NOM BLOG

Category Archives: Media

NOM in the News: Brian Brown Discusses Implications of Supreme Court Decision on C-SPAN

via C-SPAN:

Brian Brown and Evan Wolfson talked about legal and political developments in the debate over same-sex marriage, including the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to deny appeals from five states seeking to retain their bans on same-sex marriage, and a ruling overturning some bans in Western states. They also spoke about the politics and public opinions surrounding the issue. Evan Wolfson participated by video link from New York City.

ICYMI: Recent State Department Honoree an Open Advocate for the Abolition of Marriage

Last month, on the same day as the historic March for Marriage, the State Department hosted its now-annual Gays and Lesbians in Foreign Affairs Agencies Pride Day.

GILFAA

One of the honorees was radical, far-left activist and LGBT journalist Masha Gessen, who has admitted that she does not think the institution of marriage should exist.  Gessen has also previously said that she doesn't see why children "shouldn't have five parents legally."

It is a sobering reminded of the present administration's aggressive radicalism with regard to marriage to recall how Secretary of State John Kerry introduced Gessen, gushing, "she is a wonderful person – a mother, a journalist, an extraordinary human rights defender – and we are honored by her presence here."

Photo Credit: SNOB Magazine

Of course, as Breitbart News noted, Kerry did not mention Gessen's previous calls for the destruction of marriage altogether--something she says is the true intention of many of the elites behind the push to redefine marriage.

Here's Gessen in her own words:

“I agree that we should have the right to marry, but I also think equally that it is a no-brainer that the institution of marriage should not exist... Fighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we’re going to do with marriage when we get there, because we lie that the institution of marriage is not going to change, and that is a lie. The institution of marriage is going to change, and it should change, and again, I don’t think it should exist.” [SOURCE]

Gessen also opines, "I would like to live in a legal system that is capable of reflecting that reality [of her children having "more or less" five parents] and I don't think that's compatible with the institution of marriage."

Well, at least on that much we can agree: having "more or less five parents" is not compatible with the institution of marriage. But whether it will finally be judged incompatible with the distorted and redefined version of marriage sweeping across civilization--marriage as a pact of convenience, a genderless institution, and one no longer inherently bound up with the bearing and rearing of children--remains to be seen.

Fox and Friends: Brian Brown, NOM, and the IRS

Did you catch NOM president Brian Brown on Fox and Friends this morning?

Here's his interview regarding NOM's successful suit against the IRS for their illegal release of our confidential tax return and donor information:

Please share with your friends!

Without the Media Filter: Marriage Marchers Speak Out

The liberal media and advocates of redefining marriage are desperate to paint supporters of marriage as "hateful" or "bigots."  The media barely makes an effort anymore to veil its support of redefining marriage.

When it comes to the definition of marriage that has been the foundation of civilizations throughout time, the media's strategy is typically:

a.) ignore support for marriage,

b.) promote the redefinition of marriage,

c.) lazily distort and misrepresent the debate surrounding the nature of marriage, or

d.) all of the above.

Media coverage of the March for Marriage was no exception.

But, in their own words, marriage marchers explained why they support marriage--and their reasons aren't ones that the liberal media typically shows.  They emphasized that they are for love and don't hate anyone, and that support for marriage does not mean hatred for certain people:

The marchers also challenged the media's bias against marriage and its supporters:

NOM on Point of View Radio

On May 29, Joe Grabowski, NOM's Director of Communications, was a guest on Point of View Radio discussing the March for Marriage.

Joe talked about lobby day and the opportunity to stand up for marriage in Washington, D.C.  He also told listeners about the virtual march, an opportunity for those who can't make it to the national march.

The March for Marriage segment begins at 28:18--click here to listen!

Point of View

NOM on EWTN's Ave Maria Radio

On-AirJoe Grabowski, NOM's Director of Communications, was on EWTN's Ave Maria Radio on May 29 to talk about the upcoming March for Marriage.

"There are still millions of Americans who believe in marriage as the union of a man and a woman and they want their voices to be respected and heard," Joe said.  The March for Marriage, he said, is the perfect opportunity to demonstrate support for marriage.

Click here and scroll down to "Catholic Connection – May 29, 2014 – Hour 2" to listen to Joe's interview.  The interview begins at the 16:30 mark.

EWTN Covers March for Marriage

In case you missed it, on May 28 NOM President Brian Brown was on EWTN Nightly News to talk about the upcoming March for Marriage.  He also discussed the motion NOM filed with Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy asking him to stay the imposition of same-sex marriage in Oregon.

Watch him here:

Repression: A Very, Very Dangerous Thing

Two national voices from opposite sides of the spectrum related the same opinion in the wake of the Sam Bradford draft photo uproar: “Shouldn’t you also be teaching people who are gay to be open and understanding of people?"

