Family Research Council

Boykin: Obama and Kerry Show Contempt for the Military

On Tuesday's Washington Watch, Family Research Council leaders Tony Perkins and Jerry Boykin argued that the Obama administration is trying to undermine the military. After Perkins said that the administration is “damaging national security” and shows a “total disregard for the future well-being of our national security and the military,” Boykin maintained that Obama’s holds anti-military views are because “he has not served” and “has shown disdain for the military culture.”

He even argued that Secretary of State John Kerry, who received a Silver Star, Bronze Star and three Purple Hearts for his service in Vietnam, “has a rather abysmal record when he was in the military” and added that Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, who also served in Vietnam, “has not been particularly strong on national defense.”

Both Boykin and Perkins have repeatedly claimed that the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell and the lifting of the ban on women in combat positions were grave threats to the military. Boykin earlier insisted that Obama is attempting to weaken military values in order to change the larger culture and establish a paramilitary force that is similar to the Brownshirts

Perkins: This administration uses the military and I think disregards the military principles that in the long run could be very serious in terms of damaging national security, there’s a total disregard for the future well-being of our national security and the military.

Boykin: Well you’re absolutely right. You see a lot of things happening to our military today that are really changing the culture of the military and consequently changing the readiness of the military at a time when our enemies are growing stronger. I think if you look at the fact that we now have a President who not only has not served but you could even make the case has shown disdain for the military culture. And you have a Secretary of State that has a rather abysmal record when he was in the military and a Secretary of Defense who has not been particularly strong on national defense. What you see is leadership now at the highest levels that really want to change the military culture, change the ethos of the military into something that more supports their agenda and I think we all have a pretty good idea of what their agenda is.

FRC Discovers Elusive Obamacare-ACORN Connection

The Family Research Council has caught wind of a new theory percolating in the right-wing blogosphere and in certain circles on Capitol Hill: that the Department of Health and Human Services is using a new Obamacare rule to empower the long-defunct ACORN to commit voter intimidation and fraud.

The new rule in question is HHS’s solution to the problem of signing up 30 million uninsured Americans on the Affordable Care Act’s health insurance exchanges. Under the rule, HHS will recruit “navigators” to walk uninsured people through the process of finding an insurance policy on their state’s exchange. According to the Washington Post, “Groups such as unions, chambers of commerce, health clinics, immigrant-service organizations, and community- or consumer-focused nonprofits can use the grants to train and employ staff members or volunteers to provide in-person guidance — especially to hard-to-reach populations — and to provide space for them to work.”

Here’s where ACORN comes in: A draft questionnaire [pdf] for insurance applicants, in compliance with 1993’s “motor voter” law, gives applicants the option of registering to vote.

Enter Rep. Charles Boustany of Louisiana, chairman of the House Ways and Means subcommittee on Oversight, who last week attacked the plan to ask insurance applicants about voter registration, saying, “It raises questions as to why HHS is gathering voter information, how the agency intends to use such information and how the information could be used by the navigators.” His fears were then picked up by Breitbart.com, which announced this week, “HHS resurrects ‘ACORN’ through Obamacare.”

Yesterday, the Family Research Council picked up this story and ran with it in its daily email, warning that an “army of ACORN, Planned Parenthood, and union activists” will use their roles as insurance navigators to “influence people’s party affiliation.” The email adds: “With this administration, it isn't a question of whether they would abuse their power--but when!”

The rule, which is available for public comment for the next few weeks, also includes a "voter registration provision," leading many--including Rep. Charles Boustany (R-La.)--to question how this army of ACORN, Planned Parenthood, and union activists would twist their access to influence people's party affiliation. With this administration, it isn't a question of whether they would abuse their power--but when!

ACORN, of course, disbanded in 2010 after a right-wing smear campaign accused it of large-scale voter fraud – accusations that turned out to be completely false. But that hasn’t stopped 49 percent of Republican voters from believing that ACORN stole the 2012 election for President Obama – an illusion gleefully perpetuated by groups like the FRC.

Rep. Fleming: UN Treaties May Repeal Second Amendment, Ban Spanking

Family Research Council president Tony Perkins yesterday hosted Rep. John Fleming (R-LA) who immediately started spreading conspiracy theories about the United Nations.

Fleming insisted that the recently approved global UN Arms Trade Treaty, which will restrict the sale of arms to countries and groups that commit war crimes and other atrocities and has been the subject of several discredited right-wing attacks, is an attempt by the left to weaken and ultimately “repeal” the Second Amendment.

The Republican congressman concluded by speculating that the UN may make it illegal for parents to spank their children.

