Marriage Equality

The Anti-Equality Movement's Favorite Laughably Disingenuous Talking Point

Anyone who has paid any attention at all to the marriage equality debate has heard an equality opponent speak some version of this line: “All Americans have the freedom to live as they choose. But no one has the right to redefine marriage for the rest of us.”

There’s a reason for that. The National Organization for Marriage instructs its activists that it is the “most effective single sentence” the anti-marriage-equality movement has:

Extensive and repeated polling agrees that the single most effective message is the following: “Gays and lesbians have a right to live as they choose; they don’t have the right to redefine marriage for all of us.” This allows people to express support for tolerance while opposing gay marriage.

Not surprisingly, people like former NOM President Maggie Gallagher use that talking point. And even as the movement continues to lose public support and legal battles, they have maintained message discipline when it comes to using this sentence. You can find nearly endless examples of it with tiny variations, spanning more than a decade. Here are just a few examples:

  • Republican presidential candidate Ben Carson used the line in his speech at last year’s Conservative Political Action Conference;
  • Kate Sweeney, assistant director of the Colorado-based Catholic women's group ENDOW, used it while opposing a state civil unions bill in 2013;

Of course, the line is not only ineffective, judging by the continued pro-equality swing in public attitudes, but it’s also ridiculously disingenuous coming from people who have tried so hard over the years to restrict the ability of LGBT people “to live as they choose,” as PFAW Senior Legislative Counsel Paul Gordon recently documented.

That includes DeMint, who believes gay people should not allowed to be teachers and slams the Supreme Court for overturning sodomy laws that made gay people criminals. And it certainly includes the Heritage Foundation, which slams landmark equality cases Lawrence v. Texas and Romer v. Evans as examples of unacceptable “judicial activism.”

Heritage, also the professional home of the fresh-faced hope of the marriage equality movement Ryan T. Anderson, opposes the Employment Non Discrimination Act, which would protect people from being fired for being gay, and fought federal hate crimes legislation. Of course, Anderson frequently uses the same poll-tested phrase, as he did in a 2013 briefing paper for Heritage on the perils of “redefining marriage.”

While it is increasingly true that LGBT Americans are “free to live as they choose,” that goal is far from being accomplished nationwide. And whatever progress has been made, it has been over the opposition of people who now smile into the camera and hope to hide their anti-gay agenda with a little deceptive messaging. 

Tom DeLay: Left Wants To Force Gay Rights And Islamic Extremism 'Down Our Throats'

Former House GOP majority leader Tom DeLay joined Steve Malzberg on his Newsmax program yesterday to discuss the incident in Garland, Texas, last week where two Islamic radicals were killed as they tried to attack an anti-Islam event hosted by Pamela Geller … which naturally led them to a discussion of gay marriage.

While they were on the topic of “religious freedom,” Malzberg asked DeLay about an exchange during the recent Supreme Court oral arguments on marriage equality in which Justice Alito asked Solicitor General Donald Verrilli about the Supreme Court ruling that allowed the government to strip Bob Jones University of its tax exemption because of its racially discriminatory practices, and whether the same thing could happen to a university that opposes same-sex marriage. “I mean, my God, is that the road we’re headed down in this country?” Malzberg asked.

DeLay replied that the left is trying to force gay marriage “down our throats” just like Islamic extremists are “forcing someone’s belief down other people.”

“It certainly is the road we’re headed down by the left, and they’re trying to force it down our throats,” he said, “and people like Pam Geller and many others need to be standing up and speaking out. I mean, right there in the Dallas area, where Garland is, the Muslims have come together and they’re trying to impose Sharia law on a voluntary basis, which is the next step into forcing someone’s belief down other people.”

“I mean, honor killings are happening in this country, manipulation destruction of female genitals is happening in this country,” he continued. “Everything that the radical Islamists are talking about, all these things are in their holy book, and we’ve got to have a discussion about this, and we have to make sure that these kinds of beliefs are not imposed on our Constitution or on our way of life.”

 

Mat Staver: 'Pro-Homosexual Onslaught' Leading To Anti-Christian Persecution

Yesterday on his “Freedom’s Call” radio bulletin, Liberty Counsel founder Mat Staver warned that church leaders will soon “face going to jail” if they don’t obey “unjust” and “unconscionable” same-sex marriage laws.

“We’re witnessing an aggressive movement targeting Christianity and our values, especially marriage,” Staver said. “We must realize that the war over marriage goes to the core of our religious freedom.”

Staver, seemingly suggesting — falsely — that churches will have to host same-sex couples’ weddings, urged “all Christians” to request Liberty Counsel’s help against an “onslaught of the radical pro-homosexual community or government agencies pursuing the same goal.”

In an email to Liberty Counsel members today, Staver issued a similar warning, including the discredited claim that “speech against homosexuality” will be criminalized and considered a “hate crime” if the Supreme Court strikes down same-sex marriage bans:

The coercion by the government and radical leftists to force Americans to accept the homosexual lifestyle and its sexual immorality has exploded. If the High Court wrongly affirms same-sex "marriage," the floodgates will be opened for lawsuits and legislation to label speech against homosexuality as a hate crime – and force participation in their events and ceremonies.

John Zmirak, Contributing Senior Editor of The Stream, and an endorser of our Marriage Solidarity Pledge, recently commented on one line of questioning by the Supreme Court Justices, which not only coincides with the warning flags we've been raising, but, in fact, should cause every pastor and church leader in America to take note.

His headline warns… "If the Supreme Court Imposes Same Sex Marriage, You Could Lose Your Church. Obama's Solicitor General admits that the feds will treat orthodox Christians like racists."

