Home ›

Ken Klukowski

Printer-friendly version Send to friend

Klukowski: Marriage Equality Is Even Worse Than Greek Pederasty

Submitted by Brian Tashman on July 1, 2011 - 12:08pm

Ken Klukowski of the Family Research Council and the American Civil Rights Union claimed today that since even pederastic Greeks, who “put homosexuality on a pedestal,” didn’t legalize same-sex marriage, neither should the U.S. Speaking with FRC colleagues Tom McClusky and Kenneth Blackwell on Today’s Issues on American Family Radio, Klukowski argues that Americans shouldn’t support marriage equality because no civilization through history has done so:

Marriage has existed in every culture, in every country around the world, for thousands and thousands of years, since the beginning of humanity. Same-sex marriage has existed for less than a decade. It was not until the year 2002 that it was recognized in any nation on earth in the history of the world and even cultures that embraced homosexuality like the ancient Greeks, the reality is even in those cultures where they were putting homosexuality on a pedestal, they never presumed to do anything to try to redefine the institution of marriage, that marriage is the union of a man and a woman. So we are in an extraordinary place where for more than 5,000 years of human history, in every country around the globe marriage was understood to be between men and women, and now we’re in this entirely brave new world where we’re redefining this basic unit of human civilization.

PFAW
Filed under:

The Founding Fathers Had a National Motto: E Pluribus Unum

Submitted by Kyle Mantyla on March 22, 2011 - 10:08am

Rep. Randy Forbes is on a mission to pass a resolution affirming that the national motto "In God We Trust" and House Republicans are playing right along, so it is no surprise that Religious Right activists like the Family Research Council's Ken Klukowski are stepping up to make their contribution to this important effort as well:

Odds are good the Founding Fathers would be astounded by the religious controversies of this past week.

First, Rep. Randy Forbes, R-VA, introduced a resolution reaffirming “In God We Trust” as our national motto. He did so in part after President Obama wrongly claimed the national motto is “E Pluribus Unum.”

Forbes’s resolution failed last year when he introduced it under House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her Democratic majority. Now under Republicans, the resolution is headed to a floor vote after being approved by the House Judiciary Committee.

Even so, Rep. Bobby Scott, D-VA, claimed the words “In God We Trust” are unconstitutional, an assertion that would likely stun James Madison and members of the first Congress who approved the First Amendment.

Can I just point out that "In God We Trust" did not become our national motto until the 1950s, as John Fea explained in "Was America Founded As a Christian Nation?: A Historical Introduction":

In 1954 Congress approved an act to add the words "under God" to the Pledge of Allegiance ... In 1955 this connection between God and the United States was further strengthened when Congress opted to put the words "In God We Trust" on all United States coins and currency. The following years it changed the national motto from "E Pluribus Unum" to "In God We Trust."

Allow me also to point out that in 1776, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, and Benjamin Franklin were tasked with designing Great Seal of the United States, which they did - and it carried the phrase "E Pluribus Unum."

In fact, "E Pluribus Unum" was considered the de facto motto of the United States for nearly two hundred years ... until it was changed to "In God We Trust" in 1955.

So I am pretty sure that the Founding Fathers would be stunned to learn that the national motto is "In God We Trust," given that Congress adopted the Great Seal with its motto of "E Pluribus Unum" in  1782.

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.
PFAW Foundation
Filed under:

FRC's Two Kens Warn GOP Not To Even Think About Abandoning Fight Against Gay Marriage

Submitted by Kyle Mantyla on August 26, 2010 - 3:38pm

Yesterday, Ken Mehlman, President Bush's campaign manager in 2004 and a former chairman of the Republican National Committee, came out as gay, which is just the latest development signling that the Right is losing its fight against gay marriage.

But don't think for a second that the Right is going to give up without a fight, as Ken Blackwell and Ken Klukowski, both from the Family Research Council, have already written an op-ed telling the GOP not to even think about abandoning social conservatives on this issue: 

Republican leadership is working hard to prevent a party split. Millions of Tea Party supporters are justifiably fed up with the GOP, and threatening to abandon the GOP in favor of a third party if Republicans do not fully attack out-of-control federal spending and power with a commitment to constitutional government.

That danger cuts both ways.

Social conservatives cannot be played as fools by the Republican Party. They are not “useful idiots.” If Republican leaders abandon social conservatives and the party platform, then they will face the same kind of disaster they could be facing if Tea Partiers abandon the GOP -- Millions of social conservatives will either stay home, or will vote for a third-party candidate who takes up the mantle of marriage, life, faith and family.

As we discuss in the introduction of our book, “The Blueprint,” this is exactly what President Obama wants to see. If a majority of Americans reject the agenda of President Obama and his Democratic Party—as they do today—the only way that Obama and the Dems can hold on to power is to split the opposition vote.

If the GOP splits either over economic issues or over social issues, then President Obama could be reelected with as little as 40% of the vote.

Think that sounds preposterous? It’s happened before in American politics, with 1912 as a perfect example. The year 2012 will be the 100-year anniversary of when a Republican split gave America a Democratic president.

If Republicans flinch on marriage, America could have eight years of President Obama.

PFAW
Filed under:
Syndicate content