This past Sunday, Family Research Council President Tony Perkins delivered the sermon at Robert Jeffress’ church in Dallas. Although Perkins’ visit had been planned more than a year in advance, Jeffress was delighted that it ended up falling just two days after the Supreme Court struck down gay marriage bans nationwide, which Jeffress called “the greatest, most historic, landmark blunder in the history of the United States Supreme Court.”
Jeffress had some good news, though: The Supreme Court’s decision and the ensuing rainbow-flag projection on the White House all just confirm the Bible’s reports of what will happen before the return of Christ.
“What happened Friday was nothing short of an affront in the face of Almighty God,” Jeffres said in his introduction of Perkins. “And how did our president respond? President Obama responded Friday night by bathing the White House, the people’s house, in colors that represent what the Bible calls degredation, depravity and sexual perversion.”
Jeffress and his church, he said, are “not going to be silenced by the liberal left, Barack Obama or the United States Supreme Court.”
“We’re not despondent, we’re not discouraged in the least,” he added, “because everything that happened Friday is simply confirmation of what the Bible says is going to happen before the return of Jesus Christ.”
Perkins also addressed the marriage equality ruling, saying he was less concerned about being “on the wrong side of history” than on “the wrong side of the one who’s going to write the final chapter of history.”
The government, he said, had “usurped” issues like marriage and turned “the sacred into the secular.”
“I cannot see a more clear visual representation of where our nation stands,” he said, “than on Friday morning, our courts turned the sacred into the secular and that night, the president bathing the White House in the colors of Pride. God have mercy on America.”
Phyllis Schlafly’s latest newsletter is promoting the Eagle Forum’s 44th annual leadership council gathering. The ever-direct Schlafly gets right to the point:
Why is this Eagle Council so important? It is absolutely urgent that we elect a conservative President. Eagle Council is both a strategic forum featuring top-notch experts helpful to activists like you AND a celebration of our values and achievements to encourage all Eagles.
What exactly are the values Schlafly’s gathering will be celebrating? If her main speakers are any indication, those values would be anti-immigrant and anti-gay bigotry, along with lawless resistance to court rulings on LGBT equality and church-state separation.
Can you guess? Friday night’s keynote will be given by Ann Coulter, who has been complaining that the media has gotten so tired of her predictable liberal-bashing shtick that they aren’t giving enough attention to her latest bottom-feeding screed, “Adios America! The Left’s Plan to Turn Our Country Into a Third World Hellhole.”
On Saturday evening, Schalfly’s Eagles will hear from Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore, who was removed from the bench once for refusing to obey federal court orders to remove a Ten Commandments monument he installed in the courthouse. More recently, a group that he founded and that his wife leads, the Foundation for Moral Law, vowed to defy the “illegitimate” marriage equality ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court.
On Sunday, Moore told a congregation, “Welcome to the new world. It’s just changed for you Christians. You are going to be persecuted, according to the U.S. Supreme Court dissents.” Moore has previously claimed same-sex marriage would destroy America and invite God’s wrath on the country.
Schlafly’s event will be in St. Louis September 11-13. Mark your calendars!
In his latest column, Cliff Kincaid of Accuracy In Media calls on Congress to impeach Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Elena Kagan in the wake of the Supreme Court’s marriage equality decision, saying they were biased in the case because they had both officiated weddings for gay couples and because Kagan is a “known lesbian.”
“Members of Congress taking up this cause will not get sympathetic headlines in the media,” he writes. “But it is something that has to be done if Independence Day is going to have any meaning left at all.”
He adds that a spokesman for Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore’s Foundation for Moral Law had told him that “the failure by Kagan and Ginsburg to withdraw from the case leaves them open to impeachment and removal from the bench.”
Whatever the reason for the putsch, our form of government has been overthrown and another put in its place—a judicial dictatorship that is devoted to elevating to protected status a sexual minority seeking the abolition of traditional values. Left unchecked in its drive for power over others, this cabal threatens not only our heritage but America’s standing in the world as a superpower. It appears the Obama administration wants to spend more money on Pentagon gay pride events and climate change than actual weapons systems to defend America.
As we get ready to celebrate Independence Day, however, we can rest assured that the American people remember enough about the founding of their country that they cannot and will not accept a judicial tyranny. That would make a complete mockery of what July 4th is all about and what millions of Americans have sacrificed for.
Our media didn’t treat it as a big deal, but Justices Elena Kagan and Ruth Bader Ginsburg had both officiated at gay weddings. Groups such as the National Organization for Marriage, the American Family Association, the Coalition of African American Pastors, and the Foundation for Moral Law had called for Kagan and Ginsburg to withdraw from the case.
Matthew Kidd, executive director of the Foundation for Moral Law, told Accuracy in Media that the failure by Kagan and Ginsburg to withdraw from the case leaves them open to impeachment and removal from the bench.
In the case of Kagan, an Obama appointee, she may have had a personal conflict-of-interest. This is a sensitive matter, but various reports indicated that Kagan was a known lesbian before she was nominated to the Court by President Obama. For example, the gay blog QueerTY had identified her as a lesbian. That would mean she was compromised on homosexual issues prior to her ascension to the bench and after she was confirmed. This is a conflict of interest that cannot be tolerated.
Whether the reports of her lesbianism are true or not, we know that Kagan had an extremely radical record as Dean of Harvard Law School (2003 to 2009) where she promoted homosexuality and transgenderism. Nevertheless, she was confirmed to the Supreme Court in a 63 to 37 vote.
We now see the evidence of what happens when the media and Congress fail to do their jobs.
Congress, however, can try to undo some of the damage by holding hearings into the possible impeachment of Justices Kagan and Ginsburg. This would be one way of getting to the bottom of Scalia’s sensational charge that America’s democratic system has been subverted and stolen from the American people.
We are bound to hear that impeachment would be difficult and conviction impossible. There’s always an excuse for not taking bold action in Washington, D.C. But a congressional failure to act, in the wake of Scalia’s extraordinary charge of a judicial Putsch, would suggest that celebrating July 4th means fireworks and nothing more.
