Talking points about same sex "marriage"

Talking Points

I. THE MOST EFFECTIVE SINGLE SENTENCE:

Extensive and repeated polling agrees that the single most effective message is:

"Gays and Lesbians have a right to live as they choose,
they don’t have the right to redefine marriage for all of us."

This allows people to express support for tolerance while opposing gay marriage. Some modify it to “People have a right to live as they choose, they don’t have the right to redefine marriage for all of us.”

Language to avoid at all costs: "Ban same-sex marriage." Our base loves this wording. So do supporters of SSM. They know it causes us to lose about ten percentage points in polls. Don’t use it.

We’re rather say we’re against “redefining marriage” or in favor of “marriage as the union of husband and wife” or “we’re opposed to S.115 and it’s intention to radically change the nature of marriage in Vermont”.

II. MAIN MESSAGE THE 3X5 CARD.

• Marriage is between a husband and wife. The people of Vermont do not want marriage to be anything but that. We do not want the Legislature or our Vermont Supreme Court changing that definition for us today or for our children tomorrow.

• We need a public referendum so the Legislature will know exactly where Vermonters stand on the gay marriage issue. Ten years now and they still haven’t Let Vermont Vote on this issue.

• If the lottery was important enough for a referendum, so is the question of redefining marriage. Let Vermont Vote!

• If the Legislature really wants to know what Vermonters think about same-sex marriage, please ask us. Let’s have a referendum on the issue. Let Vermont Vote!

• Marriage is about bringing together men and women so children can have mothers and fathers.

• Do we want to teach the next generation that one-half of humanity —either mothers or fathers —are dispensable, unimportant? Children are confused enough right now with sexual messages. Let’s not confuse them further.

• Gays and Lesbians have a right to live as they choose; they don’t have a right to redefine marriage for the rest of us.

• Why are we even considering this issue while Vermont is facing its worst financial crisis in three generations. The Legislature should quit the social engineering and focus on economic issues.

• Marriage is important -- it's how societies bring together men and woman to provide their children with a mom and dad.

• Recognizing same-sex unions as marriage raises a variety of religious liberty issues as people of faith find they cannot in good conscience abide by the radical new view that same-sex unions are just the same as marriages. Already, Catholic Charities in Massachusetts has been forced out of the adoption business, while a Methodist group in New Jersey has been denied tax exemption because it refused to permit a civil union ceremony on its property.

• Amid financial crises and high tax rates, there are many pressing issues facing the people of Vermont -- now is not the time for our legislators to be spending time messing with marriage.


III. FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS

1. Are you a bigot? “Why do you want to take away people’s rights?”
“Isn’t it wrong to write discrimination into the constitution?”

A: “Do you really believe people like me who believe mothers and fathers both matter to kids are like bigots and racists? I think that’s pretty offensive, don’t you? Particularly to the 60 percent of African-Americans who oppose same-sex marriage. Marriage as the union of husband and wife isn’t new; it’s not taking away anyone’s rights. It’s common sense.”

2. Isn’t the ban on gay marriage like bans on interracial marriage?

A: “Bans on interracial marriage were about keeping two races apart so that one race could oppress the other. Marriage is about bringing two sexes together, so that children get the love of their own mom and a dad, and women don’t get stuck with the enormous disadvantages of parenting alone.” “Having a parent of two different races is just not the same as being deprived of your mother — or your father.”

3. What’s the harm from SSM? “How can Adam and Steve hurt your marriage?”

A: “Who gets harmed? The people of this state who lose our right to define marriage as the union of husband and wife, that’s who. That is just not right.”

A: “If courts rule that same-sex marriage is a civil right, then, people like you and me who believe children need moms and dads will be treated like bigots and racists.”

“Religious groups like Catholic Charities or the Salvation Army may lose their tax exemptions, or be denied the use of parks and other public facilities, unless they endorse gay marriage.