"If the court imposes same-sex "marriage," it will be exposing the churches attended by the majority of Americans to sustained legal attack. Does that sound like crazy alarmism? The Solicitor General of the United States agrees with me. Except that he is in favor of it.

"Justice Samuel Alito asked Solicitor General Donald Verrilli whether acceptance of same-sex marriage would subject orthodox Christian churches to the treatment once accorded Bob Jones University, which lost its tax-exempt status because its ban on interracial dating contradicted federal policy. Verrilli seemed a little taken aback, then answered yes, 'it's certainly going to be an issue.'

"In other words, if the Supreme Court votes against natural marriage, it will free up the feds to target organizations you might have heard of, such as the Catholic Church and the Southern Baptist Convention... Remember that the Obama administration has already tried to force these same churches to provide abortifacients to their employees. Attacking their tax-exempt status over biblical sexual ethics is peanuts next to that."

John then takes this argument one step further. "If the court hands the Obama administration the bully stick it is requesting, it will be creating a two-tier system of churches in America" — those that 'obey' the Court's interpretation of the Constitution and 'those that don't."

That leads to the logical creation of "registered" and "non-registered" churches, similar to restrictions used in communist countries for churches that toe the party line.

Rafael Cruz: Gay Marriage Part Of 'Agenda To Destroy America'

The day after the Supreme Court heard the Obergefell marriage cases, Rafael Cruz spoke to a Republican group in Alvin, Texas, where he made frequent warnings about the supposed threat of legalizing same-sex marriage.

While boasting that his son, Ted Cruz, has introduced two measures in the U.S. Senate to block a Supreme Court marriage equality ruling, Cruz told the audience that “we are going to have to stand firm on the agenda to destroy America.”

“I lost my freedom once, I’m not willing to lose it again. I will die fighting before I lose it again and so should you,” he added.

Cruz said that America is experiencing “a lot of persecution against Christians” and predicted that if the Supreme Court rules to “legalize homosexual marriage…the next thing that is going to come is the government coming to your church and saying ‘you must hire a homosexual pastor, you must perform homosexual marriages.’ We are going to come to a crossroads in America. We’re going to have to decide whether we obey God or we obey government if that’s what’s coming. This is about religious persecution.”

He also falsely claimed that Congress once made the Bible the principal textbook in public schools and alleged that both prayer and the Bible are now “banned in public schools.” (The Supreme Court only barred government-organized prayers).

Cruz blamed the court for a surge in violent crime and the resulting billions of dollars spent by the government to fight it: “Even from an economic standpoint, we’ve invested billions and billions of dollars combating crime that was caused by removing prayer and Bible reading from schools.”

Far-Right Pundit: Gay Marriage Will Lead To Civil War

Last week, Matt Barber said that a Supreme Court ruling in favor of gay marriage would spark a revolution and today, his website BarbWire published a column from Timothy Buchanan similarly predicting that “it would be difficult to see how the wrong decision here will not result in a second American civil war.”

“A ruling by the Supreme Court to overturn bans on same-sex ‘marriage’ that have been properly enacted by the states will be correctly viewed by Christians as an openly belligerent affront to religious liberty, the consequences of which, may be dire,” Buchanan writes. “This case could well be the fuse that ignites the powder keg of outrage that leads the nation into the first battle of a new war. Our future as a nation and indeed, whether we have one, may well depend upon how the Supreme Court decides this case.”

He warns that “Homo-fascists” are seeking “the abolition of religious freedom in America” in order to destroy “those of us who oppose their dangerous and deadly desires.” They will also, he warns, destroy the family unit, leading to violent outbursts like those in Baltimore and Ferguson, which he says were evidence of “the destruction that results from a breakdown in families.”

The Homo-fascists and the Lawless Left have long distorted the central issue, claiming entitlement of a fundamental civil right to seize the status and benefits of marriage. But that’s a gross distortion of the truth.

This case is actually far more serious. There is real potential for the abolition of religious freedom in America. The godless are now attempting to use specious and obscure claims of a Constitutional right-to-do-evil as a bludgeon to smash to dust, the religious freedom of those of us who oppose their dangerous and deadly desires.



There is no right that is being denied to homosexuals and lesbians that requires the invocation of the 14th Amendment. It’s important to remember that what we have here is people who have chosen to be identified by their own depraved behavior, and not by any immutable characteristic.

Moreover, this tiny minority of 2-5% of the U.S. population cannot be permitted to reorder our society according to a corrupt worldview not shared by the rest.

While the reports we read and hear from the media are incomplete and often distorted, there exist some important arguments that seem to have been overlooked. Procreation is not the central or even most important reason that marriage must remain as it has, and to suggest such puts the entire case on a precarious footing.

The safe and healthy upbringing of children into productive and responsible adults is far more important than simple procreation, and, as one who comes from a family that was ripped apart by divorce, it’s one I know all too well.

If children are permitted to be adopted by same-sex couples, generations of brokenness, confusion, misery and sexual abuse will be the certain result. The recent violent events in Baltimore and Ferguson are a screaming witness to the destruction that results from a breakdown in families. Can America afford the family’s total dissolution?

The nobility of the marriage of a man to a woman is a natural, moral and religious truth that has served mankind well for the ages that humans have been walking on the earth. To pollute it at this time in our history would be no less foolish than a man pulling down the roof of his house upon his own head.

Because the United States is so deeply divided over moral and legal fundamentals, it would be difficult to see how the wrong decision here will not result in a second American civil war. A ruling by the Supreme Court to overturn bans on same-sex “marriage” that have been properly enacted by the states will be correctly viewed by Christians as an openly belligerent affront to religious liberty, the consequences of which, may be dire.

