NOM BLOG

Monthly Archives: December 2013

Anxious...

National Organization for Marriage

Dear Marriage Supporter,

A little over a week ago, I sent you an email thanking you for the incredible support we'd received for our year-end, million dollar matching gift campaign.

We're still $310,000 short of our one million dollar campaign goal. But remember, if we can make up that gap, it will be doubled by our matching donor. That's an additional $620,000 to help fight for marriage in the new year! But we need your help now to reach this goal!

Please click here right away to make a generous year-end donation to NOM to support our work and help us reach our year-end goal of $1,000,000 — every penny of which will be matched dollar-for-dollar by a generous supporter.

In these past few days we've seen yet again why your support is as important as ever. As you have undoubtedly heard, the special-interest homosexual group GLAAD launched their campaign to bully A&E networks into suspending Ducky Dynasty star Phil Robertson from his own show simply for honestly answering questions put to him in an interview with GQ magazine about the tenets of his faith.

It clearly demonstrates how intensely aggressive and intolerant the radicals pushing the same-sex marriage agenda are... and how far they will go to ensure that religious views about sex and marriage are altogether removed from the public square!

They're going after basic first amendment rights — not just religious liberty, but free speech as well!

We must put a stop to this! NOM's mission is to protect marriage and the faith communities that sustain it. Our stand in defense of Phil Robertson is intended not only to support him, but all people and faith groups who speak out in support of true marriage...and we need your help to do it!

So, please, click here to make a year-end donation to NOM today. Please give as generously as you can, as every dollar you donate right now will be matched and DOUBLE the impact that your hard earned money makes in defense of marriage.

In addition to battling in the public square on behalf of marriage, recent developments underscore the important battles taking place in courtrooms, legislatures and other venues. Just last Friday, a federal judge in Utah struck down the state's marriage amendment passed by an overwhelming majority of voters. We've got to gear up to support efforts to stop this outrageous decision and restore the legitimate right of voters to determine marriage for themselves.

With Christmas right around the corner, I know many of us are running around, shopping and traveling in anticipation of celebrating this holy time with family. Unfortunately, our opponents' many attacks on marriage and pro-marriage citizens continue each day regardless of the holidays. So please find a minute or two to make a gift to NOM today so that we can we can enter 2014 knowing that you are standing shoulder to shoulder with us.

Thank you.

Faithfully,

Brian S. Brown

PS: We have raised almost $700,000 toward our year-end matching gift campaign. Please help us take full advantage of this incredible opportunity to raise the remaining $310,000 we need to hit our goal, and thus secure an additional $620,000 for defending marriage in the coming year!

National Organization for Marriage Condemns Ruling by Utah Judge Redefining Marriage and Overriding the Will of the People

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: December 19, 2013
Contact: Elizabeth Ray or Matille Thebolt (703-683-5004)


"This ruling should concern every American who cares about the rights of citizens and their involvement in determining the laws that govern us. This trend of vetoing the voters from the bench must be stopped." — Brian Brown, NOM president —

nom_logo

Washington, D.C. — The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) today condemned the December 20th decision by a federal district court judge in Utah which overruled the state's constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman. Justice Robert Shelby wrote in his decision that even though the majority opinion in the Windsor case overturning the federal Defense of Marriage Act specifically stated that it was up to the states to define marriage, he believes the Court will find in the future that marriage between one man and one woman is unconstitutional, and thus Shelby invalidated Utah's amendment in anticipation of such a future ruling.

"This ruling is a travesty of justice," said Brian Brown, NOM President. "The voters of Utah made their will in this matter perfectly clear less than 10 years ago when adopting an amendment to the state constitution defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman. This ruling should concern every American who cares about the rights of citizens and their involvement in determining the laws that govern us. This trend of vetoing the voters from the bench must be stopped."

