by Ashley Parker, New York Times
March 20, 2013

WASHINGTON — They hear that their cause is lost, that demographics and the march of history have doomed their campaign to keep marriage only between a man and a woman. But the young conservatives who oppose same-sex marriage — unlike most of their generation — remain undaunted.

They identify themselves as part of the “pro-marriage movement” and see themselves at the beginning of a long political struggle, much like the battle over abortion. If they can begin shifting the terms of the debate away from gay rights and toward the meaning of marriage, they say, they have a chance to survive short-term defeats.

“The primary challenge that our side faces right now is the intense social pressure,” said Joseph Backholm, 34, the executive director of the Family Policy Institute of Washington. “To the extent that the other side is able to frame this as a vote for gay people to be happy, it will be challenging for us.”

To put it another way, opponents of same-sex marriage say they must argue in favor of traditional marriage, not against gay people or gay rights. “It’s really a broader defense of marriage and a stronger marriage culture,” said Will Haun, 26, a lawyer and member of the Federalist Society.

In the highest-profile effort, the National Organization for Marriage is gearing up for a march on the National Mall on Tuesday, the day the Supreme Court is scheduled to hear arguments on California’s 2008 voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage.

Last week, the Heritage Foundation released a report by Ryan T. Anderson, 31, in defense of traditional marriage, “Marriage: What It Is, Why It Matters, and the Consequences of Redefining It.” Mr. Anderson, a Heritage Foundation fellow, has also held briefings for members of Congress, their staff members and others to explain his arguments against same-sex marriage, and he and two co-authors released a book last year laying out their case in depth.

Still, the fight is shaping up to be a difficult one, with public opinion increasingly seeming to shift in favor of same-sex marriage. More than 100 high-profile Republicans recently filed a brief urging the Supreme Court to declare that gay couples have a constitutional right to marry. On Friday, Senator Rob Portman of Ohio became the only sitting Republican senator to publicly support same-sex marriage, citing his 21-year-old gay son, Will, as the catalyst.

Beyond Washington, polling has begun to show that a majority of Americans supports same-sex marriage, with even young Republicans moving in that direction.

In a New York Times/CBS News poll conducted last month, 45 percent of Republicans between 18 and 44 years old said they thought same-sex couples should be able to marry — a contrast with Republicans 45 and older, only 20 percent of whom agreed.

After repeated defeats at the ballot box in recent years, same-sex marriage went four for four in statewide votes in November, with victories in Maine, Maryland, Minnesota and Washington.

“Proponents of same-sex marriage have done a fantastic job of telling the story of same-sex marriage through music and television and film,” said Eric Teetsel, 29, the executive director of the Manhattan Declaration, which describes itself as a movement of Christians for life, marriage and religious freedom. “I think it’s really a case where once they hear the other side of the issue, and really think about it deeply, we’re going to win a lot of those folks back.”

And the other side of the issue — the case for what proponents call traditional marriage — is simple, they say.

“In redefining marriage to include same-sex couples, what you’re doing is you’re excluding the norm of sexual complementarity,” said Mr. Anderson, the Heritage Foundation fellow. “Once you exclude that norm, the three other norms — which are monogamy, sexual exclusivity and permanency — become optional as well.”

The result, proponents of traditional marriage say, would be further rises in divorce rates and out-of-wedlock births.

“When you de-link marriage from childbearing, you then have to increase the complexity of that relationship,” said Caitlin Seery, 25, the director of programs for the Love and Fidelity Network, which works with college groups to advocate traditional marriage.

Proponents of same-sex marriage respond that no evidence links it to social ills and that, in fact, divorce rates are often lower in states more accepting of it. Moreover, they say, same-sex marriage fits with this country’s long history of extending equal rights to groups once denied them.

For opponents, moving the debate away from those historical analogies is crucial.

“Most young people think if you come out with traditional marriage views, you’re a bigot,” said Thomas Peters, 27, the communications director for the National Organization for Marriage. “You can’t have that many people in the shadows.”

The issue, proponents of traditional marriage say, is one of presentation.

“These Republicans who are jumping ship are doing so because we have no way of messaging,” said Ashley Pratte, 23, the executive director of Cornerstone Policy Research and Cornerstone Action, a New Hampshire group that focuses on social issues. “Do you want to tell your friends when you’re out with them on a Friday night that they can’t get married? No, you don’t want to have that discussion, but you want to have a healthy discussion.”

Opponents of same-sex marriage say they realize they may lose the current fight, but they optimistically take the long view, pointing to Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court case that legalized abortion. At the time, they say, opponents of abortion were told their cause was lost, but the fight continues 40 years later.

“If you take the longer view of history — I’m not talking just 15 years, I’m talking 40 years or even 100 years — I can’t help but think that the uniqueness of man-woman marriage will be adjudicated over time,” said Andrew T. Walker, 27, a policy analyst at the Heritage Foundation.

Either way, they are not planning on giving up any time soon.

“Even if we are doomed, and I’m totally naïve, I think it’s important that I do this work anyway,” said Mr. Teetsel, of the Manhattan Declaration. “If what I believe is true is true, then I’ve got a responsibility to be on its side for as long as I can be.”

