While using the exact same arguments of opponents of legalizing interracial marriage, WorldNetDaily editor Joseph Farah is joining with Bryan Fischer in asserting that gays and lesbians already have full marriage equality because they can simply marry members of the opposite sex. Farah claims that since gays and lesbians actually don’t face any legal discrimination, they only want to legalize same-sex marriage in order to “destroy” marriage…in the same way the terrorist group Hamas wants to destroy Israel!
Anyone in the United States can participate in the institution of marriage – if they choose to do so.
Homosexuals don’t usually choose to do so because they usually don’t want to be married to members of the opposite sex. But it’s their choice.
So why do homosexual activists make this claim? And how do they get away with making a patently false charge against a 6,000-year-old religious institution and the civil laws that it inspired? Same-sex marriage advocates no more care about the legality of same-sex marriage than Hamas cares about the creation of a Palestinian state.
Neither is interested in creating something new – something that has never been before. Instead, what same-sex marriage advocates and the terrorists of the Gaza Strip have in common is their desire to destroy something they find repulsive. In Gaza, it’s the Jewish state of Israel. Among homosexual activists, it’s the institution of marriage.
By making the bogus claim that marriage, as it has been known through the eons, is inherently unfair because some people don’t want to participate in it as it has always been defined, homosexual activists are able to establish for themselves what appears to be the political high ground of the victim. In exactly the same way, Arab terrorists are able to portray themselves as the victim by claiming they have been denied a state.
But scratch beneath the surface of these two movements and you will soon learn that their objectives go far beyond same-sex marriage and a Palestinian state.
It is amazing how quickly the same-sex marriage advocates have been able to rally support from the media, the cultural establishment, the government elite and the judiciary for a radical social experiment that challenges the fundamental building block of human civilization – the family.
They’ve done this by inaccurately portraying themselves as victims of discrimination. They are no more victims of discrimination than any other radicals who believe forcibly remaking society in their own image is their inalienable right.
Back in January, Family Research Council president Tony Perkins railed against video game maker BioWare’s decision to allow “same gender romances with companion characters” in Star Wars: The Old Republic, which Perkins said would lead kids to “be exposed to this Star Warped way of thinking.” Now, the Florida Family Association, best known for its pressure campaigns against the television shows All-American Muslim and Degrassi, is warning that “radical homosexual extremists” are going to turn the game into “propaganda” to “capture the minds of our children through the intense emotions children encounter when playing video games,” all with this helpful image of two children staring at gay Stormtroopers:
The group asks parents to contact BioWare “to stop any additions of LGBT characters to Star Wars video games”:
America families grew up with the Star Wars film series that was family fair. The films contained no profanity, no nudity and no sexual situations. It makes no sense that BioWare and Electronic Arts would shatter that family quality in Star Wars video games just to pacify 35 LGBT polling participants and appease radical homosexual extremists. Star Wars video games are for children. An overwhelming percentage of the 1.7 million games sold are being used by children who do not need to be introduced to this propaganda. Please send your email to BioWare's parent company Electronic Arts.
It makes no sense that BioWare and Electronic Arts would shatter that family quality in Star Wars video games just to pacify 35 LGBT polling participants and appease radical homosexual extremists.
Star Wars video games are for children. An overwhelming percentage of the 1.7 million games sold are being used by children who do not need to be introduced to this propaganda.
Enough is enough with LGBT activists trying to capture the minds of our children through the intense emotions children encounter when playing video games.
Florida Family Association has prepared an email for you to send that urges officials at BioWare’s parent company Electronic Arts and Lucas Films to stop any additions of LGBT characters to Star Wars video games.
The American Decency Association also announced that it will join the FRC and FFA in protesting BioWare’s move, lamenting that “it seems that ‘the dark side’ is now winning in a battle for the hearts and mind of our children.”
In a new Star Wars video game, it seems that ‘the dark side’ is now winning in a battle for the hearts and mind of our children. Bioware, the company that developed the video game, Star Wars: The Old Republic, had firmly stated in 2009 that they would not bow to pressure from homosexual extremists who were demanding that gay and lesbian content be added to the video game then in development. Bioware claimed it was their policy to remain neutral.
