While civil rights leaders are denouncing the 5-4 Supreme Court decision gutting the Voting Rights Act, the Family Research Council’s Tony Perkins is cheering. In an email alert sent at the end of the day on Tuesday, Perkins says, “With help from the U.S. Supreme Court, America may finally be turning a page on the racial politics that have haunted our last 50 years.” Oh, yes, giving a green light to the kind of blatantly discriminatory voter disenfranchisement efforts that we’ve seen in recent elections is certainly going to help America “turn the page” on racial politics.
Like other Religious Right leaders, Perkins loves to denounce “judicial activism” when judges uphold reproductive choice or legal equality for LGBT people. But he happily embraces this ruling in which a narrow Court majority rejected a huge bipartisan congressional vote that reauthorized the Voting Rights Act in 2006 on a matter in which the Constitution specifically and intentionally gives Congress wide discretion. Perkins complains that “Congress insisted on reauthorizing a Voting Rights Act that was rooted in one of the darkest chapters of U.S. history.” And he claims that “In recent days, the Voting Rights Act has been a tool for a liberal and politically-motivated DOJ to shape laws to its advantage.”
Perkins seems deeply concerned about “the red tape of the Voting Rights Act” that he said has been “unnecessarily handcuffing” states whose history of disenfranchisement meant that they had to have changes in voting procedures pre-approved by the Justice Department or by a three-judge District Court in the District of Columbia. In contrast, Perkins seems utterly unconcerned about more recent voter disenfranchisement campaigns waged by the GOP and its allies.
Perkins cites Chief Justice John Roberts’ disingenuous suggestion that the court was not acting in a way that would encourage discriminatory disenfranchisement. "Our decision in no way affects the permanent, nationwide ban on racial discrimination in voting," Roberts insisted. "Congress may draft another formula based on current conditions."
Is there anyone who thinks Roberts and Perkins actually want the federal-government-hating Tea Party Republicans who are calling the shots in the House of Representatives to support the creation of a new formula that would subject more states to federal oversight? Perkins makes his thoughts on that point abundantly clear with this comment about the Justice Department: “And in an administration as corrupt as President Obama's is proving to be, the less power it has over the states, the better!”
Bryan Fischer is joining his American Family Association colleague Gary Glenn in calling on states to simply ignore any Supreme Court ruling that strikes down bans on same-sex marriage. Fischer even argues that it would be unconstitutional to follow a court decision that favors marriage equality, which he claims would effectively remove “We the people” from the Constitution.
Anything short of upholding DOMA, anything short of upholding Prop 8 in California will be a setback for the rule of law, it will be a setback for a constitutional form of government; in fact you can just eliminate the first three words of the Constitution: “We the people.” That will be utterly meaningless if the Supreme Court does not uphold Prop 8 and does not uphold DOMA, period. Anything short of that and the American people have been robbed of the capacity and the right and the authority to be a self-governing people.
If the states were to do it, the thirty states that have marriage amendments say, ‘fine, the Supreme Court has issued its ruling, we’re going to ignore it, they have exceeded their authority, we have no obligation. In fact, if we recognize their ruling, we give credence to it, then we are violating the Constitution because the Constitution gives them no authority to do that to us so we have compounded their unconstitutional act with an unconstitutional act of our own.
Family Research Council head Tony Perkins yesterday chatted with Tim Wildmon of the American Family Association on Today’s Issues to discuss the Supreme Court’s imminent decisions on Proposition 8 and the Defense of Marriage Act. Perkins warned that if the Proposition 8 is overturned, then the “legitimacy of the court” will be called into question.
Despite all evidence pointing to overwhelming support for marriage equality among young voters and heaviest resistance among seniors, Perkins said in reference to gay rights advocates that “time is not on their side.”
“They need the court to impose this on the entire nation, because the more time that it takes them to push their agenda, the more Americans will realize the unintended consequences of it,” Perkins claimed. “It’s going to be a clear and present danger to the freedom of speech and the freedom of religion in our country.”
After Perkins bizarrely argued that marriage equality supporters are in a race against time, Wildmon wondered if opponents of gay marriage would be “hauled off to jail” in a few years. Perkins added that anti-gay activists may be “prosecuted by our government” soon as marriage equality eviscerates freedom.
Perkins: I would think they’re going to be hard-pressed to overturn California’s Prop. 8. That would have serious ramifications, I think, for I really think the legitimacy of the court to undermine what the voters of California did.
Perkins: There’s this idea that this is inevitable, that’s what they want to present, this idea that this is inevitable, I think certainly to influence the court and the American people. The reason they’re trying to make it appear to be inevitable is because time is not on their side. They need the court to impose this on the entire nation because the more time that it takes them to push their agenda, the more Americans will realize the unintended consequences of it. This is not just about the marriage altar; this is about fundamentally altering America: religious liberty, parental rights, free speech, all of that goes by the wayside if we embrace this notion of redefining natural marriage.
Wildmon: For the next year or two, three years perhaps, in terms of the Christian community in this country that wants to defend natural marriage and believes in Romans 1 among other biblical verses that homosexuality is sin, are we going to be able to believe that teaching anymore without being hauled off to jail?
Perkins: Well you certainly can believe it. I do think there is coming a choice, whether or not that happens immediately, that we have to choose between not only believing scripture but living according to it and being prosecuted by our government, the time frame in which that happens I’m not certain. But clearly we’re already saying those who hold to a biblical view of morality are being marginalized and stigmatized with the intention of silencing them in the public square. It’s going to be a clear and present danger to the freedom of speech and the freedom of religion in our country.
Columnist Mychal Massie is convinced President Obama is turning kids into gay street thugs through public school brainwashing…and it probably goes without saying that the venue he has chosen to publicize this revelation is WorldNetDaily. In his column, Massie compares Obama to “the serpent that beguiled Eve in the Garden” and one of the snakes Saint Patrick drove out of Ireland, before pouncing on the bogus claim that Obama made comments attacking parochial schools while visiting Northern Ireland.
“True to his petulant, narcissistic sociopathy, he chose to lash out at the Catholic Church,” Massie writes, adding that “Obama would rather have children from grades K through 5 to grow up with instruction about homosexuality” and learn “about abortion and birth control devices.”
Besides learning about homosexuality and abortion, according to Massie, kids won’t learn much else in Obama’s schools: “He wants children to grow up in failing schools with poorly educated teachers providing even less instruction than they themselves had received…. Having children brainwashed into believing they’re homosexuals and lesbians, emulating street thugs and graduating from high school with minimal reading, math and comprehension skills is not what we want for our progeny.”
Saint Patrick may have been recognized for driving the snakes out of Ireland, but this past week one of them slithered back in. Obama is the personification of an elapid that is now without the appendages some believe the serpent that beguiled Eve in the Garden had possessed before it was made to slither upon the ground. That said, he has not shed the character of the personage incarnate in that first serpent.
But Obama sees Catholic schools as the bane to social stability and antagonistic toward his worldview and social order. He said, “If towns remain divided – if Catholics have their schools and Protestants have theirs, if we can’t see ourselves in one another and fear or resentment are allowed to harden – that too encourages division and discourages cooperation.”
I am convinced that his words were carefully chosen and intended to undermine the authority of the Catholic Church while providing him a thin veneer of deniability.
Obama is deeply resentful of the stand the Catholic Church has taken against his health-care legislation. And true to his petulant, narcissistic sociopathy, he chose to lash out at the Catholic Church before the audience he did.
Obama had his educational purview shaped by the Marxist pedophile Frank Marshall Davis, Saul Alinsky and Jeremiah Wright. That does not mean we should allow his views to corrupt ours.
Catholic-school education remains one of the finest educations children can receive. I applaud the verbiage of the archbishop when he said, “Catholic education provides young people with a wonderful opportunity to grow up with Jesus.” Obama would rather have children from grades K through 5 to grow up with instruction about homosexuality. He would rather have children grow up as his daughters (according to the words from his mouth), learning about abortion and birth control devices. He wants children to grow up in failing schools with poorly educated teachers providing even less instruction than they themselves had received.
But for those of us who believe that the Word of God is final and that Christ-centered education is critical, the words of the Apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:33 are undeniable truth. Paul wrote, “Be not deceived: evil company corrupts good morals.” Having children brainwashed into believing they’re homosexuals and lesbians, emulating street thugs and graduating from high school with minimal reading, math and comprehension skills is not what we want for our progeny.
Just when we thought we were done hearing Nazi comparisons today, Pat Buchanan is now arguing that the new military policy opening up combat and special unit roles to women is so wrong that even the Nazis wouldn’t have considered it. In his column, “The Pentagon’s Surrender to Feminism,” Buchanan argues that “even the Third Reich in its dying hours did not send women into battle.”
He writes that putting women in combat positions “violate[s] common sense” and “thousands of years” of human civilization, even insisting that “the Pentagon’s salute to feminist ideology” will encourage rape and displace men. He also cites mass murderers and violent criminals to prove his point that “men are bigger, stronger [and] more aggressive” than women.
This decision to put women in combat represents a capitulation of the military brass, a surrender to the spirit of our age, the Pentagon’s salute to feminist ideology.
