Like Rep. Louie Gohmert, Brian Brown of the National Organization for Marriage also participated in pastor Rick Scarborough’s Tea Party Unity conference calls back in March, where he made the “libertarian” argument against legalizing same-sex marriage.
Brown commended his anti-gay organization for having been able to “motivate a lot of the Tea Party groups” along with “African American and Hispanic folks” around their shared fear that gay marriage will undermine the Constitution and jeopardize “the future of Western civilization.”
After discussing how NOM is “working with leaders like Senator [Marco] Rubio or Ted Cruz,” he warned that marriage equality will grow the size and scope of government. If the state recognizes same-sex unions, Brown claimed, then public officials will “use the power of the state to punish, repress and marginalize” anti-gay activists.
He said that NOM’s opposition to marriage equality rests on the “libertarian argument” that if the state refuses to “recognize the truth that marriage is by its nature the union of a man and a woman” then “you’re giving the power to the state to call black white and white black, to put a falsehood into the law and a state that can do that is a state that pretty much can do anything.”
This is an issue where we can get new blood to support the Constitution, I mean that’s what’s at stake, Constitutionalism. When you have African American and Hispanic folks stepping up and saying that we will stand up for traditional marriage, we can make inroads there. I think the local Tea Party groups that have helped us with marches, helped us in any way they can, they’ve understood that this is about marriage, this is about the future of Western civilization, but this is also about our Constitution and whether judges can willy nilly create law out of thin air and I think that that has helped motivate a lot of the Tea Party groups.
We need leaders and we’re working with leaders like Senator [Marco] Rubio or Ted Cruz, or whoever they may be, who understand what’s at stake and will really lead the party and sort of counter some of these arguments. The second part of this is this false libertarian argument that somehow the state should just get out of marriage altogether. That is not going to happen. There is really one or two outcomes that’s going to happen in this: either we’re going to have the state embrace this new definition of marriage and use the power of the state to punish, repress and marginalize those of us that know that marriage is the union of a man and a woman, or we’re going to have the state recognize the truth about marriage.
Ours is actually a libertarian argument. We’re not arguing that the state create marriage, the state does not create marriage, but the state has to recognize the truth that marriage is by its nature the union of a man and a woman. When it abandons that truth, you’re giving the power to the state to call black white and white black, to put a falsehood into the law and a state that can do that is a state that pretty much can do anything.
Brown also fielded a question from notorious ant-gay activist Brian Camenker of MassResistance, who asked why NOM is not taking “a hard stance” against same-sex relationships and openly calling homosexuality “perverse” and “unnatural.”
Brown said that NOM tries to avoid making those arguments outright simply for tactical reasons as they are trying to sway Justice Anthony Kennedy and “it’s not likely that a stronger argument about homosexuality is really going to shift Kennedy.”
However, Brown said that other groups should continue “taking a harder line in focusing more on homosexuality.”
“Different groups need to do different things, not all groups have to do the same thing,” Brown explained. “So folks that are taking a harder line in focusing more on homosexuality, there need to be different groups doing different things.”
Camenker: It’s concerning to a lot of people that the arguments being used in the various court cases concede that homosexual relationships are legitimate and not a perversion or what have you, we just don’t like them, and we wonder if there was more of a hard stance that they are not legitimate, that it is perverse, unnatural and what have you, that we might have some better success in some of the cases.
The second part of the question is I understand that you’re at CPAC, what is it like being virtually the only pro-family, pro-marriage guy there? I’m very disturbed at the way CPAC is being run this year.
Brown: Whenever I’m asked about what I think about homosexuality, I’m very clear, I believe and as a Catholic I believe in the traditional teaching of our church. I think that sex is reserved for marriage, period. As far as the legal arguments go we may differ. I think a lot of the legal arguments have been made in the Prop 8 case especially have been made to speak to [Justice] Kennedy and Kennedy has already found in the Lawrence case, for example, that states can’t ban sodomy. So it’s not likely that a stronger argument about homosexuality is really going to shift Kennedy.
I know some people think we need to focus more on homosexuality. All I’ll say is that when asked I state what I believe and many of the religious supporters that we’ll have at the march clearly will stand up and proclaim biblical truth on marriage, but I’m not sure whether legally that is the best strategy. Also, different groups need to do different things, not all groups have to do the same thing. So folks that are taking a harder line in focusing more on homosexuality, there need to be different groups doing different things.
Yesterday, Gary Bauer told members of his organization the Campaign for Working Families that conservative activist Ben Carson is the victim of a “leftist lynching.”
Bauer said that “the left-wing coalition of socialists and radical secularists” and its “political killing machine” have targeted Carson just as they have attacked “Clarence Thomas, Allen West and other people of color who have defended conservatism.”
He especially took issue with criticism of Carson’s comparison of homosexuality to pedophilia and bestiality, warning that the campaign for marriage equality is “a battering ram to destroy your religious liberty and freedom of speech.”
The Leftist "Lynching" Of Ben Carson Begins
Dr. Ben Carson burst onto the scene after his bold speech at the National Prayer Breakfast in February. His remarks were a breath of fresh air for millions of Americans who want to take the country back from the left-wing coalition of socialists and radical secularists. I have known about Dr. Carson for years, and I agree that he seems to have the character many would like to see in our leaders. BUT. . .
It is a vain hope to think that simply having a good heart and a remarkable story of success and achievement will somehow inoculate that individual from the political killing machine that the left has developed in recent years.
MSNBC's Toure Neblett recently said that Dr. Carson is nothing more than the conservative movement's "new black friend" who is "helpful in assuaging their guilt." He also said that Dr. Carson, a neurosurgeon, is "unserious." This is what the left has done to Clarence Thomas, Allen West and other people of color who have defended conservatism.
