Coral's blog

After his testimony at last week’s DOMA hearing with the Senate Judiciary Committee, Austin Nimocks of the Alliance Defense Fund has been doing the rounds in the right-wing radio circuit. In a recent interview withthe Concerned Women for America’s radio show, Nimocks hit all of the classic anti-marriage-equality arguments, claiming that marriage between a man and a woman “naturally builds families,” and that children do best with two heterosexual parents. Nimocks then tried to discredit the comparison of DOMA to the laws against interracial marriage during the civil rights movement.

“Interracial marriage and the racism that underscored the prohibitions on interracial marriage in this country have nothing to do with the question of same-sex marriage, and for multiple reasons. When you look at it from a big picture, we understand what racism was about. It was about white supremacy and about keeping people apart. And there was an underlying bad associated with that doctrine and that policy that found its way into our laws. Marriage is not about keeping people apart. It’s about bringing together the two great halves of humanity, men and women, for a deep, deep social good. And the drastic difference in those two things cannot be overlooked. And then you look at that and say wait, marriage is about bringing people together, and it doesn’t discriminate on the basis of people’s skin color.”

Hold on a second, Nimocks. So bans on interracial marriage were about keeping people apart, but the bans on same-sex marriage are about bringing people together? And there was an “underlying bad” associated with racism, but there isn’t one associated with homophobia? And marriage shouldn’t discriminate on the basis of skin color, but it should discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation? Excuse me if I’m not exactly compelled to the case you’re making.

It comes as no surprise that the Concerned Women for America or the Alliance Defense Fund are making illogical arguments and holding moral double-standards, but the logical leaps they’re making are becoming more and more obvious as time goes on.

Cross-posted on PFAW blog

Senate Republicans have called Tom Minnery of Focus on the Family, David Nimocks of the Alliance Defense Fund and Ed Whelan of the Ethics and Public Policy Center as witnesses in today’s hearing on the “Defense of Marriage Act.” The groups these witnesses represent have a long record of extreme rhetoric opposing gay rights:

CitizenLink, Focus on the Family’s political arm, is a stalwart opponent of gay rights in every arena:

• Focus on the Family has consistently railed against the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, demanding the discriminatory policy’s reinstatement.

• The group claims anti-bullying programs that protect LGBT and LGBT-perceived youth in schools amount to “homosexual indoctrination” and “promote homosexuality in kids.”

• The group insists that House Republicans investigate the Justice Department over its refusal to defend the unconstitutional Section 3 of DOMA.

The Ethics and Public Policy Center is backed by the far-right Sarah Scaife Foundation, the John M. Olin Foundation, the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, and the Koch- backed Castle Rock Foundation, all well-known right-wing funders.

• George Weigel of EPPC wrote in June that “legally enforced segregation involved the same kind of coercive state power that the proponents of gay marriage now wish to deploy on behalf of their cause.”

• Ed Whelan spearheaded the unsuccessful and widely panned effort to throw out Judge Vaughn Walker’s 2010 decision finding California’s Proposition 8 to be unconstitutional on the grounds that Walker was in a committed same-sex relationship at the time of the decision.

The Alliance Defense Fund, which bills itself as a right-wing counter to the American Civil Liberties Union, is dedicated to pushing a far-right legal agenda:

• The ADF has been active on issues including pushing "marriage protection," exposing the "homosexual agenda" and fighting the supposed "war on Christmas."

• The ADF claims 38 “victories” before the Supreme Court, including: Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which allows corporations to spend unlimited money on elections in the name of “free speech” and Boy Scouts of America v. Dale (2000), which allowed the Boy Scouts to fire a Scout Leader because he was gay.

Last week, I had the pleasure of attending the sixth annual national conference of the “Network of enlightened Women” (NeW), a college conservative group that “meet[s] regularly to discuss issues relating to politics, gender and conservative principles” – sort of a politically ambitious anti-feminist book club. NeW nabbed a high-powered keynote speaker in Kate O’Bierne, a National Review editor and former VP of the Heritage Foundation. O’Bierne, the author of “Women Who Make the World Worse: and How Their Radical Feminist Assault is Ruining Our Schools, Families, Military and Sports,” spent her hour-long speech viciously bashing feminism and trying to disprove the “phoney baloney wage gap.” O’Bierne insisted that “professional feminists” will never be satisfied, and cannot “declare victory and go home” because they have no home to go to and no job to fall back on.

O’Bierne also railed against the liberal media, but noted what she saw as a silver lining: that liberals don’t know that conservatives exist, or more importantly, what they’re saying and doing. She might want to check in with Bryan Fischer.

Meanwhile, a number of NeW chapter presidents spoke about how to thank the gentlemen in their lives for being so chivalrous, how awful it is that “hookup culture” is depleting their pool of marriageable men, and how a “true beauty” self esteem workshop could be improved by adding makeup tutorials.

85-year-old Kitty Werthmann, president of South Dakota Eagle Forum, spoke at a New Jersey Tea Party rally this week. Werthmann grew up in Austria under Hitler’s regime, and felt the need to warn Americans about the horrors of socialism and the imminent doom we face under the leadership of Barack Obama. She explained the origin of the word “Nazi” (short for the German name of the National Socialist Workers Party) and punctuated each of her anecdotes with “That’s socialism!”

Werthmann said that Adolf Hitler spoke just like an American politician, and spoke ill of welfare, the nationalized health care system, and the employment of women, all leading up to a strange and sudden turn to militancy. In this video of her speech, at 28:15 she says:

When the people fear the government, that’s tyranny, but when the government fears the people, that’s you, the Tea Party. That’s liberty. Keep your guns. Keep your guns, and buy more guns!

Is a bigot less of a bigot if you refer to him as a skeptic? Peter Saunders, CEO of the UK-based Christian Medical Fellowship, wrote an article this week challenging the definition of homophobia, and labeling himself not as homophobic, but “homoskeptic.”

Being judged “homophobic” can cost you dearly. … For many people “homophobia” is actually about “having a fear of being accused of being bigoted, prejudiced or discriminating against homosexual people”. This fear, which is increasingly common, causes people to take a defensive posture in order to avoid attracting disapproval or adverse publicity. This may take the form of changing ones public position, pretending to adopt views in accordance with the prevailing liberal consensus, actively denying ones real beliefs or simply abstaining from expressing an opinion when the matter is discussed. This kind of “homophobia” is becoming increasingly common amongst those who belong to religious faiths which teach that sex outside marriage is wrong (ie. most world faiths) and it is not difficult to come up with examples of (often) prominent people in whom the condition is well advanced. For people who don’t hate, dislike or fear gay people, but simply believe that sex between people who are not married (including all sex between those of the same sex) is morally wrong, we need a new term. I’d like to propose the term “homoskeptic” - a term that is not yet in common use and hence arguably open to (re)definition

 

In the comments section of NOM’s post in support of Saunders’ “redefinition,” a user under the handle of AnonyGrl responded:

And I would like to suggest that people who don't hate or fear African Americans but simply think that they are morally inferior should be called afroskeptics. And people who don't hate or fear women but think that they just shouldn't get paid the same as men or have control of their own bodies should be gynoskeptics.

 

Saunders may want to think of himself as homoskeptic, but we know better. He is attempting to make homophobia sound morally acceptable, and it’s not.

Linda Harvey, founder of the fringe anti-gay group Mission: America, not only condemns the LGBT community but condemns anyone who isn’t condemning them. Harvey is also the host of the Mission: America Radio show, and last week she spoke out against pro-tolerance education:

Sex Change Pushed on Children

Recently, I read an outstanding article on the website American Thinker. It’s called The Left’s Dirty Little Secret. It exposed what has been obvious for a long time, that liberal values in schools and in our culture are leading to widespread sexual abuse of children. The author talks about the culture of Berkley, CA, during the hippie days of the 60s, how unsupervised kids in the bohemian communal living arrangements were often neglected, and so were vulnerable to abuse by drop-in friends or sketchy relatives.

These values have been dragged out into the mainstream and called everything else but what they are. Planned Parenthood calls it choice. The Gay Lesbian and Straight Education Network, along with their close allies in the teachers’ unions call it safety. Promoting explicit sex practices to kids, with the rationale that they have a “right” to these practices, is one of the biggest con-jobs going and it’s a pedophile’s dream.

I’m sure the adult who wants to prey on a minor, either heterosexually or homosexually, appreciates the schools, media, and liberal churches persuading the kids themselves that all this is okay, that early sex is normal, and that adults who try to teach restraint or delay are really bigots who are violating your rights.

Well, the lunacy is rapidly expanding to new territory. We’ve talked about this before, but the boundary of gender is being breeched quickly with the transgender issue. Recently, even liberal California wasn’t ready for where some goofy educators wanted to take their kids. In Oakland’s Redwood Heights Elementary School, an outside anti-bullying consultant taught special lessons advocating gender confusion. The presentations were from a group called Gender Spectrum, who was paid $1500 with a grant from the California Teachers’ Union. The male presenter told grade schoolers that “gender identity is a spectrum, where people can be girls, feel like girls, they feel like boys, they feel like both, or they can feel like neither.” All 350 students in the school were subjected to these lessons, which the principal claimed would make a more accepting and welcoming environment for students who don’t conform to gender norms.

No, actually, they have just planted disturbing and harmful doubts about themselves within the minds of little children. I think that what we’re dealing with are deviant adults working out their considerably weird issues through children. Many parents objected, according to Fox News, and three families kept their kids home.

This gender change agenda is everywhere. Have you noticed? It’s pushed on us by teachers, Hollywood, popular musicians, even a few political figures. Numerous incidents over the past decade involve teachers who begin dressing and acting, all of a sudden, as the opposite gender. Two years ago, Ohio came very close to passing a bill, House bill 176, which would have forced homosexual and gender-bending behavior on all work places in the state, including schools. It passed the Democrat-controlled House, but thankfully not the Ohio Senate.

Friends, we must be vigilant against such corruption of our culture. So we wonder why some children are desperately insecure? God never intended for them to be so. He designed us marvelously as male and female, and we should celebrate those lovely and interesting differences. When adults who should know better want to sell these disturbed ideas to impressionable children, it’s up to us to their rescue. We must commit to keeping sexual orientation and gender identity language out of local, state, and national policies. This just opens the door to sin, confusion, and heartbreak.