Thursday, April 30, 2009

Standing for Something – Defend Marriage Alliance, UFI, NOM, DNA

GordonHinckley Standing for Something

The late President Gordon B. Hinckley of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints wrote a little book called Standing for Something.  Of this book, President Hinckley wrote, “I hope to accomplish some good in reaching out to people who may not be interested in our theology but would be interested in our position and stance on some of these values that are of everlasting benefit to this nation and people across the world.”

I have this book.

I love this book.

On the inside flap it states:

“No nation can be greater than the strength of its individual homes or the virtue of its people.  Sadly, many today would say ours is a nation in crisis.  Families are splintering around us, our children are becoming alienated from their great cultural heritage, and our leaders seem increasingly out of touch.  Yet, according to Gordon B. Hinckley, president of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, one cannot lose hope.  The solution lies not within our governments, schools, or symbols of popular culture, but rather within ourselves, our families, and our faith.”

Drawing on anecdotes from his own life, as well as from our nation today, he examines ten virtues that have proven through the ages to provide the most profound path to a better world: love, honesty, morality, civility, learning, forgiveness and mercy, thrift and industry, gratitude, optimism, and faith.  He then shows how the two guardians of virtue – marriage and the family – can keep us on that path, even in difficult times.”

This book was published in 2000.

How timely a message for our day.  So, without further adieu, I’d like to feature four groups who are doing just that – standing for something.  These groups advocate for marriage between one man and one woman.  They defend traditional, natural marriage in the face of increasing, and often virulent, opposition to such a message.

man, woman
The first is the Defend Marriage Alliance.  Reverend Brewer and his son are currently on a tour of Iowa, meeting with religious leaders and marriage proponents across the state to collect signatures on a petition to repeal Iowa’s new gay “marriage” legislation.  They have worked tirelessly, creating Facebook groups and raising awareness for traditional marriage through the creation of marriage seals and wristbands, physical tours, and additional web outreach with Meetup groups, etc.  The Defend Marriage Alliance is reputedly millions of members large and growing.

 25 for UFI 
The second is United Families International who just recently launched their 25 for UFI campaign.  Here’s what they have to say about it.

“For more than 30 years United Families International (UFI) has fought against the anti-family opposition. UFI representatives have traversed the globe defending the unborn and protecting the traditional family. Local UFI chapters watch state legislatures and work with pro-family lawmakers to ensure that the family has a voice inside statehouses across the country. Our ECOSOC status at the UN allows UFI to collaborate with UN delegates to insert pro-family language into UN treaties and resolutions. At times when others are weak, UFI stands their ground and protects the family values that we hold dear.

25 for UFI is your chance to join United Families International in the fight for the family. 25 for UFI seeks to find 1,000 individuals who will give $25 for the protection of motherhood, fatherhood, marriage, life, liberty and family. The 25 for UFI campaign has almost zero overhead, so you may rest assured that your donation will go directly to the international battle for the family. Join us, stand with UFI, and be a part of this worthy cause.”


Your financial contribution keeps the work moving forward (and as a bonus, is 100% tax-deductible).

The third group standing for marriage is NOM.  The National Organization for Marriage has recently gone out on a limb, provoking the ire of homosexual “marriage” advocates the nation over by releasing a commercial spot defending marriage and warning against the consequences of legalizing gay “marriage.”  Unfettered by the vitriolic minority public opinion, they charge bravely forward in their fight to protect our nation’s most valuable assets – our future – our children.

Watch their newest ad focusing on the Carrie Prejean controversy, here . . . .

(UPDATE: This video has been removed due to copyright claims made by Mario Lavandeira, aka Perez Hilton *Go figure*.  You can still view the spot at NOM’s website by clicking here.)

And the last, but definitely not the least, is the rag tag yet powerful organization which has brought so many of my fellow marriage bloggers and me together.  The Digital Network Army was born during Proposition 8.  Still in its infancy, the group has gained rapid popularity by its unofficial, power-to-the-people productivity.  Virals are sent out regularly to inform members of the most recent attacks on marriage and family.  A great list of independent bloggers then disseminates the information to the vast worldwide web and yet other members work in concert with those bloggers to Facebook and Twitter marriage updates.  Still other members create YouTube videos, defend marriage apparel and bumper stickers, and graphic images for use on websites and blogs.  All this is done completely by volunteers.  How inspiring!

Go ahead, click around, join one or all!  Marriage needs you.  Children need you.  The future needs you.


Monday, April 20, 2009

Miss California, Carrie Prejean, on Gay Marriage

So Miss California got baited and reeled in at the Miss USA Pageant.  And, of course, now she’s being fried by the oh-so-neutral mainstream media we’ve all come to know and love.  I am so proud to be a Californian right now!  First, We the People speak our minds and establish that in California, marriage is between one man and one woman.  Then, our “little Miss,” responds to a loaded question posed by gay blogger, Perez Hilton, with a very diplomatic, but firm response, “I think in my country, in my family, I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anybody out there, but that's how I was raised.”

