In a radio program posted online Monday, Georgia pastor Jody Hice, the GOP nominee to replace Paul Broun in the U.S. House, linked the anti-government Bundy ranch standoff to anti-gay politics, saying that the militia groups that faced off against the Bureau of Land Management in Nevada were a symbol of Americans standing up against Big Government incursions on their liberties…like the legalization of same-sex marriage.
“There is unquestionably an undercurrent that is taking place across America where people are getting fed up,” he said. “They are saying to themselves and now beginning to say to themselves, ‘Enough is enough. We are not going to sit back while our government tramples over our liberties.’”
I will never forget these ranchers on horseback continuing to walk slowly toward the BLM. They were prepared to die. They were ready for confrontation. They were saying, ‘Enough is enough. You’re not going to trample on our rights any more. You have gone far enough and no further will you go.’
I mean, that was the statement being made by the ranchers and they continued marching toward the BLM. You will remember what happened, eventually the BLM never fired a shot, instead they got in their vehicles and left. Again, one of the other reasons they did not fire a shot is because all these ranchers, the cowboys and many, many others around them were themselves armed and ready for action if it came to that point, thank God it did not, but they were prepared just in case.
Now, that’s the image that comes to my mind. There is unquestionably an undercurrent that is taking place across America where people are getting fed up. They are saying to themselves and now beginning to say to themselves, ‘Enough is enough. We are not going to sit back while our government tramples over our liberties.’
And the examples are numerous. We could deal with different scenarios I don’t know how many times, they are abundant in the various ways in which this is taking place.
Now, I want to give you just what is the latest example: the whole battle over gay marriage, and in particular gay marriage as it relates to businesses, that businesses cannot remain committed to their personal religious convictions if there is ever a confrontation between those religious beliefs and same-sex marriage.
In an attempt to woo social conservatives in advance of a possible presidential bid, Sen. Marco Rubio delivered a speech at Catholic University today, where he attempted to come across as a uniter on social issues like marriage equality and abortion rights while assuring his party’s right flank that he agrees with their hardline policy positions.
The Florida Republican drew heavily from the Religious Right’s persecution narrative to claim that while LGBT people have faced discrimination in the past, he and fellow opponents of marriage equality are now the victims of widespread “intolerance.”
“We should acknowledge that our nation is marred by a history of discrimination against gays and lesbians,” he said. “There was once a time when our federal government not only banned the hiring of gay employees, it required federal contractors to identify and fire them. Some laws prohibited gays from being served in bars and restaurants, and many states carried out law enforcement efforts targeting gay marriages.”
“Fortunately, we’ve come a long way since then,” he continued. “Many committed gay and lesbian couples feel humiliated by the law’s failure to recognize their relationship as a marriage, and supporters of same-sex marriage argue that laws banning same-sex marriage are discrimination. I respect their arguments, and I would concede that they pose a legitimate question for lawmakers and society.”
But now, according to Rubio, it is gay-rights opponents whose rights are under attack.
He criticized judges who are “redefining marriage from the bench,” claiming that pro-marriage-equality decisions take away the rights of “Americans like myself” who oppose same-sex marriage: “Those who support same-sex marriage have a right to lobby their state legislature to change its laws. But Americans like myself who support keeping the traditional definition of marriage also have the right to work to keep the traditional definition of marriage in our laws without seeing them overturned by a judge.”
Calling tolerance a “two-way street,” he lamented that “today there is a growing intolerance on this issue, intolerance towards those who continue to support traditional marriage.”
“I promise you that even before this speech is over, I’ll be attacked as a hater or a bigot or someone who’s anti-gay,” he said. “This intolerance in the name of tolerance is hypocrisy. Supporting the definition of marriage as one man and one woman is not anti-gay. It is pro-traditional marriage.”
The theme was repeated by the Southern Baptist Convention’s Russell Moore, and Concerned Women for America’s Penny Nance, who joined a panel discussion after Rubio’s speech.
“I think the myth of somehow those who are concerned about these issues from a more conservative standpoint are simply going to evaporate, I think that that is actually fueling some of the things that Sen. Rubio talked about right now, when he did talk about this growing intolerance of those who would define marriage as a conjugal union of a man and a woman,” Moore said.
Nance praised Rubio for his “unifying” message, as opposed to the “divisive” tone of President Obama whom she said “has pitted gays against straights”:
“I believe that this president has been so divisive for this nation. He has pitted men against women, he has pitted wealthy against poor, he has pitted gays against straights, and I was so happy and encouraged by the tone that Sen. Rubio took. It was a unifying message that he gave us today, and I think it was a winning message.”
