NOM BLOG

Category Archives: Marriage

A Blessed And Grateful Nation



Dear Marriage Supporter,

Today the nation honors those heroes who made the ultimate sacrifice, members of the military who gave their lives in defense of the principles upon which our nation was founded. I hope that each of you will take a moment to pause and pray for those brave men and women, and their families, whose ultimate sacrifice through the generations proves the truth of what President Reagan once observed, "Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same."

America Founding - Quote

At the core of the American founding was the principle of religious liberty — the right to participate in society according to your sincerely held religious beliefs. Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal said it brilliantly in Iowa the other day: "The United States of America did not create religious liberty. Religious liberty created the United States of America."

We live in a challenging time, one where our national leaders increasingly seem to deny the importance of some of our founding national principles, not the least of which is religious liberty. Indeed far from being willing to fight to defend this core foundational principle so that is passed to the next generation, some national leaders seem intent on undercutting it. Indeed, we've seen baseless charges of "bigotry" and "discrimination" leveled at those with sincerely-held religious objections to participating in things like same-sex 'wedding' ceremonies and providing health insurance coverage for abortion-inducing drugs. For a large number of governmental and cultural elites, the concept of "religious liberty" is being reduced to being able to worship in private, but not to actually live your faith principles in the public square.

Presidential candidate Hilary Clinton took this even further recently when she said that the nation had to change its views on religion if we are to make progress on "women's rights" and other ideological causes favored by the left. Far from being a protector and defender of our first principles — the most important of which is a recognition that our rights derive not from government but from the divine Creator — so that they may be passed on to the next generation, she seems determined to change them to suit her vision of government.

This upcoming presidential election will thus be a pivotal moment in our nation's history. It will be, to borrow another quote from President Reagan, "a time for choosing." Will we as a nation choose to uphold the principles upon which America was founded, particularly religious liberty, that have made us the greatest force for good in the history of the world, or will we choose to follow a secularist path that effectively eliminates religious principle from social policy so that a leftist agenda can be more easily pursued?

This is not a mere rhetorical question. The next president will not only have tough decisions to make about how government policy will respond to issues of same-sex unions, abortion, gender identity and claims of sexual orientation discrimination, but he or she will very likely appoint several new justices to the US Supreme Court who will have a say in the critical constitutional issues involved.

As we embark upon this critically important national debate and discussion that will culminate in 2016 in the election of a new president, we do so with great reverence and respect, and immense gratitude, for all those who made the ultimate sacrifice to defend the principles that have made America the beacon for liberty she is throughout the world. Let us give thanks to these heroes, and pray that their sacrifice will not be forgotten, but will be protected and defended so our national principles are passed to the next generation for them to do the same.

Faithfully,

Brian S Brown

Press Release Regarding Ireland Vote

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Saturday, May 23, 2015
The following statement may be attributed to Brian Brown, president of the National Organization for Marriage in Washington, DC: "We want to thank David Quinn and The Iona Institute for fighting the good fight running the No campaign against tremendous odds in Ireland. We are disappointed but not surprised with the apparent passage of a referendum in Ireland providing for the redefinition of marriage in that country. This is a reflection on the increasingly secularized nature of Ireland, together with the utter abandonment of principle by every political party in the nation, all of whom endorsed the referendum. This, combined with intense harassment of any group or individual who spoke out in opposition to the referendum, made it difficult for opponents. Despite this, hundreds of thousands of Irish citizens stood to vote to uphold the truth of marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Even with this decision in Ireland, the idea of same-sex marriage has been widely rejected by the community of nations around the world, where only 18 nations recognize same-sex 'marriage', almost all of them in the west, which represents less than 10% of the nations in the world. If there is any relevance to the Irish vote for people here in the United States, it is that the US Supreme Court should take note that the people of Ireland at least had the opportunity to vote. This is what we demand of our justices — respect the right of people to define marriage in the law for themselves. If that occurs, we are confident that the American people will continue to support marriage in the law as it exists in reality — the union of one man and one woman in order to provide the ideal environment for any children born of their union."

###

The Effects of Same-sex "Marriage" on Children's Mental Health

ThinkstockPhotos-471188516While social scientists are busy faking studies to show growing support for redefining marriage, or designing studies with a small number of participants who have an interest in the outcome of the study, it’s striking to note what they are not studying: the mental health impact on students of the cultural and media movement to proclaim all things gay to be good and healthy. An article at The Federalist reviews this phenomenon in the field of social work, a field that ordinarily would be expected to help assess mental health issues among their clientele:

Joseph Turner, who has a masters in social work, comments on the adverse effects the current political correctness can have on the mental health of people:

Mental health treatment requires close analysis of every aspect of a person’s life. We put together the puzzle pieces that make up a human being. We inquire how many hours someone slept last night and how often he or she woke up. We form theories around their precise level of eye contact or rate of speech. We ponder how closely they were held as infants. To declare that all claims to sexual orientation are above scrutiny is to analytically cripple ourselves. We’ve replaced the microscope with rose-colored glasses.

