The Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission

For all the fanfare on marriage over the past week, one might have mistakenly thought it was National Marriage Week—the annual occasion that fell on the calendar precisely three months earlier, Feb. 7-14. Instead, North Carolina and President Obama weighed in on the age-old institution, sounding a stark contrast of convictions. And now, for better or worse, marriage is back on the national map.

By a 61 to 39 percent vote, North Carolina citizens chose May 8 to protect marriage as only the union of one man and one woman. One day later, President Obama announced he had “evolved” in adopting a different position, one affirming same-sex “marriage.”

“At a certain point, I’ve just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same-sex couples should be able to get married,” said the president May 9 in an ABC News interview. In fact, he has come nearly full circle on the issue, with a history that includes expressing a belief that “marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman.”

The pair of actions—North Carolina’s affirmation of traditional marriage and the president’s redefinition of it—help comprise the latest episode in the intensifying battle for the family.

“It saddens me and grieves me that the president has endorsed same-sex ‘marriage,’” said Richard Land, president of the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission. “This is an issue that every time the American people have had a chance to vote on, including [in North Carolina], they have voted overwhelmingly to keep marriage as between a man and a woman.”

The Tar Heel state voters who said yes to God’s definition of marriage joined voters in 29 other states that have chosen to enshrine traditional marriage in their state constitutions. Put another way, marriage maintained its perfect batting average—now 32 for 32—when the question of same-sex “marriage” has been placed before the people on the ballot in some fashion. Voters in four other states—Maine, Maryland, Minnesota and Washington—will likely have the opportunity to vote on the marriage issue in November.

The North Carolina vote came amid same-sex “marriage” advocates’ continued suggestion that, pointing to some recent polls, support for protecting traditional marriage is on the rocks. Reality, though, is not always what polls suggest. Just before North Carolinians headed to the polls May 8, a Public Policy poll showed the amendment winning by a 57 to 39 margin—four percentage points closer than the actual final 22-point spread. This has been true elsewhere. And the margins of victory have seldom even been close. Of the 30 states that have voted on constitutional marriage amendments, only two—California and South Dakota—decided the question by less than a double-digit margin. On average, states have approved amendments with 67 percent of voter support.

Meanwhile, a different message echoes from the nation’s capital. On Monday, President Obama followed announcement of his shift on marriage by decrying the Defense of Marriage Act, stating, “Congress is clearly on notice that I think it’s a bad idea.” Naturally, this step follows the Justice Department’s announcement in February 2011 that it would no longer defend the 1996 law—specifically the portion defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman for federal purposes—against legal challenges; the law popularly known as DOMA also protects states from being forced to recognize same-sex “marriages” performed elsewhere.

Repeal of DOMA would put marriage on a collision course with the states. The deceptively titled Respect for Marriage Act (S. 598) introduced in the Senate would do just that. Under such a repeal measure, the 30 states with constitutional amendments preserving traditional marriage could quickly see their line in the sand crossed by the federal government. With DOMA dismantled, states would lack federal protection in refusing to accept same-sex “marriages” performed elsewhere.

A radical shift in a host of other things would result as well. Financial benefits, including health care coverage, could be mandated to “wedded” same-sex couples. Business owners’ conscience rights could be trampled under foot. Elementary school textbooks would be rewritten to teach a new “normality” of two mommies or two daddies. To be sure, myriad laws would necessarily be changed to reflect a supposed legislative enlightenment on what constitutes marriage.

For millennia, civil governments have understood the profound implications of marriage on society. That’s why governments—apart from in just a few nations in recent years—have chosen not to expand the marriage institution beyond the recognition of one man and one woman.

To be sure, marriage isn’t much ado about nothing. As one considers its impact on children and the future of society, the marriage vow “I do” has much ado about most everything.

The “intensity gap” on abortion in the United States helped convince the president of NARAL Pro-choice America to step aside.

Nancy Keenan, head of one of the country’s leading abortion rights organizations for nearly eight years, will leave her post at the end of the year, The Washington Post reported May 10.

Also in this edition: PepsiCo halts research using aborted tissue; boycott ends, Unborn babies recognized inside White House, not outside, Miss Delaware stands for life despite discouragement, and Kansas Republican sidelines pro-life proposal.

In an interview with the newspaper, Keenan, 60, said she is concerned about the pro-choice movement’s future and believes younger leaders are needed to offset the rising tide of pro-lifers among Americans under 30 years of age. NARAL’s polling has shown 51 percent of pro-life millennials consider abortion a “very important” voting issue, while only 26 percent of abortion rights supporters under 30 think of it in that way, according to The Post.

“There is an intensity gap between our side, being pro-choice, and the other side,” Keenan told the newspaper.

Millennials will constitute 40 percent of the voting public by 2020, according to The Post.

“This issue has got to be a voting issue for them,” Keenan said. “If we want to continue protecting abortion rights in this country, this is so clearly the case.”

She said, “There’s an opportunity for a new and younger leader. Roe v. Wade is 40 in January. It’s time for a new leader to come in and, basically, be the person for the next 40 years of protecting reproductive choice.”

Pro-life blogger Jill Stanek wrote in response to Keenan’s announcement, “[T]he fact is the pro-abortion movement is suffering attrition. It has killed off its future supporters.

