"...For the IRS to leak any organization's tax return to its political opponents is an outrageous breach of ethics and, if proven, constitutes a felony. Every organization — liberal and conservative — should shudder at the idea of the IRS playing politics with its confidential tax return information. But the situation here is even more egregious because the head of the HRC was at the time serving as a national co-chair of President Obama's re-election campaign.

The release of NOM's confidential tax return to the Human Rights Campaign is the canary in the coal mine of IRS corruption. Contrary to assertions that the targeting of Tea Party groups was an error in judgment by low-level IRS bureaucrats, the release of NOM's confidential data to a group headed by an Obama campaign co-chair suggests the possibility of complicity at the highest levels of politics and government. This wasn't a low-level error in judgment; it was a conscious act to reward a prominent Obama supporter while punishing an opponent.

That's the reason the IRS has not been very interested in getting to the bottom of what happened. Federal investigators have interviewed NOM officials about the matter, but our efforts to find out what has become of the investigation have been stonewalled at every turn."

 

 

• In March 2012, the Puffington Host published a confidential form that the National Organization for Marriage, which opposes same-sex marriage, had filed with the IRS. The website obtained the document from the Human Rights Campaign, a pro-same-sex-marriage outfit. In a press release issued today, NOM says its analysis of the images "has determined that the documents came directly from the Internal Revenue Service."

A little over a year ago, I reported that, ”It is likely that someone at the Internal Revenue Service illegally leaked confidential donor information showing a contribution from Mitt Romney’s political action committee to the National Organization for Marriage, says the group.”

Now — on the heels of news the IRS’s apology for having targeted conservative groups — NOM is renewing their demand that the Internal Revenue Service reveal the identity of the people responsible.

“There is little question that one or more employees at the IRS stole our confidential tax return and leaked it to our political enemies, in violation of federal law,” said NOM’s president Brian Brow, in a prepared statement. “The only questions are who did it, and whether there was any knowledge or coordination between people in the White House, the Obama reelection campaign and the Human Rights Campaign. We and the American people deserve answers.”

The Internal Revenue Service inappropriately flagged conservative political groups for additional reviews during the 2012 election to see if they were violating their tax-exempt status, a top IRS official said Friday.

Organizations were singled out because they included the words "tea party" or "patriot" in their applications for tax-exempt status, said Lois Lerner, who heads the IRS division that oversees tax-exempt groups.

In some cases, groups were asked for their list of donors, which violates IRS policy in most cases, she said.

"That was wrong. That was absolutely incorrect, it was insensitive and it was inappropriate. That's not how we go about selecting cases for further review," Lerner said at a conference sponsored by the American Bar Association.

...Many conservative groups complained during the election that they were being harassed by the IRS. They accused the agency of frustrating their attempts to become tax exempt by sending them lengthy, intrusive questionnaires.

The forms, which the groups made available at the time, sought information about group members' political activities, including details of their postings on social networking websites and about family members. (AP)

"...opponents of gay marriage say Delaware lawmakers will face consequences for supporting the measure, which cleared the Senate on a 12-9 vote and was signed into law by Democratic Gov. Jack Markell barely half an hour later.

“I think there will be some people that will be replaced,” said Brian Brown, president of the National Organization for Marriage, a conservative group opposed to same-sex marriage.

Brown said he thinks both Cloutier and Rep. Michael Ramone of Newark, the only other Republican lawmaker to vote for gay marriage, will be defeated if they seek re-election.

“Either in a primary or in a general election, we don’t really care,” Brown said, adding that plenty of Democrats oppose gay marriage.

“The reality is that these were very close votes, even with a supermajority of Democrats in Delaware,” he noted. “They needed 11, they got 12.”

While gay marriage is now the law of Delaware, Brown said his group would work to overturn it.

“It may take a long time ... but we’ll continue to fight and continue to support candidates who support traditional marriage,” he said."

"...[Sen.] Portman’s open wavering [on ENDA] suggests that, one year after President Barack Obama announced his own election-year conversion to supporting gay marriage, the political momentum is neither as intense nor as one-directional as it might appear. Of the 166 sponsors of ENDA in the House, for example, only three are Republicans: Florida’s Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, Pennsylvania’s Charlie Dent and New York’s Richard Hanna."

In a widely expected move, embattled Illinois GOP Chairman Pat Brady resigned on Tuesday. Brady said he wanted to spend more time with his family as his wife fights cancer, but social conservatives have been calling for Brady's head for months. They're angry over his support for a gay marriage bill floated in the state legislature this year — the latest in a series of similar measures taken up across the country.

...No matter how Brady's departure is spun, the takeaway is that the Illinois GOP is doubling down on its opposition to gay marriage. Though "it's pretty clear that support for marriage equality is what forced [Brady] out of office," says Doug Mataconis at Outside the Beltway. After he came out for the marriage bill, 50 conservatives called for his resignation at a meeting in April.

Doug Kern, deputy chair of the Crow Wing County Republican Party, said Monday he is starting a recall petition against Rep. Joe Radinovich, DFL-Crosby, in the wake of the lawmaker’s announcement that he will support gay marriage legislation.

Kern said he started the effort because of Radinovich’s stand on the issue despite last fall’s vote totals on a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. Even though the measure was defeated statewide, House District 10B voters favored the proposed constitutional amendment, garnering 62.5 percent of the vote.

“He’s supposed to represent the people,” Kern said.

Kern said the vote to legalize gay marriage would threaten religious freedom. He said while legislation has language to protect pastors it doesn’t protect Sunday school teachers and Bible study leaders. (Brainer Dispatch)

Please continue to contact him and other Minnesota lawmakers.

He was warned that if he did not take urgent action to protect traditional Tory values, members of his own party would desert him for Nigel Farage.

Sir Gerald Howarth, a former defence minister, said his constituents were "fed up to the back teeth" because the Government failed to deliver on promises.

He challenged Mr Cameron to adopt a plan which includes scrapping the gay marriage Bill, freezing the overseas aid budget, opting out of the European Convention on Human Rights, cutting immigration and holding a prompt EU referendum, The Times reported.

... Peter Bone, the Wellingborough MP, said Mr Cameron should halt the gay marriage Bill, currently going through Parliament, and cut overseas aid. "Those are things that Conservatives want and that's what Ukip voters want."

The ComRes poll, commissioned by the Coalition for Marriage, reveals that one in four of those who voted Conservative in 2010 say the policy is putting them off voting for the Party again.

Asked, “Does the Coalition Government’s plans to legalise same sex marriage make you more or less likely to vote for each of these parties in next week’s local elections?” 26 per cent of Conservative 2010 voters say less likely.

Fewer than one in ten (nine per cent) say they are more likely to vote Tory again because of gay marriage.

And 22 per cent of those polled said they were planning to vote for UKIP, which opposes gay marriage.

Read more here.

We asked the entire sample of 2,375 likely voters, “Do you support or oppose a measure defining marriage as between one man and one woman?” The result was 60 percent in favor. Sixty-five percent of people in states that don’t recognize same-sex marriage say they would support such a measure. In states where same-sex marriage is legal, the result was tied, 45 percent in favor to 45 percent against.

Although this seems to betray an incoherent view on the topic by many respondents, it also suggests that the “one man, one woman” formulation frequently used in political talk (including, at one point, by President Obama) was chosen with good reason — it is something people find it easy to agree with.

The complete poll results can be seen here.

OKLAHOMA CITY (AP) - A nonbinding resolution to reaffirm marriage as a union between a man and a woman and support the federal Defense of Marriage Act has been approved in the Oklahoma Senate.

The resolution sponsored by Norman Republican Sen. Rob Standridge was quickly adopted Tuesday on a voice vote. The House passed the resolution unanimously last week....

[The bill's] authors say it is meant to send a message to President Barack Obama and the U.S. Supreme Court, which recently heard arguments in two cases related to same-sex marriage rights.

While the State Central Committee of the Illinois Republican Party was meeting in Tinley Park to discuss the retention of Pat Brady as Chairman following his lobbying for gay marriage, a crowd that surged to 150 people at one time gathered in front of State Rep. Ed Sullivan’s district office in Mundelein to protest his recently announced intention to vote for the same-sex marriage bill currently being considered in Springfield.

The rally organizers told Illinois Review that the rally was organized in just a few days, and the fact that so many people came out to protest is a clear indication of the true majority voice of the district.

The protest included a number of elected Republican officials, including current and former GOP township chairs and precinct committeemen. (Illinois Review)

Update -- more from the Washington Post:

The Republican National Committee passed resolutions Friday reaffirming its commitment to defining marriage as between a man and a woman, and calling on the Supreme Court to “uphold the sanctity of marriage” as it weighs rulings on two landmark cases involving gay marriage.

... One of the resolutions affirms the committee’s “support for marriage as the union of one man and one woman, and as the optimum environment in which to raise healthy children for the future of America.”

... “The Republican National Committee implores the U. S. Supreme Court to uphold the sanctity of marriage in its rulings on California’s Proposition 8 and the Federal Defense of Marriage Act,” reads the RNC’s resolution.

