Monthly Archives: December 2012

UK Muslims Slam "Discriminatory" Gay Marriage Law


A bill proposed by the UK government allows gay marriages, but explicitly forbids the Church of England and the Church in Wales from blessing same-sex couples. British Muslims have criticized the proposition, demanding a similar exception.

The specific naming of the two churches in the bill drew criticism from other religious factions opposed to same-sex marriage. The Muslim Council of Britain (MCB), which has more than 500 affiliated mosques, charities and schools, said Tuesday it was "appalled" by the proposed legislation.

MCB secretary-general Farooq Murad said he was seeking an urgent meeting with UK Culture Secretary Maria Miller to express the level of intense opposition to the bill among Muslims. "No one in their right mind should accept such a discriminatory law," Murad said. "It should be amended to give exactly the same exemption to all the religions."

Frank Schubert Responds to Gingrich's Gay Marriage Gamble

Newt Gingrich, in a recent interview with The Huffington Post, agreed with the false claim that redefined marriage is "inevitable" and that those who believe in marriage as the union of husband and wife should compromise the truth of marriage.

Frank Schubert, NOM's National Political Director, responds below:

"Newt Gingrich has provided valuable public service to America. As a candidate he signed NOM’s pledge to take action as president to preserve marriage.

But sometimes good men say stupid things, and this is one of those times.

Gingrich’s conclusion that gay “marriage” is inevitable is ridiculous. His comments suggest the results of marriage races in Maine, Maryland and Washington, which allowed three deep-blue states to endorse redefining marriage means that it is inevitable. I wonder if the Speaker also thinks that the Republican Party is doomed and can never again win a national election. After all, marriage performed, on average, 6.6 points better than did the Republican ticket in these very Democratic states.

Yes, we are disappointed with the election results, but let us not overstate their importance. By an overwhelming 60% margin (according to a national survey conducted by Gingrich’s own pollster, Kellyanne Conway), the American people continue to believe that marriage is the union of one man and one woman.

Gay “marriage” is no more inevitable than is permanent Democratic control of the White House.

Finally, I trust Newt understands that gay relationships are already 'legal' in all 50 states. Our challenge is to ensure that marriage as the exclusive union of one man and one woman remains defined as such in our nation's laws."

Court Upholds Firing of College Official Over Op-Ed Against Gay Rights

The Chronicle of Higher Education:

A federal appeals court has upheld the University of Toledo's decision to fire a high-level human-resources administrator who wrote a newspaper opinion column challenging the idea that gay people deserve the same civil-rights protections as members of racial minority groups.

In a ruling handed down on Monday, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held that the administrator's column "contradicted the very policies she was charged with creating, promoting, and enforcing," and cannot be excused as merely a statement of her own views as a private citizen. The panel affirmed a lower court's decision to dismiss the administrator's lawsuit accusing the public university of violating her constitutional rights by firing her.

At the center of the case was an opinion essay that Crystal Dixon, who had been the university's interim associate vice president for human resources, published in the Toledo Free Press in April 2008.

... In upholding the dismissal of Ms. Dixon's lawsuit, the federal appeals court said she differed from other employees cited in her equal-protection claim in that her speech, and not theirs, contradicted university policies. The appeals panel said her essay "spoke on policy issues related directly to her position at the university," and the government's interests as an employer outweighed her free-speech interests in the dispute.

Prof. Regnerus on Porn Use and Supporting Same-Sex Marriage

Mark Regnerus on more insights gleaned from the New Family Structures Study data set:

Data from the New Family Structures Study reveal that when young adult Americans (ages 23-39) are asked about their level of agreement with the statement “It should be legal for gays and lesbians to marry in America,” the gender difference emerges, just as expected: 42 percent of men agreed or strongly agreed, compared with 47 percent of women of the same age. More men than women disagreed or strongly disagreed (37 versus 30 percent), while comparable levels (21-23 percent) said they were “unsure.”

