American Family Association

Bryan Fischer Can't Seem To Keep His Story Straight

On his radio program today, Bryan Fischer said that while he has great respect for Ben Carson, he is not sure that Carson has the toughness needed to withstand the relentless onslaught of attacks and lies he will face if he decides to run for president.

And Fischer was speaking from experience, he said, "because virtually everything I say that the Left gets hold of they twist, they distort it, they try to create the impression that I have said something different from what I have said." This has become so routine that Fischer doesn't even bother trying to correct the record any more since people on the Left "don't care if they have misrepresented you, misconstrued what you've said; they're doing that intentionally, that's what they want to do because they want to take what do and twist it and turn it in a way to make you look as bad as humanly possible."

This comes as news to us, especially since probably 99% of the video clips featuring Fischer were first posted on this blog which, on multiple occasions, Fischer has praised for helping him to "get the word out" by posting clips that feature "exactly the soundbite that I want them to use":

Of course, by posting these clips of him saying two diametrically opposed things, we are probably guilty of creating the impression that Fischer has said something different from what he said.

Fischer: Bergdahl Release Offers More Proof Obama 'Is Secretly A Muslim'

On his radio broadcast today, Bryan Fischer said the deal to release Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl provides further evidence that President Obama "is secretly a Muslim."

Asserting that Obama insisted on releasing five members of the Taliban as part of the exchange deal because he is constantly attempting to assist radical Islam all over the world, Fischer asserted that Obama's "face lit up like a Christmas tree" when Bergdahl's father briefly spoke in Arabic at the White House, which is another reason to believe that Obama is actually a Muslim.

"I've had Washington insiders tell me everyone in D.C. believes that secretly he is a Muslim," Fischer said, "and when President Obama does stuff like this, it starts making that explanation easier and easier to believe":

The 10 Most Absurd Arguments Against The Udall Citizens United Amendment

While good-government groups have been calling for a constitutional amendment to reverse the Supreme Court’s dismantling of campaign finance laws since the day the Court handed down Citizens United in 2010, the issue has been largely off the radar of conservative activists – and has actually enjoyed broad bipartisan support in an array of polls and in state and municipal ballot measures.

It was largely off their radar, that is, until this week. This morning, the Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing on a proposal by Sen. Tom Udall, D-N.M., to send a constitutional amendment to the states restoring to Congress and state governments the ability to regulate the raising and spending of money in elections. In response, Republican politicians and conservative activists have kicked into gear and are starting to try out new talking points to get their movement to oppose efforts to lessen the influence of big money in politics.

Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, launched the misleading campaign two weeks ago when he warned a group of pastors that the Udall proposal would “repeal the First Amendment” and allow Congress to “muzzle” the free speech of clergy. In advance of the hearing today, conservative groups including the Family Research Council, Eagle Forum, Tea Party Patriots and the Home School Legal Defense Association started to mobilize against the amendment. Yesterday, the Heritage Foundation held a panel discussion to test out arguments against the amendment, featuring Bobby Burchfield, the attorney who argued the McCutcheon case before the Supreme Court, controversial former FEC chairman Don McGahn, and infamous voter-fraud conspiracy theorist Hans van Spakovsky .

Here, we’ve collected some of the most deceptive arguments that have been launched so far against the Udall amendment.

1. Democrats want to repeal the First Amendment!

When we first heard Ted Cruz  tell a stunned group of pastors that Democrats in the Senate were planning to “repeal the First Amendment,” we knew that we would be hearing that line again and again.

And we were right. Tea Party Patriots adopted the line in mobilizing its activists, as did the Eagle Forum. The Family Research Council claimed the Udall amendment would “strip political speech out of the First Amendment,” and von Spakovsky told the Heritage panel that the amendment would “roll back” the Bill of Rights.

Burchfield and McGahn both argued that the introduction of the constitutional amendment means, in the words of McGahn, that campaign finance law advocates are “admitting” that campaign finance regulations are “unconstitutional.”

