While sitting down with Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council at the Greenwell Springs Baptist Church, Rick Santorum doubled down on his commitment to bring back the discriminatory Don't Ask Don't Tell policy. Perkins, astaunchopponent of Don't Ask Don't Tell's repeal, said the Obama administration "has systematically used this military for social experimentation" by "overturning the Don't Ask Don't Tell policy and forcing open homosexuality on the military," asking Santorum if he would "reverse" the repeal. Santorum said the repeal was "not in the best interest of our men and women in uniform" and pledged to restore Don't Ask Don't Tell, but added, "that doesn't mean that people who are gays and lesbians can't serve."
Rick Santorum’s campaign repeated the right-wing myth that the Obama administration refuses to prosecute “obscene” pornography. He announced his support of efforts by groups including the Family Research Council, Morality in Media, the American Family Association and Concerned Women for America to increase obscenity prosecutions, and lamented that the Justice Department “refused to enforce obscenity laws.”
For many decades, the American public has actively petitioned the United States Congress for laws prohibiting distribution of hard-core adult pornography.
Congress has responded. Current federal “obscenity” laws prohibit distribution of hardcore (obscene) pornography on the Internet, on cable/satellite TV, on hotel/motel TV, in retail shops and through the mail or by common carrier. Rick Santorum believes that federal obscenity laws should be vigorously enforced. “If elected President, I will appoint an Attorney General who will do so.”
The Obama Administration has turned a blind eye to those who wish to preserve our culture from the scourge of pornography and has refused to enforce obscenity laws. While the Obama Department of Justice seems to favor pornographers over children and families, that will change under a Santorum Administration.
I proudly support the efforts of the War on Illegal Pornography Coalition that has tirelessly fought to get federal obscenity laws enforced. That coalition is composed of 120 national, state, and local groups, including Morality in Media, Family Research Council, Focus on the Family, American Family Association, Cornerstone Family Council of New Hampshire, Pennsylvania Family Institute, Concerned Women for America, The Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, and a host of other groups. Together we will prevail.
However, the Department of Justice just this monthprosecuted an obscenity case in Los Angeles. Furthermore, the DOJ continuously prosecutes child pornography and exploitation cases. But for Santorum and his Religious Right allies, the evidence never seems to get in the way of their anti-Obama smears.
Family Research Council president Tony Perkins on Tuesday defended the Parents Action League, a Minnesota group that fiercely lobbied the Anoka-Hennepin school district against implementing anti-bullying policies they believe will make the kids targets of “homosexual propaganda” and result in them being “indoctrinated in homosexuality.” The Parents Action League, a division of the Minnesota Family Council, claims the school district has an “outstanding policy” regarding sexual orientation and gloats that they helped craft it. But the group has come under fire from legal organizations like the Southern Poverty Law Center and even the Justice Department after a string of teen suicides, so naturally Perkins is standing by the school district’s anti-gay activists:
Perkins: Out of Minnesota where the school board had adopted a neutral policy on homosexuality, where teachers couldn’t be for it or against it and there were a few suicides that took place, which is really kind of tragically a rash, there’s been a rash of suicides, actually it’s been almost growing for a number of years in high schools across the country. Well there may be some cases where these young people are bullied, which is wrong, shouldn’t happen. The Southern Poverty Law Center, teaming up with local homosexual groups, immediately claimed that all these were related to homosexual students being bullied, as it turned out it was not but the damage had already been done. The Southern Poverty Law Center came in threatening a law suit, then brought the Justice Department in—the federal government, going into a local school district—and then in the process a parents organization kind of grew up, the Parents Action League, which was defending the neutral policy, they weren’t against homosexuality, they weren’t for it, but they didn’t want their kids taught something that countered what they were taught at home. Well the Southern Poverty Law Center, an advocate in the process for homosexual special rights and special status for homosexuals, labeled the opposing group a hate group for trying to marginalize and stigmatize them in that local debate. Then the Justice Department went forward with consent decree which is onerous, we’ll get into that on Thursday, but it just shows how the other side wants to shut down the debate so they can have their way and push their radical agenda through.