NOM commended Utah's Acting Attorney General Brian Tarbet for his decision to immediately seek an emergency stay of the decision to facilitate an orderly appeal of the case to the higher courts. Such a move is essential because, according to news reports, immediately following the issuance of Shelby's ruling, clerks in Salt Lake County began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples after the county District Attorney stated that there was no reason to wait to do so.

"We appreciate Attorney General Tarbet's swift action in seeking a stay of this decision and his commitment to appeal the ruling to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals," Brown said. "The rush to issue same-sex ‘marriage' licenses in Salt Lake County before the ink is even dry on Judge Shelby's decision is unseemly and an insult to the people. This is one of the most important issues facing the state and country. The constitution of the United States is not changed because a single judge says it should be. This critical matter needs to be considered by the higher courts immediately."

Brown said that the decision is further evidence that it is time to amend the US Constitution to protect marriage as the union of one man and one woman. "The decision today is remarkable because the judge claims that it's the purview of the state to define marriage, yet he has invalidated their definition of marriage, one overwhelmingly adopted by both the state Legislature and the people of Utah. Everyone in America should be concerned to see how easily activist judges can cavalierly toss out the will of overwhelming majorities of legislators and voters alike. It's becoming increasingly clear that the people of America need to reclaim their sovereignty and amend the US Constitution to protect marriage as the union of one man and one woman."

###

To schedule an interview with Brian Brown, President of the National Organization for Marriage, please contact Elizabeth Ray (x130), [email protected], or Matille Thebolt (x143), [email protected], at 703-683-5004.

Paid for by The National Organization for Marriage, Brian Brown, president. 2029 K Street NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20006, not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee. New § 68A.405(1)(f) & (h).

Quack On! Share a Flier to Support Phil Robertson

For those interested in sharing a flier to encourage others to support Phil Robertson and the right to share our beliefs in the public square, feel free to download one here. Whether you're at work or school, your place of worship or simply around town, these fliers are a great way to spread support for the Robertson family and let the executives at A&E know that the majority of Americans stand with Phil.

Screen Shot 2013-12-20 at 5.42.00 PM

If you haven't signed the petition to support Phil, please do so here.

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.

Sincerely,

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!

National Organization for Marriage Condemns Activist Court Ruling Redefining Marriage in New Mexico

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: December 19, 2013
Contact: Elizabeth Ray or Matille Thebolt (703-683-5004)


"Once again activist judges have thrown out the historic legal understanding of marriage in New Mexico." — Brian Brown, NOM president —

nom_logo

Washington, D.C. — Reacting to today's ruling of the New Mexico Supreme Court that declared unconstitutional current state marriage laws limiting marriage to the union of one man and one woman, the National Organization for Marriage (http://www.nationformarriage.org) (NOM) released a statement condemning the ruling and calling for a federal law to prevent further radical attacks on marriage nationwide.

"Today's opinion by the New Mexico Supreme Court is disappointing but not surprising. These are the same justices that demanded in an earlier ruling that Christians be the ones to compromise and deny their faith, in the case of Elane Photography. Once again, activists judges have thrown out the historic legal understanding of marriage in New Mexico," stated Brian Brown, NOM president. "This is a continuation of a very dangerous rush towards silencing people of faith who simply believe marriage to be the union of one man and one woman. The National Organization for Marriage will do everything in its power to protect believers of true marriage in New Mexico and around the nation from the fallout of radical judges who deny the truth of marriage."

Brown said that the decision underscores the need for Congress to pass a federal Marriage Protection Amendment. He said that without such an enactment, activist judges around the nation will continue to act unilaterally to redefine marriage, and Brown warned of threats to religious freedom and other first amendment rights which he said always follows in the wake of such decisions.

A federal Marriage Protection Amendment has been proposed by Congressman Tim Huelskamp of Kansas, and enjoys support from NOM and many other allied organizations.

###

To schedule an interview with Brian Brown, President of the National Organization for Marriage, please contact Elizabeth Ray (x130), [email protected], or Matille Thebolt (x143), [email protected], at 703-683-5004.

