Phil Burress of the Ohio-based Citizens for Community Values says that despite the attempts by gay rights advocates to "brainwash" people into support marriage equality and have the issue "forced down their throat," people intrinsically oppose same-sex marriage.
Burress, who encouraged Sen. Rob Portman (R-OH) to put his son in ex-gay therapy, of course would never support such brainwashing!
He told Mission America host Linda Harvey on Saturday that the polls, such as one showing a majority of Ohioans supporting marriage equality, are skewed because surveys may not be able to register the sentiments of people who oppose same-sex marriage but won't say so because they are afraid of getting "harassed" and "beat up on" by gay "bullies."
Burress insisted that people "know in their heart" that same-sex marriage is wrong, while Harvey added that they also "know that homosexual behavior is really, essentially, disordered."
Burress: This is a hard issue. That's why from 2004-2013, in just about every poll that I've seen there's only about 6 percent on average, 6 percent of the people that don't have their mind made up on this issue. People know in their heart that there's something wrong with this picture and they're adjusting their heart. The 6 percent are being swayed with TV ads, propaganda, radio, all the media, and I find it absolutely encouraging that after all of this time that's been going on and people have been brainwashed and this has been forced down their throat that they're revealing a poll that only 47 percent of the people support same-sex marriage.
Burress: In just about every election, we always do better at the polls than what the polls say when it comes to support of marriage of one man and one woman. I had a long conversation with George Barna last November out in San Francisco, I said: "George, when you do these polls, do you keep track of how many of these people refuse to answer a question?" I think you're going to have more people who will not answer a question about where they stand on same-sex marriage than other questions because they're afraid. They're afraid they're going to be harassed and they're going to be beat up on and they're going to be, you know -- that's their tactic, they're bullies Linda, they're bullies, that's how they got to where they are. You cannot win in the long term being a bully, it just doesn't work. You gotta to win with logic and you gotta change people's hearts and in their hearts they know that marriage is between one man and one woman.
Harvey: And they know that homosexual behavior is really, essentially, disordered.
Reacting to the legal challenge of Michigan's marriage equality ban, American Decency Association head Bill Johnson last week told the ABC affiliate WZZM that there will be divine repercussions for legalizing same-sex marriage and blamed the "mainstream media" for its "relentless" promotion of "this alternative lifestyle."
He added: "I believe that as we turn our back upon God and upon his standard, it opens this culture, it opens our families, it opens each of us as individuals to increasing lawlessness, chaos and dysfunction."
The ADA also said that gay "special rights" will lead to "despotism" and the end of freedom:
How things have changed since President Reagan so eloquently spoke of that first constitutionally guaranteed right – our religious liberty. What do we now see from our current president, his administration, and imperious judges? A commanded worship at the altar of political correctness. A mandated belief in special “rights” for homosexuals that supersedes religious liberty. A stripping away of freedom “to speak and act” on our beliefs and “apply moral teaching to public questions.”
Like dominoes falling, each day we see another example of lawlessness and despotism kicking at the legs of liberty.
Gordon Klingenschmitt is aghast at the recent federal court rulings across the country in favor of marriage equality, telling members of his Pray In Jesus Name Project that “this is way beyond the point where it’s gotten out-of-hand.”
He calls on Congress to impeach and remove from office any judge who sides with pro-gay rights plaintiffs, since any such judge is “a domestic enemy of the Constitution.”
“These lawless judges replace Democracy with dictatorship, abrogate the U.S. Constitution, flaunt the laws of God and nature, assume jurisdiction they don’t have, and overturn the overwhelming vote of good people,” Klingenschmitt writes. “May God have mercy on these tyrants’ souls, when they are judged in eternity.
This is way beyond the point where it’s gotten out-of-hand. The lawlessness on the federal bench requires a house-cleaning. We need a new President to appoint new judges. But until that happens, we MUST pressure Congress to intervene.
Christians do not lose their right to vote simply because they are religious. These lawless judges replace Democracy with dictatorship, abrogate the U.S. Constitution, flaunt the laws of God and nature, assume jurisdiction they don’t have, and overturn the overwhelming vote of good people. May God have mercy on these tyrants’ souls, when they are judged in eternity.
There is NO mention of sexual orientation in the Constitution, and any judge who imagines one is a domestic enemy of the Constitution, and should be impeached and removed from office. We must demand Congress hold the line, and protect the traditional definition of marriage FEDERALLY, like the Oklahoma people did by state.
