FamilyFoundationBlog.com

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.

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.

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.

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.

One advantage I have as the Admin of a blog for an organization such as The Family Foundation is that we have thousands of well informed readers and supporters, many of whom alert me to noteworthy articles and subjects. There’s so much out there, it’s difficult to read everything, so to have a legion of supporting eyes and ears is superb. One great friend of ours, David Adams, gave me the heads up today on this post by Bill Pascoe on his In The Right Blog on CQPolitics.com about the supposed inevitability of legalized homosexual marriage in America (see here).

Pascoe doesn’t believe it is inevitable, but cites Ben Smith’s post on Politico (here) where an unnamed Republican pollster said polling data proves the point: Those against same-sex marriage are old while those who support it are the young’uns. When the older crowd dies off (sooner rather than later under ObamaCare) the more tolerant and enlightened next generation will approve it. 

Pascoe perceptively notes, however, that snapshot polling can’t take into account how people change their thinking over the years and how events change their life perspective. For example, unmarried and care free college kids now may have one set of (misguided) beliefs, but when by their mid to late 20s, married and with two children of their own, think more like their mid to late 40s parents do now.

I would add to Pascoe’s acumen that while younger voters may now agree with homosexual marriage, they vote in, comparatively, puny numbers. So the age group in general, as it matures, will see its voter universe expand. In that larger bloc undoubtedly will be people who don’t approve of redefining enduring standards and truth. Others simply won’t be driven by such issues whether they agree or don’t.

As Pascoe concludes his piece:

The fact is, it’s too early to tell how the aging/maturation/growing through life process will affect attitudes on this issue — the issue hasn’t been around long enough for good research to have been completed, for a pollster to have followed a group of younger same sex marriage supporters as they grew older, to see if they maintained their support, or if it changed with the arrival of gray hairs and the squawks of children in the household.

It’s at times like this I’m reminded of an old saw, usually misattributed to Winston Churchill: “If you’re not a liberal when you’re 20, you have no heart; but if you’re not a conservative by the time you’re 40, you have no brain.”

A few hours ago, the District of Columbia City Council voted to legalize same-sex marriage by a vote of 11-2. There must still be a Congressional review period and a second vote before it can go to Democrat Mayor Adrian Fenty’s desk. He has pledged to sign it. The Washington Post has the gritty details here, including former mayor and current Democrat City Councilman Marion Barry who was one of the two “no” votes, but who begged homosexual activists not to hold the vote against him; and Democrat Councilman Harry Thomas, who acknowledged his constituents are opposed to same-sex marriage, but who voted for it anyway to protect “the least among us.”

Annotations & Elucidations 

Close Of Business, October 2009

Another month, another campaign draws toward conclusion. Where does the time go? Where does life go? A sign of the times: Campaign news is light today. Everyone is expecting an anti-climatic GOP blowout. But will it be? What about New Jersey and the special Congressional election in upstate New York? If the Dems pull those out will that blunt any GOP resurgence nationally otherwise gained from a Virginia sweep? If the numbers hold, how many Republican delegates will win? Retirements alone guarantee a large freshman class in January.

About today’s headlines: The Richmond Times-Dispatch gets up close and personal with the LG candidates and the Washington Times already is analyzing where Creigh Deeds went wrong. Why is it always where Creigh Deeds went wrong? Bob McDonnell, Bill Bolling and Ken Cuccinelli have done a lot right. Meanwhile, political soothsayer Dr. Larry Sabato offers his predictions on the election.

Nationally: It’s unfortunate that several pastors in Washington, D.C., are supporting homosexual “marriage” there; the AP reports that, indeed, abortion funding is in the health care “reform” bill; and sociologist Brad Wilcox of U.Va., and The Family Foundation Marriage Commission, caught the AP’s attention with his research that faith helps marriages!