MANCHESTER, N.H.—Cornerstone’s Families First Pledge signers did better than Republicans as a group in Tuesday’s election, proving that voters did not reject the ideas Cornerstone is advancing and instead reacted to the Democrats’ successful effort to mislead voters and the Republicans’ failure to define how they would pursue pro-family issues in office.

“Cornerstone was acting in near isolation in New Hampshire promoting the issues of life, liberty of conscience, parental rights and the importance of supporting the nuclear family as the foundational building block of society, and candidates were left to fend for themselves when trying to define how reasonable and necessary these issues are,” said Shannon McGinley, Cornerstone’s acting executive director. “The Democratic Party incorrectly described these reasonable ideas as extreme, and the Republican Party agreed with these terms by ignoring the attacks and letting the Democrats’ definitions stick. As a result, the people rejected the party that failed to define these issues in favor of the one that did, however incorrectly.

“At the same time, Cornerstone can legitimately say that informed voters who the organization was able to reach absolutely favored Families First Pledge signers, because they know the ideas in the pledge are not just reasonable, they’re essential to maintaining freedom and prosperity in their state,” McGinley added. “Our Families First General Election Voter Guide was successful, despite the impact of wave voters.”

Cornerstone elected 65 of the candidates who signed the Families First Pledge or who were featured in a Candidate Corner article, 45 percent of the total candidates in this category. Even more impressive, 61 of those 65 candidates were elected to the N.H. House and that’s 48 percent of the total candidates in this category. Only 44 percent of the N.H. House is now represented by Republican members, and 35 percent of them openly supported Cornerstone’s issues. Looking at pledge signers alone, Cornerstone elected 55 to the House, or 49 percent of those who signed the pledge. Compare that to Republicans’ 176 winners, or 48 percent of all the candidates who ran under the GOP banner. Meanwhile, the percentage of Republican losers was precisely the same as the percentage of Cornerstone pledge signers or supported candidates who lost, meaning that Cornerstone’s issues were not a factor in their loss.

“I want to be the first one to warn the Republican Party about what course of action they take next,” McGinley said. “Republicans failure on Tuesday was not due to conservative, pro-family values, it was due to the party’s failure to properly address these issues and explain them to voters through their top-ticket candidates. If Republicans continue to ignore social issues as they did this election, these social issues will continue to be defined incorrectly by the Democrats for political advantage, whether Republicans like it or not.

“Cornerstone will continue to advocate for pro-family candidates in both parties, and we will continue to advance policies that protect innocent life, preserve liberty of conscience, emphasize the importance of the traditional family, restore parental rights and enact free market economic principles that operate independent of a limited, smaller government,” McGinley continued. “We hope that the Republican and Democratic parties come to their senses and help us advance these very American ideals, but if they do not, we will continue to advance them despite the efforts of the parties to ignore or diminish them.”

With election results in hand, Cornerstone will be working over the next several weeks with elected pledge signers and other supported winners to advance its Families First Legislative Agenda during the upcoming bill signing period. Clearly, Cornerstone does not expect to pass many of the policies in its agenda over the next two years, but we do intend to build a case for them so the people will truly understand where we’re coming from when the 2014 elections come around. Cornerstone will pursue every policy that has a chance of success and will count on its elected pledge signers and other supported winners to introduce these bills and advance their purpose.

“The time for Republicans to wake up is now,” McGinley said. “This is not a time to abandon principle but a time to stand by it and convince the people why it is the best way forward for our state. We think that effort will be successful come 2014.”

###

About Cornerstone Action
Cornerstone-Action and Cornerstone Policy Research are non-partisan, non-profit organizations dedicated to preserving New Hampshire’s traditional values, limited government, and free markets through education, information and advocacy. Our vision is to create an environment in which strong families—the foundation of our society—can lead New Hampshire into a new era of prosperity and strength. For more information, please visit nhcornerstone.org.

Cornerstone recommends support for ballot Questions 1 & 2, which are constitutional amendment proposals that the outgoing Legislature passed on for your approval. Cornerstone is urging you to use your conscience on Question 3.

Amending the Constitution in New Hampshire is difficult, so your attention to these questions is paramount. According to Part 2, Article 100 of the N.H. Constitution, amendments can be proposed by either a constitutional convention or a three-fifths vote of each body of the State Legislature, which is called the “General Court” in New Hampshire. Now that Questions 1 & 2 are on the ballot, each must be supported by two-thirds of the qualified, participating voters from the general public to be adopted. Question 3 only requires a majority vote of the qualified, participating voters from the general public to pass. The vote for all three questions will take place on Nov. 6, 2012.

Your vote on Question 1 will determine whether the state will permanently ban an income tax as a potential method of taxation. Your vote on Question 2 will determine whether the Legislature’s oversight over the Judicial Branch should be partly restored. These two questions were proposed by the Legislature, which passed each question with a three-fifths vote in the N.H. House and the N.H. Senate. Your vote on Question 3 will determine whether the people want to organize a Constitutional Convention for a more wholesale revision of the Constitution. The Constitution requires the Secretary of State to put this question on the ballot every 10 years.

The Secretary of State printed these three questions ahead of time on this downloadable PDF for your review, and he also produced this voter guide on the three questions for your consideration.

