The same crowd of Religious Right activists who cry “homo-fascism!” any time gay rights supporters criticize a business that supports anti-gay discrimination, is now organizing a campaign against Macy’s over the department store chain’s support for LGBT pride events.
In an interview published in BarbWire today, Phil Burress of Citizens for Community Values spoke with Linda Harvey, the head of Mission America, about why customers should be upset with Macy’s.
A coalition of pro- family and Christian groups is launching a campaign to inform American families about the unfortunate role of Macy’s, Inc. Department Stores and affiliates in supporting “gay pride” parades in cities throughout the nation.
Many people have no idea how radical these parades are,” said Phil Burress, president of Citizens for Community Values of Cincinnati. “The events and activities of a typical ‘pride’ week-end are decadent and highly-sexualized, deliberately so. They are a disgrace to communities, and certainly shouldn’t be financially supported by a retailer like Macy’s that claims to serve families.”
Throughout the summer months and “gay pride” season, Macy’s is making a different choice: to support the degradation of communities through events that are an insult to American families.
“This is nothing to be proud of,” Burress said, “and Macy’s should know better. Their customers certainly do.”
The American Family Association also denounced “the contemptible role of Macy’s department stores in supporting ‘gay pride’ throughout the nation,” arguing that [the] the chain’s actions “are a disgrace to communities.”
The group is encouraging members to write to Macy’s to protest the company’s support for a “very dangerous” and “destructive lifestyle.”
Dear Chairman Lundgren:
I am disappointed to learn that Macy's chooses to celebrate the sin of homosexuality.
Your company has taken a brazen approach toward the sanctity of family and marriage, and this offends the moral conscience of America.
Count my family as one who urges Macy's to reconsider the impact its decisions and promotions have on people. Homosexuality is very dangerous and unhealthy, and only leads to a destructive lifestyle.
The National Right To Life Convention kicked off this morning with a panel discussion featuring National Review Online editor Kathryn Jean Lopez, anti-choice activist Dr. Jean Garton, and radio host and crisis pregnancy center director Joy Pinto.
All three, along with National Right to Life president Carol Tobias, who introduced the panel, struck back against the “War on Women” label that has been used for legislative assaults on abortion rights, contraception access, equal pay, and domestic violence protections.
Pinto — who runs a crisis pregnancy center in Birmingham, Alabama, which, like many such centers appears to misleading claim to offer medical consulting for women considering an abortion — argued that the “real war on women” consists of legal abortion and access to contraception, particularly emergency contraception.
She added that this “war on women” came from the “pit of hell” and implied that women who have abortions are like Eve eating the forbidden fruit in the hopes of eternal life: "It's the same lie. It's the same war."
Before addressing last week’s March for Marriage, where he called for a new anti-gay “civil rights movement,” Rev. William Owens appeared on “The Capitol Hill Show” with Tea Party News Network host Tim Constantine to promote the rally.
Owens told Constantine that allowing gay people to marry takes away his rights, without of course saying which rights he is losing exactly. He is suffering so greatly, in fact, that he called for “another civil rights movement to reclaim our rights” with people who are “willing to die” to oppose LGBT equality.
Constantine: When I talk to people around the country, I always hear support for traditional marriage and yet the gay movement continues to march on, some in the legislature, mostly in the courts. Have we gone to a place where we can’t turn back or can common sense prevail once again?
Owens: We can turn back but it’s going to take another civil rights movement to reclaim our rights. We must be willing to suffer, we must be willing to die, we must be willing to go to jail, that’s what it is going to take to turn around what these idiots have put in motion.
During a vicious rant against the “abnormal” transgender community, Owens railed against President Obama as “the most immoral president” in all of American history.
It’s a terribly slippery slope and marriage is just a small part of it. They plan to turn this whole society as if we have no gender. They are supporting any form of abnormal life with human beings. In the state of California today, boys can go to girls’ restrooms and girls can go to boys’ restrooms. This transgender thing, a teacher will be able to come to school dressed as a man one day and as a woman the next. It’s terrible that this president has started this country on an immoral course. I’ve said it then and I’ll say it again, he is the most immoral president we have ever had.
Owens also complained that Obama is acting like “he’s Almighty God” by supporting LGBT rights, including such wrongdoings as allowing “gays in the White House.”
The disgraceful thing about gay people adopting children: Two men, one pretending to be a woman; two women, one pretending to be a man. It’s absolutely disgraceful. When you do the studies, when you look at families, children need a female mother and a male father. I have two babies, I’ve got one one-year-old and one two-years-old, and those children know the difference in their mother and their dad. It’s just deplorable with this president, and I put it at the feet of the president, because he’s the one giving all of these orders as if he’s Almighty God, kingdom high, to embrace the community of gay parades, gays in the White House, he has endorsed it and has taken our course on a terribly slippery slope on the morals of this country.