But of the men who view pornographic material “every day or almost every day,” 54 percent “strongly agreed” that gay and lesbian marriage should be legal, compared with around 13 percent of those whose porn-use patterns were either monthly or less often than that. Statistical tests confirmed that porn use is a (very) significant predictor of men’s support for same-sex marriage, even after controlling for other obvious factors that might influence one’s perspective, such as political affiliation, religiosity, marital status, age, education, and sexual orientation.

The same pattern emerges for the statement, “Gay and lesbian couples do just as good a job raising children as heterosexual couples.” Only 26 percent of the lightest porn users concurred, compared to 63 percent of the heaviest consumers. It’s a linear association for men: the more porn they consume, the more they affirm this statement. More rigorous statistical tests confirmed that this association too is a very robust one. -- Public Discourse

NJ Democrat Senate Leader Doesn't Want the People to Vote on Marriage

Even in deep blue New Jersey, pro-gay marriage Senate President Steve Sweeney (D) doesn't want a bill introduced by one of his fellow Democrats calling for a vote of the people on marriage to proceed. Presumably it’s because he fears he will lose such a public vote:

Sen. President Steve Sweeney today reiterated his position that he does not believe same sex marriage is an issue for voters to decide.

Sweeney was responding to a bill introduced by Assemblyman Reed Gusciora that would place the issue on the ballot next November.

"I have firmly stated before and will say again now that I do not believe you put civil rights on the ballot, period. It is the job of elected officials to ensure that everyone is provided equal protection and equal rights under the law. We should not hide from that responsibility...we should embrace it," Sweeney said in a statement. "We gave the governor an opportunity to ensure true marriage equality in this state, just as other states and nations have done. He punted by shamelessly issuing a conditional veto. I fully plan on overriding that veto before this legislative session is done."

Earlier this year the Legislature passed a measure legalizing same sex marriage, however the bill was vetoed by Gov. Chris Christie who said at the time the state should let voters decide.

While Sweeney voted in favor of the latest iteration of the "marriage equality" bill, he was not always so inclined.  When the measure came before the Legislature in 2009, Sweeney abstained from the vote.  He later called it the worst decision of his political career. -- PolitickerNJ

NEW VIDEO: Top 10 Marriage Victories of 2012!

National Organization for Marriage

2012 was an important year for marriage.

And while we were disappointed by some of the recent election outcomes, it's important to remember the many victories this past year brought in the fight to protect marriage.

NOM was integral to each of these victories—often initiating and leading them, and other times as the single largest donor in support of the winning cause.

Marriage is winning . . .

. . . with a marriage amendment passed in North Carolina and another on its way in Indiana;

. . . with outspoken support from each of the leading GOP Presidential candidates, and with a strong statement in the Republican Party platform;

. . . with five state Senators in New York who lost their jobs after betraying their constituents by legalizing gay marriage, despite massive financial support from Governor Andrew Cuomo, Mayor Michael Bloomberg and the gay marriage lobby;

. . . with corporations put on notice by the massive support behind NOM's Dump Starbucks campaign and the outpouring of encouragement on August 1st, Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day;

. . . with new, powerful, and compelling research by scholars like Mark Regnerus at the University of Texas, whose ground-breaking "New Family Structures Study" showed the major differences between young adults raised by same-sex parents and those raised by a married mom and dad;

. . . and with the United States Supreme Court deciding to hear appeals of cases on both the Proposition 8 and the Federal Defense of Marriage Act.

We have a great opportunity to continue winning historic victories for marriage in the new year, and we want you to be a part of it!

Please click here now to make a year-end contribution of $25, $50, $100, $500 or more to NOM and help us blaze a trail to new victories in 2013.

Marriage faces some enormous battles in the next year and NOM is getting ready to fight them . . . and WIN!

Please re-commit to the fight and stand with us in defense of marriage.

