NOM BLOG

Category Archives: Media

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.

The "Marriage Gap"

Dick Morris writes on his website about a missed point in electoral analysis in his essay, It's Marriage Gap, Not Gender Gap.

"[T]he real gap in our politics," Morris writes, "is not between men and women, but between married men and married women on the one hand and single men and single women on the other. It doesn't matter if you are divorced, separated, widowed or never married. If you are single you are much more likely to vote Democratic."

CoupleAnd this "raises the question of motivation," Morris explains:

[T]he Democrats’ allies in Hollywood and the media... foster a lifestyle that does not include marriage. They rarely depict marriage, except to mock it (the Runaway Bride or Father of the Bride). Love flourishes in Hollywood but not much marriage.

When Hollywood — and the TV people — wants to sell something, they certainly can. Look at how the constant pounding of shows featuring gay couples has melted public aversion to gay marriage in record time. The fact is the Hollywood has declared war on straight marriage for decades.

The result of generous subsidies on the one hand and cultural pressure on the other has been a declining rate of marriage among Americans.

Click here to read the whole fascinating piece. What do you think? How does the GOP "change the math" as Morris suggests?

"Family Friendly" Apparently Offends Some

Many in the gay marriage movement claim that they have no desire to force their lifestyle on anyone else, they only want the freedom to love and marry whomever they wish. But sometimes this carefully-crafted claim is undermined by the real-world actions of the homosexual community itself.

PrideParadeAn example of this was seen last week, as controversy erupted in the media about the Dallas Pride Parade. MyFoxDetroit reported that organizers had stated ahead of this year's event- which took place on Sunday- that "rules related to nudity and sexual behavior would be enforced more strictly than in past years. Police said anyone violating indecency laws in front of children could be charged with a felony."

But many in the gay community were unhappy about the stricter enforcement of the rules, not only in Dallas but across the country:

The warnings outraged some local activists, whose reactions swiftly echoed through gay-oriented social media nationwide.

"To make the parade more 'family friendly' and to accommodate comfort for the increasing number of attending heterosexuals and corporate sponsorship, participants are being asked to cover up!" activist Daniel Scott Cates wrote on his Facebook page. "The 'queer' is effectively being erased from our pride celebration."

Another activist, Hardy Haderman, wrote an aggrieved column for the Dallas Voice, a weekly serving the gay community.

"The assimilationists insist we tone down and throw away all our joyous sexiness," he wrote. "Why? To do that turns the Pride Parade into a We-Are-Ashamed parade, and I refuse to be part of that."

The rules are hardly extreme, however: the article explains that they "were drafted to conform with the city's public nudity ordinance and the state's anti-obscenity law, which bars the parade from featuring sexual paraphernalia and 'real or simulated sex acts.'"

This leaves us wondering how public displays of nudity in front of children and sexual acts on public streets doesn’t equate to forcing others to be exposed to elements of a lifestyle that is understandably objectionable to many.

New Zealand Legislators Committed "Arrogant Act of Cultural Vandalism"

New Zealand held its first same-sex ceremonies yesterday, which you've probably heard something about in the news over the past 24 hours. The media has been at it again, celebrating NZ same-sex weddings with as much hype as possible, all the while ignoring the fact that legislators redefined marriage back in April despite strong opposition and very little debate at the time.

You won't hear much about it in the mainstream media, but conservative groups, religious leaders, and Kiwis across the nation are speaking out this week, saying that the new law "defies the national mood and common sense". We agree.

Wellington, New Zealand“Despite their grandiose view, the politicians never had the authority to redefine marriage,” said Bob McCoskrie, the national director of Family First NZ. “They committed an arrogant act of cultural vandalism with no clear public mandate."

Many people have commented on the bias in reporting on the day’s events. The mainstream media featured laudatory coverage of the weddings themselves, giving little attention to opponents' views.

Australian couple Trent Kandler and Paul McCarthy were flown from Australia to Wellington by Tourism New Zealand, where a “wedding” was held at the national museum, Te Papa.

NewspaperAir NZ provided an in-flight “wedding” ceremony for a lesbian couple, Lynley Bendall and Ally Wanikau, where Jesse Tyler Fergusson from the TV series Modern Family was present. The package included a honeymoon at a Palms Spring Resort in the U.S.

Lance Huxford is calling for people to complain to the media, saying he is “shocked at the unbalanced coverage of the same sex marriage law coming into effect on both TV 1 and TV 3.”

“We must continue to speak up for marriage as uniting a man and a woman with each other and any children born from that union” Dame Colleen Bayer, national director of Family Life International NZ, said. “For the sake of our children, we cannot stand by and let marriage be mocked.” -LifeSiteNews

Catholic Priest Denies Communion to Same-Sex Couple -- and the Media Reaction that Follows

From GoLocalProv:

Reverend Brian Sistare, the pastor at Sacred Heart Parish in Woonsocket, is currently denying Holy Communion to Lew Pryeor and Pierre Leveillee, a gay couple who are members of Sacred Heart’s regular congregation.