"...As marriage gets redefined we’ll see an expansion of government. That’s because gay marriage won’t just happen if government “gets out of the way.” It requires creating a new possibility that will not come to pass if traditional institutions and moral traditions are left alone. Government must intervene. Our moral traditions must be subjected to what activists think of as corrective surgery. With gay marriage we’re sure to get legislation redefining what it means to be a parent, and what it means to be a child, as is already the case in California. In the way of these redefinitions will come programs to “reeducate” John Q. Public to the “new realities.”

Here as elsewhere the progressive project is always political. It sees a problem: The pre-political institutions and traditions of society are violating rights and creating inequalities. Then it reaches for the ready tool for redress and correction, which is almost always the power of government—coercive force.

... Tyranny isn’t just a situation in which the government is telling you what to do at every moment. It’s also a society in which government says that, if necessary, it can. In this respect gay marriage reflects a dramatic enlargement of government. If legislatures and courts can redefine marriage, what can’t it intervene to reshape and re-purpose?

They have yet to receive a response from their offices.

That's because these Republicans are in the process of learning that a) their new position is hugely unpopular with their base and b) betraying marriage isn't the end of the pressure they will receive from far-left activists -- it's only the beginning:

• Should business within the wedding/marriage industry be protected from lawsuits resulting from a refusal to service same-sex couples at wedding halls, photography services, catering, etc..?
• Should Catholic adoption agencies be forced to include same sex couples when a baby is up for adoption?
• Should Christian marriage therapists lose their jobs or licenses b/c they refuse to see same sex couples ?
• Should children in public schools be mandated to learn about homosexuality, when the parents do not think it is appropriate to be taught?'
• Where does the member stand on the Employment Non-discrimination Act (ENDA)?

On the question of marriage and the Supreme Court he said:

"The truth is the truth. The truth is marriage is based upon the distinction between men and women, husbands and wives, mothers and fathers. Marriage is the one institution that brings together the great halves of humanity male and female in one institution to connect husbands and wives together and to any children they may bear. The question before the court is not only on this issue of what is marriage, marriage is by definition the union of a man and a woman and apart from all this inevitability talk, 31 states have voted to say that is the truth, they've embedded it in their state constitutions, only 4 have voted against it. There's a myth that somehow this is inevitable, look, North Carolina passed its constitutional amendment 8 months ago by 61%. The polls in California had us at 36% support for traditional marriage but when people came out they voted to support traditional marriage so the real issue is, is the court going to launch another culture war by trumping the votes of these states and of the duly-elected members of Congress who passed DOMA."

On the question of whether the Supreme Court will rule on Prop 8:

"I don't think the court is going to punt, the court is going to answer the question, the question is simple: 'do the people of the state of California, do the people of the states of this country have the right to votes and voices heard, or is the court going to trash over 50 million votes.' The lower court ruling wasn't just about Proposition 8 and what is being brought forward is this myth that somehow embedded in our Constitution something the founders didn't see and we haven't seen up until now 'there is a right to redefine the very nature of marriage'."

On whether gays and lesbians are "politically powerless" he said:

"I think what John Roberts was asking was a really fascinating question because currently gay marriage activists are claiming that they are politically powerless and that's why we have to strike down laws defending marriage like the Defense of Marriage Act and Proposition 8. Whereas what the Chief Justice is saying is that actually gays and lesbians are very politically powerful -- the President supports them, the Democratic party platform supports them -- and so the idea that we need to strike down laws protecting marriage is absurd. What we need to uphold is that people have the ultimate right to decide marriage laws. The states, the democratic process is working, and we hope the Supreme Court will acknowledge the votes of over 45 million Americans who have voted to protect marriage as the union of one man and one woman."

On the question of whether Americans who are pro-marriage are akin to those who opposed interracial marriage he said:

"Laws against interracial marriage were meant to keep the races separate so they wouldn't have children together and they were wrong, marriage is meant to bring men and women together so they have children which is right. You cannot compare these two things at all and furthermore, I think it's really important what she brought up, the 45 million Americans who have voted to protect marriage are not motivated by animus towards gay people, they're motivated out of love for the institution, and [crosstalk] if the Supreme Court were to rule that laws defining marriage are akin to bigotry, then every person in this country who believes that children have a right to a mother and father will be treated as bigots under the law, that's why Steve and others might agree with me that the Supreme Court's not going to go there. We can work this out through the political process. The debate can continue. Questions as central as marriage should not be decided by the Supreme Court they should be decided by the people."

In an interview aired over the weekend, Rep. Matt J. Salmon (R-Ariz.) told a local news station that his son’s homosexuality has not led him to change his position on gay marriage.

“I don’t support the gay marriage,” the congressman said. But Salmon emphasized that he loved and respected his son and did not consider homosexuality a choice.

“My son is by far one of the most important people in my life. I love him more than I can say,” an emotional Salmon told 3TV. “It doesn’t mean that I don’t have respect, it doesn’t mean that I don’t sympathize with some of the issues. It just means I haven’t evolved to that stage.”

... “We respect each others’ opinions and we just know that on certain issues we have to agree to disagree,” the congressman’s son, Matt R. Salmon, told The Post. “I love my father and realize that he can have the opinions that he has, and they might differ from mine, but that doesn’t change the way I feel about him.”

... Salmon also expressed disappointment in those who have reacted to the interview by leaving “hate speech” on his father’s Facebook page. “If he’s going to change his mind it’s going to come from a place of love,” Salmon said. “All they’re doing is fighting intolerance with intolerance.”

Same-sex “marriage” advocates are orchestrating a series of high-profile public events intended to influence the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court to impose same-sex marriage on an unwilling public. The announcements of several Republicans who say they now support gay marriage provide clear evidence of this. The meme is that there is a growing consensus among conservatives that same-sex marriage should be accepted.

You can’t support gay marriage and claim to be a conservative any more than you can be “pro-choice” on abortion and claim to be a conservative. Is Michael Bloomberg or Arnold Schwarzenegger a conservative? Any Republican who supports same-sex marriage is in a similar boat.

Homosexual activists are hoping that these statements by moderate or liberal elites in the GOP will appeal to Republicans who make up a majority on the Court — especially Justice Anthony Kennedy. The fact remains, though, that support for true marriage is rock-solid among Republicans in general, and conservatives in particular.

"Let's not confused DOMA and the Administration's decision that it was unconstitutional. It's not their role to decide what's constitutional. DOMA was a law passed by the House, the Senate, and signed into law by President Clinton, and in our system of government the administration doesn't get to decide what's constitutional, the Supreme Court does."

Video:

One week after Republican Sen. Rob Portman declared his support for marriage equality, some Democratic senators whose seats might be vulnerable in 2014 are hesitant to do the same — or even talk about the issue at all.

Sens. Kay Hagan, Mary Landrieu, Mark Begich and Mark Pryor, all moderate Democrats who will face fierce reelection battles during the midterm election cycle, either would not state their position on marriage, or declined to comment via their office.

"I am really concerned right now about the budget, about jobs in my state," Hagan, of North Carolina, responded when asked about her stance on marriage equality. Ironically, last year Hagan went on record opposing a same-sex marriage ban in North Carolina, saying it would have "far-reaching negative consequences."

... "I feel very strongly that people should be allowed to love who they love, but unfortunately my state has a very strong ban against gay marriage constitutionally, so I'm going to have to think really carefully and listen to the voters of my state about that issue," said Sen. Mary Landrieu, who hails from Louisiana. "But it's very tough because I think most people believe that people should love who they love."

The offices of Begich and Pryor declined to comment for this story.

... Hagan, Landrieu, Pryor and Begich did not sign on to an amicus brief opposing the Defense of Marriage Act, filed on behalf of Democratic lawmakers to the Supreme Court as it considers the act.

"While inclusion is important, elected Republicans (we all know the most recent example) and National/State Party leaders who embrace so-called same sex marriage are doing grave harm to our Party and the whole of society. Lets not forget, so-called same sex marriage is an irreconcilable difference with the Republican Party's largest constituency... Committed Christians." (Slate)

The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) has issued what appears to be a politically motivated statement suggesting that children raised by same-sex parents do just fine. In fact, the AAP goes so far as to suggest that children are more affected by the health of the relationship between the people raising them than by whether they are being raised by their own mother and father.

...To be clear, this recent announcement is not science, but propaganda rooted in social activism regarding the family, which is the foundational unit of humanity. That such a credentialed and well-known organization would play politics with this issue should grieve all of those who are committed to the integrity of science when it comes to the future of our children. Their well-being and health is far too important an issue to play politics with, especially of such a radical nature.

The AAP would be well-advised to stick to what the reliable and time-tested body of research tells us about what kinds of families promote the robust array of child-health: a family where children are raised by their mother and father who are in the midst of a healthy marriage.

Thomas Peters, a spokesman for the National Organization for Marriage (NOM), the largest U.S. advocacy group defending traditional marriage, suggested that media reports have overstated the Republican Party’s fracturing on marriage.

Peters, who is Catholic, noted that five of the six Republican presidential candidates in 2012 signed NOM’s pro-marriage pledge, and the one who did not — Huntsman — ended his run early, after finishing third in the New Hampshire Primary.

“It’s about how many people buy into the media narrative that they’re trying to create,” said Peters, who attended last week’s Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in Washington.

