Marriage Equality

Huelskamp: Supreme Court Legalized Polygamy

Yesterday, while speaking with Janet Mefferd, Rep. Tim Huelskamp (R-KS) expanded on his claim that the Supreme Court Justices who ruled on Prop 8 and the Defense of Marriage Act should’ve flunked law school.

Huelskamp said Justice Anthony Kennedy’s decision on DOMA was “outrageous” and based on smearing gay rights opponents: “If you’re writing for the left and you’re not gonna follow the Constitution you have to make it up as you go along so you inject name-calling into a constitutional decision, I mean that’s an outrageous decision.”

He also called Chief Justice John Roberts’ ruling on Prop 8 “crazy” and described it as an example of left-wing bias. Huelskamp even argued that the DOMA ruling effectively tossed out state laws barring marriages between a mother and her daughter, adding that “polygamy should be allowed under this decision.”

“What’s the impact on our children? That’s what the left doesn’t care about,” Huelskamp said, repeating his earlier claim that “children will be hurt” by the rulings. “That’s why this is showing up in these decisions that you know what just because two adults or three adults desire one thing that doesn’t mean it’s best for our children.” 

The congressman also told Mefferd that Republicans are too timid in their opposition to gay rights and should also focus on the “fiscal impact” of gay marriage and what he believes is the legalization of polygamy: “There’s a real big fiscal impact, we’re going to extend 1,100 benefits to homosexual and polygamous couples, perhaps, what’s the impact on that?”

Gallagher: Supreme Court DOMA Decision a 'Declaration of War' Against Half of America

Not content with just claiming that Justice Anthony Kennedy has proclaimed a “fatwa” against opponents of gay marriage, National Organization for Marriage founder Maggie Gallagher is now blasting the Supreme Court for issuing a “head-on declaration of war against at least half of the American people.”

In an interview with Lars Larson, Gallagher said that the court’s pro-marriage equality rulings limit the “democratic rights” of activists who seek to ban same-sex unions and argued that the justices could “not name” where gay and lesbian couples are protected in the Constitution.

Robertson Cites Levitical Death Penalty for Gays, Warns the Land Will 'Vomit You Out'

Today on the 700 Club, televangelist Pat Robertson reflected on a recent reading of the Old Testament and warned gays and lesbians that the land will “vomit you out.” Robertson said that Leviticus lists homosexuality as an “abomination” on par with incest and bestiality, “and those who do that in the Old Testament were stoned to death.”

He feared that the US is not heeding the Bible’s teaching that “the nations who were doing these things were vomited out of the land and the land vomited them out.”

“For some reason now the Supreme Court has said homosexuality is now a constitutional right and this decision that was handed down recently by the majority glorifies this activity and talks about the civil rights and all this, well the Bible didn’t talk about civil rights it talked about this was an offense against God and it was an offense against the land and the land would vomit you out.” Robertson continued. “Which is going to take precedence, the Supreme Court of the United States or the holy word of God?”

Of course, Robertson also believes that we should ignore what the Old Testament said about slavery.

Watch:

Keyes: Case for Gay Marriage Same as the Case for Slavery

Alan Keyes believes that Justice Antonin Scalia didn’t go far enough in his dissent in Windsor, the decision which struck down a key component of the Defense of Marriage Act, maintaining that he should’ve argued that gay marriage, which Keyes called a “tyrannically defined fabrication,” is unconstitutional.

According to Keyes, gay marriage advocates are using the same line of reasoning of slavery proponents who argued that “the notion of unalienable rights did not apply to black people” and did so “by denying black people their share in human nature.” “In like fashion, the advocates of homosexual so-called marriage now seek to deny the nature of marriage” and “override right and justice as endowed by the Creator.” Since same-sex unions violate God’s laws, Keyes reasons, it is therefore unconstitutional and allow government to undermine unalienable rights.

The advocates of slavery in the United States often attempted to justify that institution by denying black people their share in human nature. On this account, they pretended that the notion of unalienable rights did not apply to black people, and that they therefore had no rights government was obliged to respect and secure. In like fashion, the advocates of homosexual so-called marriage now seek to deny the nature of marriage. They do so on the excuse of promoting equal treatment for homosexuals. But the necessary and intended result of their advocacy is to deny the family's functional claim to be an expression of human nature, indeed the primordial expression of its social aspect. This, in turn, allows them to deny that the individuals who make up the family are engaged in an exercise of right, according to the laws of nature and of nature's God. Once this is successfully denied, the activities arising from their exercise of right need no longer be respected as unalienable rights, antecedent to all human governments, which it is government's aim to secure.

In what amounts to an effort to overturn the whole idea of unalienable rights that gives rise to constitutional self-government, some elements of America's judiciary have moved to proclaim as law that marriage must be redefined in a way that accommodates homosexual relationships. But this means that a human relationship in no way rooted in the Creator's provision for our nature must be allowed to usurp the name, authority, and rights of the God-endowed institution.



Once this effect upon the unalienable rights of the natural family is understood, it becomes clear that the Constitution is not neutral with respect to the approval or disapproval of same-sex marriage, in the name of law. There is an explicit constitutional prohibition against denying or disparaging rights unenumerated in the Constitution but retained by the people. Since the unalienable rights of the family arise from the individual's commitment to fulfill the natural law by propagating humanity, they are certainly among these unenumerated rights. Therefore, Congress simply did its duty, in accordance with the 9th Amendment, when it moved to prevent the denial and disparagement of the rights of the natural family by judges and justices seeking to replace the natural family with a tyrannically defined fabrication.

Why did Justice Scalia fail to take note of this constitutional justification for DOMA, utterly ignored by the Windsor majority? Why, instead, did he pretend that the issue involved can simply be decided by majority vote of the people in their respective states, as if the human sovereignty that constitutes government, at any level, has authority to override right and justice as endowed by the Creator? In this respect, neither the Windsor majority nor Justice Scalia's dissent shows any respect for the premises that informed the deliberations of the Framers of the U.S. Constitution. Yet without those premises, the declared purposes and essential features of the constitution they devised cannot be properly understood.

Harry Jackson: Gay Marriage Will 'Destroy Children'

In a column for the Christian Post today, Bishop Harry Jackson claims that children raised by single moms often “turn to lives of crime and violence” in order gain attention from father figures.

Naturally, Jackson connects this assertion to the debate over marriage equality, warning that legalizing same-sex marriage will create “broken relationships” within families that will “destroy children.” He even pushes the consistently debunked claim that marriage rates fall in countries that pass gay marriage laws because people “simply stopped bothering to get married in the first place”:

Is it any wonder that young boys turn to lives of crime and violence, when the purveyors of such lifestyles are the only men to show them any real attention? It is about as surprising as a starving child attempting to steal bread. And no social policy that fails to take into account the deep and legitimate need that every child has for both a mother and a father can ever be considered fair or just.

What does the internal aching so many children have for their missing fathers have to do with how marriage is legally defined? Advocates of redefining marriage constantly scoff at the notion that their policy goals could have a negative effect on anyone. "How does the legal union of two homosexual men affect your marriage?" they ask mockingly.

And of course the debate has nothing to do with my marriage or yours. It has to do with how future generations of adults will approach the very idea of marriage and parenthood. We already have nearly two decades of social experimentation in Scandinavia to draw upon. And it tells us that the broader the definition of marriage is the fewer adults bother with it in the first place. Since legalizing registered partnerships and gay marriage in Scandinavia, an overwhelming number of adults have simply stopped bothering to get married in the first place.

As I have pointed out many times before, words that mean everything, mean nothing. The looser we make the definition of marriage, the fewer people will feel bound to its obligations and constraints. And while broken relationships can hurt adults, they can destroy children.

Gay Marriage Violates the Separation of Church and State, Apparently

On Wallbuilders Live today, David Barton and Rick Green hosted Baptist pastor Danny Holliday, who was active in the campaign to block marriage equality legislation in the Illinois legislature. Green kicked off the show by comparing Holliday’s anti-gay activism to John Adams’ push for the adoption of the Declaration of Independence: “He was like John Adams at the Continental Congress, the guy behind the scenes that was working day and night to make sure we got the Declaration of Independence.”

Barton also wanted people to know that there is nothing “gay” about being gay.

“I’m not going to call it gay marriage; it’s homosexual marriage,” Barton pointed out. “Our friend Ken Hutcherson says he’s the gayest guy he knows because he’s not going to give the word gay up to homosexuals; gay means happy, bright and cheerful and that’s not what homosexuality is.”

Holliday told the hosts that marriage equality for gays and lesbians violates the separation of church and state. Under his Barton-esque view, Holliday said the separation of church and state actually means that the government has “no right to disregard what God says” about marriage or other issues.

It’s not about the character or integrity of people who are gay, it’s not about them. The issue is God defined marriage and since our Constitution, our Declaration of Independence and the oath of office in the state of Illinois recognize almighty God, then we have no right to disregard what God says about the institution of marriage. They don’t have a right to step beyond the veil, that separation of church and state, because it is God who gives us religious freedom and not the state.

Swanson: Gay Marriage Leads to Laptop, Pet Rock Marriages; 'Drags Feces' over Institution of Marriage

Fresh after blaming gays and women wearing hats and pants for the Colorado wildfires, Colorado pastors Kevin Swanson and Dave Buehner on Generations Radio have responded to the Supreme Court’s rulings on DOMA and Prop 8 by predicting the legalization of marriages to inanimate objects.

Harkening back to an earlier program about how Star Trek allegedly promotes bestiality, Buehner claimed that “cross-species” marriages and unions with “non-life forms” will soon become all the rage: “there are some people who love their MacBooks.” Swanson even wondered about people who “want to marry their Pet Rock.”

But don’t get too excited about marrying your laptop or Pet Rock just yet, as Swanson notes that “at this point it’s the destruction of civilization.”

Swanson and Buehner both agreed that gay couples don’t actually want to get married but only seek to “stick a finger in the eye of God and to destroy civilization,” and not to mention “drag feces all over one of the most beautiful things God has created.” 

“It’s all about committing cultural suicide,” Swanson explained, “the Supreme Court of the United States took a gun, put it to its own head and pulled the trigger because now we’re looking at a civilization committing suicide.”

Rod Parsley Prophecy Special: Gays Destroy Civilization, Obamacare Will Require Chip Implants

Televangelist Rod Parsley brought on Perry Stone of Voice of Evangelism today to discuss the End Times, which, they noted, thanks to Obamacare is materializing more quickly than one might think. Stone claimed that Obamacare will mandate people to have a “heath care chip” implanted in their right hand and suggested that the chip is the Mark of the Beast.

Another self-proclaimed prophet, Cindy Jacobs, made the same contention on her show last year. Of course, the claim is completely and utterly false – if not laughable – as nothing in the law requires microchip implantations. Despite the ridiculousness, Stone says he found believers in at least four state senators receptive to the claim and is working with one to pass a state law blocking the imaginary requirement.

Later, Parsley and Stone talked about how churches should tell politicians that they will make sure their congregations only back candidates who oppose abortion rights and gay rights. “We are on the verge of legalizing abominations that have destroyed empires,” Stones cried.

“That is when the empire gets destroyed, not when the sin goes on but when the sin is legislated by the people, when it becomes ingrained in the laws then that becomes the destruction of that society or civilization,” Parsley added.

Later in the program, Parsley said that the supposed silence among pastors on the issues is a plot by the Devil.

Watch:

Crouse: Gay Marriage Will Lead to the 'Imprisonment' of Christians

After arguing that gay marriage is a threat to children and community spirit, Janice Shaw Crouse of Concerned Women for America took to the Washington Times today to warn about the approaching “bleak future Christians” in which people of faith will experience “harsh retribution in the form of fines and imprisonment” if gay marriage becomes legal.

Crouse lashed out at “in-your-face media campaigns to normalize homosexual relationships” and pointed to an opinion piece by a Heritage Foundation fellow in CNN.com to claim that the DOMA ruling is a threat to democracy.

“It contradicts centuries of experience across time and cultures for the best family structure for strong nations,” Crouse writes about same-sex unions. “It represents a national experiment in social reconstruction at the expense of our children’s futures and the future of America.”

Regarding the Proposition 8 vote, the Supreme Court, in an instance of legal maneuvering that trumps common sense, said that those sponsoring the California initiative did not have “standing” to defend the constitutional amendment passed by more than 7 million voters. This amounts to the court saying, if we don’t want to address the issue, we simply say you don’t have the right to raise the issue with us. Thus, the California officials who refused to enforce the law got away with rejecting the will of the majority in their state.

In the Defense of Marriage Act vote, the Supreme Court struck down Section 3, which defines marriage as the union between one man and one woman for federal purposes. The narrow victory grants federal benefits to same-sex couples who live in states where such “marriages” are legal. In effect, though, the decision overturns the 1996 action of a bipartisan majority in Congress, even though the decision allows states to determine their own definition of marriage. Even CNN pointed out: “This is a serious loss for federalism and democratic self-government.” Section 2 of DOMA, which remains, makes it clear that no state is required to recognize another state’s same-sex “marriages.”

The technicalities, though, are obscured by the media “victory” won by the homosexual activists. More and more Americans are viewing same-sex “marriage” as inevitable, and the in-your-face media campaigns to normalize homosexual relationships are successfully changing the popular culture.



The bottom line is that the Supreme Court rulings fly in the face of a growing mountain of social science research showing that the best household arrangement for children is a married mom and dad. It contradicts centuries of experience across time and cultures for the best family structure for strong nations. It represents a national experiment in social reconstruction at the expense of our children’s futures and the future of America. These decisions repudiate — with a vengeance — the sacred trust of the Founders who built this great nation “under God” and on a foundation of Judeo-Christian principles that have stood the test of time.

Worse, the rulings warn of a future where Christians will have a choice: Keep silent about their faith or face not just being cast as a social pariah, but harsh retribution in the form of fines and imprisonment. It is hard to envision such an outcome, but the pivotal changes and losses of religious freedom and freedom of speech over the past few years portend a bleak future Christians must take seriously.

New Poll Shows Support for Marriage Equality, Affirmative Action, and Voting Rights – But Not the Supreme Court

In the wake of last week’s Supreme Court rulings on critical civil rights issues, a new poll finds increasing support for marriage equality and falling support for the high court itself. 

A national Princeton Survey Research Associates poll found that 55 percent of Americans think that marriages of same-sex couples should be legally recognized – the highest level of support ever.  A similar percentage (53 percent) believe that affirmative action programs are needed, and more Americans oppose the Supreme Court’s decision to strike down a key part of the Voting Rights Act (49 percent) than support it (40 percent).  In other words, the American people are not on board with the Supreme Court turning back the clock on our civil rights.

So it is not surprising that Supreme Court approval ratings are falling.  The Princeton poll found the lowest level of approval (43 percent) in eight years, with slightly more Americans disapproving of the way the court is doing its job (44 percent).  Similarly, a Rasmussen poll released yesterday found that the percentage of likely voters who think the Supreme Court is doing a poor job is rising. 

What is more surprising is that both polls show that a greater percentage of Americans still believe that the high court is “too liberal” than believe it is “too conservative.” As PFAW President Michael Keegan pointed out in May, this is no accident:

“In recent decades, right-wing leaders have worked in popular culture to attack the courts as a liberal peril while successfully organizing to dominate and control legal institutions to create courts that no longer look out for the rights of all Americans. They have set up law schools and legal societies to promote corporate and right-wing commitments, have promoted the appointment of reactionary judges and Justices, blocked the appointment of even moderate jurists, and defined a legal agenda that subordinates individual rights to government power and public regulation to corporate power. Right-wing success in remaking the judiciary in the image of the Republican Party has not led conservatives to curb their bitter attack on ‘liberal judicial activism,’ a fantasy that is several decades out of date but indispensable to this smoke-and-mirrors operation.”

While conservatives continue to crow about “liberal judicial activism,” the American people are realizing that the Supreme Court’s conservative rulings on issues like voting rights and the rights of workers and consumers do not reflect their beliefs or the nation’s core constitutional values. 
 

PFAW

Louie Gohmert Mocks Supreme Court Justices and Gay Marriage Supporters for Believing in Evolution

While Justice Antonin Scalia has problems believing in biology, Rep. Louie Gohmert takes issue with any Supreme Court justice who understands evolution. On last week’s edition of Washington Watch, Gohmert spoke to conservative activist J. Christian Adams about the court’s decisions in the DOMA and Prop 8 cases, which he had previously warned signal the collapse of civilization.

Gohmert reacted to the court’s rulings by quoting “the wisest man in the history of mankind,” King Solomon, while lamenting that his wisdom was “ruined” by engaging in polygamy (which also happens to undermine Gohmert’s case that there was just one definition of marriage in the Bible).

“He should’ve stuck with one man and one wife and I think he’d stay wise the rest of his life,” Gohmert said of Solomon, “but during a period of wisdom he said, ‘There is nothing new under the sun,’ and the holy quintet [the Supreme Court] had not apparently realized that, they really thought this was something new and improved.”

The congressman then delved into the world of philosophy: “From a philosophical standpoint, you know, we got intellectuals on the court who are believed to support the idea that evolution is how mankind got here and there is an ongoing evolution occurring. And I can’t just help but wonder, as these brilliant intellectuals have gotten to this point, how marriage between two men fits into the evolving of producing higher offspring that make the species higher and better.”

Adams added the justices have sought to “change the laws of nature” and “alter what is reality,” while Gohmert referenced a Chiffon margarine commercial to warn the justices that they “shouldn’t mess with Mother Nature.”

Feder: Gay Marriage Means America Is 'Doomed to Extinction'

World Congress of Families spokesman Don Feder claims that the Supreme Court’s decision striking down the Defense of Marriage Act will legalize polygamy, incest, pedophilia and bestiality, and will ultimately mean that society is “doomed to extinction.” In fact, Feder writes in a column today, “Members of the North American Man-Boy Love Association celebrated [the ruling] by forming a chorus line in trench coats, waving candy bars.”

Feder calls the push for marriage equality “marriage mutilation” and asserts that gays and lesbians are a “breeding ground for all sexually transmitted diseases,” warning that their “death-style” only produces “disease and chaos.”

Oh give me a home where the loving couples roam and constitutionally-protected sexual choices hold sway.

Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down Section 3 of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which essentially said that if a state was stupid enough to establish ersatz marriage, federal taxpayers weren't required to subsidize the travesty.

Writing for the majority, Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy – Ronald Reagan's most tragic mistake, surpassing even Bush '41 – said the wicked and iniquitous DOMA "places same-sex couples in an unstable position of being in second-tier marriages. The differentiation demeans the couple, whose moral and sexual choices the Constitution protects…."

Of course, the Constitution does no such thing. It no more protects "sexual choices" (under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments) than it creates a sphere of privacy (under the First Amendment) which permits abortion-on-demand. A society incapable of differentiating between a family and a perversion is doomed to extinction. Concurring with DOMA's 5-4 majority, the nation's Love Doctor, Barack Hussein Obama, exalted: "I applaud the Supreme Court's decision to strike down the Defense of Marriage Act. This was discrimination enshrined in law. It treated loving couples as a separate and lesser class of people….We are a people who declared that we are all created equal…. And the love we commit to one another must be equal as well." (Emphasis added.) All the love we "commit" – including polygamous love, incestuous love, "intergenerational" love (pedophilia), cross-species love, and masochistic love (taxpayers voting for Democrats)?



We the People, in whose name the Constitution was ordained and established, have decreed – frequently and volubly, in the only polls that count – that we reject marriage mutilation.

No matter. Windsor makes clear what will be the inevitable outcome of the current charade. Again, from Scalia's dissent: "It takes real cheek for today's majority to assure us, as it is going out the door, that a constitutional requirement to give formal recognition to same-sex marriage is not at issue here – when what has preceded that assurance is a lecture on how superior the majority's moral judgment in favor of same-sex marriage is to the Congresses' hateful moral judgment against it."

Besides democracy, loving couples also trump public health.

According to the Centers for Disease Control (when last I checked, not an arm of the Family Research Council), "men who have sex with men" or MSMs (AKA, male homosexuals), made up 61% of all new HIV cases in 2010, while constituting between 2% and 4% of the male population.

Conservatively, that means male homosexuals are 50 times more likely to become HIV-positive than male heterosexuals. By contrast, a male smoker is only 23 times more likely to develop lung cancer than his non-smoking counterpart.

Loving couples are a breeding ground for all sexually transmitted diseases. Again, according to CDC, a male homosexual is 46 times more likely to contract primary or secondary syphilis than other men. Apparently, all of the love they commit does nothing to ensure anything remotely approaching fidelity and restraint.

One type of family produces children, social order and the future – the other disease and chaos. Which is to be preferred? SCOTUS says differentiation between them is unconstitutionally demeaning.

But government-mandated homosexual marriage is only part of what awaits us. With the gay lobby, there's always the next big thing. They will demand that you endorse their death-style – publicly and on bended-knee. Ultimately, it's about the mailed fist of the state smashing religious liberty and conscience.



During oral arguments, in questioning a lawyer for gay marriage – who claimed that, of course, there would be limits to deconstructing a millennia-old institution – Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor (part of the DOMA majority) asked: "If you say that marriage is a fundamental right, what state restrictions could ever exist? Meaning, what's the restriction with respect to the number of people that could get married, the incest laws – mother and child? What's left?"

The obvious answer is nothing – which is why polygamy advocates welcomed the DOMA decision and members of the North American Man-Boy Love Association celebrated by forming a chorus line in trench coats, waving candy bars.

Dobson: Marriage Rulings Will Lead to the Disintegration of Society

On his radio show today, Focus on the Family founder James Dobson discussed the Supreme Court’s marriage equality rulings with Family Research Council president Tony Perkins and Bill Becker, an attorney affiliated with right-wing groups such as the Alliance Defense Fund and the Discovery Institute.

As you could imagine, Dobson was aghast at the decisions, arguing that same-sex marriages “threaten the entire superstructure” of society. “I believe it can come down,” Dobson warned. “This has been devastating. Even if eventually legally we somehow walk it back a bit, I don’t see our ever completely recovering from what has happened here.”

Becker went even further, saying that civilization crumbled the day the court released its rulings: “We’re talking here about the foundation of civilization and I wrote today that I believe we’ve seen the collapse of Western civilization in one day.”

Becker also quoted from Ephesians to suggest that the LGBT rights advocates represent “spiritual forces of evil,” adding that they plan to “indoctrinate” children.

Fischer: New Yorker 'Promoting Child Endangerment and Child Abuse' by Having Bert and Ernie In a 'Homosexual Clinch' (VIDEO)

Expanding on his earlier column, American Family Association spokesman lashed out at The New Yorker for putting Bert and Ernie in a “homosexual clinch” on their new cover. “Ladies and gentlemen they are cuddling on a couch, this is a romantic interlude,” he said.

“I don’t know which is which.” After quoting statistics from the very very very discredited Mark Regnerus study about same-sex parenting, Fischer said, “This is grossly irresponsible for The New Yorker to promote this, they really are promoting child endangerment and they are promoting child abuse.”

Watch:

Huelskamp: DOMA Ruling an Attack on Jesus Christ; Justices Couldn't Pass Law School

After calling on Congress to reconsider the Federal Marriage Amendment and warning that marriage equality will hurt children, Rep. Tim Huelskamp (R-KS) appeared on The Steve Deace Show yesterday to once again upbraid the Supreme Court for its marriage equality rulings.

Huelskamp accused the justices of trying to “rewrite the Constitution” and of attacking Jesus Christ himself. “The idea that Jesus Christ himself was degrading and demeaning is what they’ve come down to,” he said.

The congressman agreed with Deace’s charge that the left “has every intention of turning government against the church.” He added that progressive are bent on “ramming their views down the throats of Americans.”

Huelskamp also told Deace that the justices who ruled on DOMA and Prop 8 probably couldn’t have passed law school: “Twisted logic, tortured the Constitution, I can’t even stand to read the decisions because I don’t even think they’d pass law school with decisions like that.”

Franklin Graham: Supreme Court 'Rearranging God's Divine Order'

Franklin Graham released a short statement in response to the Supreme Court’s decisions on DOMA and Prop 8, asserting that there is no right for gays and lesbians to marry since no one is “entitled to rearrange God’s divine order for the universe and its inhabitants.”

“Any person or institution that attempts to redefine [marriage] is ultimately challenging Him,” Franklin writes, adding that the court cannot have any impact on “issues involving God’s laws.”

While I sharply disagree with the Supreme Court's decision on these two marriage cases, when it comes to issues involving God's laws, it doesn't ultimately matter what I or anyone else thinks about a court's ruling. It was God who created and defined marriage, and any person or institution that attempts to redefine it is ultimately challenging Him.

We who call ourselves followers of Christ must strive to love others with the same love He has shown us—even when we have fundamentally different beliefs about such matters as the definition of marriage. I believe that all people are entitled to respect and are within the reach of God's love, but I do not believe any of us is entitled to rearrange God's divine order for the universe and its inhabitants—all of which He created and sent His Son to die for.

Mefferd: Gay Rights Led to America's 'Death Throes' and 'Totalitarian' Laws

On Wednesday, Religious Right broadcaster Janet Mefferd didn’t hold back in expressing her outrage over the Supreme Court’s decision to vacate the appeal of the Prop 8 case over standing, calling the court’s ruling “completely insane.”

“If you think this is just an attack on marriage, it isn’t; it’s an attack on your liberty, an attack on the rule of law and it’s an attack on every person in California who went to the polls and legally voted to change the constitution of the state of California,” Mefferd said, “and the Supreme Court basically spat on them today.” Mefferd had a dim view of California: “Look who you have running your state, all these people have done in the California legislature is it’s gay law here and gay law there and gay role models and ban gay reparative therapy for minors…it’s totalitarian.”

But it’s not just California that’s at risk, she explained, as all of America is now in its “death throes.”

“It’s not about love, it’s not about equality, it’s not about civil rights, it’s about absolutely shaking the fist in the face of a Holy God and thinking that you’re going to get away with it,” Mefferd warned. “You really think the United States is going to get away with this? You think we’re going to be thriving three hundred years from now if we just completely tear apart this civilization? Are you kidding me? We are delusional if we think we can survive as a civilization long term.”

Mefferd added that if Americans keep “degrading everything that is good” then “you’re over, it’s over.”

On her Facebook page, Mefferd pointed to a video of a dog burying a dead puppy and called it a metaphor for America’s imminent demise.

American Decency Association: DOMA Decision Just Like Pearl Harbor

The American Decency Association’s Lisa Van Houten is warning that the Supreme Court’s DOMA decision “will live in infamy” just like Pearl Harbor. Van Houten claims that pastors will “be prosecuted for preaching” against homosexuality and refusing to perform same-sex weddings, people will be “charged with discrimination” if they don’t “embrace homosexuality,” anti-gay groups will lose their non-profit status, and, worst of all, America will face divine punishment.

As we look back on history there are dates which we now see were crossroads, turning points for nations and cultures. July 4, 1776; June 6, 1944. December 7, 1941; January 22, 1973. Battles fought, decisions made – some establishing goodness and justice, others are dates that “will live in infamy.”

I believe today, June 26, 2013, is the latter. A date when the United States Supreme Court ruled in favor of same sex marriage, and undermined true marriage – one man and one woman – which was instituted, not by any government, but by God.



The homosexual agenda cannot and will not abide peaceably alongside the true, biblical institutions of marriage and family as ordained by God. As the homosexual agenda is legitimized – even by the United States Supreme Court - marriage, family, and our religious liberty will be undermined.

Consider the following short list of what may be in our future :

1. Hate crime laws will be increasingly instituted and enforced. Will pastors be prosecuted for preaching what God’s Word says regarding homosexuality and refusing to perform same sex “marriage” ceremonies?

2. Homosexuality will be a protected class by the government. Christian school teachers and administrators, pastors, business owners, etc. could be charged with discrimination if they speak out against or refuse to embrace homosexuality.

3. Organizations such as our own American Decency could easily lose their (c)3 tax-exempt, non-profit status as we continue to call homosexuality what it is - SIN.

4. God will not bless a nation that puts a stamp of approval upon that which he calls an abomination. The evidences of God’s displeasure are evident and becoming more so with each passing day.

We are rapidly coming upon a time when a handful of unelected, increasingly politicized appointees are demonstrating that their allegiance to the U.S. Constitution and to natural law is under question.

However, God’s law supercedes [sic] man’s. As Christians, we must defy man’s law if it requires us to break the law of God.

Santorum: 'Death Knell' of Marriage Approaching

Rick Santorum told NewsmaxTV yesterday that the gay rights victories at the Supreme Court are paving the way for the “death knell” of marriage. The former senator and presidential candidate, who on Wednesday claimed that the Supreme Court’s marriage rulings represent the loss of freedom, maintained that the DOMA decision will allow the Supreme Court “to establish some sort of constitutional right or find that marriage is unconstitutional in its current form. That to me will put the death knell in it.”

But Santorum was optimistic that opposition to marriage equality will grow in the future because people will eventually see same-sex marriages’ deleterious “impact on children, on marriage, on families and on civilization.”

Bauer: Gay Rights Will Lead To 'The Criminalization of Christianity'

After warning that gay rights opponents will be put in jail any day now, last night Gary Bauer told members of his Campaign for Working Families PAC that as a result of the Supreme Court’s marriage rulings “we are headed toward the criminalization of Christianity.”

Bauer suggests “the militant homosexual movement” will have Child Protective Services remove children from homes where the parents teach kids “that God intended them to marry someone of the opposite sex.”

Based on the messages I have received, many of you (and especially our friends in California) seem tempted to give up. Some are asking, "Why should we bother anymore?"

This may be shocking to you, but if we throw up our arms in frustration and surrender the political arena to the left, it will get a whole lot worse. We are headed toward the criminalization of Christianity. Let me explain.

If a family were teaching its children that the KKK is the correct model for society, people would rightly be outraged. If Child Protective Services found out, that family would face the possibility of having its kids taken away for psychological child abuse.

When it comes to same-sex marriage, the militant homosexual movement and its left-wing media allies have, unbelievably, taken the normal view of marriage and equated it with the kind of raw bigotry I just described.

If we stop fighting, in short order you will not be able to teach your children that God intended them to marry someone of the opposite sex.

You may say, "Gary, that will never happen!" That's exactly what folks said about men "marrying" other men just 20 years ago.

As I wrote yesterday, this is about more than just marriage rights. It is not hyperbole to say that religious liberty is at stake. (Pastors, please pay attention!)



It used to be said that homosexuals were coming out of the closet and they wanted to force Christianity in the closet. It's worse than that. If you think I am exaggerating, consider Justice Antonin Scalia's dissent in yesterday's ruling on the Defense of Marriage Act.

In his majority striking down Section 3 of DOMA, Justice Kennedy accuses supporters of normal marriage of harboring an "animus" or hatred of homosexuals. Scalia's dissent suggests that the majority's arrogance betrays its own "animus," one the left is about to unleash on men and women of faith.
Share this page: Facebook Twitter Digg SU Digg Delicious