What follows is Cornerstone’s analysis to help you decide whether to support these three questions:

Question 1: Income Tax Prohibited

Cornerstone urges your support of Question 1 on the ballot, which would add a constitutional ban on a personal income tax in New Hampshire. The Legislature (known in New Hampshire as the “General Court”) passed the language of Question 1 on to the people for consideration via CACR 13, which reads as follows:

[Art.] 5-c. [Income Tax Prohibited.] Notwithstanding any general or special provision of this constitution, the general court shall not have the power or authority to impose and levy any assessment, rate, or tax upon income earned by any natural person; however, nothing in this Article shall be construed to prohibit any tax in effect on January 1, 2012, or adjustment to the rate of such a tax.

In every election cycle that passes, candidates at all levels are urged to sign the CNHT Taxpayer Pledge, among other similar pledges, which explains that the candidate will work upon their election to maintain New Hampshire’s low-tax structure by voting against, or vetoing, an income tax and other broad-based taxes. No candidate for governor has ever won without first signing this pledge, and both Ovide Lamontagneand Maggie Hassan have signed the pledge this election cycle. Even with the pledge, however, citizens in New Hampshire must be constantly vigilant to make sure candidates keep their promises once they’ve been elected. If Question 1 passes, elected officials will be forced to keep their promises by the State Constitution, and the people can turn their attention to fine tuning their government to make sure it continues to serve the people and protect their rights. In other words, Question 1 would add a section of the pledge to the N.H. Constitution.

An income tax, in particular, is a particularly damaging form of taxation because it allows the government to take a portion of the money a person earns as he or she is earning it. This type of taxation essentially punishes someone who works harder to earn more money by taking a greater proportion of that earned income as it comes in. Such punishment, in some cases, discourages people from working harder to earn more money and consequently dampens economic growth. States that don’t currently use an income tax have an economic advantage over states that use an income tax because they attract highly industrious and innovative people who want to keep the money they earn when they create new companies and new jobs through their efforts. Since New Hampshire is the only state in the Northeast without an income tax, it has developed what has been called “The New Hampshire Advantage,” which can largely be attributed to the economic advantages of not having an income tax.

As time has passed, momentum has grown among some crowds in New Hampshire to enact an income tax. Their argument centers around the idea that an income tax would supposedly generate revenue for the state that would offset revenue raised by the state’s property tax, and would consequently prevent future increases to the property tax. This argument has been proven false by other states that have used it to enact an income tax. For example, Connecticut income tax advocates used this argument to pass their state’s income tax. Following the enactment of the income tax there, Connecticut’s Legislature continued to raise both the property tax and the newly enacted income tax to pay for the government’s insatiable desire for more money and power. Now, Connecticut is ranked 40 of 50 states on the Tax Foundation’s 2013 State Business Tax Climate Index, and New Hampshire, which has so far resisted broad-based taxes, was ranked 7th of 50 states.

Small governments ensure the proper conditions for business development and job growth. To keep government small, the people of a state must keep it small by watching their representatives in the Legislature and making sure they do not agree to new spending programs that require higher taxes to pay for them. The principle behind Question 1 is that by permanently restraining the power of the Legislature to create an income tax, the Legislature will have to be more frugal with its use of money. As a result, government will remain small and responsive to the people it serves.

Question 1 requires a two-thirds vote of the people to amend the N.H. Constitution. The actual number of votes required to pass the amendment will not be known until the election concludes and the total number of voters can be tabulated. Cornerstone is advocating a “yes” vote on Question 1.

Question 2: Supreme Court, Administration

Cornerstone urges your support of Question 2, which would restore some oversight over New Hampshire’s Judicial Branch by the people through their Legislature. Due to an amendment in 1978, there is currently no oversight over New Hampshire’s court system, a very dangerous situation that this amendment would begin to address. The Legislature passed the language of Question 2 on to the people for consideration via CACR 26, which reads as follows:

[Art.] 73-a. [Supreme Court, Administration.] The chief justice of the supreme court shall be the administrative head of all the courts. [He] The chief justice shall, with the concurrence of a majority of the supreme court justices, make rules governing the administration of all courts in the state and the practice and procedure to be followed in all such courts. The rules so promulgated shall have the force and effect of law. The legislature shall have a concurrent power to regulate the same matters by statute. In the event of a conflict between a statute and a court rule, the statute, if not otherwise contrary to this constitution, shall prevail over the rule.

Specifically, Question 2 would amend Part 2, Article 73-a in the N.H. Constitution and restore some of the Legislature’s authority to direct the policies of the Judicial Branch. Originally, the N.H. Constitution gave the N.H. Legislature the power to create or disband the Judicial Branch court system with a simple majority vote. They did this several times throughout history when the court attempted to assume powers that the Constitution did not give it. This provided an important check on the court’s power and ensured the people’s ultimate power in their government through their elected representatives and senators in the Legislature, which is known in New Hampshire as the “General Court.”

