NOM BLOG

The Effects of Same-sex "Marriage" on Children's Mental Health

ThinkstockPhotos-471188516While social scientists are busy faking studies to show growing support for redefining marriage, or designing studies with a small number of participants who have an interest in the outcome of the study, it’s striking to note what they are not studying: the mental health impact on students of the cultural and media movement to proclaim all things gay to be good and healthy. An article at The Federalist reviews this phenomenon in the field of social work, a field that ordinarily would be expected to help assess mental health issues among their clientele:

Joseph Turner, who has a masters in social work, comments on the adverse effects the current political correctness can have on the mental health of people:

Mental health treatment requires close analysis of every aspect of a person’s life. We put together the puzzle pieces that make up a human being. We inquire how many hours someone slept last night and how often he or she woke up. We form theories around their precise level of eye contact or rate of speech. We ponder how closely they were held as infants. To declare that all claims to sexual orientation are above scrutiny is to analytically cripple ourselves. We’ve replaced the microscope with rose-colored glasses.

. . .

We live in a society where LGBT has saturated both political agenda and popular culture. Broken family structures, abuse, and relationship instability are tragically prevalent. In such a climate, reported same-sex attraction could occur for a lot of reasons. Some of them might be uncomfortable. To demand its blind, universal acceptance is both delusional and damaging to mental health. Dogmatic affirmation of all claims to sexual preference might well encourage behavior rooted in pathology.

He continues to suggest that the effects on children can be devastating, especially if it was the choice of the “parents” to switch from a heterosexual relationship to a same-sex relationship:

ThinkstockPhotos-477399995The mommies (or daddies, as the case may be) might do everything “right” to give their children a healthy, stable upbringing, yet the kids are still at risk to grow up troubled and unsure how to relate to the world around them… nobody among my colleagues acknowledged a problem. There was no questioning of the arrangement, no hint of concern. Everyone involved with the family was wholly positive about the mommies, even as they scratched their heads and wondered what was making the kids angry or depressed or confused.

It seems that the dangers of not only same-sex marriage, but also the same-sex mind control in popular culture is real and adversely affects the average person.

But the mental-health field is mostly professional, and thus subject to the academic and political authorities. It’s aimed at the practitioner rather than the pioneer. This leaves it unknowingly vulnerable to the powerful LGBT lobby. Even as we work to build people from the ground up, we blindly accept the ideas coming from the top down. If a professor or a textbook states that all sexual or gender orientation is above question, then so be it. The contradiction this presents to our greater body of psychological thinking goes unnoticed.

As any devoted parent will attest to, all parents want what is best for the child. While it can be hard for some to admit, the facts are there: children do best with a mom and a dad. And when they are told that gender is irrelevant, it is the children who suffer the devastating effects.

Jeb Bush Stands Up For Right Not To Be Coerced

ThinkstockPhotos-chariastThe beginning stages of the presidential campaign are starting to bring the views of the various candidates into focus. Jeb Bush recently told CBN that he supports the right of a Christian small business owner to decline to provide services for a same-sex ‘wedding.’ He correctly understands that people ought to remain free to exercise their beliefs about marriage and that this is not discrimination. He also reiterated his position that same-sex ‘marriage’ is not a constitutional right:

"A big country, a tolerant country ought to be able to figure out the difference between discriminating someone because of their sexual orientation and not forcing someone to participate in a wedding that they find goes against their moral beliefs," Bush said.

Shouldn’t it be obvious that as our own free arbiters of what we support, we should also be able to choose what not to support? Americans being forced to conform to other people’s opinions on social issues, is a brazen attack against individual rights:

In recent months, the question of service provision, religion and sexuality has become a hot button issue, with court cases arising over incidents of people being refused service because of their sexual orientation, or business owners being forced to provide services to same sex partners despite their religious convictions.

The issue was further fanned by the recent signing of Religious Freedom Restoration Acts, which allow business owners to cite religious rights as a reasons for refusing service. Gay rights group have condemned the acts, and cited them as a form of discrimination.

Source via Christian Today.

Marriage And Religious Liberty In The Early Presidential Race



Dear Marriage Supporter,

One of NOM's primary goals in the coming months and year is to raise the profile of the marriage and religious liberty issues in anticipation of the coming presidential election next year — particularly in key swing and early voting states like Iowa.

And we've been remarkably successful in the early going!

While reading through the media's "reporting" (which seems more often than not to be taken directly from sources like the Human Rights Campaign blog) is aggravating, listening to the actual Republican candidates' words has been extremely encouraging.