However, as Rolling Stone reported, at least four of the students who committed suicide were bullied for being gay or perceived to be gay:
There was another common thread: Four of the nine dead were either gay or perceived as such by other kids, and were reportedly bullied. The tragedies come at a national moment when bullying is on everyone's lips, and a devastating number of gay teens across the country are in the news for killing themselves. Suicide rates among gay and lesbian kids are frighteningly high, with attempt rates four times that of their straight counterparts; studies show that one-third of all gay youth have attempted suicide at some point (versus 13 percent of hetero kids), and that internalized homophobia contributes to suicide risk.
The Southern Poverty Law Center and the National Center for Lesbian Rights have filed a lawsuit on behalf of five students, alleging the school district's policies on gays are not only discriminatory, but also foster an environment of unchecked anti-gay bullying. The Department of Justice has begun a civil rights investigation as well.
Stephanie Mencimer notes that along with the nine suicides, at least seven other students “have been hospitalized for attempting or threatening suicide.” She goes on to write:
There's no sure way of knowing why any of the kids took their own lives, but gay rights activists quickly honed in on one factor they saw as contributing to an unhealthy climate for at-risk kids. Anoka-Hennepin has a policy on the books known colloquially as "no homo promo," which dates in back to the mid-1990s. Back then, after several emotional school board meetings, the district essentially wiped gay people out of the school health curriculum. There could be no discussion of homosexuality, even with regard to HIV and AIDS, and the school board adopted a formal policy that stated school employees could not teach that homosexuality was a "normal, valid lifestyle."
Later the policy was changed to require school staff to remain neutral on issues of homosexuality if they should come up in class, a change that critics said fostered confusion among teachers and contributed to their inability to address bullying and harassment, or to even ask reasonable questions about some of the issues the kids were struggling with, like sexual orientation. Both policies were put into place at the behest of conservative religious activists who have been among Bachmann's biggest supporters in the district. They include the Minnesota Family Council (MFC), and its local affiliate, the Parents Action League, which has lobbied to put discredited "reparative therapy" materials in schools.
But Perkins tells a much different story.
First, he claims that the Southern Poverty Law Center “immediately claimed that all these were related to homosexual students being bullied,” adding, “as it turned out it was not.” However, the SPLC never claimed that all of the suicides were by “homosexual students,” but did argue that anti-gay bullying was “at least in part the result of a gag policy that prevented teachers from discussing issues related to lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender (LGBT) people.” Perkins also claimed that the Parents Action League emerged as a result of the SPLC lawsuit, which isn’t true as PAL has been active in the school district for years prior to the SPLC’s involvement. He even claimed that PAL’s members “weren’t against homosexuality,” which is difficult to believe since the organization wants schools to teach reparative therapy, warned that gays and lesbians have “targeted” students and called homosexuality “one of the most hazardous behaviors that kids could get into.”
But of course, no one should be surprised that Perkins twists the facts in order to promote his anti-gay views, and after misrepresenting the controversy he attacked the SPLC for advocating “special status for homosexuals” and pushing a “radical agenda.”
In 1972, the Supreme Court decided Eisenstadt v. Baird, striking down a Massachusetts law prohibiting the distribution of contraceptives to unmarried people.
Next week, the Family Research Council will host a discussion explaining how this decision, which "sanctioned unmarried non-procreative sexual intimacy," set the stage for the Obama Administration's contraception mandate and marriage equality:
On March 22nd, 1972, the Supreme Court undermined the boundaries and benefits of marriage. In the decision Eisenstadt v. Baird, the Court struck down a Massachusetts law prohibiting the distribution of contraceptives to unmarried people, and implicitly sanctioned unmarried non-procreative sexual intimacy.
While the decision may seem archaic and insignificant by modern sexual standards, Eisenstadt v. Baird dealt a decisive blow to the legal and cultural norm that marriage was the institution for the full expression of the sexual relationship between man and woman. The decision and its legal consequences affect us today. Forty years ago, the Court ruled that unmarried couples could not be denied their birth control. Today, the Federal government is forcing us to share the cost, for said contraception and some states are giving marital status to homosexual relationships.
