same-sex marriage

New CBS/New York Times Poll: 61 Percent Favor Restrictions On Abortion Or Outright Ban

I'm not sure what's more devastating to the Left today: A new comprehensive poll from CBS and the New York Times that says only six percent think Obamacare is working or the 61 percent who say there should be tighter restrictions on abortion or an outright ban! Guy Benson on his TownHall.com Tipsheet breaks down all the issues and numbers here. Among the findings:

» President Barack Obama's approval rating is at a dismal 41 percent.

» Republicans hold a three point lead over Democrats in the generic Congressional ballot preference question, although seven percent more Democrats than Republicans were polled. All those polled were registered voters, whereas likely voters typically are more conservative.

» While 56 percent believe "same-sex marriage" should be legal, two-thirds believe each state should be allowed to determine their own definition. Bad news for so-called "marriage equality" advocates in Virginia.

» In an a result that's sure to depress the Left, a slight majority even believes that "Global Warming" either naturally occurs or doesn't exist at all. To the Elitist Left, that must only confirm what they think of us — that we're all a bunch of rubes and only they are intelligent enough to understand the "settled science."

As for abortion, the spring campaign of 40 Days For Life is about to kick off. We are big fans of this amazing, prayer-and-fasting campaign that has saved countless babies from death. It's this type of spiritual movement, setting the example for the country — indeed, the world, as the video below demonstrates — and probably a significant reason for the dramatic change in attitude on abortion reflected in the poll. It's not the first such poll, either. The tide has turned. Watch this video, then click here to read more about the exemplary work and prayer 40 Days For Life does, and sign up to join others in prayer in your city, county or town.

Whether it's former Planned Parenthood employees, post-abortive mothers, mothers who had a last second change of heart or any number of people from all walks of life, people put their faith into action with 40 Days For Life.

Fate Of The Marriage Amendment To Be Determined "Soon"

The Family Foundation was joined yesterday morning in Norfolk by Concerned Women for America, FRC Action and hundreds of Christians from churches across Eastern Virginia as we stood up in support of marriage, the Virginia Constitution and in solidarity with the brave and principled attorneys from Alliance Defending Freedom. Alliance Defending Freedom was in court officially representing the Clerk of the Court of Prince William County, Michele McQuigg, a former member of the House of Delegates, who is seeking affirmation of the Marriage Amendment in her position, which is charged with issuing marriage licenses. Oral arguments for the challenge to the Marriage Amendment were heard with U.S. District Court Judge Arenda L. Wright Allen, who promised to make a timely ruling, and said, "You'll be hearing from me soon."

Lawyers for the plaintiffs asserted the amendment, passed by 57 percent of Virginia's voters, was unconstitutional, arguing marriage was a fundamental right and that the institution was not ultimately about children but was instead a symbol of freedom, comparing same-sex marriage to marriage allowed only among freed slaves. Attorney General Mark Herring attended the hearing to watch his solicitor general argue on behalf of the plaintiffs.

Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys argued the government's interest in marriage is in the upbringing of children by a mother and a father and that there exist no constitutional grounds or precedent to change the law to allow for homosexual unions. Its attorney skillfully outlined how marriage is the one and only relationship that is absolutely essential to the future of humanity. In yet another attempt of the liberal left to redefine beyond recognition an important term, plaintiffs actually stood before the judge and stated that "same-sex couples pro-create."

Outside the hearing, traditional marriage supporters held a rally as well as a news conference that included Family Foundation President Victoria Cobb, Josh Duggar from FRC Action, Alison Howard from Concerned Women for America, and Bishop E.W. Jackson of S.T.A.N.D. Supporters of natural marriage numbered in the hundreds, while only a dozen people supporting same-sex marriage protested outside.

Of course the media's coverage was predictably skewed. For a real representation of what happened, see the video and picture below. More photos from the rally can be seen on our Facebook page. Then, please follow this link and sign the petition asking Attorney General Mark Herring to do his job and defend the Virginia Constitution!

The real news.

Displaying photo.JPG

From left, Josh Duggar of FRC Action and a star of TLC's 19 Kids and Counting; The Family Foundation's Victoria Cobb; Alison Howard from Concerned Women for America; and Bishop E.W. Jackson of S.T.A.N.D. 

Discrimination Against Vermont Couple Shows The Real Agenda Of The Left In Virginia

Jim and Mary O'Reilly are perfect examples of the real agenda of those advocating legal protections for sexual behavior. The O'Reillys' own a bed and breakfast in Vermont. That state not only legalized same-sex unions, but has a broad "non-discrimination" law that includes sexual orientation. Consequently, the O'Reillys' were forced by the government to open their facility to same-sex couples despite their own religious convictions. They did, however, with permission from the state's "Human Rights Commission," communicate very clearly with guests their deeply held religious conviction that marriage is between one man and one woman. They never rejected a same-sex couple.

Yet the ACLU, one of the most vocal advocates of so-called "non-discrimination" policies, as well as free speech, partnered with Vermont's Human Rights Commission to sue the O'Reillys' for discrimination. They directly attacked the O'Reillys' approved practice of simply disclosing their religious beliefs about marriage to potential customers. According to Austin Nimocks, Senior Counsel for the Alliance Defending Freedom:

Although the Commission agreed that the O'Reillys' acted in good-faith reliance on its 2005 ruling, the government and the ACLU demanded that the O'Reillys' pay $10,000 to the Commission as a civil penalty and $20,000 to a charitable trust set up by the ACLU's clients. Forced with the prospect of potentially losing their business, the O'Reillys' relented and agreed to these terms in August 2012.

This case was not about access to services-the ACLU's clients were easily able to find a venue for their reception, and the Wildflower's business practice did not deny services to anyone, but merely disclosed the O'Reillys' relevant religious convictions. What the government and the ACLU really objected to was the O'Reillys' mere mention of their views about marriage-views that conflict with the prevailing political orthodoxy in Vermont. For this, the government and ACLU insisted that the O'Reillys' be punished. (Emphasis added.)

"Punished"? For expressing their religious conviction? Not only has religious expression taken a hit, so has freedom of speech. In the past, the ACLU has defended the rights of NAZI and KKK groups to parade through cities, but God forbid (oops! Can't use that word) a family express and practice its religious beliefs on its own property.

