On Wallbuilders Live today, David Barton and Rick Green hosted Baptist pastor Danny Holliday, who was active in the campaign to block marriage equality legislation in the Illinois legislature. Green kicked off the show by comparing Holliday’s anti-gay activism to John Adams’ push for the adoption of the Declaration of Independence: “He was like John Adams at the Continental Congress, the guy behind the scenes that was working day and night to make sure we got the Declaration of Independence.”
Barton also wanted people to know that there is nothing “gay” about being gay.
“I’m not going to call it gay marriage; it’s homosexual marriage,” Barton pointed out. “Our friend Ken Hutcherson says he’s the gayest guy he knows because he’s not going to give the word gay up to homosexuals; gay means happy, bright and cheerful and that’s not what homosexuality is.”
Holliday told the hosts that marriage equality for gays and lesbians violates the separation of church and state. Under his Barton-esque view, Holliday said the separation of church and state actually means that the government has “no right to disregard what God says” about marriage or other issues.
It’s not about the character or integrity of people who are gay, it’s not about them. The issue is God defined marriage and since our Constitution, our Declaration of Independence and the oath of office in the state of Illinois recognize almighty God, then we have no right to disregard what God says about the institution of marriage. They don’t have a right to step beyond the veil, that separation of church and state, because it is God who gives us religious freedom and not the state.
Following the Supreme Court’s decisions on DOMA and Prop 8, Mission America’s Linda Harvey attacked the “clueless, immoral leadership” of the Supreme Court for breeding “chaos” and not thinking of the children.
“It’s our children, especially those children in the states and the District of Columbia where this is now legal, who will suffer the most because their access to truth is going to be denied,” Harvey said. “Homosexual militants will now have their dreams fulfilled that American children will march to this new tune.”
Harvey even called on parents in marriage equality states to take their kids out of the public school system: “Concerned parents would be wise in same-sex parents states to remove your children from the public schools, things are about to get very oppressive for people of faith.”
Fresh after blaming gays and women wearing hats and pants for the Colorado wildfires, Colorado pastors Kevin Swanson and Dave Buehner on Generations Radio have responded to the Supreme Court’s rulings on DOMA and Prop 8 by predicting the legalization of marriages to inanimate objects.
Harkening back to an earlier program about how Star Trek allegedly promotes bestiality, Buehner claimed that “cross-species” marriages and unions with “non-life forms” will soon become all the rage: “there are some people who love their MacBooks.” Swanson even wondered about people who “want to marry their Pet Rock.”
But don’t get too excited about marrying your laptop or Pet Rock just yet, as Swanson notes that “at this point it’s the destruction of civilization.”
Swanson and Buehner both agreed that gay couples don’t actually want to get married but only seek to “stick a finger in the eye of God and to destroy civilization,” and not to mention “drag feces all over one of the most beautiful things God has created.”
“It’s all about committing cultural suicide,” Swanson explained, “the Supreme Court of the United States took a gun, put it to its own head and pulled the trigger because now we’re looking at a civilization committing suicide.”
Courage, a Roman Catholic group that encourages gays and lesbians to live lifetimes of abstinence, is planning to hold its annual summit this month at the University of St. Mary of the Lake in Mundelein, Ill., which will include a speech by Fr. Paul Scalia.
The conference’s website lists Scalia as “the Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Courage apostolate” and says he will speak on “Fearing the Lord ... and Not Being Afraid.”
Courage also points to an article Scalia wrote for the Fall 2012 edition of Humanum: Issues in Family, Culture & Science, in which he reviews three books authored by Courage founder Fr. John Harvey.
Scalia’s piece claims that critics of homosexuality are being silenced and mistreated, while in “this radical transformation of society, one of the greatest casualties is the individual who experiences homosexual attractions but who desires to live chastity.” He adds that it is unfortunate that Harvey used the term “homosexual person” since according to Scalia, those people do not exist: “We should not predicate “homosexual” of any person. That does a disservice to the dignity of the human person by collapsing personhood into sexual inclinations.”
After hailing Harvey for having eventually “ceased using the term “homosexual” or “homosexual person,” Scalia goes on to claim that many people have “have found freedom, to varying degrees, from homosexual attractions” and deny that people have sexual orientations: “Homosexual tendencies (to use a term from magisterial documents), do not constitute a fixed, unchangeable aspect of the person and therefore should not be considered an “orientation”…. Either our sexuality is oriented in a certain direction (i.e. toward the one-flesh union of marriage), or it is not.”