CommunionAs it is customary for Catholic priests to refuse Holy Communion to those who are unrepentant–and with knowledge of the Church’s teachings regarding homosexuality–one would think that this issue would be of small surprise and concern to the public.

For some reason, however, progressives have begun to salivate over Pryeor’s and Leveillee’s dilemma.

It’s interesting to consider the precise motivation for far-left progressives–people known to mock and ridicule the entire notion of “religion,” ... According to their own principal assumptions, for progressives to be concerned with two homosexual Catholics being denied Holy Communion is like sticking up for a child being forbade fairy dust at The Magic Kingdom–and then covering the story on RIFuture.org.

As one would expect from people who have no principles other than power, today’s progressive position seems to be this: Catholics are silly. Unless they’re gay Catholics.

The private happenings at Sacred Heart Parish simply provided RIFuture with an easy hit-piece against the political Right.

NOM Regional Director Christopher Plante on Relevant Radio

Chris PlanteOur own Chris Plante, Regional Director for NOM-Rhode Island, appeared on the Drew Mariani Show today to discuss attacks on marriage and our religious liberties, and also how we can continue to build a strong marriage culture for the future.

The segment begins around the 33:00 mark:


Get Ready for Washington Post to Get a Whole Lot More One-Sided About Marriage Debate

Media bias favoring marriage redefinition? It may be nothing new, but the Washington Post may be taking that bias up a notch in the near future. Newsbusters reports that the Post's new owner, Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos, spent a reported $2.5 million last year to support same-sex marriage in Washington state.

BezosAmazon CEO Jeff Bezos' $2.5 million pledge to defend Washington's gay-marriage law marks by far his biggest entry into politics and thrusts him into the national debate over the rights of same-sex couples.

The donation, which Bezos made with his wife, MacKenzie, is likely the largest political contribution to a gay-marriage campaign in the country and dwarfs all of Bezos' previous political giving.

It also positions Amazon as a sort of corporate counterpoint to Chick-fil-A, the fast-food chain whose president made headlines with recent comments that America risked "God's judgment" by supporting same-sex marriage.

For the record, Bezos's contribution paid off as Washington's Referendum 74 on gay marriage passed last November 52 to 48 percent.

MRC's Bozell on Censoring the Pro-Marriage Point of View

Brent Bozell, founder and president of the Media Research Center, calls out the media for censoring pro-marriage points of view:

"...The official gay censorship lobbies – from the Orwellian-named “GLAAD” to the National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association – define “fairness and accuracy” as being stories that try to scrape “fairness” away, treating opposition like used gum on someone’s shoe. GLAAD created what they call the “Commentator Accountability Project” designed to discourage reporters and TV bookers from booking “hate” guests.

... To quote GLAAD censor Aaron McQuade, “Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from the consequences of speech.” If they prevail, the “consequences” of speaking in opposition to the gay lobby equals zero bookings. In their dream land, every “news” segment looks like the usual MSNBC “Lean Forward” gay segment where everyone embraces the equality and fluidity of “sexual preference.”

But they’re not censors, they insist."

National Organization for Marriage Calls for Balanced News Media Coverage for Same-Sex 'Marriage'

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: June 18, 2013
Contact: Elizabeth Ray or Jen Campbell (703-683-5004)


"An important new study proves that the news media is overwhelmingly biased in favor of same-sex 'marriage,' leaving viewers to wonder if they are trying to shape the news rather than cover it." — Brian Brown, NOM president —

National Organization for Marriage

Washington, D.C. — Citing an independent news analysis, the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) today criticized the national news media for their overwhelming bias in favor of same-sex 'marriage.' According to the study released by The Pew Center's Project for Excellence in Journalism, stories with more statements supporting same-sex 'marriage' outweighed those with more statements opposing it by a margin of roughly 5-to-1.

"Those of us on the front lines of defending true marriage have experienced first-hand the news media's bias in favor of redefining marriage," said Brian Brown, NOM's president. "But this important new study proves that the news media is overwhelmingly biased in favor of same-sex 'marriage,' leaving viewers to wonder if they are trying to shape the news rather than cover it."

The Pew Center journalism research project studied nearly 500 news stories published from March 18 through May 12 and found that nearly half (47%) primarily focused on support for same-sex 'marriage,' while only 9% primarily focused on opposition. In contrast to the news media treatment of the issue, the Pew Center study found that comments by the public via Twitter were evenly split (31% in favor; 28% opposed), reflecting the close division of the country on whether marriage should be redefined to accommodate same-sex couples.

"This is a fascinating study that reveals the underlying bias of the media in support of redefining marriage," Brown said. "Yet despite that, the public isn't buying it at least based on reported Twitter comments. We call on editors, producers and reporters to carefully study their own coverage in light of this proven bias, and ensure that the voices of NOM and other supporters of marriage are fairly and adequately reflected in their coverage. This is especially important in covering the upcoming Supreme Court rulings expected by the end of the month, and their aftermath."

###

To schedule an interview with Brian Brown, President of the National Organization for Marriage, please contact Elizabeth Ray (x130), [email protected], or Jen Campbell (x145), [email protected], at 703-683-5004.