However, marriage itself is not about love. The root definition of marriage is one man and one woman being the foundation of the family.

Love is most often a bond a man and woman share who seek marriage. Love also needs to be nurtured and strengthened in all marriages.

All that said, love doesn’t define marriage. As much as you would hope it would not occur, you can have a marriage without love being in the equation.

“Marriage is the civil status of one man and one woman united in law for life, for the discharge to each other and the community of the duties legally incumbent on those who association is founded on the distinction of sex” (Black’s Law Dictionary, 1891).

No matter your religion, ethnicity or culture, marriage rests upon the principle foundation of being the union of husband and wife.

When you go to get a marriage license, there isn’t a question that asks, “Are you in love?” No counselor waits to weigh the level of love each couple has to determine if they can marry.

When it comes to the public policy of marriage, love is not the root part of the equation. One man + One woman = Marriage. Why? It’s the only mechanism by which humanity continues to exist because it is the only union that can possibly produce children.

It’s no mystery why marriage has always been recognized as a union between husband and wife, has always been essential to society and should never be redefined in any way.

That’s Brian Brown, executive director for NOM, and his reaction to the government telling the church how to run its charities. Catholic Charities of D.C. was forced to let a third party run their adoption agency because of the legalization of same-sex “marriage” in the District of Columbia.

They didn’t want to be forced to close their doors and hurt the many children the adoptive agency helps. That’s exactly what happened to the Catholic Charities in Boston, where they were forced to either shut their doors or compromise their religious beliefs because of the legalization of same-sex “marriage” in Massachusetts.

Same-sex “marriage” is not about love. It’s about a radical redefinition of the basic social institution of our society and negatively affecting public policy.

Is it good public policy to force adoption agencies to close their doors because of their religious beliefs?

Is it good public policy to attack the religious freedoms of our churches? (Even if a church is not forced to hold same-sex weddings in its sanctuary, evidence is NJ shows that a state can revoke its tax-exempt status for holding a definition of marriage contrary to the state’s definition.)

Is it good public policy to teach our children, as young as kindergarten, about homosexuality and about families with two daddies and two mommies? Who stops the teaching of homosexuality in schools if teachers simply can point to the legalization of same-sex “marriage”?

Marriage itself is not about love. It’s about bringing together husband and wife to protect and care for the next generation; essential to the well-being of any society.

That is why Pennsylvania needs to protect our marriage laws. Recently same-sex couples in our state went to local courthouses and demanded a marriage license. They were turned away, but promised future legal challenges to get activist judges to declare our marriage law unconstitutional.

Please- Email, Call and/or Visit your Senator today and tell them to support SB 707. Tell your Representative to support SB 707 once passed by the Senate. For more details, visit www.pa4marriage.org or call 717-657-4990.

Cost: FREE

The event is open to the public and no ticket is required.

Maggie Gallagher is one of the most articulate and powerful speakers behind marriage as the union of husband and wife. “[It is] an ideal which most Americans, whether they are black or white, Democrat or Republican, evangelical or Mormon, cherish. The majority of people, and the majority of courts, recognize that same-sex marriage is not a civil right. Unions of husband and wife really are unique and deserve their unique status in law, culture and society.”

She will debate Senator Daylin Leach, the lead sponsor of SB 935 which would legalize same-sex “marriage” in Pennsylvania and recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states.

Also, we encourage you before the debate to drop by your State Senator and Representative’s office during the afternoon to personally ask them to support SB 707- the Marriage Protection Amendment.

To Pennsylvanians, 707 now brings to mind the Pennsylvania Marriage Protection Amendment.

SB 707 is the Pennsylvania Marriage Protection Amendment and has been introduced into the State Senate. This bill would put the following definition of marriage into our State Constitution:

“Only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid and recognized as a marriage in this Commonwealth.”