Consider how swiftly American society has changed as regards homosexuality. The “Stonewall riots,” the touchstone and unofficial beginning of the gay rights movement, occurred in June 1969. Since then, the demands from the gay community have progressed from simple tolerance, to acceptance, to the right to marry, to now the silencing of any opposition as bigoted and “homophobic.” Those who once insisted on tolerance for their lifestyle will now tolerate no disagreement. Society now requires everyone’s approval of what not long ago was regarded as morally abhorrent.
In this radical transformation of society, one of the greatest casualties is the individual who experiences homosexual attractions but who desires to live chastity. He finds, on one hand, the homosexual community encouraging him to live out his sexual desires, to claim his gay identity, to embrace the lifestyle, and so on. Worse, even some in the Church will encourage him to do so. Unfortunately, among those to whom he turns for help, he may find insensitivity, ignorance, misunderstanding, or simply an unwillingness to help. This individual is caught in the crossfire of the broader battle. He suffers great loneliness and often despair in the face of a struggle that some see as futile and others ignore.
In these books Father Harvey repeatedly articulates and explains the principle that guided his work and the work of Courage – namely, the distinction between the person and his homosexual attractions or tendencies. Those who advocate the goodness of homosexual acts and lifestyle do so because they identify the person – always a good – with the homosexual inclinations. They therefore conclude that such inclinations must be good and so also, of course, the actions. Likewise, those who feel shame and loneliness do so precisely because they have come to identify themselves (their very persons) with their same-sex attractions, which they know (both intellectually and affectively) to be wrong. The work of Courage (and of the Church as a whole) turns on the person/attraction distinction. We can fairly summarize that work as distinguishing the person to be loved from the attractions to be resisted and even overcome.
In this regard we must note the unfortunate title The Homosexual Person (and therefore also the unfortunate title of the CDF document). In short, we should not predicate “homosexual” of any person. That does a disservice to the dignity of the human person by collapsing personhood into sexual inclinations. The chronology of the books helps us to see the development in this area of language. Indeed, the Church is still trying to find the right vocabulary to speak about this modern phenomenon. Thus in his last book, Father Harvey ceased using the term “homosexual” or “homosexual person.” His thought and ministry brought him to realize that it is better to speak of someone with “same-sex attractions.” Although lacking brevity and ease of speech, this phrase has the virtue of precision. It acknowledges both the person/attraction distinction and the complexity of the condition – not fairly summarized as an “orientation.” Which brings us to another matter of vocabulary.…
Father Harvey’s use of the term “orientation” also underwent a deserved change. In his first two books we find the use of this word to describe homosexual inclinations or attractions. In the last book, however, he deliberately avoids it. This reflects the increased appreciation for the fact that homosexual tendencies (to use a term from magisterial documents), do not constitute a fixed, unchangeable aspect of the person and therefore should not be considered an “orientation.” Further, the term does violence to a proper understanding of human sexuality. Either our sexuality is oriented in a certain direction (i.e. toward the one-flesh union of marriage), or it is not. We cannot speak of more than one sexual “orientation” any more than we can think of the sun rising in more than one place (i.e. the orient).
Indeed, one of Father Harvey’s contributions is his discussion of the possibility for healing of homosexual attractions. He deftly navigates the extremes (on one hand, that change is impossible… on the other hand, that it is morally obligatory) to present the simple truth that many have found freedom, to varying degrees, from homosexual attractions. Thus we cannot speak of it as a fixed, unchangeable, unchanging “orientation.” (For this reason also the Church made a similar correction in the second edition of the Catechism, removing unfortunate language that implied homosexuality is a fixed orientation.)
Warren Throckmorton reports today that Ohio’s Springboro School District is planning to offer a summer course on the Constitution…taught via video by revisionist historian David Barton and his Christian Reconstructionist pal John Eidsmoe, and sponsored by the extreme Christian-nation group Institute on the Constitution.
The announcement for the course offers families an opportunity to “learn your Godly American heritage and birthright”:
As RWW readers know, David Barton is the discredited “historian” whose most recent book on the nation’s “Christian heritage” was pulled by its conservative Christian publisher because it was riddled with factual errors. John Eidsmoe is a leading Christian Reconstructionist thinker and intellectual mentor of Michele Bachmann.
