NOM BLOG

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), eray@crcpublicrelations.com, or Jen Campbell (x145), jcampbell@crcpublicrelations.com, 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!":

700 Club Video: IRS Troubles Multiply as NOM's Story Unfolds

John Jessup of CBN News produced a special report for the 700 Club on NOM's decision to sue the IRS:

"...Dr. Eastman's group believes someone in the IRS illegally gave its private donors' list to the Human Rights Campaign, a gay rights group that supports same-sex marriage.

HRC posted the donor information on line during the 2012 election campaign. CBN News contacted the HRC for comment, but it did not respond."

Politifact Oregon: Rep. Blumenauer's Tax-Exempt Claim Was "False"

Our Chairman John Eastman told Rep. Blumenauer during his testimony before Congress that the congressman's claim was "preposterous" that groups such as NOM should not be considered a social welfare group. Politifact Oregon agrees with our Chairman and rated Rep. Bluemenauer's claim false:

"Blumenauer said that "the statute a hundred years ago said that they were prohibited."  There was no prohibition in the 1913 Act. The 1913 Act was silent on political activity, for whatever reasons. We rate his statement False."

Scottish Catholic Adoption Agency Threatened with Closure Over Marriage Views

LifeSiteNews:

Family on BeachAnother British Catholic adoption agency is being threatened with closure by the government for refusing to toe the government’s line of support for the homosexualist political agenda.

St. Margaret’s Children and Family Care Society, associated with the Catholic archdiocese of Glasgow, has lost a ruling in its argument with the Scottish government’s charity regulator, which is demanding the charity drop its policy of adopting only to mothers and fathers who have been married for at least two years.

The Office of the Scottish Charity Regulator (OSCR) has found St. Margaret’s in violation of the Equality Act 2010, saying that its policy "discriminated unlawfully" against same-sex couples. St. Margaret’s is remaining defiant, however, saying that they will fight the decision.

The Christian Institute campaign group quoted a St. Margaret’s board member saying,  “The ultimate irony is that apparently in the name of tolerance, societies such as Saint Margaret’s are no longer to be tolerated.”

Father's Day, NOM Marriage News

NOM National Newsletter

Dear Marriage Supporter,

What is our relationship with our own bodies? Father's Day is an occasion for meditating on the important reality of our bodies, what they tell us about who we are and how we should live our life.

I write this not because, as the father of 8, I need some outside force to speak to me but because we live in a time and a place where the obvious is often obscured.

Consideration for Father's Day

Witness the New York Times blog piece by Florida International University professor Laurie Shrage, seeking to recruit men to the ideology of "choice."

"If a man accidentally conceives a child with a woman, his choices are surprisingly few," this women's and gender studies woman professor intones. Shrage goes on to say:

"In consenting to sex, neither a man nor a woman gives consent to become a parent, just as in consenting to any activity, one does not consent to yield to all the accidental outcomes that might flow from that activity."

In other words, in choosing to engage in the act which creates new life — neither men nor women should be held accountable to that new life.

I understand the impulse. I understand it and I reject it, as a man.

We cannot pretend that what is not true, is true.

This is true: The sexual act creates new life.

Not always, not every time, but often enough that we who choose to be responsible human beings need to acknowledge that reality, to love our children more than our lusts.

And to know that doing so is the heart of being a good man or woman, and a happy man or woman.

The IRS Scandals Continue to Reverberate

Here I am on Sean Hannity:

"If they can do this to us, they can do it to anyone!" I say, and it's true.

It's also true that a culture of harassment, intimidation and threats has emerged among gay marriage advocates that is poisoning our democracy.

Harassment, Intimidation and Threats in New York

The latest example is NYC mayoral candidate Erick Salgado, who received death threats after NOM endorsed his candidacy.

"[The emails] said that I'm a rat and I deserve to die," Mr. Salgado told Politicker after the forum. "It was because that day I got the official endorsement, the NOM, they mentioned that [in the email]."

"It makes me nervous, because of my children, I get nervous," he said.

As Politicker notes, Mr. Salgado is the only Democrat in the race opposed to same-sex marriage. He is attempting to build a coalition of conservative Latinos and Orthodox Jews and has the backing of a prominent Russian-American media mogul in south Brooklyn.

Consequences in Great Britain

Meanwhile, in Great Britain the consequences of gay marriage become ever clearer. Parents of a 3 year old boy came forward to say state-sponsored child care workers told their son he could marry a boy or a girl.

The letter said: "Many of your commentators have speculated as to what the wider implications of allowing same-sex marriages will be on society."

"I was given a stark illustration of this at the weekend."

"In response to my three-year-old son's question as to what marriage was, I told him that it was when a man and woman loved each other very much and wanted to spend their lives together."

"My son then told me that 'boys' could get married, too. As he doesn't read the newspapers, I was keen to understand how he had formed this view."

"Apparently, his carer at nursery, a homosexual, told the entire class that he had great news: when they grew up, they could get married to a girl, or a boy."

"Surely, my son is too young to have this discussion? If I were to complain, however, I would be labeled a bigot."

Peggy Noonan on the IRS

Let me close by thanking Peggy Noonan, the former Reagan speechwriter, for her columns calling attention to the IRS scandal and what it means.