Unfortunately, in 1978, the people passed Article 73-a to the State Constitution after a growing judicial influence convinced the public that the amendment was only ”a housekeeping effort.” Little did the people know how drastically the amendment would change the power structure of their government. Unintentionally, the article gave full autonomy to the courts to pass administrative rules that have “the force and effect of law.” This change led to rules that have become law without representation and gave the court a lawmaking power that was originally reserved only to the people’s Legislature. As a consequence, the Judicial Branch, which is an unelected group of five very powerful people, has become the most powerful branch of government. The Legislature, which is directly accountable to the people because representatives and senators are elected every two years, has become subservient to the unelected Supreme Court’s decisions.

For example, by passing Judicial Branch Rule 1.2, the Supreme Court has allowed the courts within the Judicial Branch to waive all rules. This essentially makes all law within New Hampshire arbitrary and capricious, up to the whim of a tyrant judge. This rule has been used in the family courts to waive the rules of evidence and allow hearsay evidence to be used against parents, for instance.

In another example, Judicial Branch Rule 1.9 gives the court discretion to deny appeals to the Supreme Court, despite the fact that the N.H. Constitution protects that right specifically in Part 2, Articles 77 and 91. When the same government body that interprets the N.H. Constitution is allowed to waive the Constitution by passing a rule, it makes the body untouchable. That’s where we are today.

Question 2 would make the Judicial Branch accountable to the people again by allowing the Legislature to pass laws that overrule court rules that go too far. This would restore checks and balances and make sure the court system answers to the people of New Hampshire again, through their elected representatives.

If you still have doubts about Question 2, Rep. Kevin Avard has put together a video series that discuss all the reasons why this constitutional amendment is needed. You may watch those videos by following these links:

• Question 2 Thomas More College Forum – Rep. Paul Mirski Part 1 of 5
• Question 2 Thomas More College Forum – Rep. Dan Itse Part 2 of 5
• Question 2 Forum – Rep. Gregory Sorg Part 3 of 5
• Question 2 Forum – Rep. Paul Ingbretson Part 4 of 5
• Question 2 Forum – Q&A Part 5 of 5

Question 2 requires a two-thirds vote of the people to amend the N.H. Constitution. The actual number of votes required to pass the amendment will not be known until the election concludes and the total number of voters can be tabulated. Cornerstone is advocating a “yes” vote on Question 2.

Question 3: Constitutional Convention

Question 3 simply asks, “Shall there be a convention to amend or revise the Constitution?” Part 2, Article 100 of the N.H. Constitution gives the Legislature the option to pose this question at any time to voters by a simple majority vote. However, if the Legislature does not pose the question within a 10-year period, the Secretary of State is required to put the question on the ballot. This year is the end of a 10-year period since the question was last posed to voters, so the Secretary of State is exercising his constitutional duty by putting Question 3 on the ballot.

Unlike Questions 1 & 2, which directly amend the Constitution upon a two-thirds vote of the people, Question 3 requires only a majority vote of the people to pass. If it passes, the Legislature will have the duty to set up an election for delegates to the Constitutional Convention within a two-year period, or the election will automatically take place at the same time as the next general election.

The election of delegates will occur in the same way as an election for representatives to the N.H. House of Representatives. So, if you live in a community that elects one representative to the General Court, you will elect one delegate to the Constitutional Convention. If you elect 10 representatives, you will elect 10 delegates. If you live in a community with multiple districts, your community will elect delegates for these multiple districts.

Once the delegates are elected, the Legislature will set up a time for the Constitutional Convention to meet. The delegates can pass any amendment or revision to the Constitution they choose with a three-fifths vote. Upon a successful vote, the adopted amendment would then go on the next general election ballot for a vote of the people. Just like constitutional amendments that are passed by a three-fifth vote of the Legislature, an amendment passed by a three-fifth vote of a Constitutional Convention will require a two-thirds vote of the general public to become part of the N.H. Constitution.

The advantage of the Constitutional Convention method of amending the N.H. Constitution is that delegates can devote all of their time and attention to the Constitution and whether our current form of government is working for the people. Amendments will have greater deliberation in a Constitutional Convention than they would in the Legislature, which must also attend to passing a budget and other laws as the public good may require.

Cornerstone is taking no position on Question 3.

As you prepare to vote on Tuesday, please download, print, use and share Cornerstone’s Families First General Election Voter Guide (PDF), and download and read the Secretary of State’s guide to the 2012 Constitutional Amendment Questions.

MANCHESTER, N.H.—Cornerstone Action PAC launched a statewide radio ad that is airing now through Election Day to highlight Maggie Hassan’s focus on an extreme social agenda rather than the issues that matter to voters.

The ad, called “Fringe” (listen to the ad on YouTube), highlights a number of extreme positions taken by Democratic gubernatorial candidate Maggie Hassan while she was president of the N.H. Senate. It continues by reminding voters about Maggie Hassan’s apparent obsession with social issues during her campaign for governor. On the other hand, the ad reminds voters how Republican gubernatorial candidate Ovide Lamontagne has been focused on his plan to stimulate the economy and restore job growth and development in New Hampshire.

“Since announcing her candidacy for governor, Maggie Hassan has been obsessed with social issues and she has talked about very little else,” said Shannon McGinley, Cornerstone’s acting executive director. “This should come as no surprise to voters who followed Maggie’s career in the State Senate. During that time, Maggie aligned herself on the fringe side of many social issues by repealing the state’s common sense parental notification law, passing a law to permit gay ‘marriage’ and advancing the infamous transgender ‘bathroom bill’.