. . .

We live in a society where LGBT has saturated both political agenda and popular culture. Broken family structures, abuse, and relationship instability are tragically prevalent. In such a climate, reported same-sex attraction could occur for a lot of reasons. Some of them might be uncomfortable. To demand its blind, universal acceptance is both delusional and damaging to mental health. Dogmatic affirmation of all claims to sexual preference might well encourage behavior rooted in pathology.

He continues to suggest that the effects on children can be devastating, especially if it was the choice of the “parents” to switch from a heterosexual relationship to a same-sex relationship:

ThinkstockPhotos-477399995The mommies (or daddies, as the case may be) might do everything “right” to give their children a healthy, stable upbringing, yet the kids are still at risk to grow up troubled and unsure how to relate to the world around them… nobody among my colleagues acknowledged a problem. There was no questioning of the arrangement, no hint of concern. Everyone involved with the family was wholly positive about the mommies, even as they scratched their heads and wondered what was making the kids angry or depressed or confused.

It seems that the dangers of not only same-sex marriage, but also the same-sex mind control in popular culture is real and adversely affects the average person.

But the mental-health field is mostly professional, and thus subject to the academic and political authorities. It’s aimed at the practitioner rather than the pioneer. This leaves it unknowingly vulnerable to the powerful LGBT lobby. Even as we work to build people from the ground up, we blindly accept the ideas coming from the top down. If a professor or a textbook states that all sexual or gender orientation is above question, then so be it. The contradiction this presents to our greater body of psychological thinking goes unnoticed.

As any devoted parent will attest to, all parents want what is best for the child. While it can be hard for some to admit, the facts are there: children do best with a mom and a dad. And when they are told that gender is irrelevant, it is the children who suffer the devastating effects.

Jeb Bush Stands Up For Right Not To Be Coerced

ThinkstockPhotos-chariastThe beginning stages of the presidential campaign are starting to bring the views of the various candidates into focus. Jeb Bush recently told CBN that he supports the right of a Christian small business owner to decline to provide services for a same-sex ‘wedding.’ He correctly understands that people ought to remain free to exercise their beliefs about marriage and that this is not discrimination. He also reiterated his position that same-sex ‘marriage’ is not a constitutional right:

"A big country, a tolerant country ought to be able to figure out the difference between discriminating someone because of their sexual orientation and not forcing someone to participate in a wedding that they find goes against their moral beliefs," Bush said.

Shouldn’t it be obvious that as our own free arbiters of what we support, we should also be able to choose what not to support? Americans being forced to conform to other people’s opinions on social issues, is a brazen attack against individual rights:

In recent months, the question of service provision, religion and sexuality has become a hot button issue, with court cases arising over incidents of people being refused service because of their sexual orientation, or business owners being forced to provide services to same sex partners despite their religious convictions.

The issue was further fanned by the recent signing of Religious Freedom Restoration Acts, which allow business owners to cite religious rights as a reasons for refusing service. Gay rights group have condemned the acts, and cited them as a form of discrimination.

Source via Christian Today.

Marriage And Religious Liberty In The Early Presidential Race



Dear Marriage Supporter,

One of NOM's primary goals in the coming months and year is to raise the profile of the marriage and religious liberty issues in anticipation of the coming presidential election next year — particularly in key swing and early voting states like Iowa.

And we've been remarkably successful in the early going!

While reading through the media's "reporting" (which seems more often than not to be taken directly from sources like the Human Rights Campaign blog) is aggravating, listening to the actual Republican candidates' words has been extremely encouraging.

Boldly Speaking the Truth

Senator Ted Cruz of Texas is always courageous and unintimidated when it comes to speaking the truth. Which makes following the media's "news coverage" of him a continuous exercise in frustration and incredulity.

Recently he fired back at the media for "being obsessed with sex" after repeatedly asking about same-sex marriage to the exclusion of almost every other issue, offering a fresh and direct way to respond to not-so veiled attacks on common-sense positions shared by a majority of the country and world.

You can click here to watch the video of his exchange with the reporter in question.

Ted Cruz

The most absurd and unbelievable aspect of the story is the headline that the "news" agency chose to attach to the report: "Cruz refuses to deny animosity toward gays."

The entire exchange simply highlights the ridiculousness of the media's coverage of marriage and is the clearest indication possible that the media is, indeed, "obsessed with sex."

Not Just Talk

But Senator Cruz isn't the only one championing marriage and religious liberty.

Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal, who is strongly considering a presidential run, recently took dramatic action to defend marriage and people of faith who understand its true nature.