This case could well be the fuse that ignites the powder keg of outrage that leads the nation into the first battle of a new war. Our future as a nation and indeed, whether we have one, may well depend upon how the Supreme Court decides this case.

It would be utter foolishness for the Homo-fascists, the Lawless Left and their media mouthpieces to mistake the kindness and peacefulness of the Right as submission or weakness. May God’s will prevail in the United States Supreme Court.

Jim Garlow: Anti-Gay Right Will Become An 'Underground Resistance Movement'

 California pastor Jim Garlow, who is active in conservative politics and was among the key leaders of the campaign to pass Proposition 8, appeared on Tony Perkins’ “Washington Watch” program yesterday to discuss his church’s upcoming Future Conference, which will include appearances by Perkins, Newt Gingrich, Mat Staver.

Garlow said that Staver, the Liberty Counsel attorney who has called formass civil disobedience and a revolution to stop gay marriage, will be “speaking on a topic that most of us didn’t want to hear about, and that’s when biblical obedience translates into civil disobedience and we become an underground resistance movement.”

He later told Perkins, who is the president of the Family Research Council, that people who use the refrain “that ship has sailed” in reference to gay marriage don’t realize that “that ship will sink” since “reason is on our side.”

Garlow claimed that people will turn against gay rights once the legalization of gay marriage produces more studies on the purported harms of same-sex parent-led households similar to the one published by Mark Regnerus, whose research has been widely discredited:

So-called homosexual marriage cannot sustain itself any better than the so-called right to kill a baby in the womb can sustain itself. After 40 years and 60 million babies were killed, people became aware, ‘this is not working, this is not a good thing.’ There will be other studies like Mark Regnerus, a well-known study out of the University of Texas in Austin, that will show the damage of when children are harmed of having a daddy and a mommy instead of trying to have two daddies and two mommies [sic]. When the studies come around, America will see this — I pray it’s not too late — but they will that see that social science is on our side, natural reason is on our side, natural law is on our side, special revelation of the scripture is on our side and intuitively people know that the human body is made for a male and a female to come together. That ship has not sailed; if it has, it will sink. We have truth on our side.

Ben Carson: Federal Government Doesn't Need To Recognize Gay Marriage SCOTUS Ruling

Yesterday on Newsmax TV, Ben Carson said that the federal government does not need to recognize a Supreme Court decision on gay marriage because the president is only obligated to recognize laws passed by Congress, not judicial rulings.

“First of all, we have to understand how the Constitution works, the president is required to carry out the laws of the land, the laws of the land come from the legislative branch,” Carson said. “So if the legislative branch creates a law or changes a law, the executive branch has a responsibly to carry it out. It doesn’t say they have the responsibility to carry out a judicial law.”

He also added that members of the judiciary should have term limits in order to “adjust with the times.”

Carson, who announced his campaign for president on Monday, has previously floated the idea of impeaching judges who back marriage equality.

New Research Further Debunks Regnerus Study On Gay Parenting

In an upcoming article, a pair of sociologists are putting what they call the “final nail in the coffin” of the much-criticized study by University of Texas sociologist Mark Regnerus that purported to show that being raised by gay and lesbian parents harms children. The Regnerus study has become a favorite tool of Religious Right activists seeking to show that households led by same-sex couples are bad for children. At the same time, the study has come under scrutiny for the funding it received from anti-gay groups and for its lack of respondents who were actually raised in same-sex parent households.

Indiana University's Brian Powell and the University of Connecticut’s Simon Cheng didn’t just find methodological flaws in Regnerus’ research — they took the data he collected, cleaned it up, and redid the study, coming to a very different conclusion about families led by same-sex couples. Their article will be published in “Social Science Research,” the same journal that published the Regnerus study.

By eliminating suspect data — for example, a 25-year-old respondent who claimed to be 7’8” tall, 88 pounds, married 8 times and with 8 children, and another who reported having been arrested at age 1 — and correcting what they view as Regnerus’ methodological errors, Cheng and Powell found that Regnerus’ conclusions were so “fragile” that his data could just as easily show that children raised by gay and lesbian parents don’t face negative adult outcomes.

“[W]hen equally plausible and, in our view, preferred methodological decisions are used,” they wrote, “a different conclusion emerges: adult children who lived with same-sex parents show comparable outcome profiles to those from other family types, including intact biological families.”

In other words, as University of Maryland sociologist Philip Cohen put it, “when you clean the data and fix the things that are fixable, the results just don’t hold up.”

Three years ago, Regnerus published an ambitious attempt to quantify how being raised by same-sex parents affects children once they reach adulthood. His findings were dramatic and were quickly seized upon by opponents of LGBT equality around the world: People who had been raised by gay parents, Regnerus said, were more likely to suffer from depression and drug abuse, take part in criminal behavior, develop sexually transmitted infections and were more likely to have been sexually abused as children.

The Regnerus study was promptly scrutinized by fellow social scientists, who pointed out major flaws in his methodology. Many people who he categorized as having been raised by a gay or lesbian parent had spent very little time with that parent or with his or her same-sex partner. Even Regnerus admitted that his data included only two people who said they had been raised for their entire childhoods by a same-sex couple.

Yet, the Regnerus study continues to be cited by opponents of marriage equality and other LGBT rights issues across the globe, and Regnerus himself has even used his research to testify against marriage equality in the courts.

In an amicus brief opposing marriage equality in Louisiana, Regnerus and several other social science professors wrote that despite “the attention and scrutiny” to his study, it “remains in print and subsequent analyses of the (now publicly-accessible) data have revealed no analytic errors.”

“That is no longer true,” Powell told us. “There are major analytic errors in the study.”