Today on “The 700 Club,” Pat Robertson fielded a question from a viewer who asked: “In the Old Testament men had many wives and it seems like it didn’t go against God. Where does it say in the Bible that man should have only one wife?”
Robertson responded that the viewer should consider moving to Utah or Saudi Arabia, and then insisted that the Bible condemns polygamy. However, he admitted that “somehow” many biblical figures, such as Solomon, were polygamists. Rather than explain the inconsistency, he joked that Solomon must have “taken a lot of vitamins, that poor old man,” and launched into a diatribe against gay rights.
“I said when they make these rulings that they are making about homosexuality, when they are making these rulings about other sexual practices, it won’t be long before they cancel the laws for bigamy,” he said. “It was said by Rick Santorum in the United States Senate, surely enough those laws will come down and surely enough they will. Everything goes.”
Donald Hank of Renew America responded to the decision of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) to allow pastors to officiate same-sex weddings by accusing Presbyterians of “blasphemy against the Holy Spirit” and supporting “social Marxism.”
“This is social Marxism and we are slaves to it in the US,” he writes. “Isn’t it time to throw off the chains? It's all up to the people.”
He adds that gay marriage “is like saying a dog is a cat” and will allow for “our culture and hence our sovereignty to be destroyed.”
Hank insists that gay marriage is wrong simply because people “deep down” feel is wrong, citing the assassination of the Roman Emperor Elagabalus, whom historians have said was either gay or transgender: “In Elagabulus' case, he was eventually assassinated. The people’s will was done.”
Now, if a Presbyterian "pastor" performs a "gay" wedding, then under the above-cited rule, he is tacitly averring that the Holy Spirit called him to perform it. Since the definition of marriage throughout the Bible refers only to a union between a man and a woman, this pastor is actually averring that the Holy Spirit called him to perform a "marriage" that is counter to Biblical principles. This can clearly be construed as blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.
The only reason people bend over and grab their ankles for these activists is fear. They use raw power of intimidation to force the legal system to apply a definition that does not exist. So-called same sex "marriage" has been legally accepted in several countries and states and yet, the main requisite for this change in law was never met, namely, a legal change in the definition of marriage. And changing this definition after millennia is like saying a dog is a cat. Homosexual activists can – and do – force the hands of crooked judges and lawyers and politicians all they want to go along with this pretense that marriage has always applied to both heterosexual and homosexual unions.
However, deep down inside people resent being told that, for example, a cat is a dog. Deep down they'd be saying "if it barks it's not a damn cat!" And they'd be mad, rightfully so! And let's stop pretending this is only about religion. For Christians and Orthodox Jews (and also for Muslims), it may be mostly about religion. But for everyone, religious or not, it is about language: words and their definitions. The only way you could legitimately change the definition of marriage so as to include same sex unions would be to prove that human physiology changed recently to something that it never was in those thousands of years when only people of opposite sexes could marry each other. But you can't prove that because nothing like that happened. Granted, there were crazies like Roman Emperor Elagabulus, who are said to have "married" another man, but their actions of this kind were condemned by the grassroots. In Elagabulus' case, he was eventually assassinated. The people's will was done.
Thus, human nature did not change to usher in the "gay" marriage craze. Something else changed, and that is, a revolution that overturned all traditions and common sense through social engineering. And this brings us to the issue of sovereignty. A sovereign country has a right to defend its traditions and be what it always has been. In this point, Russia is actually superior to the West. Westerners have let down their guard, allowing the far left, posing in civil rights garb, to sell out our culture. We pretend it is an individual rights issue but it is a sovereignty issue. By inventing a right to "marry" someone of the same sex we have allowed our culture and hence our sovereignty to be destroyed. And yet sovereignty is in many ways more important than individual rights, because nowadays, rights are faddish and redefined regularly by activists antagonistic to culture, so they can no longer be defined. Yet sovereignty is something we all sense, as in my analogy with the cat-dog confusion. We sense it inherently but are afraid to say so. This is social Marxism and we are slaves to it in the US.
Isn't it time to throw off the chains? It's all up to the people. We define – and redefine – words through the way we use them. Language is power. We must stop giving away our power.
Former Missouri congressman Todd Akin, who lost his bid for U.S. Senate following his notorious comments about “legitimate rape,” is out with a new book saying that his infamous remarks weren’t the real reason why he lost.
Instead, Akin maintains in his new book, “Firing Back,” he was the victim of a plot by Republican party bosses who didn’t like the fact that his “first allegiance was always to the Constitution.”
“Todd Akin is uniquely qualified to write about the problems in Washington and the Republican Party,” according to a press release announcing the book’s publication. “The American people are ready to read about how to stop the abusive cronyism in the Republican Party and the media bullies that promote ‘progressivism.’”