The Louisiana state legislature cowered away from passing House Bill 707, which would have blocked the government from penalizing companies because of the owner's stance on same-sex marriage.

So Governor Jindal stepped to the plate and announced that he would issue an executive order accomplishing what the bill was aiming to do: protecting people of faith who believe in marriage as the union of one man and one woman from unjust Governmental coercion and potential punitive measures for their beliefs.

The executive order will prohibit the state from denying or revoking a tax exemption, tax deduction, contract, cooperative agreement, loan, professional license, certification, accreditation, or employment on the basis the person acts in accordance with a religious belief that marriage is between one man and one woman.

As I mentioned yesterday, when our elected public officials take such bold action to represent our values — knowing that they will be targeted by special interests and widely castigated by the media — they must hear from us and know that they have our support.

If you haven't done so already, please take a moment and click here to send Governor Jindal a quick email thanking him for his brave leadership in defense of marriage and religious liberty.

Governor Jindal Action Alert

And then, please forward the link to this alert to your family and friends so they can similarly take action.

But that's not all!

This week, the American Future Project launched a 30-second ad that will air in Iowa highlighting the Governor's dedication to defending our precious First Freedoms — the freedom of religion, the freedom of speech and the freedom to act in accord with our beliefs about marriage without fear of reprisal from the government.

You can watch the ad here.

Governor Jindal Ad

And all of this follows his editorial last month in the New York Times opinion page, I'm Holding Firm Against Gay Marriage.

Others Speaking Out For Marriage And Religious Liberty

Other candidates are also making strong statements to reassure the American people that they represent their values on marriage.

Governor Scott Walker was recently in Washington, DC to meet with legislators and heads of social conservative groups to discuss social issues.

I was one of those who met with him to discuss the marriage issue.

As I noted in the column linked above, while some of his past statements have left people like you and me with serious questions as to his commitment to defending the truth about marriage, his recent statements — in particular, those about backing a federal marriage amendment — should have us feeling better about his political views. We will give him, and all the candidates, a chance to concretely demonstrate their support by signing NOM's Presidential Pledge, which will be issued soon.

Similarly, former Florida Governor Jeb Bush reiterated in much clearer terms his commitment to marriage last weekend in Dubuque, Iowa, where he was interviewed by CBN's David Brody.

What is becoming clear is that as all the potential and announced Republican candidates get away from their handlers and get out talking to voters and activists, they are all realizing that marriage is a core value of the American people and worthy of defending. They are realizing that redefining marriage is presenting incredible challenges to not only our First Freedoms, but also to our future cultural and economic wellbeing.

And, perhaps most importantly, they are realizing that redefining marriage is directly at odds with our precious faith traditions. Hillary Clinton recently said as much (see her remarks at around the 8:20 mark) when talking about the left's agenda pushed over the past several years needing "resources and political will" to overcome the "deep seeded, cultural codes, religious beliefs and biases" that "have to be changed."

There you have it: you and I must be forced to change our religious beliefs to accommodate the left's radical agenda.

Thank goodness we have some brave candidates willing to stand up and defend marriage and religious liberty.

More Hypocrisy

One final note on a news story that broke recently but received very little news.

A study that came out a few months ago received widespread acclaim for its impact in helping shift attitudes toward accepting same-sex marriage. It found that a 20-minute, one-on-one conversation with a gay political canvasser could steer voters in favor of same-sex marriage. Not only that, but these changed opinions lasted for at least a year and influenced other people in the voter's household, the study found.

Of course, the media trumpeted this far and wide... it was obvious, they said. People just need to meet and talk to gay rights supporters and they will immediately become amenable to redefining marriage.

The only problem? The study was faked. The data used to support the conclusions was simply made up.

While this development is no doubt embarrassing for advocates of redefining marriage, sadly, I am not surprised by this situation.

It is reminiscent of all the phony studies that have been conducted using small "convenience" samples of lesbians and gays who have an interest in the outcome of the study showing that lesbian and gay parenting makes "no difference" for children. To no one's surprise, these studies are touted as "proof," and become fodder to redefine marriage.

But whether a study is completely faked or conclusions are just fudged, it's justified in the minds of many who want to redefine marriage. You see, to many such activists everything in life — freedom of speech, religious principles, even the truth — is secondary to the "good" of advancing their agenda.

That is why the coming election (and, indeed, all elections) matter.

I look forward to sharing our presidential pledge with you in the coming months and making an impact on next year's election.

Faithfully,

Brian S Brown


PS: In case you hadn't heard, right now we have a new matching gift challenge running! A donor, incredibly enthused by the success of the March for Marriage and how oral arguments before the Supreme Court went, has offered $200,000 in matching gift funds to help us make a major statement in defense of marriage before the Supreme Court issues its ruling. Won't you please renew your NOM membership today to help us reach our goal?