P. S. Gay marriage is NOT inevitable. The greatest danger the defenders of true marriage face is complacency and despair. We can WIN for marriage! We've done it before, time and again! The year ahead is critically important, and we need your help today to give marriage the defense it needs—the defense it deserves. Please watch our Top 10 Marriage Victories of 2012 video now, and prayerfully consider making a year-end contribution to help NOM bring about even more great wins in 2013!

Anderson: Can the President Have a Marriage Agenda Without Talking About What Marriage Is?

Ryan Anderson, co-author of What is Marriage?, in the Public Discourse today asks "How successful can a 'new conversation on marriage' marriage be when its leaders can't even say what marriage is?"

The President’s Marriage Agenda for the Forgotten Sixty Percent,” despite the impression its title might give, was released Sunday not by the Obama administration but by the Institute for American Values and the National Marriage Project at the University of Virginia. It is a timely, compelling, and important report, but it falls short in a basic way: it never once even attempts to say what marriage is. But you cannot advance a marriage agenda without knowing what marriage is and why it matters for public policy, as my co-authors and I argue in our new book, What Is Marriage?

The leadership of the Institute for American Values, after embracing the redefinition of marriage in a high-profile change of heart earlier this year, hopes this report launches “a new conversation on marriage.” The authors urge political leaders to encourage “community-based and focused public service announcements that convey the truth about marriage, stability and child wellbeing to the next generation of parents.”

Well, what is the truth about marriage?

Illinois Lawmakers Who Promised Civil Unions Would Be Enough Now Pushing SSM

Democrats in Illinois are now saying they may try to push for redefined marriage during the upcoming lame duck session in January.

The Illinois Family Institute points out some of these same lawmakers had promised that same-sex civil unions would be enough, and that they would not harm religious freedom:

"Multiple media sources are cheerfully reporting that supporters of marriage- redefinition may try to pass their same-sex “marriage” bill during the lame duck session of the General Assembly next month (January 3-9).

State Representative Greg Harris (D-Chicago), the chief sponsor of this anti-family legislation, used the lame duck session in 2010 to ram through a same-sex “civil unions” bill. It passed by razor-thin margins in part because many proponents of civil unions dishonestly promised lawmakers that the legalization of “civil unions” was all they wanted.

The ethically-challenged ACLU lobbied heavily for civil unions in 2010, but then in 2012 filed a lawsuit in Cook County on behalf of homosexual activists, complaining that the very civil union law they lobbied to create is unconstitutional.

The liberal activists who pushed for civil unions, including Representative Harris and State Senator David Koehler (D-Peoria), also promised their colleagues that religious liberty and freedom of conscience would not be affected by the passage of “civil unions.” We have seen how those empty those promises were. "

Legal Insurrection: Much-Touted Poll on SSM Actually Shows Majority Oppose SSM

We've seen this before but it's always worth pointing out again -- polls claiming a majority support redefining marriage offer those they poll a false binary choice between redefining marriage and no legal recognition whatsoever:

As Professor Jacobson pointed out the other day, there is an effort already underway to game the refs at the Supreme Court, similar to in the Obamacare case, by creating a media and political narrative that the Court’s legitimacy would be threatened if it were on the “wrong side of history” on gay marriage.

That “gaming the ref” effort was seen the other day at Politico.

Politico’s 9 December headline blared, “Poll: Plurality Support Gay Marriage” which to the undiscerning reader sounds awfully like most people are in favor.

The poll was picked up in many places. The ever excitable writers at Slate saw Politco’s story and quickly ran their own entry with an almost word-for-word headline.

But using their own numbers, Politico could have equally, and perhaps more honestly have written, “Majority Against Gay Marriage“. Or they could have even said “Nation Split on Gay Marriage.” All would have been correct given the actual poll results.

The poll asked which of three views best described a person’s view on gay marriage:

Same sex couples should be able to be legally married;
Same sex couples should be able to enter into civil unions but not be allowed to get married, OR
Same sex couples should not be allowed to have any type of legal union?

Only 40%—a minority—agreed with legal marriage. But 30% said civil unions without marriage was best, and 24% said no marriage and no civil union. That makes 54%—a majority—against marriage.

