Family Research Council

Family Research Council's "The Top Ten Harms of Same-Sex 'Marriage'" Defies Logic

The Family Research Council released a pamphlet authored by senior fellow Peter Sprigg about the purported “harm” of marriage equality to American society. Sprigg, who previously said that he wants to “export homosexuals from the United States” because “homosexuality is destructive to society,” discusses the ten reasons he believes that equal rights for gays and lesbians are dangerous, ranging from a “diversity bag” in a Massachusetts school (Reason #2) to the predicted rise of adultery if gays were allowed to marry (Reason #5) and the legalization of polygamy (Reason #10).

First, Sprigg argues that if married gay couples receive health benefits for their families, their relationships would be “subsidized” by the public through entitlement programs. Sprigg finds it deplorable that people would like their spouse or child to receive benefits after they pass away:

Reason #1: Taxpayers, consumers, and businesses would be forced to subsidize homosexual relationships.

One of the key arguments often heard in support of homosexual civil “marriage” revolves around all the government “benefits” that homosexu¬als claim they are denied. Many of these “benefits” involve one thing—taxpayer money that homosexuals are eager to get their hands on. For example, one of the goals of homosexu¬al activists is to take part in the biggest government entitlement program of all—Social Security. Homosexuals want their partners to be eligible for Social Security survivors benefits when one partner dies.

The fact that Social Security survivors benefits were intended to help stay-at-home mothers who did not have retirement benefits from a former employer has not kept homosexuals from de¬manding the benefit.1 Homosexual activists are also demanding that children raised by a homo¬sexual couple be eligible for benefits when one of the partners dies—even if the deceased partner was not the child’s biological or adoptive parent.

Later, Sprigg claims that if gays and lesbians have equal marriage rights, then straight people would be less likely to marry. Why? According to Sprigg, few gay couples would get married if they had the right to, and straight couples would naturally follow their “poor example” and not get married:

Reason #4: Fewer people would marry.

Even where legal recognition and marital rights and benefits are available to same-sex couples (whether through same-sex civil “marriages,” “civil unions,” or “domestic partnerships”), relatively few same-sex couples even bother to seek such recognition or claim such benefits.



Couples who could marry, but choose instead to cohabit without the benefit of marriage, harm the institution of marriage by setting an example for other couples, making non-marital cohabitation seem more acceptable as well. If same-sex “marriage” were legalized, the evidence suggests that the percentage of homosexual couples who would choose cohabitation over “marriage” would be much larger than the current percentage of heterosexual couples who choose cohabitation over marriage. It is likely that the poor example set by homosexual couples would, over time, lead to lower marriage rates among heterosexuals as well.

Sprigg also blames marriage equality laws for a fall in the birthrate in certain states, arguing that people would have fewer children if gay couples are allowed to wed. Of course, he uses absolutely no evidence to back up this assertion:

Reason #9: Birthrates would fall.

There is already evidence of at least a correlation between low birth rates and the legalization of same-sex “marriage.” At this writing, five U.S. states grant marriage licenses to same-sex couples. As of 2007, the last year for which complete data are available, four of those five states ranked within the bottom eight out of all fifty states in both birth rate (measured in relation to the total population) and fertility rate (measured in rela¬tion to the population of women of childbearing age).



The contribution of same-sex “marriage” to de¬clining birth rates would clearly lead to significant harm for society.

Gohmert: Terror Babies and Islamist-Progressive Axis Are Plotting to Destroy America

Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) believes that radical Islamic terrorists and progressives are working together to bring down America out of their shared “hatred” for conservatives and Christians, and intend to use “terror babies” as part of their plan. Speaking with a receptive audience of Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council and Tim Wildmon of the American Family Association, Gohmert explained his allegation that terrorists are plotting to come into the United States in order to gain citizenship for their children. After Gohmert first floated his conspiracy theory on the House floor in June, he was later unable to produce any evidence to substantiate his claim and a former FBI official maintained that “there was never a credible report — or any report, for that matter — coming across through all the various mechanisms of communication to indicate that there was such a plan for these terror babies to be born.”

Wildmon: Somebody’s gotta get strong here, and say listen, no more 20-40 year olds from Saudi Arabia are allowed into America until you all get this cleaned up.

Gohmert: I’ve been beat up pretty badly over an issue of women coming into US, having babies here, and returning where they came from with an American citizen and an American passport for that child. But if people will do the homework, as I’ve