Sen. Rubio’s office has posted video of his remarks. His comments on LGBT equality and abortion rights begin about 13 minutes in:
As we’re dealing with the refugee crisis on the southern border, right-wing elected officials have amped up their inappropriate, inflammatory rhetoric to dehumanize immigrants and attack immigration reform:
Of course, elected extremists aren’t the only ones making outrageous statements:
The Right Wing's inflammatory rhetoric distorts the reality of the crisis, causing more conflict and damage.
Eagle Forum’s Virginia Armstrong, the head of the group’s Court Watch Project, today makes the novel argument that the U.S. Constitution doesn’t protect the rights of LGBT people but in fact requires the government to fight “homosexual conduct” in “every legitimate way possible.”
In an article published on Eagle Forum’s website, Armstrong argues that advances in LGBT equality prove “that America is indeed in the ‘danger zone’ and is in dire need of a massive ‘straightening up process.’”
She then argues that the AIDS epidemic shows that “homosexual conduct is what is harmful to gays and lesbians to the degree that governments are not only constitutionally allowed, but constitutionally required, to fight such conduct in every legitimate way possible.”
All emphasis is Armstrong’s:
Has America bent over so far backwards in our spiritual, moral, and constitutional life that we are in danger of “breaking”? This question is central to our current series of Court Watch Briefings. The question has been precipitated by America’s Culture War and echoes the anguished cry of the Father in the famous musical production, “Fiddler on the Roof,” who felt that revolutionary changes in his world were pushing him to the “breaking point.”
We are proving that America is indeed in the “danger zone” and is in dire need of a massive “straightening up process.” Nothing more clearly demonstrates this fact than the recentsame-sex marriage decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court - Perry v. Hollingsworth and Windsor v. U.S.
These statistics bring into bolder relief than ever the fatal flaws of Perry/Windsor . HIV and AIDS is a pandemic , far worse than other such health threats which have sent governments and media around the world into a veritable apoplexy, accompanied by demands for the most severe action possible to stem those threats. Yet, federal (and, now, state) judges are demanding constitutional protections for the conduct which is most responsible for the HIV/AIDS pandemic. Furthermore, Judge Vaughn Walker’s “Finding of Fact” that religious opposition to homosexual conduct “harms gays and lesbians” and is constitutionally protected is so incongruent with reality as to be laughable, if it were possible to laugh about such an adjudicative disaster. The reality, of course, is that the exact opposite is true –homosexual conduct is what is harmful to gays and lesbians to the degree that governments are not only constitutionally allowed, but constitutionally required , to fight such conduct in every legitimate way possible. This example alone illustrates how upside down is Walker’s blast that “harm to homosexuals” results from religious opposition. This falsehood converts a particularly pernicious value judgment into an adjudicative fact given great weight in pro-homosexual court decisions. One of the worst blows to reason, morality, and the Judeo-Christian worldview is the speed with which the Perry/Windsor poison has poured through America’s legal veins…
Today President Obama signed an executive order protecting LGBT employees of federal contractors from workplace discrimination. In remarks this morning, the president said that our government “will become just a little bit fairer” today.
President Obama pointed out that many Americans go to work every day with the fear that they could lose their job because of who they are. It’s time to “address this injustice for every American,” he said, urging Congress to pass the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA). While today’s executive order expands protections to millions of LGBT people who work for federal contractors, we still lack a nationwide law to protect LGBT workers across the board. In many states, you can still be fired for being lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender.
Following the Obama administration’s announcement that an executive order was in the works, People For the American Way joined nearly 100 other organizations, including many faith groups, in a letter urging the president to reject a call for an additional religious exemption — which ultimately was not included. The letter noted:
Religious freedom is one of our most cherished values, a fundamental and defining feature of our national character. It guarantees us the freedom to hold any belief we choose and the right to act on our religious beliefs within certain limits. It does not, however, provide organizations the right to discriminate using taxpayer dollars. When a religiously affiliated organization makes the decision to request a taxpayer-funded contract with the federal government, it must play by the same rules as every other federal contractor. [emphasis added]
Jonathan Capehart from the Washington Post reports that in the past few weeks, there have been “extraordinary meetings” in the White House among LGBT and religious communities about both the necessity of protecting workers from discrimination and religious liberty. As Capehart writes, “The president’s action today shows the two are not mutually exclusive.”