Springboro’s school board made national headlines last month when it debated adding creationism to its curriculum.
Televangelist Rod Parsley brought on Perry Stone of Voice of Evangelism today to discuss the End Times, which, they noted, thanks to Obamacare is materializing more quickly than one might think. Stone claimed that Obamacare will mandate people to have a “heath care chip” implanted in their right hand and suggested that the chip is the Mark of the Beast.
Another self-proclaimed prophet, Cindy Jacobs, made the same contention on her show last year. Of course, the claim is completely and utterly false – if not laughable – as nothing in the law requires microchip implantations. Despite the ridiculousness, Stone says he found believers in at least four state senators receptive to the claim and is working with one to pass a state law blocking the imaginary requirement.
Later, Parsley and Stone talked about how churches should tell politicians that they will make sure their congregations only back candidates who oppose abortion rights and gay rights. “We are on the verge of legalizing abominations that have destroyed empires,” Stones cried.
“That is when the empire gets destroyed, not when the sin goes on but when the sin is legislated by the people, when it becomes ingrained in the laws then that becomes the destruction of that society or civilization,” Parsley added.
Later in the program, Parsley said that the supposed silence among pastors on the issues is a plot by the Devil.
Dr. Den Trumbull, head of a tiny anti-gay professional association called the American College of Pediatricians, clearly isn’t even trying seem like a legitimate medical authority. Case in point: Yesterday, Trumbull appeared on TruNews, where he discussed gay rights with conspiratorial and extremist radio host Rick Wiles. The two focused their conversation on ACP’s opposition to the mainstream and significantly larger American Academy of Pediatrics and its initiative fighting homophobia.
“Science is being left behind” in the AAP’s work, Trumbull warned. Wiles predicted that free speech will soon be criminalized and lamented that “it’s almost impossible to have an intelligent discussion in public about these issues.”
That’s right, the radio talk show host who has repeatedly blamed gays and lesbians for North Korea’s nuclear threats, referred to gay rights laws as “spiritual sodomy” and warned that Rachel Maddow viewers will orchestrate an anti-Christian holocaust is upset about the lack of “intelligent discussion in public” on LGBT issues. Later in the program, Wiles said that the gay rights movement “is like Nazism coming down in this country.”
Trumbull later asserted that “children or teen who subscribe to a lifestyle of gay, lesbian, bisexual, transsexual, and questioning” do not face health challenges like depression, anxiety and suicidal ideation as a result of “stigmata [sic] from society,” but because of “deep-seated internal conflicts that we believe are related to the non-heterosexual orientations.”
He argued that “as many as twenty percent of teens may pass through a phase of sexual preference toward the non-heterosexual persuasion and it’s transient if not validated or encouraged.”
After arguing that gay marriage is a threat to children and community spirit, Janice Shaw Crouse of Concerned Women for America took to the Washington Times today to warn about the approaching “bleak future Christians” in which people of faith will experience “harsh retribution in the form of fines and imprisonment” if gay marriage becomes legal.
Crouse lashed out at “in-your-face media campaigns to normalize homosexual relationships” and pointed to an opinion piece by a Heritage Foundation fellow in CNN.com to claim that the DOMA ruling is a threat to democracy.
“It contradicts centuries of experience across time and cultures for the best family structure for strong nations,” Crouse writes about same-sex unions. “It represents a national experiment in social reconstruction at the expense of our children’s futures and the future of America.”
Regarding the Proposition 8 vote, the Supreme Court, in an instance of legal maneuvering that trumps common sense, said that those sponsoring the California initiative did not have “standing” to defend the constitutional amendment passed by more than 7 million voters. This amounts to the court saying, if we don’t want to address the issue, we simply say you don’t have the right to raise the issue with us. Thus, the California officials who refused to enforce the law got away with rejecting the will of the majority in their state.
In the Defense of Marriage Act vote, the Supreme Court struck down Section 3, which defines marriage as the union between one man and one woman for federal purposes. The narrow victory grants federal benefits to same-sex couples who live in states where such “marriages” are legal. In effect, though, the decision overturns the 1996 action of a bipartisan majority in Congress, even though the decision allows states to determine their own definition of marriage. Even CNN pointed out: “This is a serious loss for federalism and democratic self-government.” Section 2 of DOMA, which remains, makes it clear that no state is required to recognize another state’s same-sex “marriages.”