Now comes the latest attack against Dr. Carson. The left is creating a narrative that he is a bigot. Asked on Sean Hannity's show what he thought about the marriage debate, Dr. Carson responded:
"Well, my thoughts are that marriage is between a man and a woman. It's a well-established, fundamental pillar of society, and no group -- be they gays, be they NAMBLA, be they people who believe in bestiality, it doesn't matter what they are -- they don't get to change the definition."
Dr. Carson was immediately excoriated for his remarks, and he quickly apologized if he offended anyone. (Note to Dr. Carson: Don't run for president if you are going to start apologizing for offending liberals. They are offended by your very existence.)
Now students at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine have launched a petition to prevent Dr. Carson from speaking at this year's commencement ceremony because his values are "deeply offensive to a large proportion our student body." (Note to pastors and young Christians: The same-sex marriage debate is not about "fairness for everyone." Wake up! This is a battering ram to destroy your religious liberty and freedom of speech.)
In contrast, liberals see a black conservative doctor with a wonderful personality and incredible achievements and no matter how popular he is, their first instinct is to take him down. That is what the radical left has done to our politics. They have turned it into a "blood sport," and right now it is Dr. Ben Carson being sliced up.
Larry Pratt, the extremist and conspiratorial leader of Gun Owners of America, last week gave a speech to We the People Tea Party of Northwest Louisiana where he mused that liberals should not be allowed to own guns.
After saying that President Obama held a shotgun “girly like” while skeet shooting, the Shreveport Times reports that Pratt told the group that Democrats like Obama “almost got me convinced to modify my purist Second Amendment position: there are people that shouldn’t have guns, angry liberals should not have guns.”
After host, Steve Davis, claimed that just because they “oppose homosexual marriage or homosexual adoptions, it doesn’t mean that we’re homophobes,” Solomon insisted that he is indeed a homophobe.
“Speak for yourself,” Solomon said, “I can’t stand the thought, the idea, the concept of homosexuality.”
“I don’t think I’m showing love for anyone if I encourage them or enable them or stand silently while they do something that’s going to kill them; the average homosexual lives half the adult life of the average heterosexual, fact,” Solomon maintained, as he went on to comparing homosexuality to drug abuse, drunk driving and swimming with sharks.
Keyes, who kicked his daughter out of his house after she came out of the closet, agreed with Solomon’s anti-gay statements.
Later, Keyes attacked Sen. Rob Portman’s for endorsing marriage equality after learning that his son is gay: “If you go down a road that satisfies your personal predilections and relationships and sacrifices the common good of the country, including the elementary institution by which civilization is sustained, then you’re not only derelict in your public duty, you are abandoning your obligation as a human being.”
“Frankly, people throw around words like ‘crime against humanity,’ I think that kind of disregard for the God-endowed natural rights of human being is the archetype of all crimes against humanity,” Keyes concluded, “and I think we have an entire elite faction that is now committed to committing such a crime against the American people.”
Religious Right groups have been promoting a boycott against Starbucks ever since the company announced its support for a marriage equality law in its home state of Washington. Now an ex-gay activist is warning the company to prepare for a divine reckoning after Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz rebuffed the head of the Corporate Morality Action Center, which opposes gay rights.
In an interview with the Chrisitan News Network, ex-gay preacher Robert Breaud, who is best known for his hit song “It’s Not OK To Be Gay,” said that Schultz has taken a “Christ-hating position” and is “helping to destroy young people’s lives.”
“God will not bless your business in the long run if you consistently thumb your nose at Him and support things He calls sinful,” Breaud said. An ex-homosexual who now serves as an evangelist states that he has decided to join the boycott against the coffee king Starbucks following recent remarks made by CEO Howard Schultz regarding the company’s support of homosexual “marriage.”
“It’s an unGodly, Christ-hating position,” he said of Schultz’s comments. Robert Breaud of Wisconsin told Christian News Network that he had been involved in the homosexual lifestyle until his 30′s, but has served Christ now for nearly 20 years.
“I basically got my fill of the emptiness of sin,” he said. “I was never happy, never filled, never satisfied with male-to-male relationships.”
He said that if he could sit down with Schultz, he would urge him to do what is right.
“[I would tell him,] if you want God to bless your business, run it in accordance with His law … with His revealed will in Scripture,” Breaud stated. “You’re promoting sin. You’re helping to destroy young people’s lives. … God will not bless your business in the long run if you consistently thumb your nose at Him and support things He calls sinful.”
Breaud urged others to join the boycott as well.
“There’s really no good reason not to join the boycott,” he said. “There’s only excuses.”
“Who do you love more, Christ or your coffee?”
Conservative talk show host Steve Deace is not happy with Bill O’Reilly’s seeming reversal on marriage equality, telling Religious Right activist Bob Vander Plaats that O’Reilly is “betraying” his own viewers and is essentially a “charlatan” and a “fraud.”
While discussing the Supreme Court’s handling of the marriage cases with Vander Plaats, who warned that the court could “set off a constitutional crisis,” Deace said that O’Reilly is a traitor to his conservative base: “you stab them in the back, throw them under the bus and use the enemy’s own language against them. To me that’s a hanging offense; that is a hanging offense.”
Vander Plaats: If you usurp the will of the people—we saw it in Iowa, you usurp the will of the people, three justices get removed, there’s a credibility gap with the three justices that continue to serve— if you usurp the vote of the people of California you will set off a constitutional crisis against these United States and it should be a constitutional crisis. People like you and me and others, we’d help do our part to set off a constitutional crisis if that is in fact what they came back with.