Manyconservativeswentcompletelyballistic after Secretary of State Hillary Clinton delivered a powerful speech to the United Nations with the message that “gay rights are human rights and human rights are gay rights” and launching an initiative to promote LGBT rights abroad. On Friday’s edition of Washington Watch Weekly, Family Research Council president Tony Perkins claimed that Clinton’s denunciation of violence and discrimination against the LGBT community represented a “radical social agenda” promoting “special rights for homosexuals and homosexuality.” He went on to falselyclaim that the State Department is “completely silent” on the “persecution of Christians,” while trying to use the United Nations to impose gay rights on America.
Perkins: This administration, in particular Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, is taking, pushing, using our tax dollars to push a radical social agenda, primarily focused on special rights for homosexuals and homosexuality into other countries and then bringing it back to the UN to adopt certain policies which would then be imposed upon America.
We are seeing unprecedented discrimination around the world, not discrimination but persecution of Christians and the Church and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has been almost silent on that issue. Now we see where there focus is, it’s on pushing this radical, social agenda through the UN and in the meantime they are completely silent on even what Newsweek identified as a global war on Christianity. Folks again, this is the result of this administration pushing their radical policy, it’s going to the UN and now they’re going to appeal to what the UN sets as a standard. You got to watch this administration.
Earlier this week MSNBC refused to air Faithful America’s advertisement urging MSNBC to stop hosting Family Research Council president Tony Perkins over his erroneous and hateful remarks about the LGBT community. You can watch the ad here:
Yesterday on Today’s Issues with American Family Association president Tim Wildmon, Perkins called Faithful America a “loudmouth, Soros-funded group” and attacked Bishop Eugene Robinson, the Episcopal Bishop of New Hampshire who along with other Christian leaders delivered 20,000 signatures to MSNBC urging the network to drop Perkins, whom Perkins said “split the Episcopal Church because he’s openly gay and wanted to marry his lover or whatever you call it.” Perkins argued that Faithful America is “afraid of the truth” and wants to “silence Christians,” saying that while on MSNBC it usually has “nothing to do with homosexuality.”
Wildmon: There’s something about, I didn’t read the whole story, something about you appearing on some news show the other night and now the homosexual activist groups want you banned for life or something, I don’t know.
Perkins: Well what’s new about that? They are afraid of the truth and they are probably listening because I know they like to monitor this program and that’s what it is, they are afraid of the truth. They do not want to have open debates, they know the facts simply do not line up, and so instead of publicly showing up and debating or putting their ideas out there on the table they simply want to silence Christians, that’s what it’s about.
Perkins: You might remember the Episcopal Bishop Eugene Robinson who split the Episcopal Church because he’s openly gay and wanted to marry his lover or whatever you call it, and he gathered 20,000 signatures and presented them to MSNBC demanding that they keep me off of MSNBC because you know I’m on there you know talking about politics or whatever and usually it’s nothing to do with homosexuality, they just don’t want anybody who does have views that are counter to theirs.
Wildmon: I’ll tell you what, you’re in good company, the other day Kirk Cameron went on Piers Morgan on CNN, and man, Piers Morgan asked him a question about homosexuality, he said it was ‘unnatural,’ he just got torched.
Perkins: I talked to Kirk, I talked to him yesterday actually I was actually interestingly enough I was coming out of MSNBC where I was on yesterday with Martin Bashir, and I would actually encourage folks to go watch that interview that I did with him—they have it on their homepage; at least they did this morning on MSNBC—and thank them for allowing a balanced discussion. Obviously Martin did not agree with me but we had a very civil discussion on the issues and I tell you what I have to respect MSNBC for allowing debate and not buckling under the pressure of a loudmouth, Soros-funded group that is simply trying to silence the public debate over important public policy issues, so I will have to come to the defense of MSNBC for not buckling under that pressure.
Reacting to an attempt to put marriage equality for gays and lesbians in the Democratic Party platform at the nominating convention in September, Family Research Council president Tony Perkins told the Christian Post that not only do most Americans oppose legalizing same-sex marriage but so do the “majority” of Democrats:
Tony Perkins, who heads up the Family Research Council, meanwhile, says Democrats are only trying to distract the voters and that traditional marriage still has plenty of support, even among many moderate to conservative Democrats.
"The media will do what it can to persuade people that conservatives are losing momentum. Don't believe it," Perkins wrote in an article that he sent to The Christian Post.
