Equality For All

Penny Nance: Girl Scout Transgender Policy A 'Slap In The Face To Christian Parents'

Concerned Women for America’s Penny Nance joined the American Family Radio program “Today’s Issues” yesterday to discuss the Girl Scouts of America’s policy to accept transgender young people “on a case-by-case basis,” which she called “just one more slap in the face to Christian parents.”

When AFA President Tim Wildmon asked Nance about the Girl Scouts’ “venture into sexual anarchy,” Nance responded that since the 1970s, the Girl Scouts has been “starting to lurch to the left,” falsely claiming that “they took God out of the pledge” and citing a right-wing meme about the group tweeting an article that mentioned pro-choice proponent Wendy Davis.

“And now this latest thing is just one more slap in the face to Christian parents,” she said, “which is now you don’t have to be a girl to be a member of Girl Scouts. You can just be questioning your gender or a boy who would like to be a girl.”

“I think this is a place, frankly, for the church to be the church and for people that are marginalized in society, for us to love them,” she added, “but we also can’t lose our minds.”

Nance made some of the same points in an interview with Fox News’ Elizabeth Hasselbeck earlier this week:

Schlafly: Goal Of Gay Marriage Is 'To Wipe Out the Christian Religion'

In an interview with conservative radio host Chuck Wilder on Monday, Eagle Forum founder Phyllis Schlafly said that lawsuits against business owners who violate nondiscrimination measures by refusing service to gay and lesbian customers show that marriage equality advocates ultimately seek “to wipe out the Christian religion.”

“Have you noticed that only Christian small-businesspeople have been harassed and sued for refusing to participate in same-sex marriages even though our fast-growing immigrant populations, you know of Muslims, Hindus and other faiths are also opposed to that concept?” Wilder asked. “The use of same-sex marriage to attack Christian businesses but not businesses run by members of other religions demonstrates what is really driving the demand for the new constitutional right to same-sex marriage.”

“Well, that is right,” Schlafly responded. “They want to wipe out the Christian religion. And most of these other religions do not recognize same-sex marriage. I assume there are some Muslim bakers and photographers and other people who have been harassed, but they’re not being attacked and they’re not being criticized.”


International Anti-Gay Groups Look To Ireland As Country Debates Marriage Equality Referendum

Buzzfeed’s Lester Feder is out with an extensive report today from Ireland, which later this month may become the first country in the world to approve marriage equality by popular vote.

The “No” campaign has organized under the name “Mothers and Fathers Matter,” a message right out of the National Organization for Marriage’s playbook. And Feder reports that marriage equality opponents from around the world have been paying close attention to the referendum in Ireland, including NOM’s Brian Brown, who says he “talked a lot” to a leader of the Irish “No” campaign and conservative American political operative Frank Schubert, who says he kicked in some polling information and messaging guidance.

Feder reports that a strong network of European anti-gay groups has also been involved in the Irish campaign, including the French group Manif Pour Tous and Italian activist Luca Volante, whose foundation contributed a significant amount of money to the organization that’s been heading the “No” movement in Ireland.

Volante and a representative of Manif Pour Tous haveboth been involved in Brown’s effort to create an International Organization for Marriage meant to unite the effort to push back marriage equality throughout the world.

Brown sent an email to NOM’s supporters earlier this month asking them to back the anti-marriage campaign in Ireland (although non-residents of the country can’t contribute money to the effort). CitizenGo, the international petition platform on whose board both Brown and Volante sit, made a similar appeal.

From Buzzfeed :

The No side denies that it is borrowing tactics from California, saying it’s learned more from campaigns in eastern European countries like Slovenia in 2012 or Croatia in 2013, where referendums were passed curtailing partnership rights for same-sex couples.

“We wouldn’t be taking too many more lessons from Prop 8 than from elsewhere,” said David Quinn, head of the Iona Institute and adviser to Mothers and Fathers Matter. Quinn, who also writes a regular column in the Irish Independent newspaper, is widely regarded as the savviest campaigner on the No side.

“Obviously the only way two men or two women can found a family is by violating a child’s right to have a mother and a father.”