Fleming: In the case of the UN small arms treaty what that means is that if we enter into a treaty with one or more nations that in some way controls firearms, protective arms, handguns, something like that, if it’s ratified by the Senate then that has the same effect as an amendment to the Constitution. So that would be a way that liberals could literally change the Second Amendment. I think as you well know, although it’s not going to have a full effect as part of the ‘votorama’ the other day the Senate had in their vote for their budget, a vote on an up-or-down on the acceptance of, or voting against in effect in their opinion, at least a resolution if you will, on the the acceptance of such a treaty, and Sen. Mary Landrieu from Louisiana actually voted that we should move forward on such a small arms treaty. This is a dangerous thing when it comes to the Second Amendment. People need to understand that there is an end-run around the Second Amendment that is available to the Senate and I do think President Obama and others do support this.



Perkins: We’re talking here for just a moment about the UN’s Small Arms Treaty and as he pointed out, an end-run around Congress on the Second Amendment through the Congress. This is a very real possibility in my opinion congressman because it looks like the efforts to get legislation through Congress, especially through the House, that would severely restrict gun ownership and attack the Second Amendment is unlikely to happen, so what’s the next best thing for the Obama administration? Pursuing a treaty like this.

Fleming: Well if for instance through the UN and with an agreement with other countries, we all come together and we say, you know what we as a group of countries, both inside and outside of our borders, are going to control the handling the use and access to handguns, for instance, then if we sign onto that treaty and it’s ratified by the Senate—the House doesn’t even have to vote on it—it’s ratified by the Senate and signed onto by the President, it is firm law. A simple passage of a law or a repeal of law by Congress itself can’t undo that is my understanding. So we wouldn’t have to have a repeal of the Second Amendment, we could just simply alter it or put into effect what is essentially a repeal of it. That is not the only thing. There’s another issue just to show you how broad scope this is on how we deal with our children and what control we have of our children as parents and how we may define child abuse and the responsibility of the state. That could potentially be up for a ratification of a treaty with other nations. So that if you for instance spanked your child, you could be in violation of a UN treaty and a law created as such.

Right Wing Leftovers - 3/29/13

  • Wouldn't cutting off funding for an anti-bullying program that critics say "bullies Christians and conservatives" itself be a form of bullying?
  • CBN "journalist" David Brody interviewed Sen. Rand Paul.  Take one guess what he asked him about.
  • We were wondering how long it would take the Right to get worked up about the plot of the new "Bioshock Infinite" game.
  • "Gay Patriot" Bruce Carroll has decided not to challenge Sen. Lindsey Graham.
  • Finally, FRC prays that the Supreme Court will uphold the traditional definition of marriage and that "this ruling [will] be the Waterloo for same-sex marriage!"

FRC Invokes Matthew Shepard in Anti-Gay Marriage Column

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.

NOM's 'Historic' Fail

For weeks, the National Organization for Marriage’s Brian Brown has been touting the “historic” March for Marriage, telling supporters “this is our time” to "change history." A month ago he wrote excitedly about a “game-changer,” a $500,000 matching gift from one of the major donors that keep NOM afloat. Brown had been inspired by a massive turnout for an anti-marriage-equality protest  in France, and hoped for something similar in Washington. But even with big donors and heavy-weight Religious Right co-sponsors, Brown and his allies couldn’t pull it off. Not even close.

In reality, NOM’s rally had a few, perhaps several, thousand attendees.  (NOM’s Thomas Peters claims 15,000, which seems, um, generous.) And every time one of the speakers tried to make the crowd feel like part of a larger movement by talking about the 200,000 people they said marched recently for one-man/one-woman marriage in Puerto Rico, or the hundreds of thousands or millions in France and Spain, or even the 585,000 who have signed the Manhattan Declaration or the half million who marched against legal abortion, it only served to highlight how few bothered to show up in Washington. According to various speakers, the Catholic Archdiocese of Philadelphia sent five busloads; anti-gay state senator Ruben Diaz claimed 32 buses from New York. Brian Brown gave a shout out to some Chinese Christians from Chicago.

The ethnically diverse speakers’ list was a mix of old and new, including some familiar faces on the anti-gay circuit, such as Harry Jackson, Gary Bauer, and Iowa’s Bob Vander Plaats. Harry Jackson led the crowd in a chant that he said was a prayer for the Supreme Court: “Let God arise and his enemies be scattered.” Bauer delivered a blustery message to the Republican Party that if they “bail” on marriage, he’ll lead as many people as he can out of the GOP (which may not be that much of a threat). Vander Plaats urged Supreme Court justices to look to the Founding Fathers, Billy Graham, and Pope Francis. Also speaking were Doug Mainwaring, now making the circuit as the anti-equality gay man the Religious Right loves to love; Frank Schubert, the mastermind of the dishonest Prop 8 campaign and every anti-equality campaign since then; and Jim Garlow, who made a name for himself among the Religious Right with his pro-Prop 8 organizing. Garlow insisted you cannot call yourself a Christian and support the Court’s “obliterating” what he called a “core aspect of the gospel of Jesus Christ.” (Garlow should have seen the packed crowd at the morning’s pro-equality interfaith service at the Lutheran Church of the Reformation.) Garlow warned Supreme Court justices that they will one day stand before “the Chief Justice of the Universe” and will be held accountable if they defy His ways.