On the surface, this is the opposition’s strongest argument, because it sounds so scary. But it’s just not true. Whether you support the Udall amendment or not, it’s dishonest to suggest that it would amount to a “repeal of the First Amendment.” Instead, proponents argue that it strengthens the First Amendment by undoing the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence declaring that spending on elections, including from corporate treasuries, cannot be limited. Proponents of the Udall amendment hold that this jurisprudence, including recent decisions in the Citizens United and McCutcheon cases, represented a radical reinterpretation of the First Amendment; undoing them would simply re-establish the ability of Congress and the states to set reasonable regulations on the raising and spending of money to influence elections.

2. Amendment supporters want to ‘silence critics’ and ‘cling to power’!

The Heritage panelists repeatedly claimed that the Udall amendment is an attempt to protect incumbency by preventing challengers from raising enough money to win elections. McGahn insisted that it was an effort by Democratic incumbents “desperately clinging to power.”

“They want to change the rules of the game and prevent people from criticizing them, not unlike England did before our revolution, and which led to our revolution,” he added.

The American Family Association’s Sandy Rios also invoked the American Revolution in an interview with von Spakovsky yesterday, saying, “The First Amendment, the rights to free speech – particularly the right to political speech – were the right to criticize the king, criticize the authorities over you.”

In a later interview with Rios, Tea Party Patriots spokesman Scott Hogenson even managed to connect the Udall amendment with immigration reform, claiming that both are part of a “larger, concerted effort to maintain the Democratic Party’s control of American politics and eventually move to one-party rule.”

In reality, it’s unlimited campaign spending that tends to be a boon for incumbents, who on average are able to raise far more than challengers. For instance, in Texas, a state with few campaign finance limits, incumbents who win on average raise more than twelve times the average amount raised by challengers. By contrast, in Colorado, which has relatively low individual contribution limits, incumbents on average raise less than three times what challengers are able to raise [pdf].

3. Liberals just want to protect the lame-stream media!

In his speech to the pastors' group, Ted Cruz seized on the Udall proposal’s stipulation that “Nothing in this article shall be construed to grant Congress the power to abridge the freedom of the press” to claim that the amendment carved out an exemption to protect the New York Times.

Von Spakovsky also played up conservative conspiracy theories about the “liberal media,” telling Rios, “No surprise, there’s a glaring exception in this proposed amendment for the press. And that means that MSNBC or the New York Times Company, which are big corporations, they could spend as much newsprint or airtime as they wanted going after and criticizing candidates or talking about political issues.”

These arguments fail to recognize one key distinction, which is that there is a difference between the New York Times publishing an editorial (which would be protected under the proposed amendment, as it is now) and the corporate managers of the New York Times taking $50 million out of their corporate treasury to buy ads to influence an election (which would not be protected).

4. They’ll go after pastors!

Opponents of the constitutional amendment have also been trying to tie the proposal to the right-wing paranoia about the impending persecution of America’s Christian majority .

It’s no coincidence that Cruz rolled out his criticism of the Udall proposal at a pastors’ event organized by the Family Research Council, a main theme of which was the supposed assault on the religious liberty of Christians in America. Cruz told the pastors that the Udall measure would “muzzle” clergy and was being proposed because “they don’t like it when pastors in their community stand up and speak the truth.”

Likewise, McGahn said at the Heritage event that the amendment would endanger the religious liberty of clergy: “What about pastors and churches? This is an issue that comes up once in a while. Can the government get in there and tell a priest he can’t talk to his congregation because it may somehow have something to do with politics?”

This might be true if the proposal would, in fact, “repeal the First Amendment.” In fact, the First Amendment’s protection of religious liberty would remain in place.

Of course, that didn’t stop the FRC’s Tony Perkins from somehow linking the Udall amendment to the imprisonment of a Christian woman in Sudan:

5. It’s like the Alien & Sedition Acts!

Along with comparisons to British control before the American Revolution, amendment opponents are trying to link the Udall proposal to the 18th century Alien & Sedition Acts.