Paid for by The National Organization for Marriage, Brian Brown, president. 2029 K Street NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20006, not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee. New § 68A.405(1)(f) & (h).

National Organization for Marriage Launches Nationwide Petition To Protest A&E's Suspension of Phil Robertson From Duck Dynasty

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: December 19, 2013
Contact: Elizabeth Ray or Matille Thebolt (703-683-5004)


"It's truly outrageous and shocking that the A&E Networks succumbed to bullying by homosexual groups, and legitimized it, by suspending Phil Robertson from his own show. This simply cannot be allowed to stand." — Brian Brown, NOM president —

nom_logo

Washington, D.C. — The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) today launched a nationwide petition aimed at forcing the A&E Networks to reinstate Phil Robertson to the Duck Dynasty show, and to apologize to him and all people of faith for their incredibly poor decision to suspend him.

"What Phil Robertson has done is express the traditional Christian view of homosexuality — decry the sin but love the sinner. It's what every major Christian leader including Jesus Christ himself has taught us," said Brian Brown. "But the teaching of Christianity be damned in the eyes of the grossly misnamed Human Rights Campaign, GLAAD and their allies. They will brook no objection, tolerate no dissent and accept no disagreement when it comes to their orthodoxy. It's truly outrageous and shocking that the A&E Networks succumbed to bullying by homosexual groups, and legitimized it, by suspending Phil Robertson from his own show. This simply cannot be allowed to stand," said Brian Brown president of NOM.

NOM's petition allows people to contact A&E Networks to demand that Robertson be immediately reinstated. The petition was emailed to 500,000 supporters. It says, "A&E's executives may not believe in the bible, and that is your right. But you have no right to silence the millions of Christians like Phil Robertson who uphold the word of God. You have succumbed to the demands of bullies like the HRC and GLAAD, which is disgraceful for an entity whose very existence depends on the free exchange of ideas."

"This episode sparked by the bigotry of the HRC and GLAAD is a powerful teachable moment for the American people, as they witness on a grand scale the utter intolerance of groups demanding same-sex marriage," said Brian Brown. "They have gone after people of faith all across this country who desire nothing more than to live their faith in the public square. Now they are going after Phil Robertson. If they get away with silencing Phil, nobody is safe from their abject bullying. I hope that the justices of the US Supreme Court are paying attention to what is occurring."

###

To schedule an interview with Brian Brown, President of the National Organization for Marriage, please contact Elizabeth Ray (x130), [email protected], or Matille Thebolt (x143), [email protected], at 703-683-5004.

Paid for by The National Organization for Marriage, Brian Brown, president. 2029 K Street NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20006, not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee. New § 68A.405(1)(f) & (h).

[A]ll good with God and the Bible when it suits their agenda and business needs, but…

The backlash against the cable channel home of “Duck Dynasty” A & E continues with fire hose pace and pressure.

Phil RobertsonWhile probably not the most recent given the torrent of criticism against the network, here’s yet another take on the inconsistency of A&E’s action against Phil Robertson.

Richie Laxton on the Tea Party Nation website writes.

My Thoughts on A&E Suspending Phil Robertson...

Aside from the silliness of A&E putting Phil Robertson in time out like he's a mis-behaving 5 year old, I find this whole thing rather curious. Phil recently released his book "Happy, Happy, Happy" and he didn't hold back on a lot of controversial topics including matters the Bible addresses as sin. A&E network chiefs had no qualms then. Perhaps they assumed Southern Rednecks don’t read books and D. C. to New York elites won’t touch anything with ‘camo’ on it. But, when Pa-Paw Phil answers a question from a GQ reporter bluntly and in accordance to his Biblical beliefs, even quoting verses from the New Testament, suddenly A&E gets weak in the knees. This is glaring inconsistency on their part. Certainly they have a right as a business to do what they feel is best for their brand, Nevertheless, they knew full and well who and what the Robertson clan was all about when they signed them up.