I think enough Americans are sufficiently concerned about this matter that they want to see some real fireworks, in the form of Congress exposing the lies, corruption and conflicts of interest that went into the sick and tyrannical gay marriage ruling.
Members of Congress taking up this cause will not get sympathetic headlines in the media. But it is something that has to be done if Independence Day is going to have any meaning left at all.
The problem with the analogy to interracial marriage is that it assumes exactly what is in dispute: that sex is as irrelevant to marriage as race is. It’s clear that race has nothing to do with marriage. Racist laws kept the races apart and were designed to keep whites at the top. Marriage has everything to do with men and women, husbands and wives, mothers and fathers and their children, and that is why principle-based policy has defined marriage as the union of one man and one woman.
Anderson has previously pointed to the anti-abortion movement as the model for long-term resistance to marriage equality. Since the Court’s ruling in Obergefell, Anderson has been more explicit about what the strategy means. In a panel discussion at the Heritage Foundation on June 30, Anderson declared, “The central thesis of my new book…is that the pro-marriage movement is in the same exact situation culturally that the pro-life movement found itself in 42 and a half years ago after Roe v. Wade.” In the 40 years since the Roe v. Wade decision, that movement has been all too successful at getting legislatures to restrict women’s ability to access reproductive health care, and at convincing courts to go along. In the Boston Globe, Anderson explained how that happened:
The pro-life community stood up and responded to a bad court ruling. Academics wrote books and articles making the scientific and philosophical case for life. Statesmen like Henry Hyde, Edwin Meese, and Ronald Reagan used the bully pulpit to advance the culture of life. Activists and lawyers got together, formed coalitions, and devised effective strategies.
At Heritage, Anderson identified three steps taken by abortion foes that he says must now be pursued by anti-marriage-equality advocates.
Identify the decision as illegitimate judicial activism.
Act to protect the rights of “conscience.”
Wage a long-term campaign of “rebuilding a truthful, strong marriage culture” to “bear witness to the truth” within a culture that has been told a lie, in this case about the nature of marriage. This will be a long-term, “generational” effort, “something our children and grandchildren will be responding to.”
Anderson and other right-wing leaders have certainly been ready to carry out his first piece of advice, denouncing the ruling as judicial activism and, in Anderson’s words, “a significant setback for all Americans who believe in the Constitution, the rule of law, democratic self-government, and marriage as the union of one man and one woman.” His mentor Robert George responded in kind, saying, “we must reject and resist an egregious act of judicial usurpation. We must, above all, tell the truth: Obergefell v. Hodges is an illegitimate decision.” Anderson’s colleague Matthew J. Franck, called it an “appallingly illegitimate decision.”
As for the second step, acting to protect the “rights of conscience,” Anderson says, “There is an urgent need for policy to ensure the government never penalizes anyone for standing up for marriage. We must work to protect the freedom of speech, association, and religion of those who continue to abide by the truth of marriage as one man and one woman.”
Anderson and other anti-equality leaders are pushing for passage of the so-called First Amendment Defense Act in Congress, and for passage of similar laws at the state level. He says that the First Amendment Defense Act would allow individuals, organizations, and businesses to “act on the belief that marriage is the union of a man and a woman” – in other words, to discriminate against same-sex couples without facing any legal consequences.
Just as the pro-life movement ensured that no pro-life citizen would ever have to pay for an abortion or perform an abortion, so too must we work to ensure no one is coerced on marriage. Rather than forcing people and institutions of faith to go to court for their religious liberty, this bill would prevent the government from ever acting unjustly in the first place.
Shortly after the Supreme Court’s ruling in Roe v Wade, laws were passed to allow doctors who had religious objections to performing abortions to refuse to do so without experiencing negative professional consequences. There has been little opposition to such laws. But over the past few decades, at the urging of anti-abortion activists, the scope of that kind of religious exemption has been expanded wildly to include people ever-further removed from the actual abortion procedure, and expanded to include even marginal participation in the provision of contraception. In emergency situations these accommodation could come at high cost, including the life of a patient.
Law professors Douglas NeJaime and Reva Siegel describe these as “complicity-based conscience claims” – claims that are about refusing to do anything that might make one complicit in any way with another person’s behavior that one deems sinful. They note that the concept of complicity has been extended to allow health care providers not to even inform patients that some potential care or information has been withheld from them based on the religious beliefs of an individual or the policies of an institution.
The resistance to complying with the requirement under the Affordable Care Act that insurance plans cover contraception takes the notion of complicity to almost surreal lengths. Just days after the Hobby Lobby decision, the Court’s conservatives sided provisionally with religious conservatives who are arguing that it is a burden on their religious freedom even to inform the government that they are refusing to provide contraceptive coverage, because that would trigger the process by which the coverage would be provided by others. Cases revolving around the simple act of informing the government of an objection are working their way back toward the Supreme Court….
Given what we know about the intensity of the anti-gay movement’s opposition to marriage equality, it is not hard to imagine how far that movement could run with the principle that religious beliefs about “traditional” marriage are a legitimate basis for discriminating against same-sex couples.
As for Anderson’s final step, waging a generational culture war to promote the idea that marriage can only exist between a man and a woman, he offers several strategies:
Conduct “rigorous social science” on family structures, which he says could be used to sway future conservative justices to overturn Obergefell. Anderson is editor of Public Discourse, published by the Witherspoon Institute, which is probably best known for financing the notorious Mark Regnerus study on “family structures,” which anti-equality groups continue to cite even though the study and the way it has been used by marriage equality opponents have been thoroughly discredited.
Use “better spokespeople.” Anderson says the movement should make more use of gays and people raised by same-sex couples who oppose marriage equality. Anderson complained at Heritage that both groups filed amicus briefs but that the Court did not acknowledge either.