This stifling of religious and expression freedoms is the true agenda of Equality Virginia, the ACLU and other advocates for legislation that will be introduced in the 2014 Virginia General Assembly that would add sexual orientation to Virginia's employment non-discrimination law. While our law currently applies only to state government, don't mistake that for the final goal of these groups. They've introduced legislation that would add "sexual orientation" to the state's more broadly interpreted "Human Rights Act." As the executive director of the ACLU said just a couple of years ago during testimony on this proposal, "This is a baby step."

A baby step alright. A baby step toward punishment simply for disclosing your religious conviction about human sexuality.

Some in the Republican Party want to capitulate on this issue, saying that it's a battle not worth fighting, a losing issue — a "divisive social issue" that gets in the way of winning elections. They are exceedingly naive or sadly ignorant of the logical conclusion of elevating sexual activity to protected status in our law. We, however, know exactly what the goals are and therefore will stand our ground and fight for religious liberty and expression.

No Harm, No Foul?

The Gospel Coalition recently released a video in which Pastors Russell Moore, J.D. Greear, and Voddie Baucham tackle the difficult issue of homosexuality and whether the church and/or the state should be involved. They discuss the relevant question of: 'How can homosexuality — and same-sex "marriage" in particular — be wrong if it doesn't hurt anyone?' Watch the 10-minute video below to see how these pastors respond to the argument that the church and state should get out of the marriage business. In light of the recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions, these pastors share relevant wisdom on this difficult discussion that both our churches and our culture are facing.

How Can Homosexuality Be Wrong if It Doesn't Harm Anyone from The Gospel Coalition on Vimeo.

Responding Where The Left Goes Unchallenged

One of the great challenges of The Family Foundation is to be a voice of reason in a world where the media carries the message of the left without any challenge to its lack of logic. Within the past few days, I've encountered a number of these opportunities.

In an interview with a clearly biased reporter, which she indicated would be about abortion center safety standards, I was asked to respond to the 18 percent drop in the abortion rate over the last five years. Without more specific information, I respond that many common sense abortion laws had been passed in addition to the great work done in the area of foster care and adoption. But this response doesn't match the reporter’s narrative. The official narrative, her narrative, was that any drop in abortion must relate to contraception.

Basic knowledge of biology says that only a drop in the pregnancy rate, not the abortion rate, can be directly attributed to contraception. For simplicity sake, consider this example: Let's say 1,000 women got pregnant in 2007 and 25 women chose abortion, but in 2011, 1,000 women got pregnant and only 20 women chose abortion. In this example, the number of conceptions has not changed (still 1,000) and thus tying the decrease in abortion (25 to 20) to contraception is illogical. Rather, it means that five women made alternate choices from abortion regarding their pregnancies.

With this in mind, I found it interesting when the reporter next began to challenge me on contraception but never told me anything about the pregnancy rate or even the "unintended" pregnancy rate during the five year period.

What is known is that even the Guttmacher Institute, the research arm of the abortion industry, acknowledges:

In six [countries] — Cuba, Denmark, Netherlands, the United States, Singapore and the Republic of Korea — levels of abortion and contraceptive use rose simultaneously.

To get a more accurate picture of what is actually happening in Virginia, one would need the birth rate, abortion rate and the number of children given up for adoption over time. Without that, both sides of this debate can guess at a reporter's questions and the reporter can angle her story in whatever direction she chooses.

A second opportunity to be a voice of reason took place when I was asked to respond to a Washington Post poll of Virginia voters and their views on various social issues. Prior to the interview, I requested to see the poll. The response from the reporter was "I'm afraid we don't normally share the poll." Seriously? I'm supposed to listen to the reporter's summation of the results and draw conclusions based on her conclusions? Yes, that's their hope because the assumption is that like dumb sheep, the right can be led into a ditch. The reporter was obviously dismayed that I challenged nearly all of the poll's assumptions.

As an example of the problem opining without data causes, the reporter asked me if the Republican Party ought to change its position to attract more voters as a result of the alleged shift on same-sex marriage. This question required me to presume the rest of her poll that I had not seen. I mentioned that if this poll matched any other poll on this matter, then the reporter would know that minorities support traditional marriage. She seemed surprised that I would draw this distinction but fully acknowledged that my point was well taken, was supported by the details of the poll and that changing a position on same-sex marriage wasn't going to attract the minorities the Republican Party is desperate to reach. (Oh, and shockingly, no questions about the Kermit Gosnell trial or the nearly 300 health and safety violations in Virginia's abortion centers. Then again, why ask about what you refuse to report?)

This interview leads me to the final difficulty of trying to present reason in a world where narratives are predetermined. Two days ago, I received a call at home from Quinnipiac asking me to take a political survey. I readily agreed but discovered just what I feared. When asked my top issue for determining how I vote, I was given approximately 10 choices, none of which were values issues. Similarly, I was asked about the Star Scientific situation regarding both Governor Bob McDonnell and Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli but was never asked about Terry McAuliffe's false claims regarding green technology and jobs. Zero questions about the abysmal conditions found in Virginia's abortion centers. Even funnier, I was asked if I consider myself "Born Again," "Evangelical" or "None of the above." I'd love to meet someone who is "Evangelical" but not "Born Again." When the questions are this biased and misinformed, it's hard, if not impossible, for a polling company to get a clear sense of the electorate.

But then again, if the purpose of the poll is to reinforce a predetermined narrative, the pollsters, nor the media, are interested in the sense of the electorate. They are trying to steer the electorate. Which is one reason why, despite not knowing all the details, I do these interviews. If there isn't a voice of reason included in the story, the media wins without a fight.

Please Plan To Participate In The National Day Of Prayer On May 2

Our nation is in a crucial time and in serious need of prayer. We face grave challenges on every front and most of all, the spiritual front. We're sure you sense the peril that we, as a country, are in as never before. Even as our nation deals with the aftermath of the terrorist attack in Boston, the deep ideological divisions in our nation remain. Faith-based institutions are being forced to fund abortions, our national debt continues to skyrocket while cities are going bankrupt, pornography is running rampant on the Internet and we are potentially one Supreme Court vote away from making same-sex "marriage" the law of the land. But we are not as those who have no hope. Our hope is in the Lord, the maker of Heaven and Earth.

This is a reminder that the National Day of Prayer is coming up on Thursday, May 2. It's a day when Americans will gather together to pray that God will grant us mercy and send us the help we need to turn our nation back to Him. The theme this year is "Pray for America." The Scripture that that the organizers have chosen to highlight this theme is Matthew 12:21:

In His name the nations will put their hope.