Currently Pennsylvania has a ‘Defense of Marriage Act’ (or DOMA) which defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman. This Act is not strong enough as we have witnessed in states like Iowa and California where activist judges have overturned their state’s DOMA and declared it unconstitutional. SB 707 will protect our current definition of marriage as the union of husband and wife.

Currently, there is another bill in Pennsylvania that, if passed, would legalize same-sex “marriage” in our state and recognize same-sex “marriages” performed in other states. Without passing SB 707, Pennsylvania’s marriage laws remain vulnerable to radical redefinition.

That’s why the people of Pennsylvania should have the right to vote on this issue and not have our rights hijacked by a small group of activists or by an activist court. Passing SB 707 would allow the people to vote on the definition of marriage.

“Pennsylvania voters have the opportunity to decide how they want marriage to be defined and not allow an activist judge to make that decision for them,” Eichelberger said. “Thirty one other states have already gone through a similiar process and in each state, the definition of marriage was upheld.”

“‘Gayby Boom’ Fueled by Same-Sex Parents” screamed a headline on the website of ABC News this past summer. “Post-1980s Children of Gay Parents Thrive in School, More Open Society,” the subhead declared. Was there some new information in this story? Nope. It was just another human-interest story in the noble-homosexuals-who-overcome-adversity-and-stay-true-to-themselves template.

Unfortunately for ABC, a closer look at the source of the few facts in this story tells another story — one the “gay rights” lobby and its allies in the media probably would rather you didn’t hear: Same-sex “marriage” is a completely disproportionate response to an overwrought problem. Most of the feature consisted of interviews with same-sex couples who have raised children together. But among the obvious ploy for sympathy were a few facts, including this eyepopper: “Just under 1% of all couples in the U.S. — or 594,391 people — identify themselves as gay, lesbian or transgender, and about 20% of them are raising children under the age of 18.”

Yes, you read that correctly: Two-tenths of 1% of couples in America are same-sex couples raising children.

One of the most appealing rhetorical questions posed by advocates of same-sex “marriage” is: “Gays and lesbians are already raising children. Why shouldn’t they and their children have the legal protections of marriage?” But these figures, produced by the Williams Institute, a pro-homosexuality think tank, show that a truly tiny percentage of children is at stake. We are being urged to redefine marriage to protect the children of two-tenths of 1% of all the couples in America. And we’re bigots if we resist. This puts new perspective on demands for same-sex “marriage.”

In many states, same-sex couples can use some combination of domestic partnerships or second-party adoption to share legal parenting rights. Why is it bigotry to insist that same-sex couples solve their practical problems with the legal tools already available? Often, advocates of same-sex “marriage” will respond that it is demeaning that they should be treated differently by the law. But it is no disgrace to say that the law should treat exceptional situations as exceptions. Biology is the ordinary way we assign legal parenting rights. Adoption exists to accommodate the unusual situations in which the biological parents are not available. Adoptive parents must get fingerprinted and investigated before adoptive children can be placed in their homes.

Do we really believe that adoptive parents are second-class citizens? No. The steps serve to protect the principle that biology is the basic way we assign parenting rights. All other cases are treated as exceptions. I don’t know how the homosexual-rights lobby gets the major news media to do these unreflective booster articles transparently designed to garner sympathy for same-sex couples and, by extension, for same-sex “marriage.” But this particular puff piece blew up in the face of one major mainstream-media outlet. You’d think the others would notice.

Jennifer Roback Morse, Ph.D. is the founder and President of the Ruth Institute, a non-profit educational institute promoting lifelong married love at home, at work and in the public square. She is also the Senior Research Fellow in Economics at the Acton Institute for the Study of Religion and Liberty.

But some state lawmakers oppose this action insisting that the Pennsylvania Courts won’t let that happen here.

Let’s remind lawmakers of three common sense reasons why Pennsylvania needs a Marriage Protection Amendment:

1. State Judge Job Description: State Judges have the power to rule acts passed by legislators “unconstitutional.” Any State Judge interprets cases based upon the highest law: the State Constitution. In fact, Pennsylvania’s highest court became the first in the U.S. to be granted the power to declare laws made by elected legislators unconstitutional.