Deace: I’ve got a bee in my bonnet big time and it’s Bill O’Reilly at Fox News. I don’t like charlatans, I don’t like frauds; give me Rachel Maddow, at least she’s honest. But when you are trying to profit off of the very people you are betraying and you have tried to condescend them and patronize them for years and then at the moment they probably need you to return the favor of all the money they made you over the last fifteen years the most, you stab them in the back, throw them under the bus and use the enemy’s own language against them. To me that’s a hanging offense; that is a hanging offense.
Deace said there are no good arguments for same-sex marriage, and gay rights activists are just throwing “a hissy-fit.” He even said it is pointless to note that homosexuality is found in other species besides humans since “there’s also the licking of one’s own genitals, the flinging of one’s own feces and the eating of live prey and then puking it up to feed your offspring in nature too.”
With this issue there are no good arguments for it because the argument essentially boils down to, ‘because I want it.’ It’s essentially a tantrum; it’s policy by desire. ‘Because I want it.’ It’s a child throwing a hissy-fit, tantrum in Wal-Mart because mom bought me the regular sized M&Ms and not the king-sized that I demanded. As Ryan T. Anderson of the Heritage Foundation pointed out on CNN this week that just drove the reporter into a meltdown, ‘no one is in jail for having consensual homosexual sex with another adult, what you’re trying to do is impose your narrow definition of what this means and therefore what it means for free speech and religious liberty on everybody else.’ So they throw out all these clichés and they are so easy to debunk. One of my favorites is, ‘well there’s homosexuality in nature.’ There’s also the licking of one’s own genitals, the flinging of one’s own feces and the eating of live prey and then puking it up to feed your offspring in nature too.
Today on the 700 Club, a viewer asked host Pat Robertson why miracles such as “people raised from the dead, blind eyes open, lame people walking” seem to “happen with great frequency in Africa, and not here in the USA?” Robertson first responded by joking it is “because those people overseas didn’t go to Ivy League schools.”
But Robertson was actually serious.
“Well, we are so sophisticated, we think we’ve got everything figured out, we know about evolution, we know about Darwin, we know about all these things that says God isn’t real, we know about all this stuff,” Robertson lamented, “in many schools, in the most advanced schools, we have been inundated with skepticism and secularism.”
Unlike these too-educated Americans, “overseas they are simple and humble” and are more ready to accept miracles.
Conservative pastor and regular Fox News guest Jesse Lee Peterson of BOND appeared on TruNews with Rick Wiles last week, where Peterson argued that Obama is “racist” against white people because his mother “hated being white.”
After Wiles claimed that Obama’s family “had connections to the New World Order,” Peterson said Obama's mother, Ann Dunham, “hated her color” and raised Obama “not to accept that side of himself.”
Of course, then Wiles insisted that it really has nothing to do with race because Obama “is red inside; he is a Communist, that’s the problem,” and Peterson called the President “evil.”
Wiles: I voted for Alan Keyes years ago and I didn’t see the media going out there and whipping up guilt and telling white people: ‘you people should vote for Alan Keyes, he’s a black man.’ Alan Keyes is a real black man, okay? To be very precise, Barack Obama is not the first black president he is the first mixed-race president. He is fifty percent white and fifty percent black, there is nothing wrong with that and this is a wonderful thing that a mixed-race person was elected. But when I criticize him I just tell people, ‘I’m not criticizing his black half, I’m criticizing his white half.’ He was raised by white people and he was raised by white people who were connected to the New World Order. That man had a silver spoon in his mouth. He was not raised by a goat herder in Kenya, he was raised by his white family and they had connections to the New World Order and nobody wants to talk about this.
Peterson: I don’t think that Obama even identifies with the white aspect of himself. His mother, she hated her color, she hated being white and I’m thinking, I don’t have a whole lot of proof of this, but I do know she hated her color, hated being white. I think he may have been brought up not to accept that side of himself and that adds to him being a racist because he doesn’t really respect white folks.
Wiles: It has nothing to do with the color of his skin, it is because he is red inside; he is a Communist, that’s the problem.
Peterson: It’s all spiritual. I tell people all the time, our battle is a spiritual battle; a warfare between good and evil and Barack Obama is evil.
The two also discussed the best ways to pray for Obama, which apparently means praying that Obama is forced out of office, sent to jail and finds God:
Wiles: I’m obligated to pray for him to get saved but I’m not obligated to pray that he commits evil in this country.
Peterson: I’m obligated to pray him out of there before he destroys this country, that’s what I’m praying for. Let’s say that they’re going to pray for him, what would they pray? Other than, like you said, they pray that he accepts Christ as his Lord and Savior, other than that what are they praying for? He doesn’t even believe in the same God that they’re even praying to.
Wiles: I’m praying that he gets arrested and sent to prison and then a prison ministry reaches him with the Gospel.
Peterson: I’m telling you, sit around and pray while this guy is destroying our country, corrupting the minds of the young, and these guys are just going to sit around and pray?
Peterson also maintained that Obama’s alleged anti-white racism and support for gay rights “has given evil permission to come” and proves he is not a Christian.
Peterson: It is just hard to believe that we have a socialist, a redistribution of wealth, black liberation theology, racist man who hates Israel and hates whites in America back in the White House. He supports abortion at any point, he also supports so-called same-sex marriage and he overturned Don’t Ask Don’t Tell in the military. I believe that because we have this type of person in the White House that he has given evil permission to come forward and that is why we see so many negative things happening in our country because we have a man who approves of all these things.