In Phil's book, he made it clear that they told A&E execs that prayer, Bible and Christian points of view were going to be part of the show. A&E agreed to those terms and even ceded much creative control to the family regarding the series. Now this???

So, I have to conclude that A&E is all good with God and the Bible when it suits their agenda and business needs. But, when it doesn't, put a Lady GaGa meat dress on the Christians and open the lion cages. Typical, elitist, media hypocrisy in a wretched guise they fraudulently label as 'tolerance.'

Love him or hate him, at least Phil was consistent; A&E wasn't. However, after looking at A&E's Facebook page, they are the ones who are getting bit the hardest.

"Evil preaches tolerance until it is dominant and then it seeks to silence good."

In RedState, Erick Erickson writes about the recent dust-up over Duck Dynasty's Phil Robertson:

Robertson said precisely what true Christians believe and anyone, including A & E, letting GLAAD be an arbiter of true Christian thought is pretty quickly destined for hell fire.

A & E has now joined much of mass market culture in the Western World in picking sides in a fight — tolerance for gay rights, but not for Christians expressing honest answers to questions asked of their faith. The only surprise is that the Christians of Duck Dynasty could last there as long as they did. A&E has as much right to do this as you have to turn the channel. But they have clearly aligned themselves against us in the culture wars.

The world is at war with Christ and those who put their faith in Christ. The silver lining of this act is that many Christians who decided they could sit on the sidelines and not have to care will have a wake up call — particularly millennial Christians.

The Church, however, must show it will stand with those who stand with Christ and not shy away from this fight lest too many weak and new Christians go wobbly and silent.

You will be made to care. You will not be given the option of silence or the sidelines.

Read the entire essay here.


Are you outraged by A&E's obsequiousness and giving in to the bullies at GLAAD?

Roberson snip

CLICK HERE TO SEND A STRONG MESSAGE TO A&E NETWORK EXECUTIVES TODAY!

Sign Our Petition to Stand with Phil Robertson and Duck Dynasty!

National Organization for Marriage

Dear Marriage Supporter,

The gay lobby bullies are at it again. This time they've attacked one of the most popular Christians in America — Phil Robertson, patriarch of Duck Dynasty's Robertson family. They are calling him "vile" and say he is pushing "extreme stereotypes" and "lies." The grossly misnamed Human Rights Campaign (HRC) and their Hollywood ally GLAAD have demanded that Phil be punished and, incredibly, Wednesday night A&E succumbed to the gay bullies and suspended Phil Robertson!

What is this man guilty of that would spur such "outrage" and result in him being banned by A&E?

Phil Robertson told GQ magazine he believes that homosexuality is a sin. He says engaging in homosexuality is sinful. He says that "everything is blurred on what's right and wrong...sin becomes fine." He told the magazine (in colorful language) that he doesn't understand why a man would engage in homosexual sex when the beauty of a woman is available. And he also said that he doesn't judge anyone (that is the job of Almighty God, he says), that he loves all people, and that, "I would never treat anyone with disrespect just because they are different from me."

Well guess what — homosexuality IS a sin in the bible, and virtually every other sacred text out there. Engaging in homosexual sex IS considered by God to be sinful according to the teachings of most religions. And sin is NOT logical. Sin is deceitful, harmful and degrading to the human soul.

What Phil Robertson has done is express the traditional Christian view of homosexuality — decry the sin but love the sinner. It's what every major Christian leader including Jesus Christ himself has taught us.

But Christianity, and every other major religion, be damned in the eyes of the HRC, GLAAD and their allies. They will brook no objection, tolerate no dissent and accept no disagreement when it comes to their orthodoxy. In their twisted worldview, anyone who dares to speak the truth about homosexuality must be punished and effectively banished from civil society.

They are brutal bullies, plain and simple.

We're not going to take the bullying of Phil Robertson and every other person of faith quietly. Will you join with us and immediately sign our petition demanding that Phil be reinstated with an apology from A&E?