While we will continue to work hard to ensure that the Virginia General Assembly passes laws that protect life, marriage and our religious liberty in the commonwealth, we are convinced that only through the Lord will our state and nation be saved. Please consider finding a local gathering and participating this year. For your convenience, click here to visit the National Day of Prayer official website. There, you can find locations of announced events as well as other useful information. Click on the "Events" tab to find a prayer gathering near you.

The National Day of Prayer is an important time for us to stop and recognize our need for the Lord as a nation. We all know what a critical time this is. Let us not neglect the One who can deliver us from the dangers that await us if we fail to act.

Attorney General Cuccinelli Defends Federal Marriage Law

The attack on the definition of marriage is never ceasing. So neither is our work. In late May, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, covering Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Maine, New Hampshire and Puerto Rico, ruled that the federal Defense of Marriage Act, legislation protecting the definition of marriage that was signed into law by President Bill Clinton, was unconstitutional. The decision by that court threatens not only the federal DOMA, but the definition of marriage, both constitutional and by statute, in 42 states. The decision has been appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Earlier this month, Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli joined 14 other state attorneys general in filing an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to review the First Circuit's decision. Because the Obama administration refused to uphold its responsibility and defend and enforce federal law, the U.S. House of Representatives assumed the legal defense of the statute.

Amazingly, when the Supreme Court heard oral arguments on Obamacare last spring, President Obama, who once taught constitutional law, said federal courts did not have the right to strike down duly enacted laws by Congress. (What other laws are there?) But he is quite selective in interpreting his own peculiar constitutional interpretations. A year earlier, he instructed his Justice Department to cease its defense of DOMA, in essence asking the courts to declare it unconstitutional. (In fact, his declaration was so outrageous, a federal judge in another case, demanded the U.S. Attorney arguing it, to produce a brief from the Justice Department explaining if the Obama administration believed in the concept of judicial review.)

In the amicus brief, the 15 attorneys general present decades of law and legal precedent pertaining to the states' interest in benefiting heterosexual marriage because of children:

The choice to promote traditional marriages is based on an understanding that civil marriage recognition arises from the need to encourage biological parents to remain together for the sake of their children. It protects the only procreative relationship that exists and makes it more likely that unintended children, among the weakest members of society, will be cared for. ...

This ideal does not disparage the suitability of alternative arrangements where non-biological parents have legal responsibility for children. But these relationships are exactly that — alternatives to the model. States may rationally conclude that, all things being equal, it is better for the biological parents also to be the legal parents, and that marriage promotes that outcome.

Thomas Messner of the Heritage Foundation puts it this way:

Individuals marry based on various private interests. The public interest in marriage, in contrast, is based directly on the role that marriage plays in creating and raising the next generation. Same-sex marriage breaks the essential connection between marriage, children, and the mothers and fathers who create them.

Same-sex marriage also puts the law on the wrong side of reality by claiming that marriage is something other than what it is: the union of husband and wife. Many kinds of relationships are meaningful and valuable to the individuals involved and even to the broader public. But that does not make them marriages. It is not irrational or bigoted for the law to recognize that marriage is a unique kind of relationship deserving a unique kind of status.

Virginians, understanding the preciousness of marriage and its integral role in the raising of children, voted to add an amendment to the state constitution defining marriage in 2006. But the fact that same-sex marriage advocates are 0-30 at the state ballot box is no deterrent to their aggression, and has in fact fueled their anti-religious fervor. The Family Foundation will continue to stand in the gap with those elected officials who stand for marriage and religious liberty to ensure that your values are protected.

Same-Sex Marriage – The New Fix To Boost The Economy?

Marriage is good for the economy. Wedding invitations, photographers, bakeries, florists … if you've recently paid for a wedding yourself, you cringe at the thought of how much you just stimulated the economy. But when University of Pennsylvania professors Betsey Stevenson and Justin Wolfers say that marriage is economically favorable, they mean something entirely different. Professors Stevenson and Wolfers in yesterday’s Richmond Times-Dispatch Op/Ed opine that same-sex marriage is beneficial for the economy … and not in the flowers and invitations kind of way.

Stevenson and Wolfers claim that marriage between man and wife has "evolved" over time. No longer does "separate roles, separate spheres and specialization" define a well-run family institution, but rather they claim we have entered an era in which "washing machines, dishwashers and microwave ovens have reduced the value to the family 'firm' of employing a domestic specialist." And with no need for a "domestic specialist" comes a change in the constitution of marriage. Marriage has become a canvas for the pursuit of pleasure and shared enjoyment or "hedonic marriage" as Stevenson and Wolfers term it.

Enter same-sex marriage.

Stevenson and Wolfers argue that modern "hedonic marriage" doesn’t need a breadwinner and a "domestic specialist," it doesn’t allow for a "nurturer" and a "disciplinarian," it wasn't purposed for procreation or child-rearing, and it definitely doesn’t require one man and one woman. With the purpose of pleasure-seeking, these professors argue that man and man can accomplish this just as well as man and woman.

If the purpose of marriage is as they say it is, then yes, I’ll agree that any combination of two, and why not three or four or five people, can pleasure-seek as well as any other combination. But the fallacy of their argument is the purpose of marriage.

Marriage is a lifelong union between one man and one woman, an institution of God and a foundation for civil society, a strong social order providing a vehicle for long-term economic development and security within society, and a safety net for men, women and children. An abundance of social science shows us that men, women and children benefit economically, physically and emotionally from a stable, traditional two-parent marriage and family. If we want a thriving economy, we have to have thriving, two-parent, mom and dad, families.

Additionally, "domestic specialists" are not as obsolete as Stephenson and Wolfers would have us believe.  According to the U.S. Census Bureau, there were 5 million stay at home moms in the year 2010. Before the recession, a stay at home mom was present in 24 percent of married couples with children under the age of 15. As a side note, the disdain expressed in this Op/Ed over the "domestic specialist" reminds me a bit of the comment Democrat Strategist Hilary Rosen made in reference to Ann Romney being a stay at home mom who "had never worked a day in her life." No matter how specialized and sanitized dishwashers become and no matter how many attachments are included with the latest vacuum, technology will never replace the real work done by stay at home mothers (or dads for that matter). Childrearing and the needs of a child have not changed one bit in all these years over which Stephenson and Wolfers have claimed that parenthood and marriage have "evolved."