In Commentary, Dr. Thomas Sowell offers part two of his “Dismantling of America” exposition, the first part of which we posted earlier this week, and which drew considerable praise from Rush Limbaugh, among others. Also, a skin care company is using fetal cells in its product; Tim Kaine’s DNC has selected as a finalist in a contest promoting the health care bill a video that desecrates the American flag; and a high ranking Obama administration official reveals her “ultimate expression of self-righteous victimhood.” This is the weekend we move our clocks back and it gets dark earlier. How appropriate.

News:

Candidates for lieutenant governor come with different backgrounds (Richmond Times-Dispatch)

Republicans rally supporters in Lynchburg as Election Day nears (Lynchburg News & Advance)

Money, missteps cost Deeds in polls for gubernatorial race (Washington Times)

Deeds makes stop in Roanoke (Roanoke Times)

National News: 

Health care businesses at risk in House overhaul (AP/OneNewsNow.com)

Believe it or not . . . abortion funding is in health care bill (OneNewsNow.com) 

Sociologist: Faith benefits marriage and family life (AP/OneNewsNow.com)

Pastors unite to support same-sex marriage in D.C. (Washington Post)

Analysis:

So who’s going to win? (Dr. Larry Sabato/Center For Politics)

Commentary:

Dismantling America, Part II(Thomas Sowell/OneNewsNow.com)

Desecrated Flag Video Is Finalist In DNC Contest(Tasha Easterling/Rightly Concerned Blog)

Got Waste? No Surprises There (Jeremy Wiggins/Rightly Concerned Blog)

Skin Care Company Using Fetal Cells In Anti-Wrinkle Cream (Jeremy Wiggins/Rightly Concerned Blog)

Obama Advisor: We’re Just Speaking Truth To Power (Tasha Easterling/Rightly Concerned Blog)

By the way, it never ceases to amaze me that the homosexual lobby thinks same-sex marriage and its other agenda items are necessary for a thriving economy. See the first bullet point in the Equality Virginia news release announcing its endorsement of Democrat Creigh Deeds for governor, where EV’s Jon Blair says:

To attract the best public and private employees, Virginia must be welcoming of diversity and avoid discriminatory practices. Anything else hurts employers and employees, stifles economic growth, and limits Virginia’s competitiveness.

Let’s see. Virginia has maintained one of the best economies in the country for decades without capitulating to the radical homosexual agenda, and somehow our economy has suffered? Well, then, take it to they guys who’ve been in charge recently, who say they are on your side — Mark Warner and Tim Kaine (not to mention Jerry Baliles), the men Deeds says he wants to tailor himself after (tax increases and all).

Annotations & Elucidations 

The Debate Review Edition

The headlines say it all about last night’s gubernatorial debate. Or at least say what the individual reporters say is all. They range from Democrat Creigh Deeds’ continued haranguing of the “the thesis” issue, to both he and Republican Bob McDonnell going after each other equally, to it was a snoozer. That’s pretty much it today — lots and lots of debate coverage, but that’s what happens when there are so few and so few televised this late in the game. It becomes a media focus. Even the New York Times weighs in, again, on the campaign, it’s third article in short succession. In other news, The Daily Press takes a look at Senator Tommy Norment’s (R-3, Williamsburg) arrangement with William & Mary, Liberty University does its part for representative democracy, ObamaCare isn’t popular in Virginia, and some ministers have something to say on same-sex marriage. All that and more, below.

News:

Deeds accuses McDonnell of ‘lying’ in Virginia Gov debate (Washington Times)

Deeds blasts McDonnell on thesis (The Daily Press)

Deeds sticks to his campaign script (Politico.com)

Candidates for governor clash on taxes, Obama (Richmond Times-Dispatch)

Barbs Traded on Taxes, Traffic in Prime Time (Washington Post)

Televised debate generates a few sparks (Roanoke Times)

McDonnell and Deeds give personal takes on social issues (Norfolk Virginian-Pilot)

Deeds, McDonnell tread softly in first televised debate (Norfolk Virginian-Pilot)

Little new ground in debate (Fredericksburg Free Lance-Star)

GOP Fervor Mounts As McDonnell Leads (Washington Post)

Gubernatorial candidate profile: Creigh Deeds shaped by rural roots (Roanoke Times)

