The New York Times covers an often ignored story — the young men and women who are active in the fight to protect and promote marriage in politics and culture! Ryan Anderson, co-author of “What is Marriage?” and our Communications Director Thomas Peters were interviewed for this article, as were many inspiring young pro-marriage voices: Read more…
New Zealand’s Marriage Act 1955 does not define marriage; no-one then thought it necessary to define what was self-evident, anywhere. As the agitation for same-sex marriage grew, however, the United States federal government passed the Defence of Marriage Act in 1996 defining marriage as the legal union of one man and one woman, a move ratified by the majority of states. Read more…
by Stella Morabito, a Washington, DC-based writer who focuses on issues of society, culture and education. She has published several op-eds on marriage and gender issues in the Washington Examiner and has testified against genderless marriage before the Maryland Legislature in Annapolis. In her past work as an intelligence analyst, she specialized in Russian and Soviet politics, ideology and media.
Do you know your neighbor’s or co-worker’s or classmate’s real opinions about genderless marriage? Or do you simply know what they say they believe? Or, do you – and they — tend neither to ask nor to tell on such hot button topics? Read more…
Attacks on sociologist Mark Regnerus after he challenged the “no differences” thesis haven’t obscured the high quality of the New Family Structures Study or its troubling findings. The first of a two-part series.
Seldom has the publication of a dry, factual report in sociology caused such a storm of controversy. In June 2012, the bimonthly peer-reviewed journal Social Science Research published an article by University of Texas sociologist Mark Regnerus titled, “How different are the children of parents who have same-sex relationships? Findings from the New Family Structures Study.” The answer to his title’s question was: quite a bit different, and most of the differences are not good. Read more…
October 26th, 2012 http://www.thepublicdiscourse.
Promoting “genderless parenting” contradicts what the facts show us both about the harms of single parenthood and the benefits of having a mom and a dad.
There’s been a strange turn of opinions about fatherhood–at least in recent public debates. Decades of research have now documented the tremendous challenges children face when they grow up without their fathers. But you would never know it by looking at some of the recent public arguments for “genderless parenting.” Read more…
Recently I had an exchange on Facebook about redefining marriage to include gay couples. I mentioned something about conservative gays against gay marriage, and a friend replied to me, saying:
“I for one have never heard of a conservative gay … so that’s a new one on me.”
I wasn’t surprised when he said it, because I didn’t know that conservative gays existed either until the past couple years. Like him, I thought all gays were liberals.
But conservative gays do exist. There are gays who do not agree with the gay marriage issue.
I keep wondering why liberal gays get all the media attention. Why are liberal gays the only gays you see on TV with signs and banners? Why are they the ones who get interviews and publicity, and not the others? Isn’t the marriage issue a gay issue? Read more…
Gay activists have marketed “gay marriage” as an issue of equal rights and compassion, 
but at it’s heart it is not about either. It is about changing the function of marriage as a public policy by making small changes to certain words in the law surrounding marriage and family. As a matter of justice and social responsibility, we must try to forecast what will happen to people and society as a result of those legal changes.
Since when does a company say “No thank you” to free and positive publicity?
Since August 7, 2012, that’s when.
In response to Mike Huckabee’s wildly successful Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day, ssm activists countered with Starbucks Appreciation Day, scheduled for August 7, 2012. The idea was to show that there was as much support from proponents for ssm towards Starbucks, as their was from proponents of man/woman marriage for Chick-fil-A.
By Starbucks’ request, “Starbucks Appreciation Day,” quietly changed to “National Marriage Equality Day.” The event organizers had this to say about the change:
“… we have had direct communication with execs at [Starbucks] corporate who expressed that the company wants other equality-minded companies such as Amazon.com and Nike to share in the appreciation and consumer support…”
I cannot help but wonder why a company would reject free publicity from ssm activists? I think the Chick-fil-A outpouring made them nervous. I have no idea how much the Dump Starbucks campaign contributed to it, but let’s keep up the pressure. Sign the pledge today.
==========================
Signup for our newsletter: Ruth Institute Newsletter
Follow us on Facebook: Ruth Institute on Facebook
Follow us on Twitter: Ruth Institute on Twitter
Read more from this author:
Why Everybody, Including Gays, Should Support Traditional Marriage
Traditional Marriage Supporters are Not Automatically Haters and Bigots, and Here’s Why
Both genders are represented in each of these examples.
This image has been making the rounds on Facebook, in an attempt to discredit those of us who insist that removing the gender requirement is redefining marriage.
Look carefully at the image and you will see that in ALL of the examples, both genders are represented. Read more…
The Left is not capable of winning the marriage war via the merits of their intellectual arguments. They can only win it via intimidation, name calling, insults, etc. Take heart, marriage supporters: when the Left slams your intelligence, your sexuality, your compassion, etc, know that it’s the only weapon they have. And they use it because it’s effective.
Here is an example, courtesy of a Facebook page called Texts from Hillary.
Many “gay marriage” bloggers and facebook pages spend all of their energy tearing people like us down, and they NEVER put forth positive arguments FOR redefining marriage which they would then have to defend. Read more…
Loading ...
