Ruth Institute Blog

(August 11, 2010) Dr J appears on radio program Point of View, where she and host Penna Dexter discuss Judge Walker’s recent Proposition 8 ruling.

Point of View

From RealClearPolitics:

But for Judge Walker there is an odor of illegitimacy about merely “moral” views expressed in legislation, especially when morality finds support in religion. Thus he declares that Proposition 8 expresses only a “private moral choice,” not a considered public morality. And thus in his tendentious “findings of fact,” he makes the astonishing claim-purporting to be a fact found at trial, not a judgment of his own-that “religious beliefs that gay and lesbian relationships are sinful . . . harm gays and lesbians.”

Perhaps here, in this nadir of absurdity, we have found the real fundament of the judge’s thinking. Citizens who wish to defend the institution of marriage as they and their families have known it all their lives, and for countless generations, are irrational bigots. Worse still, if they are moved to act because of the union of their faith with their moral opinions, they are crazy religious folk, bent only on harming others whom they merely “dislike” on grounds that cannot possibly be defended before a tribunal of right-thinking people. And those others, the same-sex-couple plaintiffs? They must be rescued from the “harm” to their feelings that results from their exclusion from a historic civil and moral institution that has never hitherto been thought to have been built for them.

The bludgeoning going on here in the name of “tolerance” and “equality” is amazing.  Read the whole thing here.

Michael Medved has an opinion piece worth reading over at AOLnews.com on the recent Prop 8 ruling.  I think the 7 points he makes are very well-stated and cogent to the discussion.

1. “Proposition 8 was a mean-spirited ban on gay marriage.”
Proposition 8 banned nothing. The ubiquitous headlines describing this voter-mandated change in the California Constitution as a “gay marriage ban” amount to an egregious example of journalistic malpractice. The entire proposition consisted of only 14 words: “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” This simple statement imposes no restrictions and issues no commands regarding the behavior of private citizens; it merely demands a change in the actions of government. Proposition 8 did nothing to interfere with gay couples in registering for state-recognized civil unions, participating in church ceremonies consecrating their love, forming lifetime commitments, raising children or concluding comprehensive contractual arrangement to share all aspects of life and property. The proposition simply says that government will not get involved in any of these private or public processes by calling such relationships a marriage.

2. “Proposition 8 singled out gays and lesbians for discriminatory treatment.”
The proposition never mentioned gays, lesbians or any other individuals, whatever their sexual orientation. It didn’t discriminate among individuals; it drew distinctions among relationships. Under the proposition, a gay male and a straight male would face exactly the same options in marriage; there is no relationship open to the straight citizen that’s denied to his gay neighbor. The fact that gay people want government sanction for a different sort of relationship, creating radically new forms of marriage, reflects their desire to transform institution, not a demand for equal, long-established rights.

Read more…

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

We’ve discussed on this blog before how if same-sex ‘marriage’ is allowed to be masqueraded as a civil right, then all First Amendment rights that have to do with moral and/or religious beliefs will thereafter be trumped by any so-called right predicated on ‘gender identity’. And in fact wherever same-sex ‘marriage’ has been recognized the right to freely and fully practice one’s faith, express one’s beliefs – in speech or in writing, or even participate in the political process has been severely abridged whenever exercising any of those rights would offend LGBT sensibilities. (Canada is an excellent case in study…) Read more…

(July 21, 2010) We’ve already podcasted Dr J’s talk from this rally, “It Takes a lot of Faith to Believe in Same-Sex Marriage.”  She also recorded two of the other speakers.  Bishop Harry Jackson and Pastor Derek McCoy both discussed the importance of the vote in the defense of traditional marriage.

To date, 31 states have voted to define marriage as occurring between one man and one woman.  Maine overturned same-sex marriage by People’s Veto, and all the states that have enacted same-sex marriage have done so through the courts (Vermont used its legislature as well).

Bishop Harry Jackson

Pastor Derek McCoy

(July 20, 2010) We’ve already podcasted Dr J’s talk from this rally, “Why Not Privatize Marriage?“  She also recorded two of the other speakers.  Bishop John Smith, the ninth bishop of Trenton, discussed how marriage compliments the uniqueness of men and women.  Jim White, former Supreme Director of the Knights of Columbus, encouraged civic participation and accountability of government officials.

Bishop John Smith

Jim White

(July 21, 2010) This podcast is a rebroadcast of Family New in Focus’s coverage of NOM’s bus stops in Rhode Island and Annapolis.  The original is available here; listen below or on our podcast page.

NOM Summer Marriage Tour

(July 21, 2010) Though NOM’s Summer Marriage Tour continues through August 15, Annapolis, Maryland is Dr J’s last stop.  Her final talk is entitled “It Takes a lot of Faith to Believe in Same-Sex Marriage.”  Listen below or at our podcast page.

Annapolis, Maryland

Dr J updates Todd’s listeners at Issues, Etc. on the progress of NOM’s Summer Marriage Tour–especially the intolerance they experienced in Providence, Rhode Island when a well-organized group of same-sex “marriage” supporters tried to shout them down (as well as intimidating and threatening the listeners).  They also discuss a settlement in Mississippi, where a school student wants to bring a same-sex date to prom.

[In]tolerance

Chris Plante, president of NOM’s Rhode Island Chapter, and Brian Brown, president of NOM, were also at Providence’s “Summer of Marriage” rally with Dr J (see “The Problem(s) with Same-Sex Marriage, Part 2″).  The shouting and chanting you hear are the rainbow protestors, who also attended the rally.  We also have a few other reports of how they tried to disrupt the rally (here, here, here, here & here, here, and here) as well as audio and video (here, here, here, and here).  Much of this is on our blog, too.

