The CEO of Overstock.com has millions of dollars in gold and silver hidden away in case the financial system collapses, which seem entirely predictable for someone who is one of Glenn Beck's close friends and a main advertiser on his network.
Saying that the government should have stayed out of the Terri Schiavo case is probably not going to win Ben Carson much support among the Religious Right.
Deacon Keith Fournier is outraged that the Associated Press "defamed" Liberty Counsel's Mat Staver by daring to report that he is the head of an anti-gay hate group.
John Lomperis of The Institute on Religion and Democracy is disturbed that a gay couple received a standing ovation from congregants of First United Methodist Church of Austin after announcing their intention to marry.
Finally, Gordon Klingenschmitt claims that his superiors in the Navy conspired against him just "like Pontius Pilate conspiring with the Pharisees to crucify this young prophet."
Laurie Higgins hails Kim Davis: "Her action has exposed the alienating actions and hostility of those in and out of government who are hell-bent on subordinating First Amendment protections to the pagan sexual revolution that, like the 'corpse flower,' is coming into full fetid bloom."
Deacon Keith Fournier hopes that the Davis saga will lead to a "Christian revolution."
The Kentucky state lawmaker who put Davis in touch with Mat Staver "doesn’t believe Liberty Counsel would advise Davis to fight a battle she is likely to lose simply to advance its own causes or interests." That is literally laughable.
Linda Harvey says that gay marriage is not based on "real love": "This is not authentic love. Real love does not relish and exalt sin, as we know from scripture. Real love rejoices in the truth."
Finally, Todd Starnes and Erick Stakelbeck will host a panel discussion next week on "The 3 Biggest Challenges Facing Christianity: The Rise of Radical Islam, Militant Atheism and Intolerant Homosexuality."
Religious Right activists claimed that they were shocked and stunned this week when a federal judge held Kentucky clerk Kim Davis in contempt of court after she repeatedly refused court orders to allow her office to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, even after losing her appeal to the Supreme Court.
While the Religious Right has been outraged, many legal observers have wondered how anyone could be surprised that a judge would actually hold Davis accountable for blatantly violating the law. Some have even questioned whether Davis' lawyers at the conservative legal group Liberty Counsel are giving her bad advice and urging her to break the law in order to turn her case into a fundraising bonanza. As one retired judge told Louisville's Courier Journal, “I think you have an ethical responsibility to tell your client she doesn’t have a legitimate cause of action.”
Of course, Liberty Counsel founder Mat Staver has been urging public officials to defy the Supreme Court since even before the court issued its landmark marriage equality decision. The group acknowledged that the marriage equality ruling would “expose Davis to potential liability if she refuses to compromise her religious beliefs and violate her conscience.”
Davis, who identifies as a born-again Christian, doesn’t seem ignorant at all of the fact that she is breaking the law. In fact, she attempted to convince lawmakers to change Kentucky’s laws on marriage licenses in order to suit her demands. When that didn’t happen, Davis went ahead and ordered officials in her county not to issue any marriage licenses to any couples, citing “God’s authority.” According to Davis, “if I left, resigned or chose to retire” from the county clerk position, “I would have no voice for God’s word.”
Davis and her supporters are instead tried to use bizarre legal arguments to back up her case:
1)God’s law trumps U.S. law
Rena Lindevaldsen, a Liberty Counsel attorney, offered insights into the group’s legal thinking when she delivered a lecture to the Liberty University School of Law, which named Lindevaldsen its interim dean after Staver decided to dedicate more time to his work at Liberty Counsel.
Lindevaldsen told students in a speech titled “Do Government Officials Have Authority to Impose Their Morals on Others?” that any law that is not “consistent with Scripture” — or, more accurately, their interpretation of Scripture — is no law at all, and therefore, officials are obligated to break such laws since “civil government only has the authority that God has established.”
With this reasoning, Liberty Counsel thinks that officials can impose their morals on others as long as they are acting according to their understanding of the Bible, and therefore don’t need to respect the legalization of same-sex marriage because its unbiblical.
“Whether it’s zoning or taxes or marriage or abortion, in those issues, government doesn’t have authority to say that these things are appropriate because they’re contrary to Scripture,” Lindevaldsen said.