Perhaps the members of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court would not rule the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional but saying that they won’t is only a matter of opinion. It’s a fact that they have the power to do so.

2. History: It has happened before in other states. Iowa is a prime example. Their state governmental system is very similar to that of Pennsylvania; especially the process to amend the State Constitution.

Despite their Defense of Marriage Act, the Iowa State Supreme Court Justices declared their state DOMA unconstitutional. If it happened in Iowa, it can happen in Pennsylvania.

3. Lawmaker Job Description: Legislators have the power to pass a law redefining marriage. SB 935 is currently introduced to Pennsylvania lawmakers that would declare marriage to be defined as “any two persons” in Pennsylvania. As our state waits for a Marriage Protection Amendment, more time passes to allow other legislative action to happen.

To say Pennsylvania does not need a Marriage Protection Amendment is to leave marriage vulnerable to an activist court or an overreaching legislature.

If you support marriage as the union of husband and wife, please contact your lawmakers and tell them to support a Marriage Protection Amendment now!

———————–

Opposing gay marriage is a loser of a position. That, at least, is what everyone seems to say, all along the political spectrum. Everyone, that is, except voters.  
 
Maggie Gallagher, president of the National Organization for Marriage, has been my personal political hero for the last few election cycles for her tireless work in defense of the institution of marriage. It’s a bit of a thankless task. Those who adamantly disagree with Maggie are angry and hurting, and they frequently lash out. Those who agree frequently just want to leave the issue to Maggie and not think about it. But, in various iterations, she has been at it for decades now. And she does it eminently well — that is, with reason, and compassion, and knowledge. And she knows it’s about more than simply disagreeing with the gay activists. It’s about rebuilding an institution that has been neglected, abused, and underappreciated. It’s about re-teaching what a precious gift true marriage is. And it’s about settling and codifying a definition that is at the core of human civilization and the very lives of children.  
 
Gallagher woke up the morning after last week’s elections as a winner. It wasn’t the first time and, because of this win, probably won’t be the last. This time, the fight was in Maine. And Question 1, the referendum to repeal a state law legalizing same-sex marriage, won 53 to 47 percent. Once again, Gallagher had reminded people of why they actually do know this fight is an essential one.  
 
That was a bigger margin than last year, when Gallagher was a pivotal leader in defeating gay marriage in California. And it was a bigger margin despite the fact that more money was spent by the proponents of same-sex marriage, who presumably had learned lessons from the previous defeat(s).Robert P. George, a professor of politics at Princeton and founder of the American Principles Project, observes: “Maine is a northeastern liberal state with a significant student population. There are few blacks and very few Mormons. There is not a large Evangelical Christian population. The forces working in the state for the abolition of the conjugal conception of marriage as the union of husband and wife had the strong support not only of the media, but also of the state’s governor and other leading political figures. They had a significant funding advantage. On Election Day, they got the large turnout that they believed would assure them of victory. Yet, when the votes were counted, the people of Maine came down solidly in favor of restoring the conjugal conception of marriage that the state’s legislature and governor attempted to abolish.”  
 
“I think people may not understand the magnitude of what we were up against,” emphasizes Brian Brown, executive director of the National Organization for Marriage. “They had four years to build an effective grassroots organization and claimed 8,000 volunteers in a state with a population of only 1.3 million. Still they lost — and by a larger margin than in California.” He asks where proponents of same-sex marriage go from here, “how they convince their base to fund another campaign. At this point they are 0 for 31.” The “31” refers to the number of states where there has been a ballot initiative concerning gay marriage. 
 
Why has gay marriage consistently lost when put in the hands of voters? Because what’s true is true. “Most people know in their own heart that marriage is between a man and a woman,” Brown says. 

