National Organization for Marriage vows fight against same-sex marriage

[Valley Oak]

The anti-LGBT group, National Organization for Marriage, has vowed to fight against the new law in Washington DC allowing same-sex couples to marry.

Below is a communique they sent to all of their followers:
-----------------------------------------------------------------

NOM National Marriage News -- March 5, 2010
NOM Updates March 5, 2010

Dear Friend of Marriage,

A few words about where we are in D.C.

Notice the headlines from the mainstream media: a persistent drumbeat of despair. Recognize that the keenest weapon in the hands of our opponents are these spiritual weapons--which means they are weapons we can strip from them any time we see that they are being wielded against us.

That's a longwinded way of saying: Don't believe the lies. It's not over in D.C. by any means.

Here's what really happened. The people of D.C. have a right, granted by Congress in their charter, to vote to overturn legislation passed by elected officials, just as people in many states (like Maine) have that right. The City Council not only passed gay marriage, it went the next extraordinary step and claimed the right to block citizens from voting on gay marriage. Their legal arguments are quite weak, but as we all know, in a world with too many activist judges that doesn't really matter. Politically, it is remarkable to see politicians claim that the right to gay marriage trumps the people's right to vote.

The lower courts are sitting on the decision, running out the clock. So we tried to jump over their heads and get the Supreme Court to weigh in immediately with an injunction. It was always a long shot so we were not surprised when Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts declined to do so. We were encouraged, though, by his opinion, in which he took the trouble to say that the legal argument we are laying out "has some force."

Meanwhile, as I told the Washington Times, the response from Congress was disappointing. We knew with the powerful Pelosi/Reid majority we were not likely to win a vote, but we were looking for a few good marriage supporters willing to insist on Congress taking a vote. There is no real time clock on Congressional intervention, despite what you hear on the press. If either political party in Congress wants to stand up not only for marriage but for the core civil rights of all the people in D.C. they can, and we will be making sure they hear from you!

That's the beauty of NOM. We don't want to live in a world where we beg elected officials to do us favors. We all come together to build an effective movement that can make your voice heard. Speak truth to power and be not afraid!

The attacks on Christian institutions in D.C. are intensifying. Archbishop Wuerl faced a sad choice when D.C. politicians refused to build any reasonable conscience protections into the gay marriage bill: Once again the government has pushed a Catholic adoption and foster care agency out of public service. And this week, the government essentially forced Catholic Charities to drop spousalinsurance coverage for future employees. Otherwise it would beforced to recognize and provide benefits to gay couples as if theywere spouses, which is deeply contrary to Catholic teaching.

Maggie Gallagher wrote about this in her syndicated column."Archbishop Wuerl is a brave and kind man," she said and then shewent on to ask a key question: "What was the point of those kind ofgovernment impositions on Christian institutions?"

The Catholic Church's position on gay sex and gay marriage arewell-known, or should be. Surely it could come as no shock to apotential employee or gay parent to discover that a Catholic organization is not the right place to pursue their career if they want gay marital benefits? What gay person in D.C. is practically better off as a result of the mean-spirited and successful attempt to drive the Catholic church out of the public square in key ways? If this were left up to ordinary gay people, I'm betting it would all turn out very differently. Live and let live is the American impulse across ideological and moral disagreements.

But in today's world, Donald Wuerl, the Archbishop of Washington D.C. is both a brave and a kind man. He went to the city council and asked for permission to continue helping poor and vulnerable people in partnership with the city. The City Council spurned his request. They were not interested in helping mute the conflicts between gay marriage and religious liberty. They want the right to use government to brand traditional Christianity as bigoted and discriminatory.

Shame on them. Shame on them. They will only fuel Americans' legitimate fears about what the real motivations behind gay marriage are.

And Americans of good will clearly have to come together over the heads of politicians to find a better solution.

But governments run by secular liberals are feeling newly energized and motivated to impose on religious faiths--and not just Christianity. There is now in the state legislature in Massachusetts a proposal to ban infant circumcision, a law which if passed would come very close to making it illegal to be a Jew (or at least a Jewish parent--circumcision of infants has been a requirement of Jewish faith and identity since the time of Abraham).

Meanwhile, just a year ago this week, two very powerful state legislators in Connecticut proposed a bill that would have let the government take over the finances of the Catholic Church.

What is the point of pushing Catholic institutions out of the public square? To show they can. To desensitize the American conscience to acts that would have been shocking just a few years ago. To prepare us to acquiesce to the next attempt to misuse the law to reshape our culture in ways that will brand faith itself as an evil, as our marriage tradition is now being branded.