Live out “the truth about marriage” by demonstrating the beauty, truth, and holiness of one-man, one-woman marriage. Anderson acknowledged that gay and lesbian people did not cause family breakdown, heterosexuals did that through contraception, divorce, and other aspects of the sexual revolution. “Justice Kennedy’s philosophy of marriage is the natural result, the logical result, of the past 50 years of the breakdown of the American family. It’s the natural, logical conclusion of the sexual revolution.” Anderson said "We have ourselves to blame” for 50 years of “failing to live out the truth about marriage.” Still, he said, “redefining marriage will not do anything to strengthen the family; but it will likely make the family even weaker.”
Anderson has achieved folk-hero status among the anti-gay right and many are likely to follow his road map. The National Organization for Marriage is praising his “encouraging words and advice” on how to “continue the fight to defend marriage as it has always been defined – the union between one man and one woman.”
Anti-gay activist Bradlee Dean claimed that LGBT people “are not ruled by law” on Monday’s episode of his “Sons of Liberty” radio program. Dean criticized the media for spreading the “gay agenda,” and attempting to “pervert all comprehension” and “confuse the younger generations.”
Dean briefly touched on the recent Supreme Court marriage decision, advising listeners that “nothing is good enough” for the LGBT community. “You’re gonna be destroyed by those you tolerate,” Dean warned, before urging his followers to “hold these people responsible because they are sick in the mind.”
His rant also included his theory that society is “using the Bruce Jenners of the world” to distract Americans from God’s teaching. “We’re telling you to wake up!” Dean shouted, before continuing into a tirade against the LGBT community.
Though not a politician himself, Dean has regularly worked with fellow Minnesotan Michele Bachmann. Dean publicly advocates against LGBT rights, and has previously suggested that gay marriage would usher in another Holocaust.
Former Republican congressman Tom Tancredo managed to tie two of the biggest issues of the week together on Tuesday when he railed against efforts to take down Confederate flags, saying that the Koran is an even more dangerous symbol, and then claimed that thanks to the Supreme Court’s recent marriage equality decision, such comments will soon be illegal.
When Newsmax’s Steve Malzberg asked Tancredo to discuss a Facebook post he recently wrote comparing the Confederate flag to the Koran, Tancredo responded that efforts to “erase” the flag are misguided.
“However,” he continued, “there is something else out there, our president really happens to enjoy it, we teach about it in the public schools, we tell people, kids in the public schools to respect it. It’s called the Koran and it’s responsible for far more, far more murders, enslavement, the most horrible things, and it’s still going on. It’s not history, it’s still happening. And that, we don’t ban it, heavens no, we even tell kids we gotta read it in our schools and respect it.”
Malzberg then changed the subject, asking Tancredo about the Supreme Court’s marriage decision, which Tancredo said was connected. Not only will the decision eventually lead to the criminal prosecution of pastors, he claimed, but soon “everything I just said” about the Confederate flag and the Koran will be “outlawed” due to the institution of unconstitutional hate speech prohibitions.
“Mark my words, that’s what’s coming,” he said. “Dark days ahead, Steve.”
Ryan Anderson, senior fellow at Heritage Foundation and founder of “Public Discourse,” joined Eric Metaxas on his show Tuesday to discuss the Supreme Court’s marriage equality ruling.
Anderson provided listeners with a historical backdrop to the ruling, arguing that for “the past 50 years heterosexuals have failed to live out the truth about marriage.” Heterosexuals mistakenly “bought into a bad ideology; it was called the ‘sexual revolution.’” This, he said, made “a mess of the family, whether it was the hook-up culture, pre-marital sex, non-marital childbearing, lots of divorce.”
“And once you have made a mess of marriage in those ways,” Anderson continued, “there’s a certain logic to redefining it to include same-sex couples: if it’s just about consenting adult romance, why not?”
“That whole 50 years has been a problem,” he said. “Same-sex marriage didn’t cause the problem, but same sex marriage will make the problem worse and it will make it harder to create a strong marriage culture.”
Anderson made similar comments earlier this year in response to an interviewer who lamented that “the widespread acceptance of contraception” was “the first domino to fall” on the way to marriage equality.”
The Supreme Court finished its session on Monday, ending a term filled with landmark decisions regarding fair housing, marriage equality, and healthcare.
On Wednesday, PFAW hosted a telebriefing for members about the end of the Court’s term and the implications of several cases. PFAW Communications Director Drew Courtney moderated a dialogue among PFAW Senior Fellows Elliot Mincberg and Jamie Raskin, Right Wing Watch researcher Miranda Blue, and PFAW Executive Vice President for Policy and Program Marge Baker.
Raskin covered Obergefell v. Hodges and Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission. He first noted that Obergefell would not be possible without the “many decades of intense social struggle and millions of people coming out of the closet” which created a momentous societal shift in public opinion of LGBT rights. The Arizonacase, which effectively obstructed state legislature’s gerrymandering efforts, was also a huge triumph for democracy, because, as Raskin notes, “the whole point of democracy is that power begins and resides with people.”
At the end of the briefing, Courtney asked the panelists about the next session of the court, including a union case, Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, that was recently added to the docket. Raskin labeled the case as “the new wedge to destroy unions,” and another GOP attempt to use legal doctrine to undermine progressive initiatives like public sector unions.
Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, said yesterday that he would support impeaching Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Elena Kagan over their participation in the Supreme Court’s marriage equality case whenever “the public is ready” for such proceedings.
King, a guest on Iowa talk radio host Jan Mickelson’s program, took a call from a listener who said of the justices who voted to strike down same-sex marriage bans, “I submit that these are rogue justices and they can be impeached and removed by Congress.”
King told the caller that he agreed with him, but “impeachment itself,, we have learned throughout history, is a political decision” and the timing is “up to the will of the people.”
“That provision does exist, and let’s hear what the public has to say,” he added. “If that were put up before me today, and I think I mentioned Ginsburg and Kagan as being two that had been conducting same-sex marriages on their spare time and did not recuse themselves, I would put up the vote to remove them from office. And I’d like to see that case heard again and it would come down four-to-three and it in the end it would come back to the states for that decision, where it should be. But I don’t know if the public is ready for that.”