Finally, explain to me the following. Polling shows that a large majority of people still long to be married. A vast majority state that marriage is an important life goal of theirs. According to Forbes magazine, the percentage of the American populace that has ever married is 80 percent — still incredibly high. So if we've really moved on from the days of "Ozzie and Harriet" and the 2.3 kids and the white picket fence, and if marriage is just legalized pleasure as Stephenson and Wolfers presume, why do people continue to long for marriage? Is traditional marriage really as obsolete as these professors paint it to be?

If marriage in modern society is nothing more than a legal union for sensual gratification, then true, biblical marriage has been cast aside for ages. But therein lies the catch. From the very foundation of the world, marriage has been a God-ordained institution dedicated to productivity and the establishing of stability in society. To call marriage "hedonic" is an arbitrary statement and shows a lack of understanding of the institution as it was designed and intended.

Candidate Kaine's Marriage "Pirouette"

North Carolinians overwhelmingly voted one week ago to define marriage as between one man and one woman in their state constitution. The same day, Virginia U.S. Senate candidate Tim Kaine was asked about his position on the issue. Kaine’s answer was anything but clear. In fact, his obfuscation led the National Journal to label his attempted response “policy pirouettes" (see Shane Goldmacher at Hotline On Call blog). Kaine said:

The number one issue is should committed couples have the same legal rights and responsibilities and the answer to that is an unequivocal yes. I believe in the legal equality of relationships. Is it marriage, is it civil unions, is it domestic partners? I kind of let that one go.

The crowd and reporters kept pressing, but Kaine remained steadfastly vague. His remarkable press session is chronicled here at the Washington Post's Virginia Politics Blog by Ben Pershing.

In 2006, then Governor Kaine publicly opposed Virginia’s marriage amendment, going so far as to campaign against the measure that eventually passed with 57 percent of the vote. Just a few months before, while a candidate for Governor, Kaine gave The Family Foundation Action the following response to a candidate survey question about the measure:

I have long supported Virginia law that declares marriage to be between a man and a woman, and I support a Constitutional amendment.

Incredibly, just days after being sworn in as governor, Kaine reversed his support for the ballot measure and urged the General Assembly to keep it off the ballot. (The legislation calling for the measure passed the 2005 General Assembly but had to pass again in 2006 to be placed on the ballot.)

At one point during the press availability last week, Kaine indicated that "marriage" is little more than a label, saying, "I think the labels actually get in the way of the issue."

But marriage isn't the only issue on which Kaine has shifted since running for governor in 2005. Relatedly, at that time, he told The Family Foundation and the media that he opposed homosexual couples adopting, but supported Virginia law allowing homosexual individuals to adopt. Late in his administration, however, he introduced a regulation that would have prohibited child placement agencies from considering homosexual behavior at all when choosing parents for adoption. Last year, he said that unmarried homosexual couples should be able to adopt if a judge determined it was in the best interest of the child (contrary to the Virginia Constitution and statute).

One has to wonder why Kaine continues to dodge the question if opinions on the issue of marriage are shifting — as constantly asserted as fact by same-sex marriage supporters and mainstream media. Of course, while progressives insist that Americans are shifting in their opinion on the definition of marriage, they are 0-31 when it comes to marriage amendments at the ballot box. Candidate Kaine knows that.

Conveniently in 2005, Kaine invoked his Catholic faith in response to his position on the death penalty. No mention of Church teaching on this issue. Hmmm. Our guess, however, is that whatever he says on the issue while on the campaign trail doesn't really matter. History has proven that Tim Kaine's position is likely to change as soon as Election Day is over.

Common Ground On Abortion?

Last week, Gallup released some very encouraging polling numbers regarding abortion regulations. Since the poll didn't relate to homosexual activity or signal growing support of abortion, the national news media decided you didn't need to know. We did. The poll, conducted in July and released last week, shows that even self-identified "pro-choice" Americans are more likely to support laws prohibiting abortion after the first trimester except for the most extreme circumstances. A majority polled also stated that abortion should be illegal in all or most circumstances. Support was overwhelming for laws such as parental consent, informed consent and bans on partial birth abortion, all of which we have successfully passed in Virginia.

It seems that the extreme abortion industry, led by Planned Parenthood and NARAL, have seen that they are rapidly losing ground in the area of public opinion. Rants on NARAL Pro-Choice Virginia's blog chastise the General Assembly for passing the most reasonable and widely supported abortion measures, such as parental consent and informed consent. As public opinion continues to move toward life, the pro-abortion rhetoric gets more desperate — and peculiar. In Arizona, for example, Planned Parenthood argued against a requirement that abortions be performed by a licensed doctor, calling it an "undue burden." Luckily, the state appeals court last week unanimously rejected its argument. (See another Planned Parenthood deception, here, at LiveAction.org. You won't believe the new low road it's taken.)

Clearly outside the mainstream, these organizations continue to advocate abortion on demand throughout pregnancy with no restrictions and no oversight — and support forcing you to pay for it. Except for a very few, such thinking is clearly beyond the values most Virginians share and explains why pro-abortion candidates that take these extreme positions are fewer and fewer in number.

We understand that, as with polling on homosexual behavior and marriage, opinions on abortion often are confused and conflicting. One isolated media poll does not the truth make. For example, within a few days earlier this summer two separate polls came to opposite conclusions on the issue of same-sex marriage. Regardless of the polling, all that really matters is that the 31 times the issue has been put to a vote, traditional marriage has won. Plus, Virginians continue to send pro-marriage legislators to Richmond.

The same holds true for the issue of abortion. Virginians have been sending more and more pro-life legislators to Richmond in recent elections, indicating that the abortion polling numbers may be on to something. As we've said for years, more and more Americans — and Virginians — are becoming pro-life every day. The results are the passage of reasonable, common sense measures, such as abortion center safety regulations. Consequently, we look forward to having more pro-life advocates in the General Assembly this coming January.

What’s Next for Same-Sex Marriage Advocates?

Proponents of same-sex marriage are quick to claim that all they want is "marriage equality." Nothing more. They’ll be content if they can just have "equality." But we all know that reality doesn't end there. In recent weeks, same-sex advocates have finally begun to admit it themselves. Published only days ago in a New York Times piece, Stanford Law Professor Ralph Banks, asks:

What now of the two remaining criminal prohibitions of intimate relationships: incest and polygamy? Even as same sex ... relationships are accepted, Americans are now imprisoned for incest and polygamy. ... Over time, our moral assessments of these practices will shift. … Should a state be permitted to imprison two cousins because they have sex or attempt to marry? Should a man and two wives be permitted to live together as a family when they assert that their religious convictions lead them to do so?