Boldly Speaking the Truth

Senator Ted Cruz of Texas is always courageous and unintimidated when it comes to speaking the truth. Which makes following the media's "news coverage" of him a continuous exercise in frustration and incredulity.

Recently he fired back at the media for "being obsessed with sex" after repeatedly asking about same-sex marriage to the exclusion of almost every other issue, offering a fresh and direct way to respond to not-so veiled attacks on common-sense positions shared by a majority of the country and world.

You can click here to watch the video of his exchange with the reporter in question.

Ted Cruz

The most absurd and unbelievable aspect of the story is the headline that the "news" agency chose to attach to the report: "Cruz refuses to deny animosity toward gays."

The entire exchange simply highlights the ridiculousness of the media's coverage of marriage and is the clearest indication possible that the media is, indeed, "obsessed with sex."

Not Just Talk

But Senator Cruz isn't the only one championing marriage and religious liberty.

Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal, who is strongly considering a presidential run, recently took dramatic action to defend marriage and people of faith who understand its true nature.

The Louisiana state legislature cowered away from passing House Bill 707, which would have blocked the government from penalizing companies because of the owner's stance on same-sex marriage.

So Governor Jindal stepped to the plate and announced that he would issue an executive order accomplishing what the bill was aiming to do: protecting people of faith who believe in marriage as the union of one man and one woman from unjust Governmental coercion and potential punitive measures for their beliefs.

The executive order will prohibit the state from denying or revoking a tax exemption, tax deduction, contract, cooperative agreement, loan, professional license, certification, accreditation, or employment on the basis the person acts in accordance with a religious belief that marriage is between one man and one woman.

As I mentioned yesterday, when our elected public officials take such bold action to represent our values — knowing that they will be targeted by special interests and widely castigated by the media — they must hear from us and know that they have our support.

If you haven't done so already, please take a moment and click here to send Governor Jindal a quick email thanking him for his brave leadership in defense of marriage and religious liberty.

Governor Jindal Action Alert

And then, please forward the link to this alert to your family and friends so they can similarly take action.

But that's not all!

This week, the American Future Project launched a 30-second ad that will air in Iowa highlighting the Governor's dedication to defending our precious First Freedoms — the freedom of religion, the freedom of speech and the freedom to act in accord with our beliefs about marriage without fear of reprisal from the government.

You can watch the ad here.

Governor Jindal Ad

And all of this follows his editorial last month in the New York Times opinion page, I'm Holding Firm Against Gay Marriage.

Others Speaking Out For Marriage And Religious Liberty

Other candidates are also making strong statements to reassure the American people that they represent their values on marriage.

Governor Scott Walker was recently in Washington, DC to meet with legislators and heads of social conservative groups to discuss social issues.

I was one of those who met with him to discuss the marriage issue.

As I noted in the column linked above, while some of his past statements have left people like you and me with serious questions as to his commitment to defending the truth about marriage, his recent statements — in particular, those about backing a federal marriage amendment — should have us feeling better about his political views. We will give him, and all the candidates, a chance to concretely demonstrate their support by signing NOM's Presidential Pledge, which will be issued soon.

Similarly, former Florida Governor Jeb Bush reiterated in much clearer terms his commitment to marriage last weekend in Dubuque, Iowa, where he was interviewed by CBN's David Brody.

What is becoming clear is that as all the potential and announced Republican candidates get away from their handlers and get out talking to voters and activists, they are all realizing that marriage is a core value of the American people and worthy of defending. They are realizing that redefining marriage is presenting incredible challenges to not only our First Freedoms, but also to our future cultural and economic wellbeing.

And, perhaps most importantly, they are realizing that redefining marriage is directly at odds with our precious faith traditions. Hillary Clinton recently said as much (see her remarks at around the 8:20 mark) when talking about the left's agenda pushed over the past several years needing "resources and political will" to overcome the "deep seeded, cultural codes, religious beliefs and biases" that "have to be changed."

There you have it: you and I must be forced to change our religious beliefs to accommodate the left's radical agenda.

Thank goodness we have some brave candidates willing to stand up and defend marriage and religious liberty.

More Hypocrisy

One final note on a news story that broke recently but received very little news.

A study that came out a few months ago received widespread acclaim for its impact in helping shift attitudes toward accepting same-sex marriage. It found that a 20-minute, one-on-one conversation with a gay political canvasser could steer voters in favor of same-sex marriage. Not only that, but these changed opinions lasted for at least a year and influenced other people in the voter's household, the study found.

Of course, the media trumpeted this far and wide... it was obvious, they said. People just need to meet and talk to gay rights supporters and they will immediately become amenable to redefining marriage.

The only problem? The study was faked. The data used to support the conclusions was simply made up.

