NFL Football Players Speak Out On Marriage

Of all the discussion on marriage lately, none has been so unique as the dialogue between the National Football Players for the Baltimore Ravens, with a few politicians and critics poking in here and there.

Baltimore Ravens linebacker Brendon Ayanbadejo has publicly expressed support for same-sex marriage, and Baltimore Ravens Center Matt Birk, after some back and forth with other players, recently expressed his views in the Minneapolis Star-Tribune.  Minnesota will vote on marriage this fall.  Birk's candid, focused, measured, and well-reasoned reply

reveals why he holds his views on marriage protection, and why Brendon Ayanbadejo respects him for those views.

Children have a right to a mom and a dad, and I realize that this doesn't always happen. Through the work my wife and I do at pregnancy resource centers and underprivileged schools, we have witnessed firsthand the many heroic efforts of single mothers and fathers -- many of whom work very hard to provide what's best for their kids.

But recognizing the efforts of these parents and the resiliency of some (not all, unfortunately) of these kids, does not then give society the right to dismiss the potential long-term effects on a child of not knowing or being loved by his or her mother or father. Each plays a vital role in the raising of a child.

Marriage is in trouble right now -- admittedly, for many reasons that have little to do with same-sex unions. In the last few years, political forces and a culture of relativism have replaced "I am my brother's keeper" and "love your neighbor as yourself" with "live and let live" and "if it feels good, go ahead and do it."

The effects of no-fault divorce, adultery, and the nonchalant attitude toward marriage by some have done great harm to this sacred institution. How much longer do we put the desires of adults before the needs of kids? Why are we not doing more to lift up and strengthen the institution of marriage?

Same-sex unions may not affect my marriage specifically, but it will affect my children -- the next generation. Ideas have consequences, and laws shape culture. Marriage redefinition will affect the broader well-being of children and the welfare of society. As a Christian and a citizen, I am compelled to care about both.

I am speaking out on this issue because it is far too important to remain silent. People who are simply acknowledging the basic reality of marriage between one man and one woman are being labeled as "bigots" and "homophobic." Aren't we past that as a society?

Don't we all have family members and friends whom we love who have same-sex attraction? Attempting to silence those who may disagree with you is always un-American, but especially when it is through name-calling, it has no place in respectful conversation.

A defense of marriage is not meant as an offense to any person or group. All people should be afforded their inalienable American freedoms. There is no opposition between providing basic human rights to everyone and preserving marriage as the sacred union of one man and one woman.

Matt Birk has received a great deal of criticism and name calling since his opinion was published, but his teammate Brendon Ayanbadejo came to his defense on Twitter.  “I don’t think he’s homophobic, Ayanbadejo tweeted, “Matt Birk is an amazing father, teammate, man!”  Focus on the Family's Jim Daly wrote a great piece highlighting Matt Birk's express views on marriage and and opening a public discussion on the matter at  http://www.focusonlinecommunities.com/blogs/Finding_Home/2012/10/03/this-nfl-player-said-what?refcd=136901.

There has been a great deal of posting on marriage here at Family Restoration, and you may want to consider again what's happening in Minnesota, Maine, Washington, and Maryland by reading my post on the JURIST at http://jurist.org/forum/2012/06/lynne-kohm-marriage-referendum.php, or here on this blog at http://www.regentfamilyrestoration.blogspot.com/2012/09/marriage-and-election-2012.html.  But hearing it from players for the Baltimore Ravens in a state like Maryland that is politically battling over the issue adds spark and substance to a matter that is significantly important to families not only in Maryland and Minnesota, but across the entire country. 

African Americans with Family Values Face Tough Election

African Americans who understand the importance of marriage to family restoration face a tough election choice in November. In fact, a recent article by Bethany Monk of CitizenLink is entitled "Black Voters Say They May Stay Home on Election Day." In the September 17, 2012 piece Monk writes: "Left with the option of voting for a presidential candidate who supports same-sex marriage or one who practices the Mormon faith, some black pastors are encouraging their congregations to just stay home on Election Day." Read that entire article here at http://www.citizenlink.com/2012/09/17/black-voters-say-they-may-stay-home-on-election-day/.