Now Bioware has violated its own policy – as well as the values of millions of parents who don’t want their kids indoctrinated with pro-homosexual propaganda. Instead, Bioware has caved to a handful of vitriolic LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bi-Sexual, Transgender) protesters and is adding a special “same-sex romance” component to the video game.
It appears that for the Religious Right, simply criticizing their anti-gay activism strips them of their freedoms. Echoing Kirk Cameron’s claim that his freedom of speech and religion are jeopardized by negative responses to his claim that homosexuality is “destructive,” David Krayden of the Canadian Centre for Policy Studies writes on LifeSiteNews that GLAAD, the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, is a “totalitarian” organization because it denounced Cameron. Of course, Krayden never shows how organizations that have decried Cameron are taking away any of Cameron or anyone else’s freedoms. He also claims that “the current trend towards acceptance and promotion of homosexual behaviour is in itself a throwback to the attitudes and opinions of ancient pagan civilizations,” and argued that supporters of the “gay agenda” are “completely at odds with basic democratic freedoms.”
The remarks engendered a swift counterattack by the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD), which apparently is unaware that Cameron has continued to work as an actor and producer since he was a featured player on the sitcom Growing Pains. Said GLAAD’s senior director of programs Herndon Graddick, “In this interview, Kirk Cameron sounds even more dated than his 1980s TV character. Cameron is out of step with a growing majority of Americans, particularly people of faith who believe that their gay and lesbian brothers and sisters should be loved and accepted based on their character and not condemned because of their sexual orientation.”
OK, so you would not expect an organization that is actively pushing the gay agenda to either ignore Cameron’s comments or even to agree to disagree. Cameron said nothing about not loving gays and lesbians, but for GLAAD, anyone not of the fervent conviction that homosexuality is as natural as the rain falling is trapped in a medieval mindset and hopelessly out of step with progressive thought.
But does being “out of date” have anything to do with being right or wrong on an issue? For that matter, one could say that the current trend towards acceptance and promotion of homosexual behaviour is in itself a throwback to the attitudes and opinions of ancient pagan civilizations where same-sex couplings were not only an acceptable part of sexual expression but embedded in religious rites.
The demands of GLAAD and other similarly focussed groups that Christians accept homosexual activity may well be a rooted in the approval of that distant coupling of sex and religion, in a desire to have organized religion today sanction that behaviour just as it was in the distant past by pagan cultures. GLAAD desires a return to a religious conformity that might well be described as strangely nostalgic.
The “people of faith” that Graddick describes as accepting any sexual orientation must surely belong, as far as Biblically-based Christianity is concerned, to any apostate church that flatly rejects the clear moral dictates that may be found in preponderance in both the Old and New Testaments. Furthermore, since “sexual orientation” is a term that can describe anything, and therefore ultimately means nothing, do we really believe that any sexual urge may be satiated, that any sexual calling must be applauded, that any sexual – dare we say – perversion is permissible?
Clearly we have reached a new level in society’s attitudes towards homosexuality. The yardstick of political correctness has subtly but undeniably been stretched from tolerance to acceptance to promotion – and now it is insistence, insistence that religious opinion and “people of faith” accept the homosexual lifestyle without question, without remorse, without further comments—especially to networks like CNN. At least no one – yet – is suggesting that Cameron should not be allowed to work in films because his opinions are too odious and corrosive for public viewing.
This insistence is profoundly totalitarian in scope and intent while being completely at odds with basic democratic freedoms – in particular a certain freedom which we used to have called freedom of religion. No one can demand that people think in a certain way or that the only acceptable “people of faith” are the ones who won’t disagree or “condemn” your lifestyle choices.