Regnerus compared the outcomes of children raised in what he called “intact biological families” (with married biological parents) “lesbian mother” families and “gay father” families, finding differences between “lesbian mother” families and “intact biological families” in 24 of the 40 areas he looked at, and differences between “gay father” families and “intact biological” ones in 19 areas. 

But in scrutinizing Regnerus’ data, Cheng and Powell determined that of the 236 respondents whom Regnerus had identified as having been raised by a lesbian mother or gay father, one-tenth had never even lived with the parent in question and an additional one-sixth hadn’t lived with that parent for more than one year. Still more had provided inconsistent or unreliable responses to survey questions, throwing their reliability into doubt. That means, Powell says, that over one-third of the 236 people whom Regnerus classified as having been raised by a lesbian mother or gay father “should absolutely not have ever been considered by Regnerus in this study.”

Reanalyzing Regnerus’ data after eliminating respondents who offered dubious biographical information and recategorizing people who clearly were not raised by gay parents, Cheng and Powell found only three statistically significant differences between  the respondents raised by a lesbian mother and those who reported having been raised in “intact biological family” households. Only one of those differences could be considered a negative adult outcome — those respondents were more likely to have had an affair while married or cohabitating. Even that is hardly a smoking gun, says Powell: “If you study 40 different variables or outcomes…just by the law of chance, a few of them should be statistically significant.”

Cheng said that in taking on “one of the most controversial articles published in the history of social science research,” they tried to stay away from the debate about Regnerus’ ideology or the source of his funding. “What we can do is analyze the data,” he said.

 

Sam Rodriguez: Gay Marriage Leads To Anti-Christian Discrimination, Hate Speech Laws

During last week’s National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference, where Jeb Bush and Mike Huckabee made their pitches for the Latino vote, NHCLC head Sam Rodriguez told a TIME reporter that Republicans will not “fight arduously” to overturn a Supreme Court decision striking down bans on same-sex marriage.

Of course, on the very same day Rodriguez announced that he and other NHCLC leaders signed a pledge to commit civil disobedience in defiance of any Supreme Court legalizing gay marriage. Rodriguez also told a reporter for the Christian Broadcasting Network that such a ruling would usher in a wave of anti-Christian persecution and possibly hate speech laws banning pastors from quoting the Bible.

He warned that the Supreme Court ruling will decide the fate not only of gay rights but whether parts of the Bible “will be deemed as hate speech” and whether “I will be deemed as a bigot, as an intolerant human being and then we will have laws that will begin to discriminate against me because I am a Christian.”

“This Supreme Court decision carries the potential of initiating a chapter of intolerance towards Christians and bigotry towards Christians in the 21st century,” Rodriguez said.

Alan Keyes: Gay Marriage, Like Climate Change, Will Destroy Humanity

Speaking at a press conference organized by anti-gay activists Cliff Kincaid and Peter LaBarbera in advance of Supreme Court marriage equality arguments last month, Alan Keyes appealed to people who are worried about climate change, saying that such people should join him in opposing gay marriage because it also threatens to destroy humanity.

He explained that “if we all woke up tomorrow morning and decided that our sexual preference is homosexual” and “we shall have nothing to do with the opposite sex,” then we would turn to scientists to meddle with DNA in an effort to carry on the species, which would ultimately lead to human extinction.

“Our friends in the ‘global climatological change movement’ or whatever they’re calling it these days” should oppose gay rights, he said, because “they want us to understand that there’s a common good, not just of all humanity but of all creation and if we do something to damage all creation, we’ve done something that’s just intolerable.”
 

Cliff Kincaid: Marriage Equality 'Lunacy' Putting Us On 'A Road To Ruin'

One week before the Supreme Court heard arguments in a set of marriage equality cases last month, Accuracy In Media’s Cliff Kincaid convened a collection of fringe anti-gay activists , including Matt Barber and Peter LaBarbera, to address the issue at a press conference.

Kincaid opened up the event with a PowerPoint presentation, which included a Photoshop of the Supreme Court’s more liberal wing wearing straightjackets to illustrate the “critical point” that “it really is insanity” to allow marriage equality.

“The reason we’re doing this is not just to make people laugh, but we’re trying to make a critical point about this issue, that it really is insanity to try to pretend that there’s no difference between the sexes and that people can just marry other people for any apparent reason at all,” he said. “And it’s not going to stop with one man marrying another man or one woman marrying another woman. If we go down this road, it’s a road to ruin, we don’t really know where it’s going to end up yet.”

“But we believe it is a form of lunacy, of insanity, for the Supreme Court to even consider declaring under the Constitution that there’s some constitutional right to gay marriage,” he concluded.

Later, in a presentation on “how the Republican party is going gay,” Kincaid read derisively a passage from the Republican National Committee’s 2013 “Growth and Opportunity Project” report, which called on the party to campaign among LGBT people and “demonstrate we care about” them.

“Well, of course we care about these people,” Kincaid said. “We care about them a lot and we care about them so much we want to see them free of disease and returned to a normal, healthy lifestyle.”

This led him to quote the British author Paul Johnson, who lamented in a 2006 book that the decriminalization of homosexuality had “made it possible for homosexuals to organize openly into a powerful lobby,” creating “a monster in our midst, powerful and clamoring, flexing its muscles, threatening, vengeful and vindictive towards anyone who challenges its outrageous claims, and bent on making fundamental — and to most of us horrifying — changes to civilized patterns of sexual behaviour.”

A Supreme Court ruling striking down marriage equality bans, Kincaid said, “would be a violation not only of the Constitution, but a violation of natural law, a violation of science and biology.”