The technicalities, though, are obscured by the media “victory” won by the homosexual activists. More and more Americans are viewing same-sex “marriage” as inevitable, and the in-your-face media campaigns to normalize homosexual relationships are successfully changing the popular culture.
The bottom line is that the Supreme Court rulings fly in the face of a growing mountain of social science research showing that the best household arrangement for children is a married mom and dad. It contradicts centuries of experience across time and cultures for the best family structure for strong nations. It represents a national experiment in social reconstruction at the expense of our children’s futures and the future of America. These decisions repudiate — with a vengeance — the sacred trust of the Founders who built this great nation “under God” and on a foundation of Judeo-Christian principles that have stood the test of time.
Worse, the rulings warn of a future where Christians will have a choice: Keep silent about their faith or face not just being cast as a social pariah, but harsh retribution in the form of fines and imprisonment. It is hard to envision such an outcome, but the pivotal changes and losses of religious freedom and freedom of speech over the past few years portend a bleak future Christians must take seriously.
Austin Ruse of C-FAM, the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute, filled in for Sandy Rios yesterday on her American Family Association radio program, and quickly proved that he is more than able to fill her shoes. Ruse kicked off the show by recounting a harrowing experience where he had to see a lesbian…with her arm around her wife…on the Food Network.
Ruse said that he started to worry when he realized that one of the chefs on Chopped “looked like a butch lesbian” and put his finger on the remote just in case he got exposed to gayness. “But this is the Food Network so we don’t have anything to worry about, right?” he said.
But it was too late. Despite his best efforts, Ruse and his daughter were forced to see a lesbian couple:
So I didn’t have my hand on the trigger fast enough when they did a hard cut to a backstory about this lesbian chef and don’t you know it she’s got her arm around her ‘wife,’ she refers to her ‘wife,’ and I was too slow in fast-forwarding. My eight-year-old Lucy, sweet Lucy, turned to me and said: ‘Did she say wife?’ And I said, ‘No, I think she meant girlfriend.’ And Lucy said, ‘I think she said life.’ God bless the innocence of this child. But they will not let us off the mat, the ideologies who want to cram this thing down our throats no matter where we go.
And it gets worse. Ruse laments that unwitting children may have had their vacations ruined by an edition of USA Today that featured a gay couple kissing:
The day after the decision of the Supreme Court was a full page photograph of two men kissing on USA Today. This is a paper that lands in front of hotel room doors all over the country, this is vacation time, families open that door, children may have opened this door to see two men kissing. They are making us explain things to our children that we don’t want to explain and they know what they’re doing, they absolutely know what they’re doing.
While Ruse complains about being persecuted by the Food Network, let’s remember that this is same anti-gay activist who condemned the United Nations for investigating “discriminatory laws and practices and acts of violence against individuals based on their sexual orientation and gender identity.”
In the wake of last week’s Supreme Court rulings on critical civil rights issues, a new poll finds increasing support for marriage equality and falling support for the high court itself.
A national Princeton Survey Research Associates poll found that 55 percent of Americans think that marriages of same-sex couples should be legally recognized – the highest level of support ever. A similar percentage (53 percent) believe that affirmative action programs are needed, and more Americans oppose the Supreme Court’s decision to strike down a key part of the Voting Rights Act (49 percent) than support it (40 percent). In other words, the American people are not on board with the Supreme Court turning back the clock on our civil rights.
So it is not surprising that Supreme Court approval ratings are falling. The Princeton poll found the lowest level of approval (43 percent) in eight years, with slightly more Americans disapproving of the way the court is doing its job (44 percent). Similarly, a Rasmussen poll released yesterday found that the percentage of likely voters who think the Supreme Court is doing a poor job is rising.
What is more surprising is that both polls show that a greater percentage of Americans still believe that the high court is “too liberal” than believe it is “too conservative.” As PFAW President Michael Keegan pointed out in May, this is no accident:
“In recent decades, right-wing leaders have worked in popular culture to attack the courts as a liberal peril while successfully organizing to dominate and control legal institutions to create courts that no longer look out for the rights of all Americans. They have set up law schools and legal societies to promote corporate and right-wing commitments, have promoted the appointment of reactionary judges and Justices, blocked the appointment of even moderate jurists, and defined a legal agenda that subordinates individual rights to government power and public regulation to corporate power. Right-wing success in remaking the judiciary in the image of the Republican Party has not led conservatives to curb their bitter attack on ‘liberal judicial activism,’ a fantasy that is several decades out of date but indispensable to this smoke-and-mirrors operation.”