Televangelist Pat Robertson on the 700 Club today attacked Sandra Fluke’s testimony at a Democratic hearing, after she was barred from speaking at a GOP-led committee, in support of making religiously-based institutions like universities cover contraception in their insurance plans. Robertson falsely claimed Fluke was asking for “$3,000 a year” for contraceptives, as Fluke actually said that without insurance “contraception can cost a woman over $3,000” over the course of law school, and noted that contraceptives are important not only to prevent unintended pregnancies but also matters such as ovarian cysts, hormonal disorders and early menopause. His guest Jeffrey Bell of the American Principles Project said that Fluke’s testimony was part of a larger left-wing plot from the 1790s, not the 1970s, of “imposing the values of the sexual revolution on everybody else” and trying to “attack organized religion and the traditional family.” Bell later told Robertson, a former presidential candidate and founder of the Christian Coalition who talks about social issues almost every day of his show, that social issues “keep coming up” in political debates “because it’s in the DNA of the left.”
Robertson: You know there was a woman, the law student at Georgetown University who appeared before a congressional committee, and she said that students needed $3,000 a year for contraception and that they couldn’t afford it. As I understand, the Catholic school was supposed to pay for it. Now Catholics say that fornication, if you will, sex outside of marriage, is a sin. This woman is saying ‘I’m going to be committing sin but I want you to pay for my sin.’ Now am I overstating that? Rush Limbaugh got a little bit over the top on that thing but is that what it amounted to?
Bell: I honestly think that the left, their greatest achievement is the sexual revolution and they want to complete the job of imposing the values of the sexual revolution on everybody else, including those who have held out and disagree with some aspects of it. They’ve been this way since the 1790s, when the word ‘the left’ was invented, that was all about tearing down the existing social institutions and the political institutions, yes the royalty and nobility, but also the left from the beginning in the 1790s with the Jacobins and Robespierre wanted to attack organized religion and the traditional family and they have never changed in that regard. Every left movement has been about getting rid of traditional institutions.
Robertson: So Obama’s playing right down to that playbook, is that what you’re saying?
Bell: I think he’s being true to it, I don’t think he calculated the potential damage of doing this to the Catholic Church because it’s in the DNA of the left, that’s why the issues are unavoidable and why they’re going to keep coming up, because the left is going to insist on that.
After Kirk Cameron’s denigration of homosexuality as “unnatural” and “destructive” didn’t exactly go over well with others in the acting community, Cameron employed the common Religious Right refrain that his rights to “freedom of speech and freedom of religion” are being infringed upon when people respond critically to him. He seems to think that people expressing their own beliefs about his remarks somehow takes away his constitutional rights. Along with Religious Right groups, anti-gay writer and talk show host Michael Brown is jumping to Cameron’s defense, and he takes particular issue with a tweet by Roseanne Barr where she called Cameron “an accomplice to murder with his hate speech.” Brown argues that if Cameron’s statements fuel anti-gay stigmas and gay suicide, then Michelle Obama must be equally “complicit in the suicides of kids who were bullied because of their obesity” because of her Let’s Move campaign which promotes healthy living:
Last weekend, actor Kirk Cameron appeared on the Piers Morgan show to discuss his new movie Monumental, and somehow Morgan turned the interview to the subject of homosexuality (surprise!), asking him if he thought gay marriage was a sin and wanting to know what he would teach his children. Cameron stated that according to his beliefs, marriage “was defined by God a long time ago … one man, one woman for life, till death do us part.”
Morgan then asked him, “Do you think homosexuality is a sin?” to which Cameron replied, “I think it’s unnatural, that it’s detrimental and ultimately destructive to so many of the foundations of civilization.”
The backlash was immediate and intense (surprise again!), coming from gay activist organizations like GLAAD (which, I have pointed out, really stands for the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Disagreement, not Defamation) and from celebrities like Roseanne Barr, who said: “Kirk or kurt or whatever Cameron is an accomplice to murder with his hate speech. So is rick warren. Their peers r killing gays in Uganda.”
How should we respond to these charges? First, we should point out that gay kids do not simply kill themselves because they are told that marriage is the union of a man and a woman. In the vast majority of cases, gay teens kill themselves (like other teens do) because of deeper emotional and psychological problems, so we must do whatever we can to help them deal with the deeper issues in their lives. Without a doubt, each of these deaths is a terrible tragedy, but these kids must not be used as pawns to advance a social agenda, nor they should be told that their suicides are somehow expected or unavoidable.
