Last month, Mat Staver joined Rick Santorum, Rick Scarborough and others for a "Pastors For Virginia" conference and Liberty Counsel has now posted video of the remarks Staver delivered , during which he ranted against the Supreme Court for its recent decision on the Defense of Marriage Act.
Staver claimed that in making the decision, the Supreme Court ruled that anyone who supports traditional marriage is a bigoted and hateful enemy of humanity, and he is outraged: "I say to Justice Kennedy and the other four justices, and I say this strongly as an attorney who is also an officer of the court, how dare they say that those who believe in marriage are bigots and haters of humanity!"
Staver went on to compare the DOMA decision to the Dred Scott decision and Buck v. Bell because it is not reflective of "natural law, biblical law or commons sense; it is contrary to the natural created order of God almighty":
Faith and Freedom Coalition executive director Gary Marx has written a column for the Christian Post in which he claims that the Supreme Court’s rulings on DOMA and Proposition 8 have made our democracy only an illusion. After accusing the court of “dismantling American democracy” in their gay rights decisions, Marx lambastes the justices for turning America into “a nation where democracy is a mere visual effect used to spawn a perception of self-rule that no longer ultimately exists.”
“The Supreme Court has now served notice to liberty advocates that it is game on,” Marx writes. Despite the fact that a majority of Americans favor marriage equality, he claims that “traditional marriage activists” actually “vastly outnumber their opponents” and will prevent the court’s attempt “to trump the political will and wisdom of its citizens.”
If there was any doubt that the Supreme Court of the United States continues to vastly overextend its powers in ways that are dismantling American democracy and liberty, this summer's decisions striking down a core component of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and remanding California's Proposition 8 should settle the question.
How great is this threat? Put it this way: No component of American liberty or democracy is inherently safe if, as it did earlier this week, the highest court in our land is permitted to trump Constitutional principles and the political will of the American people with a progressive political and social agenda rooted in neither.
The stakes in this current cause could not be much higher. When a portion of the Supreme Court can flippantly toss aside the political will of the people on issues that are rightfully empowered to the people to decide, as this Court now has done, we no longer reside in a nation guided by our people and laws. Rather, America becomes a nation where democracy is a mere visual effect used to spawn a perception of self-rule that no longer ultimately exists.
This is the bad news for liberty loving Americans. But the Supreme Court's rulings bring good news too. Contrary to the image depicted in mainstream media, the American people are awakening to the reality of its elitist, progressive courts – and it is a reality, as Justice Antonin Scalia properly argued in his dissenting view on DOMA, that is "jaw dropping". In striking down the will of elected Members of Congress and a President of the United States (with DOMA) and the people of California (with its Proposition 8 ruling), the Supreme Court has now served notice to liberty advocates that it is game on. That is a calling that the American people will surely answer.
Additionally and importantly, the rulings in no way settle much of anything as it relates to the future of traditional marriage. DOMA may be no longer, but we at the Faith and Freedom Coalition intend to work with its advocates and a growing grassroots movement of Americans who support its principles, to ensure its basic tenets are otherwise upheld. The rulings also will certainly further inspire the efforts of traditional marriage activists, who now vastly outnumber their opponents, to work to elect state and federal legislators who will defend the treasured and traditional definition of marriage while ensuring that the nation's courts no longer serve to trump the political will and wisdom of its citizens.
In an interview with Steve Deace yesterday, Frank Schubert, the top campaign strategist for anti-gay groups including the National Organization for Marriage, accused the Supreme Court of “shredding of the Constitution” with its “horrendous” court decision on Prop 8. Schubert was upset that the ruling cleared the way for attorneys general not to defend certain laws.
However, administrations from those of Harry Truman to George W. Bush (including Ronald Reagan) have refused to defend laws they believe are unconstitutional. “It’s going to come back I think and wreak havoc in lots of other areas,” Schubert continued.
He also called the Windsor decision “preposterous” and claimed it “calls into question the integrity of the governmental process itself. These judges have now put themselves as our supreme overlords, the overseers of our conduct.”
On today's "Faith and Freedom Radio" broadcast, Mat Staver continued to directly compare the Supreme Court's recent ruling on the Defense of Marriage Act to the Dred Scott ruling and other egregious court decisions from the past, adding that the DOMA decision is like the court ruling that it was going to suspend the laws of gravity.