Keith Fournier, the editor of Catholic Online and head of the Common Good Alliance, issued a warning today in response to the Texas marriage equality decision, predicting that same-sex marriage will lead to as much violence as China’s Cultural Revolution, which left millions dead.
In a post on Matt Barber’s website BarbWire, Fournier writes that marriage must be “liberated” from gay people who are ushering in “nothing less than a Cultural Revolution. I know that some of my readers do not like it when I use the term Cultural Revolution. They object because the term was identified with the reassertion of Maoism in China. That movement, which turned violent, caused extraordinary social turmoil. That is PRECISELY why the analogy is apropos.”
Encouraging readers to attend a National Organization for Marriage march in June, he hailed anti-gay activists as the “true liberators” and “advocates for a society of human flourishing and freedom” who are preventing the “cultural slide into the abyss of relativism.”
Like propagandists of the past, they attempt to frame public perception by calling those who defend marriage as being against what they call ‘marriage equality’. However, homosexual and lesbian partnerships are incapable of achieving the ends of marriage. The marchers in China, in France and all over the world are the proponents, the defenders, of true liberation. They are advocates for a society of human flourishing and freedom. They defend real marriage and thereby defend the rights of children to a mother and father. They promote the common good.
The marchers are a part of a global Marriage Defense Movement. This new counter-cultural movement is about to reshape history. It crosses racial, ethnic, socio-economic, religious, philosophical and political lines. The members of this Marriage Defense movement seek to defend and to liberate marriage from the propagandists and Cultural Revolutionaries who oppose it and are working undermine it. They seek to defend marriage.
Marriage ‘is what it is’, to use a popular expression. The effort to redefine the word and then use the mechanisms of the State to entirely restructure this institution inscribed in the Natural Law – and replace it – is what is at stake here. Those who advocate giving moral and legal equivalency to homosexual and lesbian relationships are the people who oppose marriage. Their intention is to entirely reorder civil society. They use the phrase ‘marriage equality’ in an Orwellian act of verbal engineering.
This is a propaganda ploy and a tactic aimed at nothing less than a Cultural Revolution. I know that some of my readers do not like it when I use the term Cultural Revolution. They object because the term was identified with the reassertion of Maoism in China. That movement, which turned violent, caused extraordinary social turmoil. That is PRECISELY why the analogy is apropos.
To state this bluntly is not to be ‘anti-gay’; it is simply to defend marriage and the common good. This is a noble cause. Those who promote and defend marriage are not bigots, they are the true liberators! Though the Marriage Defense Marchers represent every segment of society, and reflect a wide range of ages, ethnic identities and political persuasions, they were collectively labeled as conservatives in much of the international press.
There is a growing intolerance spreading which directly threatens our rights to free expression, association and political participation. This is reflected in a brazen effort to censor any speech which questions the cultural slide into the abyss of relativism. Efforts to prevent our vocal and public defense of the objective truth about marriage and the family are multiplying. However, they are not succeeding. The streets of Washington, DC need to be filled with hundreds of thousands of supporters of Marriage on June 19, 2014.
Jonathan Saenz of Texas Values, who has called this week’s marriage equality ruling in Texas a “hollow victory,” yesterday called it “one of the most egregious forms of judicial activism of our generation.” “The federal judiciary is out of control,” Saenz told Family Research Council head Tony Perkins on yesterday’s edition of Washington Watch.
He promised that there would be an “epic battle” to defeat marriage equality in Texas.
Similarly irate, Perkins said that judges and the Obama administration believe they can “tear away at the foundation of the rule of law” when it comes to the issue of marriage equality, which he warned will lead to “anarchy” and a “breakdown of society altogether.”
WASHINGTON – In response to a federal judge striking down Texas’ ban on marriage for same-sex couples, People For the American Way Foundation president Michael Keegan issued the following statement:
“Today’s ruling is one more strong point in an argument that’s getting clearer and clearer every day: this ain’t the Texas of old.
“In my native Texas and across the nation, Americans are increasingly coming to see that blocking committed couples from the responsibilities and protections of civil marriage causes real, and needless, harm to families. More and more people are coming to the same conclusion: banning same-sex couples from getting married is unfair, dangerous and contrary to the core principles of our Constitution.”
In another win for the marriage equality movement, today U.S. District Judge Orlando Garcia struck down Texas’ ban on marriage for same-sex couples. The judge wrote that "Texas' current marriage laws deny homosexual couples the right to marry, and in doing so, demean their dignity for no legitimate reason.”
