Orange Circle, Three White Stripes

Signers of the Manhattan Declaration are a part of something, yet we have lacked a symbol of affiliation. This is a problem. Affiliation is a powerful thing. When a stranger signals their support for something you believe in, it creates an immediate bond and sense of affirmation. This mutuality reinforces conviction: I am not alone; I am part of something.

Recently, the Manhattan Declaration has developed a logo that signers can display as as symbol of their commitment to a movement for life, marriage, and religious freedom.

Three stripes in a stylized “M” symbolize life, marriage, and religious freedom and our diverse coalition of Catholics, Orthodox, and Evangelicals. The increasing size of stripes shows momentum – the building of a movement. Gradient orange invokes a flame, for truth, and the wildfire of enthusiasm for our cause.

A simple way to show your support for life, marriage, and religious freedom.

Ourhope is that by displaying the symbol on our cars, computers, and bicycles and explaining it to friends and family our movement will grow.

The Manhattan Declaration bumper sticker is our gift to you for your year-end donation before December 31.

Visit the website to make your secure online donation.

Or, donors may mail a check to:


Manhattan Declaration

P.O. Box 1396

Ashburn, VA 20147

The Manhattan Declaration is a not-for-profit 501(C)3 organization. All gifts are tax-deductible.


  • Craig

    If this movement has legs, it will come to symbolize sanctimonious zygote hysteria, anti-gay bigotry, and the criminalization of humane respect for other people’s end-of-life decisions. It will symbolize the hypocritical demand for the freedom to coercively regulate the lives of others according to dictates of one’s own religion.

    Think twice about getting that tattoo.

    • John

      Craig – you haven’t even read the document, have you?

    • Dee

      “Sanctimonious, hysterical, bigoted, demanding, coercive, dictatorial” – kind of ironic coming from you, don’t you think?

  • Craig

    If this movement has legs, it will come to symbolize sanctimonious zygote hysteria, anti-gay bigotry, and the criminalization of humane respect for other people’s end-of-life decisions. It will symbolize the hypocritical demand for the freedom to coercively regulate the lives of others according to dictates of one’s own religion.

    Think twice about getting that tattoo.

    • Jeff

      Craig, this symbol represent freedom of expression…freedom of religious belief….freedom of standing up for what one believes. How is this different from the symbols placed on cars in support of gay rights or gay marriage? Please, …hypocrisy seems to reign supreme in this legitimate American citizen conversation / debate. The gay movement has done nothing less than what you allege others are doing…and have done it well, I might add;….that being to coercively bring a request for personal freedoms and acceptance as valuable human beings (which I personally support)….around full circle to their pressing for/marching for/going to courts for/ and demanding the “normalization of” the gay lifestyle, gay rights, gay marriage, gay adoption, etc..etc… IN THE FACE OF others who do not believe most of these things to be appropriate. I believe folks are simply now pushing “back”. Respectfully

      • http://yahoo peter tefft

        Jeff is right. The fact that Gays and Lesbians, Liberals and Socialists don’t want anyone other than themselves to be able to express themselves is the problem. Don’t thread on my rights to have a different opinion. Its plain out hypocrisy. If I believe in only a man and woman should have marital rights thats my constitutional freedom. Leave us alone and we will leave you alone. Thats the American way.

        • Pontifex

          The problem, Peter, is that supporters of the Manhattan Declaration won’t leave us alone. You feel the need to dictate to us how to live our lives, who to love, and how to die. “Leave us alone and we will leave you alone” indeed. If only you actually beleived that!

    • Brendan

      Craig, by calling us names, as high-brow as they sound, you only show us you have no real counter-argument to defend your stance.

    • http://yahoo zappo777

      You sir need to go to a PSYCH WARD and nobody let you OUT!! When did God die and leave you BOSS?? You are nothing but a SON OF SATAN—which is nothing to be PROUD of!!!

      • Brendan

        Thank you zappo777 for proving my point in spades…

  • Jay Keller

    A bit of sweet irony that this new logo resembles the Klan’s. Best of luck with that campaign. Lol.

    • Elizabeth

      I googled the Klan’s logo’s and you are incorrect Jay. The Klan had a logo for wicked sick klan with the slanted lines starting at the left and moving down to the right (making a w \\) Not the same at all. Plus they only had 2 lines, this has 3.