The Real Revelations from the Faked Same-sex Marriage Study

An op-ed in The American Spectator reviews muted media reaction to the disclosure that a widely publicized study claiming that a gay canvasser speaking to a voter at their home would produce remarkable and long-lasting change in support of same-sex ‘marriage’ was faked. They note that the media’s coverage of the scandal was tepid, especially compared to the original coverage when the false study was issued.

dv763009Some news outlets even carried comments from same-sex marriage activists stating that even though the study was completely fabricated, it doesn’t necessarily mean that it isn’t true! Some even urge the study be redone properly. The author provocatively suggests that social scientists instead conduct studies to determine the effect on public opinion of the media portraying supporters of marriage as bigots, or the impact of judges ignoring the will of voters and imposing their own views in the law, or the impact on public opinion of a small business owner losing her shop rather than her religious principles.

Daniel Flynn, author of the article, comments on the fraudulent study.

Two aspiring political scientists exposed a widely referenced study, which maintained that homosexuals discussing gay marriage with citizens proved “capable of producing a cascade of opinion change,” as a total fraud.

Berkeley grad student Joshua Kalla and Stanford professor David Broockman, eager to add to the project with their own study, discovered that the survey firm identified in “When Contact Changes Minds: An Experiment on Transmission of Support for Gay Equality” maintained “no familiarity with the project,” “never had an employee with the name of the staffer” believed as assisting the research, and “denied having the capabilities” to conduct such an endeavor.

He continues to show that voters never really wanted same-sex marriage in many of the places such laws were passed, and the result of such laws on the average person.

What happens to donations to traditional marriage initiatives when they result in job loss, let’s say from a tech company that produces a popular web browser, for one who gives to a ballot initiative protecting man-woman unions? Perhaps an experiment could focus on the effects of the mass media’s incessant, not-so-subliminal name calling—e.g., “bigot,” “homophobe,” “hater”—on public opinion. Or, maybe, researchers could study the rather straightforward cause-and-effect of how judges refusing to allow people to vote on the laws that govern them transform the laws that govern people—and ultimately the public’s views. Another alternative might be to gauge the uptick in support for gay marriage resulting from a small business owner—a baker, for instance, who refuses to cook up a wedding cake for a homosexual couple—losing her shop instead of her religious principles.

Codifying gay marriage has never been about canvassers, gay or straight, persuading Americans. Voters, after all, rejected same-sex marriage in California, Wisconsin, Oregon, and other blue states only to watch judges order them to embrace it. America’s evolution on gay marriage came as a conversion by the sword.

His commentary shows the corruption in academia, and the media, for what it is:

We imagine science as disinterested, dispassionate, impartial, objective. The reality of science, particularly so-called social science, occasionally reveals biased partisans gathering data to support a predetermined conclusion.

Warning from Canada: Do Not Redefine Marriage

Many same-sex marriage advocates continue to falsely present the redefinition of marriage as simply providing respect and recognition to loving same-sex couples, with no consequences for anyone else. But as we have seen with the frequent attacks against supporters of traditional marriage - bakers, florists, and others - this has already been proven to be false. To get a fuller exposition of the consequences of redefining marriage, we only have to look at what has happened with our northern neighbor.

Mid adult couple holding their childrenThe article from Dawn Stefanowicz is not the first such warning we’ve had. In 2012, the backers of the proposed marriage amendment in Minnesota held a day-long seminal featuring many speakers from Canada, including a prominent Archbishop, who detailed the 300 plus cases of supporters of marriage being punished, and the constant pressure of the government to push this radical understanding of marriage on children. Dawn Stefanowicz uses Canada’s decline due to legalizing same-sex marriage as an all too apt example of what kind of fire the United States is playing with today:

We have great compassion for people who struggle with their sexuality and gender identity—not animosity. And we love our parents. Yet, when we go public with our stories, we often face ostracism, silencing, and threats.

I want to warn America to expect severe erosion of First Amendment freedoms if the US Supreme Court mandates same-sex marriage. The consequences have played out in Canada for ten years now, and they are truly Orwellian in nature and scope.

. . .

In Canada, freedoms of speech, press, religion, and association have suffered greatly due to government pressure. The debate over same-sex marriage that is taking place in the United States could not legally exist in Canada today. Because of legal restrictions on speech, if you say or write anything considered “homophobic” (including, by definition, anything questioning same-sex marriage), you could face discipline, termination of employment, or prosecution by the government.

She continues to warn Americans that a federal redefinition of marriage will authorize the “State as Ultimate Arbiter of parenthood”:

Over and over, we are told that “permitting same-sex couples access to the designation of marriage will not deprive anyone of any rights.” That is a lie.