The Washington Post reports:
U.S. District Judge Orlando Garcia did not say gay marriages could be performed immediately. Instead, he stayed the decision, citing a likely appeal.
"Without a rational relation to a legitimate governmental purpose, state-imposed inequality can find no refuge in our United States Constitution," Garcia wrote in his decision. "These Texas laws deny Plaintiffs access to the institution of marriage and its numerous rights, privileges, and responsibilities for the sole reason that Plaintiffs wish to be married to a person of the same sex."
Similar bans have been struck down in states across the country – most recently in Virginia less than two weeks ago. Today’s victory in a state with a whopping 26 million residents brings us one important step closer to nationwide marriage equality.
Pat Robertson today endorsed a campaign to impeach Eric Holder because of the attorney general’s stance on marriage equality.
“I really think the House should impeach Holder,” the 700 Club host said. “There should be a move of impeachment in the House and he should resign.”
“What we’re seeing now more and more is the rights of homosexuals, the practice of homosexuality, sodomy, consensual sodomy, is being raised and elevated above the rights of religious believers and that is terrible,” he said, warning that gay rights is trampling on the First Amendment.
Texas congressman and U.S. Senate candidate Steve Stockman criticized the Obama administration’s position on the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) during an interview yesterday with Religious Right talk show host Janet Mefferd.
Stockman said the administration’s refusal to defend DOMA “undermines the whole concept of our country” and insisted that people “should have pickets” in Washington. “You’re really setting up for a dictatorship,” he said. “It’s really pretty frightening for the children and grandchildren down the road, this is really a dangerous example to set.”
Of course, Obama is far from the first president to decline to defend a federal law the administration deemed unconstitutional.
Mario Diaz of Concerned Women for America, still reeling from Virginia marriage equality advocates’ victory in federal court, warns in a blog post today that gay rights gains “are costing us our freedoms.” While Diaz doesn’t exactly explain what freedoms he lost when a judge struck down Virginia’s ban on same-sex marriage, he writes that the “homosexual lobby” is “corroding our freedom.”
He claims to be upset about a pro-marriage equality petition to the appeals court and insists that conservative groups would never ask people to sign a petition to a court since they have “respect for our Constitution and the rule of law.”
Diaz might be interested to know that his own group is currently circulating a petition to “urge the Supreme Court to strike down the [Obamacare] law in its entirety.”
The anti-gay activist adds that just as the nation’s founders “defeated a great and mighty foe to establish the principles of freedom and liberty,” fellow conservatives must “stand before the challenges of our day in the same manner, knowing that truth will prevail, trusting that Providence guides and guards us through it all.”
Today’s version of the judiciary is a mere caricature of what the Founders intended.
The homosexual lobby has turned to the courts time and again to overrule the vote of the people, re-write legislation and even initiate executive action. They applaud all these efforts, even when they are costing us our freedoms.
With this new effort of lobbying the courts, the homosexual lobby aims at that which is supposed to be the benchmark of justice, impartiality. This ends-justify-the-means mentality is corroding our freedom, and we must stand forcefully against it.
We must resist the temptation to use the same tactics. Influence in the courts is brought through legal arguments and respect. Respect for our Constitution and the rule of law. The ends do not justify the means. The means matter. And no matter how dirty the other side plays, we must win in the right way.
What good is it to us to “win” an argument if we end up losing our freedoms? No, we must win with an approach that upholds the values that have made our country great. Yes, it is difficult. But it is possible. Our Founders showed us that.
Against all odds, they defeated a great and mighty foe to establish the principles of freedom and liberty we fight for today. We stand before the challenges of our day in the same manner, knowing that truth will prevail, trusting that Providence guides and guards us through it all.
We stand on the right side of history. For we stand for truth, freedom and liberty. Be encouraged!
Anti-gay activist William Owens is pushing for the impeachment of Attorney General Eric Holder for “trampling the rule of law” by trying “to coerce states to fall in line with the same-sex ‘marriage’ agenda.”
Holder recently said that state attorneys general are not obligated to defend discriminatory laws such as marriage bans that they deem unconstitutional.
Writing today for the Washington Times, Owens says that Holder effectively “shredded” the Constitution and that the attorney general and President Obama have turned “their backs on the black community” by supporting marriage equality.
Mr. Holder could have physically shredded a copy of the U.S. Constitution at the podium that evening, and it would not have been a more eloquent statement of how far he and the president are willing to go in order to impose a radical homosexual agenda to redefine marriage on our entire nation.