Who is publishing Akin’s book? WorldNetDaily, the extreme birther website where Akin offered his post-election advice on how to win elections.
In "Firing Back," six-term congressman Todd Akin describes in eye-opening detail what it is like to be an unapologetic conservative in a town dominated by media bullies, backroom bosses and liberals of either party.
Although he tried to be a loyal Republican, Akin’s first allegiance was always to the Constitution and his conservative principles. When the Bush administration lobbied him to approve its liberal legislative initiatives, No Child Left Behind and the Medicare prescription drug benefit, Akin refused. In the process, he made some serious enemies.
Those enemies got their revenge after Akin made an awkward comment about rape. Although he had just won a hard-fought Republican primary in Missouri for U.S. Senate, party bosses tried to coerce him to yield the nomination to their preferred candidate.
When Akin refused, the bosses turned their backs on him and let Democrat Claire McCaskill win.
In "Firing Back," Akin tells the story of how the Republican leadership not only threw him under the bus but also ran over him a few times for good measure. Not one of them explained what it was about Akin’s remarks that so deeply offended them.
Akin names names and takes numbers in "Firing Back," but this book is much more than a tell-all. It is a battle-tested guide for Republicans and conservatives to help them find their courage and reclaim their integrity and, by doing so, to help preserve America’s faith and freedom.
• Todd Akin is a Reagan conservative who served six terms in the U.S. House of Representatives from Missouri, where more than a million people voted for him despite bipartisan pressure not to.
• Although Akin lost his election bid, his treatment by the media and his fellow Republicans netted him supporters from across the country, especially in the pro-life movement.
• As the world-famous senatorial candidate who took so much heat from his own party, Todd Akin is uniquely qualified to write about the problems in Washington and the Republican Party.
• The American people are ready to read about how to stop the abusive cronyism in the Republican Party and the media bullies that promote "progressivism."
Jeff Allen, the senior editor of Matt Barber’s BarbWire website, seized on Bill Maher’s comment this week that President Obama is a “drop-dead atheist” to launch into his own speculations about the president’s religion.
Allen writes today that while “many emphatically contend” that the president is “secretly a Muslim,” he believes the president is a “spiritual phony” who “worships, and expects others to worship, at the altar of himself.”
But who knows? Allen writes that since Obama’s “godless, anti-Christian, pro-perversity actions speak at a drastically higher decibel level than his vacuous words, we can’t help but wonder what the president really believes.”
“After all,” he writes, “we don’t even know his real name, his actual place of birth or his grades on his college transcripts for crying out loud. So, we probably never really will know much about the truth behind this least-vetted president in American history.”
What exactly is the religion of President Barack Obama? We are abundantly aware of his perplexing claims to Christianity — his friends in the lamestream media have seen to that. In fact, during a much-hyped, rare backyard discussion about his religious beliefs in New Mexico on September 28, 2010, the president described himself as a “Christian by choice” who arrived at his faith later in life during adulthood. “So, I came to my Christian faith later in life,” he explained, “and it was because the precepts of Jesus Christ spoke to me in terms of the kind of life that I want to lead.”
However, since his godless, anti-Christian, pro-perversity actions speak at a drastically higher decibel level than his vacuous words, we can’t help but wonder what the president really believes. Is he a Christian (nominally at best)? Is he secretly a Muslim as many emphatically contend? Or what exactly is his religion? Does anyone really know for sure? After all, we don’t even know his real name, his actual place of birth or his grades on his college transcripts for crying out loud. So, we probably never really will know much about the truth behind this least-vetted president in American history. The Leftist political pundits in the press continue to expend a great amount of energy shielding and providing cover for our Deceiver-in-Chief — they have to protect baby dismemberment and sodomy-based marriage at all costs.
And if anyone should ever dare to attempt to dig into the past or the private life of Obama, then his sycophant acolytes will immediately come unhinged and go on the wild-eyed offensive — they simply can’t bear the thought of having the façade removed. Therefore, the concerned citizens of this country just can’t help but wonder: What in the world are they trying so hard to hide?
“He’s a drop-dead atheist. Absolutely,” Maher flatly insisted.
Hey, Maher may be on to something here. As they say, it takes one to know one. Perhaps an avowed atheist is the best equipped to spot a spiritual phony.
So, for the spiritually inquisitive, here’s the actual answer regarding the faith of our feckless leader:
The object of our President’s veneration is none other than Barack Hussein Obama. He worships, and expects others to worship, at the altar of himself. It’s the vapid religion of Obamaism that has swiftly rushed in to fill the spiritual vacuum of liberalism.