If you can persuade people to accept the idea that Genesis is the moral equivalent of racism, you can do virtually anything.

As Maggie says, shame on them. Shame on them.

The truth will not only triumph in the end, it will set us free.

Stay strong! God bless you, and please keep praying for victory for marriage in 2010.

Faithfully,

Brian S. Brown

Executive Director

National Organization for Marriage

20 Nassau Street, Suite 242

Princeton, NJ 08542

[email protected]

PS: The battles are tough. But when we band together, we can make a difference! Whether you can give $20, $50, or perhaps $100--or maybe a monthly donation of just $5--every dollar counts, and every dollar helps make your voice heard as you stand up for marriage.

NOM Featured Interviews

"Supreme Court Won't Stop DC Gay Marriage Law"

CBN News

March 3, 2010

Brian Brown, the executive director of the National Organization for Marriage, is a staunch opponent of the new law. He appeared on CBN News' Midday program to talk about the Supreme Court's ruling. Click play to watch the interview.

Maggie Gallagher interviewed on RPC Radio

March 2, 2010

Download by clicking the link above.

NOM Featured Article

"Should It Be Illegal to Be a Jew in Massachusetts?"

Maggie Gallagher

March 3, 2010

New legislation now being proposed in the Massachusetts state legislature to ban circumcision of any male children, including Jewish children, comes very close to saying, "Yes, it should be a crime." Circumcision of infant males has been a requirement of Jewish faith and identity since the time of Abraham.

NOM in the News

"Lawmakers Blamed for Gay Marriage Law"

Washington Times

March 4, 2010

"I'll be straight with you: I think they could have done more," Brian Brown, executive director of the National Organization for Marriage, said of Republican leaders. "We needed a vote, and we didn't get one."

"Dr. Jennifer Morse's Complete Comments About the Ruth Institute"

YouTube--excerpts from FOX Strategy Room

February 12, 2010

"Guild Institute in Christian Family Studies Announces Inaugural Lecture"

Houston Baptist University press release

March 2, 2010

The newly established Guild Institute in Christian Family Studies at Houston Baptist University has selected Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse, founder and president of the Ruth Institute, as speaker for its inaugural lecture, which will be held on Monday, March 29, at 7 p.m. in the Morris Cultural Arts Center's Belin Chapel on the HBU campus.

"Pro-Family Leaders from 35 Countries Oppose Institution of Same-Sex Marriage in Mexico City"

Christian Newswire

February 25, 2010

In response to a move to institute same-sex marriage in the Federal District which includes Mexico City (on March 4), more than 120pro-family/pro-life leaders from 35 countries have signed the "World Congress of Families Leadership Petition To Save Marriage In Mexico City."

"Beverly Hills Doesn't Care for (Conservative) Free Speech"

Christian Coalition of America

February 25, 2010

In this case, the city council of Beverly Hills -- the very city which Lauren Ashley will represent -- has condemned her views and is demanding that the pageant not allow her to use the moniker "Miss Beverly Hills" in the competition.

"Four Candidates for RI Governor Pledge Support for Same-Sex Marriage"

Providence Journal

March 4, 2010

Christopher C. Plante, executive director of the National Organization for Marriage's Rhode Island chapter, said the issue should be decided by voters, the same way voters had their say on a casino.

"Family-Advocate Summit Draws Protest"

Providence Journal

February 28, 2010

Christopher Plante, executive director of National Organization for Marriage Rhode Island, said the New England Family, Life, and Marriage Summit -- a one-day gathering that drew 75 traditional family advocates from Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island sought to build grass-roots support for the traditional family.

©2010 National Organization for Marriage.

To prevent mailbox filters from deleting mailings from Brian Brown, [email protected] to your address book.

Remove yourself from this mailing.

Modify your profile.

[theindependenteye]

A letter I just wrote to the guy, for all the good it'll do:

Dear Mr. Brown—

With due respect for your sincere beliefs, I have to say that while I share your belief in the beauty and sanctity of marriage — having been myself married for 49 years — I feel that the institution of marriage is deeply ill-served by the policies you promote.

Framing your argument as an attempt to guard the rights of conscience of religious organizations is good politics, I suppose, and I'd even support that stand if it weren't obvious that it's simply a tactic to defeat the whole idea of gay marriage. One might as well argue that the rights of lunch-counter owners are violated by laws against discrimination in public accommodations.

Be honest. That's the first principle of a strong marriage, and strong marriages are what support Marriage.

Sincerely—

Conrad Bishop
Sebastopol, CA