September 2010

You really have to wonder at the logic behind Daniel Webster's attempts to fight back/capitalize on Rep. Alan Grayson's "Taliban Dan" ad.

First, he goes on Bryan Fischer's radio program right after Fischer pens a long explanation about how how Christian women have an obligation to God to submit to their husbands:

Marriage is not and can never be a democracy. Somebody has to have the tie-breaking vote when the poll reveals a one-to-one tie. In a Christian marriage, the husband is the tie breaker. The way it is designed to work is that a wife willingly defers to her husband on those rare occasions when they cannot agree on a course of action, and the husband makes the decision that his conscience tells him is best, not for himself, but for her, their marriage, and their home.

If a husband believes before God that the best decision in a given situation is different than the one his wife prefers, he does not order her to follow him, he asks her. The decision is then up to her. He's not forcing her to do anything. He leaves the issue squarely where it belongs, between her and her God.

If you have a problem with a Christian view of marriage, fine. Don't become a Christian then.

And then the Webster rolls out a statement from Phyllis Schlafly of all people:

The Webster campaign released a statement from Eagle Forum President Phyllis Schlafly praising Webster’s stances on marriage and abortion. Schlafly said that Grayson’s “outdated reference to ‘women’s issues’ insults women by assuming that women’s only political concerns are abortion and divorce.”

Schlafly just happens to believe that "by getting married, the woman has consented to sex, and I don't think you can call it rape":

Could you clarify some of the statements that you made in Maine last year about martial rape?

I think that when you get married you have consented to sex. That's what marriage is all about, I don't know if maybe these girls missed sex ed. That doesn't mean the husband can beat you up, we have plenty of laws against assault and battery. If there is any violence or mistreatment that can be dealt with by criminal prosecution, by divorce or in various ways. When it gets down to calling it rape though, it isn't rape, it's a he said-she said where it's just too easy to lie about it.

Was the way in which your statement was portrayed correct?

Yes. Feminists, if they get tired of a husband or if they want to fight over child custody, they can make an accusation of marital rape and they want that to be there, available to them.

So you see this as more of a tool used by people to get out of marriages than as legitimate-

Yes, I certainly do.

When the debate over the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell was going on a few weeks back, the National Organization for Marriage-affiliated "Protect Marriage: One Man, One Woman" raised a few eyebrows with a Tweet that came out in support of repealing DADT:

There is no need to prohibit gays and lesbians from openly serving in the Armed Forces. They should have the opportunity to serve.

This, of course, has outraged Peter LaBarbera, who now has NOM in his sights: 

I couldn’t believe this item, which we are late to report: the National Organization for Marriage (NOM), the leading pro-traditional-marriage group in the country, has come out for allowing open homosexuals in the military (see Sept. 9th NOM tweet above).

This is the latest exercise in “pro-family” political and strategic folly. For all the great work that it does, NOM is dead wrong on this one. In addition to degrading morale, cohesion and discipline in the Armed Forces, creating an officially pro-homosexual U.S. military would establish a new, federal government-enforced ”civil rights” paradigm that would be used to push the homosexual agenda on the rest of the nation. That of course includes same-sex “marriage” and punishing/”re-educating” moral opponents of homosexuality. I doubt that NOM would support tradition-minded, Christian soldiers and sailors from Small Town America being subjected to radical, pro-homosexual “diversity” lectures — but that’s what’s coming if NOM’s regrettable tweet comes to pass.

Can’t NOM see that it is undercutting its own cause (and the truth) by pandering to the ”Gay” Lobby’s goal of homosexuality as a state-backed “civil right”? Long before “gay marriage” became a major issue, “sexual orientation” laws created the legal basis for punishing moral critics of sodomy. And let’s be clear: when pro-family marriage advocates talk up “equal rights for gays and lesbians” (as the Prop 8 appeal brief does here), they are engaged in a dangerous double-game — because so many homosexual ideologues believe their “right” to be approved as a homosexual supersedes YOUR right to disagree with their lifestyle. It’s a zero-sum game between “gay rights” and religious/moral rights, as lesbian lawyer and Obama EEOC appointee Chai Feldblum puts it; of course, she thinks “gays” should win and Christians should lose in most cases. In that sense, GLBT activists like Feldblum are pro-discrimination, even as they tout ”equality.”

Our constitutional rights come ultimately from God. Homosexuality, like all sin, is against God’s will (and against Nature). Therefore, it cannot be the basis for “constitutional” rights.

LaBarbera is livid that NOM is apparently throwing anti-gay activists such as himself under the bus and accuses the group of assisting "liberals in castigating the more principled fighters against the homosexual agenda as somehow 'bigoted' and extreme" and is therefore demanding that NOM refuse to "support ANY aspect of the larger homosexual agenda even as it continues its important work protecting traditional marriage."

UPDATE: It looks like LaBarbera has removed this post,  as the original link now returns only a "page not found" message.

Republican Presidential hopefuls aren’t the only ones going to New Hampshire to take down Democratic governor John Lynch: the National Organization for Marriage is launching a $425,000 ad campaign to oppose the governor. In June of last year, Governor Lynch signed a bill legalizing same-sex marriage, which put him in NOM’s crosshairs. NOM has also spent $235,000 attacking members of Iowa’s Supreme Court, which unanimously decided that same-sex couples have a right to marry under the state constitution, who are up for a retention vote. Moreover, the group spent tens of thousands of dollars in unsuccessful efforts to defeat members of the DC Council that voted in favor of legalizing same-sex marriage.

Hopefully, their ads in New Hampshire will be just as "memorable" as their Gathering Storm ad. NOM will surely utilize the same deceptive tactics and bigoted rhetoric present in their other ads, especially since they are working with the New Hampshire group Cornerstone Action, the political arm of the state’s foremost Religious Right organization. Cornerstone Action believes that adultery should be a criminal offense, and in 2007 their executive director claimed that same-sex couples are “unnatural” and worked to oppose civil unions as an “acceptance of a behavior that is jeopardizing the health of our children.” Without a doubt, the gubernatorial race in New Hampshire will be another test of NOM’s plans to defeat public officials who back LGBT equality.

You have to wonder why President Obama even bothers to talk about his Christian faith because nothing he says will ever be good enough for the "real" Christians in the Religious Right.

Earlier this week, Obama was asked about his faith and responded:

"I came to my Christian faith later in life, and it was because the precepts of Jesus Christ spoke to me in terms of the kind of life that I would want to lead," Obama said. "Being my brothers' and sisters' keeper. Treating others as they would treat me. And I think also understanding that, you know, that Jesus Christ dying for my sins spoke to the humility that we all have to have as human beings."

But of course, that just opens him up to attacks from the likes of Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council:

The man we know as President may be a Christian by choice--but he's far better known as the leader of a movement about "choice." And while his salvation may be deeply private, his agenda to advance abortion has been anything but. He told the crowd in New Mexico that his "public service" is an "effort to express his Christian faith." If so, then he has a vastly different understanding of biblical truth than I do. Funneling billions of American dollars to the killers of innocent unborn life--life created by God and in His image--is not an "expression" of the Christian faith, or most other faiths for that matter. It's a horrifying government-funded massacre.

And Bryan Fischer, who attacked him for being totally ignorant:

According to Obama, his understanding of the story of Cain and Abel is 180 degrees out from reality, and his understanding of the Golden Rule is that he gets to be as mean to others as he thinks they are to him ... the phrase “brother’s keeper” was not found on the lips of Jesus but on the lips of a murderer who was trying to dodge a felony charge from God himself. In other words, the phrase “brother’s keeper” meant the exact opposite of what the president thinks it means.

Then The One compounded his theological error by turning the Golden Rule on its head, and verbalizing a version that gives him permission to be as malicious and cruel as he perceives his political opponents to be, which could explain a lot.

...

Obama also exposed his anti-Christian mindset when he said, regarding other people, that it was his task “to help them find their own grace.” This “all roads lead to heaven” nonsense is about as far from the “precepts of Jesus Christ” as you can get. For Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me (John 14:6).”

Of course, the president has the right to hold and promote a view of salvation that is different than the view of Christ. What he is not entitled to do is to call himself a Christian while doing it.

And finally from Gary Cass of the Christian Anti-Defamation Commission, who used it as an excuse to attack Obama as a "typical, limousine Marxist hypocrite":

What Obama really means by being his "brother's keeper" is what he always means: the theft and redistribution of your money through the coercive powers of the government. You'll have a very difficult time justifying that on biblical grounds. Even Marx admitted that the Bible did not teach collectivism. But, Obama either doesn't care or seem bound by the need to be consistent.

If you read other accounts of Obama's conversion it sounds very much like he choose to be a Christian because, with a selective reading of a few biblical texts, he could justify to his Marxist / Socialist / Jeremiah Wright / Black Liberation political ideology. Obama has created Christ in his own image with a communist beret. No wonder he finds Christ appealing.

But, Obama is a typical, limousine Marxist hypocrite. Although he makes millions of dollars every year, his concern for his real biological family is completely lacking. Otherwise, his aunt would not have been living on government assistance in government subsidized housing.