Obama is a narcissist by several orders of magnitude who delusionally thinks the world should instantly recognize his greatness and grovel at his feet. The president fancies himself the silver-tongued orator whose “messianic-like” words should cause all to fall upon their faces in adoration and awe.
What’s eating at Ted Nugent today? Everything about America, it seems.
Nugent writes today in WorldNetDaily that he doesn’t understand why Americans are “insanely falling for” the “embarrassing Barack Obama suicidal death wish of fundamental transformation running amok.”
“Liberals are scam artists, and the greatest scam artist ever is Barack Obama,” Nugent writes. “If we stay on this insane course to self-destruction (fundamental transformation), America will indeed go the way of soulless collectivism, and the American Dream will become the American nightmare.”
While Americans have been “brainwashed” into “slavery,” only Nugent knows the truth that “liberalism is a hateful, soulless curse, destined to destroy everything in its vulgar path.”
With the embarrassing Barack Obama suicidal death wish of fundamental transformation running amok, all that made America the last best place back then has now been turned upside-down, and tragically, we the people have become in far too many instances we the sheeple, abandoning individual exceptionalism and Herculean work ethic, and now insanely falling for the pathetic Euro scam of taking from the earners instead of the pride of earning it yourself. Tragic and virtually unacceptable.
Liberals are scam artists, and the greatest scam artist ever is Barack Obama.
If we stay on this insane course to self-destruction (fundamental transformation), America will indeed go the way of soulless collectivism, and the American Dream will become the American nightmare.
I raise all the hell I possibly can to wake up the sheeple, and in the process, I am attacked viciously by the Saul Alinsky hate mongers that infest the left. Of this I am extremely proud. I proudly take flak because I am constantly over the target.
Liberalism is a hateful, soulless curse, destined to destroy everything in its vulgar path. Once you brainwash and bribe the sheeple, the sheeple with vote for their big daddy providers, hence becoming slaves to the whims of others.
We are on the cusp, America. On one side is independence and the America that shines – on the other, slavery. The soul of America hangs in the balance. Those who know, are you raising enough hell?
A dejected Gary Bauer appeared today on “The Steve Malzberg Show,” where he said he doesn’t know whether “the emotion I most feel is anger or disgust” over the two court rulings today on marriage equality.
“America is now a country where the opinion of the people means nothing,” Bauer said. “We’re in deep trouble indeed.”
Bauer also scolded his fellow Republicans for not doing enough to oppose gay rights: “It is demoralizing to see how few Republicans are willing to publically show their outrage about these kinds of decisions.”
Denunciations of today’s court rulings striking down marriage equality bans in Indiana and Utah are beginning to trickle in from anti-gay activists, with the two cases representing additional defeats for an already struggling movement.
Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council — ignoring the fact that one of the Tenth Circuit Court judges who ruled in favor of marriage equality was recommended by Sen. Jim Inhofe and appointed by George W. Bush — blamed the rulings on the Obama administration and leftists who have been “packing the federal courts with liberal jurists” in order to realize “a radical social agenda.”
Perkins also said that he will represent the “indignant Americans who are tired of seeing the foundations of a free and just society destroyed by a handful of black-robed tyrants.”
While disturbing, today's rulings come as no surprise given the rising disdain for the rule of law promoted by the Obama administration. These latest rulings are not just about redefining marriage but they are a further attempt by the courts to untether our public policies from the democratic process, as well as the anthropological record.
While judges can, by judicial fiat, declare same-sex 'marriage' legal, they will never be able to make it right. The courts, for all their power, can't overturn natural law. What they can do is incite a movement of indignant Americans, who are tired of seeing the foundations of a free and just society destroyed by a handful of black-robed tyrants. The Left has long believed packing the federal courts with liberal jurists is the means of fulfilling a radical social agenda, as the American people refuse to endorse that agenda at the polls or through their elected representatives.
As we saw with Roe v. Wade in 1973 – despite the Left's earnest hopes, the courts do not have the final say. The American people will have the final word as they experience the consequences of marriage redefinition and the ways in which it fundamentally alters America's moral, cultural and political landscape.
Jeff Allen, an Indiana-based pastor and senior editor of BarbWire, called for “elected leaders and Christians [to] defiantly rise up and engage in civil disobedience” to stop this “national tragedy” and “the death of democracy.”
“Each victory for the homosexual activists represents another nail in America’s coffin,” he wrote, adding that “these decisions require that reason be jettisoned in favor of unrestrained deviancy.”
Federal courts in Indiana and Utah on Wednesday blatantly overthrew the will of the people and subversively imposed same-sex “marriage” on the citizens of both states. The judicial oligarchy (tyranny of the few) continues flexing the muscle of its apparently unchecked power. The death of democracy is undeniably upon us. Each victory for the homosexual activists represents another nail in America’s coffin.