WASHINGTON — Today the Senate failed to overcome a Republican filibuster of the Protect Women’s Health from Corporate Interference Act (S. 2578), a bill to fix the harm done by the Supreme Court’s recent Hobby Lobby decision.
People For the American Way Executive Vice President Marge Baker released the following statement:
“With today’s filibuster, Senate Republicans aligned themselves with the Supreme Court’s conservative majority in valuing the ‘rights’ of corporations over the rights of real women. And once again, they’ve refused to allow a critically important issue even to come up for a yes-or-no vote.
“This blatant obstruction is unacceptable. The majority of Americans understand that businesses shouldn’t be able to deny women health care. But Congressional Republicans sent a clear message to women: your access to birth control is less important than pushing our own right-wing agenda.”
More than 100,000 people have signed People For the American Way’s petition urging Congress to override the damaging Hobby Lobby decision.
Gordon Klingenschmitt, who is the GOP nominee for a state legislative seat in Colorado, is obviously not pleased with the Colorado county clerks who have started issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
On his “Pray In Jesus Name” program yesterday, Klingenschmitt reminded the clerks that “homosexuality is not only an abomination, not only worthy of death,” but comes with a “penalty” that amounts to “spiritual death.”
“They say, ‘Oh, it’s all about love.’ No, it’s about lust, it’s about selfishness,” he said. “They don’t care about the other person, they want self-gratification for themselves, contrary to their own nature, contrary to what God designed for them. And they receive in themselves the penalty for that error.”
“The penalty for that sin is not just STDS or some biological curse, not just AIDS, but they receive into themselves the demonic spirit that rules their hearts, and with that comes ultimately the consequence of spiritual death.”
Klingenschmitt adds that he is just the “messenger” when he tells gay people that “you’re going to hell.”
On a segment of “Sandy Rios in the Morning” last week, Americans For Truth About Homosexuality president Peter LaBarbera lamented the plight of the lowly Religious Right activist.
An expert on the evils of the LGBT movement, LaBarbera warned Rios that lawmakers, businesses and citizens are increasingly beholden to the demands of the “homosexual lobby,” regardless of their religious convictions. While LaBarbera and Rios wasted no time directing barbs at President Obama and pro-equality Democrats, LaBarbera mostly reserved his scorn for religious leaders and establishment Republicans for allegedly “bowing to the pressures” of gay rights advocates.
Rankled by the supposed lack of opposition to LGBT rights within the conservative movement, LaBarbera wondered, “I’m not sure anymore if evangelical Christians can actually be effective cultural warriors, so many are unwilling to confront the reality of evil, which is the promotion of the sin movement.” He contrasted the vigor of the gay rights movement, “which is implacable, which is always moving forward,” with the Religious Right, which he said is waging the “politics of defeatism.”
The idleness of conservative leaders, LaBarbera argued, has paved the way for the “special treatment” of LGBT people who believe that “laws don’t apply to them.”
Discussing recent LGBT Pride events, he also noted that while pornography, adultery and promiscuity are still considered taboo, the LGBT community is celebrated, perhaps, he posits, to “overcompensate” for knowing in their “heart of hearts” that homosexuality is also sinful.
Bob Vander Plaats, president of the Iowa-based Religious Right group The Family Leader, held a revival event yesterday that also happened to be a good marketing opportunity for his new book about the “urgent call for revival” in America.
Vander Plaats introduced the event — which also featured a Q & A with Chuck Norris and a performance by the Christian rock band the Newsboys — by showing a video of the “darkness” in America that he identified as calling for a spiritual revival. Featured in the video are images of terrorists attacks and mass shootings….along with images of same-sex weddings, the Boy Scouts’ admittance of gay members, Justice Anthony Kennedy, gambling and rallies on behalf of legalizing marijuana.
Vander Plaats mentioned at the end of the video that many of the national leaders he frequently speaks with share these concerns. He’ll have a chance to discuss them in more depth next month, when GOP leaders including Ted Cruz, Mike Huckabee, Bobby Jindal, Rick Santorum, Rick Perry and Tim Scott come to Iowa for Vander Plaat’s annual Family Leadership Summit.
WorldNetDaily editor Joseph Farah is not pleased with the recent Politico Magazine story on the increasing embrace of LGBT rights among evangelical Christians. In a column this weekend, Farah took issue with Politico’s description of conservative evangelicals’ “longstanding hostility toward gay people,” calling the description “hellishly bigoted.”