"There are certain natural laws," Staver declared, "the laws of gravity are certainly natural laws. The natural created order of men and women, husbands and wives, is part of the natural created order. You may want some other union but you cannot create marriage into something that it is incapable of being":
Mat Staver of Liberty Counsel continued to level attacks against the Supreme Court’s DOMA decision. On Janet Parshall’s radio show last week, Staver compared Justice Anthony Kennedy, who wrote the majority opinion in Windsor, to former Chief Justice Robert B. Taney, infamous for writing the Dred Scott ruling.
The Liberty University Law School dean told Parshall that the court decided wrongly in part because “our history has actually criminalized homosexual behavior” and alleged that Kennedy decided to “label everyone who believes and affirms in the natural created order of marriage between a man and a woman as a bigot and a hater.”
“How dare this court. How dare Justice Kennedy. How dare he actually give those kinds of labels to people,” Staver said. “I think the court crossed the line to illegitimacy by doing so and I think it put itself in the same category as Chief Justice Taney in the 1857 Dred Scott decision in which they said blacks were inferior human beings not entitled to citizenship, as they did in the 1927 Buck v. Bell case that said ‘sorry Carrie Buck, Virginia has a right to forcibly sterilize you.’”
In a recent interview on The Talk to Solomon Show, Bradlee Dean rehashed ex-gay activist Greg Quinlan’s claim that Justices Elena Kagan and Anthony Kennedy voted to strike down part of DOMA because they themselves are gay.
“We have Elena Kagan and we have Justice Kennedy who we know that are homosexuals,” Dean said. “The American people have been under assault by less than 1.7 percent of the population known as the homosexual radical community over the last five years.”
Later, Dean warned that “this agenda” is “aiming at our posterity,” with President Obama’s assistance: “Barack Hussein Obama has appointed over 224 radical homosexuals to federal government positions in your country, not a Third World country, and even transvestites to go along with it.”
Janet Porter released a new video today in response to the recent Supreme Court rulings on marriage equality in which she spoke with Congressmen Tim Huelskamp and Louie Gohmert about what the rulings mean.
Gohmert told Porter that if the Supreme Court majority really believes that the purpose of DOMA was to impose inequality then "they are the most ignorant people walking around in Washington, and that's saying something."
Either that, Gohmert added, or they lied, in which case America is doomed because "countries don't last very long after you reach the point where their highest level of government is being dishonest [and] we're there":
Janet Parshall yesterday hosted William Owens of the Coalition of African-American Pastors and the National Organization for Marriage to discuss the Supreme Court’s recent marriage cases.
Parshall twice asserted that Kennedy called anti-gay activists “in his words ‘enemies of the nation.’” Kennedy never used such language, but Justice Antonin Scalia did accuse Kennedy of calling gay rights opponents “enemies of humanity.”
The Supreme Court rules, in his opinion, stunningly, Kennedy says basically that those of us who don’t agree with his worldview are in his words “enemies of the nation.” So I have to tell you, what does that do for us as followers of Jesus? If God hasn’t changed his mind on the definition of marriage and immediately a Supreme Court justice says those of you who follow God’s word are “enemies of the nation,” it seems to me the temptation is going to be for us to just sit down, be quiet, keep our thoughts to ourselves because hey who wants to be marginalized by the culture?
Meanwhile, Owens announced that CAAP and the Heritage Foundation are hosting a conference in October for anti-gay activists who seek to “work together to stop this nonsense.”
“The adults are confused and they’re confusing the children,” Owens lamented, “how can two men rear a child? How can a man be a mother? Tell me that.”
He called on gay rights opponents to launch a new Civil Rights Movement: “You think we did something during the Civil Rights Movement? This is our Civil Rights Movement…. We are going to fight to the end, we are not going to give up, we are going to fight like we fought to get civil rights, like we marched for miles and miles and miles, we took the heat, whatever it took, we are going to stand for the family.”
On a recent installment of the weekly "Hagee Hotline," Matthew Hagee responded to a question from a viewer wondering if the Rapture is about to occur by declaring that indeed it is.
