Tom Minnery

Tom Minnery of Focus on the Family’s political arm CitizenLink appeared on The Janet Mefferd Show yesterday to preview the Thanksgiving Family Forum, the “family discussion with the Republican Presidential Candidates” that CitizenLink is hosting in Iowa on Saturday along with The Family Leader and the National Organization for Marriage. Michele Bachmann, Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul, Rick Perry and Rick Santorum are all slated to appear at the forum moderated by Minnery and Republican pollster Frank Luntz.

Minnery told Mefferd that the moderators will ask questions about what a president will do if “we end up with a welter of different definitions [of marriage] in different states,” and what the candidates think about “the last words in that oath of office…‘so help me God.’” In fact, the oath does not include the words, “so help me God,” but the phrase has been used according to tradition.

We have decided that wouldn’t it be wonderful for at least one presidential debate to have the candidates respond to questions of the heart, questions of the soul. For example, I’ll just give you one of the questions we’ll be asking them: If you are elected president you will be taking the oath of office, the last words in that oath of office will be ‘so help me God,’ what will that mean to you? We’ll be asking them how much they believe that the institution of marriage as one man and one woman is important to the country and what will they do if we end up with a welter of different definitions in different states, is that the realm of action for a president to take or will he leave a bunch of different definitions around the country, he or she, so those are the kind of questions we’ll get at.

However, “questions of the heart” and “questions of the soul” apparently do not pertain to multiple allegations of sexual harassment and assault.

Later in the interview, Minnery said that there is even “room for people who do not hold an orthodox Christianity,” referring to the two candidates who are not attending the forum: Mitt Romney and Jon Huntsman, who both just so happen to be Mormons. He said that if Christians “prize Thomas Jefferson,” then it is possible that they can vote for a presidential candidate who is not a Christian but at least has a Christian “worldview.”

Just saying one is a Christian is not sufficient, one has to understand: what is your worldview? How do these moral and soul-matters play out in the policies that you will support when you are in the White House? There is room for people who do not hold an orthodox Christianity, we prize Thomas Jefferson, but I don’t think anybody would say he was an orthodox Christian in his beliefs. He did so much because he understood freedom, he understood the nature of a Creator and the blessings of a Creator as beneficial to the country, so people have to look beyond simply the response to the question, ‘is someone a Christian,’ because I would say, for one thing, I cannot remember an election cycle in which there were so many people trying to get the nomination for one party who professed to be Christians. So just saying you’re a Christian is not enough.

Over the last several years, Focus on the Family has undergone a drastic budget reduction that has forced round after round of lay-offs ... and it looks like things just keep getting worse, as the organization is now desperately trying to raise more than $2 million in the next thirty days:

The email doesn’t have the drama of the late evangelist Oral Roberts’ announcement in 1986 that God would call him home if he didn’t raise $8 million by a certain date. But the message from CitizenLink, the lobbying arm of Focus on the Family, was nevertheless clear: Act now or there could be consequences.

CitizenLink this week sent an email to constituents pleading for $2.3 million in 30 days to avoid a budget shortfall. If the money is not raised, “our ability to act on your behalf will be severely, and perhaps irreparably, hurt,” wrote Tom Minnery, CitizenLink executive director.

“The threat is still very real,” Minnery writes. “If we don’t stay vigilant, last year’s victories can AND WILL be taken from us!”

Like most nonprofits, CitizenLink has experienced a dramatic drop in donations in recent years. In fiscal 2009, donations were $6.5 million, according to CitizenLink financial records. A year later, donations fell to $5 million. In the run-up to the November 2010 midterm elections, the organization received a sharp increase in donations. But since then, Minnery said Wednesday, giving has fallen off to a worrying degree.

CitizenLink’s 2011 fiscal budget is $5.8 million. The $2.3 million shortfall needs to be balanced by Sept. 30.

The article notes that the organization "has spent millions fighting against gay marriage, gay unions and the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell" but reports that CitizenLink won't have another round of layoffs if the budget is not met, though it will have to cut back on planned projects.