A couple of groups sent under-30 speakers to say how wrong the media is to suggest that Millennials are a lost cause on this issue.  But facts are facts, and polls show that support for marriage equality is overwhelming among under-30 Americans: 72 percent of Millennials believe same-sex couples should be able to get legally married, including 58 percent of under-30 Republicans.

Many of the speakers were on-message to the point of being boringly redundant, repeating the message on marchers’ pre-printed signs: “Kids do best with a mom and a dad” and “Every child deserves a mom and a dad.” Sometimes this came with a strong shot of gender stereotypes: mothers provide tenderness and fathers provide protection.  Brian Brown even showed a video of the Religious Right’s newest heroine, the 11-year old who testified against marriage equality in Minnesota and asked which of her parents she did not need, her mother or father. Perhaps someone could explain that no same-sex couples seeking to get married have any desire to force her to get rid of either parent.

NOM’s backers for the marriage march included the far-far-right-wing Catholic group Tradition, Family & Property, with its scarlet banners, capes, and marching band (see Adele Stan’s reminder who TFP is), Focus on the Family, the Family Research Council, a couple of Catholic dioceses, the Knights of Columbus and the Institute on Religion and Democracy.  Brown gave special thanks to the Mormon-run GFC Foundation for providing grants for buses.

 

Perkins: 'Revolution' Possible if 'Court Goes Too Far' on Marriage Equality Cases

Family Research Council president Tony Perkins appeared on The Janet Mefferd Show yesterday where he joined other anti-gay activists in warning that a Supreme Court decision in favor of marriage equality could lead to a “revolution.”

Perkins, who in November feared that the Supreme Court may spark a “revolution” and “break this nation apart” by striking down anti-gay laws, told Mefferd that the Supreme Court “could literally split this nation in two and create such political and cultural turmoil that I’m not sure we could recover from” if it strikes down Proposition 8 and DOMA.

“If you get government out of whack with where the people are and it goes too far, you create revolution,” Perkins said. “I think you could see a social and cultural revolution if the court goes too far on this.”

Perkins: I think the court is very much aware with the backdrop of the fortieth anniversary of Roe v. Wade just two months ago that interjecting itself in this, especially when you have thirty states that have taken the steps that they have, could literally split this nation in two and create such political and cultural turmoil that I’m not sure we could recover from it.

Mefferd: I have had the same thoughts. It’s interesting; the National Organization for Marriage has been billing this as ‘1973 for Marriage.’ We’ve been telling people here about the March for Marriage taking place tomorrow and you guys are going to be involved in it as well, I know you’re cosponsoring it, but why do you think it is so important for Americans to come out and publicly stand for marriage like we’ve seen in France for example?

Perkins: That’s a good example. I’m just finishing my daily update that I’m going to be sending out and I made reference to France, you know support for natural marriage is coming from the most unlikely places, hundreds of thousands of people now have turned out multiple times in France to support natural marriage, young and old alike. It’s very important. We’ve been saying this all along that Americans need to speak out because the court likes to hold itself as being above public opinion, that they live in this ivory tower and don’t pay any attention to what’s going on; they do. I believe the court will push as far as they think they can without creating a social upheaval or a political upheaval in this country. They’re smart people, I think, they understand how organizations and how societies work and if you get your substructure out of kilter with the superstructure, if you get government out of whack with where the people are and it goes too far, you create revolution. I think you could see a social and cultural revolution if the court goes too far on this.

Right Wing Round-Up - 3/21/13

  • PFAW: Bush’s Court: How the D.C. Circuit Threatens the Future of Progressive Reform.
  • Zack Ford @ Think Progress: House Republicans’ Final Written Argument Against Marriage Equality: Nuh-Uh!
  • Meenal Vamburkar @ Mediaite: GOP Senator On Gay Marriage: ‘I’m Not Gay, So I’m Not Going To Marry One.’
  • Jeremy Hooper: FRC literally praying for Olson, Boies, et al. to have bad day in court.
  • Tim Murphy @ Mother Jones: Former Obama Official Compares Glenn Beck's Attacks to Orwell's "Two Minutes Hate."
  • David Edwards @ Raw Story: Bachmann: It’s my Christian ‘duty’ to repeal Obamacare before it ‘literally kills’ kids.