Newt Gingrich and Stephen A. Smith, a self-described liberal, both expressed that the wave of recriminations against people speaking out against the televised kiss demonstrates an incredible intolerance on the part of the gay community.

Newt GingrichAs was reported on TruthRevolt.org yesterday:

On CNN's Crossfire, co-host Newt Gingrich pushed back against recent recriminations against people speaking out against Michael Sam kissing his boyfriend on ESPN after he was drafted by the St. Louis Rams.

Gingrich debated co-host Van Jones and former NFL player Jamal Anderson over the NFL fining and suspending Miami Dolphins linebacker Don Jones for Tweeting out "Horrible" after the televised kiss.  Former NFL running back Derrick Ward received death threats after he went further in condemning the gay PDA he and his kids saw during the televised draft.

Gingrich:  “You guys talk about how you want to be inclusive, except of course, if somebody tweets this, then having a death threat or ‘let’s send them off to sensitivity training.’ It strikes me, that’s repression, that’s not inclusive.”

Anderson:  “Is it repression to try to teach them to be understanding and open to other people, especially when you talk about people they have not been exposed to?”

Gingrich:  “Shouldn’t you also be teaching people who are gay to be open and understanding of people?"

ESPN analyst Stephen A. Smith, a self-described liberal, echoed Gingrich's sentiments yesterday when he said, "People should have the freedom to not want to be associated with that or not want that in their face. Smith also said, 'I think it’s a very, very dangerous thing when people see something and they have a problem with what they’re seeing and they express themselves, and ultimately they’re fined.'"

NOM and CitizenLink's New Radio Ad in Indiana

The new radio ad is currently running in the Ft. Wayne and Muncie radio markets, but NOM and CitizenLink are both prepared to expand into other markets and cut new ads to cover other legislators who fail to support marriage in the present deliberations over Indiana's proposed marriage amendment, HJR3.

Take a listen to the new ad here:

 

Please share this with everyone you know in Indiana! All Hoosiers should be calling their legislators on HJR3 and demanding their right to vote on marriage this November. You can bet the legislators in Indianapolis are hearing from the noisy marriage redefinition lobby today - so let's make sure they hear from our side as well!

"We've had multiple hearings on it!"

Before the Super Bowl yesterday, President Obama sat down to an interview with Bill O'Reilly of Fox News. The interview covered a wide range of topics, moving through each rather speedily, but at the end when O'Reilly honed in on the alleged political corruption at the IRS, the President's response was remarkable [emphases added]:

Obama O'Reilly IRSThe president... refused to acknowledge that the IRS illegally targeted tea party groups in the run-up to the 2012 election. "Absolutely wrong," he said when O'Reilly broached the subject. "These kinds of things keep on surfacing, in part, because you and your TV station will promote them… We've had multiple hearings on it!"

"So you're saying there was no corruption there at all?" O'Reilly asked.

"Absolutely not," the president replied. "There were some bone-headed decisions out of a local office."

"But no mass corruption?" O'Reilly persisted.

"Not even mass corruption," a visibly-annoyed Obama replied. "Not even a smidgen of corruption."

The President's touting of "multiple hearings" that have been held on the subject is simply a tactic of evasion. What those hearings have concluded is, at best, debatable. And to say that the issue keeps surfacing because of Fox News keeps bringing it up is an even more brazen attempt to evade the real issue: it was brought up at least two times just last week by two members of Congress.  

The first was Senator Ted Cruz, who asked about the matter to Attorney General Eric Holder during a Senate hearing on the DOJ:

"In the 280 days since that inspector general report, nobody has been indicted," Cruz said. "Not a single person. In the 280 days since that inspector general report, it’s been publicly reported that no indictments are planned. Today in this hearing, you were unwilling to answer a question whether even a single victim of targeting has been interviewed."

And Holder's replies, stating that, "This is a matter that is presently being investigated, interviews are being done, analysis is being conducted," indicates that the President's determination that there was "not even a smidgen of corruption" are, if nothing else, at least premature!


The second instance was a floor speech by Senator Mitch McConnell, parts of which the Senator included in an op-ed piece for Brietbart published the same day. Referring to proposed new rules regulating the activity of 501(c)4 organizations - rules which many critics fear will stifle free speech and political participation - McConnell had this to say:

McConnell floor speechFor some, it may be hard to imagine that the Obama administration would even think of touching an issue this radioactive after last year’s scandal stunned the nation. They underestimate the extent to which this administration and its allies are willing to go to shut down — and shut up — their ideological opponents.

They also underestimate the extent to which these folks are willing to go to hold onto power, and they forget how speech is usually stifled. As Madison knew, most encroachments on free speech and other constitutionally-protected freedoms are backdoor efforts like this one.