Gay-affirming churches are the “ones who are truly hostile and unloving to homosexuals,” he argues, and “are actually condemning them to death.”
Meanwhile, Farah contends, anti-gay Christians will soon face “persecution and martyrdom” that will be “unlike anything previously experience [sic] in America.”
I just read a Politico magazine piece that demonstrates why biblically minded Christians are becoming the targets of real bigotry and will, almost assuredly, soon be the victims of real persecution – unlike anything previously experience in America.
Titled “Evangelicals are changing their minds on gay marriage,” the article, written by a religion reporter for the Orange County Register, focuses on “The Reformation Project,” which is described as “a nationwide network of pro-gay evangelicals committed to ending their church’s longstanding hostility toward gay people.”
Let me first say that this is a hellishly bigoted comment by people who claim to be fighting bigotry.
Today, in the popular culture, it’s cool to be “gay” – a word that has been hijacked by a political movement that embraces sin.
It may be popular to embrace sin today, but those who do so in the name of Christ are the ones who are truly hostile and unloving to homosexuals. They are actually condemning them to death.
There is nothing loving about rationalizing sin as an alternative lifestyle.
I don’t doubt that there is a new movement within the church that takes this upside-down view of what Christianity is all about.
But notice the way those who disagree with the view – all those who follow biblical Christianity – are portrayed: They are “hostile to gay people.”
Where does that kind of thinking lead?
It leads only one place – bigotry and persecution.
This movement is not about rejecting bigotry as it claims. It is about creating a new form of bigotry – against those with sincerely held, biblically supported worldviews.
The Ruth Institute's Jennifer Johnson wrote on the organization's blog yesterday that marriage equality advocates who criticize the Religious Right for singling out gay marriage while ignoring straight divorce "have a point."
"Have we been too focused on “same sex marriage” and not focused enough on divorce?" she asks. "I think so."
"Divorce is a big problem that Christians have not confronted adequately," she writes. "Thus, we have lost our witness and moral authority in regards to the institution of marriage. At least, that’s how it looks to me. "
The Ruth Institute — which until last year was affiliated with the National Organization for Marriage — doesn't always conform with the Religious Right's messaging, most recently taking issue with the movement's "whining" persecution rhetoric.
That's not to say that the rest of the Religious Right doesn't care about divorce — the advent of no-fault divorce is frequently brought up as as a milestone in the slippery slope of the sexual revolution, and "covenant marriage" laws are popular among some activists. (Family Research Council president Tony Perkins sponsored the nation's first covenant marriage law when he was a Louisiana state legislator.) But the movement as a whole knows that villainizing people who get divorced is going to be a less popular strategy than scapegoating the much smaller LGBT population.
Anti-gay activist and author of gay erotica Robert Oscar Lopez has compiled a list of 300 incidents that he thinks illustrate the scourge of “homofascism.” He writes today in the American Thinker that “homofacism” is “less nationalistic than past fascisms, though more invasive and consuming because it polices interpersonal relationships and interior thoughts in a way that earlier police states did not.” He adds that the movement “it is violent, even though we tend not to think of the movement as violent because many still stereotype gays as delicate, and the violence is usually carried out through the seemingly legitimate auspices of the state.”
There is a mass movement aimed at stifling the autonomy of natural relationships – friendships, familial love, romantic love, human reverence for the divine – and subverting such relationships to the punitive power of an intrusive state. It is as sweeping and menacing as past isms, including fascism, to which it reveals a number of striking resemblances.
It is difficult to comprehend, partly because it operates so often with emotional subterfuge, and partly because it is unprecedented. It is less nationalistic than past fascisms, though more invasive and consuming because it polices interpersonal relationships and interior thoughts in a way that earlier police states did not. I have come to realize, though, that it is violent, even though we tend not to think of the movement as violent because many still stereotype gays as delicate, and the violence is usually carried out through the seemingly legitimate auspices of the state.
This strange fascism has grown under the guise of advocating for a marginalized and even obscure population – homosexuals and bisexuals – whose interests are in no way served by this movement, and who are themselves some of the people most vulnerable to repression by it. The stakes are huge, the urgency serious. We have to call it something, and its name should evoke the dramatic emergency it is presenting to the globe. So let’s just call it “homofascism” for simplicity’s sake.