Click here to continue…

That’s the story of Carrie Prejean, the pageant finalist whose winsome and humble answer in defense of marriage cost her the victor’s crown and garnered hatred and even death threats, but also stirred public support for marriage as the union of husband and wife. Carrie Prejean’s story, and growing Christian faith are an example of how we must give voice to truth in the public square during these troubled times.

Click here to read Maggie Gallagher’s article “The Carrie Effect”.

Carrie Prejean and Maggie Gallagher will be featured and honored for their work in advocating for marriage between husband and wife on Nov. 19th in Lancaster, PA. Click here for details.

Let the People Vote! Pennsylvanians overwhelmingly want the chance to vote on marriage.

A new statewide poll released by The Federalist Society shows that an overwhelming 78-percent of Pennsylvanians want the opportunity to vote on the issue of defining marriage.

The poll found that support for allowing the issue of defining marriage to come to a people’s vote at the ballot box crossed gender, age, racial, regional, political, and ideological lines. Constitutional amendments defining marriage as the union of husband and wife have been raitifed by citizens in 30 states, but voters in Pennsylvania have not had that opportunity.

“‘We the people’ deserve a voice, and we call on Pennsylvania lawmakers to let the people vote!” said Michael Geer, president of the Pennsylvania Family Institute. “Activist judges and politicians should never be allowed to redefine marriage and impose a social experiment that knowingly and permanently deprives a child of a mom or a dad. A constitutional amendment is the only way in Pennsylvania to ensure the people – and not activist judges – can define marriage once and for all.” said Geer.

Now is the time for Pennsylvania to join the large majority of the states that have passed Marriage Protection Amendments — states like Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin, Oregon and California. The people have spoken in those states, but so far Pennsylvanians have been denied a vote on protecting marriage in our state constitution as the union of one man and one woman.

Unlike citizen initiative and referendum powers in other states, Pennsylvania does not allow a ballot referendum on a constitutional amendment until it is first passed by the state legislature in two consecutive sessions.

The statistics on marriage are from a statewide survey of Pennsylvania registered voters conducted in October 2009, by the Polling Company ™, inc./WomanTrend and released by The Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy. 

Pennsylvania For Marriage agrees with Michael Geer and the majority of Pennsylvania citizens: It’s time for Pennsylvanians to be given the opportunity to define marriage through a ballot referendum!

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

The federal DOMA has two parts. One part defines marriage to be between one man and one woman. The other part is this: “No state needs to treat a relationship between persons of the same sex as a marriage, even if the relationship is considered a marriage in another state.”  Simply put, if a same-sex couple gets married in Massachusetts (a state where it’s legal) and moves to Pennsylvania (a state where it’s illegal), Pennsylvania does not have to recognize their “marriage.” (emphasis added)

That second part of the DOMA is what Tobias Wolff, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania, attempts to manipulate you into overlooking. In a recent debate with Maggie Gallagher on The Lou Dobbs Show, he says, “Let’s be clear about what this statute [DOMA] is about…This has nothing to do with the federal government telling states what they have to do with their marriage policies.”

Ok. Go back to what DOMA says: “No state needs to treat relationships between persons of the same sex as a marriage.” The act is telling a state what it doesn’t have to do.  So wouldn’t throwing the law out leave into question what a state needs to do?

No state needs…so by throwing this law out, a Massachusetts same-sex couple can come to Pennsylvania and demand to have their union recognized, right? What would stop them? Well, without DOMA, nothing.

Prof. Wolff, the federal DOMA protects the rights of states like Pennsylvania to define marriage the way their state sees fit. True, technically by throwing out DOMA the federal government doesn’t require states to follow certain marriage policies. It’s just that the federal government will tell them they have to recognize same-sex “marriages” from other states. And when that’s the case, a state’s individual policy really doesn’t matter.

Repealing DOMA takes away the only thing protecting each state’s definition of marriage. Don’t let this professor fool you.