American Civil Rights Union

Robert Knight Claims Marriage Equality is 'Straight out of George Orwell's Newspeak'

Submitted by Brian Tashman on February 7, 2012 - 5:00pm

Robert Knight of the American Civil Rights Union today railed against legislation in Maryland in a column, “Counterfeit Marriage is Anti-Religion,” arguing that marriage equality for gay and lesbian couples “violates the very essence of marriage.” According to Knight, legalizing same-sex marriage would do “incalculable” damage to religious freedom and would endanger the future of society because where “marriage is weak, devalued or redefined, communities fail.” “Whatever the expressed good intentions behind the same-sex ‘marriage’ legislation,” Knight writes, “creating a counterfeit and then forcing it down people's throats is straight out of George Orwell's Newspeak in 1984”:

Maryland's proposed Civil Marriage Protection Act, which would legalize same-sex "marriage," is not about tolerance.

It's about using the law to force people to recognize a counterfeit as the real thing. In fact, it should more accurately be called the Attack on Religious Freedom Enabling Act.

That's because this is about more than the feelings of any two people. When you declare a couple "married," with the force of the law behind it, you bring everyone into it.

A brideless or groomless couple is not merely an addition to the marriage definition; it violates the very essence of marriage by excluding one or the other complementary sex.

…

Marriage over the millennia on all continents has meant the uniting of male and female. Customs have varied, but sex is universally channeled into marriage to protect children and families -- the lifeblood of communities. Where marriage is weak, devalued or redefined, communities fail.

Whatever the expressed good intentions behind the same-sex "marriage" legislation, creating a counterfeit and then forcing it down people's throats is straight out of George Orwell's Newspeak in 1984. Compassionate motives cannot mask the inevitable bad outcomes of a bad law.

…

I urge legislators to consider that the drive to legally impose same-sex "marriage" is neither inevitable nor irreversible, despite the media's blatantly biased treatment of this issue.

However, should Maryland take this step, the damage to freedom -- particularly religious freedom -- could be incalculable.

Brian Tashman's blog

PFAW

Filed under:

Knight: Repealing DOMA Would "Dump A Capitol Domeful Of Cowpies Right On The Institution Of Marriage"

Submitted by Brian Tashman on November 9, 2011 - 2:48pm

Robert Knight of the American Civil Rights Union attacked Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), the House sponsor of the Respect for Marriage Act which would repeal the discriminatory Defense of Marriage Act, for “destroying” the institution of marriage. In a column discussing the recent House vote to reaffirm “In God We Trust” as the nation’s motto, Knight blasted Nadler for criticizing the need to vote on the measure, as the congressman said it would “divert people’s attention from the real issues that we’re not dealing with,’ like unemployment.”

Knight asked, “If we’re supposed to be addressing ‘real issues,’ where is the evidence that in a time of massive unemployment and economic uncertainty, Americans are just itching to redefine marriage as two guys on a pink cake?” He went on to say that “the bizarrely titled Respect for Marriage Act, which would dump a Capitol Domeful of cowpies right on the institution of marriage” and argue that Democrats support marriage equality and secular government to buttress the “all-powerful state.”

Well, the idea of affirming In God We Trust was too much for Jerrold Nadler, the New York progressive who represents ACORN in the House of Representatives and also the socialist Working Families Party and Occupy Wall Street.

…

“This is simply an exercise in saying, ‘We're more religious than the other people,’” Nadler nattered sarcastically. ‘“We're more godly than the other people, and by the way, let's waste time and divert people's attention from the real issues that we're not dealing with,’ like unemployment.”

Well, okay. How about unemployment? Nadler reliably voted against the job creation bills that the House passed in recent months, all of which were aborted in Harry Reid’s Senate upon delivery.

And if we’re supposed to be addressing “real issues,” where is the evidence that in a time of massive unemployment and economic uncertainty, Americans are just itching to redefine marriage as two guys on a pink cake? Nadler is a chief sponsor of the bizarrely titled Respect for Marriage Act, which would dump a Capitol Domeful of cowpies right on the institution of marriage, destroying its real meaning.

It makes perfect sense that a leading progressive would hate the thought of honoring God while trashing the institution created by God as the fountainhead of families, churches and communities. Those things get in the way of the all-powerful state, which has a devil of a time creating the new socialist man while families, churches and communities are imbuing citizens with personal responsibility.