In his interview with Rios yesterday, van Spakovsky claimed that “the last time Congress tried to do something like this was when they passed the Alien & Sedition Act in 1798 that criminalized criticism of the government.” Multiple GOP senators at today’s hearing, including Judiciary Committeee Ranking Member Chuck Grassley, repeated the talking point.

Of course, the amendment does nothing to reduce the right of individuals to criticize the government or politicians.

6. The polls are skewed!

When an audience member at yesterday’s Heritage Foundation panel asked about polls showing overwhelming opposition to the Citizens United decision, McGahn replied that the questions in the polls were “skewed.”

You can judge for yourself whether this question from a recent Greenberg Quinlan Rosner poll  – which found 80 percent opposition to the Citizens United decision  – is “skewed” on behalf of campaign finance law proponents:

(image via Buzzfeed)

7. What about disclosure?

In one of the least self-aware moments we’ve witnessed in the last few days, McGahn told the Heritage audience that campaign finance reform proponents could have just worked for tougher disclosure requirements, which the Supreme Court’s majority has consistently endorsed as a way to prevent corruption:

What’s interesting is the courts have upheld some disclosure of independent speech, which six months ago was supposed to be the answer, a year ago was supposed to be the answer – remember the DISCLOSE Act, Part 1 and Part 2? Well, that was supposed to cure all the ills in our democracy, but unfortunately I guess they’ve given up on that and they’ve moved to the more radical change, which is the constitutional amendment.

Of course, the DISCLOSE Act – which would have exposed the source of some of the “dark money” behind large campaign expenditures – was blocked by Senate Republicans. And McGahn, when he was at the FEC, fought hard against disclosure requirements proposed in the wake of the Citizens United decision, even though the decision explicitly sanctioned such requirements.

8. The poor don’t participate anyway!

Speaking to the Heritage audience, Burchfield  presented the curious argument that the Udall amendment would demand to "equalize debate among the haves and have-nots,” and since “the portion is small” of “those with limited means” who participate in electoral debates, this would require “severe restrictions.”

The rich do not advocate a single viewpoint. Think of Sheldon Adelson and George Soros, they don’t agree on anything. There are strong voices on the left and on the right, not just in privately funded campaign advertisements, but also in the broadcast and print media. Only a small portion of those with significant resources even bother to participate in the debate. And among those with limited means, the portion is small indeed. In order to equalize debate among the haves and the have-nots, severe restrictions would be necessary. The quantity and quality of discourse would certainly suffer.

The amendment under consideration doesn’t require that everybody be heard an equal amount; instead, it gives Congress and the states the ability to create a more even platform for those who wish to be heard, regardless of their financial means.  

Burchfield's reasoning echoes the arguments of voter-suppression proponents who claim that their laws only inconvenience people who don’t really care about voting anyway.

9. It’s voter suppression!

Although many of the advocates of unlimited, undisclosed money in politics are the same people pushing harmful voter suppression laws, Sen. Pat Roberts of Kansas yesterday insisted that it’s actually amendment proponents who are advocating “voter suppression” and want to “silence” critics.

10. Blame Saul Alinsky!

Inevitably, anti-amendment activists have begun invoking the right-wing bogey-man Saul Alinsky.

Hogenson told Rios that the Udall amendment is “just taken right out of Saul Alinksy’s book, ‘Rules for Radicals,’ it just makes up a gigantic lie and perpetuates it, that somehow democracy needs to be restored.”

Von Spakovsky also invoked Alinsky in his interview with Rios, claiming that criticism of the enormous political spending of the Koch brothers is an Alinskyite plot: “What’s really going on here is, look, if you look at Alinsky’s ‘Rules for Radicals,’ one of the rules that he sets out is you pick a villain and you basically blame those villains for all of the problems. It’s a way of distracting the public, it’s a way of diverting attention, and that’s exactly what Harry Reid and the Democrats are doing here.”