Second, we should ask gay activists if anti-obesity campaigns are causing obese kids to commit suicide. If so, wouldn’t this make Michelle Obama complicit in the suicides of kids who were bullied because of their obesity? (In no way do I minimize the horrific tragedy of a teen suicide, whatever its cause. I simply want to expose the folly of the “accomplice to murder/suicide” accusation.)
Operation Rescue founder Randall Terry is running for the Democratic presidential nomination in order to run graphic ads against abortion rights, which he says have aired in fifteen states. Because he won over 15% of the vote in the Oklahoma primary, where he had the help of Ann Coulter, Terry will likely have at least one delegate representing his candidacy at the Democratic National Convention.
He said in a statement yesterday that he hopes his campaign and Obama's support for abortion rights will cost Obama “the White House in 2012”:
"My message was simple: Obama promotes the murder of babies by abortion, and is attacking the Church and religious liberty. Knowing this, a Christian cannot vote for him in good conscience.
"Obama's promotion of the murder of unborn babies could cost him the White House in 2012. I will run in at least 6 swing states, and be a voice for the babies who are dying under Obama's policies. If these numbers hold true in those states, the plight of the babies will cause Obama to lose the White House in 2012. How's that for the most critical 'social issue' of our times being the driving force of an election? Obama's promotion of murder is his Achilles heal [sic]."
I am a single parent.
According to the right, I am also a leech on society and pose a danger to my own son.
A new bill proposed by a Republican state legislator in Wisconsin would officially label single parents like me a "contributing factor to child abuse and neglect." When radio host Alan Colmes asked the bill's author, Glenn Grothman, to explain himself, Grossman said that women become single parents in order to live off the government, and then lie about it and say they got pregnant by accident.
As far as I know, Sen. Grothman's the first one to try to write the Single Moms Conspiracy theory into law, but he's far from the first one to think it. Bashing single moms has been a mainstay of right-wing politics for decades. Perhaps this is because it combines two of the right's favorite activities: publicly judging the family lives of others and scapegoating.
One of the most enthusiastic purveyors of the Single Moms Conspiracy theory has been Rick Santorum. Mother Jones today put together a collection of some of his early comments on single parenthood. During his 1994 Senate race, Santorum said, "We are seeing the fabric of this country fall apart, and it's falling apart because of single moms." A month later, he accused single mothers of "simply breeding more criminals."
Santorum hasn't exactly stepped back from his claim that single moms are ruining America. In October, he said that the Democratic Party's support base is single mothers with a "desire for government." At a GOP debate in December, he said that single moms aren't marrying their boyfriends because they want to keep on collecting welfare.
What's remarkable is that the same people pushing the theory that single parents are ruining America are also doing everything in their power to keep women from having access to birth control and to keep gay and lesbian parents from getting married. For them, this isn't about improving women's and children's lives: it's about creating a scapegoat.
Research shows that the key to raising healthy children is stability, not the number or gender of their parents. Kids who have parents that come and go face greater risk than kids who have only one parent throughout their lives that they can rely on to be there. If politicians like Rick Santorum want to promote stable families, they should start by respecting all families.
I can think of a lot of things that are making "the fabric of this country fall apart." Loving single parents are not one of them.
Lara Bergthold chairs People For the American Way's Board of Directors.
Ralph Reed reached out to Rush Limbaugh via Twitter yesterday and accepted his apology. "Apology accepted. Let's move on," he said -- a magnanimous gesture had Rush Limbaugh actually apologized to Ralph Reed. Too bad that, despite the too quick headlines, Limbaugh not only hadn't apologized to Reed -- he hadn't really apologized to anyone at all.
Instead, Reed and Limbaugh, with the backing of Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum, started up the ole vast right-wing fake apology machine -- designed to temporarily quell a too hot controversy while at the same time not giving an inch.
Unfortunately for them, after too much use of the fake apology, people are catching on.
Although considered by some in the GOP to be a little too rough around the edges, Rush Limbaugh has always been considered a net asset to Republicans. Like fellow right-wing shock-jocks Glenn Beck and Bryan Fischer, he reaches a wide audience with toxic sludge that is ultimately helpful to the Republican Party, saying all the things that fire up the right-wing base, but that the politicians wouldn't want to be caught saying themselves. But Limbaugh has a peculiar kind of power -- no matter how outrageous his comments, members of the establishment Right tiptoe around him, afraid that his toxic words might one day be directed at them. George Will said it best: "They want to bomb Iran, but they're afraid of Rush Limbaugh."