I am ashamed of Mr. Obama and Mr. Holder for turning their backs on the black community and the values that we hold dear — values we want strengthened and promoted rather than weakened and undermined. The ongoing progress of civil rights rightly calls for the building up of a healthier marriage culture. Instead, our elected leaders are bent on destroying marriage, remaking it as a genderless institution and reorienting it to be all about the desires of adults rather than the needs of children.
However, the problem is not merely that the president and his administration — in particular, Mr. Holder — are promoting this radical agenda. The problem is that they are trampling the rule of law in order to do it. When the top law enforcement officer in the nation runs roughshod over the rule of law, that problem cannot be ignored.
That is why I am calling for the attorney general to be impeached and to be held accountable for his abandonment of the oath he swore in taking office.
The Coalition of African American Pastors, which I represent, is asking for 1 million signatures on a petition urging Congress to take action against Mr. Holder for his reckless disregard of the laws that bind our social fabric together, and for his attacks upon the institution of marriage, which forms the very foundation of our society.
Truth in Action Ministries spokesmen John Robe and Jerry Newcombe are lashing out at this year’s Grammy Awards show for featuring a mass wedding celebration that included same-sex couples. While discussing the Grammys on Sunday’s edition of Truth That Transforms, Newcombe asked: “How low can we go?”
“It’s as if we’ve gone as far as we can go now,” Rabe said, adding that he was offended that the wedding service included a church background and choir.
Rabe said the ceremony was proof that we’re in “a culture under judgment,” while Newcombe worried that people from around the world will think “Americans are into” gay marriage.
In a statement yesterday, the group said that the gay rights supporters are removing God’s blessing from America and bringing down the country through “lawlessness, which defies both republic [sic] and democratic rule.”
“As the delicate balance of powers tilt we could be watching the fall of a nation,” the group warns. “Lawlessness of the heart is what has led to lawlessness in the land.”
“I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." The pledge has been recited countless times; yet, how many even know what a Republic is? Benjamin Franklin, upon being asked what kind of government we had after signing the Constitution replied, “A Republic, if you can keep it.”
Perhaps a simplistic definition of “Republic” and “Democracy” would be as follows: A Republic is representative government ruled by law (the Constitution). A democracy is direct government ruled by the majority (mob rule). A Republic recognizes the inalienable rights of individuals while democracies are only concerned with group wants or needs (the public good).
We’ve seen such lawlessness, which defies both republic [sic] and democratic rule rear its ugly head most recently in the marriage issue. When the Federal Attorney General strips away State sovereignty and the State Attorney General strips away the rights of the people with no repercussion, you are left with lawlessness. Judges are to rule BY the law, not throw off their black robes, and impose their own philosophies, personal preferences, cultural ties, or political agendas. When these things happen, you have lawlessness.
Recently in Virginia an Attorney General and an activist judge, appointed by President Obama, put their personal feelings and opinions above the marriage laws of Virginia that affirm marriage as the union of one man and one woman. In 2006 the people of Virginia, with a 57% vote, amended their constitution upholding natural marriage.
No matter which side you take, on any controversial issue, the lawlessness of our system should greatly bother you. It should raise your ire that our balanced powers are unbalanced and that the separation of the powers are not so separated. As the delicate balance of powers tilt we could be watching the fall of a nation.
Lawlessness of the heart is what has led to lawlessness in the land. It’s only God who can replace the lawless stony heart with a heart of flesh that loves Him and desires to do His will. It’s the grace filled heart that truly desires the best for every man, woman, and child. Instead of giving way to personal preference, we must once more give way to Biblical preference. If we desire to see our nation’s powers separated and balanced once more it must return to the foundation it has forsaken and the God whom it has ignored. Let us pray for God’s grace to transform the lawless heart into a grace-filled loving heart. Then as America blesses God, may God bless America again.
After a federal judge struck down part of Kentucky’s ban on same-sex marriage, Sen. Mitch McConnell’s Tea Party-aligned primary challenger Matt Bevin jumped on the ruling and criticized McConnell over his ties to the judge:
I'm deeply disappointed in Judge Heyburn's decision to overturn Kentucky's right to determine the definition of marriage within its own borders. This type of judicial activism hurts America's democratic process.
It is no surprise that Judge Heyburn was Mitch McConnell's general counsel and McConnell recommended him for the federal bench. Kentucky deserves better.