While conservatives continue to crow about “liberal judicial activism,” the American people are realizing that the Supreme Court’s conservative rulings on issues like voting rights and the rights of workers and consumers do not reflect their beliefs or the nation’s core constitutional values.
Guest-hosting the Family Research Council’s Washington Watch last week, Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) said that he doubted President Obama’s Christian faith and American heritage. After making a bizarre argument about the incompatibility of marriage equality and evolution, Gohmert claimed that Obama is merely a “proclaimed Christian” and contended that the president has “gone to war with Christianity.”
“The gloves have come off, there really is a war by this administration against not just the Catholic Church but the Christian Church,” he said. Gohmert charged that under Obama “you can’t practice what you believe about birth control, about abortion, this administration will tell you what religious practices you can participate in and what you can’t.”
He also suggested the government may begin collecting personal information such as medical and phone records and emails of Christians to use against them:
Speaking with anti-immigrant activist Mark Krikorian later in the program, Gohmert said that Obama should follow in the footsteps of Woodrow Wilson to “completely secure the border.” Of course, Wilson was president during the 1910s and exercised military intervention into Mexico.
Gohmert said Obama would have known about Wilson’s success if he wasn’t such a foreigner: “I understand that when you grow up in Indonesia a lot of times you don’t get the American history that the rest of us got growing up here but it was secure.”
The program ended with the congressman receiving a call from a listener who asked him to investigate the treatment of Lt. Col. Terry Lakin, a birther who was discharged from the Army for refusing to obey orders from the president, and sign his petition canceling the last election based on the findings of Sheriff Arpaio’s “posse” that Obama’s birth certificate is fraudulent.
Gohmert said that he would “look into” Lakin’s prosecution but insisted that he was not a birther, claiming that legislation he cosponsored requiring candidates for president to submit their original birth certificates was inspired by a 2008 New York Times story about John McCain. The Times story examined whether McCain was eligible for the presidency since he was born in the Panama Canal Zone. It had nothing to do with whether McCain had a valid birth certificate.
Gohmert swore that he is not a birther… just someone who wants “a president who is a lawful president.”
“They continue to call me a birther, which I’m not, but I do want a president who is a lawful president,” Gohmert lamented. “But I think at this point it’s time to take on these crushing issues.”
Following the approval of House Joint Memorial 6 by a 17-13 vote in the Oregon Senate today, Oregon became the 16th state to call for an amendment to the Constitution overturning the 2010 Citizens United decision and related cases.
The passage of HJM6, first introduced in January by Representative Brian Clem, is the result of a grassroots mobilization effort by the people of Oregon. In 2012 alone, 12 Oregon cities and counties passed local resolutions urging state and federal legislators to call for a constitutional amendment taking back our democracy from corporations and special interests. The mobilization at the state level was led by Oregonians for Restoring Constitutional Democracy, a coalition that gathered signatures and endorsements in support of HJM6.
The joint memorial urges Congress to propose a constitutional amendment “clarifying the distinction between the rights of natural persons and the rights of corporations” and recognizing “that Congress and state legislatures may regulate all moneys raised and spent for political purposes.”
Rep. Jules Bailey, speaking to the Oregon House last week, urged his fellow representatives to support the measure, saying, “When we confuse the monolith with the individual, then a piece of our humanity dies. Let us ask Congress to undo this mistake.” The measure passed the House by a vote of 48-11 on June 21st before being sent to the Senate.
With each additional state joining the movement to overturn Citizens United and related decisions, the will of the American people becomes clearer. We will not let our elections be bought and sold. We will not let corporate power subvert the will of the people.
After claiming that the Supreme Court’s ruling on DOMA was comparable to the attack on Pearl Harbor, the American Decency Association put out a statement today from president Bill Johnson calling gays and lesbians “disgusting.”
“How many men would stoop to having intimacy with another man?” Johnson asks. “How disgusting. How unnatural.”
Johnson adds that homosexuality “defies natural law” and criticizes TV networks for “shoving their pro-homosexual programming down our throats.”
It is unbelievable to me to see how those who lead us lack righteous indignation. They lack righteous indignation. How can this be?
Years ago when network television began shoving their pro-homosexual programming down our throats, some ministries began early to oppose the pro-homosexual movement.