“Furthermore, it continues to kill off 3,300 more chips off the ole’ block every day. So the ‘intensity gap’ is only going to widen, thanks to the birth gap,” said Stanek, whose whistleblowing as a nurse helped bring about passage of a federal law protecting babies who survive abortions.

PepsiCo halts research using aborted tissue; boycott ends

PepsiCo will no longer permit research for its products using tissue from unborn children.

The soft drink company announced it was halting the use of the aborted fetal cell line HEK-293 – a human embryonic kidney colony – by Senomyx in research to develop flavor enhances for its beverages. A PepsiCo official revealed the decision in a letter to Children of God for Life, which announced the action April 30.

Children of God had led a boycott of the company since last May after it was learned Senomyx, a biotechnology firm, was using the fetal tissue in its research. The fetal cell line was used in testing but not in Pepsi products, according to Children of God.

“Senomyx will not use HEK cells or any other tissues or cell lines derived from human embryos or fetuses for research performed on behalf of PepsiCo,” said Paul Boykas, PepsiCo’s vice president of global public policy, in a letter to Children of God, according to the pro-life organization.

Children of God Executive Director Debi Vinnedge said her organization was “absolutely thrilled” with PepsiCo’s decision. “They have listened to their customers and have made both a wise and profound statement of corporate integrity that deserves the utmost respect, admiration and support of the public.”

The boycott, which was endorsed by more than 30 pro-life organizations, immediately ended with the announcement of PepsiCo’s decision.

When Senomyx’s use of cells from an aborted baby was revealed last year, Campbell Soup Co. quickly ended its relationship with the biotech firm, but PepsiCo refused.

Unborn babies recognized inside White House, not outside

Unborn children receive security clearances at the White House, but they have no protection elsewhere in the District of Columbia.

The White House Visitors Office sent an email newsletter May 7 to members of Congress and other recipients that outlined the process of registering unborn babies for tours.

“We have received a number of calls regarding how to enter security information for a baby that has not yet been born,” wrote Ellie Schafer, director of the White House Visitors Office.

“Crazy as it may sound, you MUST include the baby in the overall count of guests in the tour. It’s an easy process.”

The email explains the process of entering the unborn child’s security information.

“Once, the baby is born, you should send an email to the [Visitors Office] inbox with the tour request ID number, the baby’s given name, their actual birthday and gender,” Schafer wrote.

Douglas Johnson of the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) called it “ironic that President Obama’s staff recognizes the existence of unborn babies for purposes of providing security within the White House – yet, there is no indication that President Obama has any problem with the fact that throughout the District of Columbia, abortion is now legal for any reason up to the moment of birth. Notably, the newsletter provides no guidance on what the staff should do if an unborn baby is first registered for security purposes, but then aborted.”

Pro-life advocates in Congress are backing the District of Columbia Pain-capable Unborn Child Protection Act, which prohibits abortions at 20 weeks or more into pregnancy based on evidence a baby in the womb experiences pain by that point.

“If the President wants to provide for the security of the unborn child immediately outside of the White House gates, as well as inside, he should endorse this bill,” wrote Johnson, NRLC’s legislative director.

Miss Delaware stands for life despite discouragement

Maria Cahill has continued to express her pro-life views as the reigning Miss Delaware despite being told not to by some.

“I heard a lot of people say that because I was Miss Delaware and represented the Miss America Organization, for that reason, I had no right to talk about anything political,” Cahill said, according to an April 25 report by Townhall.com. “In my mind, I thought exactly the opposite.”

She has spoken out for the pro-life cause since she was crowned last summer, according to Townhall. That included an appearance at the March for Life in January at Washingon, D.C., an event she attends yearly.

“I was really debating going as Miss Delaware or not. I did not tell my directors I was going,” Cahill said.

Advocating for unborn children is not new for Cahill. “I was always involved growing up. Ever since I can remember, I was volunteering at pro-life events,” she said..

Kansas Republican sidelines pro-life proposal

The Republican president of the Kansas Senate has put an end this session to an effort to limit abortions by changes in the tax code.

Three days after the House of Representatives passed the bill in an 88-31 vote, Senate President Steve Morris sent the measure to a committee just two days before the close of the legislative session, effectively killing the measure.

Under the proposal, taxpayers would be unable to deduct money spent on an abortion or for supplemental health insurance to cover the procedure, The Kansas City Star reported. The bill also would prevent employers from taking deductions for contributions to health plans for supplemental coverage of abortion and companies from receiving tax credits for donations to Planned Parenthood, according to the report. In addition, the measure would ban state employees, including medical residents, from performing abortions on state property.

Morris was concerned the legislation might affect the accreditation of the University of Kansas Medical Center, according to The Star. “While I will always fight for pro-life values, we must also protect the accreditation of our flagship medical center,” Morris said, the newspaper reported.

Kansans for Life’s Kathy Ostrowski said the medical center’s accreditation is not in danger and described Morris’ explanation as “a phony excuse.” The language in the proposal regarding the medical center is the same that exists in all of this year’s budget proposals, including proposals supported by Morris, said Kansans for Life’s state legislative director.