  • A Hermit

    Seems to me the project has contradictory aims; on the one hand you declare that ” No one should be compelled to embrace any religion against his will”; a sentiment I wholeheartedly embrace; but on the other hand you seem to be advocating for opposition to legal same sex marriage and legal abortion. By seeking to compel those of us who don’t share your religious beliefs by force of law to conform to those beliefs aren’t you violating that first concept?

    • Eric Teetsel

      Hi Hermit – Great question and one that I hear often. Upholding marriage and life are by not “religious beliefs” per se. There’s nothing salvific (saving, in the sense Christians mean when they talk about heaven and hell) about these positions, though there is absolutely a theology of life and marriage developed in the Bible. So, for Christians, valuing marriage and life stems from values which are informed primarily by faith. But, plenty of non-Christians hold the same positions on these issues based on their own value systems informed by other touchstones, whether religious (Koran or Torah) or not (reason, logic, family). In other words, we take different paths to the same basic conclusions.

      • A Hermit

        On the other hand plenty of people, Christians included, take a different position. There is, so far as I’ve seen, no compelling secular case to be made against, for example, recognizing the forty year committed, loving relationship between my elderly aunt and her “lady friend” as a marriage…

        By arguing that they should be denied the same rights (and obligations) that a similar heterosexual couple would enjoy you are in fact imposing your religious beliefs on them.

        By insisting that the State on one hand recognize marriages which conform to your religious beliefs but not those which don’t, even if performed in a church which has a different belief you are denying the religious liberty of that other church.

        It sounds to me like you endorse liberty for yourself but not for all.

        • JenZ

          There are plenty of secular arguments – it just happens that they often come from religious people. Google “secular argument against gay marriage” and you will find at the top of the search results an article written by an MIT student giving some pretty good non-religious arguments against. The Ruth Institute also has good information about this on their website –

          • Jeff

            Thanks for that link JenZ!

        • Jeff

          And yet it’s perfectly fine for you to endorse liberty for yourself but not for those who have faith. That’s where you’re blind to your own hypocrisy. As the liberal mantra goes, “Freedom of speech…as long as we agree with it.” and the other, “Equality for all…except those who believe in God.”

          • Anne


          • Timothy (TRiG)

            Huh? No one’s freedom of speech is being taken away in any way whatsoever.

    • jeff

      Not so. Many do not believe homosexuality is “normal” based upon a biological review and/or critique. This is a far cry from a religious argument. Consider…the genital/body parts involved here (penis, vagina, uterus, fallopian tubes, ovaries, anus, mouth, tongue, fist, etc.)….their functions…and the sexual behavioral norm of the entire mammalian world. Aberrant mammalian sexual behavior…?? And, as has clearly been seen without question, a high risk sexual behavior/lifestyle for males. 98.5 % of human beings live, believe in, and enjoy a heterosexual life style and sexual practice. Also, there are absolutely NO twin studies that in any way prove homosexuality is genetic. So, please do not paint this discussion as purely one of a difference in religious beliefs. Biological truths / norms speak loudly here…

  • Chip Rohlke

    My question is simply a philosophical one…
    Why is it that those who engage in what is historically a perverse and destructive lifestyle have so little tolerance for those who think homosexuality(along with incest, pedophilia, beastiality, necrophilia and other ‘sexual preferences’) is unnatural and wrong behavior.
    Why is it that immediately when someone raises an objection to homosexuality as ‘normal and natural’ they are immediately labelled ‘homophobic’ as if everyone is scared of them. Perhaps most people are in fact ‘homo-nauseated’ and sick and tired of ‘in your face’ homosexual activism. Maybe most people don’t want their children indoctrinated into the homosexual culture and tired of constant attempts to make it acceptable behavior.
    It’s true that the Christian faith opposes homosexuality as it does all sin but never rejects the person…as a prison Chaplain I’ve learned to always accept and care for the individual but never the sinful behavior-whether murder, rape, lieing, fornication or homosexuality.
    Of course to those who love this sin only God can touch their conscience.
    I imagine most people want to accept the individuals engaging in such choices but not condone their behavior.
    Chaplain Chip Rohlke

    • Chris

      Chaplain Chip Rohlke you hit the nail right on the head. I couldn’t have said it better or could have agreed with you any more. Tim you can’t compromise what commandments of God you will obey. No one can serve two masters.