“Not only that,” he added, “it would represent the victory really of only one or two percent of the population…yet it looks like they have positions of power in the major media, corporations, academia and, of course, government.”

James Dobson: Gay Marriage Signals 'The Fall Of Western Civilization'

After warning that a Supreme Court decision striking down bans on same-sex marriage could lead to a civil war, Focus on the Family founder James Dobson took to WorldNetDaily yesterday to warn that “barring a miracle, the family that has existed since antiquity will likely crumble, presaging the fall of Western civilization itself.”

Dobson wrote that the “homosexual activist movement” is bent on “overturning laws prohibiting pedophilia” and turning the U.S. into Sodom and Gomorrah.

“Pastors may have to officiate at same-sex marriages, and they could be prohibited from preaching certain passages of Scripture,” Dobson wrote. “Those who refuse to comply will not only be threatened legally, but many will be protested and picketed by activists. Perhaps this is a worst-case scenario, but maybe not. Prison is also a possibility.”

I do not recall a time when the institutions of marriage and the family have faced such peril, or when the forces arrayed against them were more formidable or determined. Barring a miracle, the family that has existed since antiquity will likely crumble, presaging the fall of Western civilization itself. This is a time for concerted prayer, divine wisdom and greater courage than we have ever been called upon to exercise.

For more than 50 years, the homosexual activist movement has sought to implement a master plan that has had as its centerpiece the destruction or redesign of the family. Many of these objectives have largely been realized, including widespread support of the gay lifestyle, discrediting of Scriptures that condemn homosexuality or sexual immorality, muzzling of the clergy and Christian media, inclusion of gays and lesbians in all branches of the military, granting of special privileges and rights in the law, overturning laws prohibiting pedophilia, indoctrinating children and future generations through public education, and securing all the legal benefits of marriage for any two or more people who claim to have homosexual tendencies. By promoting what is known as LGBT, we must remember that the “B” stands for bisexuality. That would include acceptance of sexual relations between both genders in groups and among every category of sexual expression outside the bonds of marriage. Now the proponents of LGBT seek to legalize gay and lesbian marriage, which could mean anything or nothing in a few years.



Admittedly, there have been various societies in history where homosexuality has flourished, including the biblical cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, in ancient Greece and in the Roman Empire. None of these civilizations survived. Furthermore, even where sexual perversion was tolerated or flourished, the institution of marriage continued to be honored in law and custom. Only in the last few years has what is called “gay marriage” been given equal status with biblical male-female unions. In fact, to date only 18 countries in the world recognize the legitimacy of same-sex marriage. America appears on the verge of becoming No. 19. God help us if we throw the divine plan for humankind on the ash heap of history.



Let’s get to the bottom line. If the U.S. Supreme Court redefines marriage to include same-sex unions, I guarantee you that it will not be the end of the matter. An avalanche of court cases will be filed on related issues that can’t even be imagined today. Here are a few that we can foresee:

1. Religious liberty will be assaulted from every side. You can be certain that conservative churches will be dragged into court by the hundreds. Their leaders will be required to hire people who don’t share the beliefs of their denominations and constituents. Pastors may have to officiate at same-sex marriages, and they could be prohibited from preaching certain passages of Scripture. Those who refuse to comply will not only be threatened legally, but many will be protested and picketed by activists. Perhaps this is a worst-case scenario, but maybe not. Prison is also a possibility.

2. Christian businesses and ministries will be made to dance to the government’s tune. We’ve all seen examples of photographers, bakeries and florists being required to serve at gay weddings, on penalty of closure or bankruptcy. This kind of legal oppression is coming all across the nation.

3. Christian colleges may be unable to teach scriptural views of marriage. Any nonprofit Christian organization that opposes same-sex unions, including our own, will likely lose its tax-exempt status. Many will be forced to close their doors.

NOM Solicits Contributions For Anti-Marriage Fight In Ireland

National Organization for Marriage President Brian Brown, saying that “the battle to preserve marriage is becoming a global one,” is soliciting "support" from his group’s members to fight a referendum for marriage equality in Ireland.

Brown sent an email to NOM supporters on Friday urging them not to believe the “slanted public opinion polls” showing overwhelming support for the marriage referendum. If Irish activists “can manage to pull off a victory, it will be a tremendous boost to the cause of marriage worldwide,” he wrote. Brown's email does not mention that only citizens or residents of Ireland can legally contribute directly to the anti-marriage campaign.

Brown, who serves on the board of the international social conservative online advocacy platform CitizenGo, is working to build an International Organization for Marriage to fight LGBT equality across the world. Brown has made several trips to Russia to work with groups opposing LGBT rights there.

Dear Marriage Supporter,

While we in the US have our eyes on the Supreme Court, the people of Ireland also are keenly engaged in the issue of redefining marriage. Interestingly, advocates for redefining marriage in America told the high Court that it's up to the justices to take this step because "fundamental rights" should not be left to popular vote.

Yet in Ireland, same-sex 'marriage' activists have done just that — pushed a national referendum that would redefine marriage. Apparently "principle" is a flexible concept that can be molded to suit the objectives of gay and lesbian activists depending on the circumstances.

In approximately three weeks (May 22nd) the people of Ireland will vote on whether to permit same-sex marriage in their Constitution. The No (i.e. pro-marriage) campaign is receiving significant abuse and needs your help.

Will you please do four things today:

1. Visit their campaign site and support them at www.keepmarriage.org.
2. Visit their Facebook page and join them in defending marriage.
3. Visit their Youtube page and like their videos.
4. Share this mail with your friends and encourage them to follow your example!