...“When a Republican decides to come out in favor of gay marriage, when they are staring at the lights of the media cameras, their grassroots supporters are quietly going out the back door,” said Peters, who argued that it remains difficult for Republicans who endorse same-sex “marriage” to keep their seats.Peters added that Portman could lose his seat and that his reversal on same-sex “marriage” had weakened any presidential aspirations he may have had.

Asked Peters, “If the media is so interested in Republicans who disagree with their party’s platform on marriage, then why don’t they tell the stories of conservative Democrats who disagree with their party’s platform on marriage and abortion?”

"...opponents of same-sex marriage say they must argue in favor of traditional marriage, not against gay people or gay rights. “It’s really a broader defense of marriage and a stronger marriage culture,” said Will Haun, 26, a lawyer and member of the Federalist Society.

In the highest-profile effort, the National Organization for Marriage is gearing up for a march on the National Mall on Tuesday, the day the Supreme Court is scheduled to hear arguments on California’s 2008 voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage.

Last week, the Heritage Foundation released a report by Ryan T. Anderson, 31, in defense of traditional marriage,"Marriage: What It Is, Why It Matters, and the Consequences of Redefining It.” Mr. Anderson, a Heritage Foundation fellow, has also held briefings for members of Congress, their staff and others to explain his arguments against same-sex marriage, and he and two co-authors released a book last year laying out their case in depth.

...“If you take the longer view of history — I’m not talking just 15 years, I’m talking 40 years or even 100 years — I can’t help but think that the uniqueness of man-woman marriage will be adjudicated over time,” said Andrew Walker, 27, a policy analyst at the Heritage Foundation.

Either way, they are not planning on giving up any time soon.

“Even if we are doomed, and I’m totally naïve, I think it’s important that I do this work anyway,” Mr. Teetsel, of the Manhattan Declaration, said. “If what I believe is true is true, then I’ve got a responsibility to be on its side for as long as I can be.”

House Speaker John Boehner says he's unswayed by a prominent fellow Republican's flip-flop on gay marriage, and that he still opposes the same-sex unions.

Ohio Sen. Rob Portman, a Boehner ally from his home state, revealed Friday that his son is gay and that he now supports gay marriage. Asked about the shift Sunday on ABC's "This Week," Boehner didn't knock his friend, but reiterated his own position.

... "Listen, I believe that marriage is the union of one man and one woman," he said. "It's what I grew up with. It's what I believe. It's what my church teaches me. And I can't imagine that position would ever change."

And with debate over the future of the Republican Party breaking into the open at last week's Conservative Political Action Conference, Boehner cast his lot with Republicans who believe better messaging -- not policy changes -- are what's needed for the party.

"The issue with our party is pretty simple," Boehner said. "There's nothing wrong with the principles of our party. But Republicans have not done as an effective job as we should in terms of talking about our principles in terms that average people can appreciate." (New York Daily News)

Reacting to Sen. Rob Portman’s sudden support of same-sex marriage, former GOP presidential candidate Newt Gingrich said Friday that he believes marriage is between a man and a woman “no matter what politicians decide.”

“Well, my stance hasn’t evolved. I observed in December that we’re faced with realities that are different than my personal beliefs,” Gingrich, a former House Speaker, said on CNN. “I believe as the Bible teaches, marriage is between a man and woman. I actually think that marriage is between a man and a woman no matter what politicians decide. I don’t think they have the power to change what is a religiously inspired definition.” (Politico)

"...We cannot hope to limit government if we do not stand up for our core civil society institutions, beginning with marriage. Marriage is the foundation of America’s cultural stability and economic prosperity and the courts have no business overruling the people’s democratic decisions in the states. People can love whom they want and live the way they choose, but no one is entitled to redefine a foundational institution of civil society that has existed for centuries.

In two weeks, the Supreme Court will hear arguments against the right of states to protect marriage and the federal Defense of Marriage Act. Judicial activism is to blame for the Court even considering these cases. The Supreme Court should uphold these laws. It must recognize that the American people should make these decisions, not unelected judges.

We are told that the social issues divide Americans and that we should stop talking about them. We cannot.

Economic and social conservatism go hand-in-hand. They’re natural allies. Strong families, churches and voluntary institutions build strong character and economic independence. And government must always remember we are endowed by our creator with life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That is true for you and me, and it is true for the unborn. When government understands its limited role, it can be smaller, people can be freer and our economy can create prosperity for everyone. And when government grows larger with programs like Obamacare that consume so much of our lives, it tramples on both economic freedom and religious liberty. This has united conservatives of all stripes to fight to end Obamacare so we can all be free to live our own lives."

You can read the rest of the speech and watch the video here.

How can you be pro-life unless you are also pro-marriage? I’ve been thinking about that question ever since I moved over from pro-life activism to pro-marriage activism. Since that transition, my conviction that the movements are essentially one has only been reinforced.

Pro-life is in my blood. My parents met at an event to welcome pro-life activists who had been recently bailed out of jail for conducting a peaceful sit-in at an abortion clinic. When I moved to Washington, D.C., five years ago, I knew I would be a pro-life activist, and so I was.

But as my activism matured, so did my conviction that the pro-life movement must become explicitly pro-marriage or risk its future. The Guttmacher Institute tells us that 85% of women who opt for abortion are unmarried. The community most afflicted by abortion, African-Americans, is also the community that suffers the lowest marriage rate.

He concludes with a call for pro-life activists to join the March for Marriage:

"...as an ardent pro-life activist, I’m calling on my fellow pro-life warriors to formally join in the pro-marriage cause. One concrete action we can take in the next months is to show up for the March for Marriage (www.MarriageMarch.org) on March 26 in Washington, D.C, the same day the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the Proposition 8 case.

Pro-lifers once needed a scientific instrument — the ultrasound — to renew their cause. Today I believe they only need a bit of encouragement to acknowledge the deeper truth embedded in the biology of the human beings they defend — the truth that unborn children are conceived by men and women. The cultural question which every civilized society before us, and our nation throughout most of its history, has resolved is that this new life deserves to be born and raised by its parents who are united in marriage.

What could be more pro-life than that?"

American voters are split down the middle over whether same-sex marriage should be legalized, with the exact same percentage -- 46 percent -- in favor as opposed to it, according to the latest Fox News poll
.
... Most Democrats (64 percent) are in favor, while most Republicans are opposed (66 percent). Independents are more likely to favor same-sex marriage, 50 percent to 39 percent.

On the other hand, voters who regularly attend church services oppose gay marriage (65 percent), while over half of those who attend less frequently are in favor (53 percent).

... those most opposed include “very” conservatives (79 percent), Tea Partiers (76 percent) and white evangelical Christians (71 percent).

To further underscore the findings of the poll: Tea Partiers are pro-marriage, as are evangelical Christians. A strong majority of Republicans are pro-marriage, as are over a third of Democrats!

Our polling from last November has shown that, when the question is asked fairly, 60% of Americans agree marriage is the union of one man and one woman.

The Obama Justice Department is arguing in the United States Supreme Court that children do not need mothers.

The Justice Department’s argument on the superfluity of motherhood is presented in a brief the Obama administration filed in the case of Hollingsworth v. Perry, which challenges the constitutionality of Proposition 8, the California ballot initiative that amended California’s Constitution to say that marriage involves only one man and one woman.

The Justice Department presented its conclusions about parenthood in rebutting an argument made by proponents of Proposition 8 that the traditional two-parent family, led by both a mother and a father, was the ideal place, determined even by nature itself, to raise a child.

The Obama administration argues this is not true. It argues that children need neither a father nor a mother and that having two fathers or two mothers is just as good as having one of each.

"...the hotshot legal team of Ted Olson and David Boies (who just inked a contract for an exclusive book deal for an undisclosed sum of money) have brought the issue of gay marriage to the Supreme Court against the counsel and consensus of other gay marriage advocates who (rightfully) believe the Supreme Court will not go along with their absurd claim that there is a constitutional right to redefine marriage.

The truth is marriage is a winning issue for Republicans, so long as they ignore the lie of inevitability shouted by gay marriage advocates and echoed by the media. Republicans must fight for the goodness of marriage and the decency of Americans who have voted (and will yet vote) to protect it.

There are new things afoot in the movement to protect marriage. On March 26, the day the Supreme Court hears arguments in the Proposition 8 case, the National Organization for Marriage is organizing a March for Marriage in Washington D.C., alongside a coalition of over twenty pro-family, African-American, Latino and other groups.
Across the country, new coalitions and new friendships are being formed among those who are more determined than ever to protect the greatest gift we can give society and the next generation: the loving marriage of one man and one woman."

"We expect the Supreme Court to exonerate the votes of over 7 million Californians to protect marriage. The President is clearly fulfilling a campaign promise to wealthy gay marriage donors. There is no right to redefine marriage in our Constitution.”

His statement was picked up by the Associated Press, the Drudge Report, Wall Street Journal, Boston Globe, ABC News, Foxnews.com, NPR, and dozens of other media outlets.

Peters will be on CNN tomorrow morning at 8:15AM to add more comments.

We continue to urge all supporters of marriage at this critical time to make plans now to come to Washington, D.C. for the March for Marriage on March 26, the day the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the Proposition 8 case.

