women marry. It makes no sense for the state to go through the trouble and expense to regulate and subsidize marriage if the state gets nothing out of it in return—and it’s not simply about bestowing dignity on consenting adult love of all sizes and shapes.
Error #4: The Only Harm to Legalizing Same-Sex Marriage Is Making Marriage More Adult-Centered
When several justices struggled to comprehend how redefining marriage to genderless terms would impact and harm the institution of marriage, Mr. Bursch correctly, but incompletely, argued how it would change the focus of marriage from fulfilling the needs of children to fulfilling the desires adults. If marriage is redefined, then the norm of fulfilling a child’s need to be raised by a man and a woman in order to learn how necessary interactions from each one, would be eliminated. And this is only one effect.
Error #5: There Is a Parallel between: Brown/Loving and Lawrence/Obergefell
The time between the Supreme Court decision calling for desegregation of elementary schools, the famous Brown v. Board of Education, and the decision invalidating state laws that prohibited mixed-race marriages (Loving v. Virginia), was thirteen years.
But man-woman marriage has been the law in every state since the birth of the nation—and in every Western nation for millennia. As Justice Kennedy put it, “I don’t even know how to count the decimals when we talk about millennia.
Not all thirteen year periods are equivalent. They certainly are not here.
Error #6: Age Restrictions on Marriage Are Equivalent to the Definitional Element of One Man and One Woman
Several justices tried to form the analogy of recognizing exceptions to age restrictions to recognizing same-sex marriages. But as Phillips explained:
Not all exceptions are equal. Age has never been a part of the definition of marriage... There are two historical and universal components to the definition of marriage in the United States, and in the Western world: gender diversity and only two spouses, one man and one woman. All other features—age, race, religion, coverture, dowry—are not part of the fundamental definition.
The American people want our justices to base their decisions on facts, and not make such errors in their decision as outlined here. Since the citizens of the United States will have to live with this decision for the entirety of America’s future, it would be best if such a decision had a basis in not only what the public wants, but also the truth of such matters.
Source via The Public Discourse
- 2016 Presidential Election
- Bathroom Bills
- Catholic Church
- Civil Unions
- Corporate Ethics
- Debating Marriage
- Donald Trump
- Dump General Mills
- Dump Starbucks
- Election 2010
- Election Watch 2012
- Election Watch 2014
- Free Speech
- Gay Voices
- Human Rights Campaign
- Let The People Vote
- Manhattan Declaration
- March for Marriage
- Marriage Election Watch
- Marriage Moment
- Marriage Update
- Marriage Victory
- Married Joy
- Mitt Romney
- New Zealand
- NOM Marriage News
- NOM on Facebook
- President Obama
- Press Releases
- Prop 8
- Religious Liberty
- Ruth Institute
- Same Sex Marriage
- Say No To Target
- Sen. Marco Rubio
- Sen. Ted Cruz
- Social Media
- South America
- New Hampshire
- New Jersey
- New Mexico
- New York
- North Carolina
- North Dakota
- Rhode Island
- South Carolina
- Washington DC
- West Virginia
- Supreme Court
- U.S. Senate
- United for Marriage
- United Kingdom
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009