Increasingly the battle to preserve marriage is becoming a global one. While the Obama administration aggressively ties American foreign policy (to the extent they have a foreign policy) to advancing the gay agenda worldwide, most countries in the world strongly are opposed to redefining marriage. In fact, only 17 out of the 196 countries in the world recognize same-sex 'marriage;' less than ten percent of the total and almost all in the west. The rest resist.

Just like in campaigns for marriage here in America, slanted public opinion polls become fodder to influence the public and depress supporters of marriage. This is happening in Ireland. If they can manage to pull off a victory, it will be a tremendous boost to the cause of marriage worldwide. Please do what you can to bring awareness to their efforts.

Faithfully,

Brian S. Brown

h/t Slowly Boiled Frog

UPDATED: This post has been updated to clarify that only Irish citizens and residents can contribute directly to the anti-marriage campaign. 

Matt Barber's Latest Anti-Gay Diatribe in Form of 'Prayer for Marriage'

Sometimes Matt Barber’s anti-gay diatribes are so over the top,  you have to wonder if he’s just trolling for a reaction.  His latest, titled “A Prayer for Marriage,” is a mean-spirited doozy

Barber slams loving gay couples and parents in the most dismissive terms he can muster, imploring, “Lord have mercy on those precious babes, acquired like so much chattel, as selfish adults set up to play house.”

He decries marriage equality as a “sterile, shameful, feculent mockery of Your masterful design for our fruitful multiplication.”

He says anti-gay activists “battle the powers and principalities who pull temporal puppets by marionette strings aflame from the pits of hell.”

Like many anti-gay rants from Religious Right leaders, Barber’s “prayer” reeks with shirt-rending shame for America and American Christians for not having done enough to stop the advance of LGBT equality.

Sodom crumbles about as we gaze palmward, distracted and glassy-eyed, at shimmering digital confections.

They pound at our temple doors, demanding to know our heavenly hosts.

Yet naught we do.

Save cower.

Your bride has been unfaithful, Lord Jesus. As it was in the days of Noah, we tempt our Lord God.

We entreat Your mercies, but merit Your wrath…

Forgive us, Lord Jesus. We, Your bride, repent of our own part in this national sin. Forgive us for undermining this gift You have given – for succumbing to the devilish devices of divorce, infidelity and spousal neglect.

For our selfish ambition.

For making unholy, holy matrimony.

Embolden us.

Strengthen us.

Guide and direct us.

Mortify this national sin, oh God.

End it.

Kill it.

Barber rails against Supreme Court justices for debating “that which is closed for debate,” and complained, “At least four of the nine appear poised to defy Your Supreme Authority.”

And like so many other Religious Right leaders who have been beating the drums for massive resistance to a possible marriage equality ruling, Barber declares that such a ruling would place the government “at enmity with God” and subject Christians to persecution.

And we, Your faithful, will be marked subversive.

But waiver we shan’t.

Where the contrived “laws” of man are at odds with Your transcendent truths – with Your Law – it is You, oh Lord, to Whom we pledge obedience.

We will not comply with an unjust ruling.

And we will face persecution.

And we will count it all joy.

Because You are sovereign.

And victory is Yours.

Knight: Gay People 'Stealing The Moral Capital Of Marriage'

Conservative commentator Robert Knight is not optimistic about the Supreme Court’s upcoming decision in a set of marriage equality cases, telling a West Virginia radio program yesterday that “unless God intervenes, the court looks poised to create a brand-new right to gay marriage out of the Constitution, which is just literally insane and absurd.”

Knight was particularly annoyed by Justice Kennedy’s comments about marriage conferring “dignity” and “ennoblement” to gay couples. “I was thinking about that,” he told Huntington-based talk radio host Tom Roten, “and I thought, the way you’re doing that is by stealing the moral capital of marriage and conveying it to other relationships that aren’t anything like it. That is not ennobling them, that is transferring moral capital.”

“It’s like taking a losing team, and they feel bad about their losing record,” he explained, “so they say, okay, now they’re going to have the same record as this winning team over here so everybody feels better.”

Knight was also upset that the only children discussed during the Supreme Court arguments were children being raised by gay parents. “What about the vast impact on children across America if gay marriage is legalized?” he asked. “Think of the textbook changes. Think of what schools will be teaching directly against the beliefs of millions of American parents. I mean, we’re putting a counterfeit in the law, we’re going to use the law to impose it on the country.”

Although the attorneys arguing on behalf of marriage equality at the court explicitly noted that clergy in marriage equality states are not required to marry same-sex couples, Knight falsely claimed that Solicitor General Donald Verrilli had said that question should be left to the states.

“Think in the free country of ours, they’re casually talking about using the power of the state to force pastors to bless something that the Bible says is an abomination,” he said. “We are really in an insane age here when it’s come to that. And unless the American people rise up and say ‘enough,’ it’s just going to get worse.”

 

Robert Oscar Lopez: US Will Have To Pay 'Reparations' To Children Of Gay Parents

Writing in the American Thinker today, Robert Oscar Lopez suggests that the federal government should be prepared to pay “reparations” to children raised by gay and lesbian parents, just as it did to Japanese-Americans who were sent to internment camps during World War II.

Lopez, who is openly bisexual but opposes marriage equality in part because he contends he was injured by growing up with a lesbian mother, compares people who give positive accounts of being raised by gay parents to “happy Japanese-Americans” who “were actually exceedingly harsh, even cruel, to the Japanese-Americans who defied the government and tried to resist internment.”

But, he writes, by 2030 “you won’t have to worry about PFLAG’s wunderkinder.  It’s the others you will have to worry about, because there will be a lot of them, and like the Japanese-Americans who came around to contesting what Roosevelt did to them, they will be organized and demanding to be repaid for what was taken from them: gender diversity, gender equality at home, their heritage, their legacy, their identity.”