It makes me laugh that she’s receiving heat over this as if she wasn’t asked the question in the first place.  What was she supposed to do, tell a lie?  Or not respond?  Or apologize for her opinion?  Yeah that’s tolerance for you.  And gays in the audience responded so vehemently as if to suggest that by supporting the show they have some sort of dibs over all the opinions expressed by contestants, “I think it's ridiculous that she got first runner-up. That is not the value of 95 percent of the people in this audience. Look around this audience and tell me how many gay men there are.”

How much do you want to bet Carrie Prejean gets impeached due to pressure from seething, gay activist mobs before the year is out?  I wouldn’t be surprised.


[Read more . . . .]


[Hat tip: A Banner is Unfurled]

Why Do I Defend Marriage?

I wrote this response to a friend on Facebook recently and felt that it was a fairly succinct summary of my reasons for defending marriage.  The first part is clearly religious and has its roots in my faith and membership in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  But the second part outlines my secular/social science reasons for defending marriage.


"I'm suggesting that we debate the merits of this Initiative [Prop 8], given that it was NOT a commandment of God."


Marriage between a man and a woman is a commandment of God. Take a hard look at The Family: A Proclamation to the World. Are you suggesting that God vacillates? I think it is clear that while we fickle humans invent moral relativity and political correctness, there are still absolutes. God is absolute. While practices and rituals have changed over centuries and ages, principles have not. And never will, no matter what we mortals believe. Good is good, bad is bad, white is white, black is black, and people who choose black and then attempt to pass it off as white will always be upset and unhappy and disillusioned when the general population sees right through the guise.

Following the Prophet is the best defense we have against the confusion of moral relativism. The Prophet asked the Saints to defend marriage between a man and a woman. Seems pretty simple to me. We don't just follow the Prophet when it is convenient for us or when his mandates, commandments, and supplications align with our own thinking. We do it no matter what we believe and it is after the test of our faith that we receive confirmation of the truth. For whatever reason, this concept is harder for some to grasp than others. We see it in the scriptures all the time, people demanding that God show them a sign before they are willing to proceed with His commandments. And always the answer is the same; they are chastised for having so little faith. Yet for those who humble themselves and follow "blindly" (having God as a guide hardly makes us blind), the reward is beyond our limited comprehension.

I have digressed.

Your whole premise (in your post) that Proposition 8 is "cementing bigotry" into the California Constitution is based solely on the fact that you don't believe upholding marriage between a man and a woman is a commandment of God. But you fail to recognize the myriad social reasons for which we uphold marriage. One could debate against homosexual marriage all day and still never touch upon a religious argument. Research, experience, and history all defend the institution of marriage between one man and one woman. And all you can come back with is yet another emotional appeal, vividly ignorant of reason, "cause pain to millions of people and leave thousands of families in doubt." Yes, their pain is real, but what of their choice to pursue the lifestyle and seek special status in the face of illegality in the first place? Why are they being released from the responsibility and consequences of their actions? And why is blame for disillusionment and disappointment being projected onto the so-called "oppressors"? A little quiet introspection is in order here, I think. There is a pernicious sense of entitlement that flows through our society that has risen to such soaring heights that natural laws and Constitutional freedoms are threatened by it.

Marriage, when executed properly (let's get rid of no-fault divorce), benefits children, families, society, and government by being the most basic and wholesome springboard to the future. When marriage is undermined by senseless and selfish redefinition, that springboard falters and crumbles. In the case of homosexual marriage, children grow up in gender confusion denied, by design, access to one opposite-sex parent through which important life lessons and character traits would have been learned, and through the observation of which, future decisions of career, spouse, family, and civic involvement are heavily influenced. A mother is vitally important for different reasons than a father is vitally important, but it is amply clear that the absence of one or the other has a definite, negative development effect on children that no amount of love can compensate for. Love, T, contrary to popular belief these days, is not all you need. If love is all you need, why do we have boundaries, rules, and discipline for our children? If love is all you need, why do we have so many people divorcing even while they proclaim their mutual love for each other? I love my brother. I love my father. I love my cousin. But I cannot legally marry them (and thank goodness for that). Government regulates marriage for the benefit of society; to ensure the best possible emotional, physical, mental, and spiritual outcome for the potential posterity of the marital union. It doesn't matter that that union may be sterile or that it may end up in divorce. Just because the human execution is malfunctioning (sterility) or flawed (divorce) or even broken (abuse), does not make the divine institution flawed. Marriage is what it is and those who pretend otherwise are endangering not only themselves by exposing their tender feelings to more disappointment (marriage appropriation will not yield the acceptance they so yearn for), but our country's innocent future as well - the children.


Related Posts with Thumbnails