      • Ginny Bain Allen

        Amen to nobody can serve two masters! Choose this day whom you will serve. As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord!

    • Jeff

      I agree

    • Anthony

      Couldn’t have said it any better (well, I shouldn’t sell myself short). Right on the money, Chaplain.

    • Anne

      Chaplain Chip you are CORRECT.

    • Ginny Bain Allen

      Good one – homonauseated. Excellent comments, Chaplain Chip!

  • Katherine

    I am a committed evangelical Christian, married 41 years to my husband. I have several homosexual friends, including one close girlfriend that has been “married” 3 times. She and I have had many discussions about homosexual/hetrosexuals feelings and actions. She knows I believe her “actions” to be sin, but her feelings are what they are. She and I agree to disagree and we are good friends because we have other things in common. When I, as a Christian, get accused of homophobia, I just laugh. I am not afraid to tell those who want to discuss it my beliefs and if they think I’m homophobic that’s their problem. I think Christians need to make a big distinction between “covenant man/woman marriage” and civil marriage (both hetrosexual and homosexual).

  • Ann

    Just as Jesus loved the sinner but hated the sin! We are followers of Jesus. This is our choice…not something forced/coerced upon us. Gays also have a choice to follow Him or not. I believe the Bible makes it clear…….if a person has “tendencies” for homosexuality, he should, like all of us, “take up the cross and follow Him.” We all have tendencies to sin in various ways…….and we all do now and then….but if we love the Lord and want to follow Him to the utmost, we will learn what His Word says to us and obey it to the best of our ability…knowing that it does cost something/have consequences……that is “taking up the Cross and following Him.” Since doing this in my life, I have found that I have avoided many hardships that others experience and I am grateful to the utmost. The road is not always easy, but I would choose no other way, so help me God.

  • Jim

    I was going to attempt to write a reasonable and decent message. However, after having read the chaplain’s contribution, I feel that the essence of the issue has been directly targeted and hit. What else can I say? Perhaps that Chaplain Chip is (as I believe) living up to his ‘calling.’ Way to go, Chip!

  • Ginny Bain Allen

    Check out this sad, disturbing information about what the political correctness of homosexuality has caused, UPS and the Boy Scouts of America:

    In this busy shipping season, UPS will have at least one less customer to worry about: FRC. After 11 years as our official carrier, FRC is suspending its contract with UPS for openly discriminating against the Boy Scouts of America (BSA). In November, company executives announced that they would no longer support organizations that refuse to bow to their politically correct view of homosexuality. Although Vice President Kristen Patrella insisted UPS’s decision didn’t specifically target the Scouts, theirs was the only group affected. UPS promised to end its charitable donations to the Scouts “until gay Scout leaders are welcome within the organization.”

    According to most reports, the shipping giant altered its policy after an online petition drive at the liberal website,, encouraged companies to end their BSA partnerships. But in the end, the 83,000 signatures it collected is a drop in the ocean compared to the 1,074,775 Americans who volunteered with a troop last year — or the 2.7 million boys who were actual members of the Boy Scouts. Yet they, the overwhelming majority, are the ones for whom UPS has shown the greatest contempt — and whose valuable activities will suffer as a result.

    FRC tried to resolve the matter behind the scenes, even contacting Chairman and CEO Scott Davis with a letter of protest — to which UPS promptly replied. Unfortunately, the company only reiterated its position that until the BSA puts a greater priority on the political agenda of LGBT activists than the protection of Scouts, they are not entitled to the same equality UPS claims to endorse. Apparently, the company isn’t interested in true diversity but in strong-arming anyone who disagrees with their extreme agenda — including a century-old youth development program, whose only crime is instilling character into millions of American boys. As for their longstanding policy on homosexuality, the Boy Scouts are doing what every parent would want them to: putting children’s safety first.

    Meanwhile, it seems UPS is not only anti-freedom, but anti-religion as well. Last week, the federal government sued the company for firing a Jehovah’s Witness driver over a scheduling request. The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) argues that the shipping giant violated America’s anti-discrimination laws when it refused to modify the employee’s hours so that he could attend a special church service. “When the employee refused to compromise his religious beliefs and attended instead of reporting for work, UPS fired him. UPS also assigned him a ‘do not hire’ status and refused to hire him when he applied for a different position at UPS’s Staten Island facility,” the EEOC press release explains .

    If UPS wants to cater to the intolerant crowd, that’s their business. But from now on, it won’t be ours. FRC is taking its shipping needs elsewhere.

  • CS Stump

    Like Chuck Colson often said, “Christians do not impose we propose.” In this case we propose a social ethic that protects innocent human life and the institution of marriage. These are the cornerstones of a healthy, prosperous and orderly society. Those who would sacrifice the weak in the name of “choice” and convenience, or redefine marriage away from it essence, which is in the procreation and rearing of children, do nothing less than threaten our civilization. Since they (see Craig above) have very little in the way of fact or logic to offer they resort to name calling (i.e. bigot, this-zealot and that-phobe) in an attempt to disqualify pro-life and pro-marriage people from the civil discourse. This is especially true if they can label an argument “religious” invoking the bogus “separation of church and state” argument. Barring people of faith from the public square is the antithesis of what the founders had in mind when drafting the Constitution.

  • Jeff

    If someone tries to use two bolts alone for a project what do they have? If they try to use two nuts alone for the same project what do they have? Basic logic says that in order for these two items (a nut and a bolt) to work properly, the way they were INTENDED to work by those who designed them, a requirement of using the bolt with a nut means the project will succeed. We were made by our CREATOR (God) in a way that we were designed to work only one way. It takes a man and a woman together to make perfect harmony just like taking one bolt only works when used with a nut. All the arguments in the world will not change the fact that two bolts alone are incapable of achieving a viable function. And two nuts alone are not effective either. Any personal view (to believe or not believe) in who God is will NOT change the fact that a union between a man and a woman is the only “natural” way for us to exist.

  • Ryan C

    Why should your “values” (completely contrary to mine) be used to restrict my ability to marry the person I love and live my life happily in peace? Why should I be subjected to your religion and treated as a second class citizen in the eyes of the law simply because I’m not married to someone of the opposite sex? As a 27 year old gay American who has been in a relationship for over six years and very much plans to eventually marry my partner, I’m deeply hurt my this entities efforts to restrict my rights and discriminate against me on purely religious grounds.

    • maria elena

      Marriage between a man and a woman is instituted by God. If I love my dog should I marry my dog? It is not about feelings. It is about doing what is right. Why don’t you just live with a contract. It is not a marriage and never will be. Your eternal soul is in danger for you will not obey. those were also Satan’s words.

      • TLarge

        Then change “marriage” to “contract” within the government. No religious influence of any kind, all basic human rights protected. problem solved. Well, until the next civil rights movement which I predict will be singles vs. marriage unless we take marriage out of the government completely. Do you know why it is really there to begin with? The new generation gets it, true equality based on common sense, not religion or because they had the fear of any God scared into them. I believe in Faith, however, religion is what is causing division throughout the world. I don’t think that’s what our forefathers were thinking when they left from under rule of the Catholic Church. Teach the word throughout the land, not throughout the government. That will fix a lot of the discontent in this country. Every civil rights movement has prevailed. Some just take more generations than others.

    • RSK

      Why do you assume your values are completely contrary, although I would agree if your values are completely based in sexuality? Its discussions and thoughts such as these and POTUS that divide our country instead of finding common ground through mutual respect and consideration, especially that of the younger for the older more mature, which is inherent in the smooth governance of society.
      Arguments and attacks over religion make assumptions that may be true on the surface, but do not reflect the truth of the situation in science and society.

  • Joe Whitchurch

    I love the Manhattan Statement. Branding can be a good thing. A couple questions. Did you notice that the bars only get bigger as you move toward the Left? And orange, isn’t that the color of the jump suits we’ll be wearing if we continue doing life affirming marriages and healthcare in the face of edicts to the contrary with litigation and the power of the State? And how is it this symbol represents ‘religious liberty’ or ‘defense of youngest human life’? I see the ‘M’ for marriage? I do like the brand/logo idea, but am simply curious as to the ways it symbolizes what I’m told it symbolizes. Thanks in advance for the info.

    • Eric Teetsel

      Joe – did you read the explanation beneath the logo? It explains the meaning.

    • Timothy (TRiG)

      Still, I must say I’m enjoying your persecution fantasy. It’s most amusing.


  • Bob

    There is no movement by gays to restrict your beliefs, particularly within the walls of your church. There is, however, a (losing) movement by some Christians to restrict our civil rights. Period. We are only responding to lifetimes spent listening to you people judge us not by the content of our character, but by our sexual orientation.

  • Tatiana I

    Yes, there is an urgent need to protect the traditional marriage. Too bad it is viewed as an opposition to the gay marriage rights. And too bad people with the same sex attraction let themselves to be used and manipulated by politicians to suppress Christians and especially Catholic Church. Before we try to stand for marriage, we have to admit that the roots of the problem lie first of all in our contraceptive culture. Our own denial to accept children that come naturally as a result of the marriage between a man and a woman puts an end to the argument. When husbands and wives use contraceptives in their marital relations their marriage is not much different than the union of the same sex attraction couples. It is even worse than the latter. For married people willingly deny life to their children, while gay couples simply unable physically procreate. Side effects of this contraceptive mentality are horrific. Abortion is one of them. The number of abortions is magnified because the pills kill too. Then come cheating, fornication of adolescents, pornography, sexual perversions, explosion of STDs and many more. Since there is a politically correct notion that anything goes between two consensual adults, gay sex eased out from under the definition of perverted/dysfunctional act. The marriage lost its value because we (who use contraceptives) diminished the value of the marital relationship by taking God out of equation-God’s gift of life. Without this great life giving potential the act of love making is reduced to animal like sexual gratification.

    • TLarge

      We are talking about marriage in the government’s eyes, not the churches eyes. The Catholic Church should have never had the power it has had over our government. It is not there to serve Christianity exclusively. I respect everyone’s religion but using our government to brainwash a whole society for so long is starting to backfire. If “no” religion was used to influence the government there would not be a marriage license in this country and this would not even be an issue right now. It is nothing but a tool used by the government to ensure all of its citizens are cared for, and taxed accordingly.

    • Timothy (TRiG)

      “too bad people with the same sex attraction let themselves to be used
      and manipulated by politicians to suppress Christians and especially
      Catholic Church”

      Christian persecution fantasies are really really weird.


  • TLarge

    My vision of the future is that the LGBT movement will continue and win. Many countries are right behind us if not with us in social advancement. I also see long after I’ve departed this body, the issue being discrimination against single people by the government just because the prefer not to marry. The only logical solution that I can see to prevent our children and grandchildren from having to endure the social misery that we are going through is take marriage out of the government completely. Is it not between two people and their god of choice? The government created this problem by acknowledging marriage in the first place.

  • Kelly

    I hope you guys read this. It’s really important.
    I’m queer. That’s how I identify. I believe that people have every right to form their own opinions. If you want to believe that gay marriage is evil, that’s fine with me. I think religious organizations should be free to forbid gay marriage in their churches. They should be free to speak out against gay marriage and to teach their church members that gay marriage is not acceptable. Heck, if you want to teach your congregation that anyone who thinks about gay sex will burn in hell forever, that’s fine with me! That’s your right.

    But, where the problem lies is that you guys getting the government involved. You are trying to use the government to force your religious views on to the rest of us. You believe that you protecting children and the family and a host of other things. The bottom line is that your agenda has become an attack on us. If you back off and stop working with the government, you’ll probably get more support.

    As conservatives you really should be ashamed of yourself. The constitution states very clearly that “Congress shall make NO LAW respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

    Most of us are completely supportive of keeping the government out of your religion. We agree that Congress shall make NO LAW prohibiting the free exercise of your religion or faith. Now we want you to respect that Congress shall make NO LAW respecting the establishment of religion into our lives. Until you do that, you are nothing but hypocrites. Ironically, in just one chapter of Matthew, Jesus mentions hypocrites seven times. In the entire bible, guess how many times Jesus mentions same sex relationships? Zero.

    So, to sum this up, until you guys back off and stop trying to work with the government to deny benefits to us, you are the enemy plain and simple. And we will win and you will lose. I’m very confident of that.