Purple Penguins and Blue Republicans

National Organization for Marriage

Dear Marriage Supporter,

This week has seen a flurry of news activity following the Supreme Court’s shameful decision on Monday. The Justices dodges the marriage question and allowed standing several lower court rulings that trample the will of tens of millions of voters who worked to define marriage in their state constitutions as the union of one man and one woman.

But an overlooked aspect of the present state of the marriage debate in America is how it is revealing folks’ true colors. And that’s the topic I want to expound upon today.

"Boys will be... penguins?"

The first story I want to look at this week comes from a school district in Nebraska. The news would be funny, if it wasn’t so sad.

Katherine Timpf at National Review Online gives the details. I’m going to quote at length, because Timpf does a masterful job capturing the full extent of the lunacy involved in this story. The emphasis is my own:

A Nebraska school district has instructed its teachers to stop referring to students by "gendered expressions" such as "boys and girls," and use "gender inclusive" ones such as "purple penguins" instead.

"Don’t use phrases such as 'boys and girls,’ 'you guys,’ 'ladies and gentlemen,’ and similarly gendered expressions to get kids’ attention," instructs a training document given to middle-school teachers at the Lincoln Public Schools.

"Create classroom names and then ask all of the 'purple penguins’ to meet on the rug," it advises.


"Always ask yourself . . . 'Will this configuration create a gendered space?’" the document says.


Other items on the list include asking all students about their preferred pronouns and decorating the classroom with "all genders welcome" door hangers.

If teachers still find it "necessary" to mention that genders exist at all, the document states, they must list them as "boy, girl, both or neither."

Furthermore, it instructs teachers to interfere and interrupt if they ever hear a student talking about gender in terms of "boys and girls" so the student can learn that this is wrong.

The real absurdity here is that the very directives are internally inconsistent and illogical. The directives warn about creating a "gendered space" — but then propose decorating with signs that say "all genders welcome." Yet, if the boys and girls—and, let’s be frank, that’s what they all are—dare to speak in terms of "boys and girls," teachers are called upon to interfere and interrupt. So are all genders truly "welcome"?

Timpf reveals another absurdity when she quotes from the school Superintendent who defended the directives in a radio interview by saying, "We don’t get involved with politics." Talk about double-speak!

Make no mistake, this absolutely is "get[ting] involved with politics," and it is unmistakably of a piece with the drive to redefine marriage and family as a genderless institution.

As same-sex 'marriage’ advocates nationwide continue to have their way in the courts and have their radical agenda imposed on unwilling Americans in state after state, they’ve already accomplished the elimination of such "gendered" terms as "mom" and "dad" from our schools in many places. Wasn’t it only a matter of time after "mom and dad" were stricken from school-room vocabulary that "boys and girls" would be similarly targeted to be expunged?

So now we see the tragic absurdity of a situation wherein, in response to gender dysphoria and confused sexual identities that may be conditions suffered by a certain number of kids, we confuse all kids by chiding them for calling themselves "boys and girls" and name them instead after an imaginary creature, "purple penguins." (I suppose "purple penguins," unlike the black and white ones that live in Antarctica, don’t have biological sexes.)

This is why this indoctrination in the public schools is such a travesty and will be hard on our children: because, as you know, boys and girls actually really do exist, and purple penguins do not; and being a girl is a very good thing, as is being a boy.

An Even More Fantastic Creature

But purple penguins aren’t the only wild figments we’re asked to accept nowadays. No; there is another, even more unimaginable creature that we’re being asked to give credence to in recent days and weeks: the same-sex 'marriage’ 'conservative’!

It isn’t too flippant to say that if Richard Tisei (MA-6), Carl DeMaio (CA-52), and Monica Wehby (OR)—Republican candidates for Congress who favor same-sex 'marriage’ and abortion—are truly "conservatives," then I won’t be surprised next time I visit the zoo to really encounter a purple animal in the polar exhibit!

Yet these anti-marriage candidates are not only being bankrolled by major Republican donors, they are also being supported by leadership in the GOP—a party whose platform states unambiguously that marriage is the union of one man and one woman!

That’s why I say that the recent developments of the marriage debate are revealing folks’ true colors. And that’s why NOM is sending the message loud and clear to the Republican party: candidates who abandon marriage will be abandoned by conservative voters. And we’ll remember who in office tried to prop up the untenable myth of an anti-marriage 'conservative’ when the next election cycle comes around.

Follow the Leader

Another of the lessons we all learned in the classroom—besides what it means to be a boy or a girl, and what it means when men and women come together in marriage—is how to recognize leadership. We learned to discern between true leaders worthy of following, and false leaders only out for their own interest.