But the No camp has gotten some input from veterans of the California campaign and other marriage fights abroad. Frank Schubert, the conservative political consultant credited with the Proposition 8 victory, told BuzzFeed News before an NOM rally in Washington earlier this month that he has sent private polling, focus-group work, and other messaging guidance to activists on the No side. NOM President Brian Brown also said he had “talked a lot” to Quinn periodically over the past few years, though they hadn’t communicated in over a year.

They’ve also sought advice from opponents of same-sex marriage in the U.K., Keith Mills, a spokesperson for Mothers and Fathers Matter, told BuzzFeed News last Tuesday. The next day, he said, the group was due to meet with a representative from La Manif Pour Tous, an organization formed in opposition to France’s 2013 marriage equality law that has established itself as an engine for movements opposed to marriage equality across Europe.

“We would take most succor from what happened in Slovenia,” Quinn said, referring to the 2012 referendum that reversed a law passed by parliament extending legal protections to same-sex couples. Opponents have also consulted the leaders of the 2013 campaign that blocked marriage equality in Croatia.

They hear the same advice from campaigners in every country, Quinn said. “The message that comes back all the time, loud and clear … [is] keep talking about the children.” Marriage is inherently bound up with the right to found a family, Quinn argued: “Obviously the only way two men or two women can found a family is by violating a child’s right to have a mother and a father.”

Mills and Quinn both said the No campaign had not received any funding from international donors, however. Quinn said the Iona Institute’s only substantial international funding has been €24,000 over the past few years from an Italian foundation headed by a former member of the European Parliament, Luca Volonté, who sits on the board of the conservative online campaign platform CitizenGo along with NOM’s Brian Brown. But none of that money has gone to the referendum campaign, Quinn said.

Fiorina Comes Out Against Federal Marriage Amendment

In an interview with the Iowa conservative blog Caffeinated Thoughts this weekend, GOP presidential candidate Carly Fiorina said that she would oppose any effort to amend the Constitution to reverse a Supreme Court decision striking down bans on marriage equality. Fiorina, who said this year that she doesn’t think the Supreme Court should “shortcut” the conversation about marriage by ruling in favor of marriage rights for gay and lesbian couples, said in a 2010 Christian Coalition candidate survey that she would support a Federal Marriage Amendment banning gay marriage.

Fiorina quickly pivoted to talking about “religious liberty” being under threat from LGBT rights, a strategy she also took in a recent interview with National Journal.

Anti-Gay Doctors' Group: AIDS Is Result Of 'Practicing A Sexual Act That Goes Against Our Natural Design'

Back in 2002, a small fringe group of pediatricians called the American College of Pediatricians (ACP) broke off from the country's main pediatric group, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), in protest of the AAP’s support for LGBT adoption rights . Since then, the ACP has been a go-to source for right-wing activists and news outlets looking for anti-LGBT pseudoscience to counteract the views of mainstream groups like the AAP.

One example of how extreme ACP really is came in an interview that its president, Den Trumbull, gave last week to VCY America’s “Crosstalk” program, where he disparaged efforts to find a vaccine for HIV or encourage condom use to prevent the virus’ spread because HIV and AIDS are really a product of “practicing a sexual act that goes against our natural design.”

A caller who identified herself as a nurse asked Trumbull to comment on the high incidence of HIV among gay men, which she said revealed that “exposure is there in the lifestyle.”

“It’s that population in which AIDS is unfortunately and sadly thriving,” Trumbull responded. “And yet the push is more to find a vaccine, to use condoms, to — but I truly believe that when we are practicing a sexual act that goes against our natural design, it’s going to be very harmful to us emotionally, physically and, in the situation with AIDS, even infectious consequences will occur.”

Earlier in the program, Trumbull accused high school “gay-straight alliance” clubs of encouraging kids to be involved in a “lifestyle” that “is without a doubt medically, emotionally, physically harmful.”

“We have been accused of being homophobic or insensitive to those with same-sex tendencies,” he said, “and we do not want to be perceived as that, because what we want is what’s best for children, that’s our motto. So what about the homosexual teen or the same-sex attracted teen or whatnot? We would encourage them to not be involved in the homosexual sexual lifestyle, because that lifestyle is without a doubt medically, emotionally, physically harmful.”

“And what about clubs within high schools or junior highs that seek to validate these mixed emotions that a teenager may naturally flow through?” he added. “Shouldn’t any child, any middle-school child who has some feelings, ‘maybe I do have some attraction to the same sex,’ should they be validated, brought into an LGBT club, and that label will be placed upon them? Well, no, because the lifestyle that they thereafter will enter is a very unhealthy and harmful lifestyle.”

