Tom McClusky

FRC Continues to Obfuscate its Position on Uganda's Anti-Homosexuality Bill

The Family Research Council claimed on its blog today that the group has always opposed Uganda’s Anti-Homosexuality Bill, and accused progressive bloggers of having “mischaracterized” a tweet sent by FRC head Tony Perkins praising Uganda’s leadership just as its Parliament is preparing to vote on the notorious legislation.

But while it sends one message to the public, in 2009 the FRC admits to having spent thousands of dollars lobbying for Congress trying to revise and muddy the resolution condemning the bill because they said it would entail “pro-homosexual promotion.” “We didn’t necessarily lobby against or for the resolution but tried to work with offices to make the language more neutral on homosexuality,” FRC’s Tom McClusky said at the time, “the original language was incorrect on what Uganda was doing as well.”

Perkins himself even grossly mischaracterized the legislation and attacked President Obama for speaking out against it.

Does civility require the acceptance of all behavior? Hello, I am Tony Perkins with the Family Research Council. At the recent National Prayer Breakfast, President Obama took the podium calling for greater civility in Washington, which in my opinion is a laudable goal. However, his comments quickly turned to his preoccupation with defending homosexuality.

The President criticized Ugandan leaders for considering enhance penalties for crimes related to homosexuality. The press has widely mischaracterized the law which calls for the death penalty, not for homosexual behavior which is already a crime, but for acts such as intentionally spreading HIV/AIDS, or preying upon vulnerable individuals such as children. The President said that "We may disagree about gay marriage, "but surely we can agree that it is unconscionable to target gays and lesbians for who they are." Mr. President as long as you characterize efforts to uphold moral conduct that protects others and in particular the most vulnerable, as attacking people, civility will continue to evade us.

As we have reported before, the 2009 bill [PDF] (and the current legislation still includes the death penalty language) does indeed make “aggravated homosexuality” a capital crime and the “offence of homosexuality” guarantees life imprisonment.

2. The offence of homosexuality.

(1) A person commits the offence of homosexuality if-

(a) he penetrates the anus or mouth of another person of the same sex with his penis or any other sexual contraption;

(b) he or she uses any object or sexual contraption to penetrate or stimulate sexual organ of a person of the same sex;

(c) he or she touches another person with the intention of committing the act of homosexuality.

(2) A person who commits an offence under this section shall be liable on conviction to imprisonment for life.

3. Aggravated homosexuality.

(1) A person commits the offense of aggravated homosexuality where the

(a) person against whom the offence is committed is below the age of 18 years;

(b) offender is a person living with HIV;

(c) offender is a parent or guardian of the person against whom the offence is committed;

(d) offender is a person in authority over the person against whom the offence is committed;

(e) victim of the offence is a person with disability;

(f) offender is a serial offender, or

(g) offender applies, administers or causes to be used by any man or woman any drug, matter or thing with intent to stupefy overpower him or her so as to there by enable any person to have unlawful carnal connection with any person of the same sex,

(2) A person who commits the offence of aggravated homosexuality shall be liable on conviction to suffer death.

(3) Where a person is charged with the offence under this section, that person shall undergo a medical examination to ascertain his or her HIV status.



4, Attempt to commit homosexuality.

(1) A person who attempts to commit the offence of homosexuality commits a felony and is liable on conviction to imprisonment seven years.

(2) A person who attempts to commit the offence of aggravated homosexuality commits an offence and is liable on conviction to imprisonment for life.



12. Same sex marriage.

A person who purports to contract a marriage with another person of the same sex commits the offence of homosexuality and shall be liable on conviction to imprisonment for life.

Family Research Council Licks its Wounds after Election Pummeling

A despondent Tony Perkins hosted the Family Research Council’s post-election special “Election 2012: Aftermath & Aftershocks,” which featured Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) and Rep-elect. Mark Meadows (R-NC), Derek McCoy of the Maryland Marriage Alliance, Jim Garlow and FRC Vice President Tom McClusky. The group suffered a huge blow as marriage equality won victories in four states and their effort to oust a pro-equality Iowa justice failed, in addition, FRC’s Faith Family and Freedom Fund invested hundreds of thousands of dollars to aid Todd Akin, who lost in a landslide.

After speaking to McCoy, Perkins claimed that same-sex marriage will never be morally acceptable or within the bounds of natural law whatever the voters in Maryland and elsewhere say, while McClusky said that “civil disobedience” will now be necessary thanks to marriage equality’s increasing victories.

Garlow, who prior to the election warned that an Obama second term will make America “unrecognizable” and “forever gone,” said that Christians should now expect immense persecution from the government, and Meadows called for Christians to emulate Gideon’s army and remember that “our God will not be mocked.”

