How To Make 'The Whole Homosexual Marriage Debate Go Away'

Anti-gay activists can’t be happy that polling data shows that a majority of Americans support marriage equality, and are also displeased with libertarian and conservative leaders who think it might be time for the government to get out of the marriage business altogether.

In a WorldNetDaily article about the debate on “privatizing marriage,” Peter Sprigg of the Family Research Council said that while heterosexual marriage should remain a government-sponsored institution, he is “fine with privatizing homosexual relationships” since gay people haven’t proven how same-sex unions “benefit society.” Jennifer Roback Morse of the National Organization for Marriage’s Ruth Institute agreed that removing a government role from marriage “capitulates” to the gay rights movement and harms children.

Herb Titus said the government should define marriage based on Leviticus and “screen out those people who were violating the rules the Bible laid down as to who could be married and who could not be married.”

But Matt Trewhella has a plan to end the debate over marriage rights once and for all.

Trewhella, the Religious Right activist who you may remember for his rant about how gays are “filthy people,” revealed that the only way to make “the whole homosexual marriage debate go away” is not through “privatization but the re-criminalization of sodomy.”

Jennifer Morse, president of the Ruth Institute, which supports traditional marriage, says privatizing marriage “doesn’t really resolve the gay marriage issue, it capitulates on the key point, which is what is the public purpose of marriage, and whether the state has any role in protecting the interests of children.”

“This is a rhetorical tactic for trying to make it go away. I don’t think it works.”

Peter Sprigg, senior fellow for policy studies at the Family Research Council, said marriage deserves a privileged place in the law because it brings benefits “that are important to the well-being of society as a whole and not just a couple.”



Sprigg, a leading defender of traditional marriage, sayid [sic] he’s “fine with privatizing homosexual relationships” but rejects privatizing true marriage because of its special status.

“Society gives benefits to marriage because marriage gives benefits to society. Therefore the burden of proof is on the advocates of alternatives to marriage to prove that their relationships benefit society. I think that’s a burden of proof that same-sex marriage cannot meet.”

Morse said the libertarian idea that two or more people can make up their own “marital” contract any way they wish collides with the needs of children. Crafting intimate arrangements without guidance from God, culture or the state “just doesn’t work when you have a child,” she said. “The modern world does not know quite what to do with these helpless creatures.



Herbert W. Titus, former dean of the Regent University School of Law and Government, agrees that state and federal laws, especially no-fault divorce, have fostered social chaos but says a return to marriage laws that conform to biblical norms is the solution, not privatization.

Marriage licenses serve a useful purpose, Titus said, because they determine “if you’re entitled to a marriage certificate” and “screen out those people who were violating the rules the Bible laid down as to who could be married and who could not be married.” He cited Leviticus 18, which forbids sexual relations between close relations, family members and individuals of the same sex.

But once the law allows same-sex marriage, Titus said, “then it’s very difficult to see that there are any … barriers to marriage,” and that opens the door to sodomy and polygamy.



Conservative Protestant minister Matt Trewhella, founder of Missionaries to the Preborn, is sometimes lumped in with the advocates of marriage privatization because he tells Christians not to get marriage licenses and refuses to marry couples who do.

Trewhella regards marriage licenses as a grant of authority to marry from the state. “The state cannot grant the right to marry. It is a God-given right.”

Despite that view, Trewhella wants the state to ban same-sex marriage.

“I think the whole idea of privatizing marriage is absurd because the state should uphold and affirm the law word and created order of God regarding marriage as revealed in Scripture.”

He believes the solution to same-sex marriage is not privatization but the re-criminalization of sodomy.

“That’s what makes the whole homosexual marriage debate go away,” he said.

Stemberger: 'Abuse' To Affirm LGBT Youth; Sexual Relations Among Boy Scouts Will Become 'Commonplace'

John Stemberger, who leads the new anti-gay alternative to the Boy Scouts of America, reassured conservative talk show host Janet Mefferd yesterday that his group, Trail Life USA, is “not going to tolerate” any openly gay members, describing them as a threat to the “safety and security of our children.”

While the BSA allows openly gay youth (but not adults) to join, Trail Life USA will ban anyone who is gay, unless he is working to hide and banish his gay demons. Stemberger, who also runs the Florida Family Policy Council, blames “society and schools and even parents” for affirming LGBT youth, which he said is “tantamount to abuse.”

“That is just absolutely nonsense and it’s an abuse to the child,” Stemberger charged. “We are not going to tolerate someone who is ‘here and queer; loud and proud,’ all of that nonsense, that is completely inappropriate in a program where there’s children.”

Stemberger: We’re very sad to leave the Boy Scouts of America. It was a great organization but unfortunately it has taken a turn in a fundamental compromise on its values that is just not acceptable to parents and the safety and security of our children.

Mefferd: Absolutely. Now a lot has been reported about how you will handle the issue of sexuality in the Trail Life USA organization. How did it come about that you put together the parameters that you did and how do you reassure parents that the issues that may come up in the Boy Scouts are not going to be the same in Trail Life USA?

Stemberger: Well first of all, we’re not going to allow open and avowed homosexuality. It’s really important that we distinguish between a mere same-sex attraction, which by the way 20-25 percent of young boys as they are growing up will experience some sort of gender ambiguity or confusion, or just needing to wonder who they are, needing affirmation, that’s not uncommon at all. But what’s horrible is to have the society and schools and even parents, which is tantamount to abuse in my judgment, saying ‘oh he is special, he must be gay, he must be gender confused, let’s let him explore.’ That is just absolutely nonsense and it’s an abuse to the child. We need to be reaffirming that child of their God-given biology that they are special, made in His image, and help them understand these things. So we’re not going to turn away a kid like that, but we are not going to tolerate activists. We are not going to tolerate someone who is ‘here and queer; loud and proud,’ all of that nonsense, that is completely inappropriate in a program where there’s children.

Later in the broadcast, Stemberger warned that when AT&T CEO and BSA board member Randall Stephenson becomes the leader of the organization, it is likely that openly gay adults will be allowed to take part in scouting as well.

While Stemberger said he was “never concerned about the adults” because “the adults have a two-deep leadership policy where no adult can be alone with any scout at one time in scouting,” he told parents to fear openly gay adult leaders anyway and defect to Trail Life USA: “We’re not trying to be bashing the BSA but we are going to be committed to letting parents know of this and that this is a risk, this is a health and safety risk to boys.”

Stemberger even predicted that sexual relations and “physical, sexual and psychological abuse” will become “commonplace” as a result of the decision to end the ban on openly gay youth.

Mefferd: You told us that Randall Stephenson, the head of AT&T, is now going to be in charge of the Boy Scouts. Now this is somebody who drew an awful lot of fire prior to this vote as somebody a lot of conservatives wanted ousted from the Boy Scouts.

Stemberger: That’s right, in May of next year he will become the president of the Boy Scouts of America and he is on the record saying he doesn’t agree with the current policy, doesn’t go far enough, he wants open homosexuality not just with boys but with men as well. When that second shoe drops then we will be positioned to see even more parents come and join Trail Life USA. Honestly, I just hate this. I don’t like this. We’re not trying to be bashing the BSA but we are going to be committed to letting parents know of this and that this is a risk, this is a health and safety risk to boys. They have already issued proclamations saying you will not treat openly gay boys any different, that is they are going to be tented with other boys; they are not going to be separated out in anyway lest they be bullied.

This is where it’s going and this will absolutely increase boy-on-boy sexual contact, which will further contribute to the scandal and the very unfortunate abuse to countless numbers of boys who will undergo physical, sexual and psychological abuse as a result of this policy change. That is the bottom line, that is the thing no one wants to talk about, that is the reality of this change. They can deny it all they want to but you can’t control boys. I was never concerned about the adults; the adults have a two-deep leadership policy where no adult can be alone with any scout at one time in scouting. But you can’t do that with boys. They are high-risk, they’ve got testosterone, they do crazy things and so you’re going to have stuff happen commonplace as this policy goes into effect.

Pat Robertson Loses Fight To Keep 'Gay AIDS Ring' Video Off The Internet

Two weeks ago, the Christian Broadcasting Network tried to cover up remarks made by Pat Robertson, the founder of CBN and host of its flagship show the 700 Club, about how he believes gay men wear special rings that cut the hands of people they meet in order to infect them with HIV/AIDS.

CBN not only had the video we posted of Robertson’s comments removed from YouTube by complaining that it violated copyright laws, but also edited the comments out of its own broadcast of the show.

We reposted our video elsewhere, but CBN also had it removed from websites such as Vimeo and Dailymotion.

We filed a counterclaim with YouTube asserting that our video was protected by Fair Use and yesterday we finally received word that our video had been restored:

But the episode reveals the lengths CBN will go to hide and censor the statements made by its own leader. Now, the network is even considering legal action against a documentary critical of Robertson.

Schlafly: Strip Funding from Courts, Schools, Colleges, Child Protective Services, Social Safety Net, Feminists And Democrats

It’s not exactly news that Phyllis Schlafly thinks that things like gay rights, feminism, secular education, popular culture and progressive laws are ruining America. But it’s still remarkable to see her try to list all of her enemies in one place.

In a column this week entitled “America’s War Against Traditional Marriage Endangers Our Democracy,” Schlafly goes after child protection services, day care, divorce courts and domestic violence protections – all of which she sees as threats to the family and our democracy--  and issues a call to “shame and cut off taxpayers’ money from the groups that killed the American family,” groups that she goes on to list: “Feminists, judges, legislators, public school teachers and administrators, so-called child protection agencies, professors, psychologists, college courses, government handouts and Democratic politicians who want big-government spending in order to win votes.”

A combination of forces abolished the American family as we knew it.

The many factors include changes in the law such as unilateral divorce, court decisions and especially abuses by the family courts, the culture, curricula and customs from elementary grades through college, taxpayer financial incentives for illegitimacy, and the pronouncements of self-appointed experts who think they know how to manage children better than parents.

We must shame and cut off taxpayers' money from the groups that killed the American family, including feminists, judges, legislators, public school teachers and administrators, so-called child protection agencies, professors, psychologists, college courses, government handouts and Democratic politicians who want big-government spending in order to win votes.

The problem cannot be remedied by prohibiting same-sex marriage (even by a constitutional amendment) or by telling men to "man up."

Feminists demand that we abolish the patriarchy, and they argue that its worst offense is expecting mothers to care for their own children, and so the taxpayers should pay for day-care for all children. Feminists are still whining on television in 2013 about President Nixon's veto of the comprehensive Mondale day-care bill back in 1971.

All those who care about preserving the religious and economic freedoms that are the hallmark of America should realize that we cannot reassert constitutional rights, private enterprise, balanced budgets, reduction of government spending and freedom from government management of our lives without the intact, self-supporting traditional nuclear family functioning as the foundation of our society.

Right Wing Round-Up - 9/12/13

Right Wing Leftovers - 9/12/13

  • Glenn Beck will soon be offering an email service.  Seriously.
  • It is not much of a surprise to learn that Floyd Corkins was not taking his prescribed anti-psychotic medication at the time he attacked the Family Research Council.
  • Erik Rush calls President Obama "an enormous pussy."
  • Pat Robertson's Operation Blessing has issued a statement responding to charges made in a new documentary about Robertson's misuse of charity resources for personal gain.
  • Finally, Andrée Seu Peterson thinks that gays should give up their push for equality for the good of society: "Even if you, homosexual, believe you have a legal right to practice homosexuality and to even marry, would you consider—for the sake of the children who would have to be raised with two fathers and no mother, or two mothers and the forfeit of a father—choosing to 'suffer wrong' and to 'be defrauded'? Would you put away your desires for a greater good, and avoidance of harm?"

Texas Textbook Reviewer Sheds Light On Creationist Efforts To Undercut Science Education

In a letter sent to the State Board of Education, Jimmy Gollihar of the University of Texas at Austin’s Center for Systems and Synthetic Biology describes the lengths to which creationists are going to undermine science and advance Creationism in Texas classrooms, as well as the help they are receiving from board chair Barbara Cargill.

While the panels reviewing science textbooks are supposed to be independent of the school board, Cargill worked closely with creationism advocates on the panels, leading Gollihar to note that Cargill aided “those who might reasonably be regarded as creationists.”

Gollihar’s letter details how the creationists who are serving on the panel not only lack any credentials but seem not to understand basic science, such as the one panelist, a dietician, who demanded that biology textbooks incorporate “creation science based on biblical principles.”

“With such a gross misunderstanding of science, it is hard to fathom that any other comments the reviewer made would have been helpful or even accurate, and it further underscores the unfortunate skewing of the panels away from real, practicing scientists,” Gollihar writes.

As Dan Quinn of the Texas Freedom Network points out, Gollihar’s name was even added to the anti-evolution panelist’s comment.

“The net result of having a huge raft of non-scientists on the panels was that rather than checking for factual errors in the texts I was put into the position of having to painstakingly educate other panel members on past and current literature,” Gollihar continues. “[E]ven beyond the obviously ideologically-derived comments on the materials many of the comments found littered throughout those reviews make no sense whatsoever from a scientific viewpoint.”

He notes that actual biologists are being sidelined in the process as he was “among a small minority of panelists that possessed any post-secondary education in the biological sciences.”

By stacking the panels with advocates of Creationism, the bodies did “not in any way reflect the distribution of viewpoints within the scientific community.”

First, it would seem that the selection process for reviewers is lacking, at best — politically motivated at worst. Coming into the live review session in Austin, I fully expected that as a doctoral student at the University of Texas at Austin I would be the least-qualified member on the panel. My fears of inadequacy would soon subside; it seems that I was in fact one of only two practicing scientists present; indeed, I was among a small minority of panelists that possessed any post-secondary education in the biological sciences. Given the high interest amongst the scientific community in improving science education in Texas, I doubt that the make-up of the panel reflected the application pool in any way.

In fact, I know that several of my colleagues who hold PhD or equivalent degrees in their respective fields were passed over in the selection process. Instead, we had several well-known creationists and even a Fellow of the Discovery Institute, an Intelligent Design think tank. Beyond the established creationists, apologists for “creation science” were scattered throughout each of the review teams. This does not in any way reflect the distribution of viewpoints within the scientific community. It is impossible to conclude that the teams reviewing textbooks were anything other than grossly skewed and obviously biased.

The net result of having a huge raft of non-scientists on the panels was that rather than checking for factual errors in the texts I was put into the position of having to painstakingly educate other panel members on past and current literature. Somewhat unsurprisingly, a reviewer from another table, who is also a well-known creationist without any training in biology, was quite proud that he was the one reviewing the sections on evolution for his table … with no scientific counterpoint to be had. As a result, even beyond the obviously ideologically-derived comments on the materials many of the comments found littered throughout those reviews make no sense whatsoever from a scientific viewpoint and are absolutely not germane to the content prescribed in the TEKS [Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills].

Secondly, I and other members of my group grew increasingly concerned with both the actions and presence of Chairwoman Barbara Cargill during the review of course materials for high school biology. We appreciated her kind words about our service to the state, but we were taken aback by the sheer amount of time spent with other panel members, especially those who might reasonably be regarded as creationists. From our vantage, Ms. Cargill was clearly trying to steer the independent review process by providing specific guidance and direction to the two other teams. She appeared to be pointing to specific locations within certain texts and encouraging the members of the panel to recommend changes to the publishers. It is our understanding that the review process should be absent of any undue influence from SBOE members.

...

Finally, I have recently been made aware that a reviewer from another team made what appears to be a grossly misrepresentative comment to the publisher. For example, in the review of the Houghton Mifflin Harcourt textbook, an incredible resource, a panel member comments:

I understand the National Academy of Science's strong support of the theory of evolution. At the same time, this is a theory. As an educator and parent, I feel very strongly that "creation science" based on Biblical principles should be incorporated to every Biology book that is up for adoption. It is very important for students to use critical thinking skills and give them the opportunity to weigh the evidence between evolution and "creation science."

This is disturbing for a number of reasons. The author of this comment has obviously not mastered the material contained within the TEKS, especially 2C. With such a gross misunderstanding of science, it is hard to fathom that any other comments the reviewer made would have been helpful or even accurate, and it further underscores the unfortunate skewing of the panels away from real, practicing scientists. Moreover, while I entered into this process hoping to improve it, I now find that my name appears on the final document containing this comment! At no time did I ever sign anything resembling such nonsense. In fact, the author of that comment and I never worked on anything together. I do not know how this inaccurate statement and my name have been paired, but because I am a professional in good standing I strongly ask you to please remove my name from anything that does not have my direct signature when providing materials to the public. To do otherwise is to potentially sully my reputation. In sum, the review process is either broken or corrupt.

In hopes of the former, let’s learn from this and ensure that the next generation of students from our state is equipped with a solid foundation in the biological sciences and can compete globally. Future panel members should be experts in the irrespective fields, preferably practicing scientists up to date on the modern information that students need. If necessary, it might be useful to partition the TEKS to academics and professionals who deal with these topics in their work and research. We should absolutely not see network, mechanical or chemical engineers, dieticians or others making decisions or pressuring publishers to change books on biology. Let biologists do biology. We’re actually pretty good at it.

Fischer: Stopping Terry Jones' Koran-Burning 'Is Really No Different Than What The Pharisees Did To Jesus'

Yesterday, radical anti-Islam pastor Terry Jones was arrested while transporting nearly three thousand copies of the Koran that had been soaked in kerosene which he intended to burn in protest of the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001.

Jones was charged with illegally carrying a firearm and unlawful conveyance of fuel and the latter charge struck Bryan Fischer as laughable as he defended Jones' right to burn the Koran on his radio program today, saying that using this sort of trumped-up charge to stop him "is really no different than what the Pharisees did to Jesus."

"They had to find some kind of trumped up charge," Fischer said, "in order to accuse him and convict him before the Sanhedrin; they tried to suborn testimony, they couldn't even get these counter-witnesses, these false witnesses to agree with each other but that was what they were trying to do, find some kind of trumped-up charge to get him in trouble.  So that's what they did with Terry Jones":

Erik Rush: Obama Engaging In Triple Cover-Up Of Benghazi

Channeling Glenn Beck, WorldNetDaily columnist and Fox News regular Erik Rush today writes that President Obama orchestrated the attack on the US annex in Benghazi, which he claims had “clandestinely provided arms to the rebels in Syria,” to cover up the weapons shipment. 

Now why would Obama and his supposed Islamist allies attack the same US annex they believe was arming Islamists? Well, as Rush explains, it was all an effort to cover up the fact that they were doing it in the first place, and then the administration had to cover up the reasons for the attack.

A cover-up of the cover-up.

But despite the fact that this makes absolutely no sense, Rush went on to say that the insurgents in Syria “came to possess chemical weapons” thanks to Obama, so now Obama must attack Syria in order to “erase the evidence of having provided them” and cover that up too.

Yep, it’s the old cover-up of the cover-up of the cover-up.

Most observers have settled on the likelihood that it is his desire to redirect attention from his many scandals, Obamacare and immigration reform legislation that impels the president toward carrying out this attack. There is also a distinct possibility that the Muslim Brotherhood (whom he has supported worldwide and who have fighters among the rebels in Syria) is putting pressure on him to deliver after his failure to resist the ouster of former Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi.

Q: How does Obama know what kind of weapons the rebels in Syria have?

A: He has the receipts …

I propose another scenario: It has been well-established that the Obama administration clandestinely provided arms to the rebels in Syria. (I say “rebels in Syria” rather than “Syrian rebels” because many of them are jihadis from other nations.) It is a pretty safe bet that this operation was at least part of the reason for the 9/11/12 attack on the American facility in Benghazi. I have contended for some time that President Obama himself either orchestrated the attack or was party to it. His motivation, I have asserted, would have been in perceiving a need to erase the evidence of the Benghazi operation – and perhaps even some of the personnel involved.

A subsequent revelation that Morsi provided military assets for the attack on the Benghazi compound does tend to lend credence to the notion that Obama was involved. After all, Obama was Morsi’s benefactor; indeed, there would have been no Arab Spring and no Muslim Brotherhood ascendancy in Egypt had it not been for Obama’s destabilization of the region.

Since it has been established that the Obama administration provided weapons to the rebels in Syria, and nearly a certainty these factions came to possess chemical weapons, is it then possible that Obama’s desire to strike Syria with all due speed stems from a need to erase the evidence of having provided them, and perhaps even other treasonous actions? It would certainly make the truth getting out with regard to Benghazi much more of a threat to Obama if evidence speaking to this being factual exists.

If this is factual, Barack Obama might ultimately be looking at occupying a noted place in history quite different from the one he currently occupies.

Now Glenn Beck Is Dismissing Romney As Just Another 'Progressive'

On his radio broadcast this morning, Glenn Beck told some story about how, last week, he had rescued a lost sheep that had disappeared from his ranch over a year ago and, in typical Beck fashion, he saw it as some sort of allegory for the nation about how God allowed President Obama to win in order to ensure that the Tea Party remains awake and saves the nation and ultimately rescues all the "lost sheep" in America and blah, blah, blah.

While telling the story, Beck made an absolutely remarkable statement in passing when, around the 3:45 mark, he speculated that if Mitt Romney had won the election, he too might be pressing for military action in Syria "because, in the end, we all found out that he was the progressive."

Just think about that statement.

During the campaign, Beck spent every day telling his audience that Romney's performance was divine providence, that his victory was going to be a massive mandate and a work of God and that Romney was a modern-day George Washington and Abraham Lincoln:

But now Beck is dismissing him as just another progressive. 

If that is true, then why was Beck so enthralled with him during the election? Just where was Beck's self-proclaimed "gift" for being able to look into someone eyes and see their heart or his vaunted ability to see down the road and predict what will be coming our way? 

Beck says Romney revealed himself to be a "progressive" during the final presidential debate, which took place on October 22.  Yet two days after that, Beck was comparing Romney to George Washington on his radio broadcast.

If Beck knew that Romney was a "progressive" during the election, why didn't he warn his audience instead of repeatedly likening him to towering figures such as Washington and Lincoln? 

We have an archive full of examples of Glenn Beck saying utterly ridiculous things, but this current effort to rewrite his own history has to be one of the most fundamentally dishonest things he has ever said.

Share this page: Facebook Twitter Digg SU Digg Delicious