I thought seriously? What’s to worry about? How many men would stoop to having intimacy with another man? How disgusting. How unnatural.
Having sex with someone with the same anatomy as their partner defies natural law. Natural law - God’s law.
Substituting the truth for a lie. Decisions of huge magnitude guided by a lie, by irrationality, foolishness. We are now led by multitudes of so-called leaders who have exchanged the truth for a LIE.
Gun Owners of America’s Larry Pratt was forced out of Pat Buchanan’s — yes, Pat Buchanan's —1996 presidential campaign when it was discovered that he had delivered an address to a group of neo-Nazis, associated with an Aryan Nation official and served as an editor of an anti-Semitic publication. Earlier this year, he enthusiastically agreed with a radio host who suggested that President Obama is planning to incite a race war pitting “Christian, heterosexual white haves” against “black, Muslim and/or atheist have-nots.” He is one of the most prominent national proponents of the “nullification” movement, which was inspired by pre-Civil War southern politicians who tried to buck the federal government to shore up the institution of slavery. And he is scheduled to spend this Fourth of July weekend at an event hosted by a rock group that calls the Holocaust a “scam” and alleges that Israel was behind the 9/11 attacks.
So, it was interesting to listen to Pratt, discussing the George Zimmerman trial on VCY America’s Crosstalk radio last week, pull out his David Barton talking points to claim that the media, Democrats and the left are racist and anti-Semitic.
I think that the media was just convinced that this white guy -- and then eventually when they realized, darn, that he’s an Hispanic and he’s bilingual, this white Hispanic – in other words, Hispanics are supposed to be brown or even darker but this guy was a white Hispanic – so, underscore the white.
The racism of the media is pretty apparent. In fact, when you think about it, the KKK was an action arm of the Democrat Party. The Republican Party was founded ultimately to repulse not only the KKK, but armed force used to protect the institution of slavery. So when you read some of the literature even today, some of the greatest anti-Semitism comes from the left.
While Justice Antonin Scalia has problems believing in biology, Rep. Louie Gohmert takes issue with any Supreme Court justice who understands evolution. On last week’s edition of Washington Watch, Gohmert spoke to conservative activist J. Christian Adams about the court’s decisions in the DOMA and Prop 8 cases, which he had previously warned signal the collapse of civilization.
Gohmert reacted to the court’s rulings by quoting “the wisest man in the history of mankind,” King Solomon, while lamenting that his wisdom was “ruined” by engaging in polygamy (which also happens to undermine Gohmert’s case that there was just one definition of marriage in the Bible).
“He should’ve stuck with one man and one wife and I think he’d stay wise the rest of his life,” Gohmert said of Solomon, “but during a period of wisdom he said, ‘There is nothing new under the sun,’ and the holy quintet [the Supreme Court] had not apparently realized that, they really thought this was something new and improved.”
The congressman then delved into the world of philosophy: “From a philosophical standpoint, you know, we got intellectuals on the court who are believed to support the idea that evolution is how mankind got here and there is an ongoing evolution occurring. And I can’t just help but wonder, as these brilliant intellectuals have gotten to this point, how marriage between two men fits into the evolving of producing higher offspring that make the species higher and better.”
Adams added the justices have sought to “change the laws of nature” and “alter what is reality,” while Gohmert referenced a Chiffon margarine commercial to warn the justices that they “shouldn’t mess with Mother Nature.”
There are serious risks that come with reading James O’Keefe’s new book Breakthrough, but, on the other hand, if you don’t pick up a copy you will never learn O’Keefe’s “philosophy of war.” In an interview today with Chelsen Vicari of Concerned Women for America, O’Keefe discusses how he became engaged in politics to combat the “soft tyranny” of college and the “hostile professors and administrators” who didn’t appreciate his conservative views.
For example, O’Keefe mocked efforts to combat racism by “protesting” Lucky Charms as discriminatory against Irish-Americans. But that was just the beginning of his “David versus Goliath” battles against “billion dollar corporations like Planned Parenthood and ACORN.”
“The book is really a field manual, it’s a manifesto, it’s a philosophy of war,” O’Keefe humbly claims.
Reiterating false claims he made in an interview with Glenn Beck following the Supreme Court’s ruling on DOMA, David Barton today once again alleged that the Obama administration plans to compel chaplains and Central American nations to administer same-sex marriages against their will.