While this development is no doubt embarrassing for advocates of redefining marriage, sadly, I am not surprised by this situation.

It is reminiscent of all the phony studies that have been conducted using small "convenience" samples of lesbians and gays who have an interest in the outcome of the study showing that lesbian and gay parenting makes "no difference" for children. To no one's surprise, these studies are touted as "proof," and become fodder to redefine marriage.

But whether a study is completely faked or conclusions are just fudged, it's justified in the minds of many who want to redefine marriage. You see, to many such activists everything in life — freedom of speech, religious principles, even the truth — is secondary to the "good" of advancing their agenda.

That is why the coming election (and, indeed, all elections) matter.

I look forward to sharing our presidential pledge with you in the coming months and making an impact on next year's election.

Faithfully,

Brian S Brown


PS: In case you hadn't heard, right now we have a new matching gift challenge running! A donor, incredibly enthused by the success of the March for Marriage and how oral arguments before the Supreme Court went, has offered $200,000 in matching gift funds to help us make a major statement in defense of marriage before the Supreme Court issues its ruling. Won't you please renew your NOM membership today to help us reach our goal?

The Real Revelations from the Faked Same-sex Marriage Study

An op-ed in The American Spectator reviews muted media reaction to the disclosure that a widely publicized study claiming that a gay canvasser speaking to a voter at their home would produce remarkable and long-lasting change in support of same-sex ‘marriage’ was faked. They note that the media’s coverage of the scandal was tepid, especially compared to the original coverage when the false study was issued.

dv763009Some news outlets even carried comments from same-sex marriage activists stating that even though the study was completely fabricated, it doesn’t necessarily mean that it isn’t true! Some even urge the study be redone properly. The author provocatively suggests that social scientists instead conduct studies to determine the effect on public opinion of the media portraying supporters of marriage as bigots, or the impact of judges ignoring the will of voters and imposing their own views in the law, or the impact on public opinion of a small business owner losing her shop rather than her religious principles.

Daniel Flynn, author of the article, comments on the fraudulent study.

Two aspiring political scientists exposed a widely referenced study, which maintained that homosexuals discussing gay marriage with citizens proved “capable of producing a cascade of opinion change,” as a total fraud.

Berkeley grad student Joshua Kalla and Stanford professor David Broockman, eager to add to the project with their own study, discovered that the survey firm identified in “When Contact Changes Minds: An Experiment on Transmission of Support for Gay Equality” maintained “no familiarity with the project,” “never had an employee with the name of the staffer” believed as assisting the research, and “denied having the capabilities” to conduct such an endeavor.

He continues to show that voters never really wanted same-sex marriage in many of the places such laws were passed, and the result of such laws on the average person.

What happens to donations to traditional marriage initiatives when they result in job loss, let’s say from a tech company that produces a popular web browser, for one who gives to a ballot initiative protecting man-woman unions? Perhaps an experiment could focus on the effects of the mass media’s incessant, not-so-subliminal name calling—e.g., “bigot,” “homophobe,” “hater”—on public opinion. Or, maybe, researchers could study the rather straightforward cause-and-effect of how judges refusing to allow people to vote on the laws that govern them transform the laws that govern people—and ultimately the public’s views. Another alternative might be to gauge the uptick in support for gay marriage resulting from a small business owner—a baker, for instance, who refuses to cook up a wedding cake for a homosexual couple—losing her shop instead of her religious principles.

Codifying gay marriage has never been about canvassers, gay or straight, persuading Americans. Voters, after all, rejected same-sex marriage in California, Wisconsin, Oregon, and other blue states only to watch judges order them to embrace it. America’s evolution on gay marriage came as a conversion by the sword.

His commentary shows the corruption in academia, and the media, for what it is:

We imagine science as disinterested, dispassionate, impartial, objective. The reality of science, particularly so-called social science, occasionally reveals biased partisans gathering data to support a predetermined conclusion.

Warning from Canada: Do Not Redefine Marriage

Many same-sex marriage advocates continue to falsely present the redefinition of marriage as simply providing respect and recognition to loving same-sex couples, with no consequences for anyone else. But as we have seen with the frequent attacks against supporters of traditional marriage - bakers, florists, and others - this has already been proven to be false. To get a fuller exposition of the consequences of redefining marriage, we only have to look at what has happened with our northern neighbor.