So while is strictly true that a plurality do support gay marriage when gay marriage is put as one choice of three questions, it is also true, and more faithful to the data, to say a majority is against it. -- Legal Insurrection

Their Desperate Gamble...

Dear Marriage Supporter,

Believe me when I say that gay marriage advocates are very afraid of the Prop 8 and DOMA cases that the Supreme Court will hear next year.

And that's why they are going to open 2013 with another major campaign in several new target states to push their radical agenda forward.

It's a desperate gamble - a last ditch effort to convince the Supreme Court that the country is in favor of gay marriage.

And that's why I need your help now.

Now is the time - in anticipation of the most important fight marriage has ever faced - to stand up and make your voice heard.

Please make a year-end donation to NOM today of $25, $50, $100, $500 or more to help us send a clear and decisive message to the Supreme Court that the American people don't want elite judges and politicians redefining marriage for everyone.

Gay marriage activists are mobilizing to try to push same-sex marriage bills through the legislatures in Rhode Island, Delaware and Illinois next month.

Even more surprising, they are gathering signatures in Ohio to put same-sex marriage on the ballot, trying to repeal the marriage amendment passed into law in 2004. Ohio is not a state that is friendly to their cause - marriage won with over 61% of the vote.

Why this illogical push in a state so set against their cause? Because they know that they need to hit a home run before the Supreme Court hears their case.
Marriage supporter, your contribution will help us contact and mobilize thousands of pro-marriage activists in these target states to make a statement in the months before the Supreme Court hears these two high-stakes cases.We need all of our supporters, friends and people of faith all across the country to immediately step up and contribute to help us win this all important battle. Please make an immediate year-end contribution to help us deliver a historic victory for marriage in 2013.

In addition, it will help us advance pro-marriage legislation in states like Indiana, whose legislature has a chance to put a marriage amendment before the voters.

We have an incredible opportunity to make sure the true definition of marriage is defended not only in these states, but - through the pending Supreme Court ruling - in every state in the country!

We have the chance to win a game-changing victory in 2013. We've done it before and we can do it again! But we need you to stand up and financially invest in this fight right away.

Please make a year-end donation that has the potential to resonate throughout history by preserving our civilization's foundational institution.

P.S. It's not an exaggeration to say that the fate of marriage in America could be decided in the coming months. This is a fight that we CANNOT afford to lose. That's why I need you to follow this link to make an immediate contribution of $25, $50, $100, $500 or more to defend marriage in this critical hour. I'm counting on faithful Americans like you to enable us to do what is necessary to give marriage the defense that it not only needs, but deserves. Thank you.


Costly Toll for Republicans Who Voted for Gay Marriage

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."

Saland Opponents

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.

NY Senators Sent Packing

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!

Anderson on the Future of Marriage

Ryan Anderson concludes his series for Ricochet on what is marriage by talking about the future of the marriage movement:

"...The most interesting—and revealing—comments on this week’s posts have been those that said marriage is simply whatever sort of interpersonal relationship consenting adults—be they two or 10 in number—want it to be; sexual or platonic, sexually exclusive or open, temporary or permanent.

That idea sounds like the abolition of marriage. Marriage is left with no essential features, no fixed core as a social reality—it is simply whatever consenting adults want it to be.

If so, how can redefining marriage for public purposes to include same-sex relationships be a demand of justice? A matter of basic fairness and equality? From the wide variety of interpersonal consensual relationships that adults can form, why should the state pick out same-sex ones?

Indeed, some of those who posted comments saw this logic, and thinking that marriage has no form and serves no social purpose, they concluded that the government should get out of the marriage business.

If so, how will society protect the needs of children—the prime victim of our non-marital sexual culture—without government growing more intrusive and more expensive?"