Watch highlights here:

Right Wing Leftovers - 10/24/12

  • Harry Jackson gives four reasons why he is voting for Mitt Romney.
  • Phyllis Schlafly says "all UN treaties are an invasion of American sovereignty and our right to govern ourselves."
  • Experts report that "the 'Rapture' is likely to occur between now and 2021 and the Second Coming of Jesus Christ from 2018 and 2028."
  • FRC's Tom McClusky seems to think that Todd Akin is a lot like Martin Luther King, Jr.
  • On a semi-related note, the man charged with attacking FRC headquarters is now facing terrorism charges.
  • Things continue to spiral downward for Dinesh D'Souza.
  • Donald Trump's "very big news" turned out to be predictably buffonish quasi-birther nonense.
  • Finally, Eugene Delguadio inexplicably takes credit for removing full-body scanners from airports and even more inexplicably claims that "the homosexual lobbies fully support the invasive body cavity searches of elderly citizens, small children, young women and the absurd and dangerous X-Ray machines that scan the human form in minute detail."

Tom McClusky Suggests Obama's Understanding of 'Golden Rule' is like Helping a Depressed Neighbor Commit Suicide

Following a very, very passionate appeal to those “struggling with homosexuality,” Family Research Council vice president Tom McClusky told the audience at the Watchmen on the Wall conference today that people should not in good conscience support the right of same-sex couples to wed just as they should not help a depressed neighbor commit suicide. McCluskly was upset that President Obama cited the Golden Rule in his interview where he endorsed marriage equality, a remark that touched a nerve in the Religious Right with activists like Patrick Wooden railed against Obama for “quoting Scripture to debunk Scripture.” McClusky explained that if the Golden Rule is a reason to support the freedom to marry for gays and lesbians, then it would be just like using the Golden Rule to condone suicide.

Watch:

McClusky: The President’s come out for same-sex marriage and in an interview in which he updates the nation on the latest evolution of his views, on this question the President notes that his mind was made up in part by his Christian faith, specifically by the Golden Rule, ‘treat others the way you want to be treated.’ It should be pointed out though that contrary to what the President thinks the Golden Rule alone tells us nothing one way or the other about whether to support same-sex marriage, it isn’t about merely protecting our neighbor’s preferences but advancing our neighbor’s good. In the absence of any moral standard then it would mean then that I would have to give my depressed neighbor—I would have to assist him to commit suicide if it was just a matter of doing what he thinks is best.

Southern Baptist Convention's Political Arm Pushes Opposition to the Violence Against Women Act

While the Southern Baptist Convention’s political arm, the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, is mired in scandal resulting from ERLC head Richard Land’s repeated plagiarism and inflammatory remarks on race, it has found time to criticize the Violence Against Women Act. Doug Carlson, manager for administration and policy communications for the ERLC, voiced the group’s opposition to the highly successful law because of new provisions that ensure that LGBT victims of domestic violence do not encounter discrimination while seeking help.

Carlson quoted a letter Richard Land signed along with Mathew Staver of Liberty Counsel, Jim Garlow of Renewing American Leadership Action, Tom McClusky of Family Research Council Action, C. Preston Noell of Tradition, Family, Property Inc., Phyllis Schlafly of Eagle Forum and Penny Nance and Janice Shaw Crouse of Concerned Women for America.

Notably, the letter was also signed by conservative activist Timothy Johnson, who was convicted of a felony domestic violence charge and was arrested a second time for putting his wife in a wrist lock and choking his son, as reported by Sarah Posner.

Carlson writes:

Under the reauthorization, VAWA, as the bill is known, would spend vast sums of taxpayer money—more than $400 million each year—on programs that lack sufficient oversight and fail to address the core issue of protecting vulnerable women from abuse. Many of the programs duplicate efforts already underway. Among other problems, it would expand special protections to include same-sex couples. Men who are victimized by their male sexual partners would receive the benefit of the law above heterosexuals. And with broadened definitions of who qualifies for services, those who are most in need of the bill’s protections would have diminished access to it.



Pro-family groups, too, have been leveling attacks on the bill for months for its anti-family policies. Many of them expressed those concerns to the Judiciary Committee in February in hopes of derailing the bill. “We, the undersigned, representing millions of Americans nationwide, are writing to oppose the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA),” Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission President Richard Land, along with nearly two dozen other religious and conservative leaders, wrote in a Feb. 1 letter to members of the Senate Judiciary Committee. “This nice-sounding bill is deceitful because it destroys the family by obscuring real violence in order to promote the feminist agenda.”