Wiles: I agree. That is the most important thing that we’re going to talk about, he has given evil permission to run wild in this country, he sanctions it; he is a man of lawlessness.
Peterson: That’s right, he’s not of God. I don’t see any indication where he’s a Christian at all, I’m not sure if he’s a Muslim yet, I can’t say that for sure, but I can definitely say that he is not a Christian.
Rep. Tim Huelskamp (R-KS) is no stranger to pushing anti-gay rhetoric and policies, and in the Washington Times today attacked marriage equality for being “in defiance of biology, nature and common sense” and allegedly “further[ing] the destruction of the family.”
According to Huelskamp, a Supreme Court ruling that struck down either Proposition 8 or the Defense of Marriage Act would do “irreparable harm to yet another pillar of the American paradigm for our patriotic, wholesome culture.”
“If that definition is changed by the court, the purpose of marriage devolves to mere recognition of an emotional union,” Huelskamp writes. “In so doing, the children of America will be shortchanged.”
President Obama and I have very different notions of what a family is. For liberals, the family can apparently be everything from “Heather Has Two Mommies” to “Daddy’s Roommate” to Hillary Rodham Clinton’s “It Takes a Village.” In the opinion of electoral majorities in Kansas and 40 other states, however, that does not a family make.
The Supreme Court heard oral arguments last week in two landmark cases concerning homosexual marriage . The Hollingsworth v. Perry case challenges the federal constitutionality of California’s Proposition 8, the 2008 ballot initiative approved by 7 million voters to amend California’s state constitution to define marriage as an institution that involves only one man and one woman. The Windsor v. United States case challenges the constitutionality of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), the 1996 federal statute overwhelmingly passed by Congress and signed into law by President Clinton in 1996 that recognizes traditional marriage for federal purposes and protects states from having homosexual marriage imposed upon them by other states. If at least five Supreme Court justices do not resist the temptation to legislate from the bench, they might overturn Proposition 8 and DOMA. If that happens, the high priests and priestesses of political correctness will have done irreparable harm to yet another pillar of the American paradigm for our patriotic, wholesome culture — “God, the flag, mom and apple pie.” Activist judges have already expelled faith from the public square (forbidding the Ten Commandments, a cross in remembrance of our military heroes, and Christmas Nativity scenes) and decriminalized burning the Stars and Stripes in public. The First Lady’s “Let’s Move!” initiative and New York City Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg’s sugary-drink ban suggest the days of consuming apple pie might well be numbered.
That leaves motherhood. This year marks the 100th anniversary of the introduction of the Congressional Resolution that established Mother's Day. Every president since Woodrow Wilson has issued proclamations that pay homage to the significance of motherhood. In 1981, Ronald Reagan wrote: “They shape the character of our people through the love and nurture of their children. It is the strength they give their families that keeps our nation strong.” In 2011, President Obama wrote: “[W]e celebrate the extraordinary importance of mothers in our lives. The bond of love and dedication a mother shares with her children and family is without bounds or conditions.”
In the Hollingsworth case, though, The Justice Department argues that children do not need mothers. The Obama administration makes the incredible assertion that motherhood is superfluous to rebut an argument that the traditional two-parent family, led by both a mother and a father, provides the ideal situation to raise a child. In defiance of biology, nature and common sense, the administration argues that children need neither a father nor a mother and that having two fathers or two mothers or more is just as good as having one of each.
Redefining marriage to remove parents of both sexes from the equation would further the destruction of the family, the most fundamental building block of society. If that definition is changed by the court, the purpose of marriage devolves to mere recognition of an emotional union. In so doing, the children of America will be shortchanged — and the will of the American people would be once again short-circuited by black robes in Washington.
Dan Gainor of the Media Research Center is very, very, very angry at the media’s coverage of the Supreme Court’s marriage cases. In fact, he is so angry that he is accusing the media of pushing “full-blown fascist propaganda.”
After calling the comedy The New Normal a “propaganda show,” Gainor told the American Family Association’s news service that the media “are going to have almost no voices [from the other side] because they don’t believe that anybody should have a right to think otherwise.”
Dan Gainor, vice president of business and culture for MRC, said from the Post to the big three broadcast networks, the mainstream media is actively lobbying the American public.
“They even talk about the media component, how the media have propagandized our ‘media culture,’ in the words of [NBC news anchor] Brian Williams,” notes Gainor. “So they talk about it and they show Ellen DeGeneres, they show Modern Family clips, they show Will & Grace. They show a very tiny snippet The New Normal, which conveniently is NBC’s propaganda show.”
And Gainor tells American Family News that NBC has been the biggest violator of pushing its own gay agenda, citing its report that he says was “filled with images of TV’s gay icons.”
“That’s their strategy,” he remarks. “They’re going to have almost no voices [from the other side] because they don’t believe that anybody should have a right to think otherwise. It’s beyond bias; it’s actually I would even say beyond censorship. It is full-blown fascist propaganda.”
The MRC spokesman says while the Supreme Court may not be able to come to an agreement, the elite media has determined the issue to already be decided.
Conservative commentator Erik Rush in a column today writes that the “perpetuation of the homosexual lifestyle” will “destabilize society” and put the U.S. on “the road to tyranny.” Such rhetoric almost seems tame for the vehemently anti-gay writer, but he goes on to make up for it by citing Glenn Beck’s TheBlaze TV’s conspiratorial “reporting” on Common Core standards to claim that “tyranny” is on its way to America.
Out of frustration, apathy, and fear of conflict, I imagine a great many Americans of otherwise sound mind have fallen into the delusion that two homosexuals getting “married” doesn’t hurt them, so why not let them do so. Thus, overall opposition to the advancing phenomenon even among conservatives in America has been fairly lax.