Ed Whelan: Marriage at Stake

Legal scholar Ed Whelan gives a summary of the two cases pending before the Supreme Court involving marriage, including this summary of the winding path Prop 8 has taken to the highest court:

"...The saga of the anti-Prop. 8 lawsuit would make an unbelievable novel. No federal district judge has ever committed more egregious acts of malfeasance and manifest bias in a case than Vaughn Walker. In the end, Judge Walker concocted a federal constitutional right to same-sex "marriage" and based that right on a set of absurd factual findings. Only after he finished with the case and retired did he disclose that he was in the midst of a long-term same-sex relationship — which means that he had been ruling on his own legal right to marry his same-sex partner.

To compound the farce: The Ninth Circuit ruling on appeal, which also held Prop. 8 to be unconstitutional, was written by notorious liberal activist Stephen Reinhardt. Judge Reinhardt’s wife, Ramona Ripston, directed an American Civil Liberties Union affiliate that filed briefs in support of the Prop. 8 challengers in the same case and publicly rejoiced over Judge Walker’s ruling. Yet Judge Reinhardt somehow refused to disqualify himself from deciding the appeal. Then, in a transparent effort to evade Supreme Court review, he ruled that Prop. 8 was invalid on the narrower (but infirm) ground that it took away a right that the state Supreme Court had previously conferred.

The Supreme Court ought to reverse both the DOMA ruling and the Prop. 8 ruling when it decides these cases at the end of June 2013. Under any sensible interpretation, the Constitution simply does not speak, one way or the other, to the question of same-sex "marriage," but instead leaves the matter to the realm of representative government for decision — to each state to determine its own marriage laws and to Congress to determine what marriage means in provisions of federal law." -- National Catholic Register

Pope Says Protecting Marriage a Way to Promote Peace, Justice

Pope Benedict strengthens his call for all people of good will to work to build up a marriage culture:

"Pope Benedict XVI has suggested that attempts to give gay unions the same status as marriages between men and women pose a threat to justice and peace. 

"There is also a need to acknowledge and promote the natural structure of marriage as the union of a man and a woman in the face of attempts to make it juridically equivalent to radically different types of union," the pope said in his message for World Day of Peace 2013, which was presented by the Holy See on Friday.

"Such attempts actually harm and help to destabilize marriage, obscuring its specific nature and its indispensable role in society.

"These principles are not truths of faith, nor are they simply a corollary of the right to religious freedom.

"They are inscribed in human nature itself, accessible to reason and thus common to all humanity.

"The Church's efforts to promote them are not therefore confessional in character, but addressed to all people, whatever their religious affiliation.

"Efforts of this kind are all the more necessary the more these principles are denied or misunderstood, since this constitutes an offence against the truth of the human person, with serious harm to justice and peace".

The pope's message for World Day of Peace 2013, which takes place January 1, is entitled Blessed are the Peacemakers."

WSJ's James Taranto: Kennedy Not a "Sure Thing" for Gay Marriage

James Taranto of the Wall Street Journal throws a bucket of cold water on the notion that Justice Anthony Kennedy is a "sure thing" for gay marriage:

"...Back in 2010, this column made essentially the same prediction [that Kennedy would support gay marriage], and on the same grounds. Now we're not so sure. It seems to us that Kennedy's "powerful, eloquent and compelling" language in these two rulings--as well as Justice Antonin Scalia's language in dissent, equally deserving of those adjectives--makes them seem more sweeping than they actually were, especially the first of the two, Romer v. Evans (1996). 

Romer was the case that struck down Colorado's Amendment 2, a ballot measure amending the state's constitution to bar laws or policies protecting homosexuals from discrimination.

... As it turns out, however, in 1997 a federal appeals court drew precisely that distinction in allowing to stand a law similar in many ways to Amendment 2. The following year the Supreme Court let the lower court's ruling stand, as the Cincinnati Enquirer reported at the time...

... Kennedy may be as activist and results-oriented (on this matter, anyway) as Erwin Chemerinsky thinks. His moralizing rhetoric in Romer and Lawrence certainly has led us to think so. But there's nothing in the legal logic of those cases that makes a constitutional right to same-sex marriage inexorable.