Barton, speaking on Wallbuilders Live today, suggested that gays and lesbians will now enlist in the armed forces just to get hitched: “Now that there is no longer a definition of marriage as a man and a woman and DOMA’s struck down, guess what? Guess what happens in the military? Guess what is going to happen in the military? Guess who is going to enlist in the military just so they can have gay marriages and force chaplains to do that?”
He accused the State Department of telling other countries that “you gonna have to get on track with gay marriage and you gonna have to get homosexuality in the nation.” And he finally named which Central American country the US is supposedly forcing to legalize same-sex marriage: Belize.
Of course, Barton was completely off base: the State Department criticized Belize over its harsh law criminalizing homosexuality and for unbridled harassment and discrimination against gays and lesbians.
“So the United States has now become an evangelist for gay marriage, homosexual marriage, across the world,” Barton said. “This is unconscionable.”
Concerned Women for America’s Janice Shaw Crouse visited Eagle Forum Live on Saturday, where she spoke with Phyllis Schlafly about the Supreme Court’s decision striking down the key provision of the Defense of Marriage Act.
The two were not optimistic for the future of the country after the DOMA decision. In fact, Crouse implied that same-sex marriage would undermine community volunteerism because “a man and a woman committed to each other for life” are “where we get our volunteers for hospitals, our volunteers for services to the homeless, our volunteers for all sorts of community outreaches, from the local scout troop to volunteering to visit the sick in individual churches.”
Schlafly: Tell us what you think about the real importance and the role that traditional marriage has played in our society and must play in our society if we’re going to continue to be a free country.
Crouse: Well, I think we’re all used to hearing the arguments that marriage is best for individuals, it’s best for women, it’s best for men, it’s best for children. And I have a whole book on how marriage has really, the demise of marriage has really hurt our children. But I think the thing that is really relevant right now is the fact that marriage is so good for communities, for nations. You cannot have a strong nation without strong marriages, it’s just as simple as that, because marriage is a husband and a wife working together.
A man and a woman committed to each other for life and committed to their children are the backbone of communities. That’s where we get our volunteers for hospitals, our volunteers for services to the homeless, our volunteers for all sorts of community outreaches, from the local scout troop to volunteering to visit the sick in individual churches. Volunteers generally come from families, people who are invested in the community and have a long-term interest in that community’s strength. And the same thing holds for nations.
Later in the conversation, Schlafly lamented that public schools are teaching children “that there are all kinds of families and you have to be respectful of all kinds.” Crouse responded that “it’s even worse than that,” because “we cannot even look at magazines at the supermarket checkout counter without having in our face homosexual embraces and couples who are flaunting [sic] public opinion and flaunting public mores.”
“It’s, I think, very egregious that we have to live with these kinds of public demonstrations that are trying to desensitize our children,” she added.
Schlafly: Janice, I wish you’d particularly address the problem in the schools, because I’m concerned that what the children are going to be taught in schools and what they cannot be taught in the schools.
Crouse: Well, we’re already seeing so much bias against Christians in our schools. It’s appalling to me as the grandmother of seven children who are in public schools. I’m seeing the evidence in a variety of different schools, from elementary through high school, where children are not allowed to express their own personal views in the context of the school, as though they only have freedom of speech at home or in the confines of their church or local synagogue or temple, wherever they worship.
Schlafly: Well, Dr. Crouse, it’s even worse than that. In their courses, they’re teaching them that there are all kinds of families and you have to be respectful of all kinds, and don’t pay any attention to what your parents say.
Crouse: Exactly. And it’s even worse than that, when you have indoctrination as early as preschool and in elementary school, as early as first grade and kindergarten, where kids are reading books. And we cannot even look at magazines at the supermarket checkout counter without having in our face homosexual embraces and couples who are flaunting public opinion and flaunting public mores. It’s, I think, very egregious that we have to live with these kinds of public demonstrations that are trying to desensitize our children.
Crouse added that she was appalled that “too many” conservatives “are unwilling to die” for the anti-gay cause, and have instead become “complacent” and decided to “live and let live”:
Conservatives, far too many, are unwilling to die for it. They are too complacent, they are too laissez faire, they really do not understand the impact of what’s happening in this country, to the point that they are willing to take a stand and make a difference. Far too many people are saying, ‘Well, I live and let live. I’m not going to be judgmental. This is what I believe, but I’m not going to foist my beliefs off on other people,’ or, ‘I can’t go out there into the public square and say these kinds of things.’ I think we have to discover a courage, we have to be very brave, we have to be willing to say, ‘This is where I stand. These are the values that made this country great. These are the values that are important to me and to my family and to my family’s future and to the family of this country.’