Citing the statement from Jesus in Luke 17: 22-30 that "just as it was in the days of Noah [and] Lot ... so will it be on the day when the Son of Man is revealed," Hagee explained that today all of the same things are taking place as occurred during the days of Noah, such as men being wicked and atheistic, and during the days of Lot when "men had given up the natural affections for women and were lying with other men."
Hagee then pointed specifically to the Supreme Court's recent DOMA decision, saying "that's something that would have been applauded in the days of Sodom and Gomorrah. So when you see these things similar to the days of Noah and similar to the days of Lot, it's very easy to know that the rapture of the church is about to occur":
Pastor Dan Cummins of Come Pray With Me has worked with a variety of Religious Right groups, including Newt Gingrich’s Renewing American Leadership, Rick Perry’s The Response USA and Tony Perkins’ Watchmen on the Wall, and organized his own prayer rally in the Capitol’s Statuary Hall.
But soon, Cummins warns, such organizations may not exist.
In a Charisma column today, Cummins writes thats gays will drive the church “underground” and turn churches into “government community centers.”
Cummins claims that the Supreme Court has created a divide in America similar to the Korean DMZ and the Berlin Wall, called “the Rainbow Curtain.” He says that the justices “from their judicial lair” have “set off a catalytic charge toppling traditional marriage” and now “the collapse of America’s moral infrastructure has been irreversibly set into motion.”
Residents of states with marriage equality are now “hostages” to a government that will use “foreign troops” to put them “re-education camps,” he argues.
“Like a surreal scene from Red Dawn, America woke up on June 26 to a divided nation, with 95 million of its citizens in 13 states held hostage to judicial legislation, trapped behind the Rainbow Curtain,” Cummins writes. “What’s ahead for those in the gay zones who refuse to comply with Kennedy’s dictates—re-education camps for homophobic racists? Will Big Sis employ foreign troops invading through our unsecured borders to enforce the transition into this brave new world?”
He hopes that the new “refugees” will “flee with their families into neighboring free zones,” asking, “Where are Patrick Swayze and his pack of Wolverines when we need them?”
He calls on anti-gay activists in “gay zones” to “become forearmed” as society unravels into a gay dystopia and “the choking dust clouds from the collapse of the last societal pillar of biblical, natural marriage stop rolling through the streets of our cities and states.”
After World War II, Stalin installed an iron curtain around Russia, keeping his capitalist neighbors from eavesdropping. The Chinese accessorized their Cold War condo with a bamboo curtain, deterring pesky peeping toms from the West.
Soon Mr. Khrushchev, keeping up with his Commie neighbors, built a privacy wall and gated community, secluding East Berliners from greedy, free-market entrepreneurs soliciting door to door. Not to forget Kim Il-Sung’s ensemble of razor wire and land mines across North Korea’s 38th parallel to discourage those JW and LDS types from indoctrinating the folks.
Now, in the midst of the American culture war, behind another curtain of sorts—a life-size photographic scrim concealing a facelift to the Supreme Court’s crumbling west façade—Justice Anthony Kennedy has ordered a redecorating of the nation’s landscape with a bold, colorful and inclusive statement—the Rainbow Curtain—a polyamorous blend of gender-on-gender suited for a post-moralist motif designed to safeguard the modern American family from the narrow-minded views of those “animus”-filled Founding Fathers.
From their juridical lair, the liberal Gang of Five recently set off a catalytic charge toppling traditional marriage—the last principled pillar upholding Uncle Sam’s home. Just how long his 237-year-old colonial manor can remain standing minus its moral supports intact is anyone’s guess. But the collapse of America’s moral infrastructure has been irreversibly set into motion by five legislating justices.
As the new civil rights movement packs the neighborhood streets, shouting, “Move that bus,” is America ready for the extreme home makeover the LGBT architects have designed for the evolving modern family?
Like a surreal scene from Red Dawn, America woke up on June 26 to a divided nation, with 95 million of its citizens in 13 states held hostage to judicial legislation, trapped behind the Rainbow Curtain and forced to accept the moral dictates of the elitist ruling party—a pentagram of liberal judges on the Supreme Court.
Many of those hostages, like California’s residents, were disenfranchised of their constitutional votes in the process. What’s ahead for those in the gay zones who refuse to comply with Kennedy’s dictates—re-education camps for homophobic racists? Will Big Sis employ foreign troops invading through our unsecured borders to enforce the transition into this brave new world?