The latest boot-up of the right-wing apology machine began when Limbaugh called Georgetown University law student and contraception coverage advocate Sandra Fluke a "slut," saying "She wants to be paid to have sex." And, as if contraception was sold by the gallon or the pound, he added, "She's having so much sex she can't afford the contraception."
President Obama immediately stepped up, calling Fluke to check in and encourage her after she had been smeared on national radio.
Rick Santorum, in contrast, called Limbaugh's comments "absurd," but then reasoned that "an entertainer can be absurd... He's in a very different business than I am."
Mitt Romney's response was flimsier and even more timid. Asked about it while shaking hands at a rally, he said that it was "not the language I would have used." Apparently, he had no problem with Limbaugh saying that birth control advocates want the government to pay for them to have sex. He would just use different words.
Finally, Limbaugh himself fake-apologized. "I chose the wrong words in my analogy of the situation. I did not mean a personal attack on Ms. Fluke," he said -- before blaming the left and going on to repeat his accusation that she was "discussing personal sexual recreational activities before members of Congress."
"I wouldn't have use those words" is the new "I apologize if anyone was offended."
Ms. Fluke did not accept Limbaugh's fake-apology. Ralph Reed, however, accepted it on her behalf. Republican leaders can't be responsible for everything that comes out of the mouths of every right-wing blowhard. But if they want to be president they can be expected to provide clear responses when comments like Limbaugh's are this outrageous, instead of hiding their heads in the sand hoping that the public exposure of these outrages will go away. How hard is it to say that women who advocate for insurance coverage for contraceptives should be heard and shouldn't be called prostitutes for stating their position on the topic? Is it really worth compromising basic decency to stay in the good graces of Rush Limbaugh?
The Republican Party is increasingly buoyed by a small base whose values are antithetical to those of most other Americans. If they want to survive politically, they are going to have to stand up and no longer be fake apologists for the likes of Rush Limbaugh.
On Americans For Truth About Homosexuality Radio Hour, AFTAH president Peter LaBarbera spoke with board members John McCartney and Jim Finnegan about Sheriff Paul Babeu, the Republican candidate for Congress in Arizona who recently came out as gay after his ex-boyfriend accused him of trying to deport him, and Babeu’s claim that he was assaulted by a priest when he was a child. LaBarbera claimed that Babeu is gay because he was abused as a child and is “not a natural homosexual but a victim of a homosexual predator.” “The saddest thing of all when you see somebody who has been is a victim of a pedophile,” LaBarbera said, “is to then say that when you have these unnatural sexual attractions and feelings, to say that you’re ‘gay’ or ‘lesbian’ when you’re obviously just a victim of a predator, that is so tragic.”
Later in the interview, Finnegan argued that “the violence that caused this” type of abuse is being “aided” by the government by “allowing that lifestyle to be legitimized” when it legalizes same-sex marriage. LaBarbera added that the Catholic Church’s child abuse scandal was because “the homosexuals got in the Catholic Church.”
LaBarbera also asked McCartney about churches that allow openly gay and lesbian parishioners to receive ashes on their forehead on Ash Wednesday, a practice which McCartney condemned:
LaBarbera and McCartney blamed the growing acceptance of gays and lesbians on aggressive protests which he claimed intimidated psychiatrists into dropping homosexuality as a mental health disorder, which LaBarbera described as “political terrorism.”
However, the American Psychiatric Association states:
All major professional mental health organizations have gone on record to affirm that homosexuality is not a mental disorder. In 1973 the American Psychiatric Association’s Board of Trustees removed homosexuality from its official diagnostic manual, The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Second Edition (DSM II). The action was taken following a review of the scientific literature and consultation with experts in the field. The experts found that homosexuality does not meet the criteria to be considered a mental illness.
American Family Association president Tim Wildmon today used his column praising the admirable works of Christian charitable organizations to criticize Muslims.