2) Davis was elected before Obergefell, so she’s exempt
In one positively bizarre defense of Davis, Religious Right activist Keith Fournier said that Davis’ oath to uphold the laws only requires her to uphold the laws that were in effect before January 2015, when she was sworn into office.
Some contend that that because Kim Davis works for “the government” she must comply by issuing the license with her name on it. In other words, she loses her right to religious liberty because she has a public position. This fails to consider the crucial fact that when she was elected to her post as the Rowan County Clerk, marriage under Kentucky law was solely between one man and one woman. That was the law she swore to uphold. Then the five oracles of the Supreme Court issued their edict in Obergefell v Hodges, with no basis in the Constitution, past precedent, common sense or the Natural Law.
If this was the case, then anyone who was elected to office before the Loving v. Virginia decision, which struck down state bans on interracial marriage, would then be able to refuse to issue marriage licenses to such couples. Likewise, officials who took office Brown v. Board of Education would be allowed to block the integration of schools.
The injunction operates not against Davis personally, but against the holder of her office of Rowan County Clerk. In light of the binding holding of Obergefell, it cannot be defensibly argued that the holder of the Rowan County Clerk’s office, apart from who personally occupies that office, may decline to act in conformity with the United States Constitution as interpreted by a dispositive holding of the United States Supreme Court.
3)Davis is the only clerk obeying the law
Mike Huckabee has been making the case that Davis is the only clerk upholding the law and that it is actually the vast majority of clerks who are issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples who are the ones breaking the law.
As Huckabee said on MSNBC yesterday, marriage equality can only be legal in Kentucky if the legislature passes a same-sex marriage bill that the governor signs into law, adding that the Supreme Court’s Obergefell decision is invalid because the court “cannot overrule the laws of nature and the laws of nature’s God.”
When host Joe Scarborough said that Southern states still had to desegregate their schools after the Supreme Court ruled in Brown, despite the fact that the states still had segregationist laws on the books, Huckabee insisted that “you have to have enabling legislation.”
“The Supreme Court cannot and did not make a law,” the Republican presidential candidate said in a statement. “They only made a ruling on a law. Congress makes the laws. Because Congress has made no law allowing for same sex marriage, Kim does not have the constitutional authority to issue a marriage license to homosexual couples.”
Before Obergefell was decided, Staver insisted that a state “does not have to obey” a Supreme Court ruling in favor of marriage equality because it would be “so far removed from the Constitution” that it would cause one to ask if the justices have “literally lost their mind.”
Pat Robertson made the same claim, saying that Davis and others are “not obligated” to follow Obergefell.
4)Gays can just drive to another county
Davis and her lawyers argue that all 20,000 Rowan County residents must accommodate Davis’ personal religious views — views that she ordered all deputy clerks to follow — by driving to another county if they want to access government services.
“You drive 30 minutes in any direction in Kentucky and get a marriage license,” Staver said. “You don’t have to force Kim Davis herself to issue the license.”
And what if officials in the neighboring counties join Davis and the other handful of clerks who are refusing to issue marriage licenses? Staver doesn’t seem to know, as he would likely to defend such clerks as well, insisting that it is more reasonable to let one official disregard the law than to allow taxpayers to receive access to taxpayer-funded services.
5)Anti-religious test for office
While Davis may have exhausted her appeals in the case where couples challenged her refusal to issue them licenses, Liberty Counsel has tried to throw a Hail Mary by filing a lawsuit against Kentukcy's governor, alleging that enforcing the Obergefell is actually unconstitutional since it would “impose a religious test as a qualification to hold the office of county clerk.” The group even argued, like Fournier, that issuing marriage licenses would violate Davis' oath and represent anti-Christian discrimination:
19. Before taking office as County Clerk in January 2015, Davis swore an oath to support the constitutions and laws of the United States and the Commonwealth of Kentucky “so help me God.” Davis understood (and understands) this oath to mean that, in upholding the federal and state constitutions and laws, she would not act in contradiction to the moral law of God, natural law, or her sincerely held religious beliefs and convictions. Davis also understood (and understands) the constitution and laws she swore to uphold to incorporate the constitutional and other legal protections of all individuals’ rights to live and work according to their consciences, as informed by their sincerely held religious beliefs and convictions, including without limitation such rights she holds in her own individual capacity.