Plante & Brown

Scott Spear, advisory board member to Rhode Island’s chapter of the National Organization for Marriage, was also at Providence’s “Summer of Marriage” rally on July 18 with Dr J (see “The Problem(s) with Same-Sex Marriage, Part 2″).  The shouting and chanting you hear are the rainbow protestors, who also attended the rally.  We also have a few other reports of how they tried to disrupt the rally (here, here, here, here & here, here, and here) as well as audio and video (here, here, here, and here).  Much of this is also on our blog.

Scott Spear

Dr J is on NOM’s Summer Marriage Tour for the next several days–she’ll be traveling down the Eastern seaboard, meeting new people, and giving short talks in each city at which the bus stops.  These talks are also available on our podcast page.

In this 10-minute talk (delivered July 15 in Manchester, New Hampshire), Dr J answers the question “Is it true that same-sex marriage affects everyone?”
Click here to listen!

Manchester, New Hampshire

Clinton’s “first concern for Africa is how LGBT persons are treated on the continent. . . it is fortunate that the US does not have an embassy in Mogadishu, because if the word got round that THIS was the African priority for the present US administration, there would be a repetition of Black Hawk Down.” For reals! I think they’d probably just laugh, and be disappointed. “Crazy Americans!” they’d say. Read more…

Might as well post this as well.

by Sheila Liaugminas

Sometimes, the Proposition 8 battle seems surreal. But then, so do other serious, emotional and intense conflicts playing out in the nation’s courts and city halls and classrooms and media, over what we knew not long ago as core Judeo-Christian traditional values. Read more…

So there’s a new study out entitled Findings from a Decade of Polling on Ballot Measures Regarding the Legal Status of Same-Sex Couples. The two main questions focused on in the study are: What effect did the campaign have on the outcome of the election? and How predictable was the outcome of the election? To answer these questions they studied polls taken before and during various same-sex marriage and domestic partnership ballot initiative campaigns.

One conclusion of the study is that the actual vote on election day against same-sex ‘marriage’ is typically about seven percentage points higher than polling would have indicated. (That is definitely a significant difference!) They were not able to determine exactly why that is the case, but the study did debunk two popular theories: People were not answering poll questions dishonestly because they were afraid of appearing to be too politically incorrect, nor were voters confused about what a Yes or a No vote meant.

When it comes to the effect of the campaign on the outcome of the election, the study suggests that both sides consistently fought each other to a standstill. Polls taken at the end of the campaigns were remarkably close to what the polls showed before campaigning even began. Some are deducing from this that what you have going into such an election is what you’ll end up with for the results regardless of what you put into the campaign. But I think we should be very wary of that conclusion lest we become complacent.

Nowhere in the study could I find any data at all about how much was spent by each side on the campaign or anything about who was able to mobilize the most volunteers to canvass during the campaign and get out the vote for their side on election day. (If the Prop 8 campaign was very typical, then both sides were probably most often about evenly matched in terms of resources.) Obviously starting off in the lead would be an advantage, but if one side was able to get their message out to the voters during the campaign and the other did not, how could that not have a significant effect on the results of the election? (You are very unlikely to win a gunfight if you show up with a knife…)

On the other hand, laying the groundwork between elections would seem to be key to the outcome. Those who are attempting to undermine marriage are definitely networked. (How do you think they got this far?) We need to be organized to have the strongest affect on our culture as well. That is what Ruth Institute is all about, isn’t it? You can be certain there will always be another battle at the ballot box over same-sex ‘marriage’ for the foreseeable future. These are indeed the times to fight the good fight. And IMHO Dr J is just the general we need to lead us.

Carolyn Moynihan

Right on cue for “lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender pride month” the journal of the American Academy of pediatrics has published a study purporting to show that the children of lesbian couples “do better than their peers” on some measures. Read more…

by Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse. Originally pubished at National Catholic Register, March 22,2010.

“Domestic partnerships make us second-class citizens. We want marriage, just like everyone else.”

This is the constant refrain of the marriage-redefinition advocates. Drawing a legal distinction, any legal distinction, between same-sex couples and opposite-sex couples is unfair and amounts to ill treatment of the same-sex couples. But does this argument really hold up? Read more…

I wonder if ACLU members have lawsuit quotas. Maybe they each have a bar graph on a white board to keep track of their filings. Perhaps the winner at the end of each month gets a plaque, the good parking spot, and an ice cream sunday.

Allie Martin and Jody Brown – OneNewsNow -

An attorney says a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) against a North Mississippi school district is an attempt to try and keep officials there from recognizing traditional morality. Read more…

Oh good grief! What will they think of next? Have any other minority groups had a study conducted on this? I’d like to know, actually.

Charlie Butts – OneNewsNow -

Housing and Urban Development (HUD) is preparing a first-ever study of alleged housing discrimination against homosexuals. Read more…

This can’t be a good thing. And why would anyone think that it is?

Pete Chagnon – OneNewsNow -

Fox News has picked up on reports that Kevin Jennings, founder of the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN), has been surrounded by controversy concerning his organization as GLSEN has been accused of visiting middle and high schools where spokespersons engage in explicit sexual discussions with students.

In conjunction with the controversial talks, it has been uncovered that GLSEN has recommended an alleged pornographic reading list for underage students. Exact details of the reading list are too explicit for print, but the material includes frank descriptions and the glorification of adult-on-minor homosexual sex.

Continue reading: http://www.onenewsnow.com/Education/Default.aspx?id=819656