When same-sex marriage was legalized in Canada in 2005, parenting was immediately redefined. Canada’s gay marriage law, Bill C-38, included a provision to erase the term “natural parent” and replace it across the board with gender-neutral “legal parent” in federal law. Now all children only have “legal parents,” as defined by the state. By legally erasing biological parenthood in this way, the state ignores children’s foremost right: their immutable, intrinsic yearning to know and be raised by their own biological parents.

. . .

In effect, same-sex marriage not only deprives children of their own rights to natural parentage, it gives the state the power to override the autonomy of biological parents, which means parental rights are usurped by the government.

In addition, the rights and freedom that made our nation a land of liberty will too be disregarded if same-sex marriage is legalized:

In Canada, it is considered discriminatory to say that marriage is between a man and a woman or that every child should know and be raised by his or her biological married parents. It is not just politically incorrect in Canada to say so; you can be saddled with tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees, fined, and forced to take sensitivity training.

Anyone who is offended by something you have said or written can make a complaint to the Human Rights Commissions and Tribunals. In Canada, these organizations police speech, penalizing citizens for any expression deemed in opposition to particular sexual behaviors or protected groups identified under “sexual orientation.” It takes only one complaint against a person to be brought before the tribunal, costing the defendant tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees. The commissions have the power to enter private residences and remove all items pertinent to their investigations, checking for hate speech.

. . .

It means that no matter what you believe, the government will be free to regulate your speech, your writing, your associations, and whether or not you may express your conscience. Americans also need to understand that the endgame for some in the LGBT rights movement involves centralized state power—and the end of First Amendment freedoms.

Many more issues will occur if the Supreme Court decides to redefine marriage. We recognize the flagrant lies that are told, the false “tolerance” that is being promulgated, the egregious attacks on our liberties. Our neighbor Canada knows these first-hand as well, even to a more frightening degree. We must never give up the fight for marriage, because if marriage is redefined, we know that first amendments rights will also be “redefined.”

Read the full article at The Public Discourse.

The War on Free Speech

Kirsten Powers has a new book that outlines the agenda and strategy of the same-sex marriage lobby to suppress free speech throughout the country. The American Unity Fund seems to be spearheading this attack by exhibiting it’s ability to sway policy against the American people. As Stella Morabito reports via The Federalist:

ThinkstockPhotos-186674643Powers has dubbed today’s intolerant purveyors of leftist causes the [sic] “the illiberal left” because, as a liberal herself, she sees them as anything but liberal about allowing a voice to those who don’t toe their rigid line. Her book catalogues and analyzes the dehumanization and demonization techniques the illiberal Left applies towards anyone who dares to veer from their rigid narratives. Their sacred cows include abortion, climate change, same-sex marriage, and second-wave feminism. Dissenters are systematically smeared and destroyed.

. . .

But I would add that most of this is coming straight out of the Left’s holy of holies: the LGBT lobby (whose agenda Powers happens to support.) Because next up on the LGBT hit parade is the literal silencing of America—with the force of the federal government behind it.

Morabito's article, outlining Powers’ book and the LGBT agenda, defines AUF and its next step after the Supreme Court decision is finished.

The American Unity Fund is a heavily funded new super-PAC looking to blanket the country with LGBT anti-discrimination laws. In effect, those laws aim to wipe out any alternative voice to the LGBT agenda. The effort is being spearheaded by billionaire hedge fund manager Paul Singer and another wealthy hedge fund manager, Tim Gill. Gill’s operations—the Gill Foundation and Gill Action—have been dedicated to “nonpartisan” gains for the LGBT lobby on the legislative and judicial fronts.

But with an expected federal win for gay marriage from the Supreme Court, the LGBT movement is poised to shift its focus to policing speech in the workplace, schools, businesses, and public squares across America.

While it seems that the target of AUF actions is anyone who supports traditional marriage, the issue is far more pervasive: America is about to be blanketed by anti-free speech policies from the same-sex marriage agenda.

Assuming the Supreme Court signs on to the same-sex marriage meme come June, we can expect to see a noose tightening around both public and private speech, including spontaneous conversation, in America. The ultimate effect of the “Freedom for All Americans” campaign will be to criminalize the expression of conservative as well as traditional religious thought on issues of marriage and family. In doing so, it will further stunt independent thought or debate in the wider political context.

. . .

There’s so much to unpack here, but if pressed to dissect this vat of worms, I’d say that the Orwellian “Freedom for All Americans” meme boils down to the ancient urge to centralize power. That always begins with controlling people, which, in turn, requires the control of human relationships. To control relationships, central planners need to divide and conquer people by restricting their ability to communicate with one another.

Read full article via The Federalist.