I say “delusion” because manifesting this societal paradigm will in fact hurt them – meaning society at large – because perpetuation of the homosexual lifestyle as represented in our culture does destabilize society. Despite the propaganda and the rhetoric, we know that embracing homosexuality has a dramatically deleterious effect on society. In the main, progressives have courted pusillanimous fools who would “allow” same-sex unions, but ban guns and dodge ball; they are too ignorant and self-righteous to realize that this is the road to tyranny.
It has also been established that this issue has implications far more widespread than “loving people committing to each other.” We already have ample proof in the realm of education of how far radical minds will go to indoctrinate American children into moral relativism and deviance. Imagine what they will do if they perceive they have the countenance and approval of most Americans.
This is why I have argued against the “same-sex marriage” concept. I am well aware that liberals and homophiles will call me a big fat hater with cooties for speaking thus, but I could care less what kind of sex consenting adults have. It’s none of my business – but arresting the progress of an agenda that’s ultimately harmful to all of us is.
Forget Minority Report; such programs as the Common Core curriculum and technology project (recently reported on by columnist Michelle Malkin and TheBlaze TV, and which lays bare the incestuous conspiracies of certain captains of industry and government socialists) are right out of the film THX 1138 in their intrusiveness and tyranny.
Then we have the surreal comportment of our government in the face of staggeringdebt and deficits. While only a handful of Americans really understand the dynamic (despite its simplicity), the stage currently being set by the Federal Reserve will bring about an economic catastrophe unparalleled in modern times. Having witnessed the intentional economic collapse catalyzed by these statists via the Community Reinvestment Act, I see no reason to presume that this is not occurring by design. With its brazen, ever-increasing spending, the Obama administration has telegraphed an intention to add fuel to this fire no matter the circumstances or consequence.
Americans have no doubt found the economic turmoil in Cyprus in recent weeks entertaining, but they remain completely unaware that not only could it happen here, but provisions have been made for precisely this eventuality. Have you wondered how Americans might react when the government begins confiscating our bank accounts to pay its debt?
The Washington Times’ stringently anti-gay columnist Jeffrey Kuhner is out with a new piece today warning that gay equality will result in “moral anarchy and social disintegration.” According to Kuhner, “the homosexual lobby” is being advanced by the “modern-day fascists” of the judiciary, who seek to bring about “liberal fascism.”
“Their lifestyles and behaviors inevitably lead to a culture of death,” Kuhner writes. “Homosexual behavior — for example, sodomy — is unnatural and immoral.”
He goes on to write that a gay rights victory at the Supreme Court “will be calamitous for democracy and the family” as it would bring about “social intolerance and secular McCarthyism,” such as hate speech laws, and exacerbate society’s “cultural decay and moral decadence.”
The homosexual lobby is on the verge of a historic victory. The potential consequences will be calamitous for democracy and the family. It will usher in a brave new world marked by cultural decadence and judicial tyranny. Traditional America will be smashed — probably forever.
They are seeking to impose a social revolution from above. Their weapon: the courts. The attempt to roll back Proposition 8 represents a fundamental assault on our democracy. In 2008, the voters of California decided in a free and fair election to retain the historic — and real — definition of marriage as the union between a man and a woman. The referendum passed with nearly 53 percent. Blacks and Hispanics supported it by large majorities. The electorate spoke. Instead of respecting the vote, however, the homosexual lobby has sought to overturn the will of the people. The courts then nullified the election pending the appeal process. It is now in the hands of the high court.
This is a national tragedy — and shame. Democracy is being subordinated to judicial imperialism. The right of self-government is being supplanted by the rule of unelected and unaccountable elites. It is liberal fascism masquerading as judicial review. Wearing black robes does not give judges the justification to repeal an election. Judges are becoming modern-day fascists, unilaterally wielding state power to trample on legislative prerogatives, democratic freedoms and basic social institutions. We are slowly ceding power not to a single dictator, but to a gang of legal oligarchs — ideological leftist activists who are legislating from the bench.
If five Supreme Court justices can reverse Proposition 8, then popular elections will be rendered meaningless. We are sliding toward a post-democratic age. This is the inevitable logic of secular liberalism. Moreover, homosexual marriage has nothing to do with “tolerance” or ending “discrimination.” It is about legitimizing the homosexual lifestyle, compelling society to embrace a radical new morality.
Same-sex marriage is a contradiction, an oxymoron. It is an attempt to redefine reality and human nature. Marriage is the basic institution of society. Its very definition (and essence) is the sacred union between a man and a woman. Its fundamental aim — and the reason for centuries it has held a special status in Western civilization — is to produce, raise and socialize children. It is the social conveyor belt by which one generation is passed on to the next. Destroy the family, and with it goes the glue holding society together.
Homosexuals cannot have children naturally. Their lifestyles and behaviors inevitably lead to a culture of death — the absence of any future human life, the fruits of a marital union. Liberal activists have been trying desperately to suppress a fundamental truth: Homosexual behavior — for example, sodomy — is unnatural and immoral. This is why it has been historically considered a grave sin in Christianity, Islam and Judaism. Even deists, such as Thomas Jefferson, believed sodomy so violated public morality that those who practiced it should be castrated.
Yet, by claiming that marriage is a “civil right,” pro-homosexual activists are hoping to portray same-sex marriage critics as intolerant bigots. In fact, their objective is to import the “hate speech” laws common in Europe. This leads to social intolerance and secular McCarthyism, whereby the Bible is viewed as hate literature for its opposition to homosexuality.
