October 2009

You'd think that with a name like Concerned Women for America, the group would be concerned about women and their health and support efforts to inform women on the proper way to conduct regular breast exams.

But you'd be wrong, because that is what the Washington, DC ABC affiliate tried to do yesterday with this report entitled "Touch of Life: The Guide to Self-Breast Examination" in which they showed a woman giving herself such an exam.  As ABC explained: 

We are about to teach you how to potentially save your life by showing a full breast examination.  Our very brave volunteer is unclothed so that a doctor can show both her and you the proper way to catch breast cancer. In all of our reporting, we were amazed to find the vast majority of women had no idea how to do a breast exam, when to do it, and how often they should do it." 

CWA's Wendy Wright was outraged,accusing ABC of exploiting women and using nudity to bolster its ratings during "sweeps":

"It could be done on a model or mannequin. It can be done through diagrams. & This is exploiting women in order to exploit the audience," said Wendy Wright of Concerned Women for America, a conservative group that promotes biblical values. "It's pretty clear that there's one point in doing this, and that is to try and increase their ratings."

You have to hand it to Alan Colmes.  Even though I spend my days wallowing in right-wing insanity for this blog, I don't know that I could tolerate the prospect of actually debating any of the people we write about, but Colmes does it day in and day out.

Case in point: his interview last night with Randall Terry about his "Pelosi and Reed Should Burn in Hell" contest.  Terry insisted the contest was "somewhat tongue and cheek" but when the conversation turned toward the issue of covering reproductive health needs in heathcare reform, Colmes informed Terry that Focus on the Family provides its employees health insurance through Principal, an insurance company that covers "abortion services," Terry was shocked by the news and said he'd be contacting James Dobson about it.  So it looks like Focus on the Family ought to be expecting a visit from Terry and his theater troop in the near future.

Perhaps the most interesting exchange came when Colmes asked Terry is he had any sympathy for Scott Roeder, the man accused of killing Dr. George Tiller and Terry went silent, saying he'd never thought about it.  Eventually, Terry suggested that his views on Roeder's alleged actions depended on whether he acted in order to stop Tiller from carrying out more abortions and thereby saving babies or whether he acted in order to punish Tiller for his past abortion procedures.  The latter, Terry seemed to suggest, was completely different from the former and Roeder's actions should be judged accordingly. 

But in the end, the one person for whom Terry has no sympathy at all was Tiller himself, whom Terry called "one of the most evil, damnable, demonic men on the planet, every bit as vile as the worst Nazis" and a "son of a bitch who deserved to rot in hell":

This video and post by David Neiwert of Pat Robertson blasting the inclusion of protections for "sexual orientation" in federal hate crimes legislation tells you pretty much everything you need to know about the Religious Right's fundamental ignorance about the issue:

Then, of course, there's the Religious Right, which is holding its collective breath and pouting over the event. Case in point: Pat Robertson at The 700 Club, ripping into the new law both yesterday and today on his show.

His basis for opposing the law, however, is completely detached from reality. For instance, Robertson argues:

Robertson: You know, there’s a law – what about a law that says it’s a federal crime to attack somebody because of his religious beliefs? Not a chance!

Robertson seems completely unaware that in fact religious bias is one of the categories of bias crime covered by hate-crime laws -- and it has been from the very start, since these laws were first enacted on the state level in the early 1980s!

I had made this point time and time and time and time and time again and just assumed that the Religious Right leaders and activists were simply lying about this basic point ... but apparently they are genuinely ignorant of the fact that there already is a law "that says it’s a federal crime to attack somebody because of his religious beliefs." 

And yet people still continue to take the Right's claims seriously.  Amazing.

• Things just keep getting worse for Orly Taitz.
• Towleroad: National Organization for Marriage Loses Effort to Keep Names of Donors Disclosed in Maine.
• David Neiwert: The Judge Chen Smear: O'Reilly and Crowley aghast anyone might think the forces of nativism are alive in America.
• A telling blast from CWA's past.
• So much for the Tea Party flashmob.
• Finally, what is the deal with South Carolina Republicans?

The San Francisco Chronicle has a telling quote about the influence that national Religious Right groups are having on the battle over marriage equality on the ground in Maine:

In Orrington, population 3,526, Ken Graves worked as a lumberjack for nine years after he started Calvary Chapel near Bangor. Twenty-five years later, the 47-year-old still sports a woodsman's thick arms and tough hands as he towers over an evangelical congregation of 1,500, one of Maine's largest.

Last week, Graves stood on the bank of the nearby Penobscot River clad in a red flannel shirt, where he and a videographer filmed a 30-second ad in favor of Question 1. He'll pay "a few thousand dollars" to air it locally.

"What got me is how the homosexual community being portrayed in this campaign is a gross misrepresentation of how it really is," Graves said. "You see these commercials of two happy moms, or two happy dads and happy siblings - when in fact they are not happy families. They are depressed."

He acknowledged that he doesn't know any gay families, saying he relies on the Family Research Council, a conservative think tank that finds homosexuality "harmful to the persons who engage in it and to society at large," and Focus on the Family, a group that helps people "overcome" gay attractions.

Update: Here is the commercial Graves' shot, via Good As You:

So explains Kimberly Daniels in this piece posted on Pat Robertson's CBN Website:

During Halloween, time-released curses are always loosed. A time-released curse is a period that has been set aside to release demonic activity and to ensnare souls in great measure ... During this period demons are assigned against those who participate in the rituals and festivities. These demons are automatically drawn to the fetishes that open doors for them to come into the lives of human beings. For example, most of the candy sold during this season has been dedicated and prayed over by witches.

I do not buy candy during the Halloween season. Curses are sent through the tricks and treats of the innocent whether they get it by going door to door or by purchasing it from the local grocery store. The demons cannot tell the difference.

Even the colors of Halloween (orange, brown and dark red) are dedicated. These colors are connected to the fall equinox, which is around the 20th or 21st of September each year and is sometimes called "Mabon." During this season witches are celebrating the changing of the seasons from summer to fall. They give praise to the gods for the demonic harvest. They pray to the gods of the elements (air, fire, water and earth).

Mother earth is highly celebrated during the fall demonic harvest. Witches praise mother earth by bringing her fruits, nuts and herbs. Demons are loosed during these acts of worship. When nice church folk lay out their pumpkins on the church lawn, fill their baskets with nuts and herbs, and fire up their bonfires, the demons get busy. They have no respect for the church grounds. They respect only the sacrifice and do not care if it comes from believers or non-believers. 