There is Always Hope for Marriage

Marriage has been in a free fall for several decades, but new research shows that the tide is ready to turn. Over at The Federalist, marriage scholar Dr. Brad Wilcox makes the case that despite falling marriage rates, the institution is poised to make a comeback:

Over the last half century, marriage has taken quite a beating. Since the 1960s, the rate of new marriages has fallen by more than 50 percent, and rates of divorce and single parenthood has more than doubled. The end result is that marriage is no longer the anchor for the adult life course or the family foundation for the bearing and rearing of children that it once was. Forecasts expect the marriage rate to hit an all-time low next year.

stk307181rknBut a close look at recent trends in marriage, non-marital childbearing, and single parenthood suggests that the nation’s retreat from marriage may be slowing… the marriage rate has not declined in recent years; the ratio of babies being born outside of wedlock has held steady at 41 percent since the Great Recession; and the share of children living in single-parent families has hovered around slightly more than one-quarter for more than a decade.

It was also suggested that marriage and having children, in that order, will be on the rise in the upcoming years:

Moreover, a growing number of college-educated millennials are now moving into the stage of life where they are poised to start families by marrying and having children—in that order—in the spirit of “high-investment parenting” (HIP) recently identified by Richard Reeves at Brookings. The movement of college-educated millennials into family life should keep these trends on a stable course. Taken together, the data suggest that the reports of marriage’s death have been exaggerated.

Dr. Wilcox also notes that studies continue to show that an intact marriage is not only about children, but is actually the best environment for children:

First, and foremost, marriage is about providing the best environment for our children. Virtually every week, I run across another study showing this. But what is striking about some of the new research is that it suggests boys, in particular, benefit from being raised in an intact, married home. For instance, in the last week I read fascinating new studies from Harvard University economist Raj Chetty and from Princeton University sociologist Sara McLanahan and their colleagues. These new studies indicate that family structure has especially powerful effects on boys. The new study from Chetty and his colleagues found that areas “with high crime rates and a large fraction of single parents generate particularly negative outcomes for boys relative to girls” when it comes to predicting their future income.

All of this is good news indeed, and a wonderful reiteration that marriage, as between a man and a woman, will always be a fundamental part of society. Science, logic, and history have demonstrated this, and nothing will ever change this truth.

Source via The Federalist.

Data Faked by Same-sex Marriage Researchers

Last year, the media was awash in stories reporting what was considered a major study that “proved” that once people had a conversation at their home with a same-sex canvasser, their minds were changed on whether same-sex ‘marriage’ should be accepted.

ThinkstockPhotos-467417087Further, the study claimed this was such a profound tactic, that follow up research showed that the change had lasted for an entire year, and that it had spread to others in the person’s family. This is reminiscent of what Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said (in her now infamous interview), claiming that the reason attitudes on same-sex ‘marriage’ had supposedly changed was that people were interacting with gay friends and neighbors who support it.

Now comes proof that the study was a fake, and it appears that the data was completely fabricated. The study’s lead author, a professor from Columbia, has formally retracted the study, blaming his co-author for the irregularities:

A study claiming that gay people advocating same-sex marriage can change voters’ minds has been retracted due to fraud.

The study was published last December in Science, and received lots of media attention. It found that a 20-minute, one-on-one conversation with a gay political canvasser could steer voters in favor of same-sex marriage. Not only that, but these changed opinions lasted for at least a year and influenced other people in the voter’s household, the study found.

Donald Green, the lead author on the study, retracted it on Tuesday shortly after learning that his co-author, UCLA graduate student Michael LaCour, had faked the results.

While this development is proving to be an embarrassment to those orchestrating the movement to redefine marriage, it reflects much deeper issues:

First, it shows how willing the media is to massively publicize any claim that shows people are changing their minds on same-sex ‘marriage’ because it feeds into the narrative that this is inevitable and they are on the right side of history.

Second, it shows how the underlying methodologies of many- if not most -studies supporting the same-sex ‘marriage’ movement are questionable – often using small convenience samples featuring people who have an interest in a study turning out a particular way.

This phenomenon was discussed in a ground-breaking report by Professor Loren Marks on the many studies used to support the claim that there are “no differences” for children raised by same-sex couples. Professor Marks looked at 59 of these studies and concluded that not one of them compared a large, random, representative sample of lesbian or gay parents and their children with a large, random representative sample of married parents and their children:

“I am deeply embarrassed by this turn of events and apologize to the editors, reviewers, and readers of Science,” Green, a professor of political science at Columbia University, said in his retraction letter to the journal, as posted on the Retraction Watch blog.

People – including Supreme Court Justices – would do well to remember these fake and flawed studies when the media trots out the next claim purporting to show how beneficial it will be if we redefine the most important social institution civilization has ever known.