The Huffington Post is also reporting a similar story at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/16/african-american-christians-voting-election_n_1887956.html. It is very significant that President Obama won 95 percent of black votes in 2008, but many of those voters are not certain they will repeat that vote. "When President Obama made the public statement on gay marriage, I think it put a question in our minds as to what direction he's taking the nation," said the Rev. A.R. Bernard, founder of the predominantly African-American Christian Cultural Center in New York. According to the Post, Bernard's endorsement is much sought-after in New York and beyond, but he's unsure how he'll vote this year. According to The Associated Press (AP), most churchgoers cannot support same-sex marriage, as President Obama has done publicly since May. Another point for African-American voters is the previous prohibition on blacks into the priesthood of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Although the ban was lifted in 1978, church authorities never explained why, and never issued a formal apology.

These concerns tend to leave African-American Christian voters in a conundrum. It is unclear just how widespread the sentiment is that African-American Christians would be better off not voting at all. Many pastors have said that despite their misgivings about the candidates, blacks have fought too hard for the vote to ever stay away from the polls.

According to the Washington Post, Obama faces widespread discontent among black voters. Read that piece at http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-faces-growing-discontent-among-black-voters/2011/09/23/gIQA3vYurK_story.html. Family values are a primary concern, along with joblessness, and a poor economy.

A valuable vote is not something to waste. The challenge is to use that vote to make a difference. Exercising the freedom to participate in the American Democracy is a significant victory in and of itself. Voting for values in that critical opportunity should not be passed up.

Marriage makes families strong, and strong families make a stronger nation. Whatever your race, ethnicity, religion, or creed, vote to bring restoration to families that need it. Marriage is absolutely vital to family restoration - and one vote can make a tremendous difference.

Children Targeted in the Classroom for Defending Marriage

Children deserve the protection of marriage as foundation for a healthy family. They should not be ridiculed for understanding this basic fact. Consider this report from the National Organization for Marriage:



FROM WEDNESDAY, APRIL 25, 2012

"He said we lost our right to free speech when we walked into that classroom."

Dear Marriage Supporter,

He's 14 years old and goes to Church with his parents.

And he was recently kicked out of class and threatened with suspension by his teacher. What did he do wrong?

He disagreed with his economics teacher over the morality of homosexual conduct.

THAT'S IT!

Click here to listen to Daniel Glowacki tell his story in his own words.

Entering his economics classroom, Daniel asked a question of the teacher: Why did a fellow student have to take off her Confederate belt buckle to enter the class, but the students had to listen to the teacher's own political activism?

For that, he was thrown out of class.

But that was just the beginning.

As he left class, the teacher called him a racist and a bigot and told him that he was going to have Daniel suspended for bullying and harassment against homosexuals!

That began a campaign against Daniel...Facebook, email, radio and television appearances...all decrying this 14-year-old boy as a bigot and a hater.

My friend, is this what society has come to?

We started the Marriage Anti-Defamation Alliance to shed light on the deplorable behavior of the radical same-sex marriage advocates who are running roughshod over the freedoms and religious liberties of Americans all across the country.

Please go to marriageada.org and watch this video. You and I need to be informed and we need to stand up to the bullies who are trying to tell us that we are second-class citizens for believing that marriage is between a man and a woman because children need a mother and a father.

Faithfully,

Brian S. Brown
Executive Director
NOM Education Fund

P.S. We must debunk the myth that the same-sex marriage movement is about "live-and-let-live." We cannot let them have a free pass when they're attacking our CHILDREN. So, please, forward this email to three friends right now so they can see the truth and get involved.

Simply visit MarriageADA.org to learn about the vicious attacks on your religious liberties going on all across America. Thank you again, and God bless you!

North Carolina Supports Marriage

North Carolina joined 40 other states in cementing marriage as the basis of society, and the foundation of family law with a vote of 61% in favor of marriage, and 39% voting against the amendment, favoring marriage expansion instead.

This constitutional amendment holds judicial restraint on marriage from any recognition of a marriage-like relationship that does not meet the now-North Carolina definition, and orders that those relationships valid in other jurisdictions not be recognized in the State. See the MSNBC story on the constitutional referendum at
http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/05/08/11584860-backers-of-north-carolina-gay-marriage-ban-state-no-longer-vulnerable. See the New York Times article on it here: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/09/us/north-carolina-voters-pass-same-sex-marriage-ban.html?partner=rss&emc=rss.

I have written on this topic widely, from the collateral effects of marriage expansion, to the importance of marriage to children and States generally, and the effects of marriage on wealth and business. Those articles can be accessed through my scholarship posted on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at http://ssrn.com/author=183817 . This scholarship affords a more in depth analysis of marriage from a family law foundation toward family restoration.