According to WLFI.com, a ruling from an elitist U.S. District Judge in Indiana wrongly declared that the prohibition was unconstitutional because it violated guarantees of equal protection and due process.
Separately, a rogue appeals court ruled 2-1 that Utah’s traditional marriage amendment was unconstitutional as well, saying that the gender of the two persons cannot be considered as a reason to deny a marriage license. And that’s just it — these decisions require that reason be jettisoned in favor of unrestrained deviancy.
The light of morality and freedom is being brutishly snuffed out right before our very eyes. It’s a national tragedy unfolding at an accelerating pace.
And this is not a good harbinger of things to come — unless our elected leaders and Christians defiantly rise up and engage in civil disobedience.
National Organization for Marriage’s Brian Brown unsurprisingly accused the judges of “activism” and “sophistry.”
Today's split decision of a panel of judges in the 10th Circuit is not surprising given that this Circuit refused to even order a stay of the district court decision when it came down during the Christmas holidays. While we strongly disagree with the two judges in the majority, we are encouraged by the strong defense of marriage articulated by Justice Paul Kelly in his dissent, and especially his defense of the sovereign right of the people of Utah to decide this issue for themselves. This principled recognition by a federal judge considering the marriage issue underscores that the people of a state are entitled to respect and deference in their desire to promote marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Indeed, the US Supreme Court decided in the Windsor case that the federal government must respect the right of states to define marriage. The majority in the Utah case engage in sophistry to attempt to argue their way around the Supreme Court's ruling that it is up to the states to define marriage. As Justice Kelly noted in his dissent, ‘If the States are the laboratories of democracy, requiring every state to recognize same-gender unions—contrary to the views of its electorate and representatives—turns the notion of a limited national government on its head.'
The elected representatives of the people of Indiana have decided, for good and proper reasons, to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman. It is judicial activism for a single judge to substitute his own views on marriage for the considered opinion of the people's representatives. This is just the latest example of activism from the federal bench, but we fully expect this decision to eventually be reversed when the US Supreme Court upholds the right of states to define marriage as a man and a woman. In the meantime, it is imperative that the state legislature move forward a state constitutional amendment preserving marriage so that the people always remain in control of the definition of marriage in Indiana.
Gun Owners of America executive director Larry Pratt is furious about Hillary Clinton’s recent remark that the gun lobby is a “minority of people” who “hold a viewpoint that terrorizes the majority of people.”
Pratt told Tea Party News Network host Tim Constantine on Tuesday that Clinton’s remark means she thinks that all gun owners are terrorists and is therefore ignoring Islamic terrorism, which he claimed is being taught in “most of the mosques in our country.”
“That means that they’re not willing to look at Islam and realize that Islam teaches killing other people,” he said. “Pure Islam from the Koran says that anybody who doesn’t agree exactly with Islam is to be killed, or enslaved at best. So, there’s your real terrorist. And it’s in most of the mosques in our country. You want to find the real terrorists, Mrs. Clinton, check out mosques.”
Yesterday, Oklahoma pastor Steve Kern, husband of famously anti-gay state legislator Sally Kern, advanced to a runoff primary in his own bid to take public office. He is hoping to join his wife in the Oklahoma legislature — she’s a state representative and he’s aiming for a spot representing Oklahoma City in the state senate.
Steve Kern seems to be an ideological ally of his wife, who gained national notoriety when she insisted that the “homosexual agenda” is a greater threat to America than terrorism and then writing a book called “The Stoning of Sally Kern” about the criticism she received.
Not only did Steve Kern defend his wife's comments, saying "they were true in the sense that the [gay] agenda was more stealthy than the terrorists' agenda," but he has a history of right-wing activism of his own.
Last year, Steve Kern led a rally of pastors to protest a biblical satire with “homosexual themes” being performed in Oklahoma City and prayed that God’s “mercy would withhold his justice” in punishing the city.
Kern also holds a David-Barton style view of the Constitution as an explicitly Christian document. In an August 2013 lecture, he explained that the founders were only tolerant of other religions in an effort to “try to win them to Jesus.”
He explained that this Christian-Nation ideology is “not asking for anything that isn’t already happening everywhere in the world,” perhaps unwisely comparing it to the system of Islamic law in Saudi Arabia. He added that same-sex marriage is “unconstitutional” because it “goes against the very worldview that we established our constitution on in the first place.”
Later in the presentation, Kern responded to a questioner who wondered if it would be treasonous to overthrow the government, to which Kern replied that it would not.
On her radio program today, American Family Association government affairs director Sandy Rios fumed about Thad Cochran’s victory over Chris McDaniel in Mississippi’s runoff primary election, which she blamed on John McCain.
According to Rios, McCain embarked on a campaign — “and I know about this for personal reasons” — to “purge the Republican Party of conservative candidates” and “turn the Republican Party blue” following the 2008 election.