Some former officials in the Republican Party are urging the Supreme Court to redefine marriage for the nation. But support for marriage as the union of a man and a woman is essential to American—and conservative—principles. Indeed, nothing could be less conservative than urging an activist court to redefine an essential institution of civil society.

As my co-authors and I argue in our new book, What Is Marriage?, and in the amicus brief we filed with the Supreme Court, marriage exists to bring a man and a woman together as husband and wife to be father and mother to any children their union produces. It is based on the anthropological truth that men and women are different and complementary, on the biological fact that reproduction depends on a man and a woman, and on the social reality that children need a mother and a father. Marriage has public purposes that transcend its private purposes.

Marriage predates government. It is the fundamental building block of all human civilization. All Americans, especially conservatives, should respect this crucial institution of civil society. This is why 41 states, with good reason, affirm that marriage is between a man and a woman.

...Redefining marriage is a direct and demonstrated threat to religious freedom that marginalizes those who affirm marriage as the union of a man and a woman. We have already seen this in neighboring Canada and right here in places such as Massachusetts and Washington, D.C.

What should the Supreme Court do? The Supreme Court should not usurp democratic authority from citizens and their elected officials.

Supporters of same-sex marriage hope for a boost this week when dozens of high-profile Republicans, many no longer in office, submit their legal argument to the Supreme Court on why gays and lesbians should be allowed to wed, bucking their party's platform in a move that one who had a change of heart on the issue said would “strengthen our nation as a whole.”

... The legal brief was dismissed by the National Organization for Marriage, which on Monday pledged $500,000 to defeat Republican lawmakers supporting any law to allow same-sex marriage inMinnesota, a state considering such legislation.

“None of these people are actively in politics. They are not running for office because they know … supporting same-sex marriage will end your career if you’re a Republican,” said Brian Brown, NOM's president. “There’s overwhelming support for traditional marriage in the Republican Party, that’s why it’s part of the party platform, and any attempt by the establishment to redefine marriage and redefine what it means to be a conservative will mean the death of the Republican party.”

Only two members of Congress were among the several dozen Republicans who signed on to a legal brief asserting the constitutionality of same-sex marriage, and one of them was upstate New York congressman Richard Hanna.

Hanna's support for the brief comes in defiance of last fall's election results, when three of the four Republicans in the State Senate who voted in favor of same-sex marriage were defeated at the polls. And, in the eyes of same-sex marriage opponents, what Hanna did was even worse.

"It's much more egregious," said Brian Brown, the president of the National Organization for Marriage.

"To sign on to this completely novel and erroneous understanding of our law is an embarrassment to him, and obviously they should be primaried," he added. (Capital New York)

Minnesota legislators who may face a vote on legalizing gay marriage have a new consideration on the issue.

In addition to listening to their consciences and constituents, they now have word from the National Organization for Marriage that the national group will spend $500,000 to defeat any Republican legislator who votes for gay marriage.

And the group will support any DFL legislators who vote against it.

"Marriage is not a partisan issue, and NOM does not hesitate to oppose weak Republicans and support strong Democrats," said Brian Brown, NOM president.

The group is initially targeting GOP state Sen. Branden Petersen, who last week said he's planning to co-sponsor a gay marriage bill.

The Republican leaders of the House of Representatives urged the Supreme Court on Friday to cast aside the Obama administration’s appeal on the constitutionality of the federal Defense of Marriage Act, though that already has been granted review, and to then take on the dispute in the GOP chiefs’ own case in defense of the law.

In a brief answering jurisdictional questions raised by the Court when it took on the DOMA dispute, the House’s Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (BLAG) argued that it has a right under the Constitution’s Article III to be in court in DOMA cases.  It noted that the administration has stopped defending the law and instead is attacking it.

The new filing also contended that the New York woman who was at the center of the case the Court is reviewing does not have a right to appeal.  Both the administration and Ms. Windsor won in lower courts, getting everything that they wanted out of the controversy, and thus have given up their right to pursue the case in the Supreme Court.

“Without the House’s participation,” the document said, “it is hard to see how there is any case or controversy here at all.  Both Ms. Windsor and the executive agree that DOMA is unconstitutional and that Ms. Windsor was entitled to a refund [for an estate tax she paid].  And the lower courts granted them all the relief they requested.  Only the House’s intervention provides the adverseness that Article III demands.”

Brittney C. Cooper, Assistant professor of Women’s and Gender studies and Africana Studies at Rutgers University, writes at Ebony Magazine.com that President Obama is being unfair to the black community by pointing out that many of the violence-related pathologies in inner cities are a result of fatherlessness.

... It is certainly true that economic stress may tempt people to commit crimes. The Bible is clear about that possibility (Prov 30:8). However, Cooper closes out her objection to Obama by saying something that makes no sense: “The challenges facing Black folks in Chicago are myriad, but they have little to do with the decrease in marriage rates.”

What? The problem with Cooper’s objection to President Obama’s claim is that it has no basis in fact or reason. Black marriage rates have actually been associated with a host of social ills in the black community. Cooper could not be more incorrect about the facts. For example, in The Consequences of Marriage for African Americans by Lorraine Blackman of Indiana University, Obie Clayton of Morehouse College, Norval Glenn of the University of Texas at Austin, Linda Malone-Colon of Hampton University and the National Healthy Marriage Resource Center, and Alex Roberts of the Institute for American Values, all find that the data tells a different story: Black marriage matters.

... While it may be true that some unwed fathers are involved in the lives on their children, President Obama is right to point out the marriage effect. To say that the breakdown in the black community is not associated with the decline in marriage rates is to deny the facts and ignore the importance of one of the most important institutions in human society.

As National Marriage Week concludes, citizens should consider the role policy plays in rebuilding a culture of marriage in America.

The institution of marriage plays a unique and important role in orienting men and women into a lifelong commitment to one another and any children they might have. Marriage not only affords many personal benefits to married men, women, and their children; it also serves as the building block of a thriving civil society.

Despite the many positive influences of intact married families on men, women, children, and society, the government has too often created the wrong incentives in policy—such as marriage penalties in the tax code and welfare programs. Policymakers should instead promote the many benefits of marriage to individuals and society and eliminate policies that offer incentives not to marry.

As some Republicans in the Minnesota Legislature weigh whether to support legalizing same-sex marriage, an analysis of gay-marriage votes from other states shows that GOP lawmakers who backed it often faced consequences, including loss of their seats.

... Republicans inclined to back gay marriage face risks.

"It was largely responsible for my loss," said Jean White, a former Republican state senator in Colorado whose 2011 vote for civil unions became an issue in a primary challenge by a fellow Republican...

According to roll call votes, in the eight times nationwide that state legislatures voted for gay marriage, just 47 Republicans bucked the party line out of many hundreds who voted against it.

Of those 47 Republicans who voted yes starting in 2009, 21 are in office today.

In New York, one of four Republican senators who supported gay marriage is still in the Legislature. One lost a primary, one retired, and one lost the general election after narrowly winning a bitter primary.

A New Hampshire Republican representative lost a primary after her 2009 vote for gay marriage, and in Maryland the former Senate Republican leader relinquished his leadership post when he started working with Democrats on a gay-marriage bill that passed last year.

"I got a lot of flak, a lot," said that senator, Allan Kittleman. He's planning to leave the Senate this year to run for a county office instead.

In Washington, which passed gay marriage in 2012, two of six Republicans who backed the bill are no longer in office.

The head of the Iowa Republican Party said he will continue to uphold the GOP's opposition to same-sex marriage.

During a taping of the public television program “Iowa Press” on Thursday, A.J. Spiker said the Iowa GOP believes marriage should be allowed only between one man and one woman.

Some Iowa Republicans have called for the party to embrace same-sex marriage.

Spiker said: “There is one gay marriage party in the state of Iowa, and that's the Iowa Democratic Party.” (Omaha.com)

Please continue to let the Illinois GOP know that Chairman Brady needs to go.

Gay rights has emerged as an unexpected point of controversy in the congressional debate over immigration reform, prompting key Republicans to warn that it could derail efforts to reach a bipartisan compromise.

President Obama and some congressional Democrats are pushing for any immigration reform plan to include a provision to allow gay Americans to sponsor their immigrant partners for legal residency in the United States. That is a right currently enjoyed only by married heterosexual couples.

But Republican leaders on immigration reform say it's already going to be an uphill battle to convince their GOP colleagues to support a pathway to citizenship for the 11 million illegal immigrants living in the United States. Including a provision for gay partners will make reform legislation an even tougher sell, key senators said.

David Cameron suffered a “disaster” tonight, as most of his Tory MPs failed to back his Bill to redefine marriage.

Early indications suggest that more Tory MPs voted against Mr Cameron than supported him.

Colin Hart of the Coalition for Marriage said: “This result is a disaster for David Cameron.

“Despite a personal plea from the PM his MPs have overwhelmingly rejected gay marriage. Mr Cameron must think again.

“The scale of the opposition against the Government’s profoundly undemocratic plans is astonishing, and sends a clear message to the Prime Minister that he faces a lengthy and damaging battle to redefine marriage.”

Colin Hart, Director of the Christian Institute, and Andrea Minichiello Williams, founder of Christian Concern, are to be commended for their amazing leadership in Britain! The UK Christian Institute points out that British papers are focusing on the strength of the "no" vote.