Yesterday on The Janet Mefferd Show, Bevin continued to rail against “judicial activism” and told the anti-gay talk show host that he would be a strong opponent of marriage equality in the Senate.
“Where do you draw the line?” Bevin asked. “If it’s all right to have same-sex marriages, why not define a marriage — because at the end of the day a lot of this ends up being taxes and who can visit who in the hospital and there’s other repressions and things that come with it — so a person may want to define themselves as being married to one of their children so that they can then in fact pass on certain things to that child financially and otherwise. Where do you draw the line?”
“And if in fact a person can arbitrarily draw it here, why not could someone else draw it arbitrarily somewhere else? There needs to be rule of law. Marriage has for millennia been defined as that between a man and a woman universally.”
Sen. Ted Cruz has been rounding up support for his State Marriage Defense Act among conservative talk show hosts, and yesterday Jonathan Saenz of Texas Values sang Cruz’s praises during an interview with Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council. Saenz also alleged that growing support for marriage equality is nothing but a myth.
There is this notion that things have changed so much, there’s all this momentum from the media suggesting that people’s views have changed on homosexual marriage. But we’re not seeing that at the polls. All of these victories so to speak that have happened for their side, some short-lived, have been a federal judge who is unelected or the Obama administration or some of the AGs refusing to enforce their own laws and constitution. I haven’t really seen evidence of a major change.
We’re not sure where Saenz has been, but polling consistently shows that a majority of Americans, and an overwhelming number of young people, favor legalizing marriage for same-sex couples. In the 2012 election, a plurality of voters agreed that same-sex marriage should be legal in their state, and marriage equality opponents lost in all four states where voters faced ballot measures on the issue.
The two went on to warn that marriage equality states must also legalize incest (which, despite their claims, has clearly not happened).
“Not only does it destroy the definition of marriage, it perverts the word love,” Perkins said of same-sex marriage. “It becomes nothing more than a sexual act or a physical act of intimacy. Because you could say two brothers love each other, two sisters love each other, an aunt and an uncle love each other, different folks that may not be able to be married could love each other, so if you change this definition, what’s to keep them from entering into some kind of contractual relationship as well? It’s absurd.”
Saenz agreed: “They’re not really interested in equality, the homosexual advocates, they just want what they think they can get and what works best for their selfish interests…. They know that the majority of people do not support them because it breaks apart.”
Sen. Ted Cruz spoke with anti-gay talk show host Janet Mefferd yesterday in his continued effort to drum up support for his State Marriage Defense Act, which would undermine the rights of legally married same-sex couples. The Texas Republican told Mefferd that gay rights advocates hope to “subvert our democratic system” since they can’t “win an argument with the American people.”
“They just want to use brute power to force the states to take down marriage laws that have been in place for centuries and that’s inconsistent with the Constitution, it’s not right and it’s heartbreaking,” Cruz added.
“We are getting a tremendous outpouring from citizens across the country who are interested in standing up and defending marriage,” he said, warning that “our liberties” are “facing a real threat right now.”
“The courts and the Obama administration are both pressing this assault and they have had real success undermining marriage,” Cruz continued. “We are seeing millions of Americans who are recognizing that our constitutional liberties are being eroded.”
Cruz added that gay rights advocates go up against “the facts” and urged listeners to pray against marriage equality: “I think the most important thing your listeners can do is simply pray because we need a great deal of prayer because marriage is really being undermined by a concerted effort and it’s causing significant harm.”
A federal judge’s decision to strike down Virginia’s ban on same-sex marriagehas unsurprisingly stoked the ire of conservatives.
Family Research Council head Tony Perkins offered a typical rebuke of “activist judges” and the “arrogant judiciary,” and once again warned that marriage equality will in fact lead to unprecedented inequality.
It appears that we have yet another example of an arrogant judge substituting her personal preferences for the judgment of the General Assembly and 57 percent of Virginia voters. Our nation's judicial system has been infected by activist judges, which threaten the stability of our nation and the rule of law.
This ruling comes on the heels of Attorney General Mark Herring's refusal to fulfill his constitutional duty to defend the state's marriage law. His lawlessness is an insult to the voters of Virginia who rightfully expected elected officials to uphold the laws and constitution of the state, not attack them as Herring has done.
An arrogant judiciary is only one of the major consequences of the drive to redefine marriage. Increasingly, Americans are being forced to finance and celebrate unions that not only step on free speech and religious liberty but also deny children a mom and a dad. Rather than live-and-let-live, this court by redefining marriage will create a level of inequality that has never been seen in our country as people are forced to suppress or violate the basic teachings of their faith," concluded Perkins.