Churches who object to same-sex marriages may lose their right to solemnize marriages or be sued for limiting use of their facilities to heterosexual marriages."

“Public schools will teach young children that two men being intimate are just the same as a husband and wife, even when it comes to raising kids.”

“When the idea that children need moms and dads get legally stigmatized as bigotry, the job of parents and faith communities trying to transmit a marriage culture to their kids is going to get a lot harder.”

“One thing is for sure: The people of this state will lose our right to keep marriage as the union of a husband and wife. That’s not right.”

5. Why do you want to interfere with love?

A: “Love is a great thing. But marriage isn’t just any kind of love; it’s the special love of husband and wife for each other and their children.”

6. What about benefits? Don’t gay couples and their kids need the benefits and protections of marriage?”

A: “If medical proxies aren’t working, let’s fix that problem. If people need health care, let’s get them health care. Don’t mess with marriage.”

A: “The issue isn’t benefits, it is marriage. Local folks can decide benefits. This is about the meaning of marriage, our most basic social institution for protecting children. “

A: “The VT Attorney General and others have testified that Vermont has no more benefits to give gay couples that are not already given in a Civil Union. So they gain nothing more and we all get stuck with this untested concept of Genderless Civil Marriage.

7. Isn’t divorce the real threat to marriage?

A: “High rates of divorce are one more reason we should be strengthening marriage, not conducting radical social experiments on it.”

8. Are you saying gays cannot be good parents?

A: “Two men might each be a good father, but neither can be a mom. The ideal for children is the love of their own mom and dad. No same-sex couple can provide that.”

9. What about older or infertile couples? If they marry why not same-sex couples?

A: “Every man and woman who marries is capable of giving any child they create (or adopt) a mother and a father. No same-sex couple can do this. It’s apples and oranges.”

I know people are getting upset

Hi folks-

Many of my friends are in Montpelier. Many were there yesterday. Here are some links for the Rutland Herald.
http://rutlandherald.com/article/20090317/NEWS04/903170372/1004/NEWS03
and
http://rutlandherald.com/article/20090317/NEWS04/903170370/1004/NEWS03

Please pray for people like Craig Bensen. Here are a few of his websites.
www.TakeItToThePeople.org
LetVermontVote.org

Folks-I am suggesting that we consider our future. Bills like this affect our nation, our state, our community and our family. It is time to stand up.

Letter from Dick McCormick our senator

> Hello.
> Please call me Dick.   Since my grandfather
> died the only people to call
> me Richard are my dental hygientist and one or two gay
> friends.  Â
>
> Both houses of the legislature divide themselves into
> committees.   We
> divide the work among those
> committees.   The Judiciary Committees in
> each house deal with justice
> issues.   Economic issues are handled in
> the House by the committees on Economic Development, Ways
> and Means
> (Taxes), Institutions, Transportation and
> Appropriations.   In the
> Senate the money committees are Appropriations, Finance,
> Economic
> Development and Institutions.   Niether the
> House nor Senate Judiciary
> committee deals with economic issues.   The
> time the Judiciary
> committees spend on the question of civil marriage equality
> will not
> take one second from the economy.
>
> That said, I must admit that responding to emails for and
> against
> marriage equality is starting to eat into my
> time.   But it doesn't take
> time away from my consideration of the economy, it simply
> lengthens my
> workday.   This is because I respect your
> right as a citizen to have me
> give your views as much consideration as they
> need.   Please understand
> that, just as I respect your right to consideration, I
> respect the claim
> to justice made by our gay and lesbian
> neighbors.   Frankly I think it
> rather presumptuous for one citizen to decide that another
> citizen's
> rights are not important.
> Dick McCormack

Life in a bubble.

Many would spend their lives in a bubble if they were given the opportunity and apparently they have.

Here in Vermont the legislature returns to Montpelier tomorrow. And gay marriage will be high on the hit parade.