So it has been easy to see, in contrast to the self-interested elites trying to cozy up to the same-sex 'marriage’ lobby in recent weeks, who the real leaders are in Washington who have true integrity and conviction in their principles.

I would mention first of all Representative Tim Huelskamp of Kansas, who has long been a champion for the cause of true marriage and has, since June 2013, been leading the charge in the House of Representatives to pass H.J. Res. 51, the Marriage Protection Amendment.

According to the bill summary, this act would "define marriage in the United States as consisting only of the union of a man and a woman" and "prohibit either the U.S. Constitution or the constitution of any state from being construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents of marriage be conferred upon any other union."

Earlier this week, following the Supreme Court’s refusal to right the wrongs down by lower courts to tens of millions of voters in states whose marriage amendments had been overturned, the Congressman said in a statement:

According to the majority of this very Supreme Court in the Windsor decision, states and their citizens have the right and responsibility to define their marriage laws. It is shocking that at least six Supreme Court justices would allow unelected lower court judges to simply ignore the majority decision — and the Section of DOMA upheld in the Windsor decision.

The only alternative to allowing these unelected liberal judges to impose their morality on all of America is to pass a constitutional amendment. To that end, last year I introduced the Marriage Protection Amendment (HJ Res. 51) to define marriage as only between one man and one woman.

This resonates with the words of another marriage champion who led honorably this week, Senator Ted Cruz of Texas. Senator Cruz issued his own statement following Monday’s move by the Court, in which he announced that he would be introducing his own constitutional amendment in the Senate when Congress returns to session!

Senator Cruz said:

The Supreme Court’s decision to let rulings by lower court judges stand that redefine marriage is both tragic and indefensible. By refusing to rule if the States can define marriage, the Supreme Court is abdicating its duty to uphold the Constitution. [...]

This is judicial activism at its worst. The Constitution entrusts state legislatures, elected by the People, to define marriage consistent with the values and mores of their citizens. Unelected judges should not be imposing their policy preferences to subvert the considered judgments of democratically elected legislatures.

... And that is why, when Congress returns to session, I will be introducing a constitutional amendment to prevent the federal government or the courts from attacking or striking down state marriage laws.

I want to thank these two brave men for their indefatigable leadership on this issue, along with their many colleagues in Congress who are standing staunchly alongside them in this fight.

Please join me today in thanking Senator Cruz and Congressman Huelskamp by adding your signature to this letter of appreciation. They—and their fellow members of Congress—need to know that we stand with those who stand for marriage, and that we will support them in their cause of defending this sacred institution!

I also want to acknowledge the bold statement by another heroic member of Congress, Representative James Lankford of Oklahoma. In his statement, he had this to say:

Now, through judicial gymnastics the Supreme Court has allowed federal court decisions to stand that directly conflict with the clear will of a state on marriage. The Court should not in one year say a state can make the decision on marriage and then in the next year allow a local federal judge to reject a state's definition of marriage. The implications of forcing any state to redefine marriage have far-reaching effects on our American society, business operations and religious practice. Every person is created in God's image and has value and worth. Every person should be respected and honored. But, marriage is a unique cultural relationship that has a long-standing tradition and societal meaning, which should not be redefined by the courts.

Finally, there is one other marriage leader that deserves our acknowledgement and thanks today: former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee.

Governor Huckabee gave an interview this week in which he called out those Republicans who are betraying their party’s platform on the issues of marriage and abortion, and even pledged that he would leave the party and become an independent if the trend continues: "I’ll start finding people that have guts to stand," he said.

Governor Huckabee is right. He speaks for millions of Americans who are sick of their elected leaders remaining silent and refusing to fight for the survival of marriage. And those who do refuse to stand by their constituents’ values need to know that they will pay a political price: that they support redefining marriage only at the risk of losing elections.

The National Organization for Marriage and our allies will continue to call upon conservative leaders and voters to stake a firm position: if a candidate or elected official abandons marriage, we will abandon them!

But at the same time, we will work tirelessly to promote those who join the fight. Leaders who stand up in defense of marriage must know that they will thereby gain millions of conservatives’ votes and support.

Therefore, I ask you to do one more thing today. Take a moment right now to contact Congress and let them know that Senator Cruz’s and Congressman Huelskamp’s amendments need your own legislators’ support.

By demanding action right now from Congress, we will expose the true colors of our elected leaders and see whether they are real conservatives, or are playing a game of pretend like a bunch of 'purple penguins.’

Thank you for all you do in defense of marriage.


Brian S Brown

Brian S. Brown
National Organization for Marriage

Brian Brown

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.

This message has been authorized and paid for by the National Organization for Marriage, 2029 K Street NW, Suite 300, Washington, DC 20006, Brian Brown, President. This message has not been authorized or approved by any candidate.
Copyright 2014