"The most compelling evidence that the IRS targeted conservatives is what happened to the National Organization for Marriage. Its chairman, John Eastman, testified before the House Ways and Means Committee and the tale he told was different from the now-familiar stories of harassment and abuse," she wrote.

Someone in the IRS gave legally protected information to our — and your! — political enemies!

The IRS is stonewalling. But we will not give in or give up.

We will fight for your right to participate in the democratic process on an equal basis.

And we will fight the tyranny that says government can punish you if you believe in traditional marriage.

Bless you and thank you for your support. It is precious to me.

If God has given you the means, please consider prayerfully giving again.

Smoot: Children Need Our Marriage Tradition

John Smoot, a trial court judge of Boston’s Probate and Family Court from 1990 to 2012, currently serves as a mediator at Boston Area Mediation. He writes in the Public Discourse that "Redefining marriage will make it harder for our children to develop their self-understanding and will sanction procreative methods that treat children like commodities":

Kids at Wedding"Chauncey is right; we transformed the “Normal.” We created a “new Normal.” The mantra of the revolution, “If it feels good, do it,” ultimately weakened the institution of marriage with its inherent restraints and responsibilities, ballooned the divorce rate, and brought the number of out-of-wedlock births to 40 percent of all children born in America. All of which translates into poverty, crime, and suffering.

Over the course of twenty-one years as a judge in Boston, I granted thousands of divorces and heard thousands of cases involving children of unmarried parents. Yes, there were adults and children who benefited from divorce just as there were children of single parent families who did fine or excelled. Overall, however, the revolution that encouraged “pleasure, freedom, [and] self-expression” brought an immense amount of pain and misery. Was it bad for everyone? No. Was it bad for millions? Yes.

Social policy and cultural change have an impact on all of us. And clearly, the impact is not always for the good. Now, we are transforming marriage by eliminating its inherent gender distinctions."

RNC Chairman Priebus: Answer NOM's Questions

Republican Party Chairman Reince Priebus on the revelations made by NOM's Chairman John Eastman:

Reince Priebus"...The IRS’s targeting of conservative groups, it seems, may go beyond just harassing those groups applying for 501(c)4 tax-exempt status — the letters, the ridiculous demands, the intrusive questions. They may also have been leaking (illegally) private tax information about certain groups as well.

That was the charge from National Organization for Marriage Chairman John Eastman. A list of the organization’s donors and other confidential information appeared on another political group’s website last year. Eastman says there’s no way they could have gotten that information without someone at the IRS providing it.

If that’s true, it’s an insidious violation of the First Amendment, which should bother Americans of all political stripes — especially if the IRS takes no action in response to it.

...Surely the self-proclaimed “most transparent administration in history” isn’t comfortable with that happening on their watch. So why do they refuse to get to the bottom of it?

On Sunday, Democratic Congressman Elijah Cummings, the ranking member on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, was interviewed about the IRS scandal and said that “the case is solved.” It’s understandable that President Obama’s allies would like to sweep this all under the rug. But the case won’t be “solved” until the questions have been answered." (NewsMax)

New Danish Study of 6.5 Million: Health Benefits of Marriage are Unique to Male-Female Unions

A new study in the Journal of Epidemiology followed 6.5 million Danish persons for nearly 30 years (for a total of 112.5 million person-years) looking at how living arrangements (being single, cohabiting, married, widowed or in a same-sex union) affected their health outcomes.

IJEFrom the official abstract:

"[Hazard Ratios] for overall mortality changed markedly over time, most notably for persons in same-sex marriage. In 2000–2011, opposite-sex married persons (reference, HR = 1) had consistently lower mortality than persons in other marital status categories in women (HRs 1.37–1.89) and men (HRs 1.37–1.66). Mortality was particularly high for same-sex married women (HR = 1.89), notably from suicide (HR = 6.40) and cancer (HR = 1.62), whereas rates for same-sex married men (HR = 1.38) were equal to or lower than those for unmarried, divorced and widowed men. Prior marriages (whether opposite-sex or same-sex) were associated with increased mortality in both women and men (HR = 1.16–1.45 per additional prior marriage)."

The conclusion of the authors:

"Our study provides a detailed account of living arrangements and their associations with mortality over three decades, thus yielding accurate and statistically powerful analyses of public health relevance to countries with marriage and cohabitation patterns comparable to Denmark’s. Of note, mortality among same-sex married men has declined markedly since the mid-1990s and is now at or below that of unmarried, divorced and widowed men, whereas same-sex married women emerge as the group of women with highest and, in recent years, even further increasing mortality."

Commentary from the English Manif blog:

"During 2000 to 2011, Danish male-female married couples were the healthiest and least likely to die at various ages compared with individuals who were unmarried, divorced or widowed. In contrast, same-sex married men in Denmark were no healthier than unmarried men. Same-sex married women had much higher mortality rates than other women, including the ones who were unmarried, divorced or widowed. There was no apparent marriage “benefit” in terms of better health or longer life for these same-sex married women.

While this is just one study that needs to be supplemented by more research, it does suggest that the health benefits of marriage may be unique to the male-female union. Governments may try to legislate a revised version of “marriage,” but they cannot legislate the health and longevity benefits that come from a man marrying a woman."

Video: Brian Brown on Hannity: "We're Going to Fight This"

Our president was recently on a special segment of Hannity on FOX News and shared his story. When he said "Our donors are not going to be intimidated, we're going to fight this" the studio audience broke out into applause: