Massachusetts pastor Scott Lively joined Dublin radio host Niall Boylan yesterday to discuss Uganda’s passage of a harsh new anti-gay law. The two engaged in an hour-long shouting match, in which Lively accused the gay community of a Marxist plot to “destroy civilization,” insisted that women should be subservient to their husbands, and claimed that marriage equality in Ireland would lead to legalized pedophilia within five years.
Early in the interview, Boylan asked Lively if he was “accusing the gay community of trying to destroy family values,” to which Lively replied, “I am.”
Lively faulted the gay rights movement following the Stonewall riot for shifting its focus “from asking for tolerance to demanding the ability and power to transform all of society in their own image and to take their model of sexual anarchy into the mainstream,” which he described as part of a Marxist plot to “break down the nuclear family” and with the purpose of destroying society.
Later in the interview, Lively blamed the high divorce rate among heterosexuals on the gay rights movement: “That’s because, in the 1960s, the gay model of sexual anarchy was introduced and the heterosexuals adopted the gay model.”
Boylan: You’re accusing the gay community of trying to destroy family values, is that what you’re trying to say?
Lively: I am. And you know, this comes out of…this is straight out of Herbert Marcuse and the Frankfurt school of cultural Marxists. Marxism has always been about destroying civilization so they can rebuild on the ashes their utopian socialist society, which is just a fantasy. But they had an actual strategy, and that strategy was in three parts. And the primary part was to break down the nuclear family. And in the United States, where they implemented this, that’s what they taught.
Now, the original gay movement in the U.S., back that was getting started in the late 1940s, their original goal, articulated by Dale Jennings of the Mattachine Society was quote, ‘The right to be left alone.’ I always supported that. In 1968, with the Stonewall riot on Christopher Street in New York City, they shifted their focus from tolerance, from asking for tolerance, to demanding the ability and the power to transform all of society in their own image and to take their model of sexual anarchy into the mainstream.
The idea that heterosexuals now have a dramatically higher divorce rate, that’s true. That’s because, in the 1960s, the gay model of sexual anarchy was introduced and the heterosexuals adopted the gay model. That’s what’s going on.
Later in the interview, Lively said that “if we actually followed what God instructed us to do,” we wouldn’t have “the problems that we’re dealing with in our society today.” When Boylan asked him if that included the biblical view that women should be subservient to their husbands, Lively responded, “Well, I believe that God did create and order. That Christ is the head of the man, the man is the head of the wife, and families that follow that model have beautiful, wonderful lives.”
When pressed, he clarified, “The Biblical model of men and women, husbands and wives, is not master and servant. It’s president and vice president.”
Lively: I believe the Bible, I live by the Bible, I believe that the problems that we’re dealing with in our society today, if we actually followed what God instructed us to do, we wouldn’t have these problems.
Boylan: So, if men turned around and believed that women were subservient, for example, because that’s what the Bible tells men to believe. Do you think we’d have a good society?
Lively: Well, I believe that God did create and order. That Christ is the head of the man, the man is the head of the wife, and families that follow that model have beautiful, wonderful lives.
Boylan: How do you think modern society would work? So, do you think modern society could still work like that? With women of this world who now have, thankfully, careers and rights and they can vote. You believe that they should still be subservient to men?
Lively: See, once again, you’re talking about terminology. When I say ‘submission,’ I don’t mean subservience. The Biblical model of men and women, husbands and wives, is not master and servant. It’s president and vice president. Right? That’s how it works.
Near the end of the interview, Lively launched into the slippery slope argument that legalizing marriage equality will “open the door to lots of other deviant sexual conduct,” like “polygamy, polyamory, incest, pederasty, even pedophilia.”
“You’re not suggesting that if we vote yes for same-sex marriage that in 20 years’ time the world will become so liberal that we will allow people to have sex and marry twelve-year-olds,” Boylan said.
“It won’t be twenty years, it will be five years,” Lively responded.
Lively apparently hasn’t noticed that ten years after his home state of Massachusetts legalized same-sex marriage, pedophilia is still illegal.
Judson Phillips, president of Tea Party Nation, is a little upset about Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer’s decision last night to veto a bill that would have expanded the ability of business owners to discriminate against LGBT people and others.
“Tyranny is on the march,” Phillips declares in a piece on the TPN website that he also emailed to members of the group, adding that business owners who are not allowed to discriminate against gays and lesbians are “slaves” to the “great liberal state,” aided by “French Republicans” like Brewer.
“The left and the homosexual lobby are both pushing slavery using the Orwellian concepts of ‘tolerance’ and ‘inclusiveness,’” he writes.
Phillips then wonders if business owners will be forced to “create a cake for a homosexual wedding that has a giant phallic symbol on it,” “create pastries for a homosexual wedding in the shape of genitallia [sic],” or “photograph a homosexual wedding where the participants decide they want to be nude or engage in sexual behavior.”
The left and the homosexual lobby in America went into overdrive to kill this bill. Conservatives rallied for this bill and Governor Brewer opted for cowardice instead of courage.
Why is this bill so important and what did it mean for not only Arizona but America?
The issue can be boiled down to one word: Freedom.
A free man or woman controls their labor. A slave has no control over their labor. A free man or woman decides who they will work for and under what conditions. The slave cannot.
The left and the homosexual lobby are both pushing slavery using the Orwellian concepts of “tolerance” and “inclusiveness.”
Immediately the left and the homosexual lobby went into high dudgeon. Arizona’s SB1062 must be defeated because Americans really are no longer free and must be forced to serve the great liberal state, regardless of their beliefs.
The storm rose against Arizona and Jan Brewer proved she was no Ronald Reagan. She has an honored place in the ranks of the French Republicans.
The left loves to come up with absurd hypotheticals to scream that there must be compliance with their fascism, so how about a couple from our side.
Should a devote baker be required to create a cake for a homosexual wedding that has a giant phallic symbol on it or should a baker be required to create pastries for a homosexual wedding in the shape of genitallia [sic]? Or should a photographer be required to photograph a homosexual wedding where the participants decide they want to be nude or engage in sexual behavior? Would they force a Jewish photographer to work a Klan or Nazi event? How about forcing a Muslim caterer to work a pork barbeque dinner?
SB1062 is a bigger story than simply the story of a cowardly governor who has no core beliefs.
SB1062 is the story of liberalism at work in America.
Liberalism is the paranoid belief that leftists have that somewhere, someone may be thinking for themselves. It is the tyrannical belief that no deviation in belief is allowed from the decreed orthodoxy.
It is the antithesis of liberty.
It is tyranny on the march.
WASHINGTON – In response to a federal judge striking down Texas’ ban on marriage for same-sex couples, People For the American Way Foundation president Michael Keegan issued the following statement:
“Today’s ruling is one more strong point in an argument that’s getting clearer and clearer every day: this ain’t the Texas of old.
“In my native Texas and across the nation, Americans are increasingly coming to see that blocking committed couples from the responsibilities and protections of civil marriage causes real, and needless, harm to families. More and more people are coming to the same conclusion: banning same-sex couples from getting married is unfair, dangerous and contrary to the core principles of our Constitution.”
In another win for the marriage equality movement, today U.S. District Judge Orlando Garcia struck down Texas’ ban on marriage for same-sex couples. The judge wrote that "Texas' current marriage laws deny homosexual couples the right to marry, and in doing so, demean their dignity for no legitimate reason.”
The Washington Post reports:
U.S. District Judge Orlando Garcia did not say gay marriages could be performed immediately. Instead, he stayed the decision, citing a likely appeal.
"Without a rational relation to a legitimate governmental purpose, state-imposed inequality can find no refuge in our United States Constitution," Garcia wrote in his decision. "These Texas laws deny Plaintiffs access to the institution of marriage and its numerous rights, privileges, and responsibilities for the sole reason that Plaintiffs wish to be married to a person of the same sex."
Similar bans have been struck down in states across the country – most recently in Virginia less than two weeks ago. Today’s victory in a state with a whopping 26 million residents brings us one important step closer to nationwide marriage equality.
Anti-gay activist Bob Vander Plaats said today that gay rights activists are “always going to throw stones” because Satan “wants to discourage” conservative Christians.
The Family Leader head made the comments in an interview with American Family Radio at the National Religious Broadcasters convention today.
“The opposition is always going to throw stones, and that’s they’re way of discouraging,” he said. “I mean, Satan’s ways are not new under the sun, he wants to discourage, he wants to disappoint.”
Religious Right talk show host Steve Deace has been on a tear recently about Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul’s lack of response to a federal judge’s ruling striking down his state’s ban on marriage equality, and brought Michael Peroutka of the Institute on the Constitution on to his program today to discuss the issue further.
The two started off with talking about “freedom to discriminate” bill such as the one being considered in Arizona.
“Would Jesus bake a cake for homosexuals wanting to get quote-unquote ‘married’?” Deace asked. “I don’t know, would Jesus drive the getaway car for bank robbers in Christian love, just to be Christ-like, of course, to be relevant, to be hip?”
He continued: “Would Jesus find all the cool places for you to go download porn so you can pleasure yourself while your wife’s not awake? Would Jesus find all the cool lies for you to share with your girlfriend so she can mislead her husband about who she’s doing her time with and what she’s doing with that person? Would Jesus help you be your wingman and find a place to hide your wedding ring while you’re trolling for chicks at the bar when you’re away on a business trip?”
“The fact that there is even a debate shows that there is barely a heartbeat left in this culture,” he concluded. “This is a culture that’s circling the drain as we speak. And now we have an entire movement of people that thinks they get to undo all of Western civilization and rewrite the Constitution based on their definition of equality, which has never existed in human history until now.”
Peroutka agreed, saying “we’re in dangerous times” and blaming churches with 501(c)3 tax-exempt status for being “creatures of the state” and “intimidated out of actually preaching the whole counsel of God.”
Later in the program, discussing the Kentucky marriage decision, Peroutka said, “This whole debate is the reflection of our moral depravity, in that we’re even talking about whether such a perverse, sinful thing can be sanctioned and forced upon us, in this case, by the state. “
“This is such an outrageous situation, that we would be forced, that we would be coerced to declare that which is sinful and immoral – not only that we would declare it to be valid and right, but that we must participate in it,” he continued. “We’ve got to stick our nose in it and smell it and taste it, we’re going to be made to do that. But that’s the way evil is.”
At Deace’s urging, Peroutka went on to suggest that Sen. Paul move toward impeaching the judge who ruled for marriage equality in Kentucky, that he urge Kentuckians to simply ignore the ruling, and that he defund the federal court that made the decision.
Elected officials are our “protectors against those who would force these things on us tyrannically from above,” Peroutka said…which holds particular meaning since he just announced that he will be running for county council this year in his home of Anne Arundel County, Maryland.
Iowa Republican gadfly Bob Vander Plaats attacked Rand Paul on yesterday’s Steve Deace program over the Kentucky senator’s silence on a federal court ruling striking down his state’s same-sex marriage ban.
Vander Plaats, head of The Family Leader, mused (probably correctly) that if Newt Gingrich were in Paul’s place, he would have called for defunding the federal district court that ruled in favor of marriage equality.
If Paul were truly “about liberty,” Vander Plaats said, he would be taking the lead to punish the Kentucky judge who struck down the marriage ban, a decision that Vander Plaats insisted “runs contrary to liberty” and defies the Declaration of Independence.
Vander Plaats: If another good friend of ours, Newt Gingrich, was in his position from the state of Kentucky, I can almost guarantee what Newt’s response would have been. It would have been, ‘We need to defund that court, we need to defund that judge. The Congress still holds the power of the purse. If we have courts, if we have judges operating outside of their constitutional authority, let’s pull their meal ticket away.’
It’s too bad that a senator like Ted Cruz and a senator like Mike Lee have to actually step up for the state of Kentucky when their own senator, Rand Paul, should be doing that.
Deace: What should Rand be doing instead of what he is doing right now, which is basically nothing? What shouldhe be doing instead?
Vander Plaats: Well, I think one thing is that he needs to step up to the microphone. This is his state, this is Kentucky. This is something that runs totally against who he is. I mean, he’s about liberty. And if it’s about liberty, and if you have a judge usurping the will of the people of Kentucky, that runs contrary to liberty. If you believe marriage is a state rights issue and the state of Kentucky says, ‘This is what marriage is to us, one man and one woman, clearly defined,’ then you better stand up to that state rights issue. If you believe what you say you believe, that marriage is foundational and it’s between a man and a woman, which is what he says he believes, then you got to stand up for that, because that’s the law of nature, that’s the law of nature’s God, that’s the Declaration of Independence, which this whole country was founded on.
Concerned Women For America legal counsel Mario Diaz is not pleased with Christian pundits who have come out in opposition to the new spate of state-level measures that would allow businesses to discriminate against same-sex couples.
In a Christian Post column today, Diaz accuses these discrimination opponents of ignoring Jesus’ example (Would Jesus “deliver a blessing” at a same-sex wedding? “I suspect not”).
Diaz also expresses concern for gay people themselves, writing that getting married will make it “more difficult to ever escape” their “sinful lifestyle. “
After discussing the case of a baker who did not want to provide a cake for a same-sex "wedding," because he feels he would be encouraging the celebration of sin, Powers concludes, "'What would Jesus do?' I think he'd bake the cake." I think it would help her to see more clearly if she would have used Jesus' real profession for the comparison. Jesus was a teacher, a preacher, a religious leader. Does she believe Jesus would go to the wedding to deliver a blessing (i.e., offer His services)? I suspect not.
But somehow, if you are a photographer, she thinks you should be forced, under penalty of law, to go and bless the union by using your talents to portray them in some amazing, inspiring pictures.
She confuses ministering to sinners with encouraging sinners in their sinfulness. The point of Christ's miracles (and His service) was salvation. Isn't it interesting that He would heal them and say, "Your sins are forgiven"? What does that have to do with anything? It has to do with a spirit of repentance. But there is no such spirit of repentance involved in homosexuals cementing their sin through a marital-like commitment. In fact, it is the opposite of that; it will make it more difficult for them to ever escape that lifestyle - very clearly a sinful lifestyle in the eyes of our Lord. But perhaps Powers is not that clear about that, either.
Pastor Mark Creech, head of the American Family Association-affiliated Christian Action League of North Carolina, warns in a Christian Post column published yesterday that federal court decisions striking down marriage equality bans in Kentucky and Virginia are a “sign of the times” signaling God’s “impending judgment” on America.
“This is not the fresh air of new freedom that we smell; it is the smoke of Sodom,” Creech writes.
“[T]hese new legal precedents will essentially destroy the nation if not reversed,” he adds. “America must reclaim its sexual sanity or lose its life.”
In an irony of ironies, during the week of Valentine's, two federal judges overturned the marriage protection amendments of Kentucky and Virginia, single-handedly redefining romance and marriage.
Such court decisions are certainly a sign of the times – a sign that we are heading for an impending judgment. This matter burdens my heart greatly nearly every day, sometimes with tears.
John Phillips, the great preacher and Bible commentator once said concerning the story of Sodom's celebration of homosexuality and its ultimate destruction, the first sign of the imminence of God's judgment is a judicial blindness – an inability to make right moral judgment. Citing in Genesis chapter 19 how the angelic visitors struck the perverse mob pressing on Lot's door with blindness, Phillips writes:
"'Whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad,' said one of the ancient philosophers Not so! Whom God would destroy, He first makes blind. There comes a point in the rising tide of human wickedness, where God acts. In preparation [for His judgment] He blinds. The process takes various forms; in Pharaoh's case, God hardened his heart; in a coming day He will send a strong delusion so that they will believe 'the lie.' It is a dangerous thing to transgress with arrogance and persistence the laws of God."
The CP notes that Judge Heyburn said in the Kentucky case that the state "cannot impose a traditional or faith-based limitation upon a public right without a sufficient justification for it." Contrary to the erroneous assertions of many, the Constitution itself was based in the law of nature's God. The Scriptures declare the homosexual relationship "unnatural" (Romans 1:26-27), not in the sense of what is allegedly natural for the heterosexual and the homosexual, but natural in function.
Not only is the Constitution based in eternal verities that come from the Judeo-Christian ethic, but neither is there any legal basis for redefining marriage as a union of two people regardless of their gender. The Constitution provides no right to same-sex marriage and even the U.S. Supreme Court has declared the states have a pre-eminent duty for determining marriage's meaning. Nevertheless, radical activist federal judges are saying that whenever the state defines the institution as one man and one woman, it's discriminatory.
Well, if it's discriminatory to circumscribe marriage traditionally, then it's just another form of discrimination to deny marriage to polygamists, polyamorists, incestuous couples, and even pedophiles. Are we to believe such couplings often practiced by pagan cultures of the past, which were either incinerated or reduced to ruins for their sexual deviance by God's own hand, are somehow now in the best interest of our great Republic? Will we legally visit and remove the ban on these too? With rulings such as these, there is nothing to prevent it.
I suggest it is both madness and blindness. And these new legal precedents will essentially destroy the nation if not reversed. America must reclaim its sexual sanity or lose its life.
This is not the kind of judicial blindness represented by Justice with the blindfold over her eyes and the scales in her hand. Instead, it makes a mockery of it. This instead is a visionless Justice, groping her way through the darkness of peril.
Phillips writes, "If there is one thing that marks perversion, it is its deep-seated character. As a cancerous cell in a healthy body grows and spreads until it destroys the health of the whole body, so perverted lust entrenches itself and takes over the life."
If this legal trend continues, we are now seeing the beginning of a new era – an era of judicial sightlessness – the beginning of our judgment as a nation – the start of our end.
This is not the fresh air of new freedom that we smell; it is the smoke of Sodom.
God save us.
As Brian noted, Sen. Ted Cruz has been making the rounds of Religious Right radio programs lately, promoting his State Marriage Defense Act which would prohibit the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages in states where such marriages are illegal. Yesterday, he appeared on "WallBuilders Live" to explain that such a law is necessary because President Obama is a dictator who is leading an effort to destroy the traditional definition of marriage throughout the nation:
One of the really sad trends we've seen in recent years has been a concerted attack on traditional marriage and that attack has manifested in the courts of law as advocacy groups have used litigation to tear down the marriage laws of states across this country. But it's also manifested from the federal government, with the Obama administration; this administration is the most hostile to traditional marriage administration this country has ever seen.
The Obama administration came into Utah and said 'we're not going to listen to what the US Supreme Court said. We, the federal government, are going to recognize marriages in the state of Utah and Utah state law explicitly does not recognize as marriage' and that was really, in my view, an abuse of power, using the federal government to try to force what the ultimate objective is of these advocates and their objective is to see traditional marriage laws torn down in all fifty states.
One of the really most troubling aspects of the Obama presidency has been this president's consistent pattern of lawlessness. That over and over again, we've never seen a president who, if he disagrees with a particular federal law, simply defies it, says he will not obey it and he will not enforce it ... This ought to trouble everybody, not just conservatives, not just Republicans, this ought to trouble Democrats, independents, and Libertarians, anyone who believes that the constitutional limitations on government protects our liberty should be deeply dismayed because if you have a president who can pick and choose which laws to follow and which laws to ignore, then you no longer have a president and that's dangerous.
In an interview with WorldNetDaily today, Eagle Forum founder Phyllis Schlafly compared the Supreme Court’s decision in U.S. v Windsor to the infamous Dred Scott case, arguing that the landmark marriage equality decision should not be used as legal precedent.
Attacking President Obama for his “dictatorial attitude” and “judges who think they can do anything they want,” Schlafly urged Americans to simply ignore the legal precedent set by gay rights decisions. Schlafly recalled how Republicans in the 1850s argued that the Dred Scott decision shouldn’t set a binding legal precedent. “We should reject some of these laws that try to write into the Constitution gay marriage, which is not a constitutional right,” she said.
Well, I’m not really a predictor, but I think the American people have got to stop this dictatorial attitude of Obama, who thinks he can do anything by executive order and the judges who think they can do anything they want by calling it a ‘living Constitution.’
Remember Abraham Lincoln, when the courts handed down probably the worst decision in history, the Dred Scott case. And Lincoln was very good, he said, well, okay, we have to accept what the court did for poor old Dred Scott but we don’t have to accept it as the law of the land, we don’t have to accept it as binding in other cases, or else we will be subservient to ‘that imperial judiciary.’ He just rejected it. And we should reject some of these laws that try to write into the Constitution gay marriage, which is not a constitutional right.
On Thursday evening a federal judge ruled that Virginia’s ban on marriage for same-sex couples is unconstitutional. U.S. District Judge Arenda L. Wright Allen stayed the decision pending appeal, meaning that while the ban has been struck down, the ruling will not immediately take effect.
Close on the heels of a federal judge’s decision earlier this week directing Kentucky to recognize same-sex marriages from other states, Judge Wright Allen’s decision makes Virginia the first state in the South where a statewide ban has been entirely struck down.
In the South and across the country, it’s clear that Americans increasingly believe it is wrong to block committed couples from the protections and responsibilities that only marriage can provide. As Judge Wright Allen wrote in her decision:
Our nation's uneven but dogged journey toward truer and more meaningful freedoms for our citizens has brought us continually to a deeper understanding of the first three words in our Constitution: we the people. "We the People" have become a broader, more diverse family than once imagined.
MADISON – In response to today’s introduction of a resolution to repeal Wisconsin’s ban on marriage for same-sex couples, People For the American Way regional political coordinator Scott Foval released the following statement:
“PFAW applauds State Sen. Tim Carpenter and Rep. JoCasta Zamarripa for fighting to repeal a ban that's preventing thousands of Wisconsin families from accessing the legal protections they need to take care of each other.
“Adjoining states like Minnesota, Illinois, and Iowa have shown that marriage equality is a basic fairness issue. Wisconsinites also recognize that everyone should be treated equally in the eyes of the law.”
The repeal resolution introduced by Sen. Carpenter and Rep. Zamarripa this morning strikes constitutional amendment language, originally enacted in 2006, defining marriage as solely reserved for one man and one woman. Other states' same-sex marriage bans have recently been struck down by federal courts as violating the United States Constitution.
People For the American Way regional political coordinator Scott Foval is available for interviews with the press. To arrange an interview, please contact firstname.lastname@example.org / 414-455-7329 or 608-469-7876.
On Monday, five religious organizations filed an amicus brief urging the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals to uphold bans on same-sex couples getting married in Utah and Oklahoma. According to the Associated Press, the brief was written by lawyers for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, and was joined by the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention and the Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod.
The thrust of the brief is to argue that there are sound social policy reasons to oppose marriage equality, and to attack the notion that opposition to gay couples getting married is grounded in anti-gay prejudice, or “animus.” Says the brief, “The accusation is false and offensive.”
“Our faith communities bear no ill will toward same-sex couples, but rather have marriage-affirming religious beliefs that merge with both practical experience and sociological fact to convince us that retaining the husband-wife marriage definition is essential.”
No ill will toward same-sex couples? Let’s review.
We can start with the Southern Baptists, who have officially declared that “homosexual conduct is always a gross moral and spiritual abomination for any person, whether male or female, under any circumstance, without exception” and that they even oppose businesses extending benefits to domestic partners. OK, to be fair, that was 1997. The SBC voted in 2003 to “call upon all judges and public officials to resist and oppose the legalization of same-sex unions,” and in 2008 called for constitutional amendment to prevent same-sex couples from getting married anywhere in the U.S.
Richard Land, who was for 25 years the voice of the Southern Baptists’ Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission until his retirement last fall, has said the Devil takes pleasure in the destructive homosexual lifestyle. In 2012, Land said, “God is already judging America and will judge her more harshly as we continue to move down this path toward sexual paganization.” A year earlier he accused gay rights activists of “child abuse” for “recruiting” children in elementary school.
Land’s retirement was expected to shift the ERLC’s tone; but the group still opposes ENDA, a proposed federal law to protect LGBT people from discrimination on the job.
Let’s see, who else opposes ENDA, domestic partnerships, civil unions, and marriage equality? That would be the US Conference of Catholic bishops. The bishops have said they oppose “unjust discrimination” against people with same-sex attractions, but they define the term “unjust” in a way that applies only to people who remain celibate. So if you are a gay couple and you are having sex, workplace discrimination against you is justified, as is a refusal to legally recognize your relationship.
A number of prominent U.S. bishops signed, and urged other Catholics to sign, the Manhattan Declaration, which compared liberals to Nazis. It declares conservatives’ positions on marriage to be "inviolable and non-negotiable," and pledges that conservatives will engage in civil disobedience, and may even need to prepare for martyrdom, in order to avoid recognizing legally married same-sex couples.
Let’s not forget Bishop Thomas Paprocki, from Springfield, Illinois, who told Catholics in 2012 that voting for the equality-supporting Democratic Party would put their eternal souls in jeopardy, and who responded to the passage of marriage equality in Illinois by conducting an exorcism.
The Mormon Church was a driving force in opposition to early marriage equality moves in Hawaii and Alaska and was crucial to the success of California’s Prop 8, providing tens of thousands of volunteers and a flood of cash. After a post-Prop-8 backlash from both inside and outside the church, LDS officials seemed to have abandoned the anti-marriage-equality crusade. The church says it supported Salt Lake City ordinances banning discrimination in housing and employment and has supported same-sex couples’ rights regarding “hospitalization and medical care, fair housing and employment rights, or probate rights” – sounds good – “so long as those do not infringe of the integrity of the traditional family or the constitutional rights of churches.” Hmm.
How about the National Association of Evangelicals? In 2008, Richard Cizik, the longtime public policy face of the NAE, was forced to resign after he publicly expressed support for civil unions.
Unlike the more progressive Evangelical Lutheran Church of America (ELCA), the more conservative Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod (LCMS) strongly opposes LGBT equality. In a statement after the Supreme Court overturned the Defense of Marriage Act, the church insisted, “Same-sex unions are contrary to God’s will, and gay marriage is, in the eyes of God, no marriage at all… no matter what the courts or legislatures may say.” The conservative Lutherans have backed HJR 6 in Indiana, which is attempting to add a ban on marriage equality to the state constitution.
In January, the LCMS announced it was entering formal discussions with the Ethiopian Evangelical Church Makane Yesus, which cut its longstanding ties with the ELCA last year over sexuality issues. The Ethiopian church was so disturbed by the ELCA’s pro-equality positions that it has declared its members may not share communion with ELCA members. Ethiopia’s churches and government, with the encouragement of American missionaries, have, in the words of a recent disturbing Newsweek article, “declared war on gay men.”
So, maybe it depends what you mean by “ill will.”
As Kyle noted yesterday, Liberty Counsel is out with two new amicus briefs defending same-sex marriage bans in Utah and Oklahoma, in which they argue that "while same-sex couples can enter a union of the wills, it is not possible for them to join in body in the way true marriage has always required."
Liberty Counsel filed one of its briefs on behalf of the National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH), a group that pushes "ex-gay” therapy for LGBT people.
The other, filed in Liberty Counsel’s own name [pdf], features many of the group’s standard arguments (including plenty of citations of the bunk anti-gay Regnerus study), but one argument in particular caught our eye. Seeking to head off legal comparisons between bans on same-sex marriage and bans on interracial marriage, Liberty Counsel argues that it is in fact the legalization of same-sex marriage that is similar to banning interracial marriage=.
How is that, you ask? Advocates of anti-miscegenation laws and gay rights advocates, Liberty Counsel explains, both want to place an “agenda-driven obstacle” onto the institution of marriage. In fact, the group implies, marriage equality advocates might be even worse because “they are seeking to replace the institution with their own agenda-driven proposal.”
…Loving, like the other cases addressing restrictions upon the right to marry, was aimed at preserving the right to enter into the union of one man and one woman by removing agenda-driven obstacles that had been improperly engrafted onto the union. Those seeking to overturn laws such as Utah’s and Colorado’s that memorialize marriage as the union of one man and one woman are now trying to engraft another agenda-driven obstacle onto the institution. Actually, they are seeking more than that. They are seeking to replace the institution with their own agenda-driven proposal.
We really don't know what "agenda-driven obstacle" Liberty Counsel thinks same-sex marriage will put on the institution, but maybe it has something to do with LC chairman Mat Staver's fear of "forced homosexuality."
Last month, Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus called for Michigan GOP committeeman Dave Agema to resign over anti-gay, anti-Muslim comments. Apparently, the Iowa Republican Party didn’t get the message. Barely a week after the Agema controversy broke, the Iowa GOP picked an anti-gay crusader to be the state party co-chair.