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

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

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

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

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

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


'Sexual Weirdoes' Are Reading Austin Ruse's Mail

C-FAM’s Austin Ruse has hit on a new fundraising tactic for his organization, which pushes socially conservative policies at the UN: warning his supporters that “sexual weirdoes” [sic] like those of us at Right Wing Watch are “reading your mail.”

By “reading your mail,” he apparently means subscribing to his public email alerts, which Ruse writes in a fundraising email today is all part of our “sexually crazed” plan to impose our “crazed sexual ideas on the rest of the world”… and which can only be stopped by giving C-FAM money.

He kindly asks supporters to, as they are sending their donation to C-FAM, “say a prayer for all those sexual revolutionaries, that they will realize how unhappy they really are, that they will leave the world alone, that they will see the light of Christ.”

Subject Line: The Sexual Weirdoes are Reading Your Mail!

Dear Friend of the Friday Fax,

Right this second the sexually crazed boys and girls at places like Media Matters, Right Wing Watch, Joe.My.God, Southern Poverty Law Center, Human Rights Watch, the Center for Reproductive Rights, and RH Reality Check are reading these words.

They monitor every word we write. They monitor everything we say, too.

Why do they do this?

Because they know we are a real threat to their agenda to impose their crazed sexual ideas on the rest of the world. They shake in their boots because they know the reach and powerful effect of C-Fam and the Friday Fax. This is why they have tried to shut us down. This is why they have tried to shame us from the public square. This is why they call us names and would really like to see us jailed (a UN apparatchik actually said that not many years ago).

The thing is, the brave staff of C-Fam and the Friday Fax don’t care! The crazed sexual revolutionaries cannot touch us and it drives them nuts.

The only thing that can stop us is money. Yep. Filthy lucre. We cannot do this work without it. We cannot be a thorn in their side without it. We cannot block their agenda without it.

Did I tell you that we have successfully blocked an international right to abortion at the UN for the past 18 years? Did I tell you that we’ve blocked a redefinition of the family at the UN for the past 18 years? Did I ever tell you how we have built a global army of pro-life and pro-family activists, scholars and policy makers who use our information to block the sexual radicals on the ground around the world? Well, we have and the sexual radicals know it. That’s why they monitor everything we do and say and they would love it if we did not have enough money to keep going. If they prayed, which they don’t, this would be one of their main prayers.


So, here is my question to you. Shall we continue ruining the days of the sexual revolutionaries who want to enslave your children to their warped ideology? Shall we continue blocking an international right to abortion and a redefinition of family? Yes? Then please go to www.c-fam.org/donate and give as much as you can.

Can you afford $100? Then, please do it now. How about $50? Don’t be shy!

Please go to www.c-fam.org/donate and give as much as you can. And as you hit the donate button, say a prayer for all those sexual revolutionaries, that they will realize how unhappy they really are, that they will leave the world alone, that they will see the light of Christ.

Many thanks for your kind consideration.

Yours sincerely,

Austin Ruse
Publisher/Friday Fax

New Research Further Debunks Regnerus Study On Gay Parenting

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NOM Solicits Contributions For Anti-Marriage Fight In Ireland

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

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

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

Dear Marriage Supporter,

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

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

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

Will you please do four things today:

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

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

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


Brian S. Brown

h/t Slowly Boiled Frog

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yet naught we do.

Save cower.

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

We entreat Your mercies, but merit Your wrath…

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

For our selfish ambition.

For making unholy, holy matrimony.

Embolden us.

Strengthen us.

Guide and direct us.

Mortify this national sin, oh God.

End it.

Kill it.

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

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

And we, Your faithful, will be marked subversive.

But waiver we shan’t.

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

We will not comply with an unjust ruling.

And we will face persecution.

And we will count it all joy.

Because You are sovereign.