Jeffress: Once Gay Marriage Is The Law Of The Land, Government Will Shut Down Christian Radio Stations

Robert Jeffress was a guest on the American Family Association's "Today's Issues" radio program yesterday where he warned that it is probably inevitable that the Supreme Court will rule in favor of marriage equality and when that day comes, the federal government will then set about shutting down any opposition to gay marriage by revoking the broadcasting licenses of Christian radio stations.

"What about stations who have license that are granted by the FCC?," he asked. "Can the FCC support stations that engage in hate speech or intolerance or that discriminate against the constitutional rights of others? I think that could very well be the basis for denying licenses to Christian stations around the country that want to broadcast the truth":

Yes, this is probably exactly what will happen, just as the government systematically shut down Christian radio stations for opposing abortion after the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the right to choose back in 1973, which is why we never hear the Religious Right talk about this issue these days.

AFA Poll Inquires: 'What Is The Primary Objective Of Homosexual Activists Who Target Youths?'

The American Family Association’s OneNewsNow published an article today titled “Gay agenda creeping into all curriculum,” in which MassResistance’s Brian Camenker warns that the gay-rights group GLSEN, in addition to organizing “emotionally poisonous and physically dangerous” Gay-Straight Alliances, is plotting to make kids “feel comfortable around homosexuality and those issues, feel comfortable coming out, feel comfortable taking on those behaviors, feeling comfortable with everything about it.”

The article is accompanied by an insightful reader poll:

Fischer: Society Does Criminals A Disservice By Not Sentencing Them To Death

On his radio program today, Bryan Fischer put forth a rather novel theory that a society that does not sentence criminals to death for crimes which warrant such a punishment is actually doing a disservice to those criminals by not putting them in a situation where they must contemplate the existence of God so that they can repent and go to Heaven.

As he explained, someone facing an imminent death does not "have any option but to consider eternal questions" and so "if out of some misguided sense of compassion, we do not give somebody the death penalty who deserves it," society is failing that person by not putting them in a position that would require them to face these "eternal issues."

Criminals not forced to contemplate their own death may therefore fail to repent for their crimes and seek God's forgiveness, with the result being, Fischer concluded, that "we may have made it easier for them to go the Hell than to go to Heaven":

American Family Association: Don't Open Letters With Harvey Milk Stamp

Incensed by the release of a postage stamp honoring Harvey Milk, the American Family Association is urging its members not only to avoid purchasing the stamp…but to refuse to accept or open any letter or package postmarked with one.

1. Refuse to accept the Harvey Milk stamp if offered by your local post office. Instead, ask for a stamp of the United States flag.

2. Refuse to accept mail at your home or business if it is postmarked with the Harvey Milk stamp. Simply write 'Return to Sender" on the envelope and tell your postman you won't accept it.

In his daily email alert yesterday, Family Research Council President Tony Perkins also attacked the Obama administration for issuing the stamp, linking the move to the imprisonment of a Sudanese mother who is facing the death penalty for her conversion to Christianity: “[T]he Obama administration -- which had more than enough time to throw a party in honor of homosexual activist Harvey Milk -- hasn't had a spare second to demand the freedom of two of America’s youngest citizens.”

FRC also marked the occasion by republishing a 2009 article by senior fellow Peter Sprigg attacking Milk:

Pro-homosexual activists will describe the issue as one of identity – “who they are.” But the real issue is one of behavior – what they do. And what Harvey Milk (like other homosexual activists) wanted was not only the freedom to engage in homosexual sex, but the right to do so without ever being criticized. Milk told one audience that “it is madness to … be ashamed of the sexual act, the act that conceived you. …” Yet homosexual acts never conceived anyone, which is what separates them, undeniably, from heterosexual acts.

Since Harvey Milk died from an assassin’s bullet, over a quarter million American men have died of AIDS, which they contracted because they had sex with other men. What’s truly “madness” is that someone whose only claim to fame is that they promoted such deadly behavior should be honored with a Presidential Medal of Freedom.

Fischer Thinks Bill Clinton Might Be Trying To Sabotage Hillary's Presidential Campaign

As we have noted before, Bryan Fischer seems to inhabit some bizarre parallel dimension in which innocuous episodes take on a profound significance that only he can understand.

