NOM BLOG

Monthly Archives: June 2013

Brian Brown in NRO: African-American Pastors in Democratic Illinois Show that Redefining Marriage Is Not Inevitable

Our President Brian Brown writes in NRO today:

Illinois is one of the biggest and most important states in the nation. It’s President Obama’s home state. Democrats have a super-majority in both houses of the legislature. Governor Pat Quinn is a prominent supporter of so-called same-sex marriage, as is the mayor of Chicago, Rahm Emanuel (Obama’s former chief of staff), and the leaders of both houses of the legislature. For months, Illinois was expected to be the next major victory for advocates of same-sex marriage. President Obama, Governor Quinn, Mayor Emanuel, and other prominent Democrats put their prestige on the line to actively campaign for the proposed law. Advocates licked their chops, just waiting to celebrate their certain victory. Yet a funny thing happened on the way to this “inevitable” redefining of marriage — it didn’t happen.

So much for inevitability.

What happened in Illinois is huge. It’s the last major state to consider redefining marriage before the U.S. Supreme Court issues its ruling on the constitutionality of California’s Proposition 8 upholding traditional marriage. It’s so important, in fact, that the mainstream media is doing everything it can to avoid having to report on what happened — an example of the overwhelming media bias in favor of same-sex marriage that was shown in the recent journalism report of the Pew Center that examined news coverage of the gay-marriage issue.

What happened in Illinois is that African-American pastors worked hard to reach and convince African-American legislators to stand tall for the truth of marriage — that it is an institution created by God to bring men and women together for the benefit of children that can only be created through the union of men and women. That’s what marriage is, and that’s the truth that these pastors demanded that legislators recognize.

President Obama tried to defeat them by personally lobbying legislators. So did Governor Quinn and Mayor Emanuel. They all failed.

Anderson in NRO: Marriage, Democracy, and the Court

Ryan Anderson argues that it's unconstitutional for activist judges to settle the marriage debate:

A hallmark of democratic self-government is that the people should discuss, debate, and vote on important policy matters. And in America their votes should count, except when they clearly violate the people’s more settled will as expressed in the U.S. Constitution. Where the Constitution is silent, the task of a conscientious judge is to respect the constitutional authority of citizens and their elected officials.

American FlagThat’s what’s at stake in the two marriage cases on which the Supreme Court is expected to rule within the next week or so.

A recent New York Times/CBS News poll found that “a solid majority of Americans opposes a broad national right to same-sex marriage.” Americans do not want the Supreme Court to redefine marriage for the entire nation.

And earlier this week, the Pew Research Center reported that media coverage has been overwhelmingly biased, by a factor of five to one, in favor of redefining marriage to include same-sex couples. Pew also found that ordinary Americans taking to social-media sites such as Twitter have been split more or less evenly.

That’s the reality of the discussion right now in America: We’re in the middle of a debate, with neither side’s position “inevitable.” This discussion is healthy for our democratic republic. And it would be wrong for the Supreme Court to shut down this conversation prematurely.

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

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

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

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

But they’re not censors, they insist."

No Supreme Court Decision Today

NOM's communications director Thomas Peters was at the Supreme Court today. No rulings were issued in the Prop 8 or DOMA cases. We will return next Monday and Thursday until the decisions are made public. So stay tuned!

National Organization for Marriage: Senator Murkowski's Betrayal of Marriage Seals Her Political Fate

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: June 19, 2013
Contact: Elizabeth Ray or Jen Campbell (703-683-5004)


"Murkowski has betrayed marriage and the overwhelming majority of Alaskans who have voted to define marriage as the unique union of one man and one woman. She has sealed her political fate." — Brian Brown, NOM president —

National Organization for Marriage

Washington, D.C. — Today, Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska announced her support for redefining marriage and leaked that news in advance to the Human Rights Campaign, a far-left activist organization.

Brian Brown, president of the National Organization for Marriage, responded: "Senator Murkowski has sealed her political fate. Alaskans voted by an overwhelming majority (68%-32%) to protect marriage in their Constitution when given the opportunity, and an even stronger majority of Republicans in Alaska supported that move; thus, her betrayal of marriage is tantamount to political suicide."

Brown continued: "This is what happens when politicians abandon their grassroots and their party and get cozy with far-left Washington, D.C. lobbyists. Senator Murkowski won a narrow write-in victory in 2010 but has erased her chances of being elected to another term through this act of political gamesmanship."

Brown concluded: "Furthermore, it is clear Senator Murkowski has fallen for the lies of same-sex 'marriage' activists. Religious freedom is deeply threatened wherever marriage is redefined, with the majority of states that have redefined marriage offering little more than fig leaf religious freedom protections to institutions and individuals who believe in marriage as the unique union of one man and one woman. NOM will be active in educating Alaskan voters about Senator Murkowski's choice to betray marriage and disrespect the convictions of a majority of her constituents."