Tom Minnery, the head of Focus on the Family’s political arm CitizenLink, was recently named to the Republican National Committee’s Committee on Presidential Debates. Minnery, who said he was picked by the RNC as “someone who represents social conservatives,” will join other prominent conservative leaders like Dick Armey of FreedomWorks, Al Cardenas of the American Conservative Union, and former RNC chair Mike Duncan. While speaking to Stuart Shepard, Minnery explained why the committee was created: “they thought, why should we expose our candidates to the lefties in the mainstream media who will ask questions designed to put a wedge between each of the candidates and embarrass them, make them look a little bit less than presidential, given the bias of the media?”

Shepard: First, explain what this is about. You’re on a very important committee that’s going to make some key decisions, tell us about it.

Minnery: Yes, Stuart, thanks for asking. The Republican national party decided to sanction, manage, supervise a number of debates for the candidates who are running to become the Republican nominee for president next year. They thought, why should we expose our candidates to the lefties in the mainstream media who will ask questions designed to put a wedge between each of the candidates and embarrass them, make them look a little bit less than presidential, given the bias of the media? And so, the Republican national people put together a committee of nine people to manage the process and sanction a series of debates.

…

So this committee of the Republican national party appointed by the new chairman of the Republican party have nine people on them, five of them are Republican National Committee members…four outsiders, if you will, one of them, for example, Dick Armey, the former majority leader of the House of Representatives and a Tea Party leader, he’s been asked to join the committee to represent the Tea Party, and yours truly has been asked to join it to represent social conservatives and be sure that social issues are represented among the questions asked in these debates.

Earlier today it was reported that President Obama had ordered the Justice Department to stop defending the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act.

So far, reactions from the Religious Right have been few and far between but we are going to post them here as they trickle in:

National Organization for Marriage:

“We have not yet begun to fight for marriage,” said Brian Brown, president of NOM.

“The Democrats are responding to their election loss with a series of extraordinary, extra-constitutional end runs around democracy, whether it’s fleeing the state in Wisconsin and Indiana to prevent a vote, or unilaterally declaring homosexuals a protected class under our Constitution, as President Obama just did,” said Brown. “We call on the House to intervene to protect DOMA, and to tell the Obama administration they have to respect the limits on their power. This fight is not over, it has only begun!”

...

“On the one hand this is a truly shocking extra-constitutional power grab in declaring gay people are a protected class, and it’s also a defection of duty on the part of the President Obama,” said Maggie Gallagher, Chairman of NOM, “On the other hand, the Obama administration was throwing this case in court anyway. The good news is this now clears the way for the House to intervene and to get lawyers in the court room who actually want to defend the law, and not please their powerful political special interests.”

FRC:

"It's a dereliction of duty,'' said Tom McClusky, senior vice president of Family Research Council Action. "Whether they agree with the law or not is irrelevant...The Obama administration has purposely dropped the ball here."

AFA:

"I think it's a clear sign that we simply cannot avoid engaging on the social issues," Bryan Fischer, director of issue analysis for the group, told TPM. "Mitch Daniels has called for a truce on social issues and that would be fine if the homosexual lobby was willing to lay down arms, but they're obviously not and this proves it. A truce is nothing more than a surrender."

Fischer said he was not surprised by the president's decision.

"Frankly I was surprised that President Obama pretended to be a defender of natural marriage as long as he did," he said.

He said that the White House move should serve as "a wake-up call to all conservatives that fundamental American values regarding the family are under all-out assault by this administration. It ought to represent a clarion call to man the barricades before we lose what is left of the Judeo-Christian system of values in our public life."

Focus on the Family:

Tom Minnery, a vice president with Focus on the Family, said the Obama administration did not aggressively defend the Defense of Marriage Act in any case. "If the federal government will not defend federal laws, we're facing legal chaos," Minnery said. "If the administration can pick and choose what laws it defends, which law is next?"

"We would hope Congress uses the tools at its disposal to counter this decision and defend marriage," Minnery said.

ADF:

“Typically, when a law is challenged, the government has a duty to defend the law, and typically they do so with the most vigorous possible defense,” said Jim Campbell, attorney with the conservative Alliance Defense Fund. “In this case, we’ve seen executive branch officials refuse to do so.”

Official FRC statement:

"This decision by President Obama and the Department of Justice is appalling. The President's failure to defend DOMA is also a failure to fulfill his oath to 'faithfully execute the office of President of the United States.' What will be the next law that he will choose not to enforce or uphold?

"Marriage as a male-female union has been easily defended in court and overwhelmingly supported by the American people. There is absolutely no excuse beyond pandering to his liberal political base for President Obama's decision to abandon his constitutional role to defend a federal law enacted overwhelmingly by Congress.

"With this decision the President has thrown down the gauntlet, challenging Congress. It is incumbent upon the Republican leadership to respond by intervening to defend DOMA, or they will become complicit in the President's neglect of duty," concluded Perkins.

Liberty Counsel:

Today President Barack Obama instructed the U.S. Attorney General, Eric Holder, and the Department of Justice to cease defending the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). “This is outrageous and unthinkable that the President would abandon the defense of marriage,” said Mathew Staver, Founder and Chairman of Liberty Counsel. “President Obama has betrayed the American people by his refusal to defend the federal law that affirms what many courts upheld as constitutional, namely, that marriage is between one man and one woman,” said Staver.

...

“Regardless of President Obama’s own ideological agenda, as President, he and his Attorney General have a duty to defend lawfully passed legislation, especially when the essence of the law has been upheld by many courts. Thirty states have passed marriage amendments affirming marriage as one man and one woman. Today President Obama has abandoned his role as President of the United States and transformed his office into the President of the Divided States. He has been the most divisive president in American history. He has today declared war on the American people and the fundamental values that are shared by most Americans. His radicalism resulted in the historical push-back in the 2010 elections. His radicalism today will come back around when the people respond to this betrayal in 2012,” said Staver.

TVC:

“The Obama Administration has been sabotaging marriage in direct contradiction to his campaign promises. Today, President Obama takes his most unprecedented step yet, choosing to rule and reign through executive decree in what could only be called a supra-constitutional act. After massive defeats at the polls in November, a total repudiation on health care, and staring down a cost-cutting Congress, Obama is looking to secure what little base remains. Obama’s actions today are an unprecedented grab for power and perhaps the most audacious in the 235 year history of the American republic.

“President Obama believes he has “concluded” that the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional, as passed along by Attorney General Eric Holder -- effectively asserting that Obama may rule by whim and decree.

“We are a nation of laws, not whims.

“Virtually every state in the country has overwhelmingly passed laws and state constitutional amendments protecting marriage. This unprecedented power grab demands the immediate reaction of the United States House of Representatives, who must do everything possible to fight back against what can only be described as a despotic and alarming attack on the rule of law.”

Catholic League:

Now Obama is officially on record as president opposing the defense of marriage. Thus does he pit himself against the 1996 law that was signed by President Bill Clinton, and opposed by only 15 percent in the House and 14 percent in the Senate. He also stands in opposition to the over 30 state initiatives affirming marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

Now that Obama is totally out of the closet, it will spur a genuine effort to adopt a constitutional amendment affirming the integrity of marriage.

Gary Bauer:

The president is the chief law enforcement officer, not the chief justice! It is not up to Barack Obama to determine which laws he likes and which laws he doesn’t. It is his responsibility to enforce the law until the nation’s highest court decides the law does not pass constitutional analysis.

But this president sees things very differently — he’s here to fundamentally transform America, by, among other things, redefining marriage ...

Today’s news should put to rest any suggestion that Obama has moved to the center. He has just aligned himself with the most radical elements in the culture war who are trying to redefine normalcy.

I’ll have more on this tomorrow, but I have to be honest with you: I’m worried our side has gone back to sleep. Financial support for our work has dropped significantly. But the left is energized. Obama suddenly feels free to abandon the law and let the militant homosexual rights movement force same-sex “marriage” on every state in the nation. A liberal politician is urging the unions to “get a little bloody” in the streets.

The Tea Party protests have ebbed while the left-wing radicals are fired up. The momentum seems to have shifted back to the left. Men and women of faith must remain engaged in the public policy battles of the day. The culture war is real and only one side can prevail.