“He decided that Mark Kirk was his first pick,” Rios said.“Many of us in Illinois at the time, conservatives, knew that this was going to be a disaster.”
After reviewing several controversies that emerged during Kirk’s U.S. Senate campaign that she said showed he “was not an honest person,” Rios said that “we also knew that he was a closet homosexual.”
Back in 2010, while Kirk was running for the Senate, Rios wrote a column, “Do We Have a Right to Know If Candidates Are Gay?,” in which she demanded more media attention to rumors that Kirk is gay:
It’s not good enough for Congressman Mark Kirk to claim his “outing” “demeans the political process.” He should answer the following questions and Republicans and press must follow through to confirm or deny his answers:
1) Are you gay?
2) Have you been living with another homosexual Congressman?
3) Were you sued by another male staffer in John Porter’s office for sexual harassment?
Congressman Mark Kirk, please answer these questions. Republican leadership, if you are covering up things the public should know, stop or you will lose even more credibility with your base. And press? Do your job. Your duty is not to defend a lifestyle; it is to report the truth.
Today, the Tenth Circuit Court upheld a lower court’s decision striking down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage. In its decision [PDF], the court dismantled several arguments from the state’s attorneys about the supposedly negative impacts of same-sex marriage on children and opposite-sex couples.
But one argument that jumped out was the state’s claim that a prohibition on same-sex unions is needed to safeguard “religious freedom,” a claim that is gaining popularity among Religious Right activists who are finding less and less success with outright bigotry.
The court pointed out that the increasingly widespread argument doesn’t hold up to scrutiny:
Appellants’ fourth and final justification for Amendment 3, “accommodating religious freedom and reducing the potential for civic strife,” fails for reasons independent of the foregoing. Appellants contend that a prohibition on same-sex marriage “is essential to preserving social harmony in the State” and that allowing same-sex couples to marry “would create the potential for religion-related strife.”
Even assuming that appellants are correct in predicting that some substantial degree of discord will follow state recognition of same-sex marriage, the Supreme Court has repeated held that public opposition cannot provide cover for a violation of fundamental rights.
Appellants acknowledge that a state may not “invoke concerns about religious freedom or religion-related social strife as a basis for denying rights otherwise guaranteed by the Constitution.” But they argue that the social and religious strife argument qualifies as legitimate because a fundamental right is not at issue in this case. Because we have rejected appellants’ contention on this point, their fourth justification necessarily fails.
We also emphasize, as did the district court, that today’s decision relates solely to civil marriage. See Kitchen, 961 F. Supp. 2d at 1214 (“[T]he court notes that its decision does not mandate any change for religious institutions, which may continue to express their own moral viewpoints and define their own traditions about marriage.”). Plaintiffs must be accorded the same legal status presently granted to married couples, but religious institutions remain as free as they always have been to practice their sacraments and traditions as they see fit.
The court also demolished another favorite claim of the Religious Right: that gay couples do not have a right to marry simply because they historically have not had a right to marry:
As the Court later explained, “[m]arriage is mentioned nowhere in the Bill of Rights and interracial marriage was illegal in most States in the 19th century, but the Court was no doubt correct in finding it to be an aspect of liberty protected against state interference by the substantive component of the Due Process Clause in Loving v. Virginia.”
Appellants’ reliance on the modifier “definitional” does not serve a meaningful function in this context. To claim that marriage, by definition, excludes certain couples is simply to insist that those couples may not marry because they have historically been denied the right to do so. One might just as easily have argued that interracial couples are by definition excluded from the institution of marriage. But “neither history nor tradition could save a law prohibiting miscegenation from constitutional attack.” Lawrence, 539 U.S. at 577-78 (quotation omitted); see also Williams v. Illinois, 399 U.S. 235, 239 (1970) (“[N]either the antiquity of a practice nor the fact of steadfast legislative and judicial adherence to it through the centuries insulates it from constitutional attack . . . .”); In re Marriage Cases, 183 P.3d 384, 451 (Cal. 2008) (“[E]ven the most familiar and generally accepted of social practices and traditions often mask an unfairness and inequality that frequently is not recognized or appreciated by those not directly harmed by those practices or traditions.”), superseded by constitutional amendment as stated in Strauss v. Horton, 207 P.3d 48, 59 (Cal. 2009).
BarbWire editor Jeff Allen joined Tim Wildmon on American Family Radio yesterday to warn that President Obama and his progressive allies seek to destroy America because they are engaged in “rebellion against God.”
Among the anti-American, anti-Christian demoniacs? Why, none other than us here at Right Wing Watch! Allen accused us — along with the media, public schools and the gay community — of trying to bring down the country and replace it with a socialist-communist dystopia.