Source via Buzzfeed

Obama Criticizes Religious Groups for Refusing to Change Their Stance on Marriage

President Obama believes that christian churches should focus less on maintaining allegiance to their position on “divisive” issues such as life and marriage, and instead focus on issues such as alleviating poverty. The irony is that President Obama’s administration has done more than any other administration in history to pursue divisive policies such as abortion on demand, as well as imposing same-sex 'marriage’ on every state in the nation. He has even adopted policies tying foreign aid to a country’s willingness to embrace gay ‘marriage’ and expansion of abortion. If the president truly wished to end the “culture wars,” then he could refrain from starting them in the first instance.

ThinkstockPhotos-451417063Basing his comments on "my own Christian faith," President Obama told the Catholic-Evangelical Leadership Summit that churches should spend less time focusing on abortion and same-sex “marriage.”

The president said, "When it comes to what are you really going to the mat for, what’s the defining issue, when you’re talking in your congregations, what’s the thing that is really going to capture the essence of who we are as Christians, or as Catholics, or what have you, [poverty] is oftentimes viewed as a 'nice to have' relative to an issue like abortion."

The president continued his address in stating that Jesus cares more about “redistribution of wealth” than ending life in the womb and same-sex ‘marriage,’ as well as suggesting that discussion of said moral issues should be discouraged, so churches can get more followers:

The president argued last week that churches would gain more followers if they embraced the “powerful” idea of helping those in poverty. “I think it would be powerful for our faith-based organizations to speak out on [poverty] in a more forceful fashion,” he said.

"I reject his premise,” blogger Stan Guthrie, an editor at large at Christianity Today, commented. “People of faith already do far more for the poor than secular leftists.”

President Obama's comments, he said, exemplified “unbelievable ignorance on display."

With our president and presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, suggesting that religious organizations should change their stance on fundamental principles, we must wonder how far they would be willing to go to force these groups to change, as well as how much religious freedom they and similar public figures would “tolerate.”

Source and quotes via LifeSite News.

Justice Ginsburg’s Bias

In another display of judicial arrogance and bias, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg once again officiated at a same-sex ‘wedding’ over the weekend, this time perhaps hinting that the Court will find that such ‘marriages’ are required by the Constitution.

Wedding rings

As reported by New York Times, Ginsburg did not clarify why she emphasized the word “constitution” in her remarks. Perhaps she was expressing her own view – which she has improperly telegraphed for months. It is this kind of behavior that seriously calls into question the impartiality of a judge that requires her to remove herself from voting on the marriage case. As legal expert Ed Whelan noted yesterday in a post at NRO’s Bench Memos, her refusal to do so is why “no one should be expected to regard as legitimate a Supreme Court decision inventing a constitutional right to same-sex marriage.”

Wearing her black robe with her signature white lace collar, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg presided over the marriage on Sunday afternoon of Michael Kahn, the longtime artistic director of the Shakespeare Theater Company in Washington, and Charles Mitchem, who works at an architecture firm in New York.

. . .

But the most glittering moment for the crowd came during the ceremony. With a sly look and special emphasis on the word “Constitution,” Justice Ginsburg said that she was pronouncing the two men married by the powers vested in her by the Constitution of the United States.

No one was sure if she was emphasizing her own beliefs or giving a hint to the outcome of the case the Supreme Court is considering whether to decide if same-sex marriage is constitutional.

The foundation of the United States judicial system is that the judge is to be unbiased in opinion, and should only consider the facts of a case. However, as “the groom and groom strolled down the aisle to the mellow strains of “Mr. Sandman,” Justice Ginsburg demonstrated that she holds a biased opinion with regards to same-sex marriage. While in the midst of a court decision that could change the fabric of America, it will be hard to trust a decision issued by a Justice who cannot refrain from publicly exemplifying their impartiality when it comes to the definition of marriage.

Speech by NOM's Brian Brown during SCOTUS Oral Arguments on Marriage

On the morning that the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments on the case that could become the Roe v. Wade of marriage, a crowd of marriage supporters and those seeking to redefine marriage gathered on the steps of the Court. Ironically, as lawyers for same-sex couples were calmly assuring the justices that redefining marriage would not cause problems in society, protestors outside the court proved that the reality is very different as they attempted to loudly shout down anyone who dared to stand for the truth of marriage.

These are the same activists who want any disagreement or contrary voice crushed, with marriage supporters pushed to the edges of society, our voices silenced, and our views besmirched. We commend Brian Brown for wading into this chaos with courage and good cheer to remind everyone, especially the protestors, that we will always stand for the truth of marriage. Here is a video of his remarks:

Mothers and Fathers Are Not Interchangeable

"If same-sex marriage is constitutionalized, the message the law will send is that the gender of parents becomes valueless, since any two adults will do." - Jenet Erickson 

In marriage and parenting, both mothers and fathers (as a couple) are necessary for the creation and rearing of a child, as well as for the health of the marital relationship. Redefining marriage to include same-sex marriage threatens to strip marriage of its two essential purposes: unity and procreation.