Mid adult couple holding their childrenThe article from Dawn Stefanowicz is not the first such warning we’ve had. In 2012, the backers of the proposed marriage amendment in Minnesota held a day-long seminal featuring many speakers from Canada, including a prominent Archbishop, who detailed the 300 plus cases of supporters of marriage being punished, and the constant pressure of the government to push this radical understanding of marriage on children. Dawn Stefanowicz uses Canada’s decline due to legalizing same-sex marriage as an all too apt example of what kind of fire the United States is playing with today:

We have great compassion for people who struggle with their sexuality and gender identity—not animosity. And we love our parents. Yet, when we go public with our stories, we often face ostracism, silencing, and threats.

I want to warn America to expect severe erosion of First Amendment freedoms if the US Supreme Court mandates same-sex marriage. The consequences have played out in Canada for ten years now, and they are truly Orwellian in nature and scope.

. . .

In Canada, freedoms of speech, press, religion, and association have suffered greatly due to government pressure. The debate over same-sex marriage that is taking place in the United States could not legally exist in Canada today. Because of legal restrictions on speech, if you say or write anything considered “homophobic” (including, by definition, anything questioning same-sex marriage), you could face discipline, termination of employment, or prosecution by the government.

She continues to warn Americans that a federal redefinition of marriage will authorize the “State as Ultimate Arbiter of parenthood”:

Over and over, we are told that “permitting same-sex couples access to the designation of marriage will not deprive anyone of any rights.” That is a lie.

When same-sex marriage was legalized in Canada in 2005, parenting was immediately redefined. Canada’s gay marriage law, Bill C-38, included a provision to erase the term “natural parent” and replace it across the board with gender-neutral “legal parent” in federal law. Now all children only have “legal parents,” as defined by the state. By legally erasing biological parenthood in this way, the state ignores children’s foremost right: their immutable, intrinsic yearning to know and be raised by their own biological parents.

. . .

In effect, same-sex marriage not only deprives children of their own rights to natural parentage, it gives the state the power to override the autonomy of biological parents, which means parental rights are usurped by the government.

In addition, the rights and freedom that made our nation a land of liberty will too be disregarded if same-sex marriage is legalized:

In Canada, it is considered discriminatory to say that marriage is between a man and a woman or that every child should know and be raised by his or her biological married parents. It is not just politically incorrect in Canada to say so; you can be saddled with tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees, fined, and forced to take sensitivity training.

Anyone who is offended by something you have said or written can make a complaint to the Human Rights Commissions and Tribunals. In Canada, these organizations police speech, penalizing citizens for any expression deemed in opposition to particular sexual behaviors or protected groups identified under “sexual orientation.” It takes only one complaint against a person to be brought before the tribunal, costing the defendant tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees. The commissions have the power to enter private residences and remove all items pertinent to their investigations, checking for hate speech.

. . .

It means that no matter what you believe, the government will be free to regulate your speech, your writing, your associations, and whether or not you may express your conscience. Americans also need to understand that the endgame for some in the LGBT rights movement involves centralized state power—and the end of First Amendment freedoms.

Many more issues will occur if the Supreme Court decides to redefine marriage. We recognize the flagrant lies that are told, the false “tolerance” that is being promulgated, the egregious attacks on our liberties. Our neighbor Canada knows these first-hand as well, even to a more frightening degree. We must never give up the fight for marriage, because if marriage is redefined, we know that first amendments rights will also be “redefined.”

Read the full article at The Public Discourse.

The War on Free Speech

Kirsten Powers has a new book that outlines the agenda and strategy of the same-sex marriage lobby to suppress free speech throughout the country. The American Unity Fund seems to be spearheading this attack by exhibiting it’s ability to sway policy against the American people. As Stella Morabito reports via The Federalist:

ThinkstockPhotos-186674643Powers has dubbed today’s intolerant purveyors of leftist causes the [sic] “the illiberal left” because, as a liberal herself, she sees them as anything but liberal about allowing a voice to those who don’t toe their rigid line. Her book catalogues and analyzes the dehumanization and demonization techniques the illiberal Left applies towards anyone who dares to veer from their rigid narratives. Their sacred cows include abortion, climate change, same-sex marriage, and second-wave feminism. Dissenters are systematically smeared and destroyed.

. . .

But I would add that most of this is coming straight out of the Left’s holy of holies: the LGBT lobby (whose agenda Powers happens to support.) Because next up on the LGBT hit parade is the literal silencing of America—with the force of the federal government behind it.

Morabito's article, outlining Powers’ book and the LGBT agenda, defines AUF and its next step after the Supreme Court decision is finished.

The American Unity Fund is a heavily funded new super-PAC looking to blanket the country with LGBT anti-discrimination laws. In effect, those laws aim to wipe out any alternative voice to the LGBT agenda. The effort is being spearheaded by billionaire hedge fund manager Paul Singer and another wealthy hedge fund manager, Tim Gill. Gill’s operations—the Gill Foundation and Gill Action—have been dedicated to “nonpartisan” gains for the LGBT lobby on the legislative and judicial fronts.