Mat Staver of Liberty Counsel and Liberty University Law School, which is based in Virginia, said the judge must not have ever read the Constitution.
“This decision is outrageous and legally flawed. Judges would be well-served to read the U.S. Constitution and not invent or rewrite it,” said Mat Staver, Founder and Chairman of Liberty Counsel. “The Constitution cannot be changed by the stroke of a judge’s pen, nor does it bow to a judge’s personal ideology. The overwhelming majority of Virginia voters who make up ‘we the people’ voted to affirm natural marriage. Same-sex marriage, as a policy matter, sends the message that children do not need moms and dads. There is ample evidence that children fair [sic] best when raised with a mother and a father. Same-sex marriage is not the equivalent of natural marriage. Judges should be careful to render decisions grounded in the Constitution and the rule of law. Otherwise, judges and courts will render themselves impotent when the people lose confidence in the judicial system,” Staver continued.
The Family Foundation of Virginia, meanwhile, blamed Valentine’s Day for the ruling, which the group says threatens “our entire social fabric.”
“The timing of this decision certainly calls into question Judge Wright Allen’s objectivity,” a Friday morning statement from the group stated. “This rushed release just prior to Valentine’s Day reeks of political show, making her ruling less a legal argument and more a press release. It’s disappointing that a federal judge would so blatantly expose her personal political agenda at the expense of not just marriage, but our entire social fabric.”
“Regardless of one’s stance on marriage, the people of Virginia were disenfranchised by this ruling as our voice and our vote that amended our Constitution have been rendered meaningless by a single federal judge with the assistance of our own Attorney General,” the Family Foundation statement read. “Protecting a timeless institution for the well-being of children was the will of the overwhelming majority of Virginians and this ruling denies this important state interest as it places the desires of adults over the outcomes of children.”
National Organization for Marriage president Brian Brown said the “terrible decision” must be reversed:
This is another example of an Obama-appointed judge twisting the constitution and the rule of law to impose her own views of marriage in defiance of the people of Virginia. There is no right to same-sex 'marriage' in the United States constitution. In fact, the U.S. Supreme Court has said that states have the preeminent duty of defining marriage. The people of Virginia did just that in voting overwhelmingly to affirm marriage as the union of one man and woman. That decision should be respected by federal judges and we hope that the U.S. Supreme Court ends up reversing this terrible decision. This case also leaves a particular stench because of the unconscionable decision of Attorney General Mark Herring to not only abandon his sworn duty to defend the laws of the state, but to actually join the case against the very people he is duty-bound to represent.
Judson Phillips of Tea Party Nation blasted the “imperious federal judiciary” and the “liberal state apparatus,” warning that they are trying “to advance a social experiment that changes America from the nation that we know into something totally unrecognizable” and “will force you to support homosexual marriage.”
The case, if it can be appealed must be appealed to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. The problem is that appellate courts have to rule based on the record from the trial court. The record is the transcript of witnesses’ testimony and other evidence the trial judge heard.
With Virginia’s Attorney General refusing to defend the case, the case might not even be appealed and even if it is, the record may be very limited.
Once again, we see an imperious federal judiciary overruling the voters of a state to advance a social experiment that changes America from the nation that we know into something totally unrecognizable.
And with the striking down of this law, can the liberal state apparatus be far behind? That liberal state apparatus is the one that will force you to support homosexual marriage whether or not it conflicts with your religious beliefs.
Texas Sen. Ted Cruz joined Family Research Council president Tony Perkins on Washington Watch yesterday to discuss his proposed State Marriage Defense Act, which as we explained earlier would “make it more difficult for married same-sex couples to receive legal recognition.”
Cruz said that the Obama administration’s support for LGBT equality represents an “abuse of power and lawlessness” and chided gay rights advocates for their “litigation approach.”
“Our heart weeps for the damage to traditional marriage that has been done,” Cruz said, warning that marriage is “under attack.”
“We need to stand up and defend traditional marriage and especially do everything we can to prevent the federal government from forcing a different definition of marriage that is contrary to the views to the citizens of each state.”
The Texas senator also agreed with Perkins’ assessment that and Obama administration officials want to “move quick[ly]” on marriage equality “because there will be pushback from the country when people see the consequences of this redefinition of marriage; they are trying to lock this in quickly hoping that it cannot be reversed.”