20. Davis’s sincerely held religious belief regarding the definition of “marriage” was perfectly aligned with the prevailing marriage policy in Kentucky at the time she took office, as provided in the Kentucky Constitution, Kentucky statutes, and controlling court decisions, and as effected by the Commonwealth through Governor Beshear and Commissioner Onkst.
38. Governor Beshear’s targeted and discriminatory marriage policy pronouncements constitute government-imposed pressure on Davis to act contrary to her religious beliefs, and expose Davis to potential liability if she refuses to compromise her religious beliefs and violate her conscience.
But the Rowan County office is not Kim Davis’ church or her “business,” as she once referred to it. Davis does not have to offer her personal support or approval to same-sex marriage; in fact, she and her church can remain dutifully opposed to such unions, but she cannot stop the government, which has legalized gay marriage, and county clerk deputies from performing job functions just because she has a personal disagreement.
After Fournier warned that gay marriage is ushering in anti-Christian discrimination and countless harms to society, Penny Starr of CNS News, a right-wing outlet, asked the panelists how people should speak to their children about seeing gay couples holding hands “out in the public.”
King responded that “little children are often confused” because they know in their hearts that homosexuality isn’t right, but schools are pushing LGBT-inclusive curricula in schools: “It is not healthy and there are many studies, there are probably more studies saying that prove that it is not healthy for the children than there are that say it is okay, but the media will promote the ones that say it is okay but won’t let you see the ones that tell the truth. I personally could really testify about children being harmed and very confused.”
“You can say it until you are blue in the face that this is all going to be great, we’re all going to be free and liberated,” Fournier insisted. “We’re not. It’s going to lead to disaster, ultimately.”
Fournier also predicted that Christians in America will soon, just like the early Christians who lived during the Roman Empire, face persecution and be treated as “enemies of the state.”
The Iowa Religious Right group the Family Leader will not be asking GOP presidential candidates to sign its "Marriage Vow" pledge this time around, as it did in 2012.
Apparently, the American Family Association needs money so that it can begin broadcasting its right-wing radio programs in Washington, D.C.
Keith Fournier, Alveda King and Ken Blackwell will be participating next month in a Family Research Council event entitled "Marriage and Civil Rights: How to Respond Rightly If the Court Gets It Wrong."
Get ready, because June 6 is "The Pill Kills Truth National Day of Action."
Steve Deace is furious with "the GOP establishment [which] fought harder and dirtier last year to keep an aging and largely disorientated liberal adulterer in the U.S. Senate, than they fought to get Obama out of the White House in 2012."
Finally, Larry Tomczak warns that array of catastrophes could be right around the corner, including "devastating economic collapse; horrific drought, gas and food shortages; Middle East war; a series of coordinated Islamic terrorist attacks; outbreak of new AIDS-like virus; racial riots erupting nationwide; multiple massive earthquakes, EMP (Electromagnetic Pulse) Internet-crippling attack; assassinations and political chaos."
Right-wing Catholic leaders are not happy that Ireland overwhelmingly voted to legalize gay marriage last week, with Deacon Keith Fournier declaring that "when an entire country freely chooses to reject both the laws of nature and of nature’s God, there will be consequences" and Father Shenan J. Boquet of Human Life International warning that "there is no sustainable peace for those who reject God’s law, and the effect on the traditionally Catholic nation of Ireland will be severe."
When Rick Perry makes his presidential announcement, he'll be surrounded by a gaggle of high profile Navy SEALS.
An interesting battle is shaping up between the NRA and right-wing pastors in North Carolina who support the state's ban on hunting on Sundays.
Matt Barber tells parents that they have been warned that gay Boy Scout leaders will molest their children: "If you leave your children in the Boy or Girls Scouts of America, anything that might happen is on your head."