The thought crosses my mind quite often: could I have made a difference if I’d come forward and spoken out in 2004? In 2000? In 1994? Homofascism feeds on silence. The less you confront it, the more it hunts you down and strikes at you. It is a strange beast. Perhaps if conservatives had stopped being so afraid of offending people and taken this threat seriously twenty years ago, many of the victims catalogued in our 300 list would not have been prey for the search-and-destroy missions of the gay lobby.
But regrets do little. We need to move forward. My allies’ purpose in archiving the history of homofascism is to provide a resource, to make sure that people on our side know how high the stakes are, and how false the veneers of the other side are. We are facing a vicious, lethal enemy, and we have to fight back accordingly. Ever forward.
The Madison Project, the Tea Party group backed by Sen. Ted Cruz that’s pushing far-right challengers in Republican congressional races, marked the Fourth of July this year by lamenting that the “illegal invasion,” the “anti-family agenda,” Social Security, and the rest of the social safety net make them “feel like strangers in our own country.”
Sadly, many of us are spending this 4th of July wondering if our Founders would recognize that republic – that beacon of freedom built upon a strong civil society and ordered liberty. So many ordinary Americans feel our republic is long lost to a foreign socialist utopia centrally managed by an elitist oligarchy in the form of two corrupt political parties.
This small minority of radicals has completely vitiated our most fundamental characteristic as a republic – our sovereign borders. We are now languishing from the flood of over 100,000 illegal immigrants teaming over our southern border, adding to the millions of illegals already here. At stake is nothing less than the preservation of our civil society, sovereignty, and solvency as a nation and as a stable economy. They drain our resources, health care, education, and criminal justice system.
We feel like strangers in our own country.
Even without the illegal invasion, our republic is hanging on by a thread.
Almost every American is involuntarily subservient to the federal government for his or her retirement security and healthcare. Over 46 million people, and one-in-four children, rely upon government for food stamps. Under the new Obamacare mandates, an estimated 79 million Americans will be enrolled in Medicaid and CHIP. This culture of dependency, an anathema to our spirit of independence, has saddled us with over $1 million in debt and unfunded obligations for every American taxpayer.
Meanwhile, ordered liberty in a constitutional republic needs a strong civil society and strong families in order to thrive, much like fish in water. Yet, the cultural degeneration, promulgated and encouraged by this small societal elite, has permeated every aspect of American life – to the extent that those of us who adhere to traditional family values are now ostracized and castigated. We have reached the point where we need a group of unelected judges to grant us small morsels of religious liberty from their high benches in Washington. The small minority who push this invidious anti-family agenda now seek to eradicate the very existence of gender to the degree that private individuals and businesses are now being forces to accommodate bizarre and licentious practices.
The “Republican” Party was supposed to serve as the bulwark against attempts to supplant our republican form of government, yet they have become part and parcel of the problem. Decades’ worth of treachery directed towards the party faithful from its leadership has finally culminated with the Mississippi election last week. A long-serving Republican, with the blessing of the entire party establishment, engaged in fraud and race-baiting to repudiate his own party base and steal the election.
We are now living through the worst consequences of elective despotism that James Madison warned about in Federalist 48. Indeed we are strangers in our own country and in our own party.
The editor of Herman Cain’s website is upset by the news that Burger King is planning to sell an LGBT pride themed burger at one San Francisco location, but is consoled by the fact that his own ability to cook has landed him a “super-hot wife” who’s “a girl, by the way.”
Dan Calabrese wrote last week at Cain TV that “when I get ready to consume my lunch, the thing I want to be thinking about is dude-on-dude action.”
“… I don't remember the last time adulterers, murderers or drunk drivers convinced a burger chain to name a product after them, and publicly declared their pride in what they do,” he added. “You're the ones who are making it an issue, not me.”
Sigh. I can tell you for sure that when I get ready to consume my lunch, the thing I want to be thinking about is dude-on-dude action.
Hold the pickles
Hold the lettuce
Lunch and gay sex can't upset us!
I actually prefer the Whopper to its counterparts at McDonald's and Wendy's, and the ice cream shakes are really good when the machine doesn't break (which is sadly not that often).
You tell me not to judge you for what you do that is in blatant rebellion against the Word of God. OK. You tell me not to be a hater and not to obsess over certain sins when others are just as troubling to God. Fair enough.
But I don't remember the last time adulterers, murderers or drunk drivers convinced a burger chain to name a product after them, and publicly declared their pride in what they do. You're the ones who are making it an issue, not me. I'm just telling you what God's Word says. If you don't want to hear that, then don't insist on constantly making it a topic of public conversation. (Then again, the thieves have the Hamburglar, so there is that.)
So if Burger King wants let its affiliation be known in the culture war, again I say, fair enough. One more reason I'm glad I learned to cook in college. Not only do I not need Burger King, but it helped me to attract a super-hot wife who remains super-hot even after 17 years of marriage to me.
She's a girl, by the way.
The American Decency Association, meanwhile, is all but declaring a boycott of the chain, telling OneNewsNow, "When we hear of a corporation that is just making decisions such as this, this is clearly a time for people to use whatever means they can to express that concern at their local Burger King.”
Iowa-based talk show host Steve Deace, for his part, is suggesting that the “Proud Whopper” discriminates against Christians:
Like many of us, Scott Lively spent the Fourth of July weekend reflecting on the “gay agenda,” and on Sunday published a WorldNetDaily column arguing that said agenda very much exists and in fact “reflects an insane and Satanic delusion which breeds chaos."
Lively argues, as he does frequently, that he didn’t mind when the gay rights movement was about “the right to be left alone,” but he doesn’t like what he sees as the post-Stonewall turn toward the “radically Marxist goal” of destroying the family and all of society.
Mentioning the “gay” agenda in the presence of an LGBT activist or any other Cultural Marxist is like pulling the string on a Sheriff Woody doll, you hear precisely the same recording each time: “What gay agenda? There is no gay agenda.”
But, of course, the audacious lie that the now-global LGBT political movement has “no agenda” is as transparent as the Emperor’s new clothes. Indeed, their agenda is not only undeniable, it has unfortunately become unavoidable!
An agenda is simply a plan or list of matters to be acted upon by a person or group related to a strategic goal to be achieved. By definition, every person or group with a goal has one.
The original goal of the “gay” movement was best summarized by Dale Jennings of the Mattachine Society as “the right to be left alone.” Before Stonewall: Activists for Gay and Lesbian Rights in Historical Context, Phd Dececco (John), John Dececco, Phd, Vern L Bullough, Vern L Bullough, RN, PhD, Haworth Press, 2002, p 88. That goal can be translated as “tolerance.” I think it is fair to say that the vast majority of pro-family advocates and activists in the world today (including this writer) would gladly support that goal.
However, with the violent Stonewall Riot of June 28, 1969 (celebrated annually today as “Gay Pride Day“), the movement adopted a radical Marxist goal and agenda heavily influenced by Herbert Marcuse of the Frankfort School of “Cultural Marxists.”
In conclusion, the “gay” agenda is to eliminate the existing Judeo-Christian model of civilization, grounded in marriage-based procreative sexuality, to make way for an irrational and impossible Cultural Marxist model which imagines family-less unlimited “sexual freedom” (anarchy), while somehow preserving orderliness in every other aspect of human society. It reflects an insane and Satanic delusion which breeds chaos, and can only be stopped by unceasing reaffirmation of Biblical values and the natural family by the rest of us.
Tea Party activist Jesse Lee Peterson’s group BOND held a conference on “fatherhood and men” in Los Angeles earlier this month, at which Peterson moderated a panel discussion featuring radio host Morris O’Kelly, author and pundit Andrew Klavan, and Dr. Albert Gibbs, a clinical psychologist.
Gibbs seemed to have not known what he was getting into, and spent the entire discussion responding in disbelief to to Peterson’s unhinged questions.
For instance, at one point, Peterson asked Gibbs if a man should “be the head of his wife.” When Gibbs responded that he and his wife are partners in the relationship, Peterson told him that he shouldn’t use that word because “that term partner came from the homosexuals” and that any marriage based on partnership means “the man is weak.”
WASHINGTON – In response to today’s 5-4 Supreme Court decision in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., the female clergy members of People For the American Way Foundation’s African American Ministers Leadership Council released the following statement:
“In today’s Hobby Lobby decision, the men of the Supreme Court’s conservative majority took special pains to argue that companies can’t dictate all of their employees’ health decisions, just those about women’s health.
“This is a full-scale attack on women, and it’s unacceptable. Today’s ruling threatens to prevent countless women from accessing the reproductive health services they need. Women’s health decisions should be between them and their doctors, not them and their employers.
“As faith leaders, we are deeply concerned about the distortion of the concept of religious liberty in today’s decision. Allowing corporations to infringe on the rights of their employees in the name of religious freedom is not what our Constitution’s framers had in mind, and it’s not in line with our values as Americans.”