And he wasn’t done there. Allen took to BarbWire today to accuse Secretary of State John of pushing “sodomite imperialism” by appointing “tranny” foreign service officers and “weaponizing the foreign affairs agencies with a homosexual warhead.”
With the Obama administration’s foreign policy in a shambles and the world going to hell in a handbasket (and frankly, we’re running out of handbaskets), Secretary of State John Kerry was busy wasting our nation’s valuable time making the ridiculous pledge to continue working hard to appoint more LGBT ambassadors as part of America’s new sodomite imperialism. Never mind the fact that ISIS is overrunning Iraq, the Syrian civil war is spilling over into Israel, and Russian aggression in the Ukraine destabilizes the region — America is too preoccupied with intimidating other nations into embracing homosexual perversion to be concerned about such “insignificant” geo-politcal [sic] issues. Talk about having our national priorities out of whack!
John Kerry delivered his remarks at the GLIFAA (formerly Gays and Lesbians in Foreign Affairs Agencies) Pride Event in the Ben Franklin Room at the U.S. Department of State in Washington, DC on June 19. During the speech, the secretary rattled off a list of “accomplishments” that have benefited the homosexual community’s aberrant agenda.
Kerry also indicated that, if confirmed, Ted Osius (nominated by President Obama to serve in Vietnam) would become the sixth openly gay U.S. ambassador currently in service. Then, he praised the work of the GLIFAA President and moderator of the event Robyn McCutcheon, who was at one time posted in Bucharest, Hungary as the first cross-dressing, tranny “female” Foreign Service officer. In other words, we’ve got people who can’t even figure out their own gender trying to navigate their way through the intricacies and intrigues of the world’s most confusing diplomatic quandaries.
For those nations that dare to balk at these thuggish U.S. demands and refuse to recognize pretend homosexual “marriages” (and won’t grant visas to their homosexual “spouses”), the Obama administration is prepared to abusively misuse its power. Kerry threatened to use coercive tactics against those nations that find homosexual practice repugnant. Apparently, we no longer respect the culture, beliefs and traditions of other nations. Just as the vindictive homosexual activists have brazenly run roughshod over the rights of conservative and Christian citizens here at home, Kerry promised more of the same around the world. Like the IRS, we are seeing the weaponizing of the foreign affairs agencies with a homosexual warhead.
Jennifer Roback Morse, head of the Ruth Institute — which was formerly affiliated with the National Organization for Marriage — urged conservative law students earlier this month to resist the “pagan ideology” of the “sexual revolution” like those who resisted Nazism.
In a lecture to the Alliance Defending Freedom’s Blackstone Legal Fellowship, Morse explained that while Christianity ended slavery, the sexual revolution is now bringing it back.
“All of these issues — divorce and remarriage, abortion and infanticide, slavery, the buying and selling of human beings — all of these things, the Christian religion put a stop to. But they’re all on their way back because of the sexual revolution,” she said. “The sexual revolution is bringing back all of these points.”
“We, in fact, are on the right side of history,” she said.
Later in the speech, Morse urged the students in the audience to emulate Maximilian Kolbe and Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s stands against Nazism in resisting the “pagan ideology” of the “sexual revolution.”
While the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA) took a giant leap toward reducing voting discrimination, a wealth of evidence today shows that discrimination at the polls persists. A new report by the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights documents148 separate instances of voting violations since 2000, with each affecting hundreds to thousands of voters.
The report, The Persistent Challenge of Voting Discrimination, came just days before today’s one-year anniversary of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Shelby County v. Holder, which gutted a key provision of the VRA. The litany of voting rights violations detailed therein underscores the need for reform – now.
Key takeaways gleaned from recent examples:
• Racial discrimination in voting remains a significant problem in our democracy. Nearly 50 years after the enactment of the VRA, racial discrimination in voting remains a persistent problem in many places around the country…
• The problem of racial discrimination in voting is not limited to one region of the country. The examples outlined in this report document instances of voting discrimination from 30 states, representing every region of the country…
• Voting discrimination occurs most often in local elections… They often concern the election of city, county or other local elected officials, where many of the contests are nonpartisan.
• Discrimination in voting manifests itself in many ways, and new methods continue to emerge. Voting discrimination occurs today in both overt and subtle forms.
Here are just a handful of the cases in which systematic discrimination threatened to discourage or sideline voters:
• In 2008, the state of Alaska requested preclearance of a plan to remove polling places in multiple Native villages. The state intended to consolidate predominately Alaska Native voting precincts with those of other communities, creating new polling places that were geographically remote and inaccessible by road. Instead of complying with a “More Information Request” by the Department of Justice regarding the proposed changes, Alaska withdrew their submission.