McDonnell: A Razor-Sharp but Selective Memory (Washington Post)

Second Thoughts in Battle for Virginia (New York Times)

State employees appear in ad for McDonnell (Norfolk Virginian-Pilot)

In delegate race, incumbent Bell touts record as Neff presses reform (Charlottesville Daily Progress)

Get out the vote: Liberty U. cancels Election Day classes (Richmond Times-Dispatch)

Sen. Norment part of unique legal setup at W&M (The Daily Press)

Poll: Nearly half in Virginia oppose Obama’s plan for health-care reform (Richmond Times-Dispatch)

Va. ministers protest ban on gay marriage (Richmond Times-Dispatch)

Yesterday,we reported on the VEA’s proud go-along at the NEA national convention endorsing same-sex marriage (see here). Instead of concetrating on issues that matter to teachers and improving education, the VEA has endorsed advocating a radical left-wing policy in contradiction of the Virginia Constitution and statutory law.

The president of the VEA, Dr. Kitty J. Boitnott, responded to our post with a long comment on the thread stating that our take on the VEA/NEA position wasn’t exactly what the convention meant with its lock-step adoption of the radical homosexual agenda. She goes on about “social justice.” What any of this has to do with teaching clearly is beyond most parents’ concerns for their children’s education. 

Not only is the  homosexual marriage resolution contrary to the views of a majority of Virginians, she did not answer our concern about whether the VEA, with this policy position, now will encourage its member teachers to ignore the new traditional marriage guidelines to the Family Life Education curriculum. A true conflict of interest now is on the record.

Adopting a radical agenda contrary to Virginia law. Wasting time on matters completely non-germane to education. A significant conflict of interest.

We report. You decide. Below is the resolution:

NEA Representative Assembly New Business Items (NBIs)
NEW BUSINESS ITEM E
ADOPTED

“Resolutions B-13 (Racism, Sexism, Sexual Orientation, and Gender Identification Discrimination) and I-13 (Civil Rights) set forth NEA’s opposition to the discriminatory treatment of same-sex couples and its belief that such couples should have the same legal rights and benefits as similarly-situated heterosexual couples. The Legislative Program is in accord: NEA supports “obtaining, preserving, and strengthening basic civil and human rights under law,” and specifically calls for “passage of a federal statute prohibiting employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity and expression.” Section IV(b). In implementation of the foregoing policies, the Representative Assembly adopts the following action plan with regard to same-sex couples:

1. NEA will support its affiliates seeking to enact state legislation that guarantees to same-sex couples the right to enter into a legally recognized relationship pursuant to which they have the same rights and benefits as similarly-situated heterosexual couples, including, without limitation, rights and benefits with regard to medical decisions, taxes, inheritance, adoption, and immigration.

2. NEA does not believe that a single term must be used to designate this legally recognized “equal treatment” relationship, and recommends that each state decide for itself whether “marriage,” “civil union,” “domestic partnership,” or some other term is most appropriate based upon the cultural, social, and religious values of its citizenry.

3. NEA will support its affiliates in opposing state constitutional and/or statutory provisions that could have the effect of prohibiting the state and its political subdivisions from providing the same rights and benefits to same-sex couples as are provided to similarly-situated heterosexual couples.

4. NEA will take such actions as may be appropriate to support efforts to (a) repeal any federal legislation and/or regulations that discriminate against same-sex couples, and (b) enact federal legislation and/or regulations that treat same-sex couples and similarly-situated heterosexual couples equally with regard to social security, health care, taxation, and other federal rights and benefits.

5. NEA recognizes that the term “marriage” has religious connotations and that same-sex marriages may not be compatible with the beliefs, values, and/or practices of certain religions. Because of its support for the separation of church and state and the right to religious freedom guaranteed by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, NEA supports the right of religious institutions to refuse to perform or recognize same-sex marriages.

The Executive Committee will monitor the implementation of this New Business Item, and keep NEA affiliates informed of actions taken to achieve its objectives.”