If there ever was a contrast in worldviews, it is with Christianity and Islam. One of the most striking differences is that Christianity teaches, practices, and encourages charity. Islam does not. It is the Christians from America who are doing the majority of the private charity and humanitarian work around the world. Just these past couple of weeks alone, I was reminded by several examples of this.
American Family Association/American Family Radio has been participating in this project with Gospel for Asia for several years. Why do we care about the outcast people of India? Because in the Bible, Jesus instructs us to do so.
There is no such comparable work being done around the world by Islamic groups or organizations -- because the Koran does not teach such charity.
Religion, more than anything else, affects the values and morals of a culture, a society, a country.
In fact, charitable giving is one of the five pillars of Islam. Wildmon could have done a simple Google search to find the names of major Muslim charitable organizations like Islamic Relief, Red Crescent Societies and Muslim Aid, but seeing that the American Family Association is one of the most malicious purveyors of misinformation and bigotry in this country, it should come as no surprise that its leader can twist an article about the importance of charitable work into an attack on the Muslim people.
David Limbaugh in his column today defended his far more successful brother, Rush, for his daily sexist diatribes against law student Sandra Fluke, attacking his brothers critics’ “viciousness” and lack of “forgiveness”:
What is a much bigger story is that the left's primary interest here is not in protecting Fluke -- in my humble opinion. Liberals are attempting to exploit this as another opportunity to destroy Rush through a calculated, organized Saul Alinsky-type community organizing campaign to pressure and intimidate his advertisers into discontinuing their sponsorship of his show.
I am watching them operate on Twitter and other social networks, and their viciousness is palpable. They didn't want Rush's apology, which they absolutely refuse to accept. They want his scalp. And they've wanted his scalp for years because he is the most effective and influential spokesman for the conservative cause.
What I am observing is the most radical display of hate and intolerance that I've witnessed in years. It does not surprise me, but it is ironic that the very people who masquerade as exemplars of tolerance, civility and compassion have no room in their hearts for forgiveness.
If this is “the most radical display of hate and intolerance” that he’s “witnessed in years,” then he must not be listening to his brother’s show.
Besides Limbaugh calling Fluke a “slut” and a “prostitute” who should compete for the “Wilt Chamberlin scholarship” and release a sex-tape, Limbaugh has dubbed a then-13 year old Chelsea Clinton the “White House dog,” told an African American caller to “take that bone out of your nose,” said Democrats who wanted to stop the genocide in Darfur only wanted to win over black voters, imitated President Obama calling Hillary Clinton a “B-I-itch,” and denounced feminists as “whores to liberalism” who established feminism “to allow unattractive women easier access to the mainstream of society.”
In another case of irony, the American Family Association is gladly promoting Limbaugh’s column attacking the campaign against Limbaugh’s advertisers as an “organized Saul Alinsky-type community organizing campaign,” even though the AFA and its affiliate OneMillionMoms runs pressure campaigns against Home Depot, JC Penney, Ford Motors, Toys R Us, Hardees, Macy’s, and AARP, and against advertisers on shows such as Degrassi, Glee and Modern Family.
Ten states are holding primaries and caucuses today, earning March 6th the title of “Super Tuesday.” Participants will show up, cast their vote, and hopefully feel good for participating in the democratic process and fulfilling their civic duty.
But thanks to Citizens United, and the Super PACs that flawed decision gave rise to, the voters are not the stars of this show. An outpouring of cash from a few extremely wealthy donors has dramatically altered the campaign landscape, altering the balance of influence from individual donors and grassroots donors to rich special interests and corporations.
As illustrated above by Dave Granlund, tonight’s contests should really be called Super-PAC Tuesday. NPR reports that in the ten states up for grabs, Super PACs have spent a whopping $12 million for ads:
Leading the way is Restore Our Future, the superPAC that backs former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney. According to Federal Election Commission numbers, Restore Our Future has spent $6.9 million on the Super Tuesday states.
"The groups have clearly taken the lead in advertising for the whole Republican primary. They're very much taking the lead in advertising for Super Tuesday. It's mostly the 'Restore Our Future show,' followed by Winning Our Future, which is the Gingrich group, and Red, White and Blue, which is the Santorum group," says Ken Goldstein, who tracks political ad spending for Kantar Media CMAG.