What stark new realities are ahead for those behind the Rainbow Curtain? Will Americans become refugees in their own country as they flee with their families into neighboring free zone states? Where are Patrick Swayze and his pack of Wolverines when we need them?
The Supremes striking down Proposition 8 and partially ruling on the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) have given the prize—marriage without borders—to the LGBT crowd and thrown the pro-biblical marriage community a legal bone by kicking the can back to the free zone states to argue it out in court.
What does this mean for the 70 percent of the U.S. population living in the free zones? Watch what happens to the families, businesses and churches in the gay zones who refuse to comply with Kennedy’s court. Be forewarned and become forearmed.
The new persecution of the church will be in the form of prosecution of the church. This legal martyrdom will be slow, painful and expensive. Some churches, especially in the gay zones initially, will fold under the financial strain.
The end result for any church refusing complicity to the court’s opinion will be loss of tax-exempt status. The IRS will not only control America’s health care but her religious institutions as well. For those churches indebted by hefty mortgages, the outcome of losing membership and their tax-exempt tithes will be potentially fatal. As foreclosed church properties flood the real estate market, they will be prime choices for government community centers.
You say this can’t happen in America? We were saying similar things 10 years ago about same-sex marriage and 40 years ago about abortion. Wake up!
Maybe China is the new model for American society. When the choking dust clouds from the collapse of the last societal pillar of biblical, natural marriage stop rolling through the streets of our cities and states, we will witness the aftermath left by Justice Kennedy’s ruling upon our families, churches and religious freedoms.
Will there only be two churches left in America when that time comes—the state church, with its complicit clergy complete with gay members, and the underground church of Jesus Christ? Take heart—the greatest revival in the world is now taking place in the underground church of China. Maybe revival is coming to America after all. Either way, you had better get a Bible.
Yesterday, while speaking with Janet Mefferd, Rep. Tim Huelskamp (R-KS) expanded on his claim that the Supreme Court Justices who ruled on Prop 8 and the Defense of Marriage Act should’ve flunked law school.
Huelskamp said Justice Anthony Kennedy’s decision on DOMA was “outrageous” and based on smearing gay rights opponents: “If you’re writing for the left and you’re not gonna follow the Constitution you have to make it up as you go along so you inject name-calling into a constitutional decision, I mean that’s an outrageous decision.”
He also called Chief Justice John Roberts’ ruling on Prop 8 “crazy” and described it as an example of left-wing bias. Huelskamp even argued that the DOMA ruling effectively tossed out state laws barring marriages between a mother and her daughter, adding that “polygamy should be allowed under this decision.”
“What’s the impact on our children? That’s what the left doesn’t care about,” Huelskamp said, repeating his earlier claim that “children will be hurt” by the rulings. “That’s why this is showing up in these decisions that you know what just because two adults or three adults desire one thing that doesn’t mean it’s best for our children.”
The congressman also told Mefferd that Republicans are too timid in their opposition to gay rights and should also focus on the “fiscal impact” of gay marriage and what he believes is the legalization of polygamy: “There’s a real big fiscal impact, we’re going to extend 1,100 benefits to homosexual and polygamous couples, perhaps, what’s the impact on that?”
Not content with just claiming that Justice Anthony Kennedy has proclaimed a “fatwa” against opponents of gay marriage, National Organization for Marriage founder Maggie Gallagher is now blasting the Supreme Court for issuing a “head-on declaration of war against at least half of the American people.”
In an interview with Lars Larson, Gallagher said that the court’s pro-marriage equality rulings limit the “democratic rights” of activists who seek to ban same-sex unions and argued that the justices could “not name” where gay and lesbian couples are protected in the Constitution.
Alan Keyes believes that Justice Antonin Scalia didn’t go far enough in his dissent in Windsor, the decision which struck down a key component of the Defense of Marriage Act, maintaining that he should’ve argued that gay marriage, which Keyes called a “tyrannically defined fabrication,” is unconstitutional.