Suffice to say, therefore, that not everyone is convinced that the President's finding of "not even a smidgen of corruption" at the IRS is going to hold up very much longer. We're grateful to these brave members of Congress and others who continue working to get to the bottom of these matters and to hold accountable those and the IRS and elsewhere who abused power for political purposes.

Get Married at the Grammys - but Do the Grammys Get Marriage?

GrammysIn what even Slate is calling a "bizarre" spectacle, last night the Grammys featured a group 'wedding' involving 30-some couples, heterosexual and homosexual alike, officiated by Queen Latifah.

According to a New York Times ArtsBeat article before the show aired, "the producers behind the program... [were] hoping that the biggest show-stopper of the night [would] be a much more solemn event." It is perhaps nonetheless rather telling that the broadcast of the wedding didn't occur until after 11 PM, perhaps the producers hedging their bets on that show-stopping solemnity. It also perhaps strains the meaning of the word "solemn" too much to assign it as a modifier to an event involving Madonna in a cowboy hat.


But apart from this spectacle which, at least to some folks' sensibilities, might be taken as an unseemly trivialization of the gravity of marriage, those of us who missed the Grammys missed out on another testament to the nuptial mystery - or, at least, that's what Alyssa Rosenberg at the utlra-liberal ThinkProgress alleges.

beyonce and jayzIn her piece, Rosenberg is responding to a charge in New York Times by Ross Douthat that "liberalism itself has undercut the two-parent family — through the liberal-dominated culture industry’s permissive, reductive attitudes toward sex."

Rosenberg rejects this charge, holding up as evidence for her contrary position - wait for it - the Grammy performance of Beyonce and Jay-Z doing a song called "Drunk in Love."

It is a song which Rosenberg herself calls "raunchy, fun and even silly" [emphasis added]. In the performance, Beyonce was adorned (according to The Hollywood Reporter) in "Saint Laurent black tights, custom bra, La Perla collar body and Nichole de Carle body suit, complete with wavy wet hair" and performed while "expertly twirling in a chair."

Rosenberg concludes of the performance, "If marriage is a product that conservatives desperately want to sell, the smartest thing they could do right now is to hire Beyoncé and Jay-Z as a product spokescouple."

But as we won't be quoting any of the raunchy song's lyrics nor linking to video of the performance, it must suffice to say that we politely decline Rosenberg's suggestion.

For our part, we think that neither of the 'performances' last night are an ideal starting place for a proper understanding of marriage.

Quack On! Share a Flier to Support Phil Robertson

For those interested in sharing a flier to encourage others to support Phil Robertson and the right to share our beliefs in the public square, feel free to download one here. Whether you're at work or school, your place of worship or simply around town, these fliers are a great way to spread support for the Robertson family and let the executives at A&E know that the majority of Americans stand with Phil.

Screen Shot 2013-12-20 at 5.42.00 PM

If you haven't signed the petition to support Phil, please do so here.

[A]ll good with God and the Bible when it suits their agenda and business needs, but…

The backlash against the cable channel home of “Duck Dynasty” A & E continues with fire hose pace and pressure.

Phil RobertsonWhile probably not the most recent given the torrent of criticism against the network, here’s yet another take on the inconsistency of A&E’s action against Phil Robertson.

Richie Laxton on the Tea Party Nation website writes.

My Thoughts on A&E Suspending Phil Robertson...

Aside from the silliness of A&E putting Phil Robertson in time out like he's a mis-behaving 5 year old, I find this whole thing rather curious. Phil recently released his book "Happy, Happy, Happy" and he didn't hold back on a lot of controversial topics including matters the Bible addresses as sin. A&E network chiefs had no qualms then. Perhaps they assumed Southern Rednecks don’t read books and D. C. to New York elites won’t touch anything with ‘camo’ on it. But, when Pa-Paw Phil answers a question from a GQ reporter bluntly and in accordance to his Biblical beliefs, even quoting verses from the New Testament, suddenly A&E gets weak in the knees. This is glaring inconsistency on their part. Certainly they have a right as a business to do what they feel is best for their brand, Nevertheless, they knew full and well who and what the Robertson clan was all about when they signed them up.

In Phil's book, he made it clear that they told A&E execs that prayer, Bible and Christian points of view were going to be part of the show. A&E agreed to those terms and even ceded much creative control to the family regarding the series. Now this???

So, I have to conclude that A&E is all good with God and the Bible when it suits their agenda and business needs. But, when it doesn't, put a Lady GaGa meat dress on the Christians and open the lion cages. Typical, elitist, media hypocrisy in a wretched guise they fraudulently label as 'tolerance.'