Folks-we need to get two things back on track. Business and government. As the president talks about loans to small businesses what we really need is an economy devoid of highered taxes and depressing spending and the economy can and will recover. Small businesses do not need loans so much as they need people willing to buy!

From our friends at TIP

Take It To The People

Please forward to your email lists...

Please share this information
with your churches & groups...

March 12, 2009


Craig Bensen, editor

check out LetVermontVote.org


Upcoming Events
There are two key times next week for citizens to come to the Statehouse:

1) MONDAY, MARCH 16, 11:30 AM to 2:00 PM

Come to the Statehouse in Montpelier for a citizen's Marriage Day.

Come as individuals, as couples and as families so our Senators can see who supports Marriage as a one man and one woman institution.

2) WEDNESDAY, MARCH 18, 6 PM to 8:30 PM


Come to the Statehouse in Montpelier for the PUBLIC HEARING of the Joint Senate and House Judiciary Committees.


Arrive as close to 5 PM as you can. If you would like to testify (usually 2-3 minutes per person), there will be a sign-up sheet -- first come basis. We will have talking points and information sheets available as well as Pro-Marriage stickers for you to wear.


The schedule of testimony for the Senate Judiciary Committee has been posted. To see the schedule click here.

At present only two supporters of normal marriage are on the schedule for the entire week, Dr. Craig Bensen on Monday at 3:15 PM and Steve Cable on Thursday at 10 AM.

At present only pro-gay clergy are scheduled for the clergy testimony time on Wednesday morning.



Only You Can Write Your Letter...
This is a crucial time for citizen action -- write those letters; make those phone calls; visit with your representative(s) and senator(s).

As one experienced House leader shared this week, everyone assumes that someone else is writing the letters and making the phone calls. Fact of the matter is that only you can write your letters, only you can make your phone calls.

Another House leader reminded me that to a Representative five letters or phone calls on an issue is an avalanche of public opinion. So go find 4 like-minded friends, put on a pot of coffee and spend an hour together writing letters. Then challenge each of those 4 to find 4 others and repeat the process.

House members EMAIL and ADDRESSES.
Senate members EMAIL and ADDRESSES.
House Judiciary Committee members Senate Judiciary Committee members

Reference Links
Here are links to information you might find helpful ---

What's banned in 44 of 50 states? "Genderless Marriage" -- it's a ballot box and legislative loser across the nation. See the list of states with bans.

Which Representatives are sponsors of the "Genderless" Marriage bill in the VT House of Representatives? And is your Representative one of them?

Check out LetVermontVote.org, an initiative seeking a public vote on “same-sex unions” by means of a non-binding referendum.

Opposition lobbyist, Beth Robinson, calls a public referendum a bad idea even though she's convinced that her side would win with 60% of the vote. We suggest that the idea is feared by the opposition because they would lose a public vote and because a vigorous public debate would permanently damage their movement.

We need your support NOW!
The opposition -- the Freedom To Marry Task Force and their friends -- are running a huge media campaign in an attempt to force homosexual marriage on Vermont. This is one of the largest media buys ever in a non-election year -- and it was perfectly timed to begin within hours of the Legislative leaders declaring their intention to pass a SSM bill this year.

They have access to $150,000 plus in largely out-of-state monies that they will be spending in March 2009. We don't expect to match them dollar for dollar but 20 to 1 would be a good place to start. We would like to be able to do some advertising and some targeted mailings that we believe could be very effective in helping us stop the Genderless Marriage Express in its tracks.

To do this we need your help -- your letters, your phone calls, your visits with legislators -- and your contributions.

You can donate by credit card online using this link:

https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=3591051


or you can mail us a check [ made out to Take It To The People ] at:

TIP
P.O. Box 4147
Burlington, VT 05406

Thanks for your support!

a form letter says we are hostile towards gays

Many of you may have received similar letters, but if you have not, check this out.