Red, White and Blue has spent some $1.3 million on Super Tuesday, and has been running an ad in Ohio that goes after Romney for his alleged similarities to the man all Republicans want to defeat in November: President Obama.
These ads supposedly (and unconvincingly) act independently from a candidate’s official campaign, meaning that candidates are unaccountable for their content. But as Katrina vanden Huevel points out in today’s Washington Post, these superPACs reach “barely a legal fiction,” populated as they are with former staff and fundraisers for the candidates they “independently” support. And this is in addition to the spending by 501 c-4 organizations the sources for which do not even have to be disclosed.
This is not what democracy looks like. We have to end unfettered political spending in our elections system – and solutions like the DISCLOSE Act and a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United are gaining steam. $12 million worth of ads on Super-PAC Tuesday alone should convince everyone that enough is enough.
Wisconsin state senator Glenn Grothman went on the Alan Colmes show on Friday to discuss a controversial new bill he authored that would require the state’s Child Abuse and Neglect Prevention Board to officially label single parenthood as “a contributing factor to child abuse and neglect.”
The bill was seen as a slap in the face to single parents in Wisconsin, who are raising 31 percent of children in the state.
Grothman told Colmes that the country’s out-of-wedlock birth rate is the “choice of the women,” who should be “educated that this is a mistake.” When Colmes countered with statistics about the high number of pregnancies that are unintended, Grothman said that many women are “trained” to lie and say that their planned pregnancies are actually unintended:
Grothman: There’s been a huge change over the last 30 years and a lot of that change has been the choice of the women. There’s a reason why in the 50s and the 60s you had less than ten percent of the births illegitimate, and now we’re over 40 percent. It’s not that there weren’t abusive men in the 40s or there was a problem with child support. It is the popular culture, led by the social service professions, who are saying…
Colmes: Well tell me what you would change.
Grothman: I think the first thing we do is that we should educate women that this is a mistake.
Colmes: You think women need to be educated, are they not smart enough on their own?
Grothman: They do have to be educated, because right now the culture encourages a single motherhood lifestyle.
Colmes: You think women choose to be single moms…
Grothman: Oh absolutely
Colmes: You think women want to have homes without fathers? You think women look to the opportunity to have to raise kids and not be able to get work because they have to stay home and take care of the kids. Women want to do this?
Grothman: I think a lot of women are adopting the single motherhood lifestyle because the government creates a situation in which it is almost preferred.
Colmes: According to data published in USA Today, at least four in ten pregnancies in every state are unwanted or mistimed. According to the analysis that was released last May, more than half of pregnancies in 29 states and the District of Columbia were unintended, 38 to 50 percent were unintended in the remaining states. This mitigates against the argument that women are purposefully wanting to have kids. Their unintended for the most part. They’re unintended pregnancies, which is the argument for health care services and birth control for women.
Grothman: I think you undersell these women.
Colmes: Undersell them?
Grothman: Undersell them. I think when you have an epidemic of this great proportion, people are not so dumb that it’s surprising when they get pregnant. I think people are trained to say that ‘this is a surprise to me,’ because there’s still enough of a stigma that they’re supposed to say this.
Former child star Kirk Cameron’s anti-gay tirade, calling homosexuality “unnatural” and “detrimental and ultimately destructive,” led to a backlash from some prominent actors, but Religious Right groups are more than happy to broadcast his claims. Tony Perkins of FRC Action defended Cameron from criticism by citing a poll by the anti-gay Alliance Defense Fund which tried to overstate the number of people who oppose marriage equality, as recent surveys show that more Americans favor marriage equality than oppose it and that support for legalizing same-sex marriage is on the rise.
