October 18, 2012Dear Station Managers,This firm represents Minnesota for Marriage, the political committee supporting theproposed marriage protection amendment on the November 6, 2012 ballot. Your station
will be running a commercial beginning on October 18, 2012 titled, “Not Live and Let
Liv
e.” Though one is not required, this letter will provide substantiation for the
statements made in this advertisement.
Statement:
“When same
-
sex marriage has been imposed elsewhere, it‟s not
been live and let live. People who believe marriage is one man and one woman
have faced consequences.”
Substantiation:
Same-sex marriage has been imposed by courts or legislaturesin Massachusetts, Vermont, Connecticut, New York, New Hampshire and Iowa,along with the District of Columbia. It also exists in Canada and some Europeancountries. Same-sex marriage has never been approved by the people in apublic vote. When marriage is redefined, it does not exist in the law alongsidetraditional marriage. As noted in a scholarly review published in the
Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy
, “…once the judiciary or legislature adopts „theunion of any two persons‟ as the legal definition of civil m
arriage, that conceptionbecomes the sole definitional basis for the only law-sanctioned marriage that anycouple can enter, whether same-sex or man-woman. Therefore, legallysanctioned genderless marriage, rather than peacefully coexisting with thecontemporary men-woman marriage institution, actually displaces and replaces
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol31_No1_Stewartonline.pdf Legal scholars on both sides of the same-sex marriage debate acknowledge thata host of legal conflicts will arise when marriage is redefined. For example, a
description of the scholarly book “Same
-sex Marriage and Religious Liberty:
Emerging Conflicts” notes that, “
A redefinition of marriage would impact a host of laws where marital status affects legal rights
—
in housing, employment, health-care, education, public accommodations, and property, in addition to family law.These laws, in turn, regulate a host of religious institutions
—
schools, hospitals,and social service providers, to name a few
—
that often embrace a differentdefinition of marriage. As a result, church-
state conflicts will follow.”
http://www.amazon.com/Same-Sex-Marriage-Religious-Liberty-Conflicts/dp/0742563251 In addition to conflicts with organizations holding religious views, same-sexmarriage also causes legal conflicts for individuals, small-businesses and others.Several examples of these conflicts are mentioned in the advertisement airing onyour station.
Statement:
“Small businesses fined. Individuals fired. Charities closed down.
Churches sued. Same-sex marriage taught to young children in elementaryschool and parents have no legal right to be notified, or to take their children out
of class that day.”
Substantiation:
The advertisement highlights a number of situations wherepeople, businesses and groups who do not support a same-sex marriage legaldefinition have faced consequences. These include:
Jim and Mary O‟Reilly are devout Catholics who own the Wildflower Inn in
Vermont. Vermont is a same-sex marriage state. The couple was sued bya lesbian couple for not enthusiastically supporting their lesbian wedding.The resolution of the case required the owners of the Inn to pay a $10,000fine to the Vermont Human Rights Commission, additional sums to thelesbian couple and to agree to host no more wedding receptions in their Inn. http://www.citizenlink.com/2012/08/24/vermont-innkeepers-settle-discrimination-case/
Damian Goddard was a national sportscaster in Canada, a same-sexmarriage locale. After a sports agent sent a Tweet about his support for traditional marriage, Goddard sent a personal tweet that hewholeheartedly agreed with him. The next day he was fired from his job.http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2011/06/23/damian-goddard-sportsnet-human-rights-same-sex_n_883589.html
Catholic Charities in both Boston and Washington, DC closed their licensed adoption agencies after same-sex marriage was imposed in their state and district, respectively. In announcing its withdrawal from providing
adoption services, the Archdiocese of Boston said, “We have encountered
a dilemma we cannot resolve. In spite of much effort and analysis,Catholic Charities finds that it cannot reconcile the teaching of the Church,which guides our work and the statutes and regulations of the
Commonwealth.” See
http://www.bostoncatholic.org/uploadedFiles/News_releases_2006_statement060310-1.pdf Similarly, Catholic Charities in the District of Columbia
said, “Although Catholic Charities has an 80
-year legacy of high quality
service to the vulnerable in our nation‟s capital, the
D.C. Governmentinformed Catholic Charities that the agency would be ineligible to serve asa foster care provider due to the impending D.C. same-
sex marriage law.”
See http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/same-sex_marriage_law_forces_d.c._catholic_charities_to_close_adoption_program/
The Diocese of Worcester, MA is an example of lawsuits filed againstchurches who refuse to countenance same-sex marriage. The Churchdeclined to sell a former retreat center to a gay couple fearing that it wouldbe used to perform same-sex marriages. The couple is suing the Church.http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/2012/09/09/gay-couple-said-church-denied-northbridge-sale-stop-same-sex-weddings/QrdnHOSuZfWmb6keBwLnxK/story.html
After Massachusetts redefined marriage, local school districts beganteaching it to young children in public schools. In the Estabrook schools inLexington, MA, parents objected that their children were read the book
“King & King” in
class. This animated storybook is about a prince whomarries another prince, and features drawings of the two men kissing. It
Search History:
Result 00 of 00
00 results for result for
p.
More From This User
Notes
Load more