“Voters who are concerned about jobs and the economy should remember Maggie’s failure to deliver when she was given the chance, McGinley added. “Maggie’s extreme social agenda was more important to her then, and it still appears to be more important to her now.

“On the other hand, Ovide Lamontagne has remained focused on jobs and the economy during his campaign,” McGinley continued. “Ovide has outlined a very specific plan that would deliver on these critically important issues, despite Maggie’s attempts to distract him.”

Here is the script for the new ad, “Fringe” (Please also listen to the ad on YouTube):

Woman: Hon, have you heard all of those Maggie Hassan attack ads against Ovide Lamontagne?

Man: Sure have—she seems pretty obsessed with bringing up fringe social issues over and over.

W: Yeah, right. Though I’m not so surprised Maggie Hassan is obsessed with fringe social issues, since it’s all she seemed to work on when she was in the State Senate.

M: Really?

W: You bet. When Maggie was a state senator, she and her counterparts spent months on fringe issues like gay marriage—and remember that transgender bathroom bill?!

M: Oh yeah—that was a doozy.

W: Right it was—but it didn’t even stop there. Maggie’s obsession with the fringe social issues even lead her to repeal the state’s common sense parental notification law.

M: It all seems so extreme. I don’t want my next governor to be so obsessed with these fringe social issues.

W: Neither do I, which is why I’m supporting Ovide Lamontagne. Unlike Maggie, Ovide’s got his priorities straight and has a plan to bring good jobs to New Hampshire.

M: Sounds like the right idea. I want a Governor who’s focused on job creation, not obsessed with fringe social issues like Maggie Hassan.

Paid for by Cornerstone Action PAC. Not authorized by any candidate. Vicki Lavery, Treasurer. P.O. Box 4351, Manchester, N.H. 03108.

Cornerstone mailed and e-mailed information about its Families First General Election Voter Guide to thousands of Cornerstone supporters in New Hampshire all throughout last week, and the guide is now available to everyone on Cornerstone’s Web site as a digital file or as a printed document upon request.

“With so many candidates running for office in new voting districts this election cycle, voters have welcomed Cornerstone’s general election voter guide as refreshingly helpful as they consider how to cast their votes on Election Day,” said Shannon McGinley, Cornerstone’s acting executive director. “It can sometimes be very difficult to track down all the conservatives who will always put traditional family values first upon their election, and our guide attempts to make that task easier for voters.”

The guide includes key positions on issues important to families for each of the Republican and Democratic candidates for president, congressman and governor as well as an account of whether state representative, state senator and executive councilor candidates have signed Cornerstone’s Families First Pledge, regardless of party. Additionally, the guide listsCornerstone 2011-2012 Legislative Scorecard voting percentages for all incumbent legislative candidates to show how closely they aligned with Cornerstone’s agenda in the last term. It also features a section that helps voters identify their voting districts.

“We’re confident that voters will identify the top-scoring incumbents and Families First Pledge signers in their districts and enthusiastically head to the polls to make sure the next Legislature and the governor can work together to advance the successes of the past two years,” McGinley said. “We’ve added information about national candidates’ positions to help voters ensure our next congressional delegation and president also keep the interests of New Hampshire families in mind.”

Pledge signers indicated on the voter guide have promised to support bills or initiatives that advance citizens’ rights of conscience and religion, protect innocent human life, defend the natural family and traditional marriage, restore the natural rights of parents to raise, educate and care for their own children, and enact free market economic policies to ensure prosperity in New Hampshire. Since releasing its Families First Pledge in July, more than 125 candidates for offices at all levels have signed the pledge. Cornerstone intends to work with the pledge signers who win their elections during the next two years and expects these officials to support the initiatives listed in Cornerstone’s Families First Legislative Agenda, which is based on the pledge.

Cornerstone’s Families First General Election Voter Guide is a follow-up guide to its 2012 Primary Voter Guide, but it is far more comprehensive in that it includes federal candidates as well as candidates from both major political parties as well as undeclared candidates. The primary guide listed only Republicans running for state offices, because only Republican candidates had signed Cornerstone’s Families First Pledge at the time. As of today, there still hasn’t been a Democratic candidate willing to sign Cornerstone’s Families First Pledge; however, at least one undeclared candidate has signed the pledge. Because Cornerstone is a nonpartisan organization, the General Election Voter Guide lists candidates regardless of political party and provides the information voters will need to determine whether each candidate supports Cornerstone’s policy goals or not.

“It is extraordinarily disappointing that not one Democrat was courageous enough to sign our pledge and stand against the radically liberal social agenda that dominates the Democratic Party,” McGinley said. “We hope pro-family Democrats will increasingly become appalled by the message of some of their more liberal colleagues and work to drive their party closer to the more moderate center in the future, which traditionally supports family values.

“Similarly, it is disappointing that so many Republicans ignored our Families First Pledge,” McGinley added. “We hope that the same radicals who are leading the Democrats do not take hold in the Republican Party. Everyone should know that traditional families are the very foundation of society, and without strong supports to protect family values, society will fall apart.”

Thank you very much for allowing me to be here to speak with all of you today on the important matter of religious freedom.