... 

Halloween is much more than a holiday filled with fun and tricks or treats. It is a time for the gathering of evil that masquerades behind the fictitious characters of Dracula, werewolves, mummies and witches on brooms. The truth is that these demons that have been presented as scary cartoons actually exist. I have prayed for witches who are addicted to drinking blood and howling at the moon.

While the lukewarm and ignorant think of these customs as "just harmless fun," the vortexes of hell are releasing new assignments against souls. Witches take pride in laughing at the ignorance of natural men (those who ignore the spirit realm).

Decorating buildings with Halloween scenes, dressing up for parties, going door-to-door for candy, standing around bonfires and highlighting pumpkin patches are all acts rooted in entertaining familiar spirits. All these activities are demonic and have occult roots.

The word "occult" means "secret." The danger of Halloween is not in the scary things we see but in the secret, wicked, cruel activities that go on behind the scenes. These activities include:

• Sex with demons
• Orgies between animals and humans
• Animal and human sacrifices
• Sacrificing babies to shed innocent blood
• Rape and molestation of adults, children and babies
• Revel nights
• Conjuring of demons and casting of spells
• Release of "time-released" curses against the innocent and the ignorant.

UPDATE: CBN has yanked the article off its website, but you can get the cached page here and the article is also posted on Charisma.

Randall Terry's latest antics have had the desired effect - he's gotten himself arrested and then immediately issued a press release about it:

3 pro-life advocates were arrested this morning at the unveiling of the House Democratic Caucus's health care bill. They shouted "Nancy Pelosi you will burn in hell for this!" and "We won't pay for murder!" No warning was given before the arrests.

Who: Randall Terry; Dick Retta, and Joan McKee were arrested.

When: Thursday, Oct 29, 10:30 A.M.

Where: Capitol Hill

After lobbying and performing skits this morning in front of the Cannon Office Building, 10 pro-lifers (two dressed as Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid burning in hell and three dressed as hellish demons) attended the unveiling of the House Democratic Caucus's health care bill. Three (Randall Terry, Dick Retta, and Joan McKee) were arrested for shouting, "Nancy Pelosi you will burn in hell for this!" and "We won't pay for murder!" No warning was issued before the arrests.

Mr. Randall Terry, responds:

"Hoyer says he wants 'rational discussion.' How can you talk rationally with someone who wants us to pay for ripping unborn babies limb from limb with tax money?

"Pelosi, Reid, and Hoyer are lying to us. If child-killing wont be funded, why are Hatch's amendments defeated? Why is Pelosi trying to keep debate off the House Floor? Because they are lying -- child-killing is a key part of this legislation."

I knew that the Right had gone all-in behind Doug Hoffman's campaign in the special election in New York's 23rd congressional district, but I didn't realize how complete this mobilization was until I took a look at his endorsement list - it reads like a list of the top individuals and organizations we track on this blog:

Fred Thompson
Club For Growth
Concerned Women for America
Susan B. Anthony List
American Conservative Union
Citizens United Political Victory Fund
Campaign for Working Families
NYS Right to Life PAC
Government Is Not God-PAC
Conservative Victory Fund
Eagle Forum
National Organization for Marriage
America's Independent Party
Dick Armey
Steve Forbes
Sarah Palin
Rick Santorum
U.S. Representative Todd Tiahrt (R-Kansas)
James Dobson, PhD
Tim Pawlenty
Jim Demint
National Conservative Fund
Gun Owners of American-PVF
Life and Liberty PAC
Minuteman PAC
Congressman Jeff Flake - AZ
Family Research Council PAC
Freedom First PAC
Congressman Steve King - IA

Update: See this letter from the National Conservative Campaign Fund for even more evidence of Hoffman's right-wing support.

• Pam's House Blend: Peter LaBarbera's anti-gay 'rally' at Maine statehouse draws feeble numbers.
• Alan Colmes: eBay Refuses Fundraiser For Accused Tiller Killer.
• Sarah Posner is now writing for Religion Dispatches' "The Devil's Advocate" blog. Adjust your bookmarks and RSS feeds accordingly.
• Truth Wins Out: Liberty Counsel Defends Qaddafist’s Support for Global Imprisonment of Gays.
• Oliver North is now a Republican foreign policy advisor? Amazing.
• Finally, Political Research Associates Calls on Rick Warren to Denounce Proposed Antigay Law in Uganda.

Amy Sullivan asks a question that I had recently been wondering about - Does Focus on the Family Fund Abortions?:

A few weeks ago, I wrote about the fungibility argument that many pro-life groups and politicians have employed to oppose health reform. The problem, they say, is that if any insurance plan that covers abortion is allowed to participate in a public exchange, then premiums paid to that plan in the form of taxpayer-funded subsidies help support that abortion coverage even if individual abortion procedures are paid for out of a separate pool of privately-paid premium dollars. You can debate about whether it makes sense to use this strict standard, but that's the argument.

But are those pro-life organizations holding themselves to the same strict standard? As it happens, Focus on the Family provides its employees health insurance through Principal, an insurance company that covers "abortion services." A Focus spokeswoman confirmed the fact that the organization pays premiums to Principal, but declined to comment on whether that amounts to an indirect funding of abortion.

Even if the specific plan Focus uses for its employees doesn't include abortion coverage--and I'm assuming it doesn't--the organization and its employees still pay premiums to a company that funds abortions. If health reform proposals have a fungibility problem, then Focus does as well. And if they don't think they do have a fungibility problem, then it would be interesting to hear why they think the set-up proposed in health reform legislation is so untenable.

Randall Terry is up to his old tricks, carrying out absurd protests in an effort to generate media attention for himself - and it's working:

Anti-abortion activist Randall Terry is calling on people to burn effigies of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid this Halloween, as part of a "Burn in Hell" video contest to protest the health care legislation in Congress.

Terry, founder of Operation Rescue, said Tuesday that the contest serves as a political and spiritual statement that "gives people a chance to peacefully vent their rage."

"If Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid force us to pay for child killing and they die unrepentant, they will burn in hell for this," Terry said in a telephone interview.

OneNewsNow also interviewed Terry and asked him if he was concerned that his contest "could be seen as a promotion of violence against elected leaders or pro abortionists" ... and Terry doesn't appear concerned about it one bit:

"I don't want to be a wussy on the sidelines saying, 'Oh, we're just here to educate people and we want to all get along and we want to all respect each other's [opinions],'" he replies. The activist describes that approach using a derogatory phrase, and further concludes saying, "I don't respect the opinions of child killers. It's a damnable, disgusting act of murder."

...

With the recent murder of Kansas abortionist George Tiller and the pending passage of hate crimes legislation, OneNewsNow asked Terry if there was a less controversial way to get the point across -- a way that would not be construed as promoting physical violence. "I'm way more concerned about the pro-lifer who was assassinated outside of a school in Michigan -- Jim Pouillon," was his reply to the suggestion.

Tiller was murdered in church by an anti-choice fanatic who has since become a hero to radical anti-abortion activists, while Pouillon was killed back in September by a man who went on a killing spree and was initially determined to be mentally incompetent to stand trial and now plans an insanity defense in his upcoming murder trial.

But Terry is "way more concerned" about random acts of violence that happen to anti-choice activists than he is about the targeted assassination of reproductive health providers or Democratic members of Congress.

President Obama hasn't even signed the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act yet, but right-wing activists are already "challenging" it ... or at least their warped version of it.

Here is the Christian Anti-Defamation Commission vowing to defy the legislation:

"The fact the hate bill had to be passed in such an unscrupulous and cynical manner (attaching it to the Defense Authorization Act) reveals the depth of President Obama's commitment to a radical, anti-Christian agenda. He will stop at nothing to undermine the will of the majority of Americans to pay back militant homosexual activists who raised millions of dollars for his campaign and worked to get him elected."

"To sign the bill in the Rose Garden is another slap in the face and shows the level of contempt President Obama has for the majority of Americans who oppose the "homosexualization" of marriage and public education."

"The Christian Anti-Defamation Commission will soon be announcing its plans, along with other leading pro-family groups, to defy, counter and challenge this unconstitutional attack on our religious liberty."

And here is Gordon Klingenschmitt daring Obama to prosecute him:

In other words, A) pastors may quote the Bible publicly if their "intention" is the free exercise of religion or speech, but B) pastors may not quote the Bible publicly if their "intention" is to conspire with listeners to commit an act of violence. This begs the question, if the pastor never announces whether the unspoken "intention" of his heart is A or B, how can any prosecutor, judge, or jury know whether the pastor's secret thoughts intended A) free exercise or B) conspiracy? Without revealing the secret intention of my own heart, whether A or B, I hereby publicly quote both Romans 1:32 and Leviticus 20:13:

Romans 1:32 -- "Men with men working that which is unseemly...who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death."

Leviticus 20:13 -- "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."

I further invite President Barack Obama, as the chief law enforcement official of America, to discern the secret thoughts and intentions of my heart, and to prosecute me for conspiracy or inciting the violent crimes of others who might read my words and act upon them, if he dares to think he knows or can prove my motives were not pursuant to the free exercise of religion or speech.

Of course, neither CADC or Klingenschmitt nor anybody else is going to be prosecuted for speaking out or "defying" this and they know it.  After all, the legislation expressly protects free speech and religious freedom:

(4) FREE EXPRESSION- Nothing in this division shall be construed to allow prosecution based solely upon an individual's expression of racial, religious, political, or other beliefs or solely upon an individual's membership in a group advocating or espousing such beliefs.

(5) FIRST AMENDMENT- Nothing in this division, or an amendment made by this division, shall be construed to diminish any rights under the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

(6) CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTIONS- Nothing in this division shall be construed to prohibit any constitutionally protected speech, expressive conduct or activities (regardless of whether compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief), including the exercise of religion protected by the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States and peaceful picketing or demonstration. The Constitution of the United States does not protect speech, conduct or activities consisting of planning for, conspiring to commit, or committing an act of violence.

But just because the legislation poses no threat to their religious freedom or right to free speech, amazingly that is not going to stop some on the Right from trying to use the legislation to turn paint themselves as martyrs.

• Focus on the Family: Hate crimes legislation is the sound "of your religious liberty being flushed down the toilet."
• Will Gov. Mark Sanford avoid impeachment?
• The right-wing campaign against the movie "Hounddog" continues.
• Richard Land submitted written testimony to the D.C. Board of Elections and Ethics warning that "legalizing same-sex marriage is certain to counteract the positive social attributes of traditional marriage, by leading to fewer marriages and more divorces."
• Randall Terry's latest antics have succeeded in generating press coverage once again.
• Finally, who wants to go cruising with Ralph Reed, Grover Norquist, and Newsmax? Anyone?

Yesterday, I wrote a post taking issue with right-wing outlets that were claiming that people were giving Matt Barber's new book, "The Right Hook: From The Ring To The Culture War," negative reviews without have read it, claiming that the book isn't even going to be released until next week.

As I noted, I already received a copy that I ordered from Amazon last week.  But now that I've started to read it, I made an interesting discovery: namely, that anybody who has read his columns doesn't need to actually read the book before they review it ... because they have literally already read it, since the book consists entirely of his republished columns! 

Nowhere on the publisher's website or the Amazon page is there any sort of disclaimer that this "book" is really just a collection of Barber's past columns.  Had that been made clear, I certainly would have saved myself the $32.00 I spent on this bound edition of his inane columns.

So, to save prevent anyone else who was thinking of buying this "book" from getting conned and ripped-off, here is the entire Barber book in links:

Yesterday, the Washington D.C. City Council spent hours listening to hundreds of people testify for and against the plans to pass marriage equality.

Seemingly, no DC Council meeting on this issue would be complete with at least one out-of-control witness ranting about the evils of homosexuality and its assault on God, and last night's hearing was no different:

• Think Progress: Uninformed Hannity Tries To Provoke Culture War Over NYC Subway Atheist Ads.
• Good As You provides a multi-part look at NOM, the biggest donor to the Yes on 1 campaign in Maine.
• Emptywheel: Mark Sanford Goes Galt.
• Joanna Brooks: Mormonism’s Black Issues.
• Alan Colmes: Anti-Abortionists Using E-Bay To Raise Funds For Tiller Killer.
• David Weigel: How To Burn Pelosi and Reid In Effigy.
• AMERICAblog: GOP candidate for AG in Virginia, Ken Cuccinelli, thinks "homosexual acts are wrong" and there should be "policies that reflect that."
• Raw Story: RNC keeps racist pics on Facebook for nearly a week:

Last week, David Barton spoke at at an event hosted by the South Dakota Family Policy Council.  Before the event, he sat down for an interview with The Dakota Voice during which this exchange took place:

Among all the people today pushing the revisionist picture of our history that most of the founders were deists, that America was not founded on Christian principles, how many of those do you believe are merely ignorant of the facts and are only parroting other misinformation they’ve heard, and how many actually know better and are intentionally trying to distort history?