Jerry Boykin on Sexual Attraction, Emotional Vulnerability, and Women in Combat

The Family Research Council's Jerry Boykin joined Tim Wildmon and Ed Vitagliano on today's radio broadcast to explain why he opposes the decision to allow female soldiers to serve in front-line combat, saying that allowing women to serve changes the dynamic of the unit because "God placed in us, as men, a protective nature when it comes to the female."

On top of that, these combat units will now have to deal with the issue of possible sexual attraction, which Boykin warned would become very complicated in times when there has been a loss of life and the soldiers become emotional and in need of solace and you can just "imagine what that can turn into in those conditions, in those circumstances, when you have mixed gender":

Perkins: Homosexuality Is 'Not a Healthy Situation' and Its Acceptance 'Will Lead to a Confused Society'

Yesterday on Washington Watch, Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council addressed Sen. Rob Portman’s decision to endorse marriage equality after learning that his son is gay. He said that while Portman should love his son unconditionally, he should not show him “unconditional support,” such as supporting his son as a gay man. He warned that changing laws like marriage “just to accommodate our personal situation” will eventually “lead to a confused society.”

Unconditional support would say we change how we view life and we try to change truth to fit our circumstances, that’s not what the scripture calls us to do. So while I commend him for his unconditional love of his son I cannot support the idea that we change our laws, which are rooted not only in history but obviously in the Judeo-Christian tradition as well as in the social sciences of what’s best for children, that we change those just to accommodate our personal situation. That doesn’t add up, that’s confusion and it will lead to a confused society.

Perkins argued that gays and lesbians will never be fulfilled in life because society will never accept homosexuality as “morally right” since “it’s not healthy” for “society and for the individuals.”

What they want, what they’re looking for — I understand this — they’re looking for affirmation, they’re looking to be what everybody wants to be, everybody wants to be fulfilled in life. The problem is they’re pursuing it in the wrong way and no matter if they’re able to successfully force society to embrace homosexuality or say that it’s okay, this is one of the things I’ve said before: you can make it a right, you can make it legal, but you can’t make it morally right, I mean it’s just not going to happen. So even though you may force everybody silent about it, you’ll never make it right. Of course there are all of the consequences involved in it, for society and for the individuals, it’s not healthy; it’s not a healthy situation.

UPDATE: In a statement today, Perkins warned that the Religious Right may ditch the GOP and join a third party if the Republican National Committee begins “alienating the millions of social conservatives” in their appeals to gay and young voters 

"It looks like Democrats won't need to spend a lot of money building a case against the GOP - because the Republican Party is doing it for them! In what the RNC is calling its 'autopsy' report from the last election, Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus has decided that the way for his party to win over voters is to parrot the Left's policies. The grand strategy, which calls for throwing the party's social conservatives overboard, demands the GOP be more 'welcoming' and 'inclusive' to people that are actively working against the conservative principles in the Republican platform. 'We need to campaign among ... gay Americans and demonstrate that we care about them too.'

"I agree, we can - and do - care about gay Americans, but that doesn't mean we welcome the redefinition of the core values that gave rise to American exceptionalism. 'Already,' the report warns, 'there is a generational difference within the conservative movement about issues involving the treatment and the rights of gays - and for many younger voters, these issues are a gateway into whether the Party is a place they want to be.' Much of the autopsy (an apt name, considering where its recommendations would lead) seem to suggest that the RNC's idea of bold leadership is chasing whatever fickle policy wind blows its way. In the last 24 hours, the Washington Post caught plenty of people's attention with its latest polls on same-sex 'marriage,' particularly as it pertained to the next generation's support (81 percent). It's their assertion that Americans are racing headlong into the same-sex 'marriage' camp (a result the media was bound to get by framing the poll question as a matter of legality). But history - and most statistical data - shows that young people tend to become more conservative and more religious as they grow up, get married, and start families of their own. In fact, in Frank Newport's new book, God Is Alive and Well, the editor-in-chief of Gallup explains that most people are at their spiritually lowest point at age 23. After that, people become increasingly religious - meaning that a hasty retreat on marriage may score cheap points now, but it would actually alienate the same people later on. Besides, Priebus would be betting the future of the GOP on a bloc who barely votes - while alienating the millions of social conservatives who do! 'I'm trying to show what leadership looks like,' said Preibus, 'by not throwing [Republican Senator] Rob Portman under the bus [for endorsing same-sex 'marriage']' - at the expense of the three-quarters of his party who don't?