Love him or hate him, at least Phil was consistent; A&E wasn't. However, after looking at A&E's Facebook page, they are the ones who are getting bit the hardest.

How the Media Misses on Marriage and Pope Francis

Renowned religious commentator Rev. Robert Barron writes at RealClearReligion on the recent naming by TIME magazine of Pope Francis as "Person of the Year" and cautions against some mis-perceptions in the mainstream media which the TIME cover-story evinces.

Media_Journalists

Barron writes of "a tendency to distinguish radically between [the] lovely Franciscan emphasis on mercy and love for the poor and the apparently far less than lovely emphasis on doctrine so characteristic of the Papacies of John Paul II and Benedict XVI. There is actually a good deal of dangerous silliness in this way of characterizing things" [emphasis added].

Now listen to the authors of the Time article: "In a matter of months, Francis has elevated the healing mission of the church -- the church as servant and comforter of hurting people in an often harsh world -- above the doctrinal police work so important to his recent predecessors." And "his vision is of a pastoral -- and not doctrinaire -- church."

... to which Barron responds: "This is so much nonsense." 

Which is to say, the Holy Father has in no way moved away from the historical teaching of the church on key matters such as life and marriage in his renewed focus on mercy.

As NOM President Brian Brown explained yesterday in the NOM Weekly News, there are reasons to celebrate Pope Francis' being named "Person of the Year," but of course all of us here at NOM recognize that there are also many folks out there being misled by the press into making mistakes about what Pope Francis represents.

Pope Francis

In short, there is a widespread perception in the secular culture that Francis represents some kind of softening of the Catholic Church's teachings on crucial social issues, including same-sex marriage. But nothing is further from the truth - a fact pointed out before by several American Churchmen including Cardinal Francis George and Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone. 

Indeed, as Father Barron implies, and as Brian explained yesterday, Francis hasn't at all demonstrated a need to move away from the Church's teachings on these issues, but has in fact emphasized that the Church needs to explain the importance of one man-one woman marriage in a more effective way and gain more adherents to that truth!

Pope Francis on "Cultural Challenges" to the Gospel

Yesterday, the Vatican released the first major document penned solely by Pope Francis during his reign. The document (known as an "apostolic exhortation") takes its title (Gaudium Evangelii) from the "incipit" or first words of the exhortation in its official language. The phrase translate as "The Joy of the Gospel."

Pope FrancisIn one section of the lengthy work, the Holy Father reflects on specific "cultural challenges" confronting the mission of Christians in the modern age. Confronting these challenges, Pope Francis writes, is one of the ways Christians "evangelize" in today's world [emphasis added]:

We also evangelize when we attempt to confront the various challenges which can arise. On occasion these may take the form of veritable attacks on religious freedom or new persecutions directed against Christians; in some countries these have reached alarming levels of hatred and violence. In many places, the problem is more that of widespread indifference and relativism, linked to disillusionment and the crisis of ideologies which has come about as a reaction to anything which might appear totalitarian. This not only harms the Church but the fabric of society as a whole. We should recognize how in a culture where each person wants to be bearer of his or her own subjective truth, it becomes difficult for citizens to devise a common plan which transcends individual gain and personal ambitions.

Francis goes on to expound on how this "widespread indifference and relativism" relates to our notions of marriage and family [emphasis added]:

In the prevailing culture, priority is given to the outward, the immediate, the visible, the quick, the superficial and the provisional. What is real gives way to appearances. In many countries globalization has meant a hastened deterioration of their own cultural roots and the invasion of ways of thinking and acting proper to other cultures which are economically advanced but ethically debilitated. This fact has been brought up by bishops from various continents in different Synods. The African bishops, for example... pointed out years ago that there have been frequent attempts to make the African countries “parts of a machine, cogs on a gigantic wheel...." [...] By the same token, the bishops of Asia “underlined the external influences being brought to bear on Asian cultures. New patterns of behaviour are emerging as a result of over-exposure to the mass media… As a result, the negative aspects of the media and entertainment industries are threatening traditional values, and in particular the sacredness of marriage and the stability of the family."

FamilyFinally, Francis speaks directly of the "crisis" facing the family in the attacks brought against it around the world, and he does so in words clearly implicating attempts to redefine marriage:

The family is experiencing a profound cultural crisis, as are all communities and social bonds. In the case of the family, the weakening of these bonds is particularly serious because the family is the fundamental cell of society, where we learn to live with others despite our differences and to belong to one another; it is also the place where parents pass on the faith to their children. Marriage now tends to be viewed as a form of mere emotional satisfaction that can be constructed in any way or modified at will. But the indispensible contribution of marriage to society transcends the feelings and momentary needs of the couple....

You can read the entire monumental document online.