Hello Mr. Johndrow:
Please forgive my responding to your communication with a form letter.
As you may imagine, I’m getting many communications about civil marriage
equality. I want to tell you where I stand on the issue and to explain
the reasoning by which I’ve arrived at this position.


I recognize marriage as an institution central to our civilization.
Civil marriage, of course, has absolutely nothing to do with the
sacrament of Holy Matrimony which remains the sole domaine of the
various religions. But even though civil marriage is a purely legal
arrangement, it is still an enduring institution and not to be tampered
with for light and transient reasons. As a country song puts it,
“you’ve got to stand for something or you’ll fall for anything.”
A society that lacks respect for its enduring institutions is prone to
lurch from one trendy ideology to another, and to become rootless and
chaotic. The claim that same sex civil marriage would “change the
traditional definition of marriage” is disturbing, a claim to which I’ve
given much careful thought.


I believe that, all else being equal, tradition deserves the benefit of
the doubt. But, unless one believes that we’ve achieved perfection,
that we presently live in Heaven on Earth, there must be room for us to
reconsider even long standing traditions and sometimes to alter them.
When slavery was abolished in 1867, slavery had existed in English
speaking North America since 1604. It had existed in western
civilization since its beginnings. It was a long established
institution.


Granting women the vote undid the long established tradition of
exclusively male suffrage. It contradicted a tradition of male
supremacy that probably predates the evolution of the human species, and
that has certainly characterized western civilization throughout its
history. In both cases, discernment, critical thinking and the
resulting changes in opinion trumped the power of tradition.


But, at the same time, more enduring traditions not only survived but
were made stronger. Woman suffrage didn’t change the definition of
electoral democracy; it simply broadened the population entitled to
participate. This made our country more democratic, not less. The
abolition of slavery didn’t change the definition of freedom; it simply
embraced a population previously denied freedom. This made our
country more free, not less. And both changes strengthened the
established institution of equality.


So too, I think, with civil marriage equality. The terms of marriage,
the rights and obligations, would remain the same. The only change
would be WHO can marry, not WHAT marriage is. And by rejecting the
tradition of excluding gay and lesbian people, we would again strengthen
our tradition of equality.


Some will not find this reasoning persuasive. They will say that
marriage is one man and one woman by definition. Even if that is so, I
suggest that western civilization has changed the definition of marriage
many times, not who may marry but, more profoundly, what marriage is.


The ancient Greeks debated whether or not women have souls. Socrates
ordered his wife away from his death bed because her sobbing annoyed him
and interfered with his philosophical discourse with his male friends.
This appears quite different from our modern view of marriage as a
mutually loving and respectful partnership.


The Paterfamilias of ancient Rome was a monarch in his own home, to
whose absolute authority wife, children and servants were subject. The
Old Testament describes at least some marriages as committed
relationships between one man and as many women as he could afford.
Saint Paul explains marriage as an unfortunately necessary accommodation
to the human weakness that makes many people unsuited to celibacy.
Marriage is seen as a way of quarantining the sin of sexual intercourse.
Saint Paul also counsels “wives submit to your husbands.”


For much of European histroyalty was a matter of consolidating property and political alliances.
A reluctance to enter into such a union was seen as a dereliction of
duty. As recently as the last century the King of England had to
abdicate his throne in order to “marry the woman I love.”


In the America of the Eighteenth Century, and much of the Nineteenth
Century, married women could not own property, enter into contracts or
retain custody of their own children. The symbolism of today’s wedding
ceremonies is an echo of what was once an actual reality. The bride’s
father gives her away to the groom, transferring his authority over her
to the groom. The groom becomes a husband, the literal meaning of
which is caretaker and master. As recently as the 1980s the suggested
civil marriage ceremony in Vermont had the groom promise to “love,
honor, provide for and protect” his wife, while the bride promised to
“love, honor and obey” her husband.


Domestic violence has long been seen as bad behavior, but until very
recently it was seen as a private family matter. Female victims were
objects of pity and male victims were objects of ridicule. Only
recently has the state assumed the duty of protecting each married
person’s legal rights in the matter. The legal prerogative of a
married man to rape his wife, to “claim his right”, was not abolished in
Vermont till the 1980s.


Each of these reforms has addressed the question, not of who may marry,
but of what marriage actually is. Each reform changed the definition
of marriage, reflecting changes in society’s understanding of human
rights, especially regarding women. Each reform undid a long standing
tradition. Each reform also strengthened our tradition of equality.
Very few people would see any of these reforms as having done harm to
the institution of marriage. Indeed they advanced our enlightened
contemporary definition of marriage as a loving, mutually respectful
partnership between equal partners.


Society’s hostility towards gay and lesbian people is, admittedly, a
long standing tradition. But so once were male supremacy, white
supremacy and any number of other assumptions that have since been
rejected. There may not be unanimity among us regarding homosexuality,
any more than there was unanimity about white supremacy or male
supremacy. But increasingly thinking people have rejected the
traditional negative assumptions about homosexual people. Increasingly
such negative views have come to be seen as prejudices and superstitions
rather than reality. The characterization of homosexual people as
inherently evil, or as “deviant” in anything other than a statistical
sense, is rapidly joining similar propositions such as the belief that
women are incapable of logic, or that black people urinate through their
sweat glands.


That being the case, I can find no justification for continuing to
exclude gay and lesbian people from equal access to civil marriage. I
look forward to voting in favor of same sex civil marriage in Vermont.
Senator Dick McCormack



>>> Lee Johndrow 03/12/09 7:40 AM >>>
Dear representatives of our state:


I am concerned at what is sitting on the tables at both legislative
and senate levels.


I am a business person fighting to keep 2 businesses running and
attempting to move 3 more projects onto the table. One has already
ended up in NH. And in the midst of this we are seeing our government
working on H178/H181. When businesses are working hard to get things
going, this is ridiculous.


I am a father and grandfather. I have been a minister for over 12
years. The experience of those life issues, tells me we are on the
wrong track. As one who has seen first hand what civil unions and
homosexuality has done to families (Including family members.), I am
asking you NOT to vote this in. I have counseled my share of people
involved in this lifestyle and I have seen first hand the confusion
and pain accompanying it. I have watched their hurt.


Please take this season to concentrate on the economy.


Sincerely,
Lee Johndrow

I continue to be amazed

I continue to be amazed at the arrogance of our leaders in Congress, the Senate and even the presidency. Am I missing something?

I was able to watch one of the earmarkers yesterday defend his position. Unfortunately our own senator is 3rd in earmarks.

Bryan Shohet does his first interview on WCFR this Friday with Steve Seitz. That ought to be pretty cool.

I do not know about you

Folks-

I do not know about you but with every news cast I find myself getting more and more angry. I live in Vermont. I am watching people like Bernie Sanders, Pat Leahy and Peter Welch continue to vote for things I am not for, and neither or the people I talk to.

We have given money to people not being held responsible, voted money for states that are not ready for it and continue to not be represented in our states.

Here are some examples
Making further continuing appropriations for fiscal year 2009, and for other purposes
Welch votes yes!
What? My house is slowing up, my businesses are slowing and we are in conserve mode, how can we see this through? Do we keep spending?

I think it is time for Vermont to rebel against all this.

One of the main organizations, the DontGo Movement, put out a press release with more details:

Building on the success of the Nationwide Chicago Tea Parties held [in February] in multiple cities around the nation, conservative grassroots organizations and free market activists will once again come together on April 15th to protest out-of-control government spending. Timed to coincide with the date by which Americans must pay their federal income taxes, the Tax Day Tea Party effort will be coordinated by Smart Girl Politics, Top Conservatives on Twitter and the DontGo Movement (www.dontgomovement.com), in addition to other center-right activist groups.