"As for Senator Portman, his announcement hasn't exactly been popular with either Ohio party so far. Reports suggest that the calls flooding into his office are 60 percent opposed to the Senator's new position. 'While we've seen national Republican politicians move to support gay marriage in recent years...' the Washington Post points out, 'the party base hasn't really moved with them all that much.' Seventy percent of conservatives don't just oppose same-sex 'marriage,' they strongly oppose it. If Republicans defy them on this issue, warned Rush Limbaugh, 'it will cause their base to stay home and throw up their hands in frustration.' Just look at the 2008 and 2012 exit polls, when the GOP twice nominated a moderate Republican for President - and twice hung their heads in defeat. If the RNC abandons marriage, evangelicals will either sit the elections out completely - or move to create a third party. Either option puts Republicans on the path to a permanent minority.

"Obviously, this RNC report was designed to pander to the GOP's wealthy elites, the same ones who encouraged Mitt Romney to 'tone down his social issues talk.' Unfortunately for them, money doesn't decide elections; people do. And the vast majority of the GOP base believes that marriage is a non-negotiable plank of the national platform. Anything less, writes Byron York, 'could come back to haunt the RNC in the not-too-distant future.' Values issues are not just the backbone of social conservatism, but the gateway to minority outreach. If the GOP wants to improve its relationship with Hispanics, Asians, and African Americans, it had better start by emphasizing the family issues they care about - instead of dividing the Republican family it already has," Perkins concluded.

Rep. Matt Salmon: House GOP 'The Last Bastion of Freedom for This Country'

Arizona congressman Matt Salmon appeared on Washington Watch with Tony Perkins last week, where he told the Family Research Council president that the GOP-controlled House is “the last bastion of freedom for this country.” However, Salmon warned that if House Republicans fail to “use every tool” at their disposal to stop Obama “at every turn,” then they will be just like the servant in the Parable of the Talents who was punished for hiding his master’s money in the ground rather than earning more money.

Salmon: We need to change the way things are in Washington DC. We cannot let President Obama keep advancing his agenda; we have got to stop it at every turn. You are the last bastion of freedom for this country and we’re counting on you so use every tool in your toolbox.

Perkins: Yeah what I have seen is that the Republicans tend to be too concerned about keeping the majority then using it.

Salmon: You know if that’s where we’re at then you will lose it.

Perkins: And you do, you’re absolutely right.

Salmon: It’s kind of like the parable of the ten talents in the Bible. The one that buried up his talents, was afraid that he would lose them, lost everything in the end.

Right Wing Leftovers - 3/18/13

  • FRC is asking people to thank Sen. Marco Rubio, Rep. Louie Gohmert, and Rep. John Boehner for"standing up for marriage and showing true leadership."
  • Nothing will entice young people to join the conservative movement quite like a discussion between the AFA and Phyllis Schlafly defending Dan Quayle's twenty year old attack on "Murphy Brown."
  • The Daily Caller's hit piece on Sen. Bob Menendez continues to fall apart.
  • Despite the fact that he was just re-elected, according to WND 44% of the population wants to see President Obama impeached.
  • Scott Lively calls for a "First Amendment Supremacy Clause" so nothing can ever curtail the Religious Right's anti-gay activism.
  • Who do you even root for in a fight between Karl Rove and Sarah Palin?
  • Finally, it was obviously just a total coincidence that Satan in "The Bible" miniseries happens to look like President Obama.

Right Wing Leftovers - 3/15/13

  • CBN correspondent David Brody warns “evangelicals all across the country may start walking away from the GOP” if Republicans aren’t “willing to take a stand for traditional marriage.” 
  • Liberty Counsel’s Steve Crampton claims that gay marriage will “lead to the disintegration of the family” and that “when the history of this administration is written, it will be recorded that its deception and aggressive advocacy on this issue were among the most destructive actions of any administration in the history of our nation.” 
  • Scott Lively urges lawmakers not “to arm militant ‘gay’ social engineers with legal weapons to hunt down and destroy the lives of people of faith.” 
  • Jim Garlow predicts that marriage equality will have “horrific” consequences including the abolition of the First Amendment.
  • Alan Sears of the Alliance Defending Freedom, while quoting Martin Luther King Jr., calls for prayers against same-sex marriage. 

FRC to Pastors: Now THIS is an Anti-Gay Sermon!

If the Family Research Council gets its way, evangelical Christians all across America will hear their pastor deliver a sermon written by an FRC official condemning homosexuality and the advance of marriage equality this weekend or next.  On March 26 and 27 the U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments in cases involving California’s Proposition 8 and the federal Defense of Marriage Act, and this week FRC emailed pastors urging them to hold a “Stand for Marriage Sunday” before then, providing links to a sermon and full-color bulletin insert recapping its main points.

