Category archives: Marriage

FRC’s Peter Sprigg and Pierre Bynum Testify Before the Maryland House Judiciary Committee

by Krystle Gabele

March 3, 2011

On February 25, 2011, FRC’s Peter Sprigg and Pierre Bynum testified before the Maryland House of Delegates’ Judiciary Committee voicing their opposition to a bill that would redefine marriage.

Click the ‘play’ button below to listen to Pierre Bynum’s testimony.

Click the ‘play’ button below to listen to Peter Sprigg’s testimony.

The President’s Unconstitutional Two-for-One

by Rob Schwarzwalder

February 25, 2011

President Obama’s decision this week not to defend the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in court demonstrates both contempt for the law itself and a disturbing arrogance concerning his own authority.

This action is not unique. As today’s Wall Street Journal notes, “The White House has apparently decided that it won’t enforce the unpopular parts of its health-care plan until after the 2012 election. The latest evidence is its decision not to slash Medicare Advantage, the program that Democrats hate because it lets seniors choose private insurance options.”

And this week’s decision regarding DOMA is not a new departure from allegiance to the law. As George Will wrote in 2009, “The Obama administration is bold. It also is careless regarding constitutional values and is acquiring a tincture of lawlessness.”

The President of the United States takes an oath when he assumes office, assuring us that he will “defend the Constitution of the United States.” That Constitution makes Congress the legislative body, not the Executive branch. Thus, when Congress passes legislation that is signed into law by the President, it becomes incumbent upon the President — as the chief constitutional law enforcement office in the nation — to defend it.

When this or any President refuses to defend any given law, he is placing himself above it. How, in principle, this distinguishes the United States from any tin-pot autocracy, where law is made by the fiat choices of an unaccountable dictator, escapes me. For that matter, why bother with having legislative (Congress) or judicial (the Supreme and other federal courts) branches if the President can simply choose to ignore defending laws he dislikes?

Family Research Council’s Senior Fellow Chris Gacek (JD, Virginia) notes that DOMA “affirms the power of each state to make its own decision as to whether it will accept or reject same-sex marriages created in other jurisdictions … The Defense of Marriage Act preserves the right of the states to govern themselves with respect to family law and domestic relations. DOMA impedes judicial activism regarding marriage and provides needed uniformity in federal law. It is an essential part of preserving traditional marriage in America.” In other words, as Quinn Hillyer writes in The American Spectator, “Without DOMA, state and local decision-making would be nil. In fact, the decisions of 49 states could be superseded by the decision of one state to allow such ‘marriages’.”

The rule of law is essential to the future of representative self-government in the United States. The future of marriage hinges, in large measure, on DOMA. President Obama has succeeded in undermining both this week.

Let Rhode Island Vote

by Christopher Plante

November 19, 2010

The fact that the people of Iowa, when allowed to vote, threw out three of the judges that had overreached their authority by mandating homosexual-marriage on all Iowans, is of great encouragement. Every time the people get to vote on the issue they choose to protect marriage between one man and one woman. Ordinary men and women, mothers and father, know that children have a right to know and be known by their mother and father, and when given the choice they protect marriage.

Rhode Islanders want to have the opportunity to vote on marriage as well. In a public opinion poll conducted in August of this year over 80 percent of eligible voters polled stated they want the marriage issue on the ballot, irrespective of their personal beliefs on the issue. Rhode Islanders do not believe a small group of legislators, or worse judges, should decide such a crucial issue. We have had the opportunity to vote on ports, casinos, and even changing the name of the State; Rhode Islanders want to vote on marriage. And this is not new, public opinion polls conducted in June of 2009 and again in December of that year returned very similar results, with well over 34 of the respondents saying, Put it on the ballot.

The National Organization for Marriage Rhode Island will make every effort to insure that Governor-elect Chafee and the new Assembly hear and follow the voice of the people.

This is particularly crucial given the economic morass that Rhode Island still faces; this is no time to bog down our State government with an issue that impacts less than 5 percent of the population. According to the Providence Journal, October 17, 2010, For example, projected state budget gaps run above 10 percent through fiscal 2015. For the fiscal year that starts July 1, 2011, the forecast deficit is $320 million, largely because federal stimulus money that has supported the last three budgets is running out. That fiscal 2012 budget is the first one that will be crafted by the governor and General Assembly that take office in January. The projected shortfalls get worse as time goes by. The gaps are $416 million in fiscal year 2013, $457 million in fiscal 2014 and $536 million for fiscal 2015.

Even Governor-elect Chafee understands the challenge he faces. According to the Journal on November 7, 2010, A day after Rhode Island voters elected him their next governor, Lincoln D. Chafee stood in front of a bank of reporters in his Warwick campaign headquarters taking questions. Was this redemption? one television reporter asked, for losing his 2006 reelection bid to the U.S. Senate? Chafee paused. Then grinned. To inherit 12-percent unemployment? A $360-million budget deficit? The crowd, including a dozen campaign workers, chuckled. I dont look at it as redemption, Chafee said. I like a challenge.