Plans are under way for rallies to take place in nine American cities, with more sites to be added in the coming weeks. The goal of these protests is to call attention to the unprecedented wasteful spending by Democrats in Congress and the Obama Administration.

When asked about the need for nationwide rallies based on the Boston Tea Party of 1773, Eric Odom, Chairman of the DontGo Movement, remarked, "Building on the free market ideas of our founding fathers, and embracing the passion they shared to bring them to light, the Nationwide Tea Party Movement is giving voice to tens of thousands of Americans." Added Stacy Mott, President of Smart Girl Politics, "Average Americans do not support mortgaging away our children’s futures, and the time to speak out against it is now."

Information on The Tax Day Tea Party can be found at http://taxdayteaparty.com.

WOW!

Last night as I was watching this clip of Glenn Beck, I came to the place where I felt enough is enough.

Locally, we do not want to cut salaries in schools, etc., but raise taxes on property owners.

Statewide, we want to raise taxes to make sure everyone is taken care of.

Nationally, well, I am just dumbfounded. Republicans and Democrats are fully ensconced in the earmark game. And I am ready to flip.

So...this weekend is dedicated to sending faxes to these people. And I am going to ask my friends to do the same. Now I send emails and faxes every week, but perhaps at some point they will stop patting me on the head like some dumb school child.

Finally

Finally, even President Obama reflects on the imperfection of this stimulus bill. I must be simple man. Pay your bills, do not incur debt and enjoy life. But, not so at political levels. Everyone vying for the pet project of their district and soon the bills reflect all the personalities and expenditures of each. Crazy.

In our state of Vermont, even when we tell people what we want special interest groups fill pockets to conclusions.

I did finally get a one liner back from my legislator. "Thank you for your e-mail. You speak of a number of issues that require serious consideration and I appreciate your input."

It is interesting that when there is less money in an economy you get to see the real deal coming out.

Stimulus

I watched the news last night as we continue to entertain this idea that we as Americans can afford this amount to be spent. I wrote congressman and senators and even the president to say "no!"

As a business man who wants to do business, certainly I want the economy to be better, but if I add more debt to my company then I am more likely to fail, will need to work harder to make the same and burden my family.

Hopefully, more of us will see this.

Perhaps Enough is Enough

I sit here and watch the answers of Mr. Gibbs for the President. He had a telling line. "The government you get is the government you participate in."

I think he is saying if we don't like things, then it is time to jump in.

I spent time last night writing letters to the President, Senate, etc., to say "no stimulus." (www.NoStimulus.com)I read the 600 plus pages and came away extremely disheartened at the actions that will ultimately affect my children and grandchildren. Have you read this? "We have been guided by a Republican administration who believes in this simplistic notion that people who have wealth are entitled to keep it."— Rep. Jim Moran (D-Va.)

PS: Don't have time to read all 647 pages? Shame, shame. Still, this bill is mostly a combination of bills moved through three major committees. Summaries of each section can be found:
http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/appropssummary.pdf
and
http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/ECSummary.pdf
and
http://waysandmeans.house.gov/MoreInfo.asp?section=50


So disappointed am I that I woke up this morning to express my thoughts with regard to the "same sex marriage" actions making it's way to our state legislature. I have seen so much devastation amongst gay friends and acquaintances that I could never be in favor of it.

And so I began to read through the bills being proposed in our state. Wow! To deal effectively we must read all day long.Here they are. http://www.leg.state.vt.us/database/rintro/results.cfm I am trying to read through each one of them.

And then, a friend of mine, Bryan Shohet, has let me know he would like to run against incumbent Peter Welch in 2010 and could I help him. And ironically many of those who are telling him "no" are Republicans. Huh? What is up with that. "We do not think that is a wise idea." OK, who do you suggest? "Duh, we don't have anyone, but we do not think it is you."

As time goes on, I will be adding to this.