###

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

ADF: Professor Ordered Students to Support SSM

FoxNews' Todd Starnes:

PinA Tennessee community college professor ordered her students to wear ribbons supporting gay rights and said those who believed in the traditional definition of marriage are just “uneducated bigots” who “attack homosexuals with hate,” according to a legal firm representing several of the students in the class.

Students in a general psychology class at Columbia State Community College were directed by their professor to wear “Rainbow Coalition” ribbons for an entire day and express their support for the homosexual community, said Travis Barham, an attorney with the Alliance Defending Freedom.

Barham is calling for the college to punish Dr. Linda Brunton and order her to apologize to the students whose constitutional rights he believes were violated, according to a letter he sent to the community college president.

“Dr. Brunton essentially turned her General Psychology class into a semester-long clinic on the demands of the homosexual movement,” Barham said.

... According to her faculty page, Brunton is a member of the Gay, Lesbian & Straight Educators Network and lists diversity issues among her professional interests.

A Watershed...

National Organization for Marriage

Dear Marriage Supporter,

I just finished writing this email and now I'm off to proudly attend the Tea Party Patriots' "Audit the IRS" rally on the West Lawn of the U.S. Capitol.

I will be standing with my fellow Americans from across the country calling on Congress to investigate this scandal and provide answers that we, the people, demand and deserve.

And NOM will be there sharing our story, which National Review recently called "a watershed." They noted that we are "an already-established nonprofit singled out for a damaging attack." And they conclude: "The scandal of a politicized IRS may be even worse than we thought."

And, as I recently said on Sean Hannity's television show, "if they can do this to us [steal and publicize NOM's confidential tax documents for political advantage]... they can do this to anyone."

Supporter, we need to seize the moment and capitalize on this opportunity!

Will you please consider stepping up to financially invest in preserving our freedom to assemble and speak out in defense of marriage without fear of retaliation and government abuse by making a generous contribution of $20, $35, $50, $100 or whatever you can afford today?

The greatest threat to the preservation of marriage and the re-establishment of a true marriage culture in America today is the inactivity of its supporters in the face of efforts to silence us!

Please stand with me today as I rally with thousands of ordinary Americans just like you by making a generous contribution to fund our lawsuit against the IRS.

This IS a watershed moment... thank you in advance for joining me in standing up for marriage.

CBN Video: "Traditional Marriage Movement Gaining Steam"

Check out this great video and article from CBN News on young marriage defenders!

"...a traditional marriage movement whose leaders represent a new generation has entered the game, and it is gaining steam.

"The other side has been preparing the seeds for this debate for 20 or 30 years and they've been well-prepared, well-organized and the response is just in its infancy," Ryan Anderson, with the Heritage Foundation, told CBN News.

... The New York Times recently recognized Anderson and other movement leaders like Caitlin Seery, who directs the Love and Fidelity Network on college campuses.

"We are trying to help students prepare themselves for healthy marriages so they will then raise healthy families because healthy families are the foundation of our society," Seery told CBN News.

What Seery, Anderson, and other supporters of traditional marriage have in common is a willingness to face fierce opposition and think outside the box about what is possible."

Franck: SSM and Religious Freedom, Fundamentally At Odds

In Public Discourse, Prof. Matthew Franck explains why we can't protect religious liberty via exemptions from laws that redefine marriage:

Bride and Groom in Church Wedding"In recent essays here at Public Discourse, Mark Regnerus argued that same-sex marriage would harm marriage for everyone, and John Smoot argued that it would be bad for children in particular. Today I want to show the damage that redefining marriage does to religious freedom. At bottom, even the defense of religious liberty is a struggle over what is true and false about the meaning of marriage.

Should the truth about marriage--that it unites men and women so that children will have fathers and mothers--be defied by the laws of the land, we cannot expect the religious freedom of those who believe in that ancient truth to be respected under the new dominion of falsehood.

After all, if redefining marriage to include same-sex couples accords with justice and moral truth, there is no good reason for the new legal order to make room for "conscientious" religious dissenters, for clearly their consciences are malformed and unworthy of respect. Thus the fate of religious freedom, for scores of millions of Americans, stands or falls with the fate of conjugal marriage itself..."

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

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


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

National Organization for Marriage

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

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

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

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

###

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

NOM's Peters to CBS: Social Conservatives are Leading the Movement

Our Communications Director Thomas Peters was interviewed by CBS News on the place of the conservative movement within the Republican party and who is shaping the future of the party:

Thomas Peters"...Peters didn't buy the argument that Republicans are losing younger voters on same-sex marriage: "I don't see that."