Take, for example, Fischer's response yesterday to Bill Clinton's statement last week that it took Hillary Clinton six months to fully recover from the concussion she suffered in 2012. He was discussing the initial claims that the former Secretary of State had "faked" her concussion in order to avoid testifying about Benghazi, but Fischer spun that off into a wild theory about how the former president was trying to sabotage his wife's possible presidential run because "he doesn't want to share the limelight" and "maybe he doesn't want the media tracking his every move, for reasons I think are obvious to you and me":

LGBT Equality Pioneer Harvey Milk Memorialized with New Stamp

Though the right-wing has long tried to rewrite Milk's legacy, it's clear that today is a day to celebrate how far the LGBT equality movement has come and to recognize the work that remains.
PFAW Foundation

Sandy Rios Fears Michael Sam And Public Schools Will 'Brainwash' Kids

Sandy Rios of the American Family Association once again brought up Michael Sam’s kiss on her anti-gay radio show this week in order to warn that young people “are being brainwashed in public schools” into homosexuality.

She then read a “great” and “encouraging” letter from a 19-year-old viewer who called Sam’s kiss “gross” and noted “the diseases and mental scarring that homosexuality causes.”

The viewer said he has “given up on sports” due to the “liberal media,” pointing to Sam’s kiss as a sign of the End Times and that Christians might soon be “arrested for proclaiming the Gospel.”

Rios later criticized “ESPN’s brazen forcing of this on the male population” and “blatantly making men stop and think about things they don’t really want to ponder.”

Benham Brothers Reveal What Love And Liberty Mean To The Religious Right

Benham Brothers Reveal What Love and Liberty Mean To the Religious Right

Fischer Asks If America Is Even 'A Nation That I Really Wanna Risk My Life To Defend And Protect'

On his radio program yesterday, Bryan Fischer took a call from Tom, a twenty-two year veteran of the Air Force, who wondered why he served in Vietnam and put his life on the line for a nation that now allows gays to serve in the military when God calls it an "abomination."

"I question sometimes why I spent twenty-two years protecting what I was protecting," Tom said, "when we're willing to stand by and let it be washed away or given away by those in power."

Fischer, of course, was entirely sympathetic, saying that America was once "worth bleeding and dying for because ... we stood for Judeo-Christian morality" but now people are rightly asking themselves if America is "turning into a nation that I really wanna risk my life to defend and protect":

Sandy Rios 'Revulsed' By Michael Sam Kiss, Tells Conchita Wurst She's 'Under A Delusion'

Add Sandy Rios of the American Family Association to the growing list of anti-gay activists who are distraught over the TV footage of NFL recruit Michael Sam sharing a kiss with his boyfriend.

Rios said on her radio show yesterday that “the Holy Spirit within me is revulsed” by the sight of two men kissing, insisting that most Americans “do not like this” and “don’t like what ESPN is doing and how they’re forcing this on the watchers, the guys, for the most part.”

“I watched it once and it was enough, I couldn’t bear to watch it,” she said. “It’s just such an unnatural act it’s hard to watch, I just don’t want to watch it, I can’t bear it.”

She also claimed Eurovision winner Conchita Wurst is “under a delusion” and warned that her alleged sins “will come to a crashing end.”

Rios also cited the controversy over HGTV discontinuing its work with David and Jason Benham to warn that “we will be called on to give our lives” in the fight against “this rampant, irrational wave of perversion” and its advocates: “You will not prevail, there will not be a good ending.”

Sandy Rios Wonders If Feminists Only Care About Nigeria Kidnappings Because They Don't Realize Victims Are Christians

Last week on her radio show, Sandy Rios speculated that the only reason the State Department and feminists care about the kidnappings of hundreds of girls in Nigeria is because they don’t realize that many of the girls targeted by Boko Haram are Christians.

Rios, the American Family Association’s government affairs director, said she was just asking the question about whether feminists would care about the kidnapped girls if they knew about their religion.