But in the near term, King said, the nation must turn to “nationwide civil disobedience” in defiance of the marriage decision. He also repeated his plan for states to “abolish civil marriage” in order to deny the benefits and responsibilities of marriage to gay and lesbian couples.
“By doing so we can avoid the litigation that’s coming at every one of our churches,” he said, claiming that gay rights advocates “will not stop until they can force a priest to conduct a same-sex marriage at the altar of a Catholic church.”
Earlier in the program, King went on a long tangent linking the U.S. Constitution not only to the Magna Carta and to Greek and Roman law, but also to the New Testament.
“You can go piece by piece of this all the way through the history of the foundation of western civilization to get to the underpinnings of the pillars of American exceptionalism,” he said. “And we seem to have forgotten about those underpinnings and now we’re at this place where there is no right and wrong and the rule of tyranny of whoever can get leverage in whatever form and five justices in the Supreme Court setting a policy that turns over thousands of years of human experience.”
“This Constitution is rendered an artifact of history if we let this stand,” he warned.
On Tuesday’s edition of “Trunews,” End Times broadcaster Rick Wiles delivered a eulogy for America and lamented that “the America I knew and loved is dead, rest in peace. It will not be resurrected.” Wiles cited the Supreme Court’s decision to legalize marriage equality as the cause of our nation’s untimely death, calling the ruling “the final abomination.”
“How can I pledge allegiance to the flag of a nation that celebrates sexual perversion, pornography and baby killing?” Wiles asked. He later added that he is "embarrassed to be a legal citizen in a nation that is openly promoting sexual perversion and compelling other nations to rebel against God too.”
According to Wiles, the death of America has ushered in a new era for the country: the era of Babylon. He criticized the “Babylonian pagans”— which is what he now calls American citizens — for rejecting the Lord’s presence and even chastised his evangelical peers, declaring, “Christians who are acting like nothing seriously happened last Friday are like people sitting on a fiery sofa in a burning house.”
Wiles, who will no longer say the pledge of allegiance or the phrase “God Bless America,” warned listeners that “there is no end to the sexual perversion this country has now opened itself to, the floodgates to sexual perversion – lewdness, sorcery, witchcraft and rebellion – opened wide last Friday.”
He also cited a Russian MP who claimed that the U.S. will “use military might and intimidation” to force other countries to accept same-sex marriage and spread its “gay delirium.”
The fire and brimstone tribute to America ended with Wiles’ assertion that “the final abomination” was upon us, which Wiles said was a reference to a dream Pastor T.D. Hale had in 2005. In his dream, Wiles said, Hale saw an American Eagle shot down in the Oval Office, with a voice saying “Weep in the house, for the misery that shall come shortly.”
Hale envisioned a smirking President Obama, dressed in all black, stepping out from behind his desk and twisting off the Eagle’s head.
“His chest cavity was open,” Wiles narrated, “The heart was exceedingly evil with thick black smoke swirling around Obama’s heart.” Obama then picked up a gavel and a voice overhead gravely proclaimed “The final abomination.”
Mat Staver, the founder and chairman of the anti-gay legal group Liberty Counsel, joined Jim Schneider on VCY America on Monday to discuss the potential repercussions of marriage equality.
Staver’s immediate response to the ruling was that “it’s brought judgment on America.” Repeatedly affirming that he does not consider the “five lawyers” who wrote the decision to be “justices of the United States Supreme Court, although that’s their technical title,” Staver described the ruling as “an opinion of five people that have thrown away millennia of human history, and literally brought judgment upon themselves and, frankly, I think, the nation if the nation accepts what they have done.”
Staver urged conservative Christians to engage in "peaceful resistance” to the Supreme Court’s ruling. Likening the fight against marriage equality to the fight for racial equality, Staver said, “This is the Rosa Parks on the bus. If they tell you to go to the back of the bus because your skin color doesn’t match what they want, don’t go to the back of the bus. This is the time for peaceful resistance, and this is the time to stand with people who are engaged in peaceful resistance.”
“This is the time like of the Nazi Germany when they’d knock on your door,” Staver continued. “‘Is there a Jew in your house?’ Well, if you say 'yes,' than the Jew is dead; if you say 'no,' then you’re dead. What are you gonna do? You gonna protect the person? Or are you gonna save your own skin?”
Responding to Schneider’s fears about the future of public education, Staver argued that we will now witness “the marching of the kids through the public schools and the indoctrination. This is the, this is going to be an assault on them of unprecedented proportions as well.” The Department of Education, he predicted, will soon be ordering schools to tell kindergartners, “‘Hey, you need to experiment as a kindergarten with whether you’re male or female. You need to, like, have some experiments and go out and have same-sex relationships.”
After a caller expressed concern that schoolchildren will be brainwashed into homosexuality, Schneider lamented that even children “growing up in great Christian homes” are beginning to question the immorality of homosexuality because of “what they’re being taught in the schools.”
Staver agreed, urging listeners to “abandon the public schools” because “ this is gonna be a flood of homosexual indoctrination, gender abolition indoctrination, sexual practice experimentation, risky behavior. All this is gonna come on them like a flood.” If you don’t shield your kids from the flood of equality, Staver concluded, “you’re gonna lose your children.”
The right-wing response to the Supreme Court’s marriage equality decision has been, quite literally, apocalyptic.
It’s only been five days since the court issued its ruling, but conservative pundits have already predicted that gay marriage will ultimately be responsible for natural disasters, terrorist attacks and the destruction of freedom.
While there haven’t been any terrorist attacks against the U.S. since the court’s ruling, whenever there are, anti-LGBT activists will know who to blame: gay people who want to get married.