Liberal logic on the issue inevitably paves the way for moral anarchy and social disintegration. If marriage is a civil right, then anyone — including polygamists, bigamists and pedophiles — will demand that they be allowed to form unions. In fact, this is already taking place in Europe, Canada and Brazil, where same-sex marriage has been legalized. The push for homosexual marriage is a symptom of cultural decay and moral decadence. It reveals a civilization unable or unwilling to defend its most vital institutions. This is why many Americans innately know its wrong. It’s why the homosexual lobby has to crush dissenting voices. The cost, however, is the sabotaging of our democracy.
The American Family Association’s Sandy Rios claimed on her radio program yesterday that the gay rights movement is encouraging the “sexualization of our children in public schools” and “softening children up with sexual information way before they’re ready for it in order to prepare them for sexual activity, for predators.”
And even closer to home, Bobby, I think the case could be made, though I’m not sure I’ve made it on this program, that the sexualization of our children in public schools through the radical homosexual movement is really just a cousin to softening children up with sexual information way before they’re ready for it in order to prepare them for sexual activity, for predators. That’s what I think is happening in our public schools.
Rios offered her theory after a conversation with Robert Lopez, a bisexual anti-gay activist, who recalled his recent trip to France to participate in anti-marriage equality protests. Marriage equality, Lopez lamented, is “a dictatorship that is being imposed on the world.”
Those of us in the United States who are very concerned about the same-sex parenting and where that’s going are not alone. I think that there are countries all over Europe and all over the world where people feel increasingly that this is a dictatorship that is being imposed on the world. And I use the word ‘dictatorship’ very consciously because, you know, they tear-gassed children and they tear-gassed politicians who were elected officials behind me while I was at the march in Paris, and it was shameful.
After Wiles shared with Luter his theory that gay rights activists are to blame for North Korea’s threats to launch a nuclear strike against the US, Luter explained that while he is “not that strong in prophecy” he would not be surprised that there might be a connection.
“I would not be surprised that at the time when we are debating same-sex marriage, at a time when we are debating whether or not we should have gays leading the Boy Scout movement, I don’t think it’s just a coincidence that we have a mad man in Asia who is saying some of the things that he’s saying,” Luter said.
Wiles: You know at precisely the same time the Supreme Court is hearing these arguments on same-sex marriage in Asia a crazy man in possession of nuclear weapons, Kim Jong-un, is openly saying: I have ordered our military to position our rockets on US targets in Hawaii, Japan, Guam and the mainland of the United States. He has gone into a full state of war this week. I don’t know, Pastor Luter, I don’t know if anybody is — I know they’re not — they’re just not putting this together. You got this happening over here and you got this happening over here: could the two be connected? Could our slide into immorality be what is unleashing this mad man over here in Asia to punish us?
Luter: It could be a possibility, I’m not that strong in prophecy but I would not be surprised that there’s not a connection there simply because of the fact we’ve seen it happen in scripture before. I would not be surprised that at the time when we are debating same-sex marriage, at a time when we are debating whether or not we should have gays leading the Boy Scout movement, I don’t think it’s just a coincidence that we have a mad man in Asia who is saying some of the things that he’s saying.
Indeed, Wiles started the program by warning that the US is being “transformed into a socialist, homosexual, anti-God, anti-biblical morality cesspool” and will commit “national suicide” if the Supreme Court rules “that homosexuals can marry.”
I have to admit I’m at a loss to understand the complacency and apathy of tens of millions of American Christians who are standing by, twiddling their thumbs while their nation is transformed into a socialist, homosexual, anti-God, anti-biblical morality cesspool. I fear that the moral decay has accelerated and worsened to such a degree that it is now impossible to halt the decline without a major catastrophe crippling the nation.
The Bible is full of examples to what happens to a nation that goes into idolatry and witchcraft and sexual sin, it always ends in disaster, always. So why aren’t we telling the American people that if you allow the Supreme Court to rule that homosexuals can marry, you have just committed national suicide. Why isn’t anybody standing up?
Luter told Wiles that he agreed with his analysis that the US may end up being “destroyed” like Sodom and Gomorrah over same-sex marriage.
Wiles: If the Supreme Court rules that same-sex marriage is a constitutional right, what are the ramifications for this nation? Luter: Oh man I would hate to think of it. You talked about Sodom and Gomorrah in your introduction and I can just see that happening man, it would be like America is pointing its finger at God and saying: ‘I know what your word says God, I know what the scripture says but we want to be our own king, we want to do things our own way.’ The last time a nation did that they were destroyed, Sodom and Gomorrah was destroyed. I just see things getting consistently worse in America because of our decisions that we’ve made to just get farther and farther away from God and God’s word.
Wiles: Do you think the average evangelical Christian in America comprehends the spiritual ramifications of this country endorsing same-sex marriage, do you think people sitting in the pews of churches, are they aware that once we go down that road….
Luter: I don’t think so. I don’t think they are Rick because I think if they were we’d have more of us standing against it, shouting out and saying that enough is enough. I don’t think they are aware, I don’t think that they are aware of what the consequences of these decisions and choices can be to our nation and to our families and to our churches.
After Wiles said that ten million Christians should stop going to work in order to protest the nation’s alleged immorality, Luter said that the country needs “about ten million Rick Wileses” to “start revival in America.”
Wiles: The country, the economic system would be on the verge of collapse if ten million productive Christians — guess who goes to work every day, the Christians; guess who pays their taxes, the Christians — if ten million productive Christians simply said ‘we’re going to sit things out until this craziness stops,’ I think it would be over in a couple days.
Luter: That would be powerful, that would be a phenomenal statement to America and I think also to the world. The challenge would be getting those ten million Christians together to make it happen.
Wiles: Apparently they don’t believe the Gospel enough.
Luter: I agree, we need about ten million Rick Wileses in the world, it would be radical.
Wiles: That would be a scary thought.
Luter: I think it would start revival in America, I really do.
Speaking to End Times radio broadcaster Jan Markell, WorldNetDaily editor and birther leader Joseph Farah described his recent tour of Israel with Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), which was organized by the American Family Association and included a number of Religious Right activists.
Farah described a cozy relationship with Paul, whose staff he says reached out to him to come on the trip. But Farah did not have kind words for the senator’s father, former congressman and presidential candidate Ron Paul, whom he claimed is not a real Christian.
“Ron Paul is hardly a friend to Israel and I don’t think that he is a Christian,” Farah said. “I don’t think he has a Christian worldview.”
Farah said that unlike his father, Rand Paul “understands the threat that the Muslim world holds not only against Israel but against us.” He added that he and the senator prayed together at the Western Wall and that the senator had a “spiritual journey” while in Israel.
I had the privilege of traveling to Israel with Rand Paul and spending a lot of time with him there. I was asked to go on the tour; his staff asked me to come on the tour because I think they wanted to hear the Israel point of view from an Arab-American journalist as opposed to just Benjamin Netanyahu and other Israeli leaders and so forth and so I was able to do that. I also was very impressed with the fact that Rand Paul is not his father; I want to say that unequivocally.
I had many, many problems with Ron Paul. I do believe that Ron Paul is hardly a friend to Israel and I don’t think that he is a Christian; I don’t think he has a Christian worldview. Now, I admire Ron Paul’s economic policies, there were many things that he did throughout his career that I think were terrific. Rand Paul to me, I’m not endorsing him, I’m just telling you what I know and what I got to know from personal experience with him, is a believer. He went to Israel and he had a spiritual journey there that was very, very meaningful to him. I got to pray with him at the Western Wall. We went to visit all of the holy sites in Israel. It was with his wife and younger children, it was a moving experience for them, an unforgettable, life-changing kind of experience.
I got to grill him pretty intensively. I can sincerely say that I believe he thinks Israel is at least one of our best friends in the world if not our best friend. That’s a big, big difference from his father. He understands the threat that the Muslim world holds not only against Israel but against us. That’s a big difference from what his father said and understood.
Markell: Do you think America is headed for a dictatorship? If so, what do you tell Christians who are watching their country morph into something unrecognizable?
Farah: I do believe we’re headed in that direction. Do I believe it’s irreversible? Absolutely not. I cling to 2 Chronicles 7:14; I cling to the idea that there can be a real revival in this country; I cling to the idea that Christians are going to awaken to what’s going on around them; and I cling to the idea that the Holy Spirit can move at any time and help us save ourselves from that terrible outcome. However, there’s no question that we’re moving closer and closer to tyranny, police state kinds of conditions. We’re seeing evidence all the time, the gun confiscation mania is just one of many examples.
Family Research Council senior fellow Robert Morrison is out with a column reflecting on his experience at NOM’s March for Marriage and how “marriage benefits everyone,” except for the same-sex couples who he believes should not have the right to marry.
Morrison writes that “marriage is a blessing to families” but is now “under attack” by gays and lesbians. Then, he uses the violent death of Matthew Shepard, the victim of an anti-gay hate crime, as a reason to oppose same-sex marriage: “Three-quarters of the teen rapists in our prisons are fatherless young men, so are two-thirds of the teen murderers. Even gay martyr Matthew Shepherd [sic] was killed by two fatherless young men. Marriage bashes no one.”
I’ve been going to pro-life marches since 1981, so I’m getting used to the drill. Still, this week’s March for Marriage in Washington, D.C. promised to be different in many ways. It was slated to coincide with the U.S.Supreme Court’s oral arguments on the Defense of Marriage Act and on California’s Proposition 8. The media says Prop 8 was designed to “ban” homosexuals from marrying. It was designed for no such thing. As was the federal Defense of Marriage Act, Prop 8 was designed to protect an institution that is under attack.
I saw many old friends from the March for Life. But I saw so many new friends. It was amazing to see how many black, Hispanic, and Asian folks had come out for this one.
State Sen. Ruben Diaz harangued the crowd estimated at 5-8,000. Sen. Diaz is from New York. He spoke in Spanish. He crowed: “I’m black. I’m Hispanic. I’m against abortion. I’m against this homosexual stuff. And I’m a Democrat.” He added that he wins by 89 percent in his state senatorial district.
When we see dozens of Democrats abandoning their previously held positions and a few Republicans also willing to betray the voters who put them in office, it would be easy to become cynical about everyone in politics. But we have to stand firm and push back. Marriage is a blessing to families. Three-quarters of the teen rapists in our prisons are fatherless young men, so are two-thirds of the teen murderers. Even gay martyr Matthew Shepherd [sic] was killed by two fatherless young men. Marriage bashes no one. Marriage benefits everyone.
We are seeing a great sorting out. We saw that early in the country’s life, too. Thomas Paine wrote about the sunshine soldiers and the summer patriots who cut and run when there was fighting to do.
These are the times that try men’s souls. Women’s, too. But it’s for our children and our grandchildren that we stand fast. On earth, there’s no better cause.
Liberty Counsel Chairman Mat Staver yesterday spoke to Vic Eliason of Voice of Christian Youth America on Crosstalk, where the two agreed that legalizing same-sex marriage nationally “would be the same as pronouncing the death sentence on America.”
