C3

Marriage Bans Overturned in Idaho and Nevada

Yesterday, a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled unanimously in favor of equality, striking down same-sex marriage bans in Idaho and Nevada.

Judge Stephen Reinhardt delivered the ruling for the panel, which applied heightened scrutiny because the bans are applied on the basis of sexual orientation, and concluded that the state laws violate the equal protection rights of lesbians and gays who wish to marry. The court took note of the particular harm marriage bans impose on families:

“To allow same-sex couples to adopt children and then to label their families as second-class because the adoptive parents are of the same sex is cruel as well as unconstitutional. Classifying some families, and especially their children, as of lesser value should be repugnant to all those in this nation who profess to believe in ‘family values.’”  

The ruling follows the Supreme Court’s refusal to hear the appeals of five states seeking to reverse similar cases in which a lower court ruled state marriage bans unconstitutional. This morning, however, Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy temporarily blocked the appeals court ruling and asked for a response from the plaintiffs involved in Idaho’s marriage lawsuit by Thursday at 5 pm. 

PFAW Foundation

Paul Cameron Says Parents Should Be Exempt From Taxes And Should Get Extra Votes

Paul Cameron was the guest again today on Gordon Klingenschmitt's "Pray In Jesus Name" program where the two set aside their concerns about "a gay" using molestation to recruit kids into homosexuality and focused their discussion instead on the dangers of the birth control pill and declining population growth.

Cameron believes that this "demographic crunch" is the most important problem facing humanity today and so he has come up with a couple of clever solutions:

  1. People with children should be exempt from paying taxes.
  2. People with children should get extra votes.

As Cameron sees it, parents ought not to have to pay any taxes while they are raising their children because they're "assuring the future" and Klingenschmitt thought this was a pretty good idea because it "creates a tax incentive for people to have children and to stay home, maybe, and raise them."

On top of that, Cameron also advocated for giving parents "their vote as a citizen plus one for for each child that they have."

"That means a couple with, say, three children," Cameron explained, "will have eight votes ... Let's change the politics of it so the politicians will suddenly say 'I wanna be family-friendly because I want to come back to Washington'":

Fischer: 'It Looks Like President Obama Wants Ebola To Come To The United States To Punish America For Being Racist'

On yesterday's radio program, Bryan Fischer bizarrely tried to claim that he is not saying that President Obama wants Ebola to come to America as punishment for the nation's history of racism, but rather is simply saying that it sure looks like President Obama wants Ebola to come to America as punishment for the nation's history of racism.

As Fischer sees it, Obama is not doing nearly enough to protect America from the disease and his lackluster effort is  certainly giving the impression that he is intentionally doing very little because he "wants Ebola to come to the United States to punish America for being racist."

Insisting that he is not saying that this is what Obama is doing, but rather that it looks like this is what Obama is doing, Fischer said that "maybe it's part of his redistribution plan to redistribute disease, not just wealth":

Fischer: 'The Gay Gestapo ... Is Basically The Same As Islam'

Bryan Fischer remains furious about the Supreme Court's decision not to hear appeals of lower court rulings striking down gay marriage bans, declaring on his radio program today that gay activism and radical Islam both operate underneath the same "dark, totalitarian" spirit.

"It's convert, submit, or die a political death," Fischer said, linking the push for marriage equality to radical Islam. "Convert, submit, or be banished. I mean that's really what we're dealing with. This is the same kind of totalitarian strain that you see in Islam and this is the gay gestapo pushing this and their message is basically the same as Islam."

Saying that gay activists are intent on persecuting, imprisoning, or destroying anyone who does not agree with their agenda, Fischer said that "if that sounds just like Islam to you, it's because it is. It's exactly the same dark, totalitarian dynamic that you have in Islam":

An 'Utterly Exasperated' Mike Huckabee Threatens To Leave The GOP Over Gay Marriage

This morning's broadcast of the American Family Association's "Today's Issues" program was dedicated to promoting the AFA's "A Time to Speak" documentary, which is aimed at getting pastors to mobilize their congregations to vote in the upcoming elections.

One guest on the program was Mike Huckabee, who began his interview by threatening to leave the Republican Party if the GOP does not take a stand against the Supreme Court's decision yesterday not to hear appeals of lower court rulings striking down gay marriage bans in several states.

Incensed by the decision, Huckabee declared that "I am utterly exasperated with Republicans and the so-called leadership of the Republicans who have abdicated on this issue," warning that by doing so the GOP will "guarantee they're going to lose every election in the future."

"Guarantee it," he said before proclaiming that the Republicans are going to "lose guys like me and a whole bunch of still God-fearing, Bible-believing people" if the party does not stand and fight on the issues of gay marriage and abortion.