Just the rantings of a left-wing professor? No. Professor Banks' words actually have proven to be prophetic (see ADF's Jordan Lorence at the Christian Post blog, here). Just days after the governor of New York signed its same-sex marriage bill into law, a man in Utah, along with his four wives, were inspired to file a lawsuit challenging Utah's polygamy ban, stating, "We only wish to live our private lives according to our beliefs."

Just equality, right?

Homosexual rights advocate Dan Savage goes even further and continues the marriage muddling, arguing, "We aren’t wired for monogamy." He tells the New York Times magazine that America needs a more "realistic" view of marriage and that it's the LGBT community's responsibility to bring "open relationships" to the definition of marriage — to create an environment that's "more forgiving of the occasional affair." Savage's "It Gets Better" homosexuality campaign targets children and teenagers and is promoted by homosexual groups as an "anti-bullying" project to be used by public schools.

John Corvine, professor at Wayne State University, is heading in the same direction as Professor Banks and Mr. Savage. Reflecting on the same-sex marriage debate in New York, Professor Corvine writes:

It’s worth remembering that polygamy is quite "traditional," even biblical. It is no more logically connected to one side of this debate than the other. The truth is that New York granted same-sex couples marriage rights not because of a radical idea, but because of an old-fashioned one: when two individuals commit to a lifetime of mutual love and care, it's good to support them — or at least get out of their way.

When we stray from the God-given confines of marriage, where do we draw the line? How is it fair to term one meandering relationship "recognized" without validating the other variations? Where does it end?

Same-sex advocates have no intention of declaring victory in New York and calling it quits. The goal is not to advance "equality." The goal is to redefine marriage until existing sexual norms are no longer in existence. Counterfeit forms of marriage cheapen and undermine real marriage. The union of a man and a woman in a committed marriage is the foundation of a stable society. Traditional marriage and family are too important for society to experiment with to advance a political agenda.

Social science and history concur: men, women and children are more likely to succeed emotionally, financially, and educationally within a two-parent, mother-father, married family. Marriage, properly defined, matters. Regardless of the agenda of left-wing advocates, The Family Foundation will continue to fight to protect the definitions and institutions of marriage and family in our Commonwealth.

Stifling The "Free Expression" Of Gender

The residents of Stockholm, Sweden have decided to participate in a social engineering experiment. Stockholm's Egalia is a school funded by taxpayer dollars that accepts children between the ages of one and six. Children are read books by their teachers and are given legos and toy kitchens to play with. Besides the taxpayer funding, Egalia sounds pretty normal, something you’d find in your town, no? Here's the difference: Egalia calls the children "friends" not "boys" or "girls" and avoids using gender-descriptive terms such as "him" or "her." Gender stereotyping is to be avoided at all costs. Building blocks are placed next to the toy oven. You won't find fairytale books with a prince slaying a dragon to rescue his princess — too much pressure for the "friends" to handle. As if that's not enough, Egalia is also encouraging of homosexual lifestyles. Replacing the fairytales are books narrating "alternative" lifestyles (two male giraffes adopting a baby crocodile) and instead of one mom, two or three moms are suggested when the "friends" want to play house.

Then there's a story that recently aired out of Toronto — a couple decided not to reveal the gender of their youngest child, Storm (see Discovery.com). The parents decided that in his/her time, Storm will decide what he/she wants to be. Why stifle his/her creativity?!  As Storm's mom writes, “The idea that the whole world must know our baby's sex strikes me as unhealthy, unsafe and voyeuristic.” Storm has two older brothers, Kio (age two) and Jazz (age five). While the family admits that both are boys, they allow for "freedom of gender expression." For example, Jazz often sports a sparkly pink dress with his hair in pigtails and Kio is unashamed of his love for leggings. Storm's family is not a first to venture into this realm. A family in Sweden continues to hide the gender of their four-year-old, "Pop." Cheryl Kildavis of Seattle allows her five-year-old-son, Dyson, to wear dresses and be a princess for Halloween — a behavior she decided to turn lucrative in her recently published children's picture book, "My Princess Boy."

The goal of all these stories is the same: freedom of sexual expression and gender identity. Aside from the absurdity of ignoring the clear biological differences between males and females, maybe it doesn't seem to be a big deal that a little boy wants to wear a dress. After all, he's only five. But it's the beginning of a slippery slope of confusion engineered by homosexual sympathetic adults. Homosexual advocate and journalist, Daniel Villareal, writes:

Let’s face it. ... We want educators to teach future generations of children to accept queer sexuality. In fact, our very future depends on it. ... Why would we put anti-bullying programs or social studies classes that teach kids about the historical contributions of famous queers unless we wanted to deliberately educate children to accept queer sexuality as normal?

Children are impressionable. Homosexual activists are keenly aware of this and have brought the propaganda war directly to them — embracing parents who muddle the clear cut male or female identity of their children, recruiting teachers to encourage the gender confusion, and then infiltrating the media with stories of homosexual couples "suppressed from equality." This is all a part of the attempt to ease a gradual alteration of public sentiment toward homosexuality, with same-sex marriage and intolerance of Biblical mindsets the ultimate goal.

Think of Sweden, home to the gender-neutral pre-school Egalia and to the "genderless" four-year-old Pop. Then say with a straight face it didn't lead to Sweden's reputation as the country with the most homosexual-friendly laws. Often, there is victory in confusion. The homosexual agenda is banking on it.

It's "Gay" Marriage, Stupid!

The normal political diatribe for years, from politicians and pundits alike, has been that the focus of nearly every candidate and elected official is and ought to be the economy. No need to be "distracted" by or waste time on those pesky social issues. Usually, that line is thrown in the face of values voters who actually care about the culture. Seldom is it used against those whose "values" are different than ours. Remember another famous line, "It's the economy, stupid"? With New York's legislature and Governor Andrew Cuomo recently passing and signing same-sex marriage into law (see Chuck Donovan at Heritage's The Foundry Blog), the claim by any liberal politician or pundit — or anyone else for that matter — that the focus is, and must be, on economic issues amounts to nothing more than blatant hypocrisy. After all, during an economic meltdown in a state bleeding jobs, in a state on the verge of economic bankruptcy, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, Governor Cuomo and the entire legislature were "distracted" for days debating homosexual marriage. (Not to mention Congress and the Obama administration last December, during a lame duck session, ramming through repeal of the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy as unemployment continued to skyrocket.)

