Craig Parshall: Marriage Equality Victories Will Lead to 'Suppression of Speech'

Craig Parshall of National Religious Broadcasters added to the torrent of right-wing doomsday prophesies about marriage equality yesterday, claiming that a Supreme Court victory for gay rights would ultimately lead to hate speech laws wielded against Christians. In an interview with his wife Janet Parshall, a talk show host with Moody Radio, he warned that “the next victim will be not just the traditional view of marriage and the health of society, but it’s going to be the free speech rights of Christians as well.”

We have a hate crimes law on the federal level now that we didn’t used to have. It’s only been in play for a few years, but I’m already seeing indications that it could migrate toward the suppression of speech. So there’s no question in my mind that if either or both of these decisions go the wrong way, the next victim will be not just the traditional view of marriage and the health of society, but it’s going to be the free speech rights of Christians as well.

He was also upset that Justice Kennedy, during the arguments on Proposition 8, had brought up the well-being of California children being raised by same-sex couples. “There are some 40,000 children in California…that live with same-sex parents, and they want their parents to have full recognition and full status. The voice of those children is important in this case, don't you think?,” Kennedy asked.

Parshall, who has previously called the children of gay and lesbian parents “victims of gay mentality,” said that in this case the views of children shouldn’t be considered. “We don’t leave it up to children to make those decisions,” he said. “Either the parents make it, or a high-level court, or society through Proposition 8 voting, has to decide those moral, societal value questions.”

(Of course, in this case, the parents are not able to make the decision to get married because they are legally barred from doing so).

The issue was, I thought, brought to a head in a very interesting, but I think wrong-headed, question by Justice Kennedy, the swing vote again, who said, ‘Well, but what about those 37,000,’ and actually, excuse me, he said, ‘the 40,000 children living in same-sex relationships in California?’ Actually, the number’s 37,000, I think he rounded it up, that’s fine. The 37,000 children. ‘What about them? They want their putative father and other significant other to be called a married couple.’ Well, number one, do they? I don’t think a survey has been made of those 37,000 children. But, number two, we don’t leave it up to children to make those decisions. Either the parents make it, or a high-level court, or society through Proposition 8 voting, has to decide those moral, societal value questions. The child doesn’t make the decision about whether marriage should be instituted for the purpose of gay parents.

Fischer: Adultery and Viewing Pornography 'Ought to be Against the Law'

On yesterday's program, Bryan Fischer spent a good deal of time ripping Bill O'Reilly for saying that the supporters of marriage equality have the more compelling argument while opponents haven't been able to do anything but "thump the Bible."

Needless to say, Fischer took exception to that statement on the grounds that the only thing gay marriage opponents need to do is thump the Bible because it is the Word of God and contains God's eternal truth.  That prompted a caller named David to tell Fischer that just because the Bible might disapprove of things like adultery or pornography, that doesn't mean the government ought to pass laws against them.

Fischer, of course, disagreed and argued that Biblical standards ought to be the basis for our laws, which is why he insisted that both adultery and viewing pornography ought to be illegal:

Erik Rush: Same-Sex Marriage Is an 'Anti-Theistic, Christophobic Design of the Radical Left'

WorldNetDaily columnist Erik Rush today writes that same-sex couples can never truly be married, even if it becomes law. Rush argues that voters “no more have a right to bar homosexuals from marrying than they do conferring upon them the right to marry” as “same-sex couples will never occupy a state of matrimony, no matter what laws we pass or semantic gymnastics we manage to execute,” in the same way a man could never join a sorority.

He goes on to argue that gay rights advocates have a “venomous hatred for everything smacking of Christianity” and that same-sex marriage is part of “the anti-theistic, Christophobic design of the radical left,” which Rush claims will bring about “societal dissolution.”

I find it quite surreal that as I write this, the most learned legal minds in the country are being compelled to debate an issue that is wholly specious on its face. The U.S. Supreme Court is hearing arguments against the State of California voters’ right to have banned “same-sex marriage,” but all that ban amounts to in a practical sense is an agreement that the semantic argument not be broached. Do California voters have a right to do so? Certainly – but they no more have a right to bar homosexuals from marrying than they do conferring upon them the right to marry.

Thus, my ongoing contention that we as a society have neither the power nor the ability to change the definition of “marriage,” nor can we confer the “right” to marry upon those who do not possess an a priori qualification to be married. I can petition a college sorority to accept me as a sister, and they might even do so after a fashion; but I will never be a “sorority sister,” because I am a man. Similarly, same-sex couples will never occupy a state of matrimony, no matter what laws we pass or semantic gymnastics we manage to execute.



The quest for “same-sex marriage” (which, as has been established, doesn’t exist) is not about the civil rights of homosexuals or the well-worn catch phrase “marriage equality.” Like everything championed by the political left, it is about weakening America’s cultural and societal foundation; it is but one component in the anti-theistic, Christophobic design of the radical left.

In fact, outside of a handful of the whopping 3.5 percent of Americans who identify as homosexual, most of those who are advancing this offensive are not homosexual, nor do they care in the least about the civil rights of homosexuals. They are the power brokers of the left, the same people who continually strive to alienate ethnic minorities, women, the poor and whomever else they can from societal convention.

Apart from those types, the people who advocate most vociferously for “marriage equality” are militant homosexuals and the most rabid leftists. The majority of those with whom I interact on a frequent basis are young and ill-informed, but they all share the same venomous hatred for everything smacking of Christianity, employing the same tiresome charges relative to those holding traditional values being intolerant and hateful.



If all this were a matter of equitable health insurance coverage, taxation or inheritance, civil unions would be the way to go. It is quite true, as many of our libertarian friends contend, that the state should never have gotten involved in the business of marriage to start with. For civil purposes, certificates of some sort of recognition might have been instituted for married couples, such as when someone changes their name. This way, if two homosexuals wanted to play house, they could have whatever familial parameters they desired formally registered and recognized in the same manner.

But civil unions are not good enough. In order for the left to achieve their objective, the political left must compel all of America to capitulate, to embrace and honor homosexual unions as “marriage.” It is only in this way that the requisite societal dissolution may progress.

Rep. Mark Meadows: SCOTUS Ruling for Marriage Equality Will Undermine Democracy and Spark 'Constitutional Crisis'

During an appearance on The Steve Deace Show, Rep. Mark Meadows (R-NC) maintained that “our democracy and our representative form of government” will be “in dire straits” if the Supreme Court legalizes same-sex marriage. He told Deace that he is not “aware of any” precedent of the court making such a sweeping decision that would represent “a huge invasion into states’ rights.”

Deace: We’re talking about a supermajority of US states have already, all of them within the last ten to fifteen years, have defined what marriage is within their borders and now we have the US Supreme Court determining whether it has the jurisdiction to override a supermajority of US state laws. Mark, do you know of any precedent for that ever in American history? I can’t come up with one, ever.

Meadows: No, I’m not aware of any and obviously if it gets down to nine people deciding the will of the people our democracy and our representative form of government is in dire straits. The people here in North Carolina overwhelmingly came out and voted really en masse and with such energy that I’ve not experienced in over twenty-eight years of following politics here in North Carolina have not seen that kind of energy, and here we got the Supreme Court looking to overturn a California law that really where the voters voted there as well and you know it was obviously overturned in the Ninth Circuit and now we’ve got the Supreme Court saying that they’re going to weigh in on this particular issue. It’s a huge invasion into states’ rights and the state definition of marriage, whether you call it traditional or natural marriage, I call it marriage, you know it’s between one man and one woman, period.

Later, the freshman congressman charged that any such ruling would lead to “a constitutional crisis,” although he didn’t answer Deace’s question about how Congress would respond to the court’s decision.

Deace: What happens, I mean you’re a congressman, if the court does that, you are in a state that has already asserted its will on this issue but you’re in the body that our founders constitutionally gave oversight of the judicial branch, so you’re right in the thick of this debate. What happens if the court decides that they are their own constitutional convention without any recourse at all, what happens?

Meadows: Well I mean obviously we start to have a constitutional crisis. We’ve already seen some of that with the executive branch saying that they’re not going to enforce certain laws. I think it was Justice Scalia that brought this out in the last couple of days is when you get an executive branch that starts to decide what’s constitutional and what’s not and what they’re going to enforce and what they’re not, they’re usurping the authority of Congress and that’s the representative form of government and we can’t stand for that, as a people we can’t stand for that so we need to stand up and make sure that our voice is heard.

Robertson: Government Is Preparing For Battle 'Against Us'

Televangelist Pat Robertson is joining the ranks of right-wing commentators who claim that the Department of Homeland Security is stockpiling vehicles and ammunition to use against Americans.

“Long trains full of armored vehicles, personnel carriers with armor, what are they for, the army going into battle against the enemy? They're used by Homeland Security against us,” Robertson ominously warned. “Imagine what Homeland Security is doing is just awful and we’re going to talk about how much ammunition they’re stockpiling: who are they going to shoot, us?” 

The conspiracy about secretive ammo stockpiling is completely unfounded.

According to the Associated Press, the ammunition is used in trainings for “tens of thousands of federal law enforcement officers” and for the use of the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency.

As Media Matters pointed out, DHS does own light armored vehicles for emergencies and raids on drug cartels, and the recent purchases of such vehicles were actually for the U.S. Marine Corps.

In fact, the conspiracy theory is so baseless that even the NRA has debunked it.

Charisma to NFL Gays: Stay in the Closet!

Jennifer LeClaire, news editor of Charisma, a magazine and publishing house for Pentecostal Christians, is terrified that the gay agenda “may soon enough seep into Sunday afternoon football” and she has a message for gay NFL players: stay in the closet. Charisma’s daily email newsletter hypes her story this way:

In an age of openly gay clergy preaching the gospel, it wouldn’t be nearly as shocking to see a muscle-bound NFL pro doing a wacky dance after scoring a touchdown. But God forbid it happens.

Don't straight players ever do wacky dances? LeClaire frets about speculation that a professional football player will come out – speculation that has grown with the number of outspoken straight-but-gay-supportive players like Brendon Ayanbadejo. She insists that gay football players should stay in the closet to avoid enticing young people into a sinful lifestyle. All emphases are in the original.

Professional sports should stay out of step. If it’s not supposed to matter whether or not an NFL player is gay, then why do we need to know about his sexual orientation? The gay agenda wants us to know because it wants to shape and mold the minds of the next generation. It’s much the same as the gay superhero drama. Shining a positive spotlight on gay role models in any industry serves to validate homosexuality, which is clearly a sin.

LeClaire is worried that “CBS is reporting that a gay NFL player may soon come out of the closet, which would stir up post-season drama in more ways than one.”

When I was a kid, watching football on Sunday afternoons was a family tradition for many on my block. But as the gay agenda makes its public relations push from all sides, expect to see more gay professional athletes coming out of the closet in 2013, especially if the U.S. Supreme Court validates gay marriage at a federal level before football season begins.

In an age of openly gay clergy preaching the gospel, it wouldn’t be nearly as shocking to see a muscle-bound NFL pro doing a wacky dance after scoring a touchdown. But you can bet whoever comes out first will be the poster child for the radical gay agenda’s campaigns as they seek to make all things LGBT mainstream in a nation under God that’s divided on gay marriage.

Where will the gay agenda go next to recruit kids who are confused about their sexual identity? How should the church respond to youth who need to know who they are in Christ so they can avoid the eternal consequences of homosexual sin?

LeClaire’s message is not particularly surprising, given that she has previously warned against the perils of gay demon rape and recently denounced as anti-God “wickedness” the protection of gay people in the  Violence Against Women Act.  And it’s worth remembering that last fall Charisma publisher Steven Strang was helping Harry Jackson raise money for his not-very-successful plan to use marriage equality as a racial wedge issue against President Obama in swing states.  

Staver: 'For The Very First Time in History [We Have] a President Who Does Not Love America'

On yesterday's "Faith and Freedom" radio broadcast, Matt Staver and Matt Barber were discussing the "unprecedented" attacks on religious liberty under the Obama administration, which Staver attributed to the fact that President Obama hates America.

"We had President Carter, we had President Clinton," Staver said, "they were liberal and leftist in their policies; I think they were wrong but at their heart and at their core, I think they still loved America.  They had different ideas of how America should work. But I think at his core, we have, for the very first time in history, a president who does not love America, who wants to completely remake it because he does not like America or the values and the founding principles upon which is was established":

Jackson: 'Polygamy and Many Other Forms of Marriage' Will 'Automatically Sweep the Land' if Same-Sex Marriage Is Legal

In an interview with the Christian Broadcasting Network, anti-gay pastor Harry Jackson said conservatives can win their fight against marriage equality if they succeed in convincing Americans about gay marriage’s dire consequences, such as the “automatic” legalization of polygamy.

“If same-sex marriage is allowed to be mandated by fiat,” Jackson warned, “then right behind it, polygamy and many other forms of marriage will automatically sweep the land within just a matter of a few years.”