European refugees seeking religious freedom laid the foundation for America.  Religious freedom was so central to the formation of our country, that this right – which is truly an inalienable right – was enshrined in the First Amendment to the Constitution.

Our founders did not intend for this amendment to protect government from religion, which is the current misunderstanding; it was intended to protect religions from government.

For it says: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

Now we see that the free exercise of religion is under attack by a presidential candidate for no other reason than through deception he thinks he can buy cheap political gain.

We know the harm he will cause as he attacks religious freedom, for with religion comes an understanding that there is a greater truth that transcends the moment;

A truth that goes beyond the lifeless goals of pleasure and materialism that we see among the non-believers and those who believe there exists nothing beyond the existence of a materialistic world.

It is just such a belief that underlies the political attacks – really, government attacks – on religion we now see.

Those attacks in the past and now, if not challenged, will continue to break down the family and community ties in favor of an overarching and powerful government that will dominate us with only the secular beliefs of the attackers.

Let’s look at one effect it has had already.  Let’s see what abandonment of religion, attacks on religion and substitution of government have given us. Look what it has done so far to marriage and families.

We began to see this evolution – or, better yet, deterioration – of the stability of marriages and families in the mounting divorce rates following the social disruptions of the Democrat policies of the 1930’s, followed by World War II, and then followed by the still continuing Great Society type of government takeover of social responsibility.

Now we see divorce rates that have reached a level of 50% generally and a greater percentage among less affluent Americans who are the most dependent on the stability of marriage.

Despite the clear evidence of the harm of those policies and the devastating effect of divorce on minor children – an effect so adverse that it is even greater than the effect on minor children of the death of a parent – the spending has continued and they continue to promote policies that attack marriage and substitute government for families.

Let me give you an example.

The concept there is a right to an easy, self-directed ending of marriages – what we call no-fault divorce – has become so ingrained in our national psyche that attempts over several legislative terms in New Hampshire to limit no-fault divorce when minor children are part of the family have failed to achieve any meaningful support.

In 1964, when Lyndon Johnson declared a so-called war on poverty, only 30 percent of poor families with children were headed by single mothers.
Now that figure is about 60 percent.

We need to return strong families to the social norm, not because we dislike change, but because we know that it is the one a bedrock institution that advantages children and therefore society as a whole.

And if we are going to have strong families, we need strong churches.

We do not need more handouts from government and we do not need government leaders attacking religion for cheap political gain.

We must not let cynicism get the best of us and we must not let attacks on religion determine our elections, because Americans, in their core and in their strong majority, understand that there is a greater good than fallible government and there is a greater strength in their churches than in ultimately destructive government social programs.

Neighbors, truly private charities, families and the faith community are the bedrock strengths of America

And, as those now in control of our federal government seek to substitute its agencies – its taxing power – its misguided social programs – for all of these traditional foundations of American society, we must stand up, as we are doing today, to say no and we must stand up on November 6 to say no.

Thank you all again for allowing me to join you here today. And may God bless and save the State of New Hampshire and the United States of America.

Thank you all for coming today to this essential assembly to preserve our religious liberty. I trust that our state and federal governments will hear our combined petition today—and not just from Concord, but from across the whole nation.

This Administration has launched an all-out war on religious freedom and the dignity of women in America through a new Health and Human Services mandate that forces all employers to provide “free” contraceptives, surgical sterilizations and abortion drugs through their insurance plans. That means private hospitals, schools and other charitable organizations will be forced to pay for these procedures against their deepest held religious beliefs.

Unfortunately, a state law from 1999 already violates these same rights and besieges these same religious hospitals, schools and other charitable organizations in New Hampshire.

The attacks on religious freedom come in different forms.  Vaccination choice is an important religious right. Some vaccines violate the religious beliefs of many because fetal cells from aborted children are used in the production of many vaccines.  Obamacare requires that health insurance plans also provide these vaccines “FREE.”

It is imperative in the battle to protect religious freedom that we recognize the many aspects of freedom of religion.

It is time for us to stand together and fight back for our right to choose life and liberty. That’s right, freedom means we have a choice, too.

Our state and federal constitutions guarantee our religious freedom and rights of conscience, and those guarantees are not confined to the halls of our churches, synagogues, temples and mosques or the silence of our own minds. All Americans, whether we act as individuals or business owners, have the right to express and live out our religious beliefs in our public lives without sacrificing our hard-earned dollars or our freedom. Our religious freedom comes with us wherever we have a right to be, and that also extends to how we choose to spend our money.

That means, at the very least, there should be a religious exemption in state and federal law that allows employers (and employees) to opt-out of immoral medical coverage and reduce the cost of their health insurance premiums accordingly.

You know, this Administration has this whole War on Women thing backwards. A co-pay is not a bomb. Asking people to pay for their own contraceptive choices is not a war.

In all of history, war has brought death and destruction. It’s clear to me that the true War on Women is the policy that backs them into a corner and gives them no other choice than to kill the innocent life inside them. The true War on Women deludes women into thinking that poisoning their bodies so they cannot naturally conceive a new life is the only way they can get ahead.

Women will only be free when society accepts their fertility, which sometimes results in pregnancy and birth. And all of us, men and women, will only be free when our government respects our choice to honor and protect our religious belief that all life is sacred because it is created by God.