The Department of State is offering a reward of up to $7 million leading to [Abubakar Shekau’s] location, of course it’s because he’s kidnapping girls, I guess he did the wrong thing now, it’s not that they’re Christians, it’s that they’re girls, and now the feminists are — I wonder if the feminists know that these girls are Christians because maybe they wouldn’t be so upset. I don’t know. That’s how weird this is getting.

Fischer Blasts The NFL For 'Celebrating Something That Could Destroy Michael Sam's Life'

Bryan Fischer's love for young, black males has been well-established and it is precisely why he wants to see homosexuality made illegal.

It was with this love in mind that Fischer spent two full segments of his radio broadcast today railing against the NFL for celebrating the drafting of Michael Sam instead of putting him into "ex-gay" reparative therapy.

Calling Sam's drafting a "debacle," Fischer proclaimed that the NFL "is conducting itself in a horribly irresponsible fashion" by "celebrating something that could destroy Michael Sam's life."

"They know the kind of behavior that Michael Sam is engaged in," Fischer lamented. "He had a big, wet sloppy kiss with his gay lover right in front of world and everybody ... and it is behavior that will destroy his life."

If the NFL was really concerned with Sam's well-being, Fischer went on the argue, the league would be encouraging him to begin ex-gay therapy.

"Alas, the only people who truly care for Michael Sam are those who love him enough to tell him the truth about the health risks of homosexual behavior," Fischer concluded, saying that the NFL leadership "long ago sold their souls to the virulent, vitriolic bullies and bigots of 'big gay'":

Right Wing Leftovers - 5/9/14

  • Why is Glenn Beck's network reporting about Malala Yousafzai? We thought it was laughable to even expect people to know or care who she was.
  • This weekend, the Alaska Family Council will seek to explain how Christians can responsibly and gracefully engage a culture that has embraced homosexuality.
  • The American Family Association is calling upon cities in Mississippi to stop adopting anti-discrimination ordinances.
  • Gov. Bobby Jindal is scheduled to speak at Liberty University's graduation ceremony tomorrow where he will bravely criticize HGTV for canceling the Benham brothers' reality show.
  • On a related note, Tony Perkins responded to the Benham controversy by saying that "Right Wing Watch is about as reliable as the Obamacare website," which is actually kind of funny but also a totally false attack since everything we wrote about them was documented and true.

Bryan Fischer Is A Paragon Of Inconsistency

Last month, after Christian radio stations and music fans began to boycott the band Jars of Clay over the lead singer's support for marriage equality, Bryan Fischer proclaimed that this sort of reaction was the logical result of that singer's own decision to make a "foolish declaration."

If someone chooses to speak out on this sort of issue, Fischer declared, "that's fine, but then don't complain when there are consequences for making a foolish declaration like that."

Of course, that was two whole weeks ago, back when Fischer found such "consequences" to be totally acceptable because he happened to disagree with the stated position of the person who was experiencing those consequences. That stand has now been totally abandoned in the face of the Benham brothers having lost their HGTV program over their anti-gay, anti-choice activism, with Fischer declaring on his radio program today that they are the victims of the "gay gestapo" which will soon force Christians to wear yellow crosses upon their sleeves "like the Jews in Nazi Germany."

"They're going to make us wear yellow crosses on our sleeves," Fischer stated, "so they can identify us, so they will know whom not to hire, they will know whom to fire ... they will know whom not to do business with":

Just to recap, when someone that Fischer disagrees with suffers a backlash because of their publicly stated position, that is because "there are consequences for making a foolish declaration" ... but when someone that Fischer agrees with suffers consequences for making public declarations, that is Nazi-like persecution.

Fischer Says 'Equality Is A Totally Bogus Word' Because Homosexuality Is Not Equal To Heterosexuality

Nintendo has announced that it will not allow same-sex marriages to take place among characters in its life simulation game "Tomodachi Life" and Bryan Fischer, not surprisingly, fully supports that position, explaining on his radio program yesterday that "the word 'equality' is a totally bogus word when they talk about equality between homosexuality and heterosexuality."