Simply put, the next time someone tells you that social issues are a distraction from what's really important, they must be forced to answer the question, "What about New York?"

In Virginia, as we approach this November's crucial elections, that question isn't just for us, it's for the candidates as well. After all, as liberals across Virginia celebrate New York's attempt at redefining one of God's most basic institutions, candidates for the House of Delegates and the Virginia Senate must be asked, "What about New York?"

Politicians, policy makers and pundits, academics and activists simply can’t have it both ways. If social issues such as homosexual marriage are a distraction from the important economic issues, then every candidate in Virginia — regardless of political party — must reject what has happened in New York. If taking weeks to debate the definition of marriage is a waste of time then every candidate in Virginia must be absolutely critical of their colleagues in New York.

Is the same-sex marriage debate a distraction from what’s important? Yes? Go ahead, and say so. Oh, and if it's not, feel free to run on that in Southside and central Virginia.

Virginians made it clear where they stand on the issue of same-sex marriage in 2006. While the ink on our state constitutional amendment is barely dry, we at The Family Foundation have attempted to focus on other issues in recent years, issues like strengthening traditional marriage — the best economic safety net there is — to ensure Virginia’s future economic strength. But with what happened in New York, we have little choice but to once again ask every candidate for office in Virginia, "What about New York?"

So, maybe the question isn't so much about the economy as it is about New York. We look forward to their responses.

It's Only A Matter Of Time

In just the past few years, nearly half a dozen states have voted to make it legal. Public polling on it has reversed and a majority of Americans (including a large majority of Virginians) now are in support of it.

It is one of the most important civil rights issues of our day.

What is "it" you ask? With all the media coverage and hyperventilation over New York's legislature voting to approve homosexual marriage, you would think that is the answer. But it is not.

"It" is actually school choice, the opportunity for school children to attend the school that best suits their educational needs. Yet, compared to the nearly daily media articles, plethora of news editorials and nearly constant television news cycle coverage of one state's legislature passage of same sex marriage, you wouldn't know that school choice is expanding far faster and is vastly more popular.

Wonder why?

It's quite simply. The political and media elites that are foaming at the mouth over same sex marriage, because they support it, aren't so fond of the idea that parents ought to choose where to send their children to school.

While homosexual organizations and proponents were celebrating their "victory" in New York, we began receiving media calls asking for comment about how that vote affects Virginia. Interestingly, when Pennsylvania passed school choice, no one called. When Arizona passed school choice, no one called. When Florida passed school choice, no one called. When Indiana passed school choice, no one called. When Wisconsin passed school choice, no one called.

When we released polling that indicated 76 percent of Virginians support education freedom, not a peep from the news media.

So let's take the same sex marriage message of some in the media and homosexual advocates to its logical conclusion: because one state, New York, has passed homosexual marriage, it's inevitable that all other states will follow suit. Because one recent media poll indicated that a majority of Americans support same-sex marriage, it's only a matter of time before it's legal everywhere. Because homosexual groups claim it's a "civil rights" issue, there can be no logical opposition.

If that's true, then I expect our Commonwealth's most ardent opponents of school choice, homosexual rights advocates such as Delegate David Englin (D-45, Alexandria) and Senator Dick Saslaw (D-35, Springfield), to carry the banner for education freedom very soon. After all, if one state has made it law and one poll says it's popular, well then, there's nothing anyone can do to stop it! I expect the editorial pages at the Washington Post, Richmond Times-Dispatch, Roanoke Times and Norfolk Virginian-Pilot to beat the drum for education choice any day now!

Yeah, I'm not holding my breath either.

American Voters On Same-Sex Marriage: Not So Fast!

Recent news reports have celebrated Mainstream Media driven polling that suggests Americans are becoming more supportive of same-sex marriage. Proponents of redefining marriage have bludgeoned citizens through op-eds, letters to the editor and media appearances, making some who believe marriage is a sacred union between one man and one woman wonder if homosexual marriage is inevitable (as we noted about New York earlier this week, for example). But a new, comprehensive, scientific poll, coupled with analysis of marriage amendment voting patterns, shows that a vast majority of Americans still believe in the traditional definition of marriage — by a wide margin. It found that 62 percent of Americans believe marriage is only between one man and one woman, with 53 percent strongly agreeing with that statement. The survey was commissioned by the Alliance Defense Fund and conducted by the nationally known public opinion research firm Public Opinion Strategies between May 16 and May 19.

Public Opinion Strategies Partner Gene Ulm, who directed the survey, said:

These numbers are not surprising. More than 63 million Americans in 31 state elections have voted on constitutional marriage amendments. Forty million Americans in all — 63 percent of total voters — have voted to affirm marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

Look at that last statement closely. Sixty-three percent of voters in the nation have already voted in favor of traditional marriage, which reflects the percentage in the poll (see state-by-state voting chart). Regardless of what left-leaning media driven polls say, those voters have made their decision — and they support God's design for marriage.

Public Opinion Strategies is a nationwide firm that has provided polling for Fortunate 100 companies, NBC, the Wall Street Journal and NPR. According to ADF:

The survey was part of a broad and comprehensive effort examining American attitudes toward marriage. In addition to the national survey, the effort included 14 focus groups completed across the country.

Needless to say, this report should serve as an encouragement to all of us, and also remind us that we cannot be deceived by media reports that led some to believe that the marriage issue is lost. Indeed, we are the majority on this important, society defining issue.

But same-sex marriage advocates and their allies in the national media and government are not going to give up their relentless assault on marriage. Here in Virginia, where we've settled the issue of marriage in our Constitution, homosexual advocates are pushing their agenda through non-discrimination policies in state government, policies that are unnecessary, illegal, and threaten our tradition of religious liberty. While we've won the marriage issue, we must continue to be vigilant in our defense of our freedoms.

What's Natural? NFL Great David Tyree Trips Up Elitist CNN Anchor On Marriage

New York is in the throes of an intense political battle over same-sex marriage. A bill that would legalize it is in that state's senate and it is close to having the votes to pass. Perhaps its biggest hurdle is time — the legislative session is close to over and lawmakers from the Democrat-controlled House and Republican-controlled Senate and Governor Andrew Cuomo are negotiating ways to end on time. One report suggests the end-of-session agenda does not include the same-sex marriage vote (see the New York Times' City Room blog). While the homosexual lobby is pressing the Senate to redefine marriage (it passed the lower chamber), pro-marriage advocates are asking for a different type of vote — a statewide referendum, which the homosexual lobby adamantly opposes. Why wouldn't they? More than 30 states have put the question to their citizens and all have voted to protect traditional marriage. Even California.