This is not a decision at which soldiers arrived when they studied after-action reports, but the product of an ideology that contradicts human nature, human experience and human history, and declares as dogma that women are just as good at soldiering as men.
But if this were true, rather than merely asserted, would it have taken mankind the thousands of years from Thermopylae to discover it?
In the history of civilization, men have fought the wars. In civilized societies, attacks on women have always been regarded as contemptible and cowardly. Even the Third Reich in its dying hours did not send women into battle, but old men and boys.
Sending women into combat on equal terms seems also to violate common sense. When they reach maturity, men are bigger, stronger, more aggressive. Thus they commit many times the number of violent crimes and outnumber women in prisons 10 to 1.
For every Bonnie Parker, there are 10 Clyde Barrows.
Is it a coincidence that every massacre discussed in our gun debate – from the Texas Tower to the Long Island Railroad, from Columbine to Fort Hood, from Virginia Tech to Tucson, from Aurora to Newtown – was the work of a crazed male?
Undeniably, some women might handle combat as well as some men. But that is true of some 13-, 14- and 15-year-old boys, and some 50- and 60-year old men. Yet we do not draft boys or men that age or send them into combat. Is this invidious discrimination based on age, or ageism?
Carry this feminist-egalitarian ideology to its logical conclusion, and half of those storming the Omaha and Utah beaches should have been girls and women. Is this not an absurdity?
We have had Navy ships become “love boats,” with female sailors returning pregnant. At the Naval Academy, three midshipmen, football players, allegedly raped an intoxicated classmate. For months, she was too ashamed and frightened to report it.
An estimated 26,000 personnel of the armed forces were sexually assaulted in 2011, up from 19,000 in 2010. Obama and the Congress are understandably outraged. Such assaults are appalling. But is not the practice of forcing young men and women together in close quarters a contributory factor here?
Among the primary reasons the Equal Rights Amendment, the ERA, went down to defeat three decades ago was the realization it could mean, in a future war, women could be drafted equally with men and sent in equal numbers into combat.
But what appalled the Reaganites is social progress in the age of Obama. This is another country from the one we grew up in.
On the Family Research Council’s Washington Watch last night, Rep. John Fleming (R.-LA) weighed in on the pending Supreme Court decisions on marriage equality. Fleming likened gay marriage to marriage between a U.S. citizen and a foreigner, claiming that federal recognition of gay marriage would cause straight people to enter into same-sex marriages for practical benefits. Same-sex marriages would then have to be questioned to determine if they were “done for convenience” or as the result of a bribe. Host Tony Perkins added that gay marriage would never be legitimate, because there is no way to “verify” the validity of the couple.
Fleming: But you know, it’s interesting. Humans can be very innovative sometimes and I can actually see where two people of the same sex, even who are not themselves homosexual in any way, could find a way to get married just for the purpose of sharing those benefits and only for practical reasons. So you can see the ramifications if the Supreme Court comes out and allows that.
Perkins: No question about it. And there’s no way to necessarily verify that. What you can then set up is a case where you discriminate against couples who are in some jurisdictions, because if they move their marriage is not recognized. And they could then be treated in a way that’s different than heterosexual couples that are cohabitating. It’s a mess once you go down this path.
Fleming: It is. It would be similar to marrying someone from a foreign country. Is it done for convenience? Did someone pay somebody to be married? I mean you can see how the whole institution of marriage could be demeaned. It could certainly be reduced in its importance and taken off the lofty place that we now hold marriage.
Fleming also said that fathers are being “marginalized” as a result of the decline of the traditional family. He stated that “fathers have a less and less important role in procreation now,” although the biology behind that last point was a little unclear.
Perkins: There’s really an alarming rate of fatherlessness in America. And we’re beginning to see the consequences of that as we’ve moved away from that normative definition of what marriage and family has been and should be.
Fleming: No question, Tony. The long term trend over the last three decades is to marginalize fathers. Fathers have a less and less important role in procreation now, in rearing children, in providing for families. Even in many cases, even when they’re actually in the marriage and they exist as a father, oftentimes being marginalized in their importance there. So it’s an alarming cultural direction.
Congressman and US Senate candidate Paul Broun (R-GA) told conservative talk show host Steve Malzberg yesterday that comprehensive immigration reform “will destroy our country” and “destroy our constitution and limited government.”
Broun agreed with Malzberg’s claim that Republicans “will never win another election” if a reform bill passes because liberal groups won’t ever be satisfied with the law and “the CBO says 40 more million immigrants in twenty years, 95 percent of them are going to vote Democrat; to me it’s political suicide.”
“You’ve got that just absolutely correct,” Broun said, “I don’t understand why Republicans are embracing this.”