It is for these values that we petition our government today.

CONCORD, N.H.—Just 17 days before Election Day, concerned New Hampshire citizens led by Cornerstone Action will voice public opposition to the Obama administration’s Health and Human Services Mandate on the State House lawn as part of a Cornerstone-sponsored religious liberty rally on Saturday, Oct. 20.

The federal HHS Mandate, championed by President Obama, forces all employers—including religious schools and hospitals—to provide free contraceptives, surgical sterilizations and abortion-inducing drugs through their health plans, regardless of their religious or moral convictions.

The Cornerstone-sponsored Stand Up for Religious Freedom Rally in Concord will begin at noon on Saturday, Oct. 20, on the N.H. State House lawn. New Hampshire advocates of religious liberty will join more than 100 other cities and towns from Maine to Hawaii that are participating in this national event. A complete list of rally sites and other details are available atstandupforreligiousfreedom.com/locations/

“Thanks to the president and his Obamacare law, the government is now forcing business owners to violate their deepest held beliefs just to make a living,” said Shannon McGinley, Cornerstone’s acting executive director. “This isn’t about access to contraception or abortion pills; two medical treatments that are available to people who want to pay for them. This is about government inventing a right to force religious people to pay for that contraception or those abortion pills even if they morally or religiously object.

“This is about government declaring by fiat that the fake right it now recognizes supersedes the fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and the Rights of Conscience clause in the N.H. Constitution,” McGinley added.

Guest Speakers will include:

• Speaker of the N.H. House William O’Brien
  House Speaker Bill O’Brien has been a member of N.H. House of Representatives since 2004. He was elected speaker on Dec. 1, 2010. An attorney by trade, Speaker O’Brien earned a bachelors degree in history in 1974 and a law degree in 1977. He has served in the civic arena for many years as the chairman of three legislative subcommittees, a member of the majority party leadership, chairman of the N.H. Republican Party Platform Committee, vice-chairman of the Granite State Taxpayers, and co-chairman of the House Republican Alliance. He is a past member of the Mont Vernon school board and the Mont Vernon Police Advisory Commission. Speaker O’Brien has been married to his wife Roxanne for 37 years, and they have three grown children.
• Red Sox Star Rico Petrocelli
  Rico Petrocelli has been known and loved here in New Hampshire for his 12-year career as a Boston Red Sox shortstop and third baseman (rumor has it, he was a Yankees’ fan as a kid… Shhh…). Petrocelli is a two-time All-Star shortstop and veteran of two World Series with the Red Sox. His work off the field is just as impressive. Rico has been a sports journalist and radio talk show host, and he has given numerous talks to Christian audiences about his conversion to Christianity and love for God. He now owns his own business, the Petrocelli Marketing Group based in Nashua, N.H. Rico and his wife Elsie of 40 years live in Nashua, and they have four grown sons. They feel passionately about protecting our God-given right to religious liberty.
• Bedford, N.H. Business Owner Alan Goedecke 
  Launched in 1923 as Goedecke Painting, Goedecke Decorating Center is a well-known family business that has grown and expanded for 86 years through four generations of family members. Alan Goedecke is the current owner.
• N.H. Professor and Principal Mark Gillis
  A husband and father of three, Mark Gillis taught at his N.H. alma mater, the College of St. Mary Magdalen, for 20 years as a professor. He then served as interim dean of faculty and academics at Holy Family Academy, a high school in Manchester, and has since been the principal of Sacred Heart School in Hampton.
• Opera Instructor and N.H. State Rep. Candidate Jane Cormier
  Jane Cormier is running for state representative in Alton, where she has lived with her husband and two children for 15 years. She has traveled the world as an opera singer, and she also teaches music. In 2010 she founded a non-profit organization, Just Love to Sing!
• Saint Mary Magdalen College Student Hannah Howard

The October 20 Stand Up Rally builds on the tremendous momentum created by two rallies held earlier this year in March and June, when more than 125,000 citizens of all faiths attending local rallies at 300 sites coast to coast. With the Supreme Court’s Obamacare ruling leaving this issue in voters’ hands and Election Day only weeks away, the nationwide October 20 Stand Up Rally is expected to draw larger crowds.

The Cornerstone-sponsored Stand Up for Religious Freedom Rally in Concord will include community and religious leaders of several faiths, and all are welcome to attend. Here’s the specific details of Saturday’s event:

What: Stand Up for Religious Freedom Rally.

When: Saturday, October 20, noon to 1 p.m.

Site: New Hampshire State House Lawn

Address:  25 Capitol Street, Concord, NH 03301 

Who: Hundreds of local citizens opposed to Obama’s HHS Mandate.

The date for the Stand Up Rally was chosen to keep this crucial issue in the public eye as voters decide which candidates best represent their values. Cornerstone urges voters to consider voting only for those candidates who have signed Cornerstone’s Families First Pledge, which includes as one of five tenets: “I pledge to vote to preserve the right of conscience for all citizens, including their freedom to practice the tenets of their faith.”

“Jobs and the economy are certainly the focus of most candidates for office this election, but something far more important is at stake,” McGinley said. “We must stop the federal government from forcing employers to choose between violating their deeply held religious convictions or going out of business. If we don’t do this, the founding American principle of religious freedom will no longer exist in America.”