"Some legislators can be bought, but the American people cannot. The majority of the country [Democrats, Republicans and Independents] are still firmly planted in the camp of man-woman marriage. As the old proverb says, 'The road to success is dotted with many tempting parking places.' Keep your foot on the accelerator and meet the perceptions with persistence."
His claim contradicts a NBC/Wall Street Journal poll released this month finding that just 40 percent of Americans oppose marriage equality. Perkins’ statement also flies in the face of polls that examine differences in political parties.
A CNN poll from April of last year found that a whopping 64 percent of Democrats favor legalizing same-sex marriage, a number that has surely grown as support for marriage equality accelerates. In fact, 55 percent of independents also back marriage equality. While only a minority of Republicans favors marriage equality, a Public Policy Polling survey found that “only 48% believe there should be no legal rights for gay couples at all” and the majority favor either legalizing same-sex marriage or civil unions.
With these sorts of numbers, it looks like Perkins will only be able to cite the much-mocked poll from the right-wing Alliance Defense Fund finding that 62% of Americans oppose marriage equality.
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.
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.
After a Maryland school district decided to reconsider its flyer policy after the “ex-gay” group PFOX distributed material promoting the discredited and dangerous reparative therapy, Family Research Council senior fellow and PFOX board member Peter Sprigg responded with a furious op-ed in the Washington Times and an appearance on Today’s Issues with FRC president Tony Perkins. During the interview, Perkins said that “the homosexual community” is trying to stop children from getting “the options or the help that’s available for them if they’re struggling with [sexuality] issues” by opposing the distribution of ex-gay material, and lamented that “government officials [are] increasingly becoming really patsies for the homosexual activists.” Sprigg said that unless the ex-gay “message gets out in the schools,” then more and more confused kids who “would end up being perfectly heterosexual” would be “told by their teachers and guidance counselors, ‘well you are probably gay.’”
Perkins: When you look across the board in different incidences where the homosexual community is involved, they simply want to shut down any discussion, they don’t want children to be aware of the options or the help that’s available for them if they’re struggling with these issues, and now you see government officials increasingly becoming really patsies for the homosexual activists.
Sprigg: Right. It’s especially important that this message gets out in the schools because it’s normal for young people, adolescents to experience some confusion about their sexual identity. An important statistic that I read once was that there’s a survey done of 12 year olds that found at age 12, 25 percent of the students were unsure of their sexual orientation. But we know from surveys of the adult population that only maybe 2 to 3 percent of the adult population will actually identify as homosexual or bisexual. So you have this population of young people that left to themselves, 9 out of 10 would end up being perfectly heterosexual, but now with the politically correct environment in the schools, those kids are being told by their teachers and guidance counselors, “well you are probably gay, you were born that way, you just have to accept it and embrace it.”
Yesterday on Today’s Issues, Family Research Council president Tony Perkins and American Family Association head Tim Wildmon hosted New York City Councilman Fernando Cabrera to discuss the city’s decision to prohibit church groups from using public school buildings, which was recently overturned by a federal judge. During the interview, Cabrera attacked gay rights advocates for supposedly siding with the city government, to which Perkins replied that “homosexual groups” want “to silence the church. They want the church to go away because they don’t want that moral voice in the community.” Cabrera even claimed that gay rights supporters “want to censor language and speech”:
In another part of the program, Perkins said that while President Obama apologized for the burning of Qurans in Afghanistan his administration “is silent when Christianity is attacked in this country.” Later, Wildmon said that “Islam is not a religion of peace. That is not true.” Wildmon lamented, “President Obama on this issue, you’d at least like him to speak out on the violence committed against Christians around the world, but you don’t hear anything about that.”
However, last May President Obama defended the rights and freedoms of Christians in Egypt in a speech about the political crisis in the Middle East and earlier this week the State Department released a statement condemning Iran for giving him a death sentence because of his refusal to recant his conversion to Christianity. In fact, the State Department’s International Religious Freedom Report documents and denounces the persecution of Christians in countries such as Afghanistan, Egypt, Iran, Iraq and Pakistan.
However, FRC and allies like the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, have an odd of understanding of freedom. It’s really just the freedom for everyone to live according to their religion, and only a very narrow interpretation at that. Monahan, who holds a master’s degree in theology of marriage and family from the Pope John Paul II Institute for Studies on Marriage and Family, is no exception.