“They have thumbed their nose at God’s design for man, a man and a woman designed from the beginning of time and creation, and it will not, it will not stand,” she added. “While we’re under such terrible terror threats, you know, our protections have been lifted and that’s what they don’t understand.”
Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Texas, also warned that “God’s hand of protection will be withdrawn as future actions from external and internal forces will soon make clear. I will do all I can to prevent such harm, but I am gravely fearful that the stage has now been set.”
“America’s elite leadership have taken the side of the enemies of God, and He will take notice,” WorldNetDaily editor Joseph Farah warned, claiming that such divine judgment “could come in the form of an attack on our country from foreign power or terrorist group.”
Rick Wiles, host of the End Times radio program “Trunews,” similarly predicted that God will now “lift His hand of protection from this nation” and “permit America’s enemies to attack this nation.”
Cliff Kincaid of the conservative group Accuracy in Media was a little more tame in his reasoning but came to the same conclusion: “A country that descends to the bottom of the barrel morally and culturally will not be able to defend itself against its foreign adversaries and enemies. Indeed, we have the evidence all around us that, as the culture has degenerated, our ability to defend ourselves has simultaneously been weakened.”
2)Forced gay sex
The right-wing warnings of “forced homosexuality” are now coming true, at least according to one pastor. Tim Brooks of the Christian Ministries Church told one conservative radio program that gay people, just like the men of Sodom who tried to rape angelic visitors, “are trying to force their lifestyle on him, come out and have sex with us, have to participate.”
Record-breaking floods have inundated Washington, D.C. just days after the Supreme Court decided they knew better than God. I seem to remember another time in history when there was a record-breaking flood.
God painted the sky with rainbow colors after that flood. This go-around - Obama painted the White House with rainbow colors.
Anybody got an ark?
Heavy rain may not be the only result of same-sex marriage (besides equal marriage rights for gay people), as some Religious Right pundits also believe that divine wrath will come in the form of food shortages and drought.
Wiles warned that “God will cut off America’s food supply and this nation will be hit with disease, pestilence, drought, natural calamities and a great shaking.”
“Nothing grabs the attention of the distracted faster than the complete removal of all creature comforts and extravagant wealth,” Christian Post columnist Michael Bresciani said. “Crops will fail, stores will close and commerce will come almost to a complete stop. It will not be pretty. Add to that, attacks from our enemies and natural disasters rising to meet the pride of the sinners’ right where it hurts the most.”
Five years ago, Religious Right leaders confidently predicted that prison cells and court rooms would fill up with pastors after the passage of the 2009 Hate Crimes Act. Of course, such events never occurred, but now the same anti-LGBT activists are making the samefalseclaims about the supposed consequences of same-sex marriage.
“Pastors who refuse to perform gay marriage and preach from the Bible should prepare for hate crime charges,” Starnes said. “All dissent will be silenced.”
Richard Land, a former leader of the Southern Baptist Convention’s political arm, was a little more cautious, explaining that pastors will indeed face prison if they refuse to officiate same-sex couple’s weddings, but only after the government takes a few “intermediate steps.”
Just days prior to the Supreme Court’s marriage ruling, Glenn Beck said that if the court were to decide in favor of same-sex couples, then the Bible would be outlawed as a “hate book.” Just hours after the decision came down, Beck offered another dire warning: He will lose his show.
“This could mean the end of radio broadcasts like mine,” Beck said, insisting that he will be taken off the air simply because he is “for traditional marriage.”
7)Taking kids from their parents
Chicago-based pastor Erwin Lutzer believes that parents who oppose same-sex marriage may lose custody of their children following the Supreme Court’s marriage ruling, predicting that “parents that homeschool children, religious parents, will be diagnosed as culturally intolerant and personality intolerant. And therefore, as a result, their children will be taken away from them.”
Rios, the AFA official, even warned that children may be forced to spy on their parents like in the Soviet Union.
8)This means war
Conservative legal activist Larry Klayman denounced the marriage equality ruling as a “harbinger to revolution,” urging Americans to take to rebellion like the Founding Fathers did.
“If evil despots have compromised even our Supreme Court, the ultimate protector and ‘decider’ of our rights, then what choice is left to us?” Klayman asked. “John Adams, Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin certainly know, from their own experience with King George, and from their graves they see what now again lies ahead and what must be done to restore freedom to our shores.”
One conservative pundit, Bill Muehlenberg, told readers that “a major proper response for Christians and others” to the Supreme Court’s ruling “is massive civil disobedience and defiance of this homo-fascist decision.”
9)Pedophilia now legal
Former House GOP Majority Leader Tom DeLay, who promised that “all hell is going to break loose” if the Supreme Court decided to strike down state bans on same-sex marriage, declared that he has uncovered a “secret memo” from the Department of Justice that reveals plans to legalize “having sex with little boys,” along with bestiality and polygamy.
The website run by West, the former congressman, even claimed that pedophilia supporters celebrated the Friday ruling. As the myth-busting website Snopes notes, the blog post on West’s site was “lifted almost entirely from an article published in 2011 and in no way reflected a claim prompted by a June 2015 Supreme Court decision regarding same-sex marriage.” They add that the 2011 story “originated with a writer who has been asserting for years (less than accurately) that the push for gay rights is manifestly setting the stage for legalized ‘pedophilia rights.’”
Perhaps the blog post’s author received this news from David Barton, the right-wing pseudo-historian who just days before the court issued its ruling alleged, falsely, that pedophilia became “legally protected” following the passage of the 2009 Hate Crimes Act.
10)Criminalization of Christianity
The most prominent claim coming from the Religious Right in response to the Supreme Court’s decision has been what Family Research Council President Tony Perkins has called the government attempt to “eliminate” religious beliefs that oppose gay rights.
“In one appalling decision, the Supreme Court has effectively opened the door to the criminalization of Christianity when it comes to the marriage issue ... and not just Christianity, but every major religion that supports God’s model for marriage and family,” warned Penny Nance of Concerned Women for America.