In the late 1970s, Azim Surani tried to create new life using two sets of genes from only a mother, or a father. Everything then known about genetics suggested that with the right number of chromosomes, life would develop normally, even if all of its genetic material came only from a female or a male. But the eggs with only the mother’s genes could not survive. A similar fate met the eggs implanted with two sets of father’s genes.”

Mixed Race Young Family with Newborn Baby

As science reporter Paul Raeburn describes, Surani discovered that mothers and fathers each contributed something in their genes that was critical to sustaining life. These “paternal” and “maternal” genes appeared completely indistinguishable in every way, yet expressed themselves differently depending on whether they came from the mother or the father. And both were essential to the survival of the egg.

The essential need for both a mother and a father to provide genetic material for survival parallels what social science tells us about the importance of mothers and fathers in children’s development. Fathers and mothers bring similar, even indistinguishable, capacities that enable healthy child development. But like the complementarity of the left and right halves of the brain, they also bring distinct capacities that provide complementary, irreplaceable contributions to children’s healthy development.
. . .

“In each of these developmental areas, the natural complementarity between mothers’ and fathers’ parenting strengths is surprisingly precise. Whereas mothers are biologically prepared to nurture, teach, and provide care that is especially important for foundational development, fathers are predisposed to take a facilitative approach to parenting, fostering self-reliance, achievement, and healthy peer relationships in ways that are particularly important especially as children begin to transition to adult life. Both mothers and fathers are needed to create life, and both are needed to best facilitate the nurturing of that life. Mothers do not father, and fathers do not mother. Each emerges as a unique source of distinct and critical nurturing in the development of children. Indeed, evidence of these distinct contributions confirms a long assumed proposition: namely, that the direct, continual involvement of both a mother and a father in the home is ideal for the child’s development.”

Full article is available via The Public Discourse.

Controversy in Utah: Debate About Marriage is No Longer Permissible

The “controversy” being orchestrated in Utah against those who signed onto a brief by scholars supporting marriage is indicative of the new direction of same-sex marriage activists: they are attempting to shut down debate altogether.

Voiceless

It’s no longer acceptable in their eyes to have a civil debate about the importance of marriage, or about the beauty of men and women coming together to have and raise children. Instead, they treat these positions as bigoted and discriminatory, akin to racism, claiming there is no room in civil discourse for them to be expressed, and certainly not anywhere near a university.

Two professors and a university president at two Utah universities are facing intense scrutiny from colleagues and students after signing a legal brief provided to the Supreme Court that defends traditional marriage.

Utah State University professors Richard Sherlock and Kay Bradford, along with Utah Valley University president Matthew Holland, were three of 100 scholars nationwide that signed an amicus curiae, or friend of the court brief, in support of traditional marriage.

Opponents of the brief allege the three, by signing the document, are perpetuating discrimination in the name of their respective universities.

The “100 scholars of marriage” brief is one of more than 140 briefs provided to the Supreme Court as it decides whether state bans on gay marriage are constitutionally legal.

Arguing in favor of gay marriage bans, the “100 scholars of marriage” brief states that “forcing a state to redefine marriage in genderless terms will seriously disserve the vast majority of the state’s children.”

The brief further argues redefining marriage will bring an increase in poverty, the number of children with emotional problems, and teenage pregnancies and abortions, among other things.

. . .

Because of the brief’s staunch defense of traditional marriage, some professors and students at Utah State and Utah Valley have gone on the offense toward the two professors and president. A contingent of students and employees at each university penned letters that express their disapproval.

In a letter sent to the Herald Journal, 250 students and professors at Utah State wrote the signatures of Sherlock and Bradford “send a clear message of intolerance to those LGBTQ students, faculty, and allies” at the university.

“Ultimately, they used their university title to perpetuate discrimination — that’s not OK, and that’s why we wrote this letter,” said Senior Bret Nielsen, who drafted the letter.

In response, Sherlock said his opposition to gay marriage is not equivalent to discrimination, especially when related to gay students.

“We all have views,” Sherlock told the Herald Journal. “Our task as teachers is not to keep those views hidden but insure that we are being fair to students who disagree.

Bradford has not commented on the controversy.

You may remember when former GOP Gubernatorial candidate Tom Emmer in Minnesota was stripped of a university professor post that had been awarded to him when activists complained that he supported traditional marriage. And there is the case of a tenured professor at Marquette who was terminated because he publicly objected to another teacher refusing to allow a student to express a position in support of traditional marriage in a classroom discussion. They follow the 2012 case of a high-ranking official at Gallaudet University who was suspended from her position because she signed a petition giving Maryland voters the right to vote on marriage.

We sincerely hope that the members of the US Supreme Court are watching developments like this, because if they rule (illegitimately) that defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman violates the US Constitution, the recriminations against supporters of marriage will be fast and furious.

You can read the full article at The College Fix.