In 1928, as a young and innocent teenager, Minka Disbrow lived in South Dakota and worked on a dairy farm. One day while enjoying a picnic, Minka and a friend were jumped by three men and raped. Innocent to the degree that she didn’t comprehend how babies were created, months later the 17-year-old Minka was confused and surprised to find her body changing and growing. Her parents soon found an adoption agency. […]
In a similar story, Ryan Bomberger, of the Radiance Foundation was conceived in an act rape. Like Minka, Ryan’s mother chose to carry her child to term. Ryan now dedicates his life to promoting and protecting the dignity of every person. For a recent lecture by Ryan on the hope and joy of adoption click here.
All can agree that rape is a horrific act of violence that no one should ever undergo. But abortion after a rape robs an innocent victim of a very beautiful life.
While it’s incredible that Monahan would suggest that Minka Disbrow “chose to carry her child to term,” given the description she provided, the bigger issue is that she would force a woman to give birth to her rapist’s child.
In a column from last November, Monahan spoke out against providing the full range of medical care to female victims of human trafficking. Her overriding concern was that women who had become pregnant after being raped might choose abortion (emphasis mine):
Evidence exists that shows women who seek an abortion after rape add to their suffering: they now struggle with the coupled pain of the rape and the abortion; the abortion can become what some have termed “a second rape.”
Additionally, a recent peer-reviewed meta-analysis published in the British Journal of Psychiatry revealed that women who choose abortion have a significant increase in mental health problems including depression, anxiety and suicidal behaviors. A situation where a woman is trafficked and becomes pregnant is extremely difficult, but such women deserve loving and honest care and attention, and abortion is not part of that.
Monahan’s writing makes it plainly clear that she is far less concerned about helping women and defending human dignity than she is with forcing all of us – women in particular – to live by the narrow religious views of herself and her employer. That’s what they really mean when they talk about religious freedom.
UPDATE: Here's a recent video of Monahan, who is testifying now, on her views on reproductive rights:
The latest direct mail letter from the Family Research Council’s Tony Perkins is an extended attack on the Commitment Campaign, a project launched last November by Third Way to bring a bipartisan message focused on committed couples to the hearts-and-minds campaign for marriage equality. Perkins suggests that not giving money to FRC, a Southern Poverty Law Center-designated hate group, is “a form of hate.”
FRC’s fundraising campaign against “fake marriage” includes a video that recycles lies about the impact of marriage equality – that schools will be forced to teach kids how to have gay sex, that pastors will be silenced, etc. – and also includes a twist on the now-standard Religious Right claim that anti-gay efforts are not about hate, but love for those “trapped in homosexuality.”
“Silence about the documented harm this lifestyle does is not loving,” says Perkins, “Such silence is, in fact, a form of hate.”
“So,” writes Perkins, “I’m asking you to say ‘No’ to silence [i.e. hate] and ‘Yes’ to speaking the truth in love at a decisive moment in America’s history…a moment when faith family and freedom are at stake.”
What he wants is a "generous financial gift." You wouldn't want to be a hater, would you?
Fresh after questioning President Obama’s Christian faith, Franklin Graham spoke to Family Research Council president Tony Perkins on American Family Radio’s Today’s Issues, where he said that Christians would be “compromising” their faith if they voted for Obama. He attacked Obama over his support for legal abortion and said that Obama also favors legalizing same-sex marriage, a position which the President has actually not taken, warning that “same-sex marriage is unraveling the institution of marriage that God gave, it is against the Bible, it is against Holy Scripture, it is against God’s instruction, and so I cannot support any candidate” who supports it. He went on to argue that the Obama administration’s policies “are undermining the churches,” “undermining our faith,” and are “going to undermine the United States of America.”
Perkins may not have been the best person to talk to if Graham is trying to distance himself from his previous comments, as the Family Research Council president accused the Obama administration of having a “disdain for Christianity” and said any Christian who voted for Obama must “repent.”