Right-wing pundit Matt Barber made a similar claim: “The goal of ‘LGBT’ activists and secular progressives has long been to pit the government directly against the free exercise of religion – Christianity in particular – and to silence all dissent.”
One FRC official, Craig James, said that conservatives who oppose the same-sex marriage decision should respond to the coming persecution and ridicule “in love” … just like the families of the Charleston massacre.
Alabama has been center stage of the gay marriage fight since Moore, with the backing of fellow Republicans, used his position as chief justice of the state’s supreme court to order public officials to defy a federal court decision striking down the state’s ban on same-sex marriage.
Beeker, the public service commissioner, kicked things off by calling the Supreme Court’s decision “an assault on God” and on “our Christian heritage” that rendered the 10th Amendment “null and void.”
“A runaway judiciary,” he continued, “is a bigger threat to the United States than ISIS. Liberal judges have done more harm to our country and our Constitution than Al Qaeda."
Not to be outdone, Sanctity of Marriage Alabama spokesman Tom Ford, who called marriage equality part of a “war against God” and a “new invention” the results of which “no one knows.”
But he had some guesses. “The best indication that I have of what it will bring is what we’ve seen in the Bible,” he said. “I can go to Soddom and Gomorrah. In history, we can go to Pompeii, we can go to other places, we can look at Nero in the time of Rome. And in these times God brought destruction, and he also raised up people to speak his truth and he also drew people to himself. And this is our hope.”
He also warned of the dire consequences on children: “If we give our children to the sodomites to educate, when it’s all said and done and they believe that sodomy is okay, why are we surprised?”
Baptist street preacher Tommy Littleton sounded a similar alarm, saying “the human rights issue of our era” is “protecting our children from what is nothing short of gay liberation theology, full sexual liberation.”
“Today we live in probably the most challenging time of our generation, of our nation’s history,” he said, warning of an impending “climate of fear, loss of free speech, loss of religious freedom, and the overwhelming tsunami that is coming against us and our families and our churches and our children.”
After arguing that curriculum standards like Common Core indoctrinate children in homosexuality, he urged the “normal majority” to “rise up and say I don’t want my children to be educated by people who are confused about their own sexuality.”
“Are we really in an honest conversation on the other side or are the LGBT people being used for a much greater and horrendous agenda?” he asked. “I believe they are.”
Becky Gerritson, head of the Wetumpka Tea Party, cited an unfounded right-wing rumor about Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wanting to lower the age of consent to 12 years old to warn that the court’s decision paves the way for adult-child marriage and plural marriage.
She urged the audience to “have compassion” on “future victims of this decision” who will be trapped in plural marriages and all the “horrors that it will play out in their lives.”
Eidsmoe, who works for Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore’s Foundation for Moral Law, hinted at future challenges to the Supreme Court ruling, saying “this is far from over” and referring to legislators and probate judges who are ready to “obey God rather than man.”
The Supreme Court’s decision, he said, “constitutes an illegitimate means of reaching and unconstitutional decision to create an invalid institution to further the perpetration of immoral acts.”
On Monday, Houston-based radio show host Sam Malone criticized the Supreme Court’s ruling on marriage equality, lambasting the court along with the “extremists of the gay agenda.” These activists, he said, “are anti-tolerance and not one of them has come out to say respect the religious views of the 98 percent of America who aren’t gay.”
Malone’s guest, Texas GOP activist Jared Woodfill, similarly warned that the gay community is “coming after us,” reminding conservatives that “it’s a war that we’re in right now.”
“The gay activists refuse to preach tolerance,” Malone said. “It’s like dealing with Muslim terrorists, there is no tolerance. If 0.08 percent of the population are gay men, that’s 0.08 percent, who is going to stand up for the 98 percent who aren’t and are religious and have a firm foundation in the Bible and say, ‘This is wrong, I don’t want to be involved, you do it, if that’s your thing, you do it, ain’t my thing and I don’t want anything to do with it.’ Obama launched the war on religion in America.”
Malone’s other guest, conservative blogger Stacy Washington, said that the court ruled the way it did on marriage equality because Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan are secretly gay. She also suggested that Chief Justice John Roberts, who wrote a dissenting opinion, is also gay.
“Elena Kagan and Sotomayor, they’re both homosexuals, they were all over those ones they felt like they could influence, and they got Roberts because he’s got something going on, he’s got something going on there,” she said.
Malone predicted that Kagan “will come out in a month or so,” claiming that her secret homosexuality made it a “filthy ruling.”
The head of Alabama’s court system, an employee of notoriously anti-gay Chief Justice Roy Moore, has sent a letter to Gov. Robert Bentley and other state elected officials urging them to defy the Supreme Court’s marriage equality ruling or else “become complicit in the takeover by the wicked,” reports AL.com.
“Public officials are ministers of God assigned the duty of punishing the wicked and protecting the righteous,” Win Johnson, director of legal staff at the state’s Administrative Office of the Court, wrote to the elected officials in a letter obtained by the newspaper. “If the public officials decide to officially approve of the acts of the wicked, they must logically not protect the righteous from the wicked. In fact, they must become protectors of the wicked. You cannot serve two masters; you must pick – God or Satan.”
He continues with a defense of criminal prohibitions on homosexuality: “The criminal laws against homosexual sodomy are for the protection of the righteous, particularly the young, the weak, the vulnerable, who need the law to teach them right from wrong when in a vulnerable state. The U.S. Supreme Court, although it claims to have done so in 2003, cannot take something that God calls a crime and declare it not a crime.”
He then equates compliance with the marriage equality ruling with obedience in Nazi Germany, writing “the civil government must now become a persecuting power; you cannot avoid it.”
Time for Public Officials to take their stand one way or the other
Jesus Christ is Lord of all. He came to save the world by His death and resurrection. That world includes you, me, the family, the civil government, all the institutions of life. He came to advance His Father's kingdom, not watch man run rampant upon the earth as if Christ had never come. As if it were the days of Noah!