Danny Carroll, a former state representative who took over as the Iowa GOP’s co-chair on February 3, is a lobbyist for The Family Leader, the right-wing social issues group run by Bob Vander Plaats, who is considering running for Senate. While Vander Plaats’ over-the-top rhetoric is better known, Carroll is equally adamant in his opposition to gay rights and his Christian-nation view of government.
Back in 2010, Danny Carroll, then the head of Iowa Family Policy Center, refused to endorse the candidacy of Republican Terry Brandstad even after he won the gubernatorial primary because of what he saw as Brandstad’s insufficient opposition to gay rights. Brandstad merely wanted to pass a state constitutional amendment overturning the Iowa Supreme Court’s 2009 marriage equality ruling; Carroll’s preferred candidate, Vander Plaats, led a campaign to target and oust the judges behind the ruling. Carroll assured Vander Plaats’ supporters that they were “answering to God Almighty.” After the election, Vander Plaats was hired to head The Family Leader, a new umbrella group that encompassed the Iowa Family Policy Center.
At a Family Leader conference last year, Carroll insisted that more important than the breakdown of families was the “crisis is in the definition of family” – that is, the growing acceptance of same-sex marriage. He said the group was pushing for a state constitutional amendment on marriage equality because “just about every problem facing society today could be fixed, eliminated or significantly reduced if we held up marriage between one man and one woman for life.”
Over the past several years, Carroll has used his influence in Iowa to back candidates who share his far-right views. In 2008, he co-chaired Mike Huckabee’s presidential campaign in Iowa. In 2012, he went for Michele Bachmann, who he declared was “biblically qualified” for the presidency.
But Carroll’s first choice in 2012 was maybe even further to the right than Bachmann: He backed the short-lived presidential campaign of Alabama Judge Roy Moore, who became famous for defying a court order to remove a monument of the Ten Commandments from a government building, and who now wants to hold a Constitutional Convention to pass an amendment banning same-sex marriage. When Moore dropped out of the race, Carroll lamented, “He’s a great guy. I love him and respect him. He’s a hero, that’s for sure. And he’s an honorable person. I can’t say anything negative against Judge Moore. Just the reality of politics, I guess.”
Carroll seems to share Moore’s leanings. In a speech in 2010, Carroll blamed the Supreme Court ruling banning school-organized prayer for recent teen suicides in Iowa and railed against legal abortion and gambling. He said these trends could only be reversed by electing people “who will stand up and unashamedly and without apology assure us that they will be guided by absolute and timeless Christian morals that comes from a regular reading of God’s Word.”
“I am through apologizing for what this country was founded on: a firm conviction that a free people cannot be self-governed unless they have a strong conviction to religion and morality,” he added.
In an interview with radio host Jan Mickelson earlier this month, Carroll agreed with Mickelson’s assessment that his appointment to serve alongside the Ron Paul-supporting state party chair A.J. Spiker represented “a marriage between the Paulistas and the evangelicals, or the Teavangelicals” in Iowa. In a possible signal that the party was patching things up, Carroll last week endorsed Brandstad’s reelection bid.
Carroll is hardly alone as a hard-right social conservative in the state-level leadership of a party that just last year proposed softening its image to expand its base. As Brian noted last month, it was odd that Priebus singled out Agema, since anti-gay sentiment is a common feature among RNC committee members. In fact, in Iowa, Carroll will be serving alongside RNC committeewoman Tamara Scott, who once warned that gay marriage will lead to man-Eiffel Tower marriage and who blamed the recession in part on legalized same-sex marriage.
The American Family Association’s Sandy Rios is, to say the least, upset about Attorney General Eric Holder’s recent decision to extend many rights in the justice system to same-sex married couples. In fact, Rios tells the AFA’s OneNewsNow today, we are now in “a war between people who love this country and want to protect and preserve it and their children and future generations, and those who literally want to undermine and destroy its laws, its nature, [and to] fundamentally transform it."
Rios adds the executive branch "is out of control" by refusing to enforce laws passed by Congress and then granting rights to homosexuals.
"This is a fight over the survival of the country," she shares. "This is a war between people who love this country and want to protect and preserve it and their children and future generations, and those who literally want to undermine and destroy its laws, its nature, [and to] fundamentally transform it."