Peter LaBarbera has now set his sights on The Leather Archives & Museum: "It glorifies the most heinous perversions, including pedophilia and incest. And nobody knows what's going on in there except the homosexual movement – and they try to keep it hidden."
Finally, last week, Cindy Jacobs' Generals International sent out an urgent message that "a prophetic intercessor was warned in a dream of a severe attack from ISIS, possibly targeting the Memorial Day Parade in Washington DC." No such attack took place, so we'll probably hear from Jacobs soon about how their prayers prevented it.
Likely GOP presidential candidates Rick Santorum and Mike Huckabee have joined more than 200 anti-gay activists in signing a pledge vowing to resist any Supreme Court ruling in favor of marriage equality.
Comparing any sweeping decision in favor of marriage equality to the Dred Scott case, the activists vow that they will not recognize such a decision and indicate that they would try to convince national and state executive branches not to enforce it.
We stand together in defense of marriage and the family and society founded upon them. While we come from a variety of communities and hold differing faith perspectives, we are united in our common affirmation of marriage.
On the matter of marriage, we stand in solidarity. We affirm that marriage and family have been inscribed by the Divine Architect into the order of Creation. Marriage is ontologically between one man and one woman, ordered toward the union of the spouses, open to children and formative of family. Family is the first vital cell of society, the first government, and the first mediating institution of our social order. The future of a free and healthy society passes through marriage and the family.
Marriage as existing solely between one man and one woman precedes civil government. Though affirmed, fulfilled, and elevated by faith, the truth that marriage can exist only between one man and one woman is not based on religion or revelation alone, but on the Natural Law, written on the human heart and discernible through the exercise of reason. It is part of the natural created order. The Natural Law is what Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., referred to as a higher law or a just law in his famous Letter from Birmingham Jail.
Marriage is the preeminent and the most fundamental of all human social institutions. Civil institutions do not create marriage nor can they manufacture a right to marry for those who are incapable of marriage. Society begins with marriage and the family.
We pledge to stand together to defend marriage for what it is, a bond between one man and one woman, intended for life, and open to the gift of children.
The institutions of civil government should defend marriage and not seek to undermine it. Government has long regulated marriage for the true common good. Examples, such as the age of consent, demonstrate such a proper regulation to ensure the free and voluntary basis of the marriage bond. Redefining the very institution of marriage is improper and outside the authority of the State. No civil institution, including the United States Supreme Court or any court, has authority to redefine marriage.
As citizens united together, we will not stand by while the destruction of the institution of marriage unfolds in this nation we love. The effort to redefine marriage threatens the essential foundation of the family.
Experience and history have shown us that if the government redefines marriage to grant a legal equivalency to same-sex couples, that same government will then enforce such an action with the police power of the State. This will bring about an inevitable collision with religious freedom and conscience rights. The precedent established will leave no room for any limitation on what can constitute such a redefined notion of marriage or human sexuality. We cannot and will not allow this to occur on our watch. Religious freedom is the first freedom in the American experiment for good reason.
Conferring a moral and legal equivalency to any relationship other than marriage between a man and a woman, by legislative or judicial fiat, sends the message that children do not need a mother and a father. As a policy matter, such unions convey the message that moms and dads are completely irrelevant to the well-being of children. Such a policy statement is unconscionable and destructive. Authorizing the legal equivalency of marriage to same-sex couples undermines the fundamental rights of children and threatens their security, stability, and future.
Neither the United States Supreme Court nor any court has authority to redefine marriage and thereby weaken both the family and society. Unlike the Legislative Branch that has the power of the purse and the Executive Branch which has the figurative power of the sword, the Judicial Branch has neither. It must depend upon the Executive Branch for the enforcement of its decisions.
As the Supreme Court acknowledged in the 1992 decision of Planned Parenthood v. Casey, its power rests solely upon the legitimacy of its decisions in the eyes of the people. If the decisions of the Court are not based on the Constitution and reason, and especially if they are contrary to the natural created order, then the people will lose confidence in the Court as an objective arbiter of the law. If the people lose respect for the Court, the Court’s authority will be diminished.