Marriage is now supported by more than 80% of the United States. The move toward marriage expansion and away from the solid foundation of one man and one woman is once again resoundingly declined. If not obvious to the media and legal elite, marriage and its meaning is most obvious to the general public as a foundation for society, the family, and the best chance for the thriving stability of children.

Should Christians stop adoption/foster care if required to work with same sex couples?

Click here to read the full version of this article from Christianity Today regarding same-sex couples and adoption, featuring Professor Kohm as she urges foster care agencies to fight unconstitutional mandates and uphold what is in the best interest of the child.

14-year-old Sarah Crank testified before the Maryland Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee on January 31st. She urged the committee to vote in favor of marriage and decline to endorse same sex unions. She stated: "I really feel bad for the kids who have two parents of the same gender. Even though some kids think it's fine, they have no idea what kind of wonderful experiences they miss out on. I don't want more kids to get confused about what's right and okay. I really don't want to grow up in a world where marriage isn't such a special thing anymore." Click here to listen to Sarah's complete 60-second testimony.

When government loses perspective on the importance of marriage, its inherent qualities and characteristics are often still apparent to children. Often, however, the long arm of the government may attempt to reach into family’s homes and control what parents teach their own children in their own homes about religion, sexuality, and morality. Homeschooling families may become targets of a government that is not friendly to homeschooling or to parental freedom. Under Alberta, Canada’s new Education Act, homeschoolers and faith-based schools will not be permitted to teach that homosexual acts are sinful as part of their academic program, says the spokesperson for Education Minister Thomas Lukaszuk. "Whatever the nature of schooling – homeschool, private school, Catholic school – we do not tolerate disrespect for differences," Donna McColl, Lukaszuk’s assistant director of communications, told LifeSiteNews last month. "You can affirm the family’s ideology in your family life, you just can’t do it as part of your educational study and instruction," she added. Reacting to the remarks, Paul Faris of the Home School Legal Defense Association said the Ministry of Education is "clearly signaling that they are in fact planning to violate the private conversations families have in their own homes." See LifeSiteNews for the full story.

In the United States public schools are going a different direction – for now. California has recently received federal funds to support a mail order condom program for their public schools. See the report at Fox News.

This program uses tax dollars to provide condoms to kids. Acceptance of a social policy void of moral or personal responsibility does not necessarily make early sexuality safe. Furthermore, it is counterproductive at best to use government funds to foster recreational sex among students when non-marital births form the largest foundation of government welfare programs. Such federal funds could clearly be put to better use, possibly to encourage parents to teach their children about sexual conduct that esteems personal responsibility and marriage for a lifetime to raise a healthy family. The most comical aspect of the California condoms program is that the schools did choose to limit the distribution to 10 condoms a month.

Marriage, new research reveals, is still the best path to personal and societal strength. This recent report below from the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy reveals that marriage is now the best path for upward financial mobility as well. Even children understand that marriage is critical to their future – maybe adults need to take a cue from kids.

Marriage and Family Restoration on North Carolina's 2012 Ballot

The North Carolina Senate voted last week to put a constitutional amendment on the ballot in 2012, trusting the people of North Carolina with the future of marriage in that State.  Both the North Carolina House and the Senate approved the measure with the constitutionally required three-fifths majority, referring the marriage amendment to the people of North Carolina next year. See the New York Times article and its discussion of the matter at http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/14/us/north-carolina-voters-to-decide-on-same-sex-marriage.html.

Marriage expansion continues to be a battle that states want to stave off.  Voters want the right to decide the future of marriage, how it is defined, and what it means for society. Many grassroots organizations were involved in this important opportunity, including the Family Research Council, North Carolina Family Policy Council and the North Carolina Values Coalition.

New York’s recent same sex marriage legislation continues to be fought by the citizens of that State.  A challenge to the law was filed in July, alleging multiple instances of wrongdoing and questionable tactics in the way the law was passed.  The State executives are seeking to have that challenge dismissed.  See http://blog.timesunion.com/capitol/archives/81394/state-seeks-dismissal-of-same-sex-marriage-challenge/.

North Carolina is a state that does not want to follow the same path as New York, but rather has worked to allow the citizens of that State to vote on the matter.  Family strength depends on marriage law that is stable, and fosters family stability as well. 