“There is no denying the very real problem of violence against women and children. However, the programs promoted in VAWA are harmful for families. VAWA often encourages the demise of the family as a means to eliminate violence,” they added.

Regrettably, a slim majority of committee members rejected that counsel, ultimately approving the bill in February on a narrow 10-8 vote. Now the battle lies in the full Senate, where those opposed to the new VAWA are facing significant pressure to support it. Allies of the bill are tagging its opponents as waging a “war on women.”

But no matter how noble its title suggests, the Violence Against Women Act is the wrong answer to addressing ongoing domestic abuse. With a shortage of evidence to date of VAWA’s success in reducing levels of violence against women, the war to decrease such violence and to ultimately strengthen the family shouldn’t include reauthorizing a flawed policy that promises an expansion of the same.

Tom McClusky Warns of Third Party and Society's Collapse if Marriage Equality Becomes a Reality

Family Research Council vice president Tom McClusky yesterday appeared on The Janet Mefferd Show to discuss a Politico article on how same-sex marriage has become “virtually a dead issue” among the senior brass of the Republican Party. McClusky denied concerns that opposing marriage equality will make the GOP more unpopular by arguing that polls which show growing support for legalizing same-sex marriage are “skewered” [sic] because people are likely lying in opinion surveys out of fear that they would be criticized for revealing their true views to pollsters. “The other side is taking up the cause of bullying and it’s kind of ironic because they’ve really mastered the art of bullying,” McClusky argued, saying that gay rights supporters are trying to “silence” groups like the FRC:

McClusky pushed back against Republican politicians who wanted to prioritize economic issues over social ones, warning that society will “crumble” if same-sex marriage becomes legal:

Mefferd: Ultimately, why do you think this is an issue worth fighting for even if they dub it in the media as a losing issue, the gay marriage issue, why is it worth fighting for?

McClusky: Even more so than the economic issue this is a generational issue. I look at my nieces and nephews, I look at my wife and the children that we hope to have and I understand what would happen to society if marriage were to go away or to be redefined out of existence. Societies that try to do away with marriage, they crumble, they fall apart. We need to emphasize more on the family and without that fight the U.S. will just not be the U.S. anymore.

Mefferd: I unfortunately agree with you on that.

He even floated the creation of a third party composed of disgruntled conservative Republicans and black and Hispanic Democrats who would come together in opposition to gay rights and abortion rights:

Mefferd: If the GOP continues to go in a direction where they will not get on the side of traditional marriage and be willing to fight for it, what do Christians do?

McClusky: I think you will—there are always threats of a third party—I think if something like that were to happen you would see a third party. It would be made up of more than just disgruntled conservative Republicans. On the marriage issue there’s African Americans who normally vote Democratic, there’s Hispanics, and the same on the life issue, and there are a lot of good Democrats like say in the state legislature of New York who fought against same-sex marriage and Maryland who tried to, I think what you see is a lot of people drifting from both parties into a third party or some sort of independent party that is more pro-life and pro-marriage.

Siri’s Evil Twin Sister Iris: Popular Android App Calls Abortion Murder, Cites Exodus

Apple’s electronic personal assistant Siri made headlines back in November for drawing a blank when asked for the location of the nearest abortion clinic. If you thought that was bad, meet Iris, Siri’s evil twin sister (or fundamentalist cousin).

Iris – Siri spelled backwards – is the popular electronic assistant created by Dexetra for Android phones. It’s been downloaded over 1 million times and is powered by ChaCha, the Internet’s “leading answers service with more than a billion questions answered.” In other words, Iris may be a knockoff, but it’s no joke.
 
That’s why we were surprised when we heard the Family Research Council crowing about the Android being “as pro-life as they come” and watched their video. We've posted the video and radio segment here:

After swimming through a sea of iPhones and Blackberrys, we found an Android and tried it for ourselves – sure enough, Iris did everything but condemn us to eternal suffering in hell.
 
Iris’ answers are drawn from ChaCha, which provided a string of anti-choice answers to our questions: 
 
 
It must be said that Iris isn’t all fire and brimstone. Iris failed to quote scripture in response to questions about adultery, birth control, homosexuality, working on the Sabbath, and eating shellfish (which is an “abomination before the Lord”). And if you ask Iris whether she is “pro-life or pro-choice,” you get this far more reasonable response:
 
Android certainly has a right to include a right-wing personal assistant in its app store, and ChaCha has the right to provide slanted answers, but that surely isn’t what the companies had in mind. This appears to be the work of a single employee with an agenda. ChaCha should take appropriate action to ensure that its service isn’t being used to inappropriately foist the views of certain employees on the public.
 

 

Share this page: Facebook Twitter Digg SU Digg Delicious