Brian Tashman's blog

PFAW

Filed under:

Knight: Gay Staffers Control Congress And Washington DC

Submitted by Brian Tashman on April 11, 2011 - 12:10pm

At the Freedom Federation’s The Awakening 2011, right-wing activists unleashed their venom at the gay community and supporters of gay rights at the “Religious Liberty and the LGBT Agenda” panel. Robert Knight, a columnist for the Washington Times who is the executive director of the far-right American Civil Rights Union, maintained that gay congressional staffers represent one of the most difficult hurdles for opponents of LGBT equality. According to Knight, who has also worked for a wide range of conservative groups like the Heritage Foundation, Family Research Council, Concerned Women for America, Media Research Center, and Coral Ridge Ministries, gay staffers have “veto power” over legislation because they “work all hours and, I think, tend not to have family lives.” He went on to say that the “gay subculture” in D.C. “intimidates the overriding Washington culture” and that opponents of gay rights are “undermined from within”:

Brian Tashman's blog

PFAW

Filed under:

CPAC: Merit Selection for Judges is an Evil Leftist Plot

Submitted by Peter Montgomery on February 11, 2011 - 2:35pm

A group of right-wing legal advocates warned CPAC participants – or more accurately, a tiny subset of CPAC participants – about “The Left’s Campaign to Reshape the Judiciary.”

Panelists discussed the meaning of “judicial activism” and why the kind of right-wing judicial activism we’ve seen from the Supreme Court doesn’t qualify. (Overturning health care reform? Also not judicial activism.) But the main thrust of the panel was the supposedly dire threat posed by efforts at the state level to replace judicial elections with a merit selection process.

The increasing tendency of judicial elections to become big-money affairs funded by individuals and groups who regularly appear before judges has increasingly raised concerns about judgeships – including state supreme court justices – being for sale to the highest bidder, such as corporate interests looking for courts that won’t hold corporations accountable for misconduct.

But today’s panelists – Liberty Institute’s Kelly Shackleford, American Justice Partnership’s Dan Pero, the Center for Individual Freedom’s Timothy Lee, and the American Civil Rights Union’s Ken Klukowski, warned against merit selection, a nonpartisan alternative that is employed in a number of states and under consideration in others. Pero called merit selection “a power grab by the liberal left,” citing People For the American Way, among others he said were liberals trying to use the courts to impose their vision on America.

Timothy Lee, perhaps mindful of the small crowd drawn to the panel, urged participants to explain to others why the courts were important, no matter what other issue they cared about. For example, he said, the Citizens United decision overturning Supreme Court precedent and substantially crippling the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law rested on the fact the Samuel Alito had replaced Sandra Day O’Connor on the high court.

Klukowski echoed Lee’s call, saying that the fight for “constitutional conservatism” can’t succeed without the right judges in place: “The U.S. Constitution is only as good as the justices on the U.S. Supreme Court that interpret it.” He complained about the Supreme Court’s rulings that Guantanamo detainees have habeas corpus rights and about other federal courts recognizing marriage equality and ruling against the ban on gay servicemembers.

And while panel members celebrated the Supreme Court’s decision overturning the District of Columbia’s handgun ban, Klukowski said it’s not clear that there’s a majority in the Court for overturning other gun restrictions. He specifically complained that it is a felony for someone who went through a “messy divorce” and was under a restraining order to have a gun.

Klukowski said that he and Ken Blackwell have written a book called Resurgent: How Constitutional Conservativism can Save America and made an appeal for all stripes of conservatives – social, economic, and national security – to stop fighting each other and work together.

Peter Montgomery's blog

PFAW Foundation

Filed under:

Religious Right Channels Reagan to Condemn CPAC

Submitted by Brian Tashman on February 8, 2011 - 11:19am

CPAC boycotters, angered over the upcoming event’s inclusion of the gay conservative group GOProud, have taken out a full page ad in the right-wing Washington Times to ask, “What would Ronald Reagan think of CPAC today?”

Rick Scarborough’s Vision America was behind the ad which accused CPAC of “betraying conservative principles and threatening conservative unity by creating the false impression that gay activism is somehow compatible with conservativism” by allowing GOProud to be a participating organization:

The self-proclaimed gay Republicans support hate crime laws (which will be used to bludgeon the church) and oppose the Federal Defense of Marriage Amendment, without which judges will ultimately legislate homosexual “marriage”—making the natural family an endangered species.

Last year, GOProud advocated for homosexuals serving openly in the military, which will devastate our armed forced and sacrifice unit cohesion on the altar of “inclusiveness.”

Ask yourself: Would CPAC allow participation by the Democratic Socialists of America? Why is the free market an inviolable conservative principle, but not family values?

Would organizers invite George Soros to address the gathering? Then why associate with groups who share his worldview?

What does it profit us to gain tax cuts and lose the family—the foundation of a free society?

…

President Reagan used to say that he didn’t leave the Democratic Party, the Democratic Party left him. Sadly, that’s the way many conservatives increasingly feel about CPAC’s current direction.

…

In the war on the family, Judeo-Christian morality and authentic conservative principles, neutrality is impossible. We call for a return to first principles.

While the boycott movement has had some notable successes by pushing Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) and Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) to decline to attend the conference, other Religious Right luminaries like Rick Santorum, Timothy Goeglein, Tom Minnery, and Phyllis Schlafly are still slated to address CPAC. In fact, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) is giving the conference’s keynote address.

Notably, some of the most prominent groups boycotting CPAC have not signed on to Scarborough’s letter, including the Heritage Foundation, the Family Research Council, Concerned Women For America, and the Media Research Center. The signatories include:

Mark Andrews, (Casino Watch)
Pastor Paul Blair, (Reclaiming America for Christ)
Susan Carleson, (American Civil Rights Union)
Brian Camenker, (MassResistance)
Mandi Campbell, (Liberty Center for Law and Policy)
Frank Cannon, (American Principles Project)
Chris Carmouche, (GrassTopsUSA)
Joseph Farah, (WorldNetDaily.com)
Don Feder, (Don Feder Associates)
Diane Gramley, (American Family Association of Pennsylvania)
Bishop EW Jackson Sr., (STAND America PAC)
Phillip Jauregui, (Judicial Action Group)
Gordon James Klingenschmitt, (Pray In Jesus Name)
Robert Knight, (American Civil Rights Union)
Mike and Cris Kurtz, (The USA Patriots)
Peter LaBarbera, (Americans For Truth About Homosexuality)
Shelli and David Manuel, (Resurrect America Project)
William J. Murray, (Religious Freedom Coalition)
Rev. Rick Scarborough, (Vision America)
Rev. Louis P. Sheldon, (Traditional Values Coalition)
Sharon Slater, (Family Watch International)
Mat Staver, (Liberty Counsel)
Mike Valerio and Helen Valerio, Americans
Tim Wildmon, (American Family Association)

Brian Tashman's blog

PFAW

Anti-Affirmative Action Warrior Ward Connerly Picks States

Submitted by Anonymous on May 1, 2007 - 10:59pm

For next efforts.

PFAW

Filed under:

Anti-Affirmative Action Campaign Moves to Colorado

Submitted by Anonymous on April 24, 2007 - 10:59pm

Ward Connerly and friends point to Ward Churchill.

PFAW

Filed under:

Doctors' 'Conscience' as Refusal to Provide Medical Care to Lesbians

Submitted by Anonymous on April 12, 2007 - 4:10pm

While in some states, the Right is attempting to establish so-called “conscience clauses” to allow pharmacists to refuse to fill prescriptions for contraceptives, one case in California finds a medical clinic – and the Religious Right – attempting to expand that principle to “conscience”-based discrimination against patients, rather than the services they seek. Doctors at an infertility clinic north of San Diego refused to provide a woman with artificial insemination services, citing their religious conviction against birth out of wedlock – and, according to the woman, citing her sexual orientation. California law prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

The right-wing Alliance Defense Fund, which is representing the clinic, claims this is a case about the right “to exercise your faith as a Christian.” The woman’s lawyer warned that “The next case may be about whether a doctor is willing to do a pap smear” for a lesbian.”

Other right-wing groups have filed amicus briefs in the case. Peter Ferrara of the American Civil Rights Union defended the doctor’s decision because, he said, it was based on “a commonly held view, well grounded in Christian tradition.” Brian Rooney of the Thomas More Law Center warned that the case “smacks of Nazi Germany when Hitler forced doctors to do diabolical acts that were like this.”