"They are not equal," Fischer said. "They are not equality in morality. They are not equal in worth. They are not equal in procreative power. They are not equal in their consistency with God's design. There is no equality between homosexuality and heterosexuality."

"One is a normal expression of human sexuality," he continued, "the other is a sexually deviant expression":

Bryan Fischer Urges US To Adopt Russian-Style Profanity Ban

American Family Association spokesman Bryan Fischer has found yet another policy of Russian President Vladimir Putin that he loves.

Fischer devoted a column and a segment of his radio show today to praising the law Putin signed this week banning profanity at “at arts, cultural and entertainment events.”

“Could a similar ban be instituted in the United States without violating the First Amendment?” Fischer asks. “Of course.”

Speaking on his radio show, "Focal Point," Fischer argued that “states are perfectly free under the Constitution to ban profanity if they choose to" because the First Amendment was designed “to protect political speech” and not “profanity, obscenity, vulgarity, or pornography.” In fact, Fischer said, the Founders would “would be absolutely aghast” at the thought “that they were crafting a document that would allow the unlimited use of the F-bomb in polite society.”

Anti-Gay Groups Take Out Two Pro-Equality Indiana GOP State Reps

Two incumbent Republican state representatives in Indiana lost primary elections after national anti-gay groups targeted them for their votes against a state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.

Kathy Heuer and Rebecca Kubacki were among eleven Republicans who voted against the marriage amendment in January. The amendment will next have to be placed on the statewide ballot, which won't happen until 2016 at the earliest .

According to the National Organization for Marriage, NOM, the American Family Association of Indiana, Focus on the Family’s political arm Citizenlink, the Family Research Council and the FRC’s Indiana affiliate the Indiana Family Institute were all involved in the effort to unseat the pro-marriage lawmakers. NOM writes:

NOM, the Indiana Family Institute, the American Family Association of Indiana, Citizenlink, and Family Research Council Action had warned politicians before the marriage amendment vote in the legislature that if they did not give the people the chance to vote on marriage this year, there would be political repercussions. After the failure of the legislature to pass the question to the voters, the coalition worked together to choose its targets, particularly the ousting of Heuer and Kubacki while protecting marriage champions. 

The Indianapolis Star reports that the Indiana Family Institute’s political arm "ran $12,000 worth of radio ads in the Fort Wayne area targeting Heuer, Kubacki, and a third incumbent, Casey Cox of Fort Wayne,” who won his primary contest. The FRC-affiliated group also reportedly sent out 10,000 mailers in support of the marriage amendment’s sponsor in his successful effort to fend off a primary challenger.

In February, NOM and Citizenlink started airing radio ads against at least one Republican state lawmaker who ultimately voted for the marriage amendment, but supported a change that would remove a ban on civil unions from the measure, thus pushing back the schedule for getting the ban on the ballot. The groups accused proponents of the change of bringing “San Francisco-style marriage” to Indiana.

In a statement, FRC president Tony Perkins touted his organization’s recent poll on how Republican voters view marriage equality and claimed that “elected officials can no longer avoid the reality that the redefinition of marriage leads to the loss of our most basic freedoms.”

"The election outcome reinforces the findings of an FRC-commissioned survey released last month showing three-quarters of Republican voters want their elected officials to uphold natural marriage as the national standard. Voters in Indiana and across the country are now realizing that much more than marriage is on the line. Elected officials can no longer avoid the reality that the redefinition of marriage leads to the loss of our most basic freedoms.

"Redefining natural marriage is about far more than the marriage altar; it is about fundamentally altering society. In the wake of same-sex marriage, religious freedom and parental rights have been lost. Business owners, like florists, bakers and photographers, have been hauled into court, fined and even put out of business for simply refusing to participate in a same-sex wedding. But it doesn't stop there; university professors, sportscasters and even members of the military have been demoted or fired for simply believing marriage is the union of one man and one woman. Families have been impacted as parents have lost the right to determine whose values are taught to their children," concluded Perkins.

Share this page: Facebook Twitter Digg SU Digg Delicious