###

About Cornerstone Action
Cornerstone-Action and Cornerstone Policy Research are non-partisan, non-profit organizations dedicated to preserving New Hampshire’s traditional values, limited government, and free markets through education, information and advocacy. Our vision is to create an environment in which strong families—the foundation of our society—can lead New Hampshire into a new era of prosperity and strength. For more information, please visit nhcornerstone.org.

The nationwide Stand Up for Religious Freedom Rally is less than a week away, and I thought you’d appreciate a quick reminder about our planned event in Concord so you can set aside one hour to pray with us on Saturday for the return of religious liberty in America.

When you come out for the rally at noon on Saturday, Oct. 20, at the N.H. State House in Concord, you will be joining people of faith in more than 100 cities across the country who will be opposing President Obama’s HHS Mandate and other attacks on your religious liberty. This peaceful rally will include guest speakers, hymns and prayers for our nation. Please bring your family!

You’ll be adding your voice to the thousands denouncing the Mandate, which requires ALL employers–even religious charities–to provide free contraceptives, sterilization and abortion-inducing drugs through their health plans. You’ll also be taking a stand for religious expression in the state’s public square and joining others who think like you do in a communal prayer for our inalienable religious rights.

Here are all the details:

     What: STAND UP FOR RELIGIOUS FREEDOM RALLY

     When: Saturday, Oct. 20, noon to 1 p.m.

     Site: New Hampshire State House Lawn

     Address:  25 Capitol Street, Concord, NH 03301

Please help me get the word out about the Concord Stand Up For Religious Freedom Rally through e-mail, Facebook, church contacts, and every other way you can. Please tell your friends across the country about it, too. All rally event locations are posted at www.standupforreligiousfreedom.com.

You can help us make this event historic! Similar rallies held in March and June drew more than 120,000 faithful Americans to more than 300 rally sites. Can you help us double or even triple the size of Saturday’s rallies when the stakes are even higher and Election Day (Tuesday, Nov. 6) is only weeks away?

Please come out Saturday, Oct. 20 at noon and help keep the issue of religious freedom in the public eye at this critical moment.

MANCHESTER, N.H.—Cornerstone Action is calling on Maggie Hassan to start the “discussion” right now about what tax hikes she’s going to impose on New Hampshire’s families to pay for her expensive spending plan.

“Voters can’t afford to wait for a new governor to get elected to find out whether they’ll be able to make ends meet while the government spends their money,” said Shannon McGinley, acting executive director of Cornerstone Action. “Maggie Hassan needs to stop playing coy with New Hampshire’s working families and explain exactly what taxes she’s going to raise, and for what purpose, so voters can decide if that’s what they want for their state.”

Yesterday, the “government-knows-best” Democratic gubernatorial candidate avoided a question about whether she would raise the gas tax, increase the number of toll roads or increase existing tolls to pay for the projects she believes need more funding. When asked about taxes at a gubernatorial forum, Hassan said she’d “welcome a discussion” about raising the gas tax or increasing tolls.

“Let’s have that discussion about those tax hikes right now,” McGinley said. “New Hampshire’s working families already pay enough in energy costs because of programs like the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative that Maggie and her cronies put into place. Now Maggie wants to make it more expensive for working moms and dads to get to work and for businesses to transport goods and services around the state?

“It doesn’t take an economist to know that raising transportation costs will undeniably kill jobs that put food on the table for New Hampshire families and will unquestionably harm companies that do business in New Hampshire,” McGinley said. “It doesn’t take an economist to know that the proper recipe for economic success is to reduce the size, scope and cost of government so that private industry and small businesses have enough time and money to invest in new projects and new workers.”

On Monday of this week, Cornerstone Action released its 2013-2014 Families First Legislative Agenda, which is based on the goals identified earlier this year by Cornerstone’s Families First Pledge for candidates. Republican Ovide Lamontagne, who’s facing Maggie Hassan in the Nov. 6 contest for governor, signed Cornerstone’s Families First Pledge, which means he has promised to “Enact free market economic policies that empower New Hampshire families to achieve their highest potential.” In practice, Cornerstone expects a Gov. Lamontagne would “pass a balanced state budget that cuts unnecessary spending and reduces taxes and fees,” because that is the type of policy that would stimulate job growth and economic development. It is that type of policy that would help New Hamsphire’s working families achieve their own prosperity.

On the contrary, Maggie Hassan has not signed the Families First Pledge and has criticized Ovide Lamontagne for doing so.

“Based on Maggie Hassan’s rhetoric and what we know of her elusive plan, it seems to me that she should sign a government first pledge,” McGinley said. “Maggie should tell us which friends of hers she plans to shower with our money, and how many more New Hampshire families she expects to drive into government dependency once they lose their jobs as a result of her agenda.”

###

About Cornerstone Action
Cornerstone-Action and Cornerstone Policy Research are non-partisan, non-profit organizations dedicated to preserving New Hampshire’s traditional values, limited government, and free markets through education, information and advocacy. Our vision is to create an environment in which strong families—the foundation of our society—can lead New Hampshire into a new era of prosperity and strength. For more information, please visit nhcornerstone.org.