Duck and Cover? NOM Marriage News


National Organization for Marriage

Dear Marriage Supporter,

During the height of the Cold War, the watchword was vigilance. Civil Defense was everyone's responsibility, and the key was to remain vigilant. The specter of nuclear war haunted every facet of life. In schools and workplaces nationwide, drills were held to practice for the event everyone hoped would never happen. Sirens would go off, and children and businessmen alike would crawl under their desks and assume the posture they were told would protect them: duck and cover. It was a culture of vigilance, but also (troublingly) largely a culture of fear as well.

Today, in America, marriage is under attack. The attacks seem to be coming from everywhere. There's definitely a need for the pro-marriage majority, especially people of faith, to remain vigilant. But emphatically this must never mean duck and cover. We can't cower under our desks and live in fear: we need to stand up, boldly, and rally together to face down the attacks. We mustn't be duck and coverers: we must be duck commanders.

Keep Calm and Quack On

I'm alluding, of course, to Phil Robertson. The "Duck Commander" patriarch of the hit reality TV show Duck Dynasty made such an impact in the news this week I know that I don't need to bother recapping.

And hopefully by now you've already signed, and have shared with your family and friends, our petition of support for Phil demanding an apology and his reinstatement from the executives over at A&E. If you haven't already taken action, please do so right away! We need to stand up for Phil's right to express his religious beliefs without being threatened and intimidated or even punished.

It is ludicrous, in America in 2013, that Christians and other people of faith should feel the need to "duck and cover" when it comes to expressing their beliefs, which are protected by the very first clauses of the very first amendment to our Constitution! Of course, that same amendment, in addition to protecting our free exercise of religion, also guarantees us the right of free speech.

That's what our petition in support of Phil is all about. It's not so much about the content of what he said or how he said it, but about his right to say it in the free public square.

Of course, there is an irony to GLAAD raising the war cry, ringing the air raid sirens, in reaction to Phil's words in his G.Q. interview. His words had a certain color some may find offensive, sure. They expressed values and beliefs with which people are free to disagree, absolutely. But for GLAAD, of all groups, to demand for A&E to punish him for these words manifests an irony that would almost be funny if it wasn't so offensive.

The same organization, GLAAD, has awarded and celebrated the gay blogger, Joe Jervis (of the famous gay blog, Joe.My.G*d). Apart from the blasphemous and offensive title of his blog, Jervis makes a living saying hateful things about Christians and others who disagree with his views, and saying them often in a pretty crude and crass manner.

Of course, Jervis is nothing in comparison with Dan Savage, whom we all know well for his hate-filled rants about Christianity (such as his statement that the Bible is "bulls**t"). And guess what? GLAAD has been just as cozy with Savage in the past as well!

It's a bit hypocritical, don't you think? An organization which, far from censuring, celebrates gay activists who say the most vile things about Christians and all people of faith, turning around and demanding swift and severe punishment against a Christian man simply for paraphrasing a verse of the Bible and expressing beliefs shared by literally billions of people worldwide!

Of course, GLAAD as an organization awards "journalists" (I use the term loosely) like Jervis and Savage who manifest GLAAD's methods of bullying and intimidation. GLAAD, like its ally HRC, doesn't want a debate on marriage. They don't want to argue on the merits — maybe they know they'll lose? They simply want to intimidate Christians into cowering under their desks, ducking and covering and hoping they won't feel the wrath of the truly intolerant same-sex marriage lobby.

But Phil Robertson won't consent to duck and cover. He won't hide under the desk. He's standing up to GLAAD and to the bullies they ally with and celebrate. And we're standing with him.

And it's good timing, too. Because the sirens are ringing again.

New Kids on the Bloc

This week, in New Mexico, the State Supreme Court ruled that the state's laws defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman are unconstitutional.

In fact, the radical activists judges on the bench there brought down this decision while the whole social media world was on fire with the story of Phil Robertson and the attacks on his (and, implicitly, on all of our) first amendment rights.

Again, you can't help but note some irony in it all. Here's a court reading a figment into the constitution on the very same day on which our country witnesses one of the most public and sensational attacks on the plain words of the constitution we've seen in a long time.

Of course, this judicial bench has sympathies with the bullying bloc of same-sex marriage radicals, and this isn't the first time the New Mexico Supreme Court has given evidence of those sympathies.

In the case of Elane Photography (which I mentioned in last week's newsletter), this was the same court that opined...

[T]here is a price, one that we all have to pay somewhere in our civic life. In the smaller, more focused world of the marketplace, of commerce, of public accommodation, the Huguenins have to channel their conduct, not their beliefs, so as to leave space for other Americans who believe something different. That compromise is part of the glue that holds us together as a nation, the tolerance that lubricates the varied moving parts of us as a people. That sense of respect we owe others, whether or not we believe as they do, illuminates this country, setting it apart from the discord that afflicts much of the rest of the world. In short, I would say to the Huguenins, with the utmost respect: it is the price of citizenship.

I said the sirens were ringing again, and this is what I meant. It's that recurring sound that you know you've heard before and sends a quick chill down your spine, making you shudder. I'll admit, that tone — the tone of intolerance, discrimination, bigotry — which rings in these words can be enough to make you want to duck and cover and hope somehow it just all goes away.

It's the same tone we've seen from the liberal journalists and media, and gay activists on Twitter and Facebook, in responding to Phil Robertson: "Sure, he's allowed to have his opinion. But not in public. Not out in the open. Behind the closed doors of his church, of around his family dinner table (but only after the credits roll, of course)."

In short, it's the message to Christians, people of faith, and everyone who believes in the simple truth about men's and women's complimentary nature as designed by God for their union in marriage: Duck and cover. Go get under your desk. Stay quiet. Or pay the price. The "price of citizenship."

Well, we're not ducking. We're standing up and drowning out this hateful message with an outpouring of support for Phil and for one another. We're letting them hear us, loud and clear — as clear as a duck call rings across a marsh through the fog of a Fall morning.

Stand strong, everyone, in this latest assault. Stand. For marriage, for our first amendment rights, for Phil, and for future generations who will not be consigned to hide under their desks.

Keep calm and carry on.


Brian S. Brown

P.S.: Please don't forget to sign the petition of support for Phil today! And then, share with all your family and friends. Click here to download a flyer you can share at work or in school, at your place of worship, during a study group or club meeting, or simply hang around town. Let's let the Robertsons and the executives at A&E know that the majority of Americans stand with Phil!

Contributions or gifts to the National Organization for Marriage, a 501(c)(4) organization, are not tax-deductible. The National Organization for Marriage does not accept contributions from business corporations, labor unions, foreign nationals, or federal contractors; however, it may accept contributions from federally registered political action committees. Donations may be used for political purposes such as supporting or opposing candidates. No funds will be earmarked or reserved for any political purpose.
Copyright 2013