Governor-elect Chafee and the new Assembly must not bog down the State government with the divisive and grid-locking issue of homosexual-marriage. Instead they should heed the voice of the people who elected them and put the homosexual-marriage question on the ballot.

I SwearHomosexual Activists Do the D***edest Things

by Peter Sprigg

November 9, 2010

(Caution: Some of the information below, and the website it describes, are not appropriate for children.)

Some homosexual activists are their own worst enemies.

The latest evidence of that fact is a website recently brought to my attention by someone who wrote to the Family Research Council. I refuse to post an actual link to this website, but you can easily type it in yourself. It follows the form of f**h8.com, with letters in the second and third positions.

The beginning of that web address is the three consonants of a well-known four-letter obscenity known as the f-word. The h8 at the end of that address stands for hate.

Homosexual activists have been spelling it h8 ever since the successful 2008 campaign in California to pass Proposition 8, a constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Twenty-nine of the fifty states now have such amendments.

Leave aside, for the moment, the mystery of how treating uniquely the human relationship that is uniquely capable of reproducing the human race, and believing that children deserve a mother and a father, could possibly constitute hate.

If you go to the website, you will find a short (two minutes or so) video. It consists of several people ranting and raving against the opponents of same-sex marriage—while repeatedly dropping the f-bomb.

Is this supposed to be funny? Do homosexual activists really think that the way to persuade opponents of same-sex marriage to support it is—to swear at people? Repeatedly?

During the Proposition 8 campaign, one of the most effective issues for advocates of Prop. 8 was the concern that children would be taught to affirm and celebrate homosexuality and same-sex marriage in the public schools. Opponents vehemently insisted that same-sex marriage would have no impact on schools or on children whatsoever. So then what happened? A class of first-graders was brought to San Francisco City Hall to witness the wedding of their lesbian teacher. So much for the no impact claim.

Another example occurred in the recent debate over legislation that would repeal the current law against open homosexuality in the military. To break a filibuster, liberals had targeted two Republican senators—Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe of Maine. To sway the votes of Collins and Snowe, homosexual activists staged a major rally in Maine the day before the vote. The headline speaker was Stefani Germanotta, the 24-year-old, strangely-dressed, boundary-pushing pop singer better known as Lady Gaga. The effort failed, as Collins and Snowe voted with the rest of the Republican caucus. But did homosexual activists really believe that the gentleladies from Maine would be persuaded by Lady Gaga?

Actually, the point of the anti-H8 web video is not to change minds—its to raise money. You can buy t-shirts, buttons, or stickers bearing the F**H8 message, or milder and less cryptic ones like, Some dudes marry dudes. Get over it. Proceeds will help fund the fight for equal marriage rights.

Five dollars from the sale of each thirteen-dollar t-shirt is donated to one of four pro-homosexual activist groups (none of which sponsor or endorse the website). One is the American Foundation for Equal Rights, which was founded by Hollywood actor and director Rob Reiner (yes, the meathead from All in the Family) to hire Republican and Democratic super-lawyers Ted Olson and David Boies for a federal lawsuit to overturn Proposition 8. So the August decision by Judge Vaughn Walker (now on appeal), that same-sex marriage is a right guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, was funded (at least in some small part) by f-bombs on the web.

But what is really shocking about the video is this: three of its participants are children. Not teenagers—young, pre-adolescent children. One is a boy who appears to be about six years old. Another is a girl who looks to be perhaps nine. The third is a girl who is perhaps eleven. And yes—the children drop the f-bomb too.

Is this supposed to be funny? Its not. Its child abuse.

Two of the children make specific reference to their gay parents. I dont know if this is true, or if they are just young actors reading a script.

But either way—can they really believe that swearing children are a good tool to expand support for their cause? Are we to understand that this would be the brave new world under gay parenting and same-sex marriage—a world in which parents teach obscenities to their children, then put videos of them using those obscenities on the web to raise money?

If so—God help us. And God save the children.

Civil Rights Gained on the Backs of Little Children

by Cynthia Hill

November 2, 2010

Yesterday the Vermont Supreme Court upheld a 2009 family court ruling that awarded sole custody of Isabella Miller-Jenkins, now eight, to Janet Jenkins as a result of a bitter lesbian custody case. Jenkins and her then-partner Lisa Miller had entered a VT civil union in 2000 which lasted until 2003. Later, their own private business of Lisas 2002 artificial insemination would become the business of a nation, the VT court system, and, sadly, one very innocent and undeserving little girl.

Miller, fearing this outcome of lost custody, failed to appear for both the court-ordered January 2009 custody exchange, as well as the VT Supreme Court ruling yesterday. She has long-since renounced her homosexuality and, to date, she and Isabella are attempting to remain underground.