• Between 2004 and 2011, DOJ alleged that five counties and four cities in California had been in violation of Section 203 of the VRA, citing failures to implement bilingual election programs for language-minority voters, as well as failures to translate election-related materials for precincts with large language-minority populations.
• Between 2002 and 2011, multiple school districts and localities in Louisiana proposed redistricting plans that would have eliminated districts in which an African American majority was able to elect the candidate of their choice.
The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights notes that because the study was only able to take into account reported cases, the statistics are likely a conservative estimate of the real magnitude of the problem.
Sadly, discrimination in the electoral process still happens. Moving forward on legislation to update and modernize the VRA would help return a voting voice to Americans who are too often, even today, marginalized.
WorldNetDaily pundit Burt Prelutsky says it is wrong for Christians to care for undocumented immigrants, decrying such actions as treasonous.
In his column today, Prelutsky writes that such Christians are helping Latinos “overrun America by destroying our schools, undermining our economy and over-taxing our social services” and “encouraging one specific group, Hispanics, to invade this nation” in order to “fill their respective pews.”
But he places most of the blame on “homicidal” progressives like President Obama and congressional Democrats who seek to “destroy America” by “weakening our military, alienating our traditional allies, destroying the economy and erasing our borders.”
Prelutsky also calls for Republicans to impeach and prosecute Obama, but then adds the caveat that they should wait because otherwise such moves “would only serve to draw attention away from all the scandals bedeviling the Democrats.”
There are times when I suspect that people like Obama, Reid, Pelosi, Schumer, Boxer and Durbin, should have their photos on the wall of the post office as suspects in the killing of America. Other times, I remember that all of these people, along with the likes of Elijah Cummings, Brad Sherman, Henry Waxman, Sheila Jackson Lee and Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, have all been elected numerous times, so perhaps it’s America that’s chosen to commit suicide.
As many of you recall, a doctor named Jack Kevorkian was generally reviled for assisting the terminally ill achieve a painless death. Some people called him a vulture. I was not one of them. It seems to me that if a person chooses to end his pain and suffering by ending his life, he shouldn’t be denied that which we bestow, ironically, on both our beloved pets and the vilest serial killers.
But some of us aren’t yet ready to go, and we certainly aren’t complacent about the homicidal impulses of the so-called progressives. Everywhere we turn, we see them actively attempting to destroy America. We see them weakening our military, alienating our traditional allies, destroying the economy and erasing our borders. And none of these things is happening accidentally or as the result of unfortunate circumstances.
But it’s not the politicians alone who are guilty of this outrage to our sovereignty. They are aided and abetted by the Catholic and evangelical churches. Priests and ministers collude in claiming they are merely following Christ’s teachings when they collect the illegal aliens, feed them, clean them and then bus them to outlying cities and even other states.
Funny, but I don’t recall reading where Jesus told anyone to overrun America by destroying our schools, undermining our economy and over-taxing our social services. They can put all the lipstick, mascara and rouge they like on this particular pig, but their main purpose in flouting the law and common sense is to fill their respective pews.
As for the liberal politicians who condone this scandalous behavior, I find it peculiar that at the same time they promote diversity – at least when it comes to pigmentation and sexual proclivities – they’re encouraging one specific group, Hispanics, to invade this nation.
For this reason, and so many more, I would like to see Barack Obama impeached. But not now, when it would only serve to draw attention away from all the scandals bedeviling the Democrats. But once the midterm elections are over and the Republicans have taken control of the Senate, I want to see Obama tried for high crimes and misdemeanors. It’s bad enough that this bum has managed to conceal all of his essential documents. But it would be criminal if he didn’t face prosecution for turning the IRS, the FBI and even the U.S. Patent Office into his own personal attack dogs, and for violating both the letter and the spirit of the U.S. Constitution.
Barbwire columnist Gina Miller is reacting reasonably to the announcement that some Boy Scout troops will march in New York’s LGBT pride parade this weekend:
Back when the leadership of Boy Scouts of America bowed down at the altar of “Big Gay” by allowing openly homosexual boys into their ranks, we warned you that the militant homosexual activists would not be satisfied with this terrible capitulation. No, they wanted openly homosexual men to be allowed as troop leaders and other administrators. They’re still pushing for this. The latest in-your-face statement is being made this Sunday in New York’s homosexual “pride” parade.
This is so sick on so many levels. The sugary words here are a devilish covering for the dark, demented truth of what this is: a perverse attack on young boys who are being used as little tools by an evil movement of sexual degenerates who cannot reproduce, so they must recruit.
Moral straightness is also a scouting virtue that its leadership has flushed down the sewer that is the radical homosexual movement. The Boy Scouts organization has chosen the world over God’s moral truth, and it’s not going to get better for them, because the insatiable lust for power of the radical homosexual movement will be satisfied with nothing short of complete capitulation to its detestable will.