But with an expected federal win for gay marriage from the Supreme Court, the LGBT movement is poised to shift its focus to policing speech in the workplace, schools, businesses, and public squares across America.

While it seems that the target of AUF actions is anyone who supports traditional marriage, the issue is far more pervasive: America is about to be blanketed by anti-free speech policies from the same-sex marriage agenda.

Assuming the Supreme Court signs on to the same-sex marriage meme come June, we can expect to see a noose tightening around both public and private speech, including spontaneous conversation, in America. The ultimate effect of the “Freedom for All Americans” campaign will be to criminalize the expression of conservative as well as traditional religious thought on issues of marriage and family. In doing so, it will further stunt independent thought or debate in the wider political context.

. . .

There’s so much to unpack here, but if pressed to dissect this vat of worms, I’d say that the Orwellian “Freedom for All Americans” meme boils down to the ancient urge to centralize power. That always begins with controlling people, which, in turn, requires the control of human relationships. To control relationships, central planners need to divide and conquer people by restricting their ability to communicate with one another.

Read full article via The Federalist.

There is Always Hope for Marriage

Marriage has been in a free fall for several decades, but new research shows that the tide is ready to turn. Over at The Federalist, marriage scholar Dr. Brad Wilcox makes the case that despite falling marriage rates, the institution is poised to make a comeback:

Over the last half century, marriage has taken quite a beating. Since the 1960s, the rate of new marriages has fallen by more than 50 percent, and rates of divorce and single parenthood has more than doubled. The end result is that marriage is no longer the anchor for the adult life course or the family foundation for the bearing and rearing of children that it once was. Forecasts expect the marriage rate to hit an all-time low next year.

stk307181rknBut a close look at recent trends in marriage, non-marital childbearing, and single parenthood suggests that the nation’s retreat from marriage may be slowing… the marriage rate has not declined in recent years; the ratio of babies being born outside of wedlock has held steady at 41 percent since the Great Recession; and the share of children living in single-parent families has hovered around slightly more than one-quarter for more than a decade.

It was also suggested that marriage and having children, in that order, will be on the rise in the upcoming years:

Moreover, a growing number of college-educated millennials are now moving into the stage of life where they are poised to start families by marrying and having children—in that order—in the spirit of “high-investment parenting” (HIP) recently identified by Richard Reeves at Brookings. The movement of college-educated millennials into family life should keep these trends on a stable course. Taken together, the data suggest that the reports of marriage’s death have been exaggerated.

Dr. Wilcox also notes that studies continue to show that an intact marriage is not only about children, but is actually the best environment for children:

First, and foremost, marriage is about providing the best environment for our children. Virtually every week, I run across another study showing this. But what is striking about some of the new research is that it suggests boys, in particular, benefit from being raised in an intact, married home. For instance, in the last week I read fascinating new studies from Harvard University economist Raj Chetty and from Princeton University sociologist Sara McLanahan and their colleagues. These new studies indicate that family structure has especially powerful effects on boys. The new study from Chetty and his colleagues found that areas “with high crime rates and a large fraction of single parents generate particularly negative outcomes for boys relative to girls” when it comes to predicting their future income.

All of this is good news indeed, and a wonderful reiteration that marriage, as between a man and a woman, will always be a fundamental part of society. Science, logic, and history have demonstrated this, and nothing will ever change this truth.

Source via The Federalist.

False Claim: Religious Groups Don’t Focus on Poverty

ThinkstockPhotos-180923860The other day, we shared President Obama’s demand that pastors spend more time talking about ending poverty and less time on “divisive” issues such as same-sex ‘marriage’ and abortion. The president was repeating a claim made by other liberal commentators who believe that pastors are “obsessed” with social issues. An op-ed in the Washington Post takes on this claim, and finds that studies show that pastors speak far more often about hunger and poverty than they do abortion or homosexuality.

Putnam’s comments were blasted by several commentators, including the New York Times’s Ross Douthat, who noted religious groups spend far more on charity, schools and hospitals than pro-life causes or to oppose same-sex marriage.

. . .

Just before the 2012 presidential election, a Pew Research Center survey asked regular worship attendees what issues they have heard their clergy talk about recently. Roughly 3 in 4 said their clergy spoke about hunger and poverty (74 percent), while fewer than 4 in 10 heard about abortion (37 percent) or homosexuality (33 percent).

A breakdown of the data by religious groups shows that poverty dominates discussion even at churches with strong stances on abortion and homosexuality. Abortion comes close to rivaling poverty among Catholics: 62 percent of Catholics reported hearing about abortion in the weeks before the presidential election, though a still larger 82 percent said they heard about poverty. Among white evangelical Protestants who largely oppose same-sex marriage, far more said clergy spoke about hunger and poverty than homosexuality.

The evidence seems insurmountable: religious groups are discussing the need to provide for the poor, as well as taking a stance on social issues. Public figures should take note of these findings, and stop discouraging religious groups from standing firm in their beliefs.

More Good News!



Dear Marriage Supporter,

I just wanted to follow up on my email yesterday with another quick note about some more good news coming out of Iowa.

American Future Project launched a new ad in Iowa featuring Governor Bobby Jindal speaking about the importance of stepping up and defending religious liberty!

You can watch the full ad here.

Governor Jindal

Things are moving and we are gaining momentum! As I mentioned yesterday, NOM is working hard to raise the profile of the marriage issue in the coming presidential race. And, as you can see, it's working!

The recent statements by Senator Cruz, Governor Walker, Governor Bush and now by Governor Jindal about marriage and religious liberty are adding to the momentum we've been able to create through the incredibly successful March for Marriage, the oral arguments at the Supreme Court and our work on the ground in key presidential states such as Iowa.

Won't you please help us build on this momentum and advance our plans to defend marriage by renewing your membership for the next year with a generous donation today?

I'll make a quick donation of $35.00

I'll make a quick donation of $50.00

I'll make a quick donation of $100.00

I'll make a quick donation of $250.00

I'll make a quick donation of $500.00

I'll make a larger donation...

Remember, every dollar you donate will be matched, dollar-for-dollar by another generous donor!

Thank you so much for standing with NOM to defend marriage and religious liberty!

Faithfully,

Brian S Brown


PS — Right now is the time to stand up and defend marriage! We have an opportunity to raise the profile of the marriage issue and the inherent threats to religious liberty that redefining it presents before the Supreme Court issues its decision. And any donation you make will be matched, dollar-for-dollar by a generous donor. Please help us step up and defend marriage at this critical time by making a special gift today. Thank you.

Thank Governor Jindal for Taking Bold Action!



Dear Marriage Supporter,

When Louisiana State House Bill 707, which would have blocked the government from penalizing companies because of the owner's stance on same-sex marriage, was defeated in the state house's Civil Law and Procedure over fears that it legalized discrimination against LGBT people, Governor Jindal said that he was "disappointed by the committee's action."

But then he did something about it!

He announced that he would issue an executive order accomplishing what the bill was aiming to do: protecting people of faith who believe in marriage as the union of one man and one woman from unjust Governmental coercion and potential punitive measures for their beliefs.

The executive order will prohibit the state from denying or revoking a tax exemption, tax deduction, contract, cooperative agreement, loan, professional license, certification, accreditation, or employment on the basis the person acts in accordance with a religious belief that marriage is between one man and one woman.

As the Governor rightly said, "The state should not be able to take adverse action against people, charities and family-owned businesses with deeply held religious beliefs that marriage is between one man and one woman... We do not support discrimination in Louisiana and we do support religious liberty."

Marriage Supporter, the Governor is taking bold action in defense of our most precious first freedoms — freedom of religion and freedom of speech. And when one of our elected officials is willing to take a stand like this, you and I must be willing to stand behind him.

Please click here to send Governor Jindal an email thanking him for standing up for religious freedom.

And then, once you've taken action, please forward this email to family and friends using the sharing buttons below, asking them to do the same.


Faithfully,

Brian S Brown

News



Dear Marriage Supporter,

Coming off of the most successful March for Marriage ever, followed by oral arguments at the Supreme Court that were hailed as a sign of encouragement to marriage supporters everywhere, I have just received some more good news!

Enthused by the incredible success NOM has been able to achieve over the past few months and excited about the opportunities that are presenting themselves for the coming months, a generous donor has stepped forward to provide $200,000 in matching gift funds!

Won't you please be among the first to renew your membership in NOM — knowing that your donation will be matched, dollar-for-dollar — standing up for marriage and investing in our future with a generous donation today?

I'll make a quick donation of $35.00

I'll make a quick donation of $50.00

I'll make a quick donation of $100.00

I'll make a quick donation of $250.00

I'll make a quick donation of $500.00

I'll make a larger donation...

Our matching gift donor is challenging us to greatly expand NOM's membership and grow our base for the coming fight... because regardless of what the Supreme Court decides in June about the legal definition of marriage, religious liberty and marriage will always need to be defended.

To that end, he is asking us to renew and acquire 5,000 members before the Supreme Court issues its decision in a little over a month.