A wild card in the New York debate is David Tyree, a former New York Giants Super Bowl hero and star wide receiver. He taped an interview with the National Organization for Marriage voicing his support for marriage as between a man and a woman. The video has gone viral in a big way, which hasn't pleased the radical left. In it, he articulated an instinctive common sense, grounded in elemental and eternal truth: That marriage is neither a government, nor a man-made creation. That before there were countries or governments, men and women instinctively united to create families and nowhere was anything other than nature's union considered equal. It is a Godly institution ordained on Earth, through nature, a manifestation of the Holy Trinity.

Of course, Mr. Tyree's defense of marriage has upset many of New York's elites and the media who once adored him for a spectacular Super Bowl saving catch for the Giants. (Funny how athletes in favor of same-sex marriage get a pass. See Jemele Hill at ESPN.com.) Here's how CNN's Kyra Phillips treated him, for example. Odd how she, who can't understand "natural," tried to put words in his mouth then make him out to be Bozo. After Mr. Tyree explained that marriage was ordained for procreation and therefore natural, Ms. Phillips — as were the New England Patriot defenders who covered him on that unforgettable catch — was left dumbfounded, producing a couple of seconds of dead air. Then:

Phillips: I'm still, uhhh, I am still trying to understand what you mean by it (same-sex marriage) not being "natural."

Tyree: I don't understand what's difficult. A man and a woman come together to procreate. A man and a man will never procreate. ...

Phillips: What about infertile couples? Infertile couples have children all the time. Is that natural?

Tyree: How is that? What is that? That has no bearing. That makes no sense. A  man and a woman are still coming together to raise a child which actually paints a nuclear family.

Finally and thankfully! Someone called out an elitist for trying to make traditional values sound backwards when, in fact, those attempting to redefine an ageless institution are those who contrive arguments, believe nonsense and fall back on the non-sequitur. What's natural? Give us a break!

Here's the video that started the "controversy." Better than that is the one following, which took place a capitol news conference yesterday in Albany, where Mr. Tyree spoke with conviction, clarity, courage and grace (see NOM Blog).

A spectacular catch — for traditional marriage supporters in New York . . .

NFL great and Super Bowl hero David Tyree speaks the truth despite the elitist Leftists trying to belittle his adherence to Nature's Truth.

Virginians Support Same-Sex Marriage? Not So Fast . . .

The Sunday before Election Day 2006, a Richmond Times-Dispatch headline screamed that polling showed the Marriage Amendment campaign had tightened. The poll said that the amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman was supported by a slim 49-45 percent margin. That was the closest poll we had ever seen on the issue. Two days later, the amendment passed by a 14 point margin, 57-43 percent. How could the T-D poll have been so wrong just two days prior to the vote?

Polls taken over the years on the definition of marriage have wavered more than Tim Kaine on gay adoption (remember, running for governor in 2005 he opposed homosexual couples adopting, but now he's in favor of it). For example, Gallup polling on the issue of homosexual marriage went from 46 percent support in 2007, down to 40 percent in 2008 and 2009, but back up to 44 percent in 2010. So it doesn't surprise me at all that a Washington Post media poll of 1,000 people has found that, according to the Post, "Virginians are closely split on gay marriage" — and that the rest of the state's mainstream media ran with it.

But are they really?

The truth is that polls have been overwhelmingly disconnected from reality when it comes to the issue of homosexual marriage. One need look only as far as the 31 states that have had the issue put to the voters, and in every case the traditional definition of marriage has won, including California.

The longer I am involved in politics, the more dismissive I have become of most media polling. Many experts believe that, particularly on the issues of abortion and homosexuality, a lot of people tell a pollster what they think the pollster wants to hear. On the issue of same-sex marriage, while a few media polls indicate that people support it, in the 31 states where it has gone to the ballot the people have overwhelmingly rejected it. One might tell their neighbor they are open to homosexual marriage, but when the reality is in front of them in the voting booth, traditional marriage still resonates instinctively, intuitively, justly . . . morally.

Social issues such as abortion and homosexuality have dynamics at play that I don't think can be measured with simple media polling. Asking 1,000 people a simple question doesn't generally get to the core of complex issues. It makes for interesting editorial page fodder, but I doubt too many people take it seriously, except for the so-called "progressives" who will no doubt champion the media poll and bring the issue before the next General Assembly. I suspect some will even attempt to make it a campaign issue (funny, I thought it was all about the economy).

But I also find it interesting that the same "progressives" reject professional (not media) polling that shows an overwhelming number of Virginians support school choice. You see, polling can work both ways, which is why no one should base their beliefs or agenda on it. Sure, professionally done, in depth issue polling can provide insight, but hastily done media polls done over a weekend for the mainstream media isn't something I want to base any policy decision on. I certainly wouldn't want to base the future of our children on it.

Thanks, But No Thanks

So the fissure between some in the "Tea Party" movement and "social conservatives" continues to fester beneath the surface of American politics, revealing itself periodically, but not quite coming to a boil — yet. Yesterday, Politico ran a story about a letter sent by GOProud, a homosexual activist group, some tea party leaders and various bloggers, urging Republican leaders in Washington to avoid putting forward any legislation on those nasty little  social issues the Tea Party seems so bent on ignoring. Focus, they say, solely on limiting government. 

Mitch Daniels, your office is calling.

Truce. Let's bury the hatchet for a while and just focus on the issues where we agree. We'll get back to the "divisive social issues" later. There are more important things to deal with. 

We've heard it all before.

Now, there are many possible responses to this foolish line of thinking, not the least of which is the polling that shows an overwhelming majority of tea partiers as socially conservative, and the fact that pro-life and pro-marriage candidates dominate the class of new Congressmen that will arrive in Washington in January — many of whom ran campaigns that touted their socially conservative leanings. 

But you know all that already. 

I have some other reactions (not all printable!). For instance, this truce that's being pushed, does it include, say, GOProud's friends at the Human Rights Campaign and their state chapters like Equality Virginia? Or Planned Parenthood? Or NARAL? Will they cease and desist from pushing their agenda's during the "truce"? No more coming to the government for grants? No more money to Planned Parenthood? No more attempts to legislate same-sex marriage? 

Yea, that's what I thought. So we're being asked to just play defense? Sorry, I'll pass.