Public officials are ministers of God assigned the duty of punishing the wicked and protecting the righteous. If the public officials decide to officially approve of the acts of the wicked, they must logically not protect the righteous from the wicked. In fact, they must become protectors of the wicked. You cannot serve two masters; you must pick – God or Satan.
The criminal laws against homosexual sodomy are for the protection of the righteous, particularly the young, the weak, the vulnerable, who need the law to teach them right from wrong when in a vulnerable state. The U.S. Supreme Court, although it claims to have done so in 2003, cannot take something that God calls a crime and declare it not a crime.
We're facing something even worse now, the civil government taking a new step and actually requiring the approval and sanctifying by the state of an evil behavior. Five justices on the U.S. Supreme Court have now opined that the States of this country and all of us must approve of so-called marriages of same sex couples.
Therefore, the civil government must now become a persecuting power; you cannot avoid it. The civil government must protect what it approves of. It must protect the advocates' employment, their business dealings, their lives in every way. Against whom? Against those who think their lifestyle is evil. That's you and me, bible-believing Christians, the Church, etc.
Public official, what will you do? Will you stand up for the law of Alabama, for the people, for the weak and vulnerable, for the law of God? Or will you capitulate? Will you become complicit in the takeover by the wicked?
"I must follow the law," you say. Law? What law? There is no law anymore, there's just opinion. One day this, one day that. When the law becomes merely the opinion of a handful of people on the courts, there is no longer any law. There is tyranny. There is chaos. But there is no law.
The young and the weak, those that are caused to stumble by courts that approve of what is evil, are those whom Jesus referred to when he said, "It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones." Luke 17:2. You don't want to be complicit in allowing such stumbling blocks.
Don't use the Nazi war-crimes trial defense: "My superiors (or the courts) told me to do it." You're not standing for the rule of law when you capitulate to a law that defies God and exposes people to the wicked. You're just a coward making excuses!
Or will your conscience cause you to resign? Why would you leave the people of this State, their children, your children and grandchildren to the wolves, those who would rend the society apart with their denial of what's good and evil?
Your duty is to stand against the ravages of a superior authority that would go beyond its rightful power and force upon the people something evil. That's what the founders of our country did when Parliament exceeded its powers. That's what the Puritans in civil government in the 1600's did when the King exceeded his powers.
On Judgment Day, you won't stand in front of the media, the advocates of "Equality," or even the federal courts; you'll stand before the King of Kings, the Judge and Ruler over the Kings of the Earth, Jesus Christ. His law is not subject to the vote of man, and He, asthe good and loving author of that law, does not exempt any nation from it. The law's author, speaking of Himself as "the stone which the builders rejected," said, "Whosoever shall fall upon that stone shall be broken; but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder." Luke 20:18.
What can you do? You have authority as an elected official. You also are sworn to uphold the U.S. Constitution and Alabama Constitution. Find a way to do so. Don't acquiesce to the takeover (actually the takedown)! Use your authority and every legal angle to oppose the tyrants! If necessary, just say, "No." It is not rebellion for you to say, "Your interpretation of the Constitution is wrong, beyond your authority, and detrimental to this nation." In fact, it's your duty. You're not opposing the rule of law, you're upholding it by saying that.
Rep. Glenn Grothman, Republican of Wisconsin, joined Milwaukee-area radio host Vicki McKenna on Friday to discuss the Supreme Court’s ruling striking down state bans on same-sex marriage. Grothman told McKenna that the Supreme Court’s reasoning, which was based on the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause, was an affront to the Americans who died in the Civil War because it was “a strong religious war to further a Christian lifestyle by getting rid of slavery.”
“Our president during the Civil War was, of course, Abraham Lincoln, who was known as the most biblical of presidents, somebody who quoted the Bible a lot,” he said. "In the Civil War, some 600,000 people died in a country that was much less populated than that today. And it was a much more religious country and I think a lot of people who died fighting in that war felt they died fighting for a religious cause, you know, ‘Battle Hymn of the Republic’ and all that.
“I think it would shock those people who died in that war to find out the constitutional amendment which was ratified kind of as a culmination of their great efforts and their great deaths would be 150 years later, a little less than 150 years later, used by these five robed, arrogant, robed people to take this constitutional amendment and say that that constitutional amendment that was drafted after the Civil War was in fact an amendment designed to say that same-sex marriage had to be legal.”
He added that the decision is “particularly offensive” given that the 14th Amendment was “drafted by a people who felt they had just engaged in a strong religious war to further a Christian lifestyle by getting rid of slavery.”
Phyllis Schlafly is none too pleased with the Supreme Court’s decision striking down state gay marriage bans, and has a modest proposal for Congress: Pass a resolution affirming the “dignity of opposite-sex married couples,” especially that of couples where “a provider-husband is the principal breadwinner and his wife is dedicated to the job of homemaker.”
While this resolution might not change much in the short term, the anti-feminist crusader writes in her syndicated column today, it might act as an inspiration to the anti-gay movement as they continue to fight marriage equality.
Justice Kennedy's opinion for a 5-4 majority of the Supreme Court has rightly been condemned for its lack of grounding in the constitutional text he is sworn to uphold. Unable to find gay marriage in either the due process clause or the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment, Kennedy ultimately rests his case on what Justice Clarence Thomas sarcastically called the "dignity clause" of the Constitution.
There is no such clause, of course, although Kennedy's majority opinion mentioned "dignity" nine times. But if dignity can be conferred by decisions of the Supreme Court, then Congress can do so, too.
Therein lies a first response: Congress should formally recognize the dignity of opposite-sex married couples and resolve to protect that dignity in our laws. A joint resolution should recite the many reasons why the special union of husband and wife has been honored for "millennia," as Kennedy admitted.
A crash program to rebuild the traditional American nuclear family is urgently necessary for continuing our nation's political and economic success in this century. This won't happen if we transform marriage into a means of giving "dignity" to mostly childless homosexuals.