I’m asked if the President is a Christian, I don’t know I mean he says he is so I guess he is and that’s what he says, but at the same time Tony there are the policies of the President and the administration that go against God’s teaching. Of course, that’s abortion. The Bible is very clear on this, I cannot support the President or vote for him because of his support for abortion and same-sex marriage. To me, same-sex marriage is unraveling the institution of marriage that God gave, it is against the Bible, it is against Holy Scripture, it is against God’s instruction, and so I cannot support any candidate and it has nothing to do with being a Republican or a Democrat, if a Republican takes these positions I’m not going to vote for them.
The moral issues to me are so important as a Christian, for a candidate to actually oppose God’s standard and then to vote for that person, you are compromising, you are joining in with them. So for me, I just have to draw the line in the sand, I’m not going to support a candidate that supports abortion and same-sex marriage, I will not do it. Unfortunately, you know the President is a nice guy, but I cannot vote for him because of these issues that go against God’s law and against His standard.
Tony, I’m a grandfather, I’ve got grandchildren, and I’m looking now at the world that they are going to inherit, the world they are going to live in. I shudder when I think of the changes that are taking place right now, churches and pastors are not speaking out, and I just hope that pastors will speak the truth, God’s word, and how these policies that are being administered right now how they are undermining the churches, how they are undermining our faith, and how it’s going to undermine the United States of America.
Family Research Council senior fellow Robert Morrison yesterday chided former Vice President Dick Cheney for his support of marriage equality, particularly his role in garnering Republican support for the bill in Maryland. Morrison bragged that he didn’t respond to media inquiries at the 2000 GOP convention in Philadelphia to goad him into criticize Cheney, even though FRC president Tony Perkins attacked the Cheney family after Mary had a child with her partner. He also said that just because Cheney has an openly gay daughter, that is no reason he should support equal rights for gays and lesbians. He even called on Cheney to follow in the footsteps of Ben Franklin, who supported the American Revolution even though his son was a prominent loyalist who fled to Great Britain after the war. “In this great cultural clash,” Morrison lamented, “Dick Cheney has enlisted with the forces of dissolution”:
Consider this thought experiment. Twin brothers announced on a TV talk show that they were gay. Under the laws proposed, can they marry? If not, why not? They’ve certainly had a “committed relationship” since before they were born. What constitutional principle could you invoke to say these twins cannot marry each other? And if these twin brothers may marry, why not a twin brother and sister?
Dick Cheney probably never met Mae West. For younger readers unfamiliar with one of Hollywood’s original blond bombshells, I’ll simply say: sailors in World War II called their large life jackets Mae Wests. (This is a family blog, after all.)
Mae West famously said: “Marriage is a great institution, but I’m not ready for an institution.” How strange that Mae West had a better understanding of civil marriage than a former Vice President of the United States, a man who was twice elected to national office by pro-family voters.
In 2000, Dick Cheney might have considered Philadelphia’s most famous son, Benjamin Franklin. Franklin’s own son was the royal Governor of New Jersey. It was a patronage job Ben had secured for him. When his son remained loyal to the Crown, Benjamin Franklin did not refuse to sign the Declaration of Independence citing a “personal situation.” That’s one of the many reasons why we remember Ben Franklin with admiration and respect.
Dick Cheney is said to be worth hundreds of millions. His family may not suffer the devastation that comes from the breakdown of marriage. But in his recent book, Coming Apart, Charles Murray shows how the loss of marriage for the white working class in America has already had catastrophic consequences. If we seek the reason behind the great disparities in wealth that the Occupy crowd is howling about, we need look no further than the collapse of marriage. In this great cultural clash, Dick Cheney has enlisted with the forces of dissolution.
Family Research Council president Tony Perkins today appeared on the American Family Association’s Financial Issues with Dan Celia, where he said that President Obama’s eventual Republican opponent must try to “dial back the decay” in the culture. Perkins, who has claimed in the past that Obama has a “disdain for Christianity” and demanded Christian supporters of the president “repent,” said that the administration has pushed “anti-family, anti-religious, anti-Christian policies,” most notably the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, which overturned the military’s ban on openly gay service members.
Perkins said Obama is “forcing open homosexuality on the military” which he said would lead to “not only cultural impacts upon this nation but from a national security standpoint it’s going to undermine our military.” While military leaders, including the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, endorsed the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, Perkins claimed that they actually opposed the repeal. Maybe Perkins was confusing real military leaders with himself, who said that the elected officials who voted to repeal the policy would have blood on their hands.