The 4300-word suggested sermon and accompanying power point presentation start with the wedding of Prince William and Kate Middleton and march through every Religious Right talking point on homosexuality, marriage equality, and the Satanic, anti-Christian, Nazi-like gay rights movement that is inviting the downfall of civilization. Here are the section heads and some highlights:

Section 1: The Divine Pattern

The sermon says God created men and women to complete each other, and actually includes, “Aren’t you glad God created Adam and Eve, and not just Adam and Steve?” It quotes James Dobson saying “More than ten thousand studies have concluded that kids do best when they are raised by mothers and fathers.” And it asserts that in both the Old and New Testaments, “one man and one woman in a marriage covenant relationship for life is the divine pattern.” (The sermon does not address the abundant inconvenient exceptions to one-man, one-woman marriage in the Bible.)

After reviewing all the ways marriage makes people, couples, and children happier, the section concludes:

God’s way works! Think about it. Every civilization in history is built upon the institution of marriage. It is the foundation. The happiness of couples, the welfare of children, the propagation of the faith, the wellbeing of society, and the orderliness of civilization are all dependent upon the stability of marriage according to the divine pattern. When this God-given pattern is undermined, the whole superstructure of society becomes unstable. Any deviation from the divine pattern invites disaster.

Section 2: The Deceptive Perversion

According to the sermon, homosexuality is a deceptive perversion, a sin that is “open rebellion against the divine pattern.” It cites the familiar “abomination” verses and the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah.

Section 3: The Definitive Problem

This section compares gay-rights advocates’ claims that people are born Gay or that “God made us gay” to Nazi propaganda. “They essentially practice Joseph Goebel’s Nazi philosophy of propaganda, which is basically this: Tell a lie long enough and loud enough and eventually most mindless Americans will believe it.” The sermon also compares homosexuality to other “sexual sins” such as promiscuity, adultery and pedophilia. “I do not believe,” it says, “that God would not place in your genetic code something that would damn your immortal soul.” [sic on the double negative]

Section 4: The Destructive Program

This section recounts the dangers of the “radical homosexual agenda,” its goal of “silencing critics in the clergy and Christian media,” and its conquest of the entertainment, educational, and legal arenas, citing a litany of familiar Religious Right horror stories about the alleged persecution of Christians who stand against the merciless gay rights steamroller.  And it pushes one of the primary talking points of Religious Right leaders and their conservative Catholic allies: that equality and religious liberty are fundamentally incompatible:

Where homosexual activists win legal approval, whether by court action or legislation, they often deny our full rights as Christians because a homosexual’s so-called “civil rights” and a Christian’s freedom of conscience and speech opposing homosexuality are mutually exclusive.

“Listen,” the sermon warns, “homosexual activists won’t stop at recognition, their aim is domination. They will not stop until they win over our children and our convicting voice is silenced.”

Section 5: The Determined Plan

These are the action steps FRC wants people hearing the sermon to take:

Action Step 1: Pray

The sermon calls on people to pray for spiritual revival and for “God’s mercy on a nation that is speeding toward Sodom, and hurtling toward Gomorrah.”

Action Step 2: Practice

This section says Christians give up their credibility to challenge the culture when their divorce rate is the same as everyone else’s, and urges people to follow biblical instructions on marriage and home life.

Action Step 3: Participate

This section is a direct rebuke to people who think politics are of the world, something Christians should stay out of. “Since God created the institution of government, would He want His people to stay out of it? No. If Christians don’t ‘render to Caesar’ (Matt. 22:21) and don’t function as ‘salt’ and ‘light’ (Matt. 5:13-16) in the arena of government, then we disobey the commands of Christ and allow Satan to prevail by default.”  The sermon urges people to write blog posts, use Facebook and Twitter, comment on news stories, knock on doors, contact elected officials, and join the March for Marriage being organized by the National Organization for Marriage and its allies in Washington DC on March 26.

Action Step 4: Proclaim

This section urges people to tell those in the “homosexual lifestyle” that they do not have to remain “slaves to sin” but can pray away the gay.

Let’s stand along these poor misguided and lost people trapped in Satan’s snare. Let’s love them out of that sinful and destructive lifestyle! ... But let’s also exercise our rights as Christian citizens! Listen, we can make the difference. Together, Christians all across America can protect and preserve marriage for our children and our children’s children. Let’s stand for God’s plan for marriage because our future depends on it. And all of God’s people said: Amen!

