GAY TRUTH

English: Maggie Gallagher at the Cato Institute (Photo credit: Wikipedia ) It was a very tough election for marriage. On Wednesday, the day after, Maggie Gallagher was at church, and she emailed me to let me know about what the readings at Mass that day had to say. She said she thought that the reading from Paul's letter to the Philippians seemed to be speaking very clearly to all of us who are in the fight to defend marriage: My beloved, obedient as you have always been, not only when I am present but all the more now when I am absent, work out your salvation with fear and trembling. For God is the one who, for his good purpose, works in you both to desire and to work. Let's take a step back and assess what happened. Crunching the Numbers We narrowly lost in four deep blue states, after being badly outspent. Even though NOM contributed a record amount to help these state races—$5.5 million—our opponents were able to amass vast amounts of cash to drive their campaigns. Th

Polygamy involves the marriage of more than two persons at the same time. It can take a number of forms. Some are: Polygyny: the marriage of one man with multiple wives. Polyandry: the marriage of one woman with multiple men. Polyamory: An umbrella term that describes a romantic and/or sexual relationship involving multiple partners at the same time. The participants may or may not consider themselves to be married to each other. During debates on the Federal Marriage Amendment in the U.S. and same-sex marriage in both Canada and the U.S. , many opponents to SSM have expressed the belief that if SSM were legalized, polygamy would inevitably follow. For example: Social commentator Stanley Kurtz argued that: "Among the likeliest effects of gay marriage is to take us down a slippery slope to legalized polygamy and 'polyamory' ( group marriage ). Marriage will be transformed into a variety of relationship contracts, linking two, three, or more individuals (however weak

Image via CrunchBase NOM's President Brian Brown absolutely put a smackdown on Dan Savage the other day in their grand debate about marriage in Seattle, Washington . For those who don't know him, Savage is the foul-mouthed face of the gay marriage movement. To understand how badly Brian demolished Savage, consider this: Savage is complaining about the subject chosen for the debate (which his hand-picked moderator selected); he's complaining about the location (his own dining room table, also his choice); The New York Times reporter who moderated decided to write a kitschy odd-ball article about the encounter (including how he was drunk), rather than a substantive review of the debate, and Savage has buried the video of the debate down near the bottom of his own website. In other words, Brian so demolished Dan Savage that gay activists and the media now want to bury it. Let's begin at the beginning. You may remember when Savage was a keynote speaker at a national

Governments should define and establish marriage because no other institution can do that for an entire society Only a civil government is able to define a standard of what constitutes a marriage for a whole nation or whole society. No churches or denominations could do this, because they only speak for their own members. No voluntary societies could do this, because they don’t include all the people in the society. If no definition of marriage is given to an entire society, then chaos and much oppression of women and children will result. Stanley Kurtz of the Hudson Institute writes, In setting up the institution of marriage, society offers special support and encouragement to the men and women who together make children. Because marriage is deeply implicated in the interests of children, it is a matter of public concern. Children are helpless. They depend upon adults. Over and above their parents, children depend upon society to create institutions that keep them from chaos. C

English: Maggie Gallagher at the Cato Institute (Photo credit: Wikipedia ) Dear Marriage Supporter, The guys at Oxford University Press are no dummies. When they needed someone to make the case against same-sex marriage as part of a Point/Counterpoint series, edited by James Sterba of Notre Dame, they went straight to the top: to one of the best, the brightest and most articulate spokespeople for marriage in America. They asked NOM's own co-founder, Maggie Gallagher , to spar with Prof . John Corvino (who co-authored the book and writes the pro- gay marriage arguments). The resulting book,  Debating Same-Sex Marriage  was released this week, and today I'm heading up to Manhattan to watch the book launch. Live from New York: It's Maggie Gallagher and John Corvino "Debating Same-Sex Marriage." The two of them will be "Conversing" (with a capital C) with David Blankenhorn on the marriage debate: what it means, why it is hard, and why it matt

WASHINGTON, March 28, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Your morning cup of coffee isn’t the only heated thing Starbucks is brewing. Because of the coffee giant’s aggressive activism in support of the controversial issue of same-sex “marriage,” pro-family advocates have launched a boycott to send a message that Starbucks should keep coffee out of the marriage debate. The  DumpStarbucks campaign  was launched by the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) after Kalen Holmes, Starbucks executive vice president, told U.S. partners in January that the Seattle-based company backed Washington state’s same-sex “marriage” legislation as “core to who we are and what we value as a company.” The coffee company has publicly supported the gay rights agenda since at least 2005, and has joined an amicus brief against the federal Defense of Marriage Act. At a board meeting on March 21, Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz confirmed  Holmes’ statement as the position adopted by the board and “not something that