New York on Marriage from the Gotham Gazette

The secretive, "emergency" process by which same-sex marriage was brought to New York last Friday night has left many outraged—even some supporters of same-sex marriage.

The ugly details of the process by which same-sex marriage came to New York is still coming to light. Here's how the Gotham Gazette describes it:

Essentially the Senate rules were changed in a backroom agreement before session started and then changed again during the vote to make sure it would be concluded to make the 11 p.m. newscasts.
Sen. Kevin Parker, a long time proponent of same-sex marriage, was informed by Senate staff that he would not be able to explain his vote. He was livid. He cursed out the governor and eventually stormed to the podium where Duffy was presiding—a number of other Democratic senators followed him, seemingly to calm him down.
Earlier when Sen. Ruben Diaz tried to lay the marriage bill aside he was ignored. Normal Senate procedure allows for any senator to lay a bill aside for debate. It gives legislators a chance to debate the bill then when they vote, they again have the chance to explain their vote. But the rules weren't the same. . . .
After realizing he would not be allowed to speak despite his protests, Parker tried to leave the floor. The door he tried to exit was locked. Earlier Duffy had asked the crowd not to leave the chamber during the vote. Cuomo's people—staff and security—had been in and out of the side door locking and unlocking it all during the debate. At one point a man wearing an ear piece emerged and surveyed the route Cuomo would take. When Parker tried to leave the door was locked again.
"I go to the door, and I tried to leave, and they had us locked in. I tried to leave, and they had us locked on to the floor," Parker said. Finally he made it out of the chamber. "One sergeant of arms physically grabbed me. I was appalled. I'm a senator." Parker then made his way through an ante chamber. "A plain clothes cop and secretary tried to close the door again," he explains, trying to block his exit. "I've never seen a member treated in such a manner. I've never seen a white member treated that way," Parker, who is black, said. He was again also confronted by another sergeant of arms.

The bill was declared an emergency—allowing the introduction of new religious liberty language just hours before the vote, instead of the usual 3 days. The rules were changed again while the vote was taking place—and, as you can tell from the Gotham Gazette report of Senator Parker's experience, senators were essentially locked in on the floor of the Senate— to force the vote and allow Governor Cuomo to make the 11 o'clock news.

The only move left for New Yorkers who wish to protect family restoration and marriage is a constitutional amendment, which in New York requires approval from the legislature in two successive legislatures (and does not require the governor's signature) before going to the voters for final approval.  Such a measure will require years of politics, however, as it is clear that marriage has become a political power ball in New York, rather than a foundation for strong families. 

Marriage Votes Globally This Week Could Begin Family Restoration

While New York legislators consider the implications of marriage definition alteration, in Paris, France yesterday marriage was supported by a solid majority vote.

LifeSiteNews.com - French legislators rejected a bill to legalize "homosexual marriage" today in a decisive vote by the National Assembly, the nation's lower legislative house. Assembly representatives voted against the bill, proposed by socialists, by a majority of 293 to 222. The vote follows a ruling in January by the nation's highest court, the Constitutional Council, stating that homosexual "marriage" is not a constitutional right.

Although a recent and much-cited poll found that a majority of French voters, 58 percent, favor the creation of homosexual "marriage," Michel Difenbacher of the majority Union for a Popular Movement (UMP) party said he thought it not necessary "to go with the wind nor to cede to fashion" with regard to the issue. "We are against homophobia but we do not want to alter the image and function of marriage" within society, Difenbacher said.  Christian Vanneste and Brigette Bareges, also of the UMP, were more blunt in their negative assessment of the proposed measure.  Vanneste called such unions an "anthropological aberration," while Bareges asked: "why not marriage with animals, or polygamy?"  Read the entire article at Google News at: PARIS, June 14, 2011 (LifeSiteNews.com) - French legislators rejected a bill to legalize, or at http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/french-national-assembly-rejects-homosexual-marriage-in-historic-vote?utm_source=LifeSiteNews.com+Daily+Newsletter&utm_campaign=420d17c5c2-LifeSiteNews_com_Intl_Full_Text_06_14_2011&utm_medium=email.

France is the human rights center of Europe, and apparently understands the implications of altering or expanding marriage, and its foundation for strong families and their restoration.

In New York, amidst the Rep. Anthony Weiner sexual scandal and religious concerns that people of faith will be coerced into supporting same sex unions, a marriage vote has been pending for almost a week. New Yorkers who understand marriage may wish to contact their Senator to express their opinions on such a vote.