I think there’s a lot of both. I was involved in writing an academic book with three other professors. They said there is no question that America’s founders weren’t religious, because Thomas Jefferson started the first secular university, wouldn’t allow chaplains and such. But I said that’s interesting because I have here the original ads for the University of Virginia that ran in the newspaper. The ads were signed by the chaplain and there were about nine or ten specific things Thomas Jefferson did to make sure every student had a religious activity. These professors were shocked and said, “That’s not what we were taught.” [Emphasis added.]

Three other professors? Considering that Barton's academic credentials consist entirely of a "B.A. from Oral Roberts University and an Honorary Doctorate of Letters from Pensacola Christian College," I'm a little confused as to how Barton managed to write a book with three other professors  since Barton is not, you know, actually a professor; he's a Religious Right activist.

Anyway, the conversation then turned toward the inevitable "how did conservative Christians lose control of America" question, for which Barton had a simple explanation - Darwin, prohibition, and Herbert Hoover:

I think we really goofed it up starting in the 1920s, and it was the church that did it ... I’ll point to several things. In 1859 you had the Origin of Species, and I don’t know why people think Darwin was the father of evolution because all he did was take 2,300 years of evolutionary thought and simplify it. But for the next 20 years the church had real trouble with that. In about 1879 you’ll find major splits in most denominations, and the splits started saying, “Well, we’re not sure about the Bible and science and the culture, but we do know God wants people saved so we’re going to go preach the Gospel.” The other side said, “No, the Bible is right; science will come around.” This side said the Bible is fundamental to everything in life: media, culture, science.

Following that you had three major political setbacks in the 1920s. Those setbacks start with the repeal of prohibition, which was a direct slap at the church. You have the Scopes “Monkey” Trial, which was the trial that essentially lost the war, the media beat the dickens out of us and made Christians look like dummies. And the third one was actually the election of Herbert Hoover. Christians like Billy Sunday campaigned all across America in whistle stop tours. Hoover gets elected, the depression comes, and the critics said, “Look what you Christians did; you caused the depression. You Christians need to stay out of politics.”

About that time we stared pulling our kids out of the pulpit, “Kids, you want to do something good for God? Be a pastor, be a missionary, but don’t be anything in education, law or politics. So we bailed out. So in bailing out, somebody has to fill those arenas, and they got filled.

There are really five power centers in any culture, and we gave up for and a half of them. We gave up media and entertainment, we gave up government which is the judiciary and law, we gave up education, and we gave up business. What we still had left was pulpit, and we essentially gave up half of that. We’ve taken the Great Commission to be a mandate for salvation, when the Great Commission says to teach them everything I taught you. Jesus has economic teachings, he has social teachings, government teachings, but we don’t do that.

But getting any institution back takes 30 or 40 years, and that’s where we are now.

Over the last few days, we've seen articles cropping up on right-wing news sites claiming that people have been "fraudulently" reviewing Matt Barber's new book, "The Right Hook: From The Ring To The Culture War" without having read it. 

Both WorldNetDaily and OneNewsNow have run these articles recently:

Reviewers are being highly critical of a book on the culture war -- a book they couldn't possibly have read yet.

The book entitled The Right Hook - From the Ring to the Culture War is authored by Matt Barber, who is well known for his analysis of the homosexual agenda. Although the book is on Amazon.com, it will not be available until November ... "The homosexual activist blog has turned people loose doing fraudulent reviews, negative one-star reviews of my book, ostensibly to try to discourage people from buying the book and reading it," reports Barber.

According to the author, this is taking place even though the book is one they could not have read in advance.

Well, I ordered the book from Amazon late last week ... and guess what just showed up in my mail today:

One interesting thing to note is that while the publisher's website contains a glowing blurb for Barber's book from Mike Huckabee, the blurb from him does not appear anywhere on the book jacket itself, though it does contain blurbs from other right-wing leaders like Tom DeLay, Newt Gingrich, Joseph Farah, and Mat Staver.

Anyway, stick around for the next few days as I plow through Barber's book and bring you all the highlights.

Yesterday, Harry Jackson, leader of the anti-marriage equality effort in Washington, DC , hosted a "People's Rally" in Freedom Plaza.  The rally was backed by groups like the Family Research Council and the National Organization for Marriage and we were on hand as well.

Jackson declared that "we are on the verge, I believe, of taking back this city" and stated that he was "disgusted" by the lack of leadership in this fight, though he praised the Catholic Church and other religious leaders for joining in the effort, saying God had called them together for this fight because if they don't hang together, they will all hang separately.

Jackson also declared that this was not an anti-gay effort, but rather an effort to protect children from the redefinition of marriage and the family in order to prevent them from being taught that "Heather has two mommies" and "things of that magnitude from people they don't even know."

Jackson concluded by saying that marriage-equality is not a civil rights issue, because the only things that quality as civil rights issues are income, education, health care, housing, and justice, announcing that he was starting a 21 day fast because "we are in a David and Goliath situation" against the DC City Council which is "out of control" before declaring that "God is going to do a miracle among us":

Last week I wrote a post based on Dan Gilgoff's article about efforts by Mat Staver and Samuel Rodriguez to moderate the Religious Right's position on immigration reform, noting that both were members of the Freedom Federation, which contains groups like the Eagle Forum who have been vehemently opposed to such reform in the past.

Now, Gilgoff has followed-up on this topic and appears as if Staver truly intends to try and get the Freedom Federation and its members to change their position on this issue:

"There was this rhetoric in the last immigration debate that was, frankly, harsh," says Mathew Staver, dean of the law school at Liberty University, founded by the late Jerry Falwell. "We need to understand that we are still a nation of immigrants, and we need to bring people out of the shadows and make them legal."

Staver, who is leading the effort to bring conservative evangelicals and other religious conservatives on board for comprehensive immigration reform, says he's motivated by biblical principles regarding the treatment of foreigners and by a desire to build bridges between the "pro-family" movement and growing ethnic constituencies. But the campaign may wind up dividing religious conservatives, some of whom helped lead the charge against George W. Bush's failed attempt at comprehensive immigration reform in 2007.

...

Now, Staver is trying to build support among Freedom Federation members for comprehensive immigration reform. Part of his goal is to bring Hispanics into the conservative Christian political fold. "The future of the conservative movement is at stake in the debate about immigration reform," says the Rev. Samuel Rodriguez, president of the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference, who has been helping Staver lobby conservative evangelical leaders on immigration.

At a recent coalition meeting in Washington, Staver had former GOP presidential candidate Mike Huckabee discuss his immigration views, which have been criticized as soft by many conservatives, with dozens of representatives from religious conservative groups. "Huckabee was attacked in the presidential race because he didn't want to remove educational benefits for the children of illegal immigrants," Staver says. "But that's a biblical concept—you don't punish the child for what his parents did."

And it looks like Staver has his work cut out for him, as the Eagle Forum says it's not budging while other members are still making up their minds:

"Many of our members oppose comprehensive amnesty because of their faith," says Colleeen Holmes, executive director of Eagle Forum, the conservative group founded by Phyllis Schlafly. "But this is really about conservatism versus liberalism, and conservatism says you need rule of law." The Eagle Forum opposes a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants ... Some Freedom Federation members, however—like Eagle Forum—remain strongly opposed to comprehensive immigration reform. Others, like Family Research Council Action, are still determining their position.

Considering that many members of the Freedom Federation have openly opposed efforts at immigration reform in the past, Staver's effort to push this issue could end up causing a rift in the movement that, ironically, the Freedom Federation was created in order to heal.

• AMERICAblog: Maine's Catholic Church donations to anti-gay campaign top $550,000.
• Good As You: What did we ever do to Calvary Chapel?!?
• Why does Sean Hannity keep bringng Jesse Lee Peterson on his program?
• And why do people not named "Reagan" feel free to keep claiming the mantle of Reagan over people actually named "Reagan"?
• Finally, who started this "war"?

This probably won't be the end of this sorry saga, but it will at least get Rifqa Bary out of Florida and hopefully away from the likes of John Stemberger, the Florida Security Council, Blake and Beverly Lorenz, Lou Engle, and all the others who have sought to exploit this situation for their own purposes - from the Orlando Sentinel:

An Orange County judge ordered Ohio teen runaway Fathima Rifqa Bary back to that state, ending the 17-year-old girl's three-month stay in Florida as she battled her parents over her religious freedom and allegations of abuse.

Circuit Judge Daniel Dawson signed an order Friday afternoon asking the Florida Department of Children and Families to make arrangements to send Rifqa back to Ohio, where she is bound for a new stint with a foster family.

A DCF spokeswoman confirmed her agency received Dawson's ruling.

"This order indicates that the Court has relinquished its emergency jurisdiction and orders the Department to arrange the transportation of the child to the proper authorities with Franklin County Children Services in Ohio," spokeswoman Carrie Hoeppner said.

Hoeppner said DCF will not discuss details of Rifqa's transfer from a foster family in Central Florida to one in Ohio. She cited safety reasons.

Rifqa's private attorney, John Stemberger, has not returned phone calls seeking comment.

Reached by phone Friday afternoon, Rifqa's father, Mohamed Bary, was laughing and giddy during a brief conversation with the Orlando Sentinel. He declined comment, though, citing a gag order in the case.

The Orlando Sentinel got access to the two hour interview that Florida Department of Law Enforcement conducted with Rifqa Bary as part of its investigation in which Bary asserted that her father had beaten her and even had a marriage arranged for her back in Sri Lanka, but also provides some insights into how she ended up at the home of Blake and Beveryly Lorenz in Florida:

During the August interview, she answered several questions about how she got from her parents' home to Florida. She said she sneaked out about 7 a.m. on a Sunday, spent all day at a church and then spent the night with a family whose child went to school with her.

She hitchhiked to the Greyhound bus station, she said, although Florida authorities have reported that Brian Williams, the 20-something evangelical who baptized her, drove her to the bus station. In the interview, Rifqa said she met Williams through an anti-abortion group.

The bus ticket was bought for her by a married couple who belong to the Global Revolution Church in Florida, she said. They picked her up in Orlando and took her to stay with the Revs. Blake and Beverly Lorenz, pastors of the church.

Rifqa called her time with the Lorenzes "the best weeks of my life."

She said they paid for new clothes and decorated a room for her. "They loved me like a mother and father did."

A cheerful Rifqa described herself as a "Facebook fanatic," explaining how she'd met Beverly Lorenz and many other Christians willing to help her in online prayer groups. On Facebook, she goes by "Anna Michelle Matthew" to hide from her parents, she said.

On a related note, News 13 in Florida recently caught up with Lorenz who explained why they waited two weeks before notifying authorities of Bary's presence in their home, saying "we wanted to get to know her. We wanted to know if her story was true or not" and declaring that Bary represents the "new civil rights movement" in America: 

Lorenz is talking about the day a 16-year-old girl showed up at his doorstep, fearing for her safety.

His choice to take in the Ohio runaway would change his life and possibly the way we looked at religion in this country.

"In fact, I've had lawyers and others tell me this is the new civil rights movement for the 21st century in America," Lorenz said.

The Religious Right's willingness to blatantly lie about hate crimes legislation never ceases to amaze - from a recent American Family Association "Action Alert":

Such laws not only punish officially disapproved speech and thought, they create two tiers of victims. Under hate crimes laws, some victims get more protections than others, which violates the fundamental American principle of equality under the law.

In fact, such laws actively discriminate against heterosexual Christians who are victims of crime, since they will get less legal protection than homosexual victims.

So giving the same protection to gays as already exists for religion somehow lessens legal protections for Christians?

Sadly, now that the legislation is on its way to the President, this sort of hyperbolic lying will probably only increase.

• TPM: GOP Reps File Request With Sergeant At Arms For Muslim 'Intern Spy' Investigation.
• What on Earth is a "non-pro-freedom agenda"?
• Bob McDonnell lets out his inner right-winger at Liberty U.
• Nate Silver: Arguments Against Gay Marriage Literally Stop Making Sense.
• Joe.My.God: PhoboQuotable - Val Stevens.
• Finally, Glenn Beck And Dwight Schrute's Conspiracy About OnStar:

Via Good As You, we see that Lou Engle and The Call are focusing on Maine for 21 days of prayer and fasting in order to build a "stonewall" against marriage equality and "cry out to God for the state of Maine and lift the victory of the cross over every false ideology": 

Recently again, I have been challenged by the Lord in a profound way to raise up a wall of intercession to hold back the encroaching ideology. Ezekiel 22:30 says, "I looked for a man who would build up a wall, and stand in the gap before me". I have started to pray out of this scripture that God would begin to raise up a stonewall of intercession. Forty years after the stonewall riots, that many point to as the beginning of the homosexual revolution in America, we are calling for a spiritual stonewall to be raised up all across the nation. I've been asking God, "How do we build this stonewall?"

Recently, I was asked by national Christian leaders and pro-family leaders in Maine to call the whole state of Maine and all of New England to fast and pray for 21 days starting tomorrow October 14 through November 4th, election day. Maine will be voting on whether or not to legalize same-sex marriage. No state has of yet voted for same-sex marriage when the people themselves have gone to the polls. States that have legalized it have done it through the tyranny of courts and lobbyist pressured legislatures.

Maine is the next battlefield. Like California, there is a great mobilization effort on both sides. Prayer could be the winning blow. Daniel fasted 21-days and shifted the influence over the very kings of Persia partnering with the angelic realm (Daniel 10:12-14).

Therefore, we are calling for prayer and fasting across the nation for 21 days in another flashpoint stand of spiritual resistance. On October 14th (Daniel 10:12-14), let the Churches of America turn from their own personal compromise with sin and from an apathetic silence.

Let us cry out to God for the state of Maine and lift the victory of the cross over every false ideology. Then, let us cry out to God for a great awakening in Maine, New England, and the Nation without which I see no hope for America. There are no more tomorrows. For such a time as this we are to build a stonewall and stand in the gap.

Rick Santorum recently explained that President Obama is out to destroy both the family and the church in America, because doing so is the final step toward implementing his totalitarian socialist policies:

Both the family and the Church stand in the way of socialism's triumph, former US Senator Rick Santorum told Christians gathered for the 17th International Week of Prayer and Fasting last week. The pro-life champion warned attendees, however, that both institutions are under heavy attack from Obama-administration policies.

"We are under a great assault with this President and this Congress on the issue of life. We are under a great assault, maybe even greater assault, on the foundational issue of the family," Santorum told those gathered for the October 11 dinner at the Omni Shoreham Hotel.

Santorum said that the left's policies, especially those policies aggressively set forward by the Obama administration, target the family and Christian churches for "destruction," because these institutions provide local social networks and support for individuals that take away the need for total dependence on central government. To eliminate these social networks means the triumph of socialism, and that means attacking marriage and Christian churches.

"There will be an assault on the institution of marriage," Santorum promised his audience. "Why? Because the left knows that they can't really have government come in and take control of everything unless they destroy the family. Unless you destroy the family and destroy the Church they cannot ultimately be successful in getting socialism to be accepted in this country and that's what their objective is."

Santorum asked everyone to pray in these times for those in public office, for those discerning whether to run for office in 2010, as well as "for those who are out protesting and understand that there is something foundationally wrong with what's been going on here."

I know this shouldn't surprise me any more ... but the Right really has collectively lost its mind, hasn't it? 

Yesterday, Utah lawmakers spent two hours debating how to teach sex education in schools despite the fact that they didn't even have a bill to debate.   The proposed bill that would create two different tracks for sex education in Utah public schools - one that includes information about contraceptives, and one that teaches abstinence only - wasn't ready in time for the hearing, but that didn't stop Health and Human Services Committee Co-Chair Chris Buttars from holding the hearing anyway because he had already flown in a right-wing "expert" to testify against it:

[C]ommittee co-chairman Sen. Chris Buttars, R-West Jordan, said during the meeting he was not aware there was no bill to present. He said afterward he decided to hold the discussion anyway because he had already flown in psychiatrist and author Miriam Grossman to talk about the topic on his own dime.

Grossman spent about a half hour talking about how not enough scientific facts are included in sex education and how the national Planned Parenthood promotes what she considers to be high-risk sexual behavior among teens.

"The primary goals of these organizations is not to fight disease," Grossman said. "It is to create a society that tolerates, indeed celebrates, any kind of sexual activity."

Grossman, who bills herself as "100% MD and 0% PC," is affiliated with the Claire Booth Luce Policy Institute and is the author of two books: "You're Teaching My Child What? A Physician Exposes the Lies of Sex Education and How They Harm Your Child" and "Unprotected: A Campus Psychiatrist Reveals How Political Correctness Endangers Every Student." So it's not hard to see why someone like Buttars would use his own money to bring her in to testify.

But without an actual bill to debate, committee members ended up merely passing a motion on party lines that urges the legislature "to consider any person or organizations that promotes, recommends or teaches high-risk sexual behavior, Web sites, examples or talks" as inappropriate in public schools.  Because, as Buttars put it, while want our children to learn from knowledgeable people, the people who teach them about sex shouldn't be too knowledgeable: 

With no actual bill to debate, the discussion shifted to topics of morality. The group Planned Parenthood was accused of infiltrating schools to push their agenda. Nearly two hours into the debate, a surprise motion was proposed by Sen. David Hinkins, R-Emery County to "not consider any persons or organizations that promotes or recommends teaching extreme sexual acts."

"Are they being considered in the schools right now?" Sen. Pat Jones, D-Holladay, asked him. "I just want to know how this would change things?"

"I worry about using organizations in our public schools that have sites that go to these extreme measures," Rep. Chris Buttars, R-West Jordan, interjected. "There's got to be people that's knowledgeable that don't go that far."

Honestly, has the Family Research Council never received angry messages before?  It sure seems that way, given that they are highlighting this voicemail they recently received on their blog, in their Washington Update, and even in a stand alone press release:

I read about your, uh, homophobic comments, and I just gotta give you some advice. It's not a good idea to be, uh, an intolerant bigot s*****g. Uh, because, you know, you reap what you sow and when you start spreadin' hate against other people, that's exactly what you're gonna get back. And, you know, who knows what effect that could have on you, or your family, or your office, you know, on G Street? Uh, just a bit of advice for ya. You should really learn, really-stop bein' such a redneck piece of ****.

Granted, that is not a very nice message and it even seems to contain a vague threat, but if FRC thinks that is bad, they ought to see some of the messages we get here at RWW.  And frankly the messages we get here don't even begin to compare to the hate directed at groups like ACORN:

Hi, I was just calling to let you all know that Barack Obama needs to get hung. He's a f*****g n****r, and he's a piece of s**t. You guys are fraudulent, and you need to go to hell. All the n*****s on oak trees. They're gonna get all hung honeys, they're gonna get assassinated, they're gonna get killed.

If FRC feels the message it received constituted a threat, they should contact the authorities.  But they really ought to stop acting as if getting hate messages is uncommon or as if they are the only group receiving such messages.

• Ralph Reed and Tim Pawlenty: BFF.
• Mitt Romney will appear at a fundraiser for Sen. Jim DeMint next week.
• Tony Perkins has endorsed Gov. Rick Perry.
• Bob McDonnell spoke yesterday at Liberty University's convocation.
• Finally, you know what FRC? You are not the only ones who get hate messages.

Dan Gilgoff reports that efforts are underway to get religious conservatives on board efforts to reform the nation's immigration laws:

Many of the same faith-based groups attacking Obama and the Democrats over healthcare reform's abortion provisions, including the National Association of Evangelicals, the Southern Baptist Convention, and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, are poised to become major players in the president's coming push for comprehensive immigration reform, which would include a path to citizenship for many illegal immigrants. "There is a strong biblical teaching about showing hospitality to the stranger and the alien," says [Galen Carey, chief lobbyist for the National Association of Evangelicals.]

...

The shift follows an intensive effort by Latino evangelical leaders to lobby their white evangelical counterparts. "My stump speech is that this is not amnesty and that this is a biblical issue," says the Rev. Samuel Rodriguez, president of the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference. "If you are a devout follower of Christ, you have to support immigration reform." In the years since the last national debate on immigration reform, Rodriguez has met with white evangelical opinion makers like NAE President Leith Anderson and former presidential candidate Mike Huckabee. "This is the same constituency Glenn Beck is appealing to," says Rodriguez.

White evangelical leaders have also been influenced by their increasingly Latino congregations. Though nearly 70 percent of Hispanics in the United States are Roman Catholic, Hispanic evangelicals and Pentecostals are among the nation's fastest-growing religious groups. And politically speaking, conservative evangelical activists see Hispanics, who are generally conservative on issues like abortion and gay marriage, as potential allies. "The only thing that can turn them against us is if they are made to feel unwelcome in social conservative circles," says Richard Land, the Southern Baptist Convention's public policy chief.

In an attempt to get Christian-right groups to back comprehensive immigration reform, Rodriguez is working with the dean of the Liberty University's Law School, founded by the Rev. Jerry Falwell, on an immigration summit for conservatives. "The conservative wing of the Republican Party has to understand that it's impossible to win a national election without Hispanics," says Rodriguez. "And it's impossible to win Hispanics without immigration reform."

Frankly, I don't see that any of these developments will do much to influence the overall right-wing opposition to immigration reform, or move the Religious Right at all.

Richard Land has long been something of an outlier on this issue and the recent National Association of Evangelicals' unanimous resolution backing comprehensive immigration reform is already being attacked by Religious Right groups like the Institute on Religion and Democracy, which blasted the NAE for "adopting political stances in God's name and without consideration for their own churches' members."

The one interesting thing is Rodriguez's plans to host an immigration summit with Mat Staver, dean of the Liberty Law School, as both are members of the Freedom Federation, the new right-wing supergroup.

As we pointed out last month, Rodriguez recently began pushing to ensure that healthcare reform contained coverage for those in the country illegally, which is a position that would not go over well with several other members of the Freedom Federation.

If Staver and Rodriguez do start pushing for immigration reform, one would expect that such an effort would ultimately create a lot of tension within the Freedom Federation coalition itself, which could end up undermining the coalition's very reason for existing, considering that it was created specifically in order to unify the Religious Right.

Now that Pat Robertson' heart surgery was a success, he can get back to doing what he does best: making ridiculous statements on the 700 Club.  His latest is that gays don't want to get married, they just want destroy marriage and the nation's moral values:

I have to say that I never thought I would see the day when Janet Porter and Louis Farrakhan were in agreement on anything, but apparently they are both convinced that the swine flu vaccine is part of a plot to kill millions of Americans:

Nation of Islam leader Minister Louis Farrakhan told an audience in Memphis he believes the H1N1 flu vaccine was developed to kill people, a witness said.

Farrakhan, 76, spoke for nearly three hours Sunday at a gathering to observe the religious group's Holy Day of Atonement, which also marked the 14th anniversary of the Million Man March in Washington, the (Memphis) Commercial Appeal reported, citing a source who attended the speech.

"The Earth can't take 6.5 billion people. We just can't feed that many. So what are you going to do? Kill as many as you can. We have to develop a science that kills them and makes it look as though they died from some disease," Farrakhan said, adding that many wise people won't take the vaccine.

"The black community has become toxic and must cleanse and restore peace from within," Farrakhan said.

Via Joe My God.

I guess we shouldn't really be surprised that Andy Schlafly's Conservapedia effort to re-translate the Bible to adhere to their right-wing cultural and political agenda would lead to changes things like this:

Schlafly, the son of national political activist Phyllis Schlafly, says a conservative Bible should be masculine, for example, using the words mankind and man rather than more inclusive language. It also should shun terms like laborer or comrade. It also should put a free market spin on the sayings of Jesus.

Take Mark 10:25, where the King James Version says, "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God." Liberals have used that passage to attack the wealthy, Schlafly said. The Conservative Bible substitutes "a man who cares only for money" for rich man.

"I don't think Jesus is saying, 'Let's all be lazy so we can get to heaven.' That's not the message. And, if you translate the word rich as simply rich, some people are going to get the message that 'I am going to be lazy so I can get to heaven easier,' " said Schlafly, who graduated from Princeton University with a bachelor's degree in electrical engineering and computer science and from Harvard Law School as an attorney, according to his Web site.

...

Schlafly also removed an edit suggesting that liberals conspired to have Jesus killed, by substituting the word liberal for the word Pharisee.

"The possibility that Pharisees, which is a term that's not familiar to most of us, could be better translated as liberal is intriguing," Schlafly said. "But we haven't gone with that yet."

But that is nothing compared to the fact that they are also removing chapters and verses that they don't like:

The most radical change in the Conservative Bible might be dumping two passages of familiar Scripture.

One is the long ending of Mark's Gospel, which includes verses about snake handling and the story of the woman caught in adultery. Neither is found in most of the oldest Greek manuscripts used to translate the Bible. Schlafly says that adultery story, in which Jesus says, "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her," should be cut because it portrays Jesus as being soft on sin.

"It's a liberal addition, put in by people who wanted to undermine the reality of hell and judgment," he said.

Interestingly, the article quotes Jennifer Knust, an actual Bible scholar who teaches the New Testament at Boston University, who explains that the adultery story was accepted universally until the 1800s, when liberal scholars began to question its authenticity, noting that traditionally "it was the liberals who wanted to take the story out and the conservatives who wanted to keep the story."

"Disingenuous" doesn't begin to describe the performance by anti-equality leader Marc Mutty's recent performance at a debate on Question 1, the effort to overturn Maine's new marriage equality law. (You can watch the entire debate courtesy of Pam's House Blend here.)

In response to heartbreaking stories about gay partners denied access to a sick or dying partner or otherwise abused by lack of legal protections, Mutty presented himself as deeply sympathetic, and supportive of providing couples with legal protections through enhanced domestic partnership legislation:

What our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters look for when they speak to us in their commercials or they do presentations about all of the various injustices that they have suffered because they don't have marriage, we would say, fundamentally, we agree with you, there's been injustices, there's been wrongs that need to be righted. However, it is totally unnecessary for marriage to be redefined in order for them to have those benefits. There are alternatives, and those alternatives I think we're all familiar with, enhanced domestic partner legislation, and other like arrangements can be made that do not fundamentally change the definition of marriage but yet provides those same benefits that they seek. And I fail to see how those benefits would not be available through these alternative arrangements as well as they would through marriage and I think that is the ultimate compromise...(about 16:15 on the video)

Mutty made this point several times during the debate. In response to a question about "enhanced domestic partner legislation," Mutty enthusiastically endorsed domestic partnerships and civil unions as ways to right the wrongs suffered by gay couples:

"...there are options available to render right what has been wrong in the past, the example that Shenna presents to us, which is a tear jerker for all of us, that people who love each other who've been together can't have access to each other when the one is in the hospital, all the other examples she gave are certainly things we're very sympathetic to, but again all those things can be acquired through other arrangements, and again, enhanced domestic partnership legislation, a number of other options, civil unions is certainly an option that will provide all those same benefits, yet recognize that the two relationships are fundamentally if nothing else biologically very different. (about 34:30 on the video)

Now. For those who haven't been following the campaign to overturn Maine's marriage equality law, Mutty is directing the anti-equality forces on loan from, and on orders from, Bishop Richard Malone of the Roman Catholic diocese of Portland, which has poured hundreds of thousands of dollars into the campaign.

Mutty and his boss are trying very hard to convince Maine voters that there's nothing anti-gay about stripping legal protections from same-sex couples and their families. And so, at the Lewiston debate, Mutty bent over backwards to appear reasonable and sympathetic by assuring voters that the injustices suffered by same-sex couples would be easy to fix with civil unions or enhanced domestic partnerships. But how can Mutty say any of this with a straight face -- or expect to maintain a shred of credibility -- when he knows the Catholic bishops are dead-set against domestic partnerships and civil unions?

Bishops around the country are opposing domestic partnership laws.  Washington state's Catholic bishops are urging voters to reject the state's newly strengthened domestic partnership law, which is on the ballot in November.  Earlier this year, the Diocese of Santa Fe opposed and killed domestic partnership legislation in New Mexico.  In March, the Bay Area Reporter wrote that "bishops in Hawaii, New Mexico, North Carolina, New Jersey, Maine, Rhode Island, and other states continued to franchise a 'pastoral message' – too similar to be coincidental – opposing not only same-sex marriage, but civil unions and domestic partnerships."

Let's go right to the source. Here's an excerpt from some Q&A on same-sex relationships from the official website of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops:

What is the Church's position on legislation to allow civil unions or domestic partnerships?
On two different occasions, in 2003 and 2006, the USCCB Administrative Committee stated: "We strongly oppose any legislative and judicial attempts, both at state and federal levels, to grant same-sex unions the equivalent status and rights of marriage – by naming them marriage, civil unions, or by other means."

In 2003 a statement from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith stated: "Every humanly-created law is legitimate insofar as it is consistent with the natural moral law, recognized by right reason, and insofar as it respects the inalienable rights of every person. Laws in favor of homosexual unions are contrary to right reason because they confer legal guarantees, analogous to those granted to marriage, to unions between persons of the same sex" (Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions between Homosexual Persons, n.6).

And some more, from the same briefing paper:

"It is not unjust to deny legal status to same-sex unions because marriage and same-sex unions are essentially different realities. In fact, justice requires society to do so."

Here's some more detail from that 2003 statement which was affirmed in 2006:

What are called "homosexual unions," because they do not express full human complementarity and because they are inherently non-procreative, cannot be given the status of marriage. Recently, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith issued a statement emphatically opposing the legalization of homosexual unions. Bishop Wilton D. Gregory, President of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, welcomed this statement and further articulated our own conviction that such "equivalence not only weakens the unique meaning of marriage; it also weakens the role of law itself by forcing the law to violate the truth of marriage and family life as the natural foundation of society and culture." ... Thus, we strongly oppose any legislative and judicial attempts, both at state and federal levels, to grant same-sex unions the equivalent status and rights of marriage --by naming them marriage, civil unions or by other means.

And still more from the bishops:

Should persons who live in same-sex relationships be entitled to some of the same social and economic benefits given to married couples?

The state has an obligation to promote the family, which is rooted in marriage. Therefore, it can justly give married couples rights and benefits it does not extend to others. Ultimately, the stability and flourishing of society is dependent on the stability and flourishing of healthy family life.

The legal recognition of marriage, including the benefits associated with it, is not only about personal commitment, but also about the social commitment that husband and wife make to the well-being of society. It would be wrong to redefine marriage for the sake of providing benefits to those who cannot rightfully enter into marriage.

Some benefits currently sought by persons in homosexual unions can already be obtained without regard to marital status. For example, individuals can agree to own property jointly with another, and they can generally designate anyone they choose to be a beneficiary of their will or to make health care decisions in case they become incompetent.

So, to recap: Marc Mutty, on leave as public affairs director of the Roman Catholic diocese of Portland, is telling the people of Maine they can vote against marriage equality for same-sex couples with a clear conscience because the injustices those couples face can be fixed by domestic partnerships or civil unions. But the church he works for is strongly opposed to both domestic partnerships and civil unions, and bishops around the country are working hard to block domestic partner legislation. Which leads to a couple of questions. How does Mutty sleep at night? And how long will it take him to scurry away from his earnest endorsement of justice for same-sex couples when he's back on the bishop's payroll?