It's important that we get thousands of people to sign our petition to let A&E, Hollywood, GLAAD and the HRC know they aren't going to get away with bullying Phil Robertson simply for expressing a true, Christian perspective on what the bible tells us is sinful.

None of us hate homosexuals. We have gays and lesbians as members of our own families and communities, and we love them as God has told us we should love all people. We're all created in the image and likeness of God. But loving our brothers and sisters does not mean we must love sinful behavior.

It's truly outrageous and shocking that the A&E Networks succumbed to this bullying, and legitimized it, by suspending Phil Robertson from his own show. This simply cannot be allowed to stand. It's imperative that we push back — strongly and immediately — with a show of support for Phil Robertson.

Please sign our petition right away and forward it to every person you know.

Phil's life is itself a testimony to the truth of Christianity. He said yesterday that, "I myself am a product of the 60s; I centered my life around sex, drugs and rock and roll until I hit rock bottom and accepted Jesus as my Savior. My mission today is to go forth and tell people about why I follow Christ and also what the bible teaches, and part of that teaching is that women and men are meant to be together."

Phil's heartfelt testimony to his conversion and what it means to him to preach biblical teaching is an experience to which so many Americans, and many more all across the planet, can relate on a very deep level.

Do we want to live in a country where we cannot express something we believe so sincerely and feel so strongly without fear of reprisals, bullying, and intimidation? Do we want to let groups like HRC that spew hateful rhetoric and incite bigotry towards Christians dictate what is and is not acceptable to say in the public square in America? What kind of America will that mean for our children? And, more immediately, what would that mean for the future of marriage in America?

This is a major moment in the cultural battle over the truth of marriage, and whether America will tolerate an ongoing debate about same-sex unions. If the HRC and GLAAD are able to silence Phil Robertson, nobody's safe from their abject bullying.

Please, act today and sign our petition demanding that A&E reinstate Phil Robertson. It's imperative that the country's "pro-Phil" reaction be swift and immediate. Don't let this petition sit for even an hour. Sign it right away, and forward it to every person you can.

Faithfully,

Brian S. Brown

NJ Legislature's Shell Game on SSM

New Jersey

Ever since this Fall, when a radical activist Judge imposed same-sex marriage on the people of New Jersey unilaterally, the news coming out of the Garden State's legislature has been a flurry of confusion and contradiction.

Several New Jersey politicians had, prior to the Judge's ruling, been planning to advance a legislative agenda to redefine marriage by overriding the Governor's earlier veto of a bill which they very disingenuously claimed would protect religious liberties and conscience (a pretense which many people saw through).

Since the ruling that forces same-sex 'marriages' to begin taking place in New Jersey, however, the same Senators have toyed with continuing their efforts to pass a legislative enactment of the same. Their motivations for this have been variously reported.

Some said the plans were a way of safeguarding the future of same-sex "marriage" in New Jersey from a future court's overruling. Others claimed their intent was (again) to protect religious freedoms.

Well, Paul Mulshine of the Star-Ledger called their bluff in an article on Sunday at NJ.com:

Although the bill contains a religious exemption that would prevent clergy from having to perform same-sex marriages, it does not contain a conscientious exemption that would exempt others.

An example of non-exempted parties given by Mulshine would be religious groups that operate banquet halls they rent out for weddings, but which would object to servicing a same-sex ceremony.

Mulshine reported on a Democrat Assemblyman in the state named Reed Gusciora who predicted failure for the Senate Republicans trying to expand the bill's religious exemptions:

Republicans... may want "a conscientious exemption for the butcher, the baker and the candlestick maker" Gusciora said. But the Democrats won’t be adding that to the bill, he predicted.

Well, just a few days later, Mulshine's shrewd reporting was vindicated in a big way: the bill's sponsor dropped the legislation altogether because even the narrow religious exemptions it contains are too much for the same-sex marriage activists backing the liberals in New Jersey! 