Perkins: When we look historically at what has happened in elections we see that like in this administration where the push of anti-family, anti-religious, anti-Christian policies from this administration, and I know people are criticized for saying that, but the evidence is there. Historically what happens is when the Republicans are elected on the heels of an administration like this we see them babysitting the decline and not going back and retaking territory that has been lost in the culture.
For instance, let me talk about very solid issues here, the issue of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, forcing open homosexuality on the military, that is going to have very significant not only cultural impacts upon this nation but from a national security standpoint it’s going to undermine our military. That’s what the military leaders testified before Congress, that didn’t matter to Congress, they were pushing this through in the wee hours of the lame duck session of Congress. I guarantee you, normally, the Republicans when they’re re-elected, if they were to recapture the White House, they wouldn’t touch that, they would just say ‘we wouldn’t advance that anymore.’ I’m telling you we’re at a point where we got to dial back the decay, we’ve got have somebody that’s bold enough to come in and undo some of these radical policies from this administration.
Family Research Council vice president Rob Schwarzwalder yesterday called for a boycott of Starbucks and warned that the company may be endangering the country’s economic health by supporting marriage equality in Washington. “By supporting a movement that would further vitiate the already weakened family unit,” Schwarzwalder writes, “[Starbucks CEO Howard] Schultz is tacitly but actively advocating the continued erosion of the institution – the two-parent, heterosexual, traditional and complementary family unit – without which no economy or society generally can thrive.”
It’s difficult to see how ensuring that gays and lesbians have the right to marry would “vitiate the already weakened family unit” and consequently damage the economy, as studies show that marriage equality is actually aboontotheeconomy. Researchers have also found the legalizing same-sex marriage doesnotimpact the divorce rate of married opposite-sex couples. But according to Schwarzwalder, marriage equality has “dangerous implications for individuals, families, and culture.”
My home state of Washington has produced some of America’s leading corporations and entrepreneurs: Microsoft and Bill Gates; the Nordstrom, Boeing and Weyerhaeuser families and their eponymously named companies; the Eddie Bauer sporting goods empire; and the nearly omnipresent Starbucks (almost 11,000 stores worldwide). Starbucks emerged in the 1970s at Seattle’s Pike Place Market. One of my sisters bought me a bag of cocoa powder from this location more than three decades ago; if I still had it, it likely would fetch a nice collector’s price.
For many years, I’ve enjoyed going to Starbucks, becoming acquainted with any number of “baristas” and drinking enough of its variously flavored beverages that “grande” characterizes my waistline as much as the size of a given drink. Even when traveling in the Middle East, the taste of a frappuccino has been a welcome reminder that one can go home again. And I’ve always been glad to go into a place that, in some ways, still reminds me of home (there’s a reason Starbucks’ interiors usually are muted; it’s a Pacific Northwest thing).
With Microsoft and several other major firms, Starbucks last month endorsed the effort of some of the Evergreen State’s leading politicians to enact homosexual “marriage.” Although this initiative passed in the state legislature and was signed into law by departing Gov. Christine Gregoire, it likely will be on the state ballot in November.
What is a bit maddening, given Starbucks’ strident advocacy for the redefinition of marriage, is CEO Howard Schultz’s claim that he is non-political. As he said just a few days ago, ”I have no interest in public office … I have only one interest, and that is I want the country to be on the right track.”
To Schultz’s credit, he authored a pledge, now signed by a fairly large group of CEOs, in which they promise, “I join my fellow concerned Americans in pledging to withhold any further campaign contributions to elected members of Congress and the President until a fair, bipartisan deal is reached that sets our nation on stronger long-term fiscal footing.”
This is admirable, and no doubt motivated by a patriotic desire to see the U.S. once again become the engine of economic growth that, for so many decades, it has been. Yet the key to a strong economy is a strong family – a family composed of a father, a mother, and children. The hard data prove it. By supporting a movement that would further vitiate the already weakened family unit, Schultz is tacitly but actively advocating the continued erosion of the institution – the two-parent, heterosexual, traditional and complementary family unit – without which no economy or society generally can thrive.