And victory is Yours.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sheriff Mack: Ruth Bader Ginsburg Is 'A Very Senile And Evil Person' Who Will 'Destroy Marriage'

Richard Mack, the Arizona “constitutional sheriff” who urges local and state elected officials and law enforcement officers to ignore federal laws, said in a radio interview yesterday that states must “recuse themselves” from any Supreme Court ruling striking down same-sex marriage bans, a ruling that he expected from a court led by the “very senile and evil” Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

“I think this Supreme Court is bought and paid for, I think they’re just political hacks, most of them, and they will not use moral agency or tradition or biblical principle. They’re just going to do what they’re there for,” Mack told far-right “Patriot” movement radio program “ Liberty Roundtable.”

“Those people have been put there, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a very senile and evil person, she does not like America, she does not like our Constitution,” he said, adding that if President Obama “was capable of being embarrassed or having any shame” it would be in his nomination of “Helen Kagan.” (The program’s host, Sam Bushman, quickly pointed out that he meant Elena Kagan.)

Saying that Justices Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor should recuse themselves from the case because “one of the reasons they were put on the court was to promote this movement in America to destroy marriage,” Mack said, “We’ve got to do something in this country to save our families and marriage.”

But he was not optimistic. After a Supreme Court ruling, he said, “the states are going to have to even more so recuse themselves from the federal government and from the Supreme Court ruling. And it’s going to take some guts.”

He told Bushman that the federal government has “no purview” over marriage, to which Bushman replied, “the only skin in the game they have is to peddle perversion.”

Anti-Gay Activists Urge 'Resistance' Before Marriage Equality Destroys 'Just About Everything'

On Tuesday, as the Supreme Court was hearing arguments on the constitutionality of gay marriage bans, E.W. Jackson convened a conference call with Texas-based pastor Rick Scarborough and conservative attorney William Olson to discuss how a decision in favor of marriage equality would destroy America.

“Gentlemen, we’re facing a crisis unlike any before,” Scarborough told callers, saying that while Roe v. Wade was “a dreadful decision wreaking havoc upon the nation and upon the world” at least “with abortion we can opt out of that.”

Marriage equality, he warned, would be a different story.

“I have portrayed it as two trains on the same track going in opposite directions,” he said. “One is the train of free speech and religious rights, religious liberty as defined in the First Amendment. But the other train is this newly created, unnatural civil right of two men being able to marry one another or two women marrying one another.”

“And only God knows where we go after that,” he continued, “because once you tear down that wall, how do you keep a man from marrying a child, or five men from marrying one woman or one man marrying five women? Once the wall is torn down and God’s law is no longer supported by our federal laws and our statutes, then we move into a realm that we’ve never lived in before, but I can assure you religious liberty will not survive that. And there will be a collision, a collision unparalleled in American history.”

He urged callers to sign a pledge organized by Religious Right leaders vowing to meet any marriage equality decision with civil disobedience. If enough people sign the pledge, he said, maybe the court “will pause and say, ‘We’re about to sow to the wind and reap a whirlwind.’”

“This is the day for modern-day Bonhoffers in America to stand up and speak up,” he said, referring to the German pastor who was executed by Nazi forces.

Olson warned at a Supreme Court decision in favor of marriage equality would mean “we no longer have a written constitution, we no longer have rule of law, we have had Darwinian revolution influence the courts.”

“So we have an extraordinary moment where we might be losing just about everything…if an adverse decision is not met with resistance,” he said.

Olson told callers that while “we’re not being told we cannot preach the Gospel, but it’s awfully close to that command that requires us to obey God and not obey man.”

Referring to Scarborough’s comment at a press conference last week that he would be willing to die fighting marriage equality, Olson said, “As extraordinary as that sounds, that is not an impossibility.”

Anti-gay activists, he said, will have to practice civil disobedience such as “jury nullification” and encouraging state elected officials to refuse to enforce a marriage equality decision. This led Jackson to slam Republican politicians who say they would attend the wedding of a gay or lesbian loved one.

“The popular compromise it seems for politicians these days is, ‘I’m opposed to same-sex marriage, but I would go to a same-sex ceremony to support a friend,’” he said. “It’s unconscionable.”


Tamara Scott: If You Support Gender Equality, You Should Oppose Gay Marriage

Last week, Iowa Republican National Committee member Tamara Scott invited fellow RNC member Carolyn McClarty of Oklahoma on to her “Truth for Our Time” radio program to discuss an anti-marriage-equality amicus brief that a subset of conservative RNC members led by McClarty submitted to the Supreme Court.