Even the New York Times was forced to acknowledge the unprecedented opposition to Cameron's plan:

"...Although 127 of the 303 Conservative lawmakers voted for the bill, 136 voted against, with 5 abstentions and 35 who registered no vote at all. Those voting against included two cabinet ministers, eight junior ministers and eight whips. The opening to the revolt came when party leaders decided to make the issue a so-called free vote, allowing lawmakers to break with their party without fear of disciplinary action.

... In modern times, however, few prime ministers have faced such an extensive rebellion in their own ranks, and the outcome seemed likely to add to the growing ferment among backbench Conservatives about Mr. Cameron’s leadership on a wide range of issues, including Britain’s shrinking defense budget and its increasingly uneasy ties with the European Union.

The bill will now be debated by the House of Lords where opposition is expected to be even stronger.

When dads hit the dance floor trying to be hip and trendy, everyone else cringes with embarrassment. It's the same with David Cameron's modernising push for gay marriage. A new poll of LGBT people reveals that almost two thirds flinch at his motives. They think he is pushing the policy for the politics, rather than the principle. He's trying to look hip and trendy, but he just looks fake and phoney. He's a disco dad.

... Embarrassed by seeing their leader trying to bop like a teenager, party activists are leaving in their droves. Membership has plummeted by more than half since he became leader, and over 70 per cent of remaining members believe the issue of gay marriage is tearing the party apart. But it's not just the foot soldiers who are quitting. Experienced local association chairmen have quit too. We're talking about people with years of experience who have been faithful to the Party for decades. No leader of any organisation can afford to lose people like that.

... Ultimately, [Cameron] is hoping that his disco-dad moves are a vote-winner. It's not working, according to polling which shows gay marriage could cost him 1.1million votes and up to 30 parliamentary seats. Much of that support is now going to Ukip, which has recently overtaken the Lib Dems as third most popular party. Gay marriage is a prime factor. -- Mike Judge, Head of Communications at The Christian Institute

Meanwhile, via LifeSiteNews:

A ComRes poll released this weekend has shown that Prime Minister David Cameron’s insistence on pushing through same-sex “marriage” will almost certainly cost him the government at the 2015 election. The poll, commissioned by the group Campaign for Marriage, has indicated just how damaging the issue has been for the Conservative party. It found that 20 per cent of Conservative Party voters agreed with the statement, “I would have considered voting Conservative at the next election but will definitely not if the Coalition Government legalises same-sex marriage”.

The numbers, while suggesting that a small majority of party voters support same-sex “marriage,” also show that the party has lost enough support that it will be impossible to win the next general election.

The marriage bill, described by the government as a “small change” and by [gay] activists as “sweeping,” was introduced Friday the 25th with a first vote in the House of Commons set for tomorrow.

23 current or past chairmen of local Conservative Party Associations have delivered a letter to David Cameron by hand where they plead for him not to go ahead with Tuesday’s vote on same-sex marriage.

UPDATE -- here is video of this event from the BBC along with an interview:

The Williamson County Republican Central Committee has unanimously voted on a resolution calling for Illinois Republican Party Chairman Pat Brady to resign. In a press release, the Central Committee wrote:

Illinois Republican Party Chairman Pat Brady recently participated in a campaign urging Republican lawmakers to back legislation to legalize “same-sex marriage” in Illinois. Williamson County Central Committee Chairman Sue Hamilton said that while Brady claims to have acted as a private citizen – it is impossible to separate his personal views from his public position as Chairman of the Illinois Republican Party.

As a result of Brady’s actions, the Williamson County Republican Central Committee debated and unanimously passed a motion on January 10, 2013 calling for him to resign.

Please continue to take action here.

"... Marriage as it has been defined throughout history - as the union of one man and one woman - is a great cause of unity for any culture, including our own. We know all too well what happens to society when marriage breaks down and government interferes with the rights of men and women to come together and form healthy, lifelong marriages.  The President's obsession with redefining marriage has prevented him in his first term from doing anything of substance to support and advance the institution of marriage for the vast majority of Americans. That is where his emphasis should be. 

Americans remain united in support of the commonsense definition of marriage. A poll taken after the most recent elections showed that 60% of Americans agree that marriage is between one man and one woman. Twenty percent of Americans in that same poll said marriage was one of their top three issues. The vast majority of states define marriage as the union of husband and wife and the vast majority of Americans who have been given a chance to vote on the question have supported that definition as well.

... We eagerly await the Supreme Court's decision on the question of whether Americans have a right to protect marriage in law.

In the meantime, Americans should unite in support of the commonsense definition of marriage. The longer our leaders insist on throwing their words and weight behind the movement to redefine marriage the more they will continue to divide our beloved nation."

"...DOMA proponents see the president’s decision to roll in a provision for bi-national same-sex couples as misguided.

“If the president is putting immigration as his highest priority, why would he muddy the waters with a proposal that violates current federal law?” says John Eastman, president of the National Organization for Marriage. “I guarantee there’ll be a fight if he’s trying to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act. I think it demonstrates he’s not serious about immigration reform.”

Am immigration reform blueprint released by the “Gang of Eight,” as the group of Republican and Democratic senators have come to be known, detailed major shifts on immigration but did not refer to measures for same-sex couples."

"...Already one of the pressure-group leaders who has brought the Scouts to the brink of this change is warning that it does not go far enough:“It’s a step in the right direction, and good to see that B.S.A. is softening its position,” [Zach Wahls] said. “But under the policy change, it will still be possible for some units to discriminate.”

This is a perfect occasion for a reminder of Neuhaus’ Law, named for First Thingsfounding editor Richard John Neuhaus, who coined it in a “Public Square” entry in the January 1997 issue titled “The Unhappy Fate of Optional Orthodoxy.” Here is the Law as Fr. Neuhaus himself stated it: “Where orthodoxy is optional, orthodoxy will sooner or later be proscribed.”

As Neuhaus went on to explain, with his usual trenchant insight:

With the older orthodoxy it is possible to disagree, as in having an argument. Evidence, reason, and logic count, in principle at least. Not so with the new orthodoxy. Here disagreement is an intolerable personal affront. It is construed as a denial of others, of their experience of who they are. It is a blasphemous assault on that most high god, “My Identity.” Truth-as-identity is not appealable beyond the assertion of identity. In this game, identity is trumps.

Just so."

"...Being created equal doesn’t entail or require redefining marriage. Every marriage policy draws lines, leaving out some types of relationships. But equality forbids arbitrary line-drawing. Determining which lines are arbitrary requires us to answer two questions:

1)      What is marriage?

Following the inauguration of President Barack Obama, The Daily Caller asked attendees of the ceremony if they were surprised that the president mentioned gay rights in his address.

Even individuals who told TheDC that they oppose gay marriage said they still support President Obama, who “evolved” on the issue and announced his support of the practice last year.

The Illinois Review:

And more:

The second Illinois county Republican organizations has called for Chairman Pat Brady (photo right) to resign. Passed Thursday night, the Clinton County GOP's resolution calls for Brady to step down, and the 17th CD's State Central Committeeman Bob Winchester to officially call for Brady's resignation. County Chairman Marc Hoffman will transmit the resolution Friday.

Clinton County GOP Western Vice-Chairman Doug Gruenke told Illinois Review the resolution's passage was because Brady undermined the ILGOP platform when he lobbied state senators to support same sex marriage legislation during the recent lame duck session.

Here are even more IL GOP state committee members expressing their disapproval of Brady's comments on gay marriage.

Please continue to contact GOP party members in Illinois.

He argues that "An abandonment of traditional marriage by the GOP would leave 12 million Millennials without a party that reflects their views on marriage":

Illinois GOP chairman Pat Brady thinks gay marriage is the secret to Republicans’ winning Millennial voters, but he’s wrong.

Brady lamented to a reporter this week that GOP support for traditional marriage is driving away young voters: “How are we ever going to get the vote of anyone under 40?” he asked.

As a 27-year-old ardent supporter of traditional marriage, my question to Pat Brady is, “How does the GOP deserve to get the vote of anyone under 40 if they don’t act decisively to strengthen marriage now?”

Here’s some hard data: Despite all of the Obama campaign’s advantages among young voters, Romney actually won under-30 white men by 13 points. He won under-30 white women by a point. He won 93 percent of under-30 white Republicans, while Obama only managed to get 91 percent of under-30 white Democrats. Romney also won under-30 white independents by two points.

Was Romney’s support for traditional marriage crippling for him among under-30 white voters? Clearly not. (NRO's The Corner)

The head of Illinois’ beleaguered Republican Party is staring down a revolt from some state party bosses after he bucked the official GOP line last week and urged state lawmakers to approve same-sex marriage.

State GOP Chairman Pat Brady faces growing calls for his resignation, at a time when some Illinois Republicans are rethinking the party’s image and stance on social issues, following a dismal showing in November’s elections.

Conservative groups and activists pounced on Brady shortly after he released a statement last week offering his “full support” of a bill before the General Assembly that would legalize same-sex marriage.

But now the public demands for his ouster are coming from party leaders themselves.

“Pat Brady is a total disgrace,” said Bobbie Peterson, a Republican state central committeewoman from Beecher, Ill.