Lopez takes particular aim at the plaintiffs in DeBoer vs. Snyder, one of the marriage cases being considered by the Supreme Court, a lesbian couple who are fighting for custody rights for each other’s adopted children. “The DeBoer v. Snyder case insists that children should be subject to the parental authority of gay adults who are sleeping with one of their parents, rather than the authority of their father and mother,” he writes.

“Should DeBoer end with a gay SCOTUS victory,” he warns, “birth parents will be given cold comfort if the children they consign to adoption end up playing Cinderella to gay stepparents.”

Over time, there is no doubt that there will be at least 100,000 citizens, probably well over 500,000, placed into same-sex homes entirely or predominantly because of the state’s response to demands for expanded marriage rights from gay lobbying organizations.

These citizens will not have chosen to be deprived of a parent of one gender and subjected to the authority of an additional guardian of the other gender – these are citizens for whom the choice will have been made by the government (a government run by an older generation), when they were infants, or not even born yet, and had no way to consent to or understand what was being done to them.

A sizable number of these citizens could come together and document losses, damages, or “pain and suffering” incurred because they were forced to grow up in a same-sex parenting home as opposed to a home with a mother and father.  (Picture how “pain and suffering” was just used by a lesbian couple to levy a $135,000 fine on Sweet Cakes by Melissa.)  If so, there will be grounds for later Congresses, Supreme Courts, and presidential administrations – ones that aren’t as cowed by the gay lobby as our current leaders – to go back and investigate how gay marriage passed, how it led to depriving children of a mother or father, and who has to pay up.

COLAGE’s and PFLAG’s poster children are well-spoken and probably good-hearted people.  Bless them.  But if you read John Okada’s No-No Boy, you will find that most Japanese-Americans whose families were interned opted to serve in the United States military.  These happy Japanese-Americans were actually exceedingly harsh, even cruel, to the Japanese-Americans who defied the government and tried to resist internment.  There are always some people – often a seeming majority – among an aggrieved group who say they have no grievances; they usually say the complainers are crazy, bitter, wrong, or un-American.

In 2030, you won’t have to worry about PFLAG’s wunderkinder.  It’s the others you will have to worry about, because there will be a lot of them, and like the Japanese-Americans who came around to contesting what Roosevelt did to them, they will be organized and demanding to be repaid for what was taken from them: gender diversity, gender equality at home, their heritage, their legacy, their identity.

Whatever the numbers of kids being raised in gay homes might be right now, with the rise of gay marriage, there was a rise in kids being raised by gay couples.  Those responsible for gay marriage will be responsible for thousands upon thousands of individual children who would not have been raised by same-sex couples were it not for actions taken by the government.

The DeBoer v. Snyder case insists that children should be subject to the parental authority of gay adults who are sleeping with one of their parents, rather than the authority of their father and mother.  In many adoption cases likely to be affected by this scenario, the birth parents decided to surrender custody to an individual without knowing or agreeing to the fact that the individual would get into a gay relationship and then place the child under the gay lover’s power, too.  Should DeBoer end with a gay SCOTUS victory, birth parents will be given cold comfort if the children they consign to adoption end up playing Cinderella to gay stepparents.

But on an even more basic level, if the Supreme Court sides with Ms. DeBoer, they will be giving gay adults the right to force children to grow up without something that the vast majority of their peers have: a mother and father.  On top of that will be added the problem of denying citizens their heritage.  If this ends in a reparations trial decades down the line, we can’t say there weren’t ample warning signs of what was to come.

 

Tony Perkins: 'Future Of Western Civilization' At Stake In Gay Marriage Ruling

Yesterday, after a caller to his “Washington Watch” program wondered about the legal prospects of human-house marriages if the Supreme Court strikes down state bans on same-sex marriage, the Family Research Council’s Tony Perkins lamented that “there’s so many crazy things that come” from marriage equality.

Warning that furthering the legalization of gay marriage will weaken families and therefore undermine the future of society, Perkins questioned why the justices would make “such a drastic, fundamental, radical change based upon a few years of experience” with legal gay marriage.

“This really will determine the future of Western Civilization,” Perkins said. “It really will, this is very serious.”

Rick Wiles Warns Of 'Fireball From Space' If Supreme Court Strikes Down Gay Marriage Bans

End Times broadcaster Rick Wiles spoke with Mat Staver of Liberty Counsel on his “Trunews” program yesterday about what will happen to the United States if the Supreme Court strikes down bans on same-sex marriage. Unsurprisingly, neither was optimistic.

“Now the communists rule this nation,” Wiles said in a monologue before his interview with Staver, “and everywhere communism takes control, they go after the churches and they kill the pastors and they demolish the church buildings and they reeducate the church children. That’s what’s coming to America. It’s already started.”

“We are at the end of the road as a nation,” he warned. “If the Supreme Court dares to defy Almighty God one more time, I’m telling you it will be the last time.”

“I believe I am speaking under the unction of the Holy Spirit,” he continued. “I’m telling you there will be swift, sudden and devastating consequences for the United States of America. America will be brought to its knees, there will be pain and suffering at a level we’ve never seen in this country. The word that I hear in my spirit is ‘fire.’ I do not know if it refers to riots or looting or war on American soil or a fireball from space. I simply know that a sweeping, consuming fire will come across the United States of America and this country will be charred and burned.”

He told his listeners to “prepare for the fire that will sweep across America if the United States Supreme Court dares to defy God one more time and rule that homosexual marriage is a constitutional right.”