Staver, who is also the dean of the Liberty University School of Law, even went so far as to say that marriage equality would “obliterate” morality, marriage and “the idea that there even is a God,” along with harming children, parents and society at large.
Eliason: You know as we see the comments, one website indicated that if the court strikes down marriage as we know it that it would be the same as pronouncing the death sentence on America that many of us know and love, recount the days of Sodom and Gomorrah as returning to our culture. Your thoughts?
Staver: Well I think so. Same-sex marriage is ultimately the abolition of gender; it’s ultimately the abolition of any moral behavior with regards to human sexuality. This whole assault on marriage is really an attempt to obliterate not only morality but Judeo-Christian morality, to obliterate marriage and to even obliterate the idea that there even is a God.
Staver: You’re going to have people lose their professions, you’re going to have parents lose their rights, you’re going to have churches and other avenues of religious free exercise ultimately throttled and marriage and morality are going to crumble. Children are ultimately going to pay the price and society will suffer.
He later cited California’s law barring the use of ex-gay therapy on minors as an example of how gay rights represent “a direct assault on the very core of our liberties and morality, marriage and even God.”
Staver described Rob Portman, Karl Rove and Reince Priebus as “cockroaches” which “start running” once “you flip on the lights” over their comments on gay marriage, and Eliason said of the Log Cabin Republicans: “Is there nobody to clean the cockroaches out?”
After discussing George W. Bush’s failure to pass the Federal Marriage Amendment, Staver joined other Religious Right leaders like Mike Huckabee, Tony Perkins and Gary Bauer in warning about the emergence of a “third party” and a “mass exodus” from the GOP “if the Republican Party were to adopt same-sex marriage.”
Staver: You know it’s like going into a building at night and you flip on the lights and all of the sudden the cockroaches start running, and I think this same-sex marriage issue has shown the cockroaches within the Republican Party, the RINOs: Republican In Name Only. That’s why we lost the 2008 election, that’s why we lost the 2012 election, because they put forth their party person who is not really a conservative and doesn’t resonate with the American people and couldn’t carry a conservative message and articulate it if it was handed to them.
Go back to George W. Bush, George W. Bush surrounded himself by a number of people that were not conservative and in fact though he was elected in 2004 on a marriage mandate, that was what ultimately pushed him across the line; remember that was the time when thirteen states passed constitutional amendments, eleven of them actually on the day he was elected, and Ohio was a key state and Ohio had marriage on the ballot and that pushed him over the top. He had a marriage mandate and coming into 2005 we asked him to push forward with a Federal Marriage Amendment; instead, he and Karl Rove backed away. They tried to reform Social Security, which was not a mandate of his, and he failed and we lost that opportunity.
So now you have Karl Rove and you have [Reince] Priebus and some others, [Rob] Portman, they’re going down a way that ultimately will split the Republican Party. I can tell you what, if the Republican Party were to adopt same-sex marriage, if they were to do that, evangelicals will leave en masse and that will create a third party. No one wants to create a third party, they want to work within the system, they want to make sure that it advances freedom and liberty and the sanctity of life and marriage, but if the Republican Party goes down that road you can bet that there will be a mass exodus from that party and it will not win elections again for many, many years in the future.
Eliason: You know Mat, as we look back to a term that isn’t new but they call them Log Cabin Republicans and that of course was the group that favored homosexual involvement and moral decadence, as I define it, but this was the liberal element. When I saw that happen years ago down in my heart I thought: Is there nobody to clean the cockroaches out? Why do you coexist with that?
Craig Parshall of National Religious Broadcasters added to the torrent of right-wing doomsday prophesies about marriage equality yesterday, claiming that a Supreme Court victory for gay rights would ultimately lead to hate speech laws wielded against Christians. In an interview with his wife Janet Parshall, a talk show host with Moody Radio, he warned that “the next victim will be not just the traditional view of marriage and the health of society, but it’s going to be the free speech rights of Christians as well.”
We have a hate crimes law on the federal level now that we didn’t used to have. It’s only been in play for a few years, but I’m already seeing indications that it could migrate toward the suppression of speech. So there’s no question in my mind that if either or both of these decisions go the wrong way, the next victim will be not just the traditional view of marriage and the health of society, but it’s going to be the free speech rights of Christians as well.
He was also upset that Justice Kennedy, during the arguments on Proposition 8, had brought up the well-being of California children being raised by same-sex couples. “There are some 40,000 children in California…that live with same-sex parents, and they want their parents to have full recognition and full status. The voice of those children is important in this case, don't you think?,” Kennedy asked.
Parshall, who has previously called the children of gay and lesbian parents “victims of gay mentality,” said that in this case the views of children shouldn’t be considered. “We don’t leave it up to children to make those decisions,” he said. “Either the parents make it, or a high-level court, or society through Proposition 8 voting, has to decide those moral, societal value questions.”
(Of course, in this case, the parents are not able to make the decision to get married because they are legally barred from doing so).
The issue was, I thought, brought to a head in a very interesting, but I think wrong-headed, question by Justice Kennedy, the swing vote again, who said, ‘Well, but what about those 37,000,’ and actually, excuse me, he said, ‘the 40,000 children living in same-sex relationships in California?’ Actually, the number’s 37,000, I think he rounded it up, that’s fine. The 37,000 children. ‘What about them? They want their putative father and other significant other to be called a married couple.’ Well, number one, do they? I don’t think a survey has been made of those 37,000 children. But, number two, we don’t leave it up to children to make those decisions. Either the parents make it, or a high-level court, or society through Proposition 8 voting, has to decide those moral, societal value questions. The child doesn’t make the decision about whether marriage should be instituted for the purpose of gay parents.