As the two walked through the various points made in the amicus brief, Scott wandered into a digression about how the “women who are fussing on the left” about wanting to eventually see equal numbers of men and women in Congress should also oppose marriage equality, because if you ban gay marriage, there will be an equal number of men and women in each marriage.

“By 2020, they want 50/50 in the state houses and the U.S. House and Senate. They want 50 percent women and 50 percent men, they want 50/50, they want equality,” she said. “So my laugh is, why wouldn’t you want equality in a marriage? Why aren’t those same women wanting that same argument at home? Because we know children do better when they’re raised by their biological parents.”

This led McClarty to explain that “the extreme feminist movement and the gay liberation movement really is using same-sex marriage as a way to destroy marriage.”

“The feminist movement, they’ve been against marriage from the beginning, against traditional marriage, and it was up until the Massachusetts court case in 2003 where they recognized same-sex marriage in Massachusetts that they kind of changed their tune,” she said. “And now they see that this would also destroy marriage, so they’re for same-sex marriage.”

This led Scott to a discussion of civil unions, which she said she also can’t support because there is still the issue of “the act” that “God has not condoned,” and so allowing civil unions is “asking your fellow citizens to embrace something that goes against their First Amendment religious protections.”

“Well, it doesn’t make sense to me, because the whole point of our concern with the same-sex marriage is that the act, that God has not condoned it,” she explained. “I can’t condone what he’s condemned. I just can’t go there. So to ask or to force American citizens to condone something that’s against their deeply held religious convictions is wrong. So whether you call it marriage or you call it a civil union, you’re still asking your fellow citizens to embrace something that goes against their First Amendment religious protections.


Walker Repeats Support For Federal Marriage Amendment, Dodges Personhood Question

In an interview with the Iowa conservative blog Caffeinated Thoughts on Saturday, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker repeated his call for a constitutional amendment to preserve state-level bans on same-sex marriage if the Supreme Court strikes them down, immediately before dodging a question on an anti-choice “personhood” amendment by saying that if he were president he wouldn’t “handle any constitutional amendments.”

Walker told Caffeinated Thoughts’ Shane Vander Hart that he is “still hoping” the Supreme Court will preserve state-level marriage bans. “If they don’t,” he added, “the only other viable option out there is to support a constitutional amendment, again, believing, I believe in not just in marriage being defined as one man and one woman, but I also believe in states’ rights. I think that’s an issue that appropriately belongs in the states.”

When Vander Hart asked Walker “what kind of pro-life legislation would a President Walker sign,” and if that would include a “personhood law,” Walker responded. “Well, the personhood would require an amendment and the president, no matter who it is, doesn’t handle any constitutional amendments, so that would be something that people who are passionate about that in the Senate need to have leaders there.”

He went on to say that he would support a 20-week abortion ban and the continuation of the Hyde Amendment.

Matt Barber: If It Rules For Marriage Equality, 'This Supreme Court Will No Longer Be Legitimate'

Liberty University’s Matt Barber took anti-gay activists’ vow to disobey a Supreme Court ruling for marriage equality to its extreme yesterday, telling Iowa radio host Steve Deace that if the court strikes down bans on same-sex marriage, it will “no longer be legitimate” as a court.

Saying that such a ruling would be the “Dred Scott of marriage,” Barber told Deace that if the justices “presume to redefine the institution of marriage, thereby destroying the institution of natural marriage, this Supreme Court will no longer be legitimate.”

Barber said that there “would be no rationale” for such a decision. “There’s no constitutional rationale,” he said, “there’s no historical rationale, there’s no biological rationale, there simply is no rationale other than that they want it so very badly, ‘they’ being homosexual activists and other cultural Marxists, leftists, people who are seeking to undermine the institution of natural marriage and ultimately God’s design for human sexuality.”

When Deace asked him what would happen if the Supreme Court were to side with anti-gay activists on the marriage issue, Barber echoed his colleague Mat Staver in saying that the movement would have to then get to work making sure that gays and lesbians can no longer get married anywhere in the U.S.

First, he said, the movement would have to work to repeal state-level judicial decisions instituting marriage equality, “and then work from there to make sure that marriage is not redefined in any of our 50 states here and to undo the damage that has already been done.”

Share this page: Facebook Twitter Digg SU Digg Delicious