Wiles also stated that gay marriage is proof that Satan is “alive and well” and using his minions to “shut down Christianity in this nation.”

“Life may change radically in 60 days,” he said. “I’m talking about the fast-moving, radical homosexual movement that has captured control of the American political system, the corporate world, the news media, the entertainment industry and the educational system. This is a takeover and it is anti-God, it is anti-Christ. The same-sex marriage case before the U.S. Supreme Court is not about same-sex marriage, it is about the criminalization and the elimination of biblical Christianity in the United States of America.”

Warning that “the fate of the United States of America will be decided over the next two months,” Wiles told Staver that “a Supreme Court decision recognizing homosexual marriage as a right will be the final nail in America’s coffin. The last society that attempted to slide into this level of immorality and debauchery were the twin cities of Sodom and Gomorrah and they did not have a happy ending.”

“Brace for impact if it goes against God’s divine order of marriage,” Wiles said of the potential ruling, predicting severe “divine repercussions.”

Staver agreed with Wiles’ assertion that “America’s future is hanging in the balance.”

“There’s no question it’s hanging in the balance,” Staver said. “What we have here is a potential catastrophic collision with religious freedom and the undermining of the family.” He added that a marriage ruling will be even more consequential than Roe v. Wade because it will “promote and exalt” same-sex relationships by putting them “on a pedestal and hope people aspire to it.”

Alan Keyes: Gay Marriage Ruling A 'Just Cause For War'

Joining other Religious Right activists who warn that the Supreme Court will spark a civil war if the it strikes down bans on same-sex marriage, Alan Keyes writes in WorldNetDaily today that a ruling in favor of gay rights will “be just cause for war.”

Keyes claims that such a decision “will be an attack on the very foundation of constitutional government, of by and for the people of the United States” that, “like the Dred Scott decision that heralded the onset of the first Civil War,” will “bring the nation to the brink” and represent “a high crime and misdemeanor that effectively dissolves the just bonds of government between and among the states, and among the individuals who compose the people of the United States.”

The United States Supreme Court may presently make a decision discarding marriage as an unalienable (natural) right. By defect of reason and respect for the Constitution, the decision will return the people of this country to the condition of constantly impending war characteristic of the human condition when and wherever the just premises of government are abandoned.

A decision degrading the natural right of marriage, endowed by the Creator, to the status of a fiat right, fabricated by government, will be unconstitutional on the face of it, because it disparages an antecedent right, retained by the people, which disparagement is explicitly prohibited by the U.S. Constitution’s Ninth amendment. Under present circumstances, the decision will also invite conflict on account of the openly flaunted prejudice of two of the justices participating in it.



If the United States Supreme Court presumes to impose any redefinition of marriage on the states, respectively, or the people, without addressing the issue of unalienable right it involves, with reasoning that respects God-endowed right (which is the logic by which the American people asserted, and still claim to possess and exercise, sovereign authority over themselves), the Court’s decision will be an attack on the very foundation of constitutional government, of by and for the people of the United States. It will be a high crime and misdemeanor that effectively dissolves the just bonds of government between and among the states, and among the individuals who compose the people of the United States. It will therefore be just cause for war.

Like the Dred Scott decision that heralded the onset of the first Civil War, the Court’s action will bring the nation to the brink, whence “nothing but confusion and disorder will follow. …” If the justices do not tread carefully, their temerity could very well set in motion the death throes of what is still supposed to be their country. “Forbid it, Almighty God!”

Institute On The Constitution Warns God Will Destroy America If SCOTUS Backs Gay Marriage

Last month, the Institute on the Constitution, the Christian reconstructionist group led by longtime Roy Moore ally Michael Peroutka, joined a Supreme Court amicus brief warning the justices that if they decide to strike down state-level bans on marriage equality, “it could bring God’s judgment on the Nation.”

IOC’s Jake MacAulay, who came to Peroutka’s group from the ministry of fiery Minnesota pastor Bradlee Dean, drove home this point in a video this week, in which he warns that it would be “very wrong and very dangerous” for the Supreme Court to back marriage equality, because “to attempt to change that which is eternal and forever fixed by the Creator is to do nothing less than make the claim that you are God.”

“Psalm Two warns that when the judges and the rulers of the earth throw off God’s law and take it upon themselves to make their own rules for right and wrong, they will be dashed to pieces like a rod of iron striking a clay pot,” MacAulay warns. “Regrettably we seem to be setting ourselves up for this very lesson. Unless our government officials start obeying God and stop ‘playing god,’ this is a lesson we will experience fully.”

Now to attempt to change that which is eternal and forever fixed by the Creator is to do nothing less than make the claim that you are God. This is very wrong and very dangerous, and the Supreme Court of these United States is now considering taking this very same dangerous step.

While there are many conclusions that can be drawn as we witness this cultural degradation, one comes most immediately to my mind. When a culture discards the Word of God as the standard for what is right and what is wrong, and relegates these determinations to fallen men, the results are as predictable as they are terrible.

In the time of the founding of America, when a Biblical worldview was predominant in the American people, this connection between following the commandments and peaceable existence was clearly known, easily understood and evidentially experienced in the American culture. Undoubtedly, living prosperously by living righteously is what Jefferson meant when he used the phrase “pursuit of happiness”.

Psalm Two warns that when the judges and the rulers of the earth throw off God’s law and take it upon themselves to make their own rules for right and wrong, they will be dashed to pieces like a rod of iron striking a clay pot.

Regrettably we seem to be setting ourselves up for this very lesson. Unless our government officials start obeying God and stop “playing god,” this is a lesson we will experience fully.

Share this page: Facebook Twitter Digg SU Digg Delicious