According to Keyes, gay marriage advocates are using the same line of reasoning of slavery proponents who argued that “the notion of unalienable rights did not apply to black people” and did so “by denying black people their share in human nature.” “In like fashion, the advocates of homosexual so-called marriage now seek to deny the nature of marriage” and “override right and justice as endowed by the Creator.” Since same-sex unions violate God’s laws, Keyes reasons, it is therefore unconstitutional and allow government to undermine unalienable rights.
The advocates of slavery in the United States often attempted to justify that institution by denying black people their share in human nature. On this account, they pretended that the notion of unalienable rights did not apply to black people, and that they therefore had no rights government was obliged to respect and secure. In like fashion, the advocates of homosexual so-called marriage now seek to deny the nature of marriage. They do so on the excuse of promoting equal treatment for homosexuals. But the necessary and intended result of their advocacy is to deny the family's functional claim to be an expression of human nature, indeed the primordial expression of its social aspect. This, in turn, allows them to deny that the individuals who make up the family are engaged in an exercise of right, according to the laws of nature and of nature's God. Once this is successfully denied, the activities arising from their exercise of right need no longer be respected as unalienable rights, antecedent to all human governments, which it is government's aim to secure.
In what amounts to an effort to overturn the whole idea of unalienable rights that gives rise to constitutional self-government, some elements of America's judiciary have moved to proclaim as law that marriage must be redefined in a way that accommodates homosexual relationships. But this means that a human relationship in no way rooted in the Creator's provision for our nature must be allowed to usurp the name, authority, and rights of the God-endowed institution.
Once this effect upon the unalienable rights of the natural family is understood, it becomes clear that the Constitution is not neutral with respect to the approval or disapproval of same-sex marriage, in the name of law. There is an explicit constitutional prohibition against denying or disparaging rights unenumerated in the Constitution but retained by the people. Since the unalienable rights of the family arise from the individual's commitment to fulfill the natural law by propagating humanity, they are certainly among these unenumerated rights. Therefore, Congress simply did its duty, in accordance with the 9th Amendment, when it moved to prevent the denial and disparagement of the rights of the natural family by judges and justices seeking to replace the natural family with a tyrannically defined fabrication.
Why did Justice Scalia fail to take note of this constitutional justification for DOMA, utterly ignored by the Windsor majority? Why, instead, did he pretend that the issue involved can simply be decided by majority vote of the people in their respective states, as if the human sovereignty that constitutes government, at any level, has authority to override right and justice as endowed by the Creator? In this respect, neither the Windsor majority nor Justice Scalia's dissent shows any respect for the premises that informed the deliberations of the Framers of the U.S. Constitution. Yet without those premises, the declared purposes and essential features of the constitution they devised cannot be properly understood.
After arguing that gay marriage is a threat to children and community spirit, Janice Shaw Crouse of Concerned Women for America took to the Washington Times today to warn about the approaching “bleak future Christians” in which people of faith will experience “harsh retribution in the form of fines and imprisonment” if gay marriage becomes legal.
Crouse lashed out at “in-your-face media campaigns to normalize homosexual relationships” and pointed to an opinion piece by a Heritage Foundation fellow in CNN.com to claim that the DOMA ruling is a threat to democracy.
“It contradicts centuries of experience across time and cultures for the best family structure for strong nations,” Crouse writes about same-sex unions. “It represents a national experiment in social reconstruction at the expense of our children’s futures and the future of America.”
Regarding the Proposition 8 vote, the Supreme Court, in an instance of legal maneuvering that trumps common sense, said that those sponsoring the California initiative did not have “standing” to defend the constitutional amendment passed by more than 7 million voters. This amounts to the court saying, if we don’t want to address the issue, we simply say you don’t have the right to raise the issue with us. Thus, the California officials who refused to enforce the law got away with rejecting the will of the majority in their state.
In the Defense of Marriage Act vote, the Supreme Court struck down Section 3, which defines marriage as the union between one man and one woman for federal purposes. The narrow victory grants federal benefits to same-sex couples who live in states where such “marriages” are legal. In effect, though, the decision overturns the 1996 action of a bipartisan majority in Congress, even though the decision allows states to determine their own definition of marriage. Even CNN pointed out: “This is a serious loss for federalism and democratic self-government.” Section 2 of DOMA, which remains, makes it clear that no state is required to recognize another state’s same-sex “marriages.”