“He’s a pretty face for TV. He can speak well. Period,” Peterson said. “But what’s coming out of his mouth is not what the Illinois Republican party is about.”

It’s unclear whether the party bosses opposing Brady have enough votes to oust him. But even those who stop short of asking for his resignation plan to take him to the woodshed for neglecting to notify party bosses before he publicly contradicted the party’s platform plank on gay marriage.

“I was shocked,” said State Sen. Jim Oberweis, a committeeman from west suburban Sugar Grove who has asked Brady to resign.“Very surprised. Did not expect that and didn’t know why he would have done that.”

... “I can only express my disappointment in the way this has come about and the manner in which the Republican platform of Illinois has been completely disregarded,” said committeeman Gene Dawson, from northwest suburban Barrington, as he read from the resignation request he emailed to Brady.

In Illinois, a party chairman can be fired with a three-fifths majority of the weighted vote from state party committeemen. Each vote is weighted differently, based on how many people cast ballots in a committeeman's congressional district in last spring’s primary. Four committeemen told WBEZ they asked Brady to resign, representing nearly half of the votes needed to boot him out. (Four others stopped short of calling for a resignation, while the remaining ten either declined to comment or didn’t respond to interview requests.)

... “His role as chairman should be to concentrate on uniting the party, and not dividing the party,” Syverson said, though he doesn't go so far as to ask Brady to step down.

Please join those who have already taken action calling for Brady to resign or to be dismissed for his betrayal of marriage!

"...To challenge advocates of same-sex marriage, members of the National Organization for Marriage, which spent $60,000 on lobbying the federal government through September, will walk the halls of Capitol Hill day in and day out, said Brian Brown, president of the group.

“The fact that they are claiming victory because they won in four deep-blue states is absurd,” Brown said. “Congress is not going to repeal DOMA. That’s just not going to happen. You can say all you want that the nation is at a turning point, but that’s just an exercise in myth-making.”

The pastor whom President Obama has chosen to deliver the benediction at his inauguration this month delivered a sermon in the 1990s in which he called on fellow Christians to fight the “aggressive agenda” of the gay rights movement and advocated “the healing power of Jesus” as “the only way out of a homosexual lifestyle.”

... In it, Mr. Giglio cites Scripture in saying that homosexuality “is sin in the eyes of God, and it is sin in the word of God.” He warned against gay rights. “That movement is not a benevolent movement,” he said. “It is a movement to seize by any means necessary the feeling and the mood of the day, to the point where the homosexual lifestyle becomes accepted as a norm in our society.”

Inaugural officials did not respond to a request for comment, and a spokeswoman for Mr. Giglio was not available.

... The controversy over Mr. Giglio carries echoes of the 2009 inaugural, when Mr. Obama offended many gay people by selecting the Rev. Rick Warren, author of “A Purpose Driven Life” and an opponent of same-sex marriage, to deliver the invocation. Gay rights advocates have not forgotten.

Jeremy Paxman hosts a debate with Tim Montgomerie, of the Conservative Home blog, Anne McIntosh MP and the President of a local Conservative association.

Anne McIntosh warns redefining marriage is "very divisive", "ill thought-out" and could have unintended consequences.

Others interviewed by the programme also tell of the damaging effects of the same-sex marriage plans:

There is a particularly good exchange at 12:40 between a man in favor of redefined marriage and a woman in favor of protecting it:

Pro-SSM man: "For me marriage is an incredibly important institution, it doesn't just join two people together it joins the two, couples, loved ones, friends and family together as well. And I think it's right that such an important institution, an incredibly conservative institution doesn't exclude anyone in society and, actually, by introducing equal marriage we broaden and popularize an institution and make it more central to society."

Pro-marriage woman: "But men and women are different. As a one-time divorce lawyer I know that part of the reason that marriage has succeeded as well as it has was for the protection of women and children. And if you actually change the ground rules there are going to be some very confused people out there in the church, in the schools, in society at large..."

Moderator interrupts: "What are they confused about?"

Pro-marriage woman: "About what the implications are..."

Moderator interrupts again: "The commitment of two people..."

Pro- marriage woman: "But we've got that in civil partnerships already. So why is the need to change at this pace?"

Dear Marriage Supporter,

Thursday's headline in the New York Times hit the nail on the head:

"Costly Toll for Republicans Who Voted for Gay Marriage."

That was how America's paper of record reported Stephen Saland's concession last week that he had lost to his opponent, Terry Gipson. A key reason for Saland's loss was his being challenged by pro-marriage Conservative Party candidate Neil DiCarlo, who won 14 percent of the vote in the general election after very nearly having beaten Saland in the primary.

Of course, Governor Cuomo and Mayor Bloomberg are both lamenting Saland's loss—probably not least because of all the money they'd spent trying to give the Senator political coverage for betraying his party and passing same-sex marriage against the will of the people of New York.

But we here at NOM PAC NY are celebrating this victory for conservative values and for the powerful message it sends to public officials, in the Empire State and nationwide: same-sex marriage is a losing issue!

We're going to keep working hard in New York so that the will of the people with regard to same-sex marriage is heard loud and clear in Albany—but we need your help! Will you please give $25, $50, or $100 today as a year-end gift to NOM PAC NY so that we can continue to speak truth to power on State Street?

Saland is the latest in a line of traitorous politicians whom NOM PAC NY has sent packing, including Jim Alesi, Roy McDonald, Carl Kruger, and Shirley Huntley, all of whom are now out of office and have been replaced by pro-marriage Senators.

And with your generous help, we'll keep the one lone turncoat Senator left in office, Mark Grisanti, on the ropes throughout this term, and keep reminding him that the voters have not forgotten his betrayal, and that his days in political office are numbered as long as we're on the job.

Our public servants need to know that they cannot flout the will of the people without consequences. New Yorkers must continue to stand as leaders for the rest of the country, especially in the wake of recent elections which saw three more states impose same-sex marriage.

The politicians and judges in those states who made the imposition of same-sex marriage possible need to be put on notice by the voters, and New York can continue to be the example of how it's done—starting today!

Will you stand up with NOM PAC NY today and show that you're not giving up the fight, sending the message to Albany and beyond that New Yorkers won't be bowled over and ignored by their public servants, and neither should any Americans allow themselves to be dictated to by a brazen elite? Please give whatever you can today so that we can continue shining as an example at this crucial time!

Thanks for all you have done, and for all you continue to do, for New York and for marriage! God bless you, and may you have a wonderful and peaceful holiday!

"...before the GOP starts working on schemes to pander to singletons, it’s worth considering an alternative path.

Rather than entering a bidding war with the Democratic party for the votes of Julias, perhaps the GOP should try to convince them to get married, instead. At the individual level, there’s nothing wrong with forgoing marriage. But at scale, it is a dangerous proposition for a society. That’s because marriage, as an institution, is helpful to all involved. Survey after survey has shown that married people are happier, wealthier, and healthier than their single counterparts. All of the research suggests that having married parents dramatically improves the well-being of children, both in their youth and later as adults.

As Robert George put it after the election, limited government “cannot be maintained where the marriage culture collapses and families fail to form or easily dissolve. Where these things happen, the health, education, and welfare functions of the family will have to be undertaken by someone, or some institution, and that will sooner or later be the government.” Marriage is what makes the entire Western project—liberalism, the dignity of the human person, the free market, and the limited, democratic state—possible. George continues, “The two greatest institutions ever devised for lifting people out of poverty and enabling them to live in dignity are the market economy and the institution of marriage. These institutions will, in the end, stand or fall together.”

Instead of trying to bribe single America into voting Republican, Republicans might do better by making the argument—to all Americans—that marriage is a pillar of both freedom and liberalism. That it is an arrangement which ought to be celebrated, nurtured, and defended because its health is integral to the success of our grand national experiment. And that Julia and her boyfriend ought to go ahead and tie the knot."

"As the Ricochet editors mentioned, tomorrow Encounter Books releases my new book, co-authored with Sherif Girgis and Robert P. George, What Is Marriage? Man and Woman: A Defense. So while blogging at Ricochet this week, I thought I’d explore some of the issues raised by the book—and recent events, thanks to the Supreme Court. Today I’d like to situate the debate over the definition of marriage within its proper context. 

Some people wonder why conservatives choose to focus exclusively on same-sex marriage. The answer is simple: We don’t. First, conservatives always did—and still do—make other social and political efforts to strengthen the marriage culture. The push for same-sex marriage was brought to us. Second, now that this is the live debate, we can’t ignore it, for its outcome will have wider effects on the marriage culture that really is our main concern.

Long before there was a debate about same-sex marriage, there was a debate about marriage. It launched a “marriage movement,” to explain why marriage was good for the men and women who were faithful to its demands, and for the children they reared."

The full extent of the revolt among Tory MPs over plans to allow gay marriage was revealed last night. In all, more than 100 Conservatives out of 303 have written to constituents indicating their unease. If they all vote against, it would be the biggest Tory rebellion in modern times.

Backbencher Douglas Carswell, one of those who will vote against, said: ‘I think you’ve got to have your head stuck in the Westminster bubble to think this is a priority.’

The vote could happen as early as January after Mr Cameron decided this week to ‘get it done and get it done quickly’.

