“Right at this moment, It’s not about gay marriage whether you are for it or against it. People are afraid. They are afraid in their homes. They are afraid for their jobs. All up and down California strangers are showing up and yelling at them. They’re getting hate mail saying we’re going to go after your job….We’re seeing attacks on churches….”

This quote is from Maggie Gallagher, president of the National Organization for Marriage, in a recent interview on Fox News. On November 4, after years of hard work and dedication, the voice of voters in three states affirmed this statement: marriage should be defined as the union between one man and one woman. California, Arizona and Florida became the 28th, 29th, and 30th states to pass a Marriage Protection Amendment.

Maggie Gallagher’s comment above is due to the violent response from activists opposing the voice of the people. In these states who recently passed marriage amendments, the response from these activists opposing marriage amendments has shown the true colors of their side.       

Violence Against Marriage Amendment

- A “No on Prop 8″ rally turned ugly as 69-year-old Phyllis Burgess carried a large foam cross.  The self-proclaimed “No on Hate” protestors ripped the cross from Ms. Burgess’ hands, stomped on it, then circled menacingly around Ms. Burgess and a TV news reporter standing with her.

- A homosexual anarchist group on Sunday disrupted the worship services of an evangelical Christian church in Lansing, Michigan. The anarchist group, Bash Back, claimed credit for the disruption, referring to Mount Hope Church of Lansing as “a deplorable, anti-queer mega-church…complicit in the repression of queers in Michigan and beyond.”

- Letters containing a suspicious white powder were sent to Mormon temples in Los Angeles and Salt Lake City that were the sites of protests against the church’s support of the Marriage Amendment.

Tolerance?

In response to the passage of the amendments, the LBGTQ community organized a nation-wide rally against the passage of the marriage amendments.  As part of their mission statement from JointheImpact, they say: “We do not stand for bigotry, for scapegoating, or using anger as our driving force. Our mission is to encourage our community to engage our opposition in a conversation about full equality and to do this with respect, dignity, and an attitude of outreach and education.” 

With respect and dignity.  With respect and dignity they chose to have a clutched fighting fist as their logo.  With respect and dignity they use phrases like ‘Ready to Rumble’ and ‘Fight the H8 (Hate)’ as slogans. 

With respect and dignity they offer pictures of protest sign ideas: ‘Separation of Church and Hate’, ‘Why Do You H8 my Family?’, ‘Shame on YOU!’, ‘Bigotry…Not Very Christ Like’, ‘Mormon teaching: Racism, Sexism, Anti-Gay’, ‘I’m here-I’m not queer-Love is Love-Get used to it’….

Is this ‘encouraging our community to engage’ with ‘respect and dignity’?

Humble Yet Bold
 
John Stemberger witnessed first hand the opposition toward the marriage amendment as the state chairman of the Yes2Marriage.org Campaign in Florida.

Mr. Stemberger says, “Let’s once again thank supporters of natural marriage and encourage them to continue to be humble yet bold in standing with us for what is right, true and good.  The future of our country and generations of children yet unborn are depending upon it.”

Thank you to those supporting the marriage amendment in Pennsylvania and around the country.  Thank you for being humble yet bold in your support and please continue to stand for what is right, true and good.

 Join Pennsylvania in support of the Marriage Amendment by going to www.PA4Marriage.org

When proponents of same-sex marriage argue that redefining traditional marriage to include couples of the same sex will not have any impact on children, they need to take a look at what happened recently in San Francisco to a group of first graders.

Eighteen first graders were bused from their school to the wedding of their teacher and her lesbian partner. The school principal said she was unaware if any class ever attended any kind of wedding during school time, but she told the San Francisco Chronicle that the field trip was “a teachable moment” that was perfectly appropriate for first graders.

Complete story:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/10/11/MNFG13F1VG.DTL

Many believe that when courts in states like California, Massachusetts and now, Connecticut rule for same-sex marriage —despite the wishes of the majority of its citizens, the consequences of that ruling will trickle down from the highest courts to the lowest grades in our children’s schools. The question no longer appears to be if children will be affected, but just how quickly.

Pennsylvania for Marriage asks that our Legislature pass a marriage protection amendment to protect our children so that our public schools won’t be forced to teach that there is no difference between gay marriage and marriage between a husband and wife. Let the people decide how marriage should be defined. Now that’s a teachable moment.

“I’m a liberal Democrat. And I do not favor same-sex marriage. Do those two statements sound contradictory?” Seemingly, yet they were made by David Blankenhorn, president of the Institute for American Values, in a recent Los Angeles Times op ed. Blankenhorn concludes, “For healthy development, what a child needs more than anything else is the mother and father who together made the child, who love the child and love each other.”

Blankenhorn states, “Marriage says to a child: The man and the woman whose sexual union made you will also be there to love and raise you. Marriage says to society as a whole: For every child born, there is a recognized mother and a father, accountable to the child and to each other.”

So why does changing the definition of marriage to include same-sex unions cause a problem?

Blankenhorn poses the following questions:

“Do you think that every child deserves his mother and father, with adoption available for those children whose natural parents cannot care for them?

Do you suspect that fathers and m others are different from one another?

Do you imagine that biological ties matter to children?

How many parents per child is best?

Do you think that “two” is a better answer than one, three, four or whatever?”

“If you do,” Blankenhorn says,” be careful. In making the case for same-sex marriage, more than a few grown-ups will be quite willing to question your integrity and goodwill. Children, of course, are rarely consulted.”

Blankenhorn believes that by changing the meaning of marriage, it changes the gift that only the union of husband and wife brings to every child born: his or her birthright. Marriage “safeguards that right” of the child to the mother and father who made him or her.

There are some who argue that opposition to same-sex marriage today is the same as opposition to interracial marriage was several years ago.  However, they are two very different debates. 

Townhall columnist and radio host Dennis Prager, states emphatically that “there is no comparison between sex and race.”[1] He goes on to say:

There are enormous differences between men and women, but there are no differences between people of different races. Men and women are inherently different, but blacks and whites are inherently the same.

Elaborating on those differences between men and women, he adds:

We now know that even their brains differ. And those differences are significant. Thus, to oppose interracial marriage is indeed to engage in bigotry, but to oppose same-sex marriage is not. It simply shares the wisdom of every moral system that preceded us—society is predicated on men and women bonding with one another in a unique way called “marriage.”

Conventional wisdom says that marriage between a man and a woman—no matter the race, is a union that can and should be supported. Bans against interracial marriage tried to keep men and women apart, and that’s wrong. The Marriage Protection Amendment safeguards the joining together of men and women in matrimony, and that’s good for society.

For more information visit www.PA4Marriage.org or call 717-657-4990 x106.

The definition of marriage has been in the headlines across the country due to recent events in California.  In case you haven’t heard, the California Supreme Court overturned the voice of the people and will become the second state in America to allow same-sex marriages.

In reaction to this ruling, I would like to point to an article written by David Benkof, a columnist for several gay newspapers and blogs.  He wrote an opinion editorial in the Philadelphia Inquirer about the consequences of the California Supreme Court’s gay marriage decision.  Here is a portion of that article:

“California already has a domestic-partnership law providing all the state benefits of marriage to same-sex couples, and the federal Defense of Marriage Act prevents all the federal benefits.

Sure, gays and lesbians may get a lift in self-esteem from having their relationships declared “equal” by four jurists, but does an ego boost really outweigh the real harms caused by last week’s decision?

Because there certainly are harms – to religious liberty and to children, for example. For the last two weeks, I have been contacting “marriage equality” leaders from San Diego to Sacramento to ask about the impact of redefining marriage on religious freedom.

All have repeatedly refused to disclose their opinions, including prominent lesbian and gay legislators, other elected leaders, and one of the plaintiffs in the celebrated Supreme Court case, Robin Tyler.

Although California marriage-equality leaders won’t say what impact they expect the new decision to have on religious freedom, activists in other states haven’t been so shy.

A representative of the largest Michigan gay-rights group, known as the Triangle Foundation, and openly gay Washington State Sen. Ed Murray both told me that any person who continues to conduct himself as if what he thinks is God’s definition of marriage is correct, instead of the gay community’s definition, should be fined, fired and even jailed until he relents.

“If you are a public accommodation and you are open to anyone on Main Street that means you must be open to everyone on Main Street. If they don’t do it, that’s contempt and they will go to jail,” says the Triangle Foundation’s Sean Kososky.

Sharon Malheiro, a lawyer and LGBT activist from Des Moines affiliated with the state’s gay-marriage lobby, ONE-IOWA, told me that if a teacher in a marriage-equality state taught that marriage is between a man and a woman, “then it becomes a job performance issue” and the school district should take appropriate action.

Michael Taylor-Judd, the president of the Legal Marriage Alliance of Washington state, said if a newspaper writes that a given same-sex marriage wasn’t really a marriage, “it is certainly in the realm of possibility for someone to bring a [libel] suit, and quite possibly to be successful.”

The Triangle Foundation’s Kososky agreed: “I would be sympathetic to some damages.”

Now, no lesbian in history has lost her assets, her job, or her freedom for writing, teaching, and running her business guided by her belief that marriage is a union of any two individuals who love each other.

So why do gay activists outside California support limitations on the freedom of speech, the press, and religious expression for anyone who disagrees with them? And why won’t California marriage-equality activists go on the record with their opinions on this vital issue?”

For a link to the whole article, go to the Latest News at www.pa4marriage.org

The Pennsylvania Marriage Protection Amendment says ‘No union other than a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as marriage or the functional equivalent of marriage by the Commonwealth.’ What is the functional equivalent of marriage?

The NJ Supreme Court circumvented the will of the people and undermined the legislature by directing the NJ legislature to either legalize same-sex marriage or “enact a parallel statutory structure by another name, in which same-sex couples would not only enjoy the rights and benefits, but also bear the burdens and obligations of civil marriage” (1). In New Jersey, the functional equivalent of marriage is called civil union.

The authors of the New Jersey law intended civil unions to be identical to marriage in all aspects but name. The forced legislation amends state marriage statutes by painstakingly adding the phrase “or civil union” after every mention of “marriage” in more than 80 pages of rules governing nuptials.

By stark contrast, most employee “domestic partnerships” (by government employers or private employers) differ from civil unions in that they confer a specific, limited list of benefits to registered couples who may be of the same or opposite sex. Case in point: The city of Pittsburgh offers “domestic partnership benefits” to city employees that include “health insurance, dental insurance, vision care insurance, and the ability to participate in the bonus waiver program, as are provided to other City employees and their families” (2). This example clearly does not constitute the functional equivalent of marriage that the NJ Supreme Court ordered and that SB 1250 seeks to prevent.

In fact, in the NJ case, the NJ Bar Association filed a legal brief (in favor of giving marital status to same-sex couples) and pointed out the contrast between existing domestic partner benefit policies and the far-reaching effects of same-sex civil unions:

“While the rights granted under the DPA [NJ Domestic Partnership Act] are very important, the words ‘spouse’, ‘wife’, husband’, and ‘marriage’ appear in 850 separate provisions of the New Jersey State statutes granting rights and bestowing obligations to and upon married couples in New Jersey which impact upon every level of their lives. The DPA grants merely a handful of the New Jersey spousal rights and privileges to domestic partners” (3).

A similiar scenario played out in Vermont in 2000 with the court mandating the functional equivalent of marriage and – just as in New Jersey – “civil unions” consequently changed all aspects of civil law that “are granted to spouses in a marriage” (Vermont Act 91).

Pennsylvania voters overwhelmingly want the citizens, not the courts, to have the final say on marriage: 72% to 16% or a 4.5 to 1 ratio! (4)

17 bipartisan co-sponsors introduced SB 1250 – the Pennsylvania Marriage Protection Amendment – the first step to putting the marriage question on the ballot. But it must pass the General Assembly by June 2008!

Marriage makes a difference; it is worth constitutional protection. Support SB 1250 and give our citizens, not the courts, the final say on marriage.

For more information, visit www.PA4Marriage.org or call 717-657-4990 x 106.

_____________________________

1. Lewis v. Harris, 188 N.J. 463. 2. City of Pittsburgh, Chapter 186.01.

2. City of Pittsburgh, Chapter 186.01.3. Lewis v. Harris, Brief Amicus Curiae of New Jersey Bar Association, at p. 6 (Supreme Court of NJ, 2006)

3. Lewis v. Harris, Brief Amicus Curiae of New Jersey Bar Association, at p. 6 (Supreme Court of NJ, 2006)

4. Precision Marketing, January 2008, margin of error +/- 4%

Pennsylvania is faced with the prospect of radically having the definition of marriage changed without voters having the opportunity to weigh in on the matter.

Those who support the idea that marriage should mean anything and everything are the most opposed to the idea that Pennsylvania citizens should have the opportunity to define marriage. Why not let the citizens of the state make that determination?

The latest polling says that even those who don’t completely support the majority who define marriage as the union of man and woman only, still want the people to have the final say!

Let the people vote.

-Pa for Marriage

Read what Elizabeth Marquardt, America Values Institute’s Vice President of Family Values, has to say about a child’s need for a mother and a father.

”To be perfectly clear, the question is not whether children love the parents who raise them. Children almost universally and unquestioningly love their parents, whether their parents are married, divorced, single, gay or straight. Rather, the question is how children feel and how they make sense of their identities when their mother or father (or both) is absent from their daily lives.” Read more…

http://www.ionainstitute.ie/pdfs/Marquardt_talk.pdf