The technicalities, though, are obscured by the media “victory” won by the homosexual activists. More and more Americans are viewing same-sex “marriage” as inevitable, and the in-your-face media campaigns to normalize homosexual relationships are successfully changing the popular culture.
The bottom line is that the Supreme Court rulings fly in the face of a growing mountain of social science research showing that the best household arrangement for children is a married mom and dad. It contradicts centuries of experience across time and cultures for the best family structure for strong nations. It represents a national experiment in social reconstruction at the expense of our children’s futures and the future of America. These decisions repudiate — with a vengeance — the sacred trust of the Founders who built this great nation “under God” and on a foundation of Judeo-Christian principles that have stood the test of time.
Worse, the rulings warn of a future where Christians will have a choice: Keep silent about their faith or face not just being cast as a social pariah, but harsh retribution in the form of fines and imprisonment. It is hard to envision such an outcome, but the pivotal changes and losses of religious freedom and freedom of speech over the past few years portend a bleak future Christians must take seriously.
Austin Ruse of C-FAM, the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute, filled in for Sandy Rios yesterday on her American Family Association radio program, and quickly proved that he is more than able to fill her shoes. Ruse kicked off the show by recounting a harrowing experience where he had to see a lesbian…with her arm around her wife…on the Food Network.
Ruse said that he started to worry when he realized that one of the chefs on Chopped “looked like a butch lesbian” and put his finger on the remote just in case he got exposed to gayness. “But this is the Food Network so we don’t have anything to worry about, right?” he said.
But it was too late. Despite his best efforts, Ruse and his daughter were forced to see a lesbian couple:
So I didn’t have my hand on the trigger fast enough when they did a hard cut to a backstory about this lesbian chef and don’t you know it she’s got her arm around her ‘wife,’ she refers to her ‘wife,’ and I was too slow in fast-forwarding. My eight-year-old Lucy, sweet Lucy, turned to me and said: ‘Did she say wife?’ And I said, ‘No, I think she meant girlfriend.’ And Lucy said, ‘I think she said life.’ God bless the innocence of this child. But they will not let us off the mat, the ideologies who want to cram this thing down our throats no matter where we go.
And it gets worse. Ruse laments that unwitting children may have had their vacations ruined by an edition of USA Today that featured a gay couple kissing:
The day after the decision of the Supreme Court was a full page photograph of two men kissing on USA Today. This is a paper that lands in front of hotel room doors all over the country, this is vacation time, families open that door, children may have opened this door to see two men kissing. They are making us explain things to our children that we don’t want to explain and they know what they’re doing, they absolutely know what they’re doing.
While Ruse complains about being persecuted by the Food Network, let’s remember that this is same anti-gay activist who condemned the United Nations for investigating “discriminatory laws and practices and acts of violence against individuals based on their sexual orientation and gender identity.”
While Justice Antonin Scalia has problems believing in biology, Rep. Louie Gohmert takes issue with any Supreme Court justice who understands evolution. On last week’s edition of Washington Watch, Gohmert spoke to conservative activist J. Christian Adams about the court’s decisions in the DOMA and Prop 8 cases, which he had previously warned signal the collapse of civilization.
Gohmert reacted to the court’s rulings by quoting “the wisest man in the history of mankind,” King Solomon, while lamenting that his wisdom was “ruined” by engaging in polygamy (which also happens to undermine Gohmert’s case that there was just one definition of marriage in the Bible).
“He should’ve stuck with one man and one wife and I think he’d stay wise the rest of his life,” Gohmert said of Solomon, “but during a period of wisdom he said, ‘There is nothing new under the sun,’ and the holy quintet [the Supreme Court] had not apparently realized that, they really thought this was something new and improved.”
The congressman then delved into the world of philosophy: “From a philosophical standpoint, you know, we got intellectuals on the court who are believed to support the idea that evolution is how mankind got here and there is an ongoing evolution occurring. And I can’t just help but wonder, as these brilliant intellectuals have gotten to this point, how marriage between two men fits into the evolving of producing higher offspring that make the species higher and better.”
Adams added the justices have sought to “change the laws of nature” and “alter what is reality,” while Gohmert referenced a Chiffon margarine commercial to warn the justices that they “shouldn’t mess with Mother Nature.”