The Supreme Court was wrong when it denied Dred Scott his rights and said, “blacks are inferior human beings.” And the Court was wrong when Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote in Buck v. Bell, “three generations of imbeciles are enough,” thus upholding Virginia’s eugenics law that permitted forced sterilization. Shamefully, that decision was cited during the Nuremburg trials to support the Nazi eugenic holocaust.
In these earlier cases, the definition of “human” was at issue. Now the definition of “marriage” is at issue. The Constitution does not grant a right to redefine marriage — which is nonsensical since marriage intrinsically involves a man and a woman. Nor does the Constitution prohibit states from affirming the natural created order of male and female joined together in marriage.
We will view any decision by the Supreme Court or any court the same way history views the Dred Scott and Buck v. Bell decisions. Our highest respect for the rule of law requires that we not respect an unjust law that directly conflicts with higher law. A decision purporting to redefine marriage flies in the face of the Constitution and is contrary to the natural created order. As people of faith we pledge obedience to our Creator when the State directly conflicts with higher law. We respectfully warn the Supreme Court not to cross this line.
We stand united together in defense of marriage. Make no mistake about our resolve. While there are many things we can endure, redefining marriage is so fundamental to the natural order and the common good that this is the line we must draw and one we cannot and will not cross.
Mat Staver defends a Methodist church's decision to fire to lesbian day care workers because "this is the inevitable conflict that will continue to escalate when you elevate same sex rights to a protected status."
Rand Paul, Carly Fiorina, Lindsay Graham, Joni Ernst, and Reince Priebus will all be participating in the Susan B. Anthony List's Campaign for Life Gala and Summit next week.
Anne Graham Lotz gets in on the "blood moons" fun.
A conservative alternative to the New York Times' bestseller list has been launched because apparently one was needed.
Russell Moore prays for a "sexual counter-revolution."
Finally, Deacon Keith Fournier declares that "the assault on marriage is diabolical": "Our cultural battles over marriage and the family are presenting symptoms of something deeper and more sinister. The struggle we face is, at root, a spiritual one. We fight for the souls of men and women in this hour and the loving plan of God for the whole human race. We face fierce opposition from the devil. Yes, I said it, the devil."
Upon leaving office, Michele Bachmann hopes to become the next Newt Gingrich.
Sarah Palin is "hopefully running for office in the
future" apparently just to stick it to all the "haters."
While traveling to Canada, Peter
LaBarbera was stopped by customs officials once again and had some of his
Bryan Fischer says Religious Right voters need to decide now to get behind either Ted
Cruz or Mike Huckabee for president in 2016.
Russell Moore, the president of the Southern Baptists’
Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, has denounced ex-gay "reparative therapy."
Finally, Deacon Keith Fournier declares that anti-gay
Christians will never stop fighting gay marriage: "The belligerent effort to silence supporters of marriage is fully underway. We
will not, we must not, be silenced. The former President of the United States pandered to the Human Rights Campaign. We will resist
Keith Fournier, the editor of Catholic Online and head of the Common Good Alliance, issued a warning today in response to the Texas marriage equality decision, predicting that same-sex marriage will lead to as much violence as China’s Cultural Revolution, which left millions dead.
In a post on Matt Barber’s website BarbWire, Fournier writes that marriage must be “liberated” from gay people who are ushering in “nothing less than a Cultural Revolution. I know that some of my readers do not like it when I use the term Cultural Revolution. They object because the term was identified with the reassertion of Maoism in China. That movement, which turned violent, caused extraordinary social turmoil. That is PRECISELY why the analogy is apropos.”
Encouraging readers to attend a National Organization for Marriage march in June, he hailed anti-gay activists as the “true liberators” and “advocates for a society of human flourishing and freedom” who are preventing the “cultural slide into the abyss of relativism.”
Like propagandists of the past, they attempt to frame public perception by calling those who defend marriage as being against what they call ‘marriage equality’. However, homosexual and lesbian partnerships are incapable of achieving the ends of marriage. The marchers in China, in France and all over the world are the proponents, the defenders, of true liberation. They are advocates for a society of human flourishing and freedom. They defend real marriage and thereby defend the rights of children to a mother and father. They promote the common good.
