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.”
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.
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":
If a journalist is going to quote David Barton claiming that "you’ll find direct quotations from the Bible throughout the Constitution," they ought to have an obligation to at least point out that it isn't true.
On a related note, Rick Green makes the case against marriage equality in a way that makes Barton seem like a genius.
Concerned Women for America is not happy about the news that journalists Jenna Wolfe and Stephanie Gosk are having a baby.
Glenn Beck is a crazy person, but that doesn't stop people like Sen. Ted Cruz from appearing on his radio program.
Yesterday in an interview with Religious Right broadcaster Janet Mefferd, National Organization for Marriage president Brian Brown said that his group’s march against gay rights near the Supreme Court reminded him of the Civil Rights Movement. “I was not alive during the Civil Rights Movement but this is what it must have felt like,” Brown said.
This isn’t the first time Brown has compared anti-gay activists to the Civil Rights Movement, however, that hasn’t stopped him from criticizing President Obama for linking the movement for gay rights to the struggle for racial equality.
We were hoping for 5,000 people and we ended up with over 10,000. We filled the whole area in front of the court when we marched. It was a diverse coalition, we had African American leaders, Hispanic leaders, State Sen. Ruben Diaz brought 30 buses from the Bronx; it was just amazing. What I was most happy about, we talked about this before the rally, the way everyone conducted themselves. We were chanting, we were united but when folks tried to get in our way, there were some gay marriage protesters who tried to get in front of the march and stop us even though we had a permit, everyone just knelt down and started praying. I was not alive during the Civil Rights Movement but this is what it must have felt like, people were just so ecstatic to stand up and they did it in a loving, respectful way but they weren’t going to be silenced. I couldn’t be more happy with what happened today, I think it’s a huge step forward for the pro-marriage movement and I don’t think it’s going to be lost on the Supreme Court justices that we were there and we were there in force.
Earlier in the same program, Gary Bauer of American Values told Mefferd that young people tend to back marriage equality because “many of them have breathed the air of the poisoned culture,” and warned that any decision striking down anti-gay marriage laws “would be a serious disaster for our country.”
Bauer: Among young people many of them have breathed the air of the poisoned culture and they might have a different view on it but I do not believe the average college student, burdened with maybe $100,000 of student debt, looking at dim job prospects, is thinking first and foremost when they get up in the morning: wow, I sure do hope men can marry men.
Mefferd: Right, right. I don’t think that’s probably a front burner issue for any of them either. This is interesting though, what we are hearing now from the news reports, the SCOTUS Blog had a number of people who were writing articles today about this, indicating that Justice Anthony Kennedy thinks, it may be the case, that the case should be dismissed with no ruling at all. Now I don’t know how many people expected that coming out of the court today but what is your take on this idea that they could just keep it to California, they may just decide to dismiss the case altogether?
Bauer: I’m hearing the same thing; it would be something of a surprise. I wouldn’t be dancing a jig if that’s the ruling but it sure is better than the ruling that I fear which is that this propaganda campaign will panic Kennedy and maybe even somebody like Chief Justice Roberts to rule that this is a constitutional right hidden in that same provision that has the right to abort babies and that every state’s vote has been struck down. That would be obviously a disaster not only for folks like us but I believe it would be a serious disaster for our country.
Garlow further warned that if the Supreme Court affirms marriage equality, Christians will be “forced underground. Their buildings will be taken away from them, many of their rights will be taken away from them.”
Garlow: I think it’s important for people to realize what’s really at stake here. And I know this sounds sound strange, most of us assume naively that what homosexuals are actually for is marriage. And that is not true, at least not universally true. What they want is to destroy marriage.
I think Masha Gessen out of Australia was the most open one I’ve seen on it. She’s a homosexual activist and she just said bluntly, ‘Let’s face it, we don’t want marriage, we want the end of marriage.’ And that’s exactly what happened, of course, in European countries, where they changed the laws regarding what the definition of marriage is and people just stopped getting marriage. And you’d think marriage rates would go up. Instead, they dropped because nobody respects the institution anymore.
And that’s what the heart of this is, not only to end marriage, they’re not demanding marriage for themselves, they want us, to force us to affirm an immoral behavior.
Mefferd: That’s it. And the religious liberty issue, and I know you’ve been really big on this as well, I think more Christians need to understand the connection between advancing LGBT rights and retreating Christian rights.
Garlow: If same-sex so-called marriage is established as the law of the land, many of the people who are listening to my voice right now, not maybe immediately but at some point in the future, if they are followers of Christ, will be forced underground. Their buildings will be taken away from them, many of their rights will be taken away from them.
On yesterday's "Hagee Hotline," Matthew Hagee warned that legalizing gay marriage would spell "the death of capitalism."
"The only relationship in natural law that can produce consumers," Hagee declared, "is the relationship between a man and a woman. When you create a society that does not recognize this relationship as the foundation of its existence and you cease to produce what is required to sustain your economy, you will not survive":
Peter LaBarbera of Americans For Truth About Homosexuality appeared onThe Janet Mefferd Showyesterday where he told Mefferd that gays and lesbians “hate God’s law and therefore they do hate God.” He lamented that people like themselves are put “in the category of hater” while “homosexual activists” show “real, objective hate.” “If you want to understand the homosexual movement,” LaBarbera added, “it’s a movement at war with nature, with God and with truth.”
I think ultimately that the deep philosophical answer is they hate God’s law and therefore they do hate God. I mean if you hate what God stands for, you hate God. I think the problem is that they define hatred ideologically, because you disagree with their belief system, they put you in the category of hater. As opposed to us, we can have somebody who disagrees with us but we don’t call them a hater, but then we do see objective hate which is like all the hate mail we receive from homosexual activists and all the terrible things they call us; that’s real, objective hate.
They have the media, they have academia, they have Hollywood, but they lack the truth. They are really at war with the truth. If you want to understand the homosexual movement, it’s a movement at war with nature, with God and with truth.
He argued that the gay rights movement has succeeded by using “psychological manipulation” and the “manipulation of emotions,” which has consequently led to God’s judgment on America.
LaBarbera: You know think about how the agenda has moved forward. It’s all this sort of psychological manipulation: you know me, I’m openly gay, therefore you must be pro-gay. There’s no logic there, there’s no reason; it’s a lot of manipulation. We’ve seen it with so many people, you know Candace Gingrich, the Cheney’s. It’s certainly not the basis upon which to decide public policy and huge cultural shifts like this and yet that’s the tactic that they’ve used because they know it works, it’s sort of a manipulation of emotions.
Mefferd: It is. As we’re looking at this whole situation, the Supreme Court cases both today and tomorrow, from a Christian perspective, how do you think we ought to be praying? How have you been praying? How should we continue to petition the Lord over this issue?
LaBarbera: I guess I take a somewhat cynical view that we’re being judged as a nation. God is leaving us up to our own devices and what I’ve been praying is there would be that remnant of truth, the truth-tellers who no matter would not bow the knee to the idol of the secular left, whatever the issue is, and on homosexuality we know this is a tough issue. One way we know is because we see things going the right way on the life issue and yet even some pro-lifers are pro-homosexual. That tells me that there’s a lot of misunderstanding and misinformation out there. So what I’m praying is that we will have an army of truth-tellers who will never cave in.
Still outraged by Sen. Rob Portman’s reversal on marriage equality, Ohio-based Religious Right activist Linda Harvey of Mission America used her radio bulletin today to urge people to pray that the Senator’s openly gay son will become “a former homosexual” who will “exercise the option he has right now” of marrying a woman.
Harvey dubbed Portman’s endorsement of marriage equality “a betrayal of the first order” and lamented that conservative Ohioans are stuck “with a Senator who has caved because apparently he believes things that just aren’t true.”
The highest court in the land this week is hearing arguments to overturn man-woman marriage and if that wasn’t heartbreaking enough, families here in tomorrow just experienced a betrayal of the first order by U.S. Sen. Rob Portman. Because his own son is involved in homosexuality, Sen. Portman has rationalized away his former objections to same-sex marriage; he now says he wants the same opportunity for his son. Are you as frustrated by this as I am, friends? First of all, his son already has the right to marry now, he can marry a woman and someday when he is, we can all pray, a former homosexual, perhaps he will choose to exercise the option he has right now. I do hope you will join me in praying for this young man.
Rob Portman had obligations beyond his family however, when you’re a public figure you have enormous influence over public opinion by the policies you support or refuse to support. People in this state worked for Rob Portman and not for a candidate with liberal social values, one more like Democrat Sen. Sherrod Brown, for a reason. People thought they could count on Portman if and when the going got tough on these issues. Well here we are with a Senator who has caved because apparently he believes things that just aren’t true.