Watch:

Concerned Women for America Upset Jenna Wolfe Is Having a Baby

Concerned Women for America blogger Christian Shelby wants everyone to know that she is definitely not a bigot for being angry that Jenna Wolfe of The Today Show and her girlfriend Stephanie Gosk are expecting. She said it is “just sad” and “selfish, and supremely so,” for the two women to raise a child, which she claims is not “fair to the overall development of a child.”

In 2006, CWA also attacked Mary Cheney after she announced that she was pregnant and planned to raise the child with her partner.

They’ll call me a bigot, but I prefer to see myself as a realist. So let’s jump into it. The Today Show’s Jenna Wolfe dropped an unexpected bombshell into the national conversation over “gay marriage.” She announced on air (and in her blog) that, “My girlfriend, Stephanie Gosk, and I are expecting a baby girl the end of August.”

First and foremost, I am pro-life. Let’s just put that up front. I love babies. Children are life changing, and I’m sure Miss Wolfe is already finding that out.

However, I’m also like that little kid who yelled, “The king has no clothes!” If there’s something to be said and no one wants to say it for fear of hurting the feelings of others, well, you’ll find me there. Sorry to rain on your parade, but truth is truth.

So here we go. The headline on the Today Show’s website starts out with the word “Surreal.” But, in truth, it should read “Unreal.” Jenna Wolfe and her girlfriend, Stephanie Gosk, are most certainly not expecting a baby girl at the end of August, not in the biological sense, anyway.

When a man and a woman unite in a sexual union, the woman provides the unfertilized egg and the man provides the sperm. Those two things — biologically exclusive to members of the opposite sex — merge and the miracle of life begins.

So herein lies the crux of our dilemma: Miss Wolfe and Miss Gosk are both women. That’s not an anti-“gay” statement; that’s a true statement. Biologically speaking, they cannot, of their own volition, produce a child. I’m sure they’re both nice women, but they need a man in order to have a baby.

And if they need a man in order to have a baby, then who can honestly say that this is the only contribution a man can make? Who can honestly say that Miss Gosk can replace — truly and completely replace — the father who should be present in that child’s life? Consider, if you will, all the social science data to date that shows that children do better in a traditional mom-and-dad household. Which parent does the child not need? A young lady asked that very question to a state legislature recently — “Which parent do I not need?” — and no one could answer her.

It may be politically correct to celebrate the news of Miss Wolfe’s pregnancy. It may be politically correct to celebrate Miss Gosk’s role as the child’s “other parent.” But it is selfish, and supremely so, to deny the child — and others like her — the benefit of either a mother or a father. Two men cannot produce a child. Two women cannot produce a child. And neither of those familial arrangements is fair to the overall development of a child.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m sure Miss Gosk will be supportive and loving and caring to Miss Wolfe’s child; but she will never be — can never be — the child’s father. And, to me, that’s just sad.

Beck: 'System X' Is Upon Us and 'it Will Destroy America and the System of Freedom as We Know it'

You know that you are in for a treat when Glenn Beck kicks off his program by warning his audience that what he is about to explain to them "is going to sound like a crazy conspiracy theory" but, he assures them, it most certainly is not.

In the case of last night's program, Beck went about explaining how the 2009 stimulus legislation was intentionally filled with outrageous spending programs because the "progressives" knew that they would serve as fodder to distract people from the really dangerous things also contained in the legislation, such as money for the states to develop a "longitudinal data system" that will track student performance in public schools.

Citing random passages out of a document entitled "Promoting Grit, Tenacity, and Perseverance—Critical Factors for Success in the 21st Century" [PDF] from the Department of Education's Office of Educational Technology, Beck declared that these data systems will be collecting a cornucopia of sensitive personal information on children and their families while placing monitoring sensors in the chairs and on their skin  and filming them with cameras that can detect emotions; they'd even be installing MRI systems in the classroom.

And this is all happening because the corporations have merged with the government in order to implement "System X: a government run by a single party in control of labor, media, education and banking; joined by big business to further their mutual collective goals."  Beck's "System X" is an idea based on the book "The Road We Are Traveling" by Stuart Chase.

"This is a progressive bonanza," Beck warned, "and if it's allowed to be in our schools in any form and become the common core of America's next generation, it will destroy America and the system of freedom as we know it ... The corporations and the government are in bed together and this is evil stuff":

Share this page: Facebook Twitter Digg SU Digg Delicious