And why can't we focus on more than one issue at a time? Is it really that difficult? Honestly, social conservatives, who are also overwhelmingly fiscally conservative, have no problem working on lowering taxes and decreasing the enormity of government at the same time they seek to restore some ethical standards that once under-girded our culture. Is it so bad that our politicians can't think about two issues at once?

Don't answer that.

Frankly, this whole debate is wearing thin. News flash: social issues aren't going away. They aren't going away because for a large segment of the electorate, on both the left and the right, these issues matter. They matter a lot. They matter to those of us who believe that strong, stable, two parent families will reduce poverty a lot faster than any government program. They matter to those of us who understand that losing 50 million people from the population since abortion was made legal has had a $35 trillion negative impact on our economy (not to mention the fact that those are 50 million human beings we're talking about!). They matter to those of us who understand that our freedom to say what we believe and exercise our faith in the public square is threatened by the relentless march of secularism.

So no, I won't be joining any truce. The Family Foundation isn't joining any truce. We aren't going away. No matter how badly some in the "Tea Party" wish we would.

Incredible, Yet Predictable: Prop 8 Decision Dissected By Ed Meese

Here's a peek inside U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker's ruling that declared unconstitutional California's Prop 8 (Marriage Amendment) by former U.S. Attorney General Ed Meese (now at The Heritage Foundation). Unfortunately, as incredible (in the literal sense of the word) as Judge Walker's decision was, it was predictable given that it was agenda driven and not based on the law, precedent, legal standards of evidence or any hint of sound reasoning.  So egregious, in fact, that the most liberal appeals court in the land, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, earlier this week issued a stay of his ruling to at least January. On Tuesday, Mr. Meese wrote an op-ed in the Washington Post that concisely dissects the many incorrect paths Judge Walker took to his conclusion (read here). More precisely, he shreds them. Here is an example:  

Regardless of whether one agrees with the result, structurally sound opinions always confront binding legal precedent. Walker's is a clear exception because the U.S. Supreme Court has spoken on whether a state's refusal to authorize same-sex marriage violates the equal protection and due process clauses of the 14th Amendment. In 1972, Baker v. Nelson, a case over whether Minnesota violated the Constitution by issuing marriage licenses only to opposite-sex couples, was unanimously thrown out on the merits, for lack of a substantial federal question. 

That is, to say, the feds have no say in states role in regulating marriage. In addition, the judge ignored factual evidence submitted by Prop 8 attorneys, while — again, incredibly — making up his own evidence. Writes Mr. Meese:

Despite voluminous evidence and common sense pointing to the contrary, the judge also declared that opposite sexes were never part of the "historical core of the institution of marriage"; "evidence shows conclusively that moral and religious views form the only basis for a belief that same-sex couples are different than opposite-sex couples"; traditional marriage is an "artifact"; and, also without reference to the monumental evidence to the contrary, that it is beyond "any doubt that parents' genders are irrelevant to children's developmental outcomes."

These assertions appear in the opinion's "findings of fact" section, yet they are not facts. These "findings" derive from arbitrary and capricious non-analysis and are forcefully contradicted by evidence in the court record. No appellate court should allow the ruling to stand.

Judge Walker than implies that opponents of same-sex marriage are bigots — a big, bold, italics, underlined highlight to what is an agenda-policy statement, rather than a legal ruling. As Mr. Meese points out, that means:

President Obama, Vice President Biden, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the majority of members of Congress and the 7 million Californians who voted for Proposition 8 are all bigots who have "no rational reason" to oppose gay marriage.

Mr. Meese's op-ed is a good read on the law that lay people can understand and which we commend to you. It also sounds like a firm outline on which the decision's appeal should be made.

Sign The Petition: Defense Of Marriage Act Needs An Appropriate Defense By The Obama Justice Department

Even as the fallout from the Prop 8 ruling is still getting sorted, another legal proceeding dealing with a major marriage protection law is ongoing. But barely. Whereas the defenders of California's Marriage Amendment filed a prompt appeal and yesterday won a stay on San Francisco Federal District Judge Vaughn Walker's deplorable decision at least until the end of the year (San Francisco Chronicle), the Obama Justice Department's weak and meek defense of the federal Defense of Marriage Act appears to have "thrown the match" and it says it is not certain whether it will appeal a recent Massachusetts Federal District Court's decision that ruled DOMA unconstitutional. As Chuck Donovan writes at The Heritage Foundation's The Foundry blog:

Echoing some of the most notorious boxing matches in the history of the ring, the Obama-Kagan Justice Department engaged in what even one supporter of same-sex marriage, the distinguished constitutional law scholar Richard Epstein, labeled "almost like collusive litigation," where the adversaries in a case are secretly on the same side.

The collusion boils down to this: attorneys in the Obama Justice Department, who have sworn that they will "well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office" in which they serve, abandoned not one but all four of the bases for DOMA asserted by Congress. "Congress" in this instance was no small minority cobbled together at the last instant for legislation it scarcely debated, but a bipartisan majority that encompassed 85 percent of both houses of Congress, joined by a Democratic president (Bill Clinton) who had access to comprehensive reports that amplified the many grounds for DOMA.

The Justice Department’s concessions were crucial to the outcome in the case. As Judge Joseph Tauro noted, he felt bound to address the detailed justifications Congress provided for DOMA only briefly, because, "For the purposes of this litigation, the government has disavowed Congress’s stated justifications for the statute[.]"

As Family Research Council President Tony Perkins (see FRC Blog) wrote yesterday: 

The Defense of Marriage Act merely defines marriage — for federal purposes — as being between one man and one woman, and protects states from having to change their state definitions. Not surprisingly, a liberal court in Massachusetts — after a weak defense from the Obama Justice Department — ruled DOMA unconstitutional. Amazingly, the federal government appears to be dragging its feet as they contemplate whether or not to EVEN APPEAL the decision! If the Department of Justice does not appeal, it is unlikely outside defenders of marriage will even be allowed to defend marriage in court.

The Department of Justice is supposed to vigorously defend statutes passed by Congress, not to roll over to appease President Obama's political base.

So, FRC Action has started a nationwide petition to hold the Justice Department accountable and to do its job — appeal and aggressively defend the law of the land. Please take time to sign the petition (click here to sign) and send a clear message to the Obama administration. He has said he believes marriage is between one man and one woman (ABCNews.com). It's time he proves it with a vigorous defense of federal law he is sworn to uphold.