The marchers are a part of a global Marriage Defense Movement. This new counter-cultural movement is about to reshape history. It crosses racial, ethnic, socio-economic, religious, philosophical and political lines. The members of this Marriage Defense movement seek to defend and to liberate marriage from the propagandists and Cultural Revolutionaries who oppose it and are working undermine it. They seek to defend marriage.
Marriage ‘is what it is’, to use a popular expression. The effort to redefine the word and then use the mechanisms of the State to entirely restructure this institution inscribed in the Natural Law – and replace it – is what is at stake here. Those who advocate giving moral and legal equivalency to homosexual and lesbian relationships are the people who oppose marriage. Their intention is to entirely reorder civil society. They use the phrase ‘marriage equality’ in an Orwellian act of verbal engineering.
This is a propaganda ploy and a tactic aimed at nothing less than a Cultural Revolution. I know that some of my readers do not like it when I use the term Cultural Revolution. They object because the term was identified with the reassertion of Maoism in China. That movement, which turned violent, caused extraordinary social turmoil. That is PRECISELY why the analogy is apropos.
To state this bluntly is not to be ‘anti-gay’; it is simply to defend marriage and the common good. This is a noble cause. Those who promote and defend marriage are not bigots, they are the true liberators! Though the Marriage Defense Marchers represent every segment of society, and reflect a wide range of ages, ethnic identities and political persuasions, they were collectively labeled as conservatives in much of the international press.
There is a growing intolerance spreading which directly threatens our rights to free expression, association and political participation. This is reflected in a brazen effort to censor any speech which questions the cultural slide into the abyss of relativism. Efforts to prevent our vocal and public defense of the objective truth about marriage and the family are multiplying. However, they are not succeeding. The streets of Washington, DC need to be filled with hundreds of thousands of supporters of Marriage on June 19, 2014.
As the nation awaits the Supreme Court's rulings on two high-profile marriage equality cases, several dozen Religious Right activists have signed on to a "Marriage Solidarity Statement" that was drafted by Liberty Counsel's Mat Staver and Deacon Keith Fournier, vowing to resist any ruling in favor of equality.
This who's who of anti-gay activists has collectively declared that they "will not stand by while the destruction of the institution of marriage unfolds in this nation we love" because "this is the line we must draw and one we cannot and will not cross":
As Christian citizens united together, we will not stand by while the destruction of the institution of marriage unfolds in this nation we love. The Sacred Scriptures and unbroken teaching of the Church confirm that marriage is between one man and one woman. We stand together in solidarity to defend marriage and the family and society founded upon them. The effort to redefine marriage threatens the proper mediating role of the Church in society.
Experience and history have shown us that if the government redefines marriage to grant a legal equivalency to same-sex couples, that same government will then enforce such an action with the police power of the State. This will bring about an inevitable collision with religious freedom and conscience rights. We cannot and will not allow this to occur on our watch. Religious freedom is the first freedom in the American experiment for good reason.
If the Supreme Court were to issue a decision that redefined marriage or provided a precedent on which to build an argument to redefine marriage, the Supreme Court will thereby undermine its legitimacy. The Court will significantly decrease its credibility and impair the role it has assumed for itself as a moral authority. It will be acting beyond its proper constitutional role and contrary to the Natural Moral Law which transcends religions, culture, and time.
As Christians united together in defense of marriage, we pray that this will not happen. But, make no mistake about our resolve. While there are many things we can endure, redefining marriage is so fundamental to the natural order and the true common good that this is the line we must draw and one we cannot and will not cross.
Considering that Staver and others who signed this declaration have predicted that any ruling in favor of gay marriage will lead to civil war, one has to wonder just how these anti-gay activists intend to resist any such ruling.
Now that the Religious Right and the Republican Party are regrouping from significant electoral defeats, many progressives as well as pundits are tempted once again to dismiss the movement or the continued threat it poses to the constitutional principles of equality, privacy, and separation of church and state. But the legal, political, grassroots, and media infrastructure that has been built steadily over recent decades is still largely in place. It maintains a powerful ability to shape public debate and mobilize millions of Americans. And it is finding a renewed focus in opposing the Obama administration and obstructing progressive change.