"I'm gone," Huckabee warned. "I'll become an independent. I'll start finding people that have guts to stand. I'm tired of this":

Another Nail in the Coffin for Baker v. Nelson

The Supreme Court's decision not to hear marriage equality appeals may have an important substantive effect on the law.
PFAW Foundation

DeLay: 'We Can't Believe' What The Government Is Telling Us About Ebola

Tom DeLay was a guest on Steve Malzberg's Newsmax radio program yesterday where he declared that Americans simply cannot trust President Obama or anyone in the government when it comes to handling the current Ebola crisis.

DeLay asserted that the Obama administration "cannot seem to get beyond their liberal leanings" and take the steps necessary to keep the disease from entering the United States.

"We can't believe everything they're telling us," DeLay said. "I've got so many questions about Ebola and how it's contracted."

DeLay was not convinced that Ebola can only be contracted by contact with the bodily fluids of an infected person, pointing to the infection of NBC cameraman Ashoka Mukpo in Liberia to ask "was he touching people's bodily fluids, did he touch a doorknob?"(Mukpo thinks he may have become infected after washing a car in which an Ebola patient had died.)

"We know nothing," DeLay said, "so we can't believe what they're telling us and certainly we can't be confident that they're doing the right thing":

The Bible Code Definitively Proves Obama Is The Antichrist!

An “analyst” trained in the very, very discredited “Bible Code” method, which tries to predict future events through letters in the Bible, has come out with some big news: President Obama is in the Bible Code, and he is probably the Antichrist.

Bible Code-breaker Jonathan Wright appeared on “Trunews” last week, where he told host Rick Wiles that Obama is either the Antichrist or the harbinger of the Antichrist. Not only does the Bible Code prove this to be the case, says Wright, but so does Obama’s non-existent Muslim wedding ring.

Wiles: So either Barack Obama is the Man of Sin, commonly known as the Antichrist, the Bible doesn’t say ‘Antichrist’ it says ‘Man of Sin.’
Wright: That’s right.
Wiles: Either Barack Obama is the Man of Sin or he is strongly connected to the Man of Sin or the spirit of Antichrist.
Wright: That’s right. Those are my only — I’ve tried to look at this as an investigation not with an agenda, by the way, but what I’ve come up with those have to be the possibilities. Let’s just face it, he’s got a ring on that says, ‘There’s no God but Allah and Mohammad is his Messenger.’ Now, by definition, that’s Antichrist.

As Wright explained, he searches for Obama’s name in the Bible Code alongside terms relating to Satan: “look up the ‘Man of Sin’ or ‘Beelzebub’ or any name that has a connection to Satan or Lucifer and then go and see if there’s a connection to him, and usually they both confirm, back and forth the same thing.”

He also found a “strong connection” between Obama’s name and the word “Beast,” which as Wiles notes, just so happens to be the nickname of the presidential limousine!

The two also shared their belief that Obama is likely the Antichrist because a fly once landed on him, something that only has ever happened to Obama. “And there’s always the photos that you see everywhere with the flies landing on his face,” Wright told Wiles, “I can show you in the codes where he’s got a strong connection to the Lord of the Flies, Beelzebub.” 

“I call him Beelze-lip,” Wiles added. “Because he had those flies stuck to his lip.”

Wright insisted that he has “nothing against” Obama, he is just reporting on the unambiguous truth found in the Bible Code: “I really didn’t want the American president to be ‘the AC’ or the Man of Sin, it just looks like he’s the forerunner and we’re not looking for a needle in a stack of needles by the way.”

Supreme Court Action on Marriage Cases Is No Surprise

In last month's Supreme Court Term Preview, PFAW Foundation explained why most Justices might very well want to avoid taking the then-pending marriage cases.
PFAW Foundation

The Religious Right Reacts To SCOTUS Gay Marriage Decision: 'Unconscionable, Unconstitutional, And Un-American'

Earlier today, the Supreme Court refused to hear appeals from several states challenging court decisions striking down gay marriage bans, resulting in such marriages now being legal in several more states.

To say that anti-gay Religious Right groups are furious with the Supreme Court would be a massive understatement and nobody was more livid about it than the American Family Association's Bryan Fischer, who spent two segments of his radio program today blasting the Supreme Court for having now issued the "de facto Roe vs. Wade of sodomy-based marriage" by "imposing on every state in the union marriage that is based on the infamous crime against nature."

"It unconscionable, unconstitutional, and un-American," Fischer fumed:

Groups like Liberty Counsel were equally outraged, issuing a press release blasting the Court for its "decision to watch marriage burn to ashes:

"This is a total dereliction of duty," said Mat Staver, Founder and Chairman of Liberty Counsel. "The Supreme Court abandoned its duty to take up or at least hold these marriage cases. The responsibility for the undermining of marriage rests solely at the U.S. Supreme Court. Last year's decision in the Defense of Marriage Act case that started this fire, and today's decision to watch marriage burn to ashes is the responsibility of the Supreme Court. The actions of the Supreme Court in particular, and of the judiciary in general, undermine the rule of law and erode the confidence of the people in the judicial branch of government. When the people lose confidence in the rule of law, the judiciary will lose is legitimacy. Everyone will be affected by same-sex marriage because it is an intolerant agenda that will directly collide with religious freedom," said Staver.

The Family Research Council was likewise outraged, warning that "more and more people [will] lose their livelihoods because they refuse to not just tolerate but celebrate same-sex marriage":

"The Supreme Court decision to not take up these lower court rulings, which  undermine natural marriage and the rule of law, for now, puts the issue of marriage back before the US Congress.  This decision, in part, is an indication that those on the Court who desire to redefine natural marriage recognize the country will not accept a Roe v. Wade type decision on marriage.

"Unfortunately, by failing to take up these marriage cases, the High Court will allow rogue lower court judges who have ignored history and true legal precedent to silence the elected representatives of the people and the voice of the people themselves by overturning state provisions on marriage.   Even more alarming, lower court judges are undermining our form of government and the rights and freedoms of citizens to govern themselves.  This judicially led effort to force same sex 'marriage' on people will have negative consequences for our Republic, not only as it relates to natural marriage but also undermining the rule of and respect for law.

"The Court decision ensures that the debate over natural marriage will continue and the good news is that time is not on the side of those who want to redefine marriage.  As more states are forced to redefine marriage, contrary to nature and directly in conflict with the will of millions, more Americans will see and experience attacks on their religious freedom.   Parents will find a wedge being driven between them and their children as school curriculum is changed to contradict the morals parents are teaching their children.  As more and more people lose their livelihoods because they refuse to not just tolerate but celebrate same-sex marriage, Americans will see the true goal, which is for activists to use the Court to impose a redefinition of natural marriage on the entire nation.

"Congress should respond to today's announcement by moving forward with the State Marriage Defense Act, which is consistent with last year's Windsor ruling and ensures that the federal government in its definition of marriage respects the duly enacted marriage laws of the states," concluded Perkins.

As was the National Organization for Marriage, which called for the passage of a national marriage amendment:

"We are surprised and extremely disappointed that the US Supreme Court has refused to grant review of the same-sex marriage cases pending before them. This is wrong on so many levels. First, the entire idea that marriage can be redefined from the bench is illegitimate. Marriage is the union of one man and one woman; it has been this throughout the history of civilization and will remain this no matter what unelected judges say. Second, it's mind-boggling that lower court judges would be allowed to impose the redefinition of marriage in these states, and our highest court would have nothing to say about it. Third, the effect of the lower court rulings is to say that a constitutional right to same-sex ‘marriage' has existed in every state in the union since 1868 when the 14th Amendment was ratified, but somehow nobody noticed until quite recently. That's the absurd belief we are being told to accept.

"It's possible that the Supreme Court wants to wait to take a case when a Circuit split develops so that it can rule in favor of the people's right to define marriage as it has always been defined. We're hopeful that the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals will rule in our favor and that the Supreme Court will then take that case and decide that marriage is not unconstitutional.

"At the same time, given what the Supreme Court has allowed to happen, the only alternative to letting unelected judges impose their view of marriage on Americans across the country is to pursue a process that will allow the American people to decide for themselves what is marriage. It is critical not only to marriage but to the republican form of government in this country to amend the Constitution to reaffirm the meaning of marriage. We therefore call on the US Congress to move forward immediately to send a federal marriage amendment to the states for ratification.

"We call upon Americans vigorously to contest this development by turning to the political process, starting with the upcoming mid-term elections. We urge voters to hold politicians accountable and demand to know if they will accept the illegitimate act of attempting to redefine marriage or whether they will stand with the American people to resist. In particular, we urge Republicans to hold their party leaders to account, and to demand that they remain true to their belief that marriage is the union of one man and one woman which was a pillar of the party's founding in 1856, and remains essential to society's well-being today.

Focus on the Family warned that it will result in a "further expansion of threats to religious freedom"

The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision not to accept five state marriage cases sets the stage for the further spread of same-sex marriage, and with it, a further expansion of threats to religious freedom.

Marriage has always been – and will always be – between a man and a woman.  Ultimately, no court can change that truth.  So regardless of legal outcomes, we’ll continue to address the importance of one-man, one-woman marriage to families, society and especially for children who have a right to both a mother and a father.

Our concern continues to be for children who deserve to grow up with both a mom and a dad, as well as for the religious freedom rights of people who strongly believe in God’s design for marriage and want to live consistently with those beliefs.

Ralph Reed's Faith and Freedom Coalition called the decision a "miscarriage of justice" and warned that the Supreme Court will "reap a political whirlwind":

Today’s Supreme Court decision not to hear appeals of lower-court rulings that legalized same-sex marriage in five states is a miscarriage of justice that lays the predicate for a Roe v. Wade decision on marriage that will impose same-sex marriage on the entire country by judicial fiat.  The Court’s action has the effect of overturning the will of the voters in Indiana, Virginia, Utah, Oklahoma, and Wisconsin, including instances in which state constitutions were amended to codify marriage as the union between a man and a woman.  Today’s decision further insures that the marriage issue will motivate and mobilize voters of faith who are concerned about marriage and deeply resent having the institution redefined contrary to the clearly expressed will of the people by federal judges who legislate from the bench.  For candidates running in 2014 and those who run for president in 2016, there will be no avoiding this issue.  If the Supreme Court is planning a Roe v. Wade on marriage, it will sow the wind and reap a political whirlwind.

The Florida Family Policy Council's John Stemberger warned that "Supreme Court risks losing enormous institutional legitimacy" if it rules in favor of gay marriage:

Over the last 15 years, more than 40 million Americans in more than 30 states have voted at the ballot box to define marriage as one man and one woman – the same definition of marriage used worldwide. In the last nano-second of human civilization, some U.S. judges have attempted to ignore and erase those votes. The Supreme Court risks losing enormous institutional legitimacy if they ignore biology, logic, anthropology, social science and the collective wisdom of human history, and overturn an act of direct democracy by such an overwhelming number of American voters who protected marriage in their state constitutions.

Marriage is about more than who you love; it’s about bringing together the two great halves of humanity, male and female-- not gay and straight. Also it’s important to recognize that legalizing same-sex marriage ignores and eliminates the importance of gender in society: it costs kids either a mom or a dad (who are not interchangeable), and it costs people of faith their First Amendment rights as government imposes the new definition across all aspects of society. States and counties that have so-called “non-discrimination” laws which cover sexual orientation are being used as weapons to punish people of faith, and mainly Christians, for failure to facilitate or host same sex marriage ceremonies. We as a state and a society need to carefully count those costs before we run headlong into this latest social experiment with marriage, which will have negative impact on so many areas of life and law."

Tea Party Leader: Women Shouldn't Serve In Combat Because Men Should Be Taught To 'Treat Them Like Queens'

On his radio program Friday, Bryan Fischer interviewed Scottie Nell Hughes, the news director for the Tea Party News Network, about her new book "Roar: The New Conservative Woman Speaks Out." During the course of the interview, Hughes explained that she opposes allowing women to serve in combat positions in the military because it would be very confusing to her son, whom she is teaching to treat women "like queens" and always protect them.

Hughes stated that women should not be allowed to serve in combat because it is a very stressful experience and men need to be free to relieve their stress without having women around creating added tension. But, more importantly, Hughes' own son might one day join the military and having to serve alongside of a woman in combat would very confusing to him.

"Right now, I'm doing everything I can to teach that young man to honor women, to open the doors, don't push them, don't hit them," she said, "respect them, treat them like queens, protect them. But what happens when he goes into the military and he has a woman serving next to him on the front lines? Both of them are getting shot at and is he going to sit there and have to think also about protecting her or is he just going to say "You know what, if she dies next to me, she dies'?"

"Do I really want to live in a culture where men are not trained in accordance to treat women with respect?" she asked:

Influential Religious Right Donor Indicted For His Role In The Lisa Miller Kidnapping Case

For over five years, we have been covering the case of Lisa Miller, a self-proclaimed ex-gay who was represented by Liberty Counsel in her effort to prevent her former partner from having shared custody of the daughter they had together. After repeatedly refusing to comply with court orders granting her former partner, Janet Jenkins, visitation rights, Miller was eventually stripped of custody and ordered to transfer custody to Jenkins, at which point Miller kidnapped her daughter and fled the country to a Mennonite community in Central America.

Liberty Counsel immediately tried to wash its hands of any involvement in this kidnapping, which proved problematic once it was revealed that Miller and her daughter were reportedly staying at a home in Nicaragua owned by a man named Philip Zodhiates whose daughter just so happened to work at the Liberty University Law School, where Miller's attorneys, Mat Staver and Rena Lindevaldsen, both worked.

Liberty Law School was hit with a RICO lawsuit for the role it allegedly played in aiding Miller in the kidnapping and disappearance and now Philip Zodhiates, an influential Religious Right donor, has been indicted [PDF] in New York for conspiring with two other men (both also named Miller but neither having any relation to Lisa) to help Lisa Miller kidnap her daughter:

COUNT 1

(Conspiracy)

The Grand Jury Charges That:

From in or about September 2009 to in or about November 2009, in the Western District of New York, and elsewhere, the defendants, LISA MILLER, PHILIP ZODHIATES, and TIMOTHY MILLER, did knowingly, willfully and unlawfully combine, conspire and agree together and with Kenneth Miller and others, known and unknown to the Grand Jury, to commit an offense against the United States, that is, to remove a child, J1, a person known to the Grand Jury, from the United States and to retain that child, who had been in the United States, outside the United States, with intent to obstruct the lawful exercise of parental rights, in violation of Title 18, United States Code,
Section 1204.

Overt Acts

In order to effect the object of the conspiracy, the following acts were committed by the defendants and others in the Western District of New York and elsewhere:

1. On or about September 21, 2009, defendant LISA MILLER, J1, and defendant PHILIP ZODHIATES travelled from Virginia to the Buffalo, New York, area.

2. On or about September 21, 2009, defendant PHILIP ZODHIATES had telephone contact from the Buffalo, New York area with Kenneth Miller.

3. On or about September 21, 2009, defendant PHILIP ZODIATES had telephone contact from the Buffalo, New York area with an individual in Canada who had agreed to help transport defendant LISA MILLER in Canada.

4. On or about September 22, 2009, defendant LISA MILLER and J1 travelled across the Rainbow Bridge from Niagara Falls, New York, to Canada.

5. On or about September 22, 2009, defendant PHILIP ZODIATES had telephone contact from the Buffalo, New York area with an individual in Canada who helped transport defendant LISA MILLER in Canada.

6. On or about September 22, 2009, defendant PHILIP ZODHIATES had telephone contact from the Buffalo, New York area with Kenneth Miller. All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 371.

COUNT 2

(International Parental Kidnapping)

The Grand Jury Further Charges That:

On or about September 22, 2009, in the Western District of New York, and elsewhere, the defendants, LISA MILLER, PHILIP ZODHIATES, and TIMOTHY MILLER, with intent to obstruct the lawful exercise of parental rights, did knowingly remove, and aid and abet the removal of, a child, J1, a person known to the Grand Jury, from the United States.

All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1204 and 2.

Glenn Beck Warns That 'A Massive Humbling' Is Coming, Possibly Starting With Ebola

On his radio broadcast today, Glenn Beck revealed that he attended a dinner last night hosted by the Green Family, the owners of Hobby Lobby, where he was seated at a table with Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal who asked Beck "where do you think we are headed" as a nation? Beck, of course, was his typically optimistic self when he warned Jindal that America is headed for a "massive humbling."

"We refuse to humble ourselves," Beck said, pointing to the recent failures within the Secret Service, the crisis in the Middle East, ongoing economic problems, and even Common Core as evidence that "our arrogance is getting worse" and that our society has become "completely unhinged from reality."

"I have news for you, gang," Beck declared. "A humbling is coming ... If we don't start re-rooting ourselves in those things that all men once found self-evident, a humbling is coming."

And Ebola "might be the beginning of one," he warned, "and you should prepare":

Michael Savage: Obama Wants To Bring Ebola Epidemic To America, Should Resign

Right-wing radio talk show host Michael Savage announced yesterday that the Dallas patient diagnosed with Ebola proves his conspiracy theory that President Obama is deliberately bringing in diseases to kill Americans as part of his purported war on white people.

He claimed that a treasonous Obama “wants to infect the nation with Ebola,” warning that the president decided to send U.S. service members to West Africa in hopes that one of the soldiers would contract Ebola and bring it back home.

“If we had a legitimate president with a conscience he would resign,” Savage said in reaction to the Dallas Ebola case. “He would say, ‘You know what, I meant well but I screwed up at every level, I’m resigning.’ But you don’t have such a situation, you have a zealot who has no conscience.”

Savage suggested that Obama seeks to bring the Ebola epidemic to America in order to turn the U.S. into a Third World nation and bring the country down: “That’s the way to make things fair and equitable. You can’t have a nation with such good health in a world where there’s such sickness. Obama wants equality and he wants fairness and it’s only fair that America have a nice epidemic or two or three or four in order to really feel what it’s like to be in the Third World. You have to look at it from the point of view of a leftist.”

Holding The Religious Right To Its Own Standard

A few weeks ago, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was speaking to students at the University of Minnesota Law School when she made the rather straightforward observation that if 6th Circuit Court of Appeals follows other recent court decisions and strikes down gay marriage bans in Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee, then the prospects of the Supreme Court taking up the issue of marriage equality would be less likely in the near term.

The reasoning behind this statement is that if appellate courts consistently strike down such bans, then the Supreme Court will not need to get involved right away whereas, if the 6th Circuit were to uphold such bans, that would create a conflict among recent appellate rulings and so, as Ginsburg said, "there will be some urgency" for the Supreme Court to take up with issue in order to address those conflicting rulings.

There is nothing controversial or improper about this obvious observation, but anti-gay Religious Right groups have seized upon it to launch a campaign demanding that Ginsburg recuse herself from any Supreme Court case involving the issue of marriage equality on the grounds that she has violated the Judicial Code of Conduct by "making public comment on the merits of a pending or impending action."

As Liberty Counsel, which first launched this effort, declared:

“In casting a vote publicly before the case is even heard, Justice Ginsburg has violated the Judicial Code of Conduct,” said Mat Staver, Founder and Chairman of Liberty Counsel. “It is now her duty to recuse herself from cases involving same-sex marriage.”

According to Canon 2 of the Judicial Code of Conduct, “A judicial employee should not lend the prestige of the office to advance or to appear to advance the private interests of others.”

Canon 3(D) declares, “A judicial employee should avoid making public comment on the merits of a pending or impending action.”

“Justice Ginsburg’s comments implied that the merits of the state constitutional amendments defining marriage as one man and one woman were such that the Supreme Court would have to overturn them with haste, if upheld by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals,” said Staver. “This is an inappropriate comment for any judicial employee, much less a Supreme Court Justice!”

The call has since been echoed by the Foundation for Moral Law, Faith 2 Action, and the American Family Association, where Bryan Fischer and former Liberty Counsel attorney Steve Crampton recently discussed the need for right-wing activists to "beat on our pots" in order to create so much political pressure on Ginsburg and Justice Elena Kagan that they have no choice but to recuse themselves from any such cases.

In fact, just yesterday, Fischer wrote a column arguing that Ginsburg and Kagan would be "committing a federal crime" if they did not recuse themselves:

The Supreme Court will, perhaps even in this session, take up the issue of sodomy-based marriage. If it does, justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Elena Kagan will have an obligation to step off the bench for those cases on the grounds that their impartiality has been severely compromised.

Both have performed sodomy-based “wedding” ceremonies. Kagan performed her first one on September 22 of this year, and Ginsburg has done the deed multiple times, including at least one in the Supreme Court building itself. Thus they have clearly tipped their hand by their actions as well as their words. They have publicly demonstrated that their minds are already made up on the issue. It is inconceivable that either of them now would vote against the “marriages” they themselves have solemnized. They would stand self-condemned.

...

[T]he necessity for Kagan and Ginsburg to recuse is not just a matter of fairness or rightness. It’s also a matter of law. They have a statutory obligation to recuse. If they refuse to step off the bench when and if marriage cases come before them, they would be breaking federal law. They would be, from a strictly legal standpoint, committing a federal crime. Their sacred responsibility is to uphold the law, not break it.

So it was with great interest that we read this article in The Washington Times yesterday reporting on remarks made by Justice Antonin Scalia at Colorado Christian University in which he stated that the separation of church and state is "utterly absurd" and the idea that the government must remain neutral on the issue of religion is "just a lie":

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said Wednesday that secularists are wrong when they argue the Constitution requires religious references to be banished from the public square.

Justice Scalia, part of the court’s conservative wing, was preaching to the choir when he told the audience at Colorado Christian University that a battle is underway over whether to allow religion in public life, from referencing God in the Pledge of Allegiance to holding prayers before city hall meetings.

“I think the main fight is to dissuade Americans from what the secularists are trying to persuade them to be true: that the separation of church and state means that the government cannot favor religion over nonreligion,” Justice Scalia said.

“That’s a possible way to run a political system. The Europeans run it that way,” Justice Scalia said. “And if the American people want to do it, I suppose they can enact that by statute. But to say that’s what the Constitution requires is utterly absurd.”

...

“We do him [God] honor in our pledge of allegiance, in all our public ceremonies,” Justice Scalia said. “There’s nothing wrong with that. It is in the best of American traditions, and don’t let anybody tell you otherwise. I think we have to fight that tendency of the secularists to impose it on all of us through the Constitution.”

The biggest danger lies with judges who interpret the Constitution as a malleable document that changes with the times, he said.

“Our [the court‘s] latest take on the subject, which is quite different from previous takes, is that the state must be neutral, not only between religions, but between religion and nonreligion,” Justice Scalia said. “That’s just a lie. Where do you get the notion that this is all unconstitutional? You can only believe that if you believe in a morphing Constitution.”

Given that Scalia was very clearly "making public comment" in a way that directly relates to a whole host of church-state separation questions that could potentially come before the Supreme Court at any time, we trust that these Religious Right groups will now demand that he recuse himself from any such cases as well, right?

Fischer: Ban Muslim Immigration Because We Don't Know Who Is Carrying 'The Decapitation Virus'

On his radio broadcast today, Bryan Fischer reiterated his belief that the government ought to ban immigration from nations where the Ebola virus is present as well as from Muslim-majority nations because, just as there is no way to determine who is carrying Ebola until the disease emerges, there is also no way to know which Muslims are carrying "the decapitation virus."

"I think our policy toward Islam should be the same as our policy toward Ebola," he said, asserting the America just cannot take a chance on allowing a potential Ebola carrier to enter this country. "Now we ought to be saying exactly the same thing about people who come from Muslim-majority countries because we have no way of knowing who might be carrying the decapitation virus.'

"We simply don't know," Fischer continued. "And so we say to them 'look, I'm sorry we can't let you into our country. I don't believe that you represent a threat of any kind but we simply don't know. We have no way to tell, we've got no kind of scanning device that can identify whether the decapitation virus is in you, whether it's alive in you, whether it's going to erupt'":

Another Glenn Beck Prediction Comes 'True'

Last week, Glenn Beck spent a good part of one of his programs warning his audience that the world was possibly on the verge of a global Ebola pandemic once the virus mutates into an airborne disease that would be brought into the United States by Nigerian prison guards working in Texas.

Yesterday, officials from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention announced that someone who had recently flown from Liberia to Dallas has been diagnosed with the disease and is now in quarantine.

So naturally, Beck is now taking a victory lap, declaring on his radio program that his warning has been proven correct.

Fuming that he had been mocked for his warning, Beck wanted to know "how many times do you have to be right" before people will listen to you, insisting that other than the infected patient having come from Liberia and not Nigeria, "everything else I had right."

Beck then warned his audience, utterly without irony, to "stop listening to people who are telling you things that continue to be wrong":

Beck warned that airborne Ebola would would be brought into America by Nigerian prison workers. Instead, one traveler from Liberia has been diagnosed and quarantined, yet Beck insists that his prediction has been proven true while fuming that people dare to mock him despite his exemplary record of being right.

Let us remind Beck of his amazing record:

Remember when Beck repeatedly warned that President Obama was seeking to foment a race-based civil war? Or when he warned that the administration was trying to take away guns in order to impose slavery and carry out mass killings? Or when he told his audience to prepare because President Obama was about to snap and start putting them all in internment camps? Or when he told them to start hoarding cash because the government was going to seize their bank accounts, just like in Cyprus?

Remember when he warned that a shooting at the Dallas airport was almost certainly a false flag operation carried out by Occupy Wall Street to press for gun confiscation? Let's not forget his prediction that undocumented children crossing the southern border would lead to an Israel/Palestine-type conflict in America. What about the time Beck warned that military action in Syria was designed to create a one world government? Or his assertion that efforts were underway to outlaw homeschooling in America?

Anyone recall his theory that the missing Malaysian airplane had been hijacked so that it could be "cloaked" and then flown into the United States in a terrorist attack? Or his fears that supposedly missing planes in Libya would be used to destroy the global economy?

And who can forget the days after the Boston Marathon bombing that Beck spent explicitly asserting that one of the injured victims was, in fact, responsible for carrying out the attack, because of which statements he is now being sued for defamation?

Instead of asking "how many times do you have to be right" for people to trust your warnings, we'd ask how many times Beck is allowed to be totally wrong while still insisting that he is consistently proven right?

Kevin Sorbo Is Sorry All You 'Haters' Didn't Get His 'The Jews Killed Jesus' Joke

Last month, Kevin Sorbo was making the rounds promoting the DVD release of his film "God's Not Dead" when he set off a bit of controversy by declaring that the Jews were responsible for killing Jesus.

Sorbo was discussing Jewish concerns that Mel Gibson's "Passion of the Christ" was anti-Semitic; concerns which he entirely dismissed because, as he said, "News bulletin: you did kill Jesus!"

Those comments generated a bit of controversy, to which Sorbo initially responded by blaming everyone else for not being "enlightened" enough to understand the point he was supposedly making:

Sorbo, the star of “God’s Not Dead” and a new film “Let the Lion Roar,” told TheBlaze on Thursday that he made a “flippant comment” that should have been crafted better.

“Here’s the deal. Here’s reality. The Jewish leaders offered Jesus up to Pilate, preferring to free a hardened criminal,” Sorbo said. “Did all Jews at that time hate Jesus? Of course they did not. The people screamed to let the hardened criminal go. That’s in the book. That’s in the facts.”

Sorbo, who is a non-denominational Christian, said that there were many Jews who defended Jesus at the time and who mourned Christ’s death.

“After all, [Jesus] was Jewish and … the Jewish leaders and a handful of Jews [gave him up],” Sorbo said. “It was more like they were accomplices to his murder. They knew he was going to be murdered. There was no question.”

The actor said he assumed people were more “enlightened” on the issue and would realize that he was being over-simplistic in his remarks.

He credited Jews for creating Christianity as well and affirmed his support for Israel.

“I should have worded it better. We live in such an age where everything is scrutinized,” he said. “Liberals love to project a false image on the wall and get very upset with the image they’ve created themselves.”

Last week, Sorbo appeared on "The Phil Valentine Show" where the topic came up and, once again, Sorbo tried to blame everyone else for not understanding his point, insisting that his original comment was entirely accurate because the Jews "were certainly accomplices" to Jesus' death.

"And here's another flash bulletin," Sorbo said, "that was what was supposed to happen. That was the intention of God. Jesus came down here to die for our sin, right? So that's the way it happened ... Don't tell me that the Jewish population at the time, the Pharisees, didn't have a hand in something to do with Jesus' death. I mean, come on!"

Sobro brushed the whole thing off because people with "nothing better to do" are just trying to create problems.

"Haters just love to hate," he said:

Interestingly, the more Sorbo is asked about his comment, the more his explanation evolves, as last night he appeared on Alan Colmes' radio program where the topic was brought up once again and now Sorbo is just trying to pass it all off as a joke:

SORBO: I wasn’t trying to say that Jewish people had a hand in the death of Jesus because quite clearly many mourned his death at the time he was being crucified. There was no question about that. You know, I was going for a joke, a bad taste joke.

COLMES: You think that was a joke? That was a joke?

SORBO: It was just meant to say that they had a part, there was certainly a part of them that was saying, here is Jesus, here was this hardened criminal, and the Pharisees said….

COLMES: How is that a joke? I can understand you may misspoke, but a joke?

SORBO: Well, OK, you know, c’mon. I’ve taking enough beating on this. I’m hardly an anti-Semite.

Maybe people wouldn't have such a hard time understanding what Sorbo "really" meant by his original comment if his explanation didn't keep changing.

Paul Cameron Warns That 'A Gay' May Be Coming For Your Son

Today's "Pray In Jesus Name" program featured the first segment in a multi-part, in-person interview that host Gordon Klingenschmitt conducted with notorious anti-gay "researcher" Paul Cameron of the Family Research Institute and it turned out to be every bit as crazy as one would expect an interview between an anti-gay exorcist and an advocate for executing gays to be.

Klingenschmitt, who is currently the Republican nominee for a seat in the Colorado state legislature, asked Cameron if gay people "use molestation as a recruiting tool," and Cameron assured him that they most certainly do.

"Homosexuals, from the get-go, as long as we have recorded history, have used the molestation of boys as a way to recruit to homosexuality," Cameron declared, claiming that his "studies" have found that sixty percent of boys who reported that their first sexual experience was a same-sex experience grow up to be gay.

"So this is a tremendous recruitment tool," he said. "If a gay can get to your son first, the chances are about 50-50, as near as we can tell, that your son is going to be a practicing homosexual to some degree."

"It's very important to keep your sons from having a homosexual experience," he emphasized:

Klingenschmitt and Cameron then discussed Cameron's work making it illegal for gays to donate blood, which Cameron said is a prohibition that must remain in place today because gays travel the world where they have reckless sex and pick up all sorts of exotic diseases that endanger the rest of society.

"What gays do is so dangerous, I mean, rectal sex. I mean, think of all of the stuff that they do," Cameron said. "You don't know what else is out there. We still don't know all the components in human blood. They've got other stuff, if there's something over in another country in the world, given that gays travel more, given that gays have sex wherever they travel, uh oh, they bring back whatever is out there and there's always something new out there."

"So there still needs to be a ban," concluded Kingenschmitt:

Share this page: Facebook Twitter Digg SU Digg Delicious