And right now couldn't be a more fortuitous time to be blessed with this matching gift challenge.

In the coming months, we must:

  1. Advance critical legislation on both the federal and state level defending our First Freedoms, including the right to act in accordance with our sincerely held religious beliefs about marriage;
  2. Defend organizations and individuals standing up for marriage from attacks from both radicals trying to silence opposition to their redefinitionist agenda and the government trying to coerce people to abandon their religious principles in deference to their new same-sex 'marriage' orthodoxy;
  3. Elevate the marriage issue in the presidential race — especially on the Republican side — and sending an unequivocal message that redefining marriage is a losing position politically.

We have already made tremendous strides in these areas...

We anticipate MARFA legislation being put forward in Congress soon and we will be launching our presidential pledge in the coming months.

In fact, presidential candidates have already been moving more toward defending marriage, with Governor Scott Walker recently coming out in support of amending the Constitution to define marriage as the union of a man and a woman and Jeb Bush making some very strong statements about judicial activism and not respecting the will of the people.

And all of this is in addition to the ongoing efforts to develop educational programs designed to teach people the importance of marriage to society and especially children; and the grassroots mobilization we are undertaking to help us advance a federal marriage amendment and make an impact in the coming presidential election.

Won't you please help us capitalize on the momentum of the March and oral arguments at the Supreme Court by advancing our aggressive agenda over the coming months and take advantage of this matching gift challenge by renewing your membership today?

I'll make a quick donation of $35.00

I'll make a quick donation of $50.00

I'll make a quick donation of $100.00

I'll make a quick donation of $250.00

I'll make a quick donation of $500.00

I'll make a larger donation...

Faithfully,

Brian S Brown


PS: Remember, a donor was so excited by the success of the March and how well oral arguments at the Supreme Court went that he is willing to put up $200,000 of his own money in matching gift funds — matching every gift you make, dollar-for-dollar — to help NOM push forward with its aggressive defense of marriage in the coming months. He understands that whichever way the Supreme Court rules on marriage, it will always need defending. Help us reach our goal of renewing 5,000 members before the Supreme Court issues its decision by making a special gift today. Thank you in advance.

Data Faked by Same-sex Marriage Researchers

Last year, the media was awash in stories reporting what was considered a major study that “proved” that once people had a conversation at their home with a same-sex canvasser, their minds were changed on whether same-sex ‘marriage’ should be accepted.

ThinkstockPhotos-467417087Further, the study claimed this was such a profound tactic, that follow up research showed that the change had lasted for an entire year, and that it had spread to others in the person’s family. This is reminiscent of what Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said (in her now infamous interview), claiming that the reason attitudes on same-sex ‘marriage’ had supposedly changed was that people were interacting with gay friends and neighbors who support it.

Now comes proof that the study was a fake, and it appears that the data was completely fabricated. The study’s lead author, a professor from Columbia, has formally retracted the study, blaming his co-author for the irregularities:

A study claiming that gay people advocating same-sex marriage can change voters’ minds has been retracted due to fraud.

The study was published last December in Science, and received lots of media attention. It found that a 20-minute, one-on-one conversation with a gay political canvasser could steer voters in favor of same-sex marriage. Not only that, but these changed opinions lasted for at least a year and influenced other people in the voter’s household, the study found.

Donald Green, the lead author on the study, retracted it on Tuesday shortly after learning that his co-author, UCLA graduate student Michael LaCour, had faked the results.

While this development is proving to be an embarrassment to those orchestrating the movement to redefine marriage, it reflects much deeper issues:

First, it shows how willing the media is to massively publicize any claim that shows people are changing their minds on same-sex ‘marriage’ because it feeds into the narrative that this is inevitable and they are on the right side of history.

Second, it shows how the underlying methodologies of many- if not most -studies supporting the same-sex ‘marriage’ movement are questionable – often using small convenience samples featuring people who have an interest in a study turning out a particular way.

This phenomenon was discussed in a ground-breaking report by Professor Loren Marks on the many studies used to support the claim that there are “no differences” for children raised by same-sex couples. Professor Marks looked at 59 of these studies and concluded that not one of them compared a large, random, representative sample of lesbian or gay parents and their children with a large, random representative sample of married parents and their children:

“I am deeply embarrassed by this turn of events and apologize to the editors, reviewers, and readers of Science,” Green, a professor of political science at Columbia University, said in his retraction letter to the journal, as posted on the Retraction Watch blog.

People – including Supreme Court Justices – would do well to remember these fake and flawed studies when the media trots out the next claim purporting to show how beneficial it will be if we redefine the most important social institution civilization has ever known.