Gays Out, Racists in at CPAC, Again

Last year we wrote about how CPAC allowed notorious white nationalists to speak on multiple panels but banned the gay conservative group GOProud. This year the CPAC organizers, who aren’t entirely oblivious to the 2012 election, are trying to emphasize diversity. There’s even a panel entitled, “Conservative Inclusion: Promoting the Freedom Message to all Americans,” which boasts a racially diverse lineup of conservative activists.

“Conservative inclusion” is a nice idea, but it doesn’t go very far at CPAC. For the second year in a row, the gay conservative group GOProud has been banned from the conference. So at best, “inclusion” at CPAC means “straights only.”

Even more telling is the roster of sponsors and exhibitors at CPAC. Most troubling is the inclusion of the anti-immigrant group ProEnglish, which is run by longtime white nationalist organizer Bob Vandervoort. The Institute for Research & Education on Human Rights has reported extensively on his activities:

Vandervoort was at the center of white nationalist activity during his time in Illinois. While he was in charge, Chicagoland Friends of American Renaissance often held joint meetings with the local chapter of the Council of Conservative Citizens. The group held events featuring numerous white nationalist figures. Vandervoort also made appearances at white nationalist events outside Illinois, for instance participating in the 2009 Preserving Western Civilization Conference.

When CPAC and its organizers at the American Conservative Union were widely criticized last year for allowing Vandervoort and other white nationalists to speak on multiple panels, the conference organizers played dumb:

“This panel was not organized by the ACU,” CPAC spokeswoman Kristy Campbell told The Daily Caller, ”and specific questions on the event, content or speakers should be directed to the sponsoring organization.”

There’s no such excuse this year. CPAC knew all too well about Vandervoort’s white nationalist background and yet they allowed his group to return. Apparently “conservative inclusion” means shunning gays while including racists.

The reality is that CPAC couldn’t open its doors to gay conservatives even if it wanted to. As Brian reported last week, the head of CPAC sponsor Accuracy In Media is not only pleased with the GOProud ban, he wants to see a panel at the conference on “the dangers of the homosexual movement and why some of its members seem prone to violence, terror, and treason.”

Another important sponsor is the Family Research Council, which has been designated by the Southern Poverty Law Center as an anti-gay hate group. The group’s top policy expert, Peter Sprigg, explicitly supports the criminalization of homosexuality, and readers of this blog are familiar with FRC’s aggressive and dehumanizing advocacy against gays and lesbians. There is no compromising on gays with extremists like these.

As we’ve reported, GOProud isn’t the only group banned this year. Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer, co-founders of the Freedom Defense Initiative, are vicious Islamophobes and conspiracy theorists. Had CPAC banned them for spreading lies and fomenting hate against Muslims, it would be a sign of progress. But Geller and Spencer were really banned for having made the mistake of extending their Muslim Brotherhood conspiracy theory to include two American Conservative Union board members, Suhail Khan and Grover Norquist.

In past years, ACU has happily given Geller and company a platform to bash Muslims. And Spencer, who runs the blog “Jihad Watch,” overwhelmingly won this year’s CPAC People’s Choice Blogger Award. But their paranoid rantings hit too close to home this year, so CPAC pulled the plug. Even “conservative inclusion” has its limits.

Rep. Hultgren: Unlike 'Dangerous' Sex-Ed, Abstinence-Only Programs Have 'Incredible Success Records'

Rep. Randy Hultgren (R-IL) appeared on Washington Watch yesterday with Family Research Council Tony Perkins to discuss his legislation that “would spend $110 million a year for the next five years on grants to abstinence programs around the country,” funding that would have otherwise gone towards comprehensive sexual education. He claimed that while the Obama administration backs “very dangerous and experimental education programs,” programs pushing abstinence-only-until-marriage curriculum have “incredible success records.”

Far from having “incredible success records,” abstinence programs have a history of failure. Reports have consistently found that there is no evidence to support the claim that abstinence-only-until-marriage programs reduce premarital sex or teen pregnancy; on the other hand, studies show that comprehensive sex-ed decreases the rate of teen pregnancy and STDs.

Perkins: What you’re doing is you’re redirecting money from a program that has negative consequences and redirecting some of it into one that has proven to have positive outcomes.

Hultgren: That’s right, yes. Like you said, this has changed dramatically under President Obama and his administration and Kathleen Sebelius. Basically they see it as a slush fund that they can use however they want to and they are putting it into some very dangerous and experimental education programs for younger and younger children. What this would do is money that is already there would put it into programs that we know work. You look at the track record for abstinence education, incredible success records, kids really want to make good choices and if we give them good information it will just help them make these good choices.