Where is the tolerance? You won't find any on display with homosexual activists who are determined to attack and silence anyone who dares to disagree or challenge their political or social agenda. Their latest target is actor Kirk Cameron. The Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) is attacking Cameron for remarks he made in an interview with Piers Morgan last Friday, in which he said that the definition of marriage should be, "One man, one woman for life till death do you part." Cameron, a born-again Christian who starred in the movie Left Behind and the pro-marriage film Fireproof, also said he considers homosexuality to be "unnatural," "detrimental," and "destructive." Perhaps it's GLAAD, not the 1980s teen star, who's out of step, since a 2011 poll showed that 62% of Americans agree with the statement, "I believe marriage should be defined ONLY as a union between one man and one woman." Another 2011 poll found a substantial majority of Americans (56%) believe that "sex between two adults of the same gender" is "morally wrong."
Gary Bauer of the Campaign for Working Families also weighed in, saying that the “radical left” is trying to expunge “faith” and “traditional values” and that conservatives need to fight back and make sure that there “will be no ‘truce’ in the culture war”:
The left went nuts. Homosexual rights groups blasted Cameron's alleged bigotry and intolerance. Liberal Hollywood types rushed to Tweet their condemnation of Cameron's values and to reaffirm their fidelity to the gay marriage cause.
Not long ago, virtually no one would have argued with Cameron's comments. But the cultural left is determined to impose its values on the rest of society. It began by purging faith from the public square and forcing it into the closet. Then abortion was forced on every state in the country. Now marriage is being redefined. The secularists want an America where traditional values cannot be spoken.
As the Democrat Party embraced the radical left, more and more values voters found a home in the Republican Party. They expect the GOP to unapologetically defend their cherished values. Increasingly, however, it seems only one party is committed to fighting and winning the culture war.
Yet I am bothered when I hear conservatives buy into this line of reasoning. There will be no "truce" in the culture war. The left fully intends to win it. It's absurd that many Republicans and even some conservatives are preemptively surrendering by refusing to bring up these issues!
Peter LaBarbera of Americans For Truth About Homosexuality attacked the “Hollywood liberals and LGBT militants” who have criticized Cameron:
As you can see, this is not the tone of an “extremist” but a thoughtful Christian man who is smart enough to know that Hollywood liberals and LGBT militants will pounce on any statement he makes critical of homosexual behavior [sic], which God through the Bible condemns. (By the way, I think Kirk would have been better off just saying “yes” to Morgan’s question about whether he believes homosexuality is a sin.)
GLAAD is awarded unprecedented access and sway in Hollywood (and the media) to advocate for, essentially, one side of a controversial moral issue. Here it stokes anti-Christian bigotry against Cameron, as it does against anyone who voices politically incorrect beliefs about homosexuality through the media. Ultimately, GLAAD (while curiously extolling “diversity”) hopes to keep interviews like Morgan’s with Cameron out of the media altogether. (Otherwise, why would they previously have lobbied so hard against CNN for including Christian former homosexual Richard Cohen in a debate segment?) GLAAD is afraid of a fair debate, hence their demonizing name-calling against Cameron. Please help encourage him.
Of course, American Family Association Bryan Fischer praised Cameron on Focal Point for standing up to “anti-Christian, anti-morality bigot” Piers Morgan:
Congressman Trent Franks (R-AZ) has been warning anyone who will listen that if President Obama wins re-election he will “crush” religious freedom and “abrogate” the Constitution, and his Friday appearance on Washington Watch Weekly with Family Research Council president Tony Perkins was no different, as Franks said that an Obama second term will mean that “this country’s national security is at risk.” Franks also said that Obama “doesn’t understand the intent of jihad and he’s become an apologist,” arguing that he and others have forgotten “the basics” of national security. Franks went on to tell Perkins that if he wins re-election Obama will “go forward with a complete ideological, left-wing agenda that we can’t even imagine right now.”
Franks: I mean it’s always amazing to me that we forget the basics, the basics of any threat is intent and capacity. This President doesn’t understand the intent of jihad and he’s become an apologist and someone who apologizes to them. Tony, I have to say to you, if we don’t change presidents I want you to know, I believe with all of my heart, I’ll go on record as saying that I believe this country’s national security is at risk.
Franks: If we think that he is going to accommodate us, we have lost our minds after the election, once the election is over you ain’t seen nothing yet. He will go forward with a complete ideological, left-wing agenda that we can’t even imagine right now, and I hope that we don’t forget that in all of this debate.
Perkins: Congressman Trent Franks I think you are absolutely right on that.