Once Congress is on a roll to confer dignity, it should confer an extra measure of dignity on the single-earner family, where a provider-husband is the principal breadwinner and his wife is dedicated to the job of homemaker, a role more socially beneficial than working in the paid labor force.
After reciting the foregoing reasons and many others, Congress should conclude its resolution by formally resolving that the traditional family, founded on a married husband and wife, carries special dignity and deserves special recognition because it provides unique benefits to society.
This is not to deny that every human person has value and dignity, or that other domestic relationships may have some value in limited circumstances. But Congress should respond to Kennedy with a ringing affirmation of the unique dignity that should be accorded to society's foundational unit: the marriage of husband and wife.
Naysayers will scoff that the foregoing resolution doesn't change the Supreme Court decision, and you can imagine a late-night comedian comparing it to the medal of courage the Wizard of Oz presented to the Cowardly Lion. But movie fans will recall how that gesture inspired Dorothy and her companions toward achieving their goal.
Last week on “The Sam Malone Show,” Dan Gainor of the right-wing Media Research Center alleged that the Supreme Court’s ruling to uphold marriage equality is part of a wider government war by liberals to crush all opposition.
“For people who are white, cisgender Christians, they’re coming for you,” Gainor said. “They’re coming for your faith, your family, your freedom, your guns, your free speech.”
Gainor went so far as to compare liberals to Nazis: “Just like the Brownshirts in the 1930s, they are telegraphing their attack, they are telling you what they are going to do, they are telling you how they are going to do it to you and if you are caught off guard when this happens, then you’re a fool.”
Malone agreed with Gainor’s dire assessment, alleging that President Obama is engineering this supposed chaos in a “distractionary” attempt to “take control.”
This post by PFAW and PFAW Foundation Senior Legislative Counsel Paul Gordon was originally published in the Huffington Post.
Ted Cruz, Bobby Jindal, and other conservative leaders have recently lashed out against the Supreme Court's decision on marriage equality by proclaiming that local clerks who don't personally agree with marriage equality should not be required to issue marriage licenses or perform weddings for same-sex couples - even though it's their job to provide that service to the public.
Their logic is fundamentally flawed. Civil marriage is a civil function, not a religious one. Government employees allowing someone to access their legal rights are not doing anything religious, nor are they condoning the actions being licensed any more than with any other type of license.
That's why when government employees in our country have had religious objections to divorce and remarriage, they have still had to do their jobs. And when government employees have had religious objections to interracial marriages, they have still had to do their jobs. So, too, have government officials with other religious objections to whether or how certain couples get married.
But when the particular religious belief in question is opposition to lesbians and gays, that's apparently a different matter altogether. Now, suddenly, we're told that government employees need to have their religious liberty "protected."
A principle of religious liberty that is invoked only in the context of one particular religious belief is no principle at all. It is a pretext.
The far-right movement that is coalescing around these "protections" allowing civil servants to impose their religious beliefs on others and deny them service does not have clean hands in this regard. While they proclaim loudly that they just want to "live and let live," the policies they have pursued vigorously for decades have aggressively sought to prevent LGBT people from having basic human rights. The Right's new clamor for "protections" is just another form of homophobia.
If the religious right simply wanted to "live and let live," they would not have spent these past decades seeking to impose their religious beliefs about homosexuality on others both through custom and through force of law. They would not have boycotted television networks for airing shows portraying LGBT people as ordinary people. Nor would they have screamed bloody murder when popular celebrities came out of the closet. They would not have fought to prevent us from raising children. They would not have battled to ensure that surviving members of couples be denied Social Security survivor benefits. They would not have opposed letting us serve our country in the intelligence services or in the military. They would not have put so much energy into convincing Americans that we are sexual predators going after their children. They would not have tried to bar us from teaching in public schools. They would not have threatened us with criminal prosecution just for our private, consensual sexual conduct.
Whether it's religious refusals specific to marriage, more general Religious Freedom Restoration Acts in a post-Hobby Lobby world, or Sen. Mike Lee's misleadingly named "First Amendment Defense Act," the Right is yet again attacking LGBT people. With a growing number of Americans - and now the Supreme Court - affirming that the right to marry is a right guaranteed to all regardless of sexual orientation, some on the Right have come to understand that their best tactic to fight marriage equality is to couch their homophobic goals with the language of "religious liberty" instead of explicitly speaking out against LGBT rights. But it's up to all of us to make sure that they do not succeed in these efforts to portray themselves as virtuous defenders of religious liberty, because in reality they're just waging another war against LGBT people.
Michael Farris, the chancellor of Patrick Henry College and chairman of the Home School Legal Defense Association, told Iowa talk radio host Jan Mickelson yesterday that with its ruling striking down bans on gay marriage, the Supreme Court threw out “the entire institution of our courts and our judiciary and respect for the law” in pursuit of a “rainbow utopia.”
Repeating the Religious Right line that Justices Ruth Bader Kingsburg and Elena Kagan should have recused themselves from the case because they have officiated legal same-sex marriages, Farris suggested setting up a “tribunal” to review recusal motions for Supreme Court justices. If such a body existed, Farris insisted, the marriage decision “would have gone 4-3 in the other direction.”
As it is, he said, the Supreme Court just threw the entire institution of the courts out the window: “I have a hard time imagining myself standing before the Supreme Court and saying ‘your honor’ or ‘Justice.’ They’re politicians in black robes, they’re acting as a legislature. And the entire institution of our courts and our judiciary and respect for the law all have been thrown away by the Supreme Court of the United States in pursuit of this rainbow utopia. It’s crazy.”
Farris also discussed ways for churches to avoid public accommodation laws that prohibit businesses from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation, implying that churches will be forced to perform weddings for gay or lesbian couples. (In reality, churches are not forced to perform marriages they disagree with.)
“If a church gets attacked legally on this basis, they should fight, they should defend,” he said, adding that “it’s far, far better to be in trouble with a gay rights group in court than it is to be in trouble with Almighty God for participating in evil.”