This case is a loss for all involved. It is a tragic consequence of the civil “right” that, unfortunately, Lisa Miller, fought for - and now has to live in spite of. Only this time, an innocent child suffers at the hands of adults in a political milieu where the innocent loses and no one, especially little Isabella, wins.

Light a Candle? Or Buy a Stamp!

by Robert Morrison

September 14, 2010

I just returned from five days in Iowa. No, Im not throwing my hat in the ring for the famous Iowa presidential nominating caucuses. I did feel like stomping on the hats of some of those whose names are being mentioned. Some of these fellows think the way to victory in ‘12 is to abandon the issues of human life and marriage. When one fellow drawls social issues aint gonna change a single vote, I can assure him: They just changed mine.

I was in Iowa to speak to Lutherans for Life. My hosts took me to Christian schools, churches, and home gatherings. Again and again, the word coming back to me from Iowa was frustration. Those common sense folks who live in farm country and who care deeply about this country told me over and over they were frustrated that both parties seem not to be listening to them.

People there are frustrated with taxes and spending, to be sure, with being forced to pay for abortions through national health care, and with seemingly endless foreign entanglement that do not promise victoryor even enhance our security. If we are winning the war on terror, then why are apologists for terrorists preparing to put a mosque at Ground Zero? If after nine years of war we cannot even make Fort Hood safe, people know something is seriously wrong.

I have a small suggestion to help my frustrated friends in Iowa and elsewhere. It wont change everything, but it will change something. My friend Seth Leibsohn suggested this idea while he was subbing as host for Bill Bennetts talk show. Its very much a Morning in America idea, for that show is dedicated to intelligence, candor, and goodwill.

Seth suggested we all go out and buy 100 Mother Teresa postage stamps. The U.S. Postal Service issued a commemorative stamp to honor this Nobel Peace Prize winner, this frail little woman who made sure that the love of Christ was communicated to the poorest of the poor.

President Reagan called Mother Teresa the saint of the gutters. I remember the story of the 1994 Congressional Prayer Breakfast in Washington. President and Mrs. Clinton were seated at the head table. So were Vice President and Mrs. Gore.

When Mother Teresa begged for the lives of unborn children who were being targeted by Clinton-Gore policies. The audience erupted in waves of applause. The Clintons and the Gores sat there like stone statues.

Mother Teresa was fearless. She would tell her Missionaries of Charity in her Calcutta shelters they had to put there hands in the open sores of their dying, outcast patients. You are tending to Jesus wounds, she would say to her squeamish young Sisters-in-training. This is how we show our love of the Lord.

Mother Teresa knew that how we treat unborn children has a lot to do with how we treat each other. Terrorists do not care about human life, born or unborn. One of Nidal Hasans fourteen victims at Fort Hood was an unborn child. She said abortionnot nuclear weapons, world hunger, or global warmingwas the greatest threat to world peace.

Theres an old saying: Its better to light a candle than to curse the darkness. I think of this every year when my family attends Christmas Eve services. There, the tradition is for everyone to light a candle, each person drawing a little flame from his neighbors candle.

Soon, there are 3,000 little lights testifying to the light that came into the world.

Im going to buy 100 Mother Teresa stamps. Its one way we can show there is a government project we definitely approve of. Let the atheizers howl, but this is a wonderful tribute to a saintly woman. Buying those stamps is a way to honor her Lord and ours. Its a way of signaling our respect and our gratitude. Buying and using Mother Teresa stamps is a small way to promote the cause of peace and appeal for the lives of unborn children.

Good News Story on Healthy Marriage Initiative

by Family Research Council

August 31, 2010

A very promising study was recently released involving the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Healthy Marriage Initiative (HMI) programs in Oklahoma. The report revealed that Building Strong Families is having a lasting and positive impact in Oklahoma, with measurable results including fathers staying more involved in family life, and couples reporting higher quality relationships.

Find out more information on this program and study here. See here or here for more information on the Healthy Marriage Initiative.

Tony Perkins on CBS’s Face the Nation

by Jared Bridges

August 9, 2010

FRC President Tony Perkins appeared on CBS’s “Face the Nation” Sunday (8/8/10) to discuss the implications of the federal court ruling striking down California’s “Proposition 8.” Here’s a clip of the interview below, followed by links to other media coverage of the interview:

OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT (CBS) [PDF]

Same-Sex Marriage Decision: “Far From Over” (CBS)

Family Research Council compares Prop. 8 to Roe; says fight not over (The Hill)

Perkins: We hope ‘sanity will reign’ on gay marriage ban (Politico)

Activists Gear Up for Next Round on Gay Marriage (CQ Politics)

Gay-Marriage Ruling Should Be Upheld, Ex-Solicitor General Ted Olson Says (Bloomberg)

Prop 8 attorneys Theodore Olson and David Boies say judge’s ruling is ‘constitutionally sound’ (NY Daily News)

Olson backs gay marriage ruling (Boston Globe)

Archives