Stephen Saland	(518) 455-2411
Andrew Lanza	(518) 455-3215
Mark Grisanti	(518) 455-3240
Greg Ball	(518) 455-3111
John Flanagan	(518) 455-2071
Joseph Addabbo	(518) 455-2322
Shirley Huntley	(518) 455-3531

The outcome in the New York Senate will have ramifications all across the nation.  New Yorkers may wish to vote on the matter themselves, like 38 states have already done, rather than leave it to 62 senators to define marriage for them.  The National Organization for Marriage (http://www.nom.org/) has set up email access as well—and you may click here to send your message by email!

Marriage is the global foundation for families, and their restoration depends on it.  This week 62 senators under intense pressure from donors, activists and lobbyists, are determining marriage, rather than support a referendum that would give the people of New York the right to vote on marriage.

Last week David Tyree of the 2009 New York Giants (who made history with his near miraculous catch with a minute to go in Super Bowl XLII that set up the NY Giant's victory against the undefeated New England Patriots) took a courageous stand for marriage, standing with pastors from across the state on the steps of the Capitol in Albany and declaring: "I believe in marriage as God originally intended, between one man and one woman."

Marriage votes could begin family restoration, or move a society closer to the deconstruction of families.

United Kingdom Ruling Keeps Children from Christian Foster Parents

This week a court in the United Kingdom determined that, based on Human Rights documents and UK law, that a Chrisitan foster care family was unsuitable for providing care to children.  Because the couple, based on their personal faith in Jesus Christ, held that homosexuality was not God's design for relationships, the court removed the parents from the roles of service for children in need of care. 

The dispute focused on married couple Eunice and Owen Johns and the Derby City Council. Having applied to the Council in 2007 to foster a child, the Johns' application was blocked, based on the Council's objection that "the Johns were not willing to promote the practise of homosexuality to a young child." In November 2010 both parties jointly asked the Court to rule on whether the Johns were able to foster children, or whether they could be excluded from doing so under equality law because of their Christian beliefs, and that judgment was released eariler this week.

The judgment strongly affirms homosexual rights over freedom of conscience or free exercise and leaves the Johns currently unable to provide foster care to any child in need, despite their proven track record as foster parents. It appears that in light of this decision Christians who wish to adopt or foster children must compromise their faith and promote the practice of homosexuality to small children.

In fact, the summary contained in the judgment sends out the clear message that orthodox Christian ethical beliefs are potentially harmful to children and that Christian parents with mainstream Christian views are not suitable to be considered as potential foster parents. Distinguishing that their decision was based on "sexual ethics" rather than on faith, the court has firmly concreted harm to children by denying them the potential of any Christian couple to care for them.

Read the entire text of the decision here (attached), and the UK article here http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/node/14234.

CBN News discussed this concern eariler this week, and an article at Charisma Magazine details that the Court ruled that parents who adhere to faith in Christ, and Christianity generally are harmful to children.   http://www.charismamag.com/index.php/news/30325-uk-court-rules-christianity-harmful-to-children. 
 

Decisions like this deconstuct marriage and the family in ways many people never imagined possible, and work to the destruction of families, rather than their restoration.  This is particularly aggregious for those hundreds of thousands of kids waning in state custody for foster care and adoption.

The judgment states a clear preference for human rights, but for homosexuals, and not for Christians.  "The equality provisions concerning sexual orientation should take precedence" for a child's welfare."  This precedent declares that a local authority can require positive attitudes to be demonstrated towards homosexuality, and that "Article 9 [of the European Human Rights Act] only provides a 'qualified' right to manifest religious belief and ... this will be particularly so where a person in whose care a child is placed wishes to manifest a belief that is inimical to the interests of children."

Charisma writes: "The judgment was greeted with disbelief and sadness today by Eunice and Owen Johns. In a statement, the couple said:
 'We wanted to offer a loving home to a child in need. But because of this ruling we are unsure how we can continue the application process. We have been excluded because we have moral opinions based on our faith, and a vulnerable child has now probably missed the chance of finding a safe and caring home. We do not believe that our ordinary Christian moral views are infectious, contrary to what the Equality and Human Rights Commission believes. Being a Christian is not a crime and should not stop us from raising children. Today, it looks as though a child has missed out on a home.'"

Read more: http://www.charismamag.com/index.php/news/30325-uk-court-rules-christianity-harmful-to-children#ixzz1FSy8F98B.