He derided those who would advise Republican candidates to soften their stance on social issues to attract new voters. "A lot of GOP political consultants make this claim, but their candidates lose," he said. "Republicans should stop apologizing for their pro-marriage views."

Peters reserved particularly strong words for Sen. Rob Portman, R-Ohio, who has come out in favor of same-sex marriage, saying the prospect of NOM supporting a primary challenger to Portman during his next election is "absolutely on the table."

On their broader place in the Republican Party, Peters said social conservatives "are not boots on the ground, they're leading the movement."

... Peters voiced no concern about Christie's devotion to the anti-same-sex marriage movement, noting the governor "vetoed a gay marriage bill and has promised to do it again."

And whoever claims the 2016 Republican presidential nomination, Peters said, would "absolutely have to reflect the Republican position on protecting marriage."

Wilcox in The Atlantic: The Distinct, Positive Impact of a Good Dad

Dads matter. So argues Prof. Brad Wilcox in The Atlantic:

Father and SonI understand where Jennifer Aniston is coming from. Like many of her peers in Hollywood, not to mention scholars and writers opining on fatherhood these days, she has come to the conclusion that dads are dispensable: "Women are realizing it more and more knowing that they don't have to settle with a man just to have that child," she said at a press conference a few years ago.

Her perspective has a lot of intuitive appeal in an era where millions of women have children outside of marriage, serve as breadwinner moms to their families, or are raising children on their own. Dads certainly seem dispensable in today's world.

What this view overlooks, however, is a growing body of research suggesting that men bring much more to the parenting enterprise than money, especially today, when many fathers are highly involved in the warp and woof of childrearing. As Yale psychiatrist Kyle Pruett put it in Salon: "fathers don't mother."

Pruett's argument is that fathers often engage their children in ways that differ from the ways in which mothers engage their children. Yes, there are exceptions, and, yes, parents also engage their children in ways that are not specifically gendered. But there are at least four ways, spelled out in my new book, Gender and Parenthood: Biological and Social Scientific Perspectives (co-edited withKathleen Kovner Kline), that today's dads tend to make distinctive contributions to their children's lives... (The Atlantic)

Deborah Savage: What Is a Mother to Do? Questions for SSM Advocates

Deborah Savage, professor of philosophy and pastoral ministry in the St. Paul Seminary School of Divinity at the University of St. Thomas, argues in Public Discourse that "to demand that we recognize same-sex romantic relationships as marriages, and teach our children so, is to prevent them from discovering reality":

Mother and Daughter"...I am the mother of a ten-year-old girl, a beautiful child, more precious to me than anything you can imagine. When, on June 1, same-sex marriage became legal in the state of Minnesota, I needed to know what to tell her. How is this supposed to work—actually—in the concrete world of a ten-year-old child and her mother? Her father is wondering too, of course, but he is rather speechless at the moment. And the way it works in our house, though he is really good at protecting her from possible physical threats, it usually falls to me to protect her from the more psychological threats she encounters occasionally in her young life. But this is a new one. So I need some advice.

In the interests of full disclosure, I should state that, as a philosopher, I have gotten fairly skilled at treating the philosophical errors of our age in the classroom setting. But a ten-year-old is at a bit of a disadvantage when it comes to the arguments I have developed against relativism, nominalism, dualism, materialism, and so on. And then of course, parenting comes with its own specific challenges. So I am hoping those who advocate same-sex marriage have given some thought to this, eager as they seem to be to take on the task of parenting themselves."

Anderson in The Blaze: High Stakes as Supreme Court Prepares to Rule on SSM

Ryan Anderson writes in The Blaze:

Silhouettes"...We tend to forget that marriage predates government. Throughout history, diverse cultures and faiths have upheld marriage as the ideal. It is the fundamental building block of all human civilization. Marriage has public purposes that transcend its private purposes.

Marriage is society’s best way to ensure the well-being of children (as I’ve argued at length in this space). State recognition of marriage protects children by encouraging men and women to commit to each other — and to take responsibility for their children.

So it is with good reason that 38 states – not to mention over 90 percent of the countries represented at the United Nations — affirm marriage as the union of a man and a woman, just as diverse cultures and faiths have throughout history.

But whatever any individual American thinks about marriage, the courts shouldn’t be redefining it. Marriage policy should be worked out through the democratic process, not dictated by unelected judges in an activist decision that has no grounding in the text or logic of our Constitution."

This Weekend, Celebrate Dad!

Tomorrow, be sure to celebrate Father's Day -- and the unique role fathers play in society and in raising the next generation.

This month the Supreme Court will rule in two critical cases (Prop 8 and DOMA) that, among other things, will determine whether or not our marriage laws will continue to reflect and honor the unique contributions of fathers (and mothers) to the well-being of children and society.

If you haven't yet, check out this new video which is titled "Celebrate Dad!":