Lie

Here's Mulshine from his later article on the matter [emphasis added]:

When I wrote on Sunday about the same-sex marriage bill pending before the state Senate, I noted that the advocates of this sort of thing claim to support liberty but in fact want to destroy the liberty of others.

Boy, did I ever get that right!

It seems the sponsor has pulled the bill because [...] it doesn't go far enough in removing the rights of religious people and entities.

Mulshine quotes a Star-Ledger article focusing on the Democratic sponsor's decision:

"But many advocates said the legislation (S3109) would add religious restrictions that are not addressed by the court decision, originally concessions made to win votes for an earlier version of the legislation.

"'They don’t want any kind of religious exemption, so out of respect for that, I will (pull the bill),' [bill sponsor Loretta] Weinberg said. 'There’s a disparate group of people and it's hard to follow what they want, so I’m following Lambda Legal.'

Do go and check out the excellent reporting Mr. Mulshine has done on the matter.

"Family by Choice"

We've reported before on the new and dangerous phenomenon known as co-parenting.

Recently, The Guardian ran a lengthy piece exploring the trend in deep detail.  The article's opening is as accurate as is ominous:

The definition of family has changed in recent years, now co-parenting is rewriting it completely. These mothers and fathers have relationships based on legal agreements and counselling rather than dates, romance and sex. But they all have one thing in common: the desire to have a child.

Read the entire article here, but be warned that it can be unsettling to consider.

What if a Man, ‘Married’ to a Man, Wants to Marry a Woman?

This hypothetical question was posed to the Attorney General of North Dakota who responded by filing an opinion stating that in North Dakota a person in a same-sex ‘marriage’ from another state can come to North Dakota and legally marry a person of the opposite sex WITHOUT divorcing the same gender partner first.

SilhouettesAttorney General Wayne Stenehjem, in a letter opinion, wrote:

"For the reasons discussed below, it is my opinion because explicitly prohibited by state constitution and statutes, an individual’s previously valid same-sex marriage in another state is not legally recognized in North Dakota and he or she may be issued a valid marriage license here. Further, it is my opinion that since the North Dakota Constitution prohibits the recognition of such a union, the individual would not be committing a criminal violation in this state by indicating he or she was “Single/Never Married” on a signed marriage application."

Read the full opinion here.

As if same-sex ‘marriage’ and polygamy weren’t enough, try navigating the legal morass that will follow when the question moves from the hypothetical to reality.

Prager: "In the name of tolerance, the left is eroding liberty in America."

Writing in Human Events, author and radio host Dennis Prager observes that "'Tolerance' Now Means Government-Coerced Celebration."

Tolerance

Prager gives the opinion in reference to the recent Colorado court decision that compels a Christian baker to provide wedding cakes to same-sex 'marriage' ceremonies and other such events which he objects to on religious grounds.

Prager makes many salient arguments for why this ruling is poorly reasoned, as well as dangerous in its implications for the future. For instance, he observes:

[The baker] is not discriminating against people based on their sexual orientation. He readily sells to people he knows to be gay. What he is unwilling to do is to participate in an event that he opposes for legitimate religious reasons. Until, at the most, 10 years ago, no one would have imagined that a person could be forced to provide goods or services for a same-sex wedding.

Read his entire piece today.

GLAAD's "Only Wish": To Deny Children the Right to a Mother and a Father

Every child deserves the love of both a mother and a father. Kids know that moms and dads are special and unique, that they can each bring to a child's life a vital contribution that is irreplaceable and invaluable. Many adults who have grown up, for whatever reason, without either a mom or a dad have expressed the wish that this hadn't been so, which by no means devalues the heroic sacrifices and honorable efforts of single parents: it simply testifies to the importance both moms and dads play in children's lives. The best mom cannot make a dad. Ten dads can't equal one mom.

GLADD's Only WishThis is why it is troubling that, this holiday season, the gay activist organization GLAAD is expressing its "Only Wish" as creating a new normal where children will be deprived of the love of either a father or a mother on a regular basis, and indeed that this situation will be rewarded and incentivized by the government.\

The campaign is reported by The Huffington Post's "Gay Voices" blog:

Leading lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) advocacy organization GLAAD is spearheading a new holiday initiative to put pressure on states that have yet to legalize gay marriage -- and you can help!

With 34 U.S. states left on the road to marriage equality for same-sex couples, GLAAD is encouraging LGBT families and allies through their "Only Wish" campaign to send holiday cards to these individual governors that encourage them to support marriage rights for members of the LGBT community.

The warm and fuzzy presentation elides the essential truth that when we talk about redefining marriage, we're talking about denying kids' rights to both a mother and a father.

A commentor on the article was not fooled, though, and nailed the point succinctly:

A loving and compassionate society never purposefully creates motherless or fatherless families. Sadly, this campaign is neither loving nor compassionate.

For our part, we'll wish that folks continue waking up to the devastating reality of what a disservice redefining marriage does to men, women, and children, and to society as a whole.

The National Organization for Marriage Reacts to Federal Judge Legalizing Polygamy, Cites Same-Sex Marriage Rationale

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: December 16, 2013
Contact: Elizabeth Ray or Matille Thebolt (703-683-5004)


"For years, we have warned of the importance of preserving the norms of marriage and its definition as the union of one man and one woman. Now we see the next step in the path of consequences for abandoning those norms. Left on its current course, in a few years marriage could be unrecognizable." — Brian Brown, NOM president —

nom_logo

Washington, D.C. — The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) today condemned the December 13th decision by a federal district court judge to strike down Utah's polygamy ban as unconstitutional. While the decision in Brown v. Buhman by U.S. District Judge Clark Waddoups on Friday stops short of mandating legally-enforceable plural marriages, it relies on a line of reasoning utilized to impose same-sex marriage to require the state to allow polygamous "spiritual marriages" and "religious cohabitation" and ultimately tees up the issue for the US Supreme Court to further redefine marriage. The case stems from the relationship of "Sister Wives" who claim "marriage" to a single husband and are featured on a prominent cable television network.

"This decision is the next step along the path blazed by same-sex marriage advocates who have convinced federal judges to transform the societal norm of marriage as the union of one man and one woman designed primarily for the benefit of any children produced of their union into an institution that recognizes intimate, romantic relationships between consenting adults," said Brian Brown, NOM's president. "For years, we have warned of the importance of preserving the norms of marriage and its definition as the union of one man and one woman. Now we see the next step in the path of consequences for abandoning those norms. Left on its current course, in a few years marriage could be unrecognizable."

Brown explained that Friday's decision stops short of imposing state-sanctioned polygamous marriages because the plaintiffs in the case did not specifically seek such relief. However, Brown said that with this decision advocates for polygamist marriage tee up the issue for the US Supreme Court to find polygamists entitled to official state-recognition of their plural 'marriages' just like gay and lesbian couples have been able to do in several states that have redefined marriage. The polygamy decision relies in large part on the same legal rationale utilized to impose same-sex marriage.

"There's no doubt that the arguments for same-sex marriage were a template for this case," Brown said. "Once marriage is determined to be primarily about providing government recognition and benefits for loving, committed relationships, there is simply no principled way not to extend 'marriage' to everyone, no matter the nature of their relationship. People in polygamist, plural marriages are just a short step away now from winning official marriage rights. Adult incest practitioners will have similar claims, as will adult siblings and other close relations. Lost in this disastrous push to transform marriage into the satisfaction of adult sexual desires are the interests of children, and their right to the love of one mother and one father."

###

To schedule an interview with Brian Brown, President of the National Organization for Marriage, please contact Elizabeth Ray (x130), [email protected], or Matille Thebolt (x143), [email protected], at 703-683-5004.

Paid for by The National Organization for Marriage, Brian Brown, president. 2029 K Street NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20006, not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee. New § 68A.405(1)(f) & (h).

Copyright 2013