FRC: No Right to Have Sex Outside of Marriage, Society Should 'Punish It'

Family Research Council senior fellow Pat Fagan appeared alongside Tony Perkins, the head of FRC, on Washington Watch yesterday to discuss his article which claims that Eisenstadt v. Baird, the 1972 case that overturned a Massachusetts law banning the distribution of contraceptives to unmarried people, may rank “as the single most destructive decision in the history of the Court.”

Fagan argued that the Supreme Court decision was wrong because it effectively meant that “single people have the right to engage in sexual intercourse.” “Society never gave young people that right, functioning societies don’t do that, they stop it, they punish it, they corral people, they shame people, they do whatever,” Fagan said.

The court decided that single people have the right to contraceptives. What’s that got to do with marriage? Everything, because what the Supreme Court essentially said is single people have the right to engage in sexual intercourse. Well, societies have always forbidden that, there were laws against it. Now sure, single people are inclined to push the fences and jump over them, particularly if they are in love with each other and going onto marriage, but they always knew they were doing wrong. In this case the Supreme Court said, take those fences away they can do whatever they like, and they didn’t address at all what status children had, what status the commons had, by commons I mean the rest of the United States, have they got any standing in this case? They just said no, singles have the right to contraceptives we mean singles have the right to have sex outside of marriage. Brushing aside millennia, thousands and thousands of years of wisdom, tradition, culture and setting in motion what we have.



It’s not the contraception, everybody thinks it’s about contraception, but what this court case said was young people have the right to engage in sex outside of marriage. Society never gave young people that right, functioning societies don’t do that, they stop it, they punish it, they corral people, they shame people, they do whatever. The institution for the expression of sexuality is marriage and all societies always shepherded young people there, what the Supreme Court said was forget that shepherding, you can’t block that, that’s not to be done.

FRC's Peter Sprigg Suggests Kidnapping Laws Shouldn't Protect Gay Parents

Family Research Council president Tony Perkins hosted senior fellow Peter Sprigg on Washington Watch yesterday to discuss the sentencing of pastor Kenneth Miller for aiding Lisa Miller (no relation), who kidnapped her daughter, Isabella Miller-Jenkins. Perkins recently praised Kenneth Miller’s “courage” in aiding the kidnapping scheme.

Lisa Miller disobeyed a court decision that gave Isabella’s other mother, her former partner Janet Jenkins, visitation rights and, as a result, the courts eventually transferred custody to Jenkins. Miller then fled the country with Isabella to a Mennonite compound in Central America.

Sprigg told Perkins that Jenkins, who was in a civil union with Miller at the time of Isabella’s birth, should not be considered Isabella’s parent because she is not biologically related and therefore shouldn’t be protected by the Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act. According to Sprigg, paternity and kidnapping laws should only apply to heterosexual couples.

In normal marriage between a man and a woman the presumption of paternity was a presumption of something that is almost always true. But the Vermont court, which has allowed these civil unions, granted them all the legal rights of marriage, has converted that into a presumption of parentage whereby you are presuming something that cannot be true, something that is biologically impossible. That just shows how in the same-sex marriage debate we are flipping logic on its head.

And another aspect of this is that the law that Lisa ran afoul of and that Kenneth Miller, this pastor, ran afoul of is something called the Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act. It was designed again normally for the context of heterosexual marriages that break up, where there is a divorce and perhaps a custody battle between two parents who are both the biological parents — the biological mother and the biological father — who have divorced each other and it’s designed to prevent someone from taking a child and crossing state lines to another jurisdiction in order to get a more favorable court ruling. So the Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act was designed to protect the rights of a biological parent so that they cannot have their rights violated by the other biological parent. But here you have the rights of the biological parent being violated by someone who is not the biological parent at all. So again, the original purposes of these laws are being turned on their head in this case.

Right Wing Round-Up - 3/7/13

False Inconsistency: Jerry Boykin, VAWA, and Women in Combat

The Family Research Council's Jerry Boykin was the guest on "WallBuilders Live" today for a discussion of the Pentagon's recent decision to lift the ban on women serving in combat.  Not surprisingly, Boykin opposes the idea, wondering why the Obama Administration would approve this change even as Congress was working to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act, claiming "there is such an inconsistency here":

The Congress, the Senate at least, passed the Violence Against Women Act which was designed to protect our women. Now it had some flaws in it, so we don't support it ... but it's violence against women, protect our women.

Now with this decision by Leon Panetta and the President, what we're doing is we're saying 'now you ladies, fix your bayonets, we're going to send you right into hand-to-hand combat with these men that are physically more capable than you in most cases and they're going to try to kill you.'  There is such an inconsistency here.

Share this page: Facebook Twitter Digg SU Digg Delicious