World Congress of Families spokesman Don Feder claims that the Supreme Court’s decision striking down the Defense of Marriage Act will legalize polygamy, incest, pedophilia and bestiality, and will ultimately mean that society is “doomed to extinction.” In fact, Feder writes in a column today, “Members of the North American Man-Boy Love Association celebrated [the ruling] by forming a chorus line in trench coats, waving candy bars.”
Feder calls the push for marriage equality “marriage mutilation” and asserts that gays and lesbians are a “breeding ground for all sexually transmitted diseases,” warning that their “death-style” only produces “disease and chaos.”
Oh give me a home where the loving couples roam and constitutionally-protected sexual choices hold sway.
Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down Section 3 of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which essentially said that if a state was stupid enough to establish ersatz marriage, federal taxpayers weren't required to subsidize the travesty.
Writing for the majority, Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy – Ronald Reagan's most tragic mistake, surpassing even Bush '41 – said the wicked and iniquitous DOMA "places same-sex couples in an unstable position of being in second-tier marriages. The differentiation demeans the couple, whose moral and sexual choices the Constitution protects…."
Of course, the Constitution does no such thing. It no more protects "sexual choices" (under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments) than it creates a sphere of privacy (under the First Amendment) which permits abortion-on-demand. A society incapable of differentiating between a family and a perversion is doomed to extinction. Concurring with DOMA's 5-4 majority, the nation's Love Doctor, Barack Hussein Obama, exalted: "I applaud the Supreme Court's decision to strike down the Defense of Marriage Act. This was discrimination enshrined in law. It treated loving couples as a separate and lesser class of people….We are a people who declared that we are all created equal…. And the love we commit to one another must be equal as well." (Emphasis added.) All the love we "commit" – including polygamous love, incestuous love, "intergenerational" love (pedophilia), cross-species love, and masochistic love (taxpayers voting for Democrats)?
We the People, in whose name the Constitution was ordained and established, have decreed – frequently and volubly, in the only polls that count – that we reject marriage mutilation.
No matter. Windsor makes clear what will be the inevitable outcome of the current charade. Again, from Scalia's dissent: "It takes real cheek for today's majority to assure us, as it is going out the door, that a constitutional requirement to give formal recognition to same-sex marriage is not at issue here – when what has preceded that assurance is a lecture on how superior the majority's moral judgment in favor of same-sex marriage is to the Congresses' hateful moral judgment against it."
Besides democracy, loving couples also trump public health.
According to the Centers for Disease Control (when last I checked, not an arm of the Family Research Council), "men who have sex with men" or MSMs (AKA, male homosexuals), made up 61% of all new HIV cases in 2010, while constituting between 2% and 4% of the male population.
Conservatively, that means male homosexuals are 50 times more likely to become HIV-positive than male heterosexuals. By contrast, a male smoker is only 23 times more likely to develop lung cancer than his non-smoking counterpart.
Loving couples are a breeding ground for all sexually transmitted diseases. Again, according to CDC, a male homosexual is 46 times more likely to contract primary or secondary syphilis than other men. Apparently, all of the love they commit does nothing to ensure anything remotely approaching fidelity and restraint.
One type of family produces children, social order and the future – the other disease and chaos. Which is to be preferred? SCOTUS says differentiation between them is unconstitutionally demeaning.
But government-mandated homosexual marriage is only part of what awaits us. With the gay lobby, there's always the next big thing. They will demand that you endorse their death-style – publicly and on bended-knee. Ultimately, it's about the mailed fist of the state smashing religious liberty and conscience.
During oral arguments, in questioning a lawyer for gay marriage – who claimed that, of course, there would be limits to deconstructing a millennia-old institution – Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor (part of the DOMA majority) asked: "If you say that marriage is a fundamental right, what state restrictions could ever exist? Meaning, what's the restriction with respect to the number of people that could get married, the incest laws – mother and child? What's left?"
The obvious answer is nothing – which is why polygamy advocates welcomed the DOMA decision and members of the North American Man-Boy Love Association celebrated by forming a chorus line in trench coats, waving candy bars.