Source via Buzzfeed

Obama Criticizes Religious Groups for Refusing to Change Their Stance on Marriage

President Obama believes that christian churches should focus less on maintaining allegiance to their position on “divisive” issues such as life and marriage, and instead focus on issues such as alleviating poverty. The irony is that President Obama’s administration has done more than any other administration in history to pursue divisive policies such as abortion on demand, as well as imposing same-sex 'marriage’ on every state in the nation. He has even adopted policies tying foreign aid to a country’s willingness to embrace gay ‘marriage’ and expansion of abortion. If the president truly wished to end the “culture wars,” then he could refrain from starting them in the first instance.

ThinkstockPhotos-451417063Basing his comments on "my own Christian faith," President Obama told the Catholic-Evangelical Leadership Summit that churches should spend less time focusing on abortion and same-sex “marriage.”

The president said, "When it comes to what are you really going to the mat for, what’s the defining issue, when you’re talking in your congregations, what’s the thing that is really going to capture the essence of who we are as Christians, or as Catholics, or what have you, [poverty] is oftentimes viewed as a 'nice to have' relative to an issue like abortion."

The president continued his address in stating that Jesus cares more about “redistribution of wealth” than ending life in the womb and same-sex ‘marriage,’ as well as suggesting that discussion of said moral issues should be discouraged, so churches can get more followers:

The president argued last week that churches would gain more followers if they embraced the “powerful” idea of helping those in poverty. “I think it would be powerful for our faith-based organizations to speak out on [poverty] in a more forceful fashion,” he said.

"I reject his premise,” blogger Stan Guthrie, an editor at large at Christianity Today, commented. “People of faith already do far more for the poor than secular leftists.”

President Obama's comments, he said, exemplified “unbelievable ignorance on display."

With our president and presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, suggesting that religious organizations should change their stance on fundamental principles, we must wonder how far they would be willing to go to force these groups to change, as well as how much religious freedom they and similar public figures would “tolerate.”

Source and quotes via LifeSite News.

Justice Ginsburg’s Bias

In another display of judicial arrogance and bias, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg once again officiated at a same-sex ‘wedding’ over the weekend, this time perhaps hinting that the Court will find that such ‘marriages’ are required by the Constitution.

Wedding rings

As reported by New York Times, Ginsburg did not clarify why she emphasized the word “constitution” in her remarks. Perhaps she was expressing her own view – which she has improperly telegraphed for months. It is this kind of behavior that seriously calls into question the impartiality of a judge that requires her to remove herself from voting on the marriage case. As legal expert Ed Whelan noted yesterday in a post at NRO’s Bench Memos, her refusal to do so is why “no one should be expected to regard as legitimate a Supreme Court decision inventing a constitutional right to same-sex marriage.”

Wearing her black robe with her signature white lace collar, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg presided over the marriage on Sunday afternoon of Michael Kahn, the longtime artistic director of the Shakespeare Theater Company in Washington, and Charles Mitchem, who works at an architecture firm in New York.

. . .

But the most glittering moment for the crowd came during the ceremony. With a sly look and special emphasis on the word “Constitution,” Justice Ginsburg said that she was pronouncing the two men married by the powers vested in her by the Constitution of the United States.

No one was sure if she was emphasizing her own beliefs or giving a hint to the outcome of the case the Supreme Court is considering whether to decide if same-sex marriage is constitutional.

The foundation of the United States judicial system is that the judge is to be unbiased in opinion, and should only consider the facts of a case. However, as “the groom and groom strolled down the aisle to the mellow strains of “Mr. Sandman,” Justice Ginsburg demonstrated that she holds a biased opinion with regards to same-sex marriage. While in the midst of a court decision that could change the fabric of America, it will be hard to trust a decision issued by a Justice who cannot refrain from publicly exemplifying their impartiality when it comes to the definition of marriage.

Speech by NOM's Brian Brown during SCOTUS Oral Arguments on Marriage

On the morning that the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments on the case that could become the Roe v. Wade of marriage, a crowd of marriage supporters and those seeking to redefine marriage gathered on the steps of the Court. Ironically, as lawyers for same-sex couples were calmly assuring the justices that redefining marriage would not cause problems in society, protestors outside the court proved that the reality is very different as they attempted to loudly shout down anyone who dared to stand for the truth of marriage.

These are the same activists who want any disagreement or contrary voice crushed, with marriage supporters pushed to the edges of society, our voices silenced, and our views besmirched. We commend Brian Brown for wading into this chaos with courage and good cheer to remind everyone, especially the protestors, that we will always stand for the truth of marriage. Here is a video of his remarks: