C3

NOM's Peters: Regardless of 'Propaganda,' the Human Heart Knows Gay Marriage is Wrong

Thomas Peters of the National Organization for Marriage was the guest on today's episode of "WallBuilders Live" where he discussed the organization's efforts to spread its anti-marriage equality message to the next generation, saying that the key to their success will be finding a way to overcome the "intolerance and hatred" on campuses against those who promote this message.

Insisting that being anti-gay marriage does not make one anti-gay, Peters asserted that, despite all the "propaganda," the human heart simply knows that gay marriage is wrong and so this position will eventually win out, and it is imperative to work to prevent people from becoming confused and lost in the meantime:  

I'd say that the two big steps to getting to that message, of course, are fighting against the intolerance and hatred that is directed against us, especially in schools. You have a lot of pro-marriage people my age and younger in schools right now and they don't feel safe right now in sharing their pro-marriage convictions on that vast majority of college and high school campuses. That is something that has got to end.  We've got to figure out how to break down this ostracizing of pro-marriage viewpoints.

And second of all, we have to continually talk to people about how being pro-marriage is not anti-gay and that there is simply nothing discriminatory about seeing the love of a man and a woman as unique and special and worth protecting.

...

Marriage just speaks to the human heart and no matter how much propaganda you try to throw at that, the human heart always reestablishes what it knows to be true.  And we just know it's true that there is a difference between two men coming together and a man and a woman coming together.  And so I think that is the core message of marriage that eventually will overcome.  The question is how many people in the meantime are confused, how many people lose out on that saving message.

RNC Calls Upon ALEC to Dismantle Campaign Finance Reform

The powerful right-wing organization, the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) has long claimed that it “respects diversity of thought” and that it is a “non-partisan policy resource for its members,” Democrats and Republicans alike.  Indeed, in a television interview with FOX news, an ALEC spokesperson once stated, “we have legislators of all political stripes coming together to talk about the most critical issues facing the states,” and adamantly defended the non-partisan nature of the organization.

It does not take much examination of ALEC policies, funders, or public-sector membership rolls to put these claims into true perspective. ALEC’ s right wing policies are so extreme that over 43 corporations – from Wal-Mart to General Electric – have cut ties with the organization.  As documented by the Center For Media and Democracy, more than 99% of ALEC’s public sector leaders are Republican lawmakers.  And a quick perusal of ALEC funding reveals that the same funders who back the network are also major sponsors of many Republican initiatives.

Yet what may be the most telling evidence of ALEC’s ties to the GOP emerged just this morning. Today, the Republican National Committee (RNC) released its wide-ranging “autopsy” report in response to the party’s disastrous 2012 elections. The report, entitled “Growth and Opportunity Project,” outlines a variety of policy recommendations including, among other base ideas, abolishing campaign spending regulations and contribution limits. In the report, the RNC specifically calls on ALEC to help develop and implement model legislation to “improve” these campaign finance laws.

The RNC places ALEC alongside the Republican State Leadership Committee (RSLC)  and the RNC as an organization that is well-suited to “improve” campaign finance laws and propagate them nationwide:

The RNC has called upon ALEC to do its bidding because it knows that ALEC is 100% in support of its anti-democratic agenda.  Beyond pushing for Voter ID laws and adopting restrictive registration requirements – like the registration requirements that ALEC adopted years ago as model policy and that today are being argued over in the Supreme Court – ALEC has a history of opposing campaign finance reform.  The organization has consistently opposed public financing of elections and even issued a resolution in favor of the Supreme Court’s disastrous 2010 Citizens United decision.

If ALEC and the GOP were truly interested in “improving” campaign finance laws, they would be pushing for greater oversight, not trying to dismantle what little there is left of campaign finance regulation in America.  If they really cared about American democracy, they would join the growing chorus of voices who are calling for a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United and enact free and fair elections.

Yet ALEC and the GOP care more about gaming the system and rewarding their corporate constituents than empowering the American people.  As today’s report makes perfectly clear, their pro-corporate and anti-voter agendas unmistakably go hand in hand.

 

** Public Policy Intern Kyler Geoffroy contributed to this blog post

PFAW Foundation

Fischer: The Dangers of Libertarianism

On Friday's broadcast, Bryan Fischer took issue with Sen. Rand Paul's "libertarian approach to marriage [because it] would be a disaster for America." As Fischer sees it, libertarianism appeals to young people because they don't like to be told what to do and libertarianism gives them a license to sin. 

And since everyone knows that sin is a form of bondage, "this libertarian drift in the Republican Party is going to lead people right into bondage":

Sarah Palin Classes Up CPAC

The highlight of the final day of CPAC was none other than former half-term governor Sarah Palin who classed up the joint as only she can, making a joke about how for Christmas, her husband Todd got a gun but "I got the rack" before taking several drinks out of a Big Gulp to wild applause:

Behold the modern conservative movement.

Bachmann: If We Cared, We'd Cure Alzheimer's Disease in Ten Years

Rep. Michele Bachmann delivered a typically incoherent speech at CPAC this year which revolved around the theme of caring; specifically, conservatives care and liberals do not.

To demonstrate her point, Bachmann claimed that people cared back in the 1950s, which was why Dr. Jonas Salk found a vaccine for polio and then gave it to President Eisenhower who, because he also cared, then gave it to all Americans.

Contrast that to today when the nation is facing the costs associated with treating Alzheimer's Disease when "a much smarter strategy would be to develop a cure. That's caring!"

According to Bachmannm, we could easily find a cure for Alzheimer's within ten years "if we'd only put our mind to it," but we are not even trying to find cures for things like this and cancer and diabetes because there is too much government regulation and taxation.

"That not caring," Bachmann declared, "it's time we cared":

Voter Fraud Encouraged in the CPAC Straw Poll

We may never be able to trust the integrity of the annual CPAC straw poll again now that we know that rampant voter fraud is actively promoted by organizers, as this morning's emcee openly encouraged attendees to just make up user IDs in order to cast as many votes as possible in the poll because the results often make national news and "we need to make sure that people understand the conservative message and where we want to take this movement in the future."

"Make sure that your voice is heard," the emcee said ... by voting dozens and dozens of times in the CPAC straw poll:

CPAC: Health Care Reform Is 'The Hunger Games'

Jenny Beth Martin, co-founder of the Tea Party Patriots, kicked things off at the final day of CPAC by comparing Washington, DC to The Capitol in "The Hunger Games" and declaring that "our country's equivalent to the Hunger Games' tribute will be the patients who die" under health care reform:

;

LaPierre: A National Firearm Database Will Be Hacked by the Chinese or Handed Over to Mexico

The NRA's Wayne LaPierre spoke at CPAC today, where he was introduced by a video full of clips of people in the media calling him a radical lunatic before launching into a speech where he repeatedly called everyone else crazy for thinking that his positions and views are crazy.

And he proved how reasonable he is by saying that any effort to create a database of gun owners would either be hacked by the Chinese government, handed over to Mexican government, or used by the American government to confiscate them:

Spencer: CPAC Is a 'Sharia-Compliant Conference' Where Islamic Law Has Been Implemented

Anti-Islam activist Robert Spencer was supposed to receive the "People's Choice Blog Award" at CPAC this year for his efforts at Jihad Watch, but the whole thing fell apart when Spencer refused a request not to attack Grover Norquist or Suhail Khan for being Muslim Brotherhood facilitators at the ceremony. 

Today, Spencer appeared on Bryan Fischer's radio program where, just like his colleague Pamela Geller, he proclaimed that the fact that anti-Islam activists are unwelcome at the event is evidence that Norquist and Kahn have managed to turn CPAC into a "sharia-compliant conference" where Islamic law has been implemented:

Gohmert At CPAC: 'Vietnam Was Winnable but People in Washington Decided We Would Not Win it'

While speaking on a panel entitled "Too Many American Wars? Should We Right Anywhere and Can We Afford It?" at CPAC, Rep. Louie Gohmert kicked off his remarks by railing against the handling of the Vietnam War, asserting that "Vietnam was winnable but people in Washington decided we would not win it!"

Gohmert went on to declare that if the US had made just one more week's worth of bombing runs over Vietnam, the Viet Cong would have surrendered unconditionally:

If that sounds familiar, it is because David Barton makes the same claim.

Allen West At CPAC: Civil War, Nazism, and President Obama

Former Rep. Allen West was one of the first speakers scheduled to kick off CPAC 2013 and he wasted no time firing up the conservative crowd by proclaiming that "there is nothing on this green earth that a liberal progressive fears more than a black American who wants a better life and a smaller government."

Later, West ran through a litany of obstacles over which this nation has triumphed, including the American Revolution,  the Civil War, the Great Depression, the battle against Nazism in World War II  ... and the presidency of Barack Obama, declaring that just as this nation overcame these previous threats, "when Barack Obama packs his bags and beats a hasty retreat back to Chicago, we will persevere":

Jeffress: Homosexuality Like Plugging a TV into the Wrong Outlet and Blowing It to Smithereens

Televangelist Robert Jeffress appeared on the Trinity Broadcasting Network’s flagship program Praise the Lord last week to discuss the opening of his new $130 million megachurch campus and the controversy surrounding Tim Tebow’s scheduled but since cancelled appearance. Jeffress, who has a history of using virulently anti-gay rhetoric, argued that homosexuality violates God’s design for sex.

“Think about this one time in heaven God was sitting up there with his sketch pad and he said, ‘you know I’m going to design human beings and would it be fun of they started doing this together with one another,’” Jeffress explained. “God dreamed up sex, He thought it up for our enjoyment, He gave us the equipment to enjoy it with.”

He went on to claim that homosexuality is like plugging a TV into a 220-volt power outlet rather than the recommended 120 outlet “because those are antiquated instructions” and “it’s my TV and I can do whatever I want to with it.”

“Well it is my TV to do what I want to with it but I’m going to blow that TV into smithereens if I put it in a 220 outlet,” Jeffress said.

Watch:

Beck: John Wilkes Booth, Adolf Hitler, & Michael Bloomberg

Last night, Glenn Beck kicked off his program by showing off a couple of historical artifacts that he has acquired, including a handwritten copy of a speech delivered by John Wilkes Booth and an early edition of "Mein Kampf" signed by Adolf Hitler ... which he then tied to New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg's effort to ban the sale of sodas over sixteen ounces.

According to Beck, just as Booth and Hitler believed that they knew the proper solutions to the "crisis" they believed their nations faced, so too Bloomberg believes he is doing the right thing in trying solve the "crisis" of obesity.

"A lot of people have come in the past and said 'there's a crisis,'" Beck said, pointing to the Booth and Hitler documents, "We have to do something.  We have to do something. That always leads you to bad places":

David Barton Continues to Peddle Falsehoods

It has become pretty obvious by this point that David Barton simply does not care that various claims he makes as part of his standard presentation are demonstrably false; he will simply continue to repeat them as fact because they are useful in promoting his right-wing political agenda.

As we have noted five times already, Barton repeatedly insists that the Constitution is filled with multiple "direct quotations" out of the Bible, insisting that anyone who doesn't see them is simply "biblically illiterate;" an assertion he made again while speaking at Fellowship Reformed Church in Hudsonville, Michigan over the weekend:

And if you know the Bible and you know and read the Constitution, you will see Bible verses and Bible phrases all over the Constitution.  It quotes Bible phrases everywhere.  People today say 'oh, it's a godless Constitution, it's a secular document.' If somebody tells me it's a secular document, I know that they're biblically illiterate. They don't recognize a Bible verse when they see one because the Constitution is loaded up with direct quotations out of the Bible.

Of course, the only person who is illiterate here is Barton himself, as he is apparently unable to comprehend what the phrase "direct quoation" since none of the evidence he provides represent, in any way, "direct quotations."

But Barton wasn't done spreading falsehoods in this presentation, as he also repeated the claim that the Supreme Court ended mandatory Bible reading in public schools because it was causing brain damage to students:

[In 1963] the Supreme Court said no more Bible in schools. Now why would they do that?  We have 320 years, literally, of the Bible in school; the Supreme Court itself said this is without any historical precedent.  There is no historical precedent in our history for not having the Bible in schools, but it's time to take it out.  Why would they take it out?

Well, the Court explained why they would take it out.  As a matter of fact, they called on the testimony of a psychologist - they didn't have any historical precedent, they didn't have any legal precedent, but Dr. Solomon Grayzel told them what was going to happen if kids read the Bible in schools and they said 'that's what we thought.' And so here's the quote the Supreme Court pointed out in its decision on why we took the Bible out of schools; they said 'if portions of the New Testament were read without explanation, they could be, and had been, psychologically harmful to the child.'

We've now discovered the Bible causes brain damage; we can't let you kids suffer brain damage, we've got to stop the brain damage.  That's the reason given by the Supreme Court on why the Bible went out of schools; it was psychological harm to children.

As we pointed out before, if you actually read the ruling in the case, you will find that the Supreme Court did not cite this as the reason for ending mandatory Bible reading in schools, rather the Court was merely describing the road the case had taken through the court system, noting that Dr. Grayzel's testimony had been heard during the initial trial.

Beyond that, Barton intentionally misrepresents the point of Grayzel's testimony itself, which was to note that forced Bible reading from a Christian perspective in public schools was potentially damaging to Jewish students:

Expert testimony was introduced by both appellants and appellees at the first trial, which testimony was summarized by the trial court as follows:

Dr. Solomon Grayzel testified that there were marked differences between the Jewish Holy Scriptures and the Christian Holy Bible, the most obvious of which was the absence of the New Testament in the Jewish Holy Scriptures. Dr. Grayzel testified that portions of the New Testament were offensive to Jewish tradition, and that, from the standpoint of Jewish faith, the concept of Jesus Christ as the Son of God was "practically blasphemous." He cited instances in the New Testament which, assertedly, were not only sectarian in nature but tended to bring the Jews into ridicule or scorn. Dr. Grayzel gave as his expert opinion that such material from the New Testament could be explained to Jewish children in such a way as to do no harm to them. But if portions of the New Testament were read without explanation, they could be, and, in his specific experience with children, Dr. Grayzel observed, had been, psychologically harmful to the child, and had caused a divisive force within the social media of the school.

In both of these cases, it has been demonstrated time and again that the claims Barton is making are irrefutably false, but he simply does not care and continues to repeat them as truth as he delivers his pseudo-historical presentations to conservative audiences all across the country.

FRC: No Right to Have Sex Outside of Marriage, Society Should 'Punish It'

Family Research Council senior fellow Pat Fagan appeared alongside Tony Perkins, the head of FRC, on Washington Watch yesterday to discuss his article which claims that Eisenstadt v. Baird, the 1972 case that overturned a Massachusetts law banning the distribution of contraceptives to unmarried people, may rank “as the single most destructive decision in the history of the Court.”

Fagan argued that the Supreme Court decision was wrong because it effectively meant that “single people have the right to engage in sexual intercourse.” “Society never gave young people that right, functioning societies don’t do that, they stop it, they punish it, they corral people, they shame people, they do whatever,” Fagan said.

The court decided that single people have the right to contraceptives. What’s that got to do with marriage? Everything, because what the Supreme Court essentially said is single people have the right to engage in sexual intercourse. Well, societies have always forbidden that, there were laws against it. Now sure, single people are inclined to push the fences and jump over them, particularly if they are in love with each other and going onto marriage, but they always knew they were doing wrong. In this case the Supreme Court said, take those fences away they can do whatever they like, and they didn’t address at all what status children had, what status the commons had, by commons I mean the rest of the United States, have they got any standing in this case? They just said no, singles have the right to contraceptives we mean singles have the right to have sex outside of marriage. Brushing aside millennia, thousands and thousands of years of wisdom, tradition, culture and setting in motion what we have.



It’s not the contraception, everybody thinks it’s about contraception, but what this court case said was young people have the right to engage in sex outside of marriage. Society never gave young people that right, functioning societies don’t do that, they stop it, they punish it, they corral people, they shame people, they do whatever. The institution for the expression of sexuality is marriage and all societies always shepherded young people there, what the Supreme Court said was forget that shepherding, you can’t block that, that’s not to be done.

Klayman: Obama Doesn't Like Jews, the Rich, People of Faith, or White People

Larry Klayman has been anything but shy about warning that violent resistance might be necessary to stop President Obama's "mission to enslave the nation." So last night, Alan Colmes invited Klayman onto his radio program to discuss his worries that black helicopters have been firing practice rounds on American cities, during which he asserted that he believes that Obama does not like Jews, the wealthy, people of faith, or white people ... or, for that matter, that Obama was even born in this country:

Klayman: I'm frightened for this country.  I really [am.] I don't feel that he represents the majority of Americans.  I have a Jewish background, Alan, like you do and what I've seen in the last four years is someone who has a disdain, I believe, for Jewish people and Israel.

Colmes:  Why did he have a Jewish Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel? Why does he have so many Jewish advisers?  It doesn't make any sense.

Klayman: This is a bad analogy and I'll take it a little too far.  Many times throughout history, Jewish people have been their own worst enemy.  I mean, we had Karl Marx.  We had people who were in and around Adolf Hitler even ... The fact that these people are around him, they are just simply cover.

...

The references to rich people, the constant 'we've got to pay our fair share,' it's kind of like we're talking about reparations.  It does lead one to think - and we should be allowed to talk about it too; you know, white people should be able to raise these issues just like black people legitimately raised them over the years in terms of racism - is I believe this guy has a tinge of racism towards whites and he wants to pay reparations. I don't believe that he likes Jewish people ... I don't think he likes people of faith.

Colmes: What have you seen that has you so scared?

Klayman: What I have seen is, and I never thought it was even imaginable when I was fighting [Bill] Clinton, I do believe that it is possible now.  I think that Obama knows that at some point a significant portion of this country is going to rise up and possibly become violent and I hope and pray that that does not happen.

Colmes: What are you basing this on?

Klayman: Well, what I've seen in recent weeks are black helicopters over the streets in Miami and Chicago and Houston, firing practice rounds ...

Colmes: Whose helicopters are these?

Klayman: They are government helicopters that have been doing that.

Colmes: Why has this not been widely reported?

Klayman: It is starting to become widely publicized.

Colmes: Where can I get documentation of it?

Klayman: Take a look at WorldNetDaily.com.

Colmes: Oh, WoldNetDaily; you mean the people who think that he wasn't born here?

Klayman: Well, I don't think he was born here either.

Harvey Denounces Girl Scouts for Supporting 'Homosexual Lifestyles' and 'Suspicion Toward Males'

It’s that time of year again when Girl Scouts sell cookies… and right-wing activists attack the Girl Scouts. Today, Linda Harvey of Mission America took offense that the Scouts support “radical feminists” and “homosexual lifestyles” and “feature prominent female homosexuals in some of their materials.” She alleged that they dismiss “authentic morality, Christianity, conservative viewpoints and just plain old motherhood” and “sexual self-restraint” while at the same time promoting “an attitude of suspicion toward males.”

This is not at all the way the organization started, but Girl Scout materials and programs support role models like radical feminists Gloria Steinem and Betty Friedan, they support homosexual lifestyles and feature prominent female homosexuals in some of their materials. At the same time virtually absent is respect for authentic morality, Christianity, conservative viewpoints and just plain old motherhood. It’s one more way that girls are being taught that unless you have an attitude of suspicion toward males in general, unless you bring home a paycheck and unless you have a worldview based on self-indulgence with never a notion of sacrifice, you as a woman are really diminished in worth, sexual self-restraint or restraint of just your own female pride should be avoided at all costs.

Beck: Sen. Paul's Filibuster Is the Birth of 'a Historic Movement'

It is no secret that Glenn Beck fancies himself as some sort of historical soothsayer capable of seeing parallels between the past and what is happening today in order to make predictions about the future.  

On last night's program, Beck proclaimed that Sen. Rand Paul's filibuster last week the modern day equivalent of Sen. Charles Sumner's 1856 "Crime against Kansas" speech, which resulted in him nearly being beaten to death on the Senate floor. Likening the criticism Paul received from Senators like Lindsey Graham and John McCain to the savage beating Sumner received, Beck went on to declare that just as the Republican Party went from nonexistence in 1854 to capturing control of Congress and the White House by 1860, Paul's filibuster would one day be seen by future historians as a watershed moment and predicting that they "will look back in a hundred years and say 'this speech ignited a global freedom movement'" that eventually won the White House.

"You were here to hear the heartbeat when the Tea Party started," Beck declared. "And last week, you witnessed the birth":

Fischer: Marriage Equality Is Really 'Inequality Under the Law'

Bryan Fischer is a big fan of the line of argumentation that gays already have full marriage equality because they have the same right to marry someone of the opposite sex as anyone else.

He reiterated this argument on his radio program today, adding that gay marriage is really "inequality under the law" because it grants to gay couples "a special carve-out for themselves that is not available to pedophiles and polygamists" and others who "engage in sexually abnormal behavior":

Focus Guest: Gays Needs to Be Told That 'Marriage is Not in the Cards for You'

Just last week, the New York Times ran a profile of a new 'kinder and gentler' Focus on the Family under current president Jim Daly who purports to be trying to change the tone of the debates over contentious issues like abortion and marriage equality while defending his conservative Christian positions on such issues.

Daly operates under the impression that so long as he approaches these debates in a gentle, thoughtful, and prayerful manner, he can open others up to the Gospel of Jesus Christ, make converts, and ultimately win people over to his side of the argument.

Today, on Focus on the Family's radio program, Daly and co-host John Fuller welcomed George Mason University Law School professor Helen Alvare onto the program to discuss "The Erosion of Marriage in America," which Alavre blamed on everything from no-fault divorce to the practice of in vitro fertilization.

And while Daly, Fuller, and Alvare were all very careful to continually insist that they were speaking out of love and respect, when it gets down to it, Alvare said, it is ridiculous to think that the Constitution contains any sort of right to marriage equality and so the state simply needs to tell gay couples that "marriage is not in the cards for you":

I don't think that the Supreme Court wants to live through another forty years of post-bad decision making like they did with Roe v. Wade. There is no question that Constitution does not textually have a right to same-sex marriage.  There is no question that it has been banned - you know, we only have a few states allowing it now.  To say that it's a constitutional right would be ridiculous and I don't think they want to be fighting over it for the next forty years.

There is a reason why, pre-Christianity as well as today, the community of citizens has always understood that there is something different about what a man and a woman do when they are romantically interested together and that naturally leads them to say I want you for my whole life.  The fact that this natural connection, older than Christianity, leads to children; the fact that children seem to need, empirically speaking, a mother and a father is why whatever the state wants to say to gay and lesbian citizens - and hopefully they say we love you and we're not going to discriminate against you - they cannot say what you do and what opposite sex couples do has the same intrinsic outcomes and therefore interest of the state.  It simply is not commensurate.

We can also say one final thing, which is when the state is tempted to say this, what you do, opposite sex couple, and what a same-sex couple does, which they can talk about a long-term emotional commitment  that we have seen if we reduce marriage to people's emotional feelings, we get more divorce, we get less marriage, we get more children outside of marriage and the poor pay more.  We don't have to speculate about this any more, we have seen it.  There has been a horrid natural experiment in our country; we know what we are talking about.

We love you.  We won't discriminate against you as gay and lesbian persons, God willing, in the future. But marriage is not in the cards for you.

This seems to pretty well sum up the new approach from Focus on the Family, which is to insist that gays are loved and respected and should not be discriminated against ... but that they just shouldn't ever be allowed to get married.

Share this page: Facebook Twitter Digg SU Digg Delicious