They are an eclectic bunch – including a former breakfast TV presenter, a former top City investment manager, a Liverpool football fan and a gay friend of Margaret Thatcher.

But all have one thing in common: they are among the many Tory MPs who bitterly oppose David Cameron’s controversial policy to make gay marriage legal.

Altogether, there are at least 118 Tory MPs (out of a total of 303) who, the Mail can reveal, have condemned the proposal to redefine the centuries-old institution of marriage.

Ken Mehlman is either deluded or disingenuous. The former chairman of the Republican National Committee is among those now trying to bring the Republican Party around to the cause of gay marriage. In today’s Wall Street Journal he made his case.

... Even more ridiculous is the notion that redefining marriage makes government less intrusive. The notion of civil rights that fuels the push for “marriage equality” requires pumping up the power of the state to bulldoze older traditions and attitudes that stand in the way of the full acceptance and affirmation of homosexuality. It’s going to lead to litigation, regulation, mandated school programs and “inclusivity” seminars, and lots of other legislation.

... Mehlman needs to either open his eyes or be honest: the gay rights movement can’t succeed unless and until the apparatus of the state is brought to bear on traditional institutions that don’t treat homosexuality and heterosexuality equally. It’s not just religious institutions. Basic cultural practices such as sex-segregated bathrooms and locker rooms will be revised—and always under pressure from the courts and government bureaucracies tasked to ensure LGBT rights.

This is in the nature of all progressive projects. The push toward redefining marriage involves creating a new possibility that would not otherwise come to pass if traditional institutions and attitudes were left alone. How will this change be effected. What will have sufficient power to overcome the always substantial solidity of the status quo? Government, of course. That’s why the progressive project is always essentially political.

... Case in point: by Mehlman’s way of thinking, the most basic institution of civil life, marriage itself, is a creation of the modern state to be redefined as the political will sees fit. If we can redefine marriage at such a fundamental level, then what is there in society other than individual choices and the power of the state?

Chad Griffen, president of the $40million-per-year Human Rights Campaign, fresh from four state vote victories and the re-election of a pro-gay marriage president, claims the political power to demand more appointments of lesbian and gay people to the highest political offices in the land:

"...The Human Rights Campaign's Chad Griffin, president of the largest LGBT equality-rights advocacy group and political lobbying organization in the US, is calling for inclusion in the cabinet and other positions.

'We made historic progress with President Obama in terms of our openly LGBT appointments across the board,' Griffin tellsBuzzFeed. 'We now have the opportunity, and I hope this president and this White House will seize the opportunity to have the first openly LGBT Cabinet secretary, the first openly LGBT G-8 ambassador, and across the board with administrative appointments and judges as well." -- GayStarNews

"When Terry Gipson stood on a chair to announce that he had been declared the winner by Gannett publishing in his race to unseat state Senator Stephen Saland, he received a warm ovation from the crowd at the Election Night party at Shadows on the Hudson in Poughkeepsie.

... And while the final ballot count is still not in, the Gipson victory comes as a surprise to many who were unsure that anyone could unseat Saland, a Republican who has been in the state Legislature for 32 years, especially after Saland was endorsed by Gov. Andrew Cuomo after he voted to approve same-sex marriage. The endorsement and a letter from the governor to voters’ mailboxes came in the final days of the campaign.

In response to those actions, the Gipson campaign had pointed out that Saland opposed many of Cuomo’s other key priorities and that Gipson, who is pro-choice and supports same-sex marriage, would be a better match to the governor’s agenda.

“It’s quid pro Cuomo,” said one Democratic committee member not affiliated with the campaign who asked not to be identified for fear of retribution. “Saland finally voted for same-sex marriage after years of helping block it, and it got him the endorsement.”

Saland has not yet been mathematically eliminated from the race and has not conceded."

Election Day was a drubbing for marriage. The ballot initiatives to protect marriage lost by over 4% in Maine, Minnesota, Washington State, and Maryland. Those who support same-sex “marriage” reportedly spent over $33 million, while those who defend marriage spent just over $10 million.

Many friends have said that same-sex marriage is inevitable. It is not. I have confidence that fence-sitters will enter the fray in support of traditional marriage. As we continue to debate this issue, three important forces can shift the outcome in favor of marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Consider first, public opinion; second, the methods and the message of LGBT activists; and third, reality.

... Ultimately, the future of marriage will not be decided by our likes or our dislikes. Human suffering will periodically remind us that losing a healthy marriage culture produces all kinds of practical costs and penalties. These are measured by those social pathologies that impose a great weight on our society, such as depression, addiction, violence, and illness, as well as missed educational and economic opportunities. However you slice it, the intact biological family continues to be the best “Department of Health, Education and Welfare” when it comes to raising the next generation. Marriage is worth fighting for, even if we lose. Because remember, LGBT activists will lose too as they bring us all down. And that is a sobering thought.

Voters in three states legalized gay marriage on Election Day -- the first time voters in any state had done so. But it wasn't a turning point on the issue, and traditionalists can still win the cultural battle, says Brian Brown of the National Organization for Marriage.

Some might think Brown is naive, but he notes that supporters of traditional marriage were outspent by a margin of 3-to-1 in liberal-leaning Maine, Maryland and Washington and lost by an average of only 53-47 percent.

"This is not over," Brown told Baptist Press, referencing the nationwide debate over marriage's definition. "... They had a great election from their perspective, but I hope that what this does is wake folks up and energize folks and people realize that [these losses] were not inevitable, same-sex marriage is not inevitable."

Here is the last exchange between the host and Peters:

Suarez: "Aren't you standing on shifting sand? Given the momentum of the polls, given the momentum of the legal challenges, the losses in various federal appellate courts, the changes in various state laws, maybe you'll win tomorrow and the day after tomorrow, but are you fighting against an inevitability?"

Peters: "No for two important reasons, first of all, I believe in the truth of my pro-marriage views, just as the other side does, and people who have those deep-seated convictions don't look at the changing tides wherever they may be they fight for what's true and what's right. Second of all, I think it's amazing with all of the cultural forces tying to redefine marriage that we're still here in 2012 just barely seeing some footholds gained in deep blue states. I think the future of the marriage movement is bright and ultimately I don't believe history moves in one direction."

"...In my home state, Maryland, a minimum of 23% [100% - (37%/48%) = 23%] of the opposition to same-sex marriage came from Obama/Biden supporters. Earlier in the year, the Maryland House of Delegates only narrowly passed same-sex marriage legislation with just one vote to spare, and that only came with lots of arm-twisting.

These are not overwhelming victories representing a sea change in public attitude toward same-sex marriage. These are tactical wins." -- AmericanThinker

Thom Price asked whether the election losses were attributed to a lack of communication.

"It's a lack of activation, not communication," said [NOM's Thomas] Peters, who noted the disparity in the number of volunteers working against Minnesota's marriage amendment in comparison to the numbers supporting the amendment. He suggested that Catholics need to be far more active in the process. "Our opponents start by voting, and then spend months phone-calling, door-knocking, and getting the word out."

On the issue of marriage, Peters noted that traditional marriage lost in all four states - Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, and Washington.

"In Minnesota, we tried to pass a marriage protection amendment so that marriage couldn't be redefined by judges. In Maine, voters approved same-sex 'marriage.' In Maryland and Washington, referendums to try to overturn gay marriage failed," said Peters. "We were outraised by 4 to 1, and 8 to 1 in some cases. Yet, in every one of those states, more people voted for marriage than voted for Romney. Traditional marriage lost by only a small margin. The message this sends to Christians is that marriage will not win if it's not defended." -- NCRegister

"...A sizable portion of those black and hispanic voters voted GOP despite disagreeing with the GOP on fiscal issues. But they are strongly social conservative and could not vote for the party of killing kids and gay marriage. So they voted GOP. 

You throw out the social conservatives and you throw out those hispanic and black voters. Further, you make it harder to attract new hispanic voters who happen to be the most socially conservative voters in the country.

Next, you’ll also see a reduction of probably half the existing GOP base. You won’t make that up with Democrats who suddenly think that because their uterus is safe they can now vote Republican. Most of those people don’t like fiscal conservatism either — often though claiming that they do.

... It’s not time to throw out social conservatives. It’s time to accept that without them the GOP would be even a smaller party even less able to reach out to the hispanic demographic all the smart people say they need to embrace. Addition through subtraction never really works well."

Marriage vote:              Presidential race:

Maine 47.4%                 Romney 40.9%
Maryland 48.1%            Romney 36.6%
Minnesota 48.1%          Romney 45.2%
Washington 48.0%        Romney 42.3%

In other words, marriage outperformed the GOP ticket by:
6.5% in Maine
11.5% in Maryland
2.9% in Minnesota
5.7% in Washington

Marriage unites us more than party!

After notching their first wins using state ballots, gay-marriage advocates said their long-term national strategy will rely more on legislatures and federal courts than expensive state-by-state popular votes.

...But many gay-rights leaders said their strategy going forward—built on lessons from the African-American civil-rights movement—doesn't bank on taking their cause directly to voters in many more states.

"Rights should not be put to a vote," said Evan Wolfson, the founder of Freedom to Marry, a national gay-rights group that supported Tuesday's initiatives. "While we have now shown we can do it, it doesn't mean that we should have to do it, and it doesn't mean that it is easy to do." He said "very few" states are likely appropriate battlegrounds for future ballot fights, given the expense and organization required.

Opponents of same-sex marriage said Tuesday's results proved only that gay-marriage advocates could persuade voters in a few liberal states. "What they did not accomplish is changing the opinions of Americans," said Frank Schubert, political director for the National Organization for Marriage.

"I don't know exactly what they are going to do, but I expect there will be a lot of pressure on them by in-state activists" to take up new ballot battles, he said.

Gay-marriage proponents face a difficult landscape. Over the last 15 years, some 30 states passed amendments to their constitutions that define marriage as between a man and a woman, making it impossible in most cases for state courts or legislatures to legalize gay marriage. Changing those laws would require new ballot initiatives in each state or action by the federal government or courts.

Recent efforts by gay-rights groups have focused on winning support for gay marriage from legislatures in states such as New York, which didn't have a constitutional ban. Voters in Maryland and Washington on Tuesday voted whether to support decisions made by their legislatures to legalize gay marriage. Similar legislative battles could happen next year in states including Rhode Island and Delaware.

Maryland, Maine, Minnesota and Washington state are voting to protect marriage or to redefine it to be a genderless institution. As Thomas Peters of the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) notes, the campaign is in the final hours.

"This is all about getting out the vote and turning out people," he contends. "There's been a lot of focus on polling in all these four states, but the line I keep using -- and it's the truth -- is that the polls don't matter. Hard work and who votes matter. Those are who win elections."

... Peters submits there are three keys to gaining success in all four states Tuesday: "turnout, turnout, turnout."

Add Washington Post George Will to the landslide column, along with Fox News Channel’s Dick Morris and the Washington Examiner’s Michael Barone.

On this weekend’s broadcast of “This Week with George Stephanopoulos” on ABC, Will revealed his prediction and added a bonus surprise by saying traditional Democratic state Minnesota would go for Romney, as well.

“I’m projecting Minnesota to go for Romney,” Will said. “It’s the only state that’s voted Democratic in nine consecutive elections, but this year, there’s the marriage amendment on the ballot that will bring out the evangelicals, and I think could make the difference.”

"...Shelton reaches her conclusion that marriage supporters “are essentially advocating for the Church and the State to be one and the same. They are fighting for bigger government and cronyism in marriage, although they claim to want more individual freedom and personal liberties elsewhere. The inherent contradiction is astounding.”

But there is no contradiction here once one considers the actual arguments advanced by Shelton’s opponents and left unaddressed by Shelton herself.

In our article in the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy “What is Marriage?” my co-authors and I have argued philosophically that marriage by its very nature is a union of a man and a woman. (Later this month Encounter Books will release an expanded and enhanced version of the argument.)

At the heart of the argument is an understanding that natural (not supernatural, sacramental, or religious) marriage is a pre-political institution springing from human nature itself. Prior to any governmental diktats, marriage has its own essential structure and norms and serves its own ends. Our marriage law should reflect the truth about what marriage is."

When it comes to gay marriage, state Sen. Joseph Addabbo was against it before he was for it — and now he seems to be against it again.

Last year, the Queens Democrat’s position-changing vote helped legalize same-sex marriage.

But now, Addabbo is locked in a tight reelection fight with Republican City Councilman and gay-marriage opponent Eric Ulrich. And the senator recently told the Far Rockaway Jewish Alliance during an endorsement interview that he’d again vote no if given the chance, according to two Jewish publications.

Why? Because his newly redrawn district is suddenly more conservative.

Addabbo, who is Catholic, cast a nay vote that contributed to the death of a gay marriage bill in 2009. After Gov. Cuomo, the Democratic standard-bearer in New York, aggressively pushed the issue after taking office last year, Addabbo changed his position, explaining his shift by saying that he polled the matter in his district and found his constituents supported gay marriage.

Cuomo cited the “courage” Addabbo showed in changing his position when he endorsed the senator earlier this month over Ulrich, a Catholic who once considered entering the priesthood. Addabbo’s pro-gay marriage stance also won him the backing of the Empire State Pride Agenda, the state’s largest gay advocacy group.

But the Legislature redrew Addabbo’s district lines following last year’s gay marriage vote, bringing into his territory more conservative enclaves in Far Rockaway, Kew Gardens and parts of Forest Hills — and leading to his second flip on the issue.

Their entire essay is well worth reading!

Iowans for Freedom has been accused of inserting politics into Iowa’s judiciary by accepting out-of-state money to educate Iowans on voting “no” on Supreme Court Judge David Wiggins’ retention. Now in the closing days of the election, IFF’s biggest critic on this matter has accepted $100,000 from a Washington, D.C. based PAC whose tagline is “working for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender equal rights”.

“I am in disbelief at how Justice Not Politics has constantly criticized us for taking out-of-state money and claim we are putting politics in the judiciary for merely wanting to hold an activist judge in check,” Executive Director of Iowans for Freedom Greg Baker said. “Yet, they in the final days of the campaign, have taken $100,000 from a Washington, D.C. organization whose sole mission is to further the gay agenda. I’m sure they were hoping Iowans wouldn’t notice the hypocrisy.”

"...A Star Tribune poll released Sunday shows a dead heat, with Obama at 47 percent and Romney at 44 percent. This shocker elated state Republicans, who have been frustrated for decades. (Democrats have won Minnesota since 1972.) To capitalize on the momentum, the Romney campaign recently spent a small sum on television ads.

Democrats are nervous. For months, their electoral calculus has categorized Minnesota as reliably blue. This week, the Washington Post and ABC News reclassified it from “safely” Democrat to “lean Obama.” To stanch the bleeding, Democrats are spending more, and sending in former president Bill Clinton, who will stump near the Twin Cities.

Obama adviser Jim Messina is pushing back; he told reporters on Monday that the idea Romney could win Minnesota is “wishful thinking.” But Republicans’ rising expectations are grounded in more than poll numbers. As Hot Air’s Ed Morrissey reports, there are “two key referendums on the ballot,” and they are dominating the debate and stoking participation.

One measure would amend the state constitution to require photo identification for voting, and the other would constitutionally define marriage as between a man and a woman. Outside groups on both sides have poured in money. These referendums, more than Republican Kurt Bills’s underfunded challenge to Senator Amy Klobuchar, have Republicans enthused."

"With polls showing the presidential race to be dead even, Mitt Romney would do well to remind voters in key swing states of his position on social issues like marriage, life and religious liberty. They could tip the scale in this election.

The Karl Rove wing of the GOP and the Republican elite have succeeded in keeping social issues off the table in this general election, deeming them to be “divisive.” They’ve understandably focused their campaign on the Obama record, especially as it relates to the economy. But Obama also has a record on social issues, and that record puts him at odds with a large majority of voters in key swing states. Unfortunately, voters in those states haven’t heard much about the Obama record on marriage, life and religious liberty, and Romney himself hasn’t done much to make these issues a central part of his messaging. This is a key strategic mistake that he should remedy while he still has the chance.

Let’s look at the issue of preserving marriage as the union of one man and one woman. This issue has been on the ballot in 32 states – coast to coast, in red states and blue. It has won in all 32 states. Some of these are the very swing states that will decide the election this November. Florida passed their marriage amendment by 62 percent of the vote. North Carolina passed it with 61 percent support just this past May. Virginia passed theirs by 57 percent. And the critical state of Ohio? They passed their amendment by 62 percent of the vote. Iowa hasn’t had a chance to vote on a marriage amendment yet, but with about 55 percent of the vote they did throw three sitting Supreme Court justices off the court last election for redefining marriage there. Recent polls suggest they’re about to boot another one of the gay marriage justices..."

"For opponents of same-sex marriage, it has been a potent and often repeated talking point: though the courts or the legislatures of some states have given gay and lesbian couples the right to marry, wherever it has appeared on the ballot, voters have rejected it.

Gay rights advocates hope that after Tuesday’s election, no one will be able to say that any more.

With public opinion shifting in their direction, a four-to-one spending advantage and months or even years of one-on-one appeals to potential voters, rights groups see a good chance of victory in at least one or two of the four states where same-sex marriage is a ballot item this year.

Current polls indicate a solid lead for supporters in Maine and a lesser one in Washington State, while the races in Maryland and Minnesota are about even, with the opponents apparently gaining.

Even a single victory “will be a turning point,” said Chad Griffin, the president of the Human Rights Campaign, a national group promoting gay rights that has directed $5 million to the four marriage battles.

Six states and the nation’s capital have legalized marriage for gay and lesbian couples. But in 30 states, voters have limited marriage to a man and a woman through constitutional amendments; in addition, same-sex marriage has been blocked in referendums like those in California in 2008 and Maine in 2009.

Opponents of broader rights for gay and lesbian couples are mounting a barrage of advertising and telephone appeals in the final week of the campaign, warning undecided voters that “redefining marriage” would force onerous changes in schools, businesses and churches..."

Liberal billionaires and millionaires, and Hollywood celebrities -- that's who is bankrolling gay marriage.

Don't let them drown out your voice: visit www.StandforMarriageAmerica.com today!