Additionally, Schultz’s decrying of divisiveness rings a bit hollow when he plunges his company feet-first into the culture wars. The effort to redefine marriage to include same-sex partners is a radical social innovation, one fraught with dangerous implications for individuals, families, and culture. Claiming to be post-political and then allowing one’s chief corporate spokesperson to say that same-sex “marriage” is “is core to who we are and what we value as a company” are assertions that don’t quite add up.
Whenever we see the Religious Right collectively begin to cite some new tale of government overreach and/or Christian persecution at some public school, the name "Raymond Raines" comes to mind.
As we've explained before, back in the 1990's, Newt Gingrich, Rush Limbaugh, Pat Robertson and the entire conservative community were outraged about an incident in which a student named Raymond Raines had supposedly been sentenced to a week of detention for simply praying before eating his lunch in the cafeteria of an elementary school in St. Loius.
Of course, it was entirely untrue, as Raines had actually been disciplined for fighting.
So now, whenever we start seeing Religious Right groups cite a story like this one out of North Carolina about a four year-old preschool student who supposedly had her homemade lunch confiscated by a Department of Health and Human Services employee for not being healthy enough and was forced to eat school-approved chicken nuggets instead ... well, we get a little suspicious.
So far, the story has been promoted by the Eagle Forum and the Family Research Council, which sees it as proof that "the Left's goal is not just to control you. The goal is to control your children. And the more authority it can siphon away from parents, the better its chances are."
Gary Bauer also featured it in his daily email, declaring "welcome to Obama's brave new world. If the government can force us to buy specific products, force religious institutions to violate their values and send lunchbox inspectors to sort through our kids' food, Chinese-style 'commissars' are in our future."
School and state officials say a misunderstanding resulted in a West Hoke Elementary School preschooler's homemade lunch being replaced with chicken nuggets.
An agent from the Department of Health and Human Services' Division of Child Development and Early Education was at the school Jan. 30 assessing the pre-kindergarten program, said Bob Barnes, assistant superintendent of curriculum and instruction for Hoke County schools.
The agent examined the lunches for the six students in the class and believed one did not meet nutritional requirements spelled out by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Barnes said.
According to the USDA, schools are required to provide lunches that include one serving of meat, one serving of milk, one serving of grain and two servings of fruit or vegetables, even if the lunches are brought from home.
The 4-year-old, whose name was not released, brought a turkey and cheese sandwich, a banana, potato chips and apple juice.
The Department of Health and Human Services declined to say which requirement was not provided in the child's lunch.
The girl thought she had to go through the lunch line for a new meal, Barnes said.
The Department of Health and Human Services said in a statement that it is investigating. In the statement, the department denies that its employee inspected the lunch and denies instructing "any child to replace or remove any meal items."
Typically, if a teacher sees a student with a lunch that does not meet the nutritional requirements, he or she will offer the child the missing components free of charge, Barnes said.
In this instance, Barnes said, the girl misunderstood her instructor and believed she had to get a new lunch rather than receive an additional element.
Rule of thumb: The amount of outrage being generated among the Religious Right to any given story is generally inversely proportional to the truth of said story.
To say that the Religious Right is apoplectic about the Obama administration's contraception mandate would be a bit of an understatement. It has seemingly been all that they have been capable of talking about for the last week and that trend continued today as Tim Wildom and Tony Perkins hosted Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.J.) on this morning's edition of "Today's Issues."
Wildmon and Smith wondered how HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, or anyone other politician for that matter, could consider themselves to be Catholic if they support reproductive rights, while Perkins wondered how anyone who did so could even consider themselves to be a Christian.
The discussion eventually turned to President Obama and his citation of scripture in support of his political views, which Smith claimed was all part of a long-term effort by population control proponents to undermine Christianity by using Scriputure to promote evil, which prompted Perkins to responded by claiming that it is "the Left" that is out to create a theocracy:
Among theguests on the Family Research Council's anti-contraception coverage webcast held last week was Walker Nickless, the Bishop of the Diocese of Sioux City, who warned that the contraception mandate was literally a plot by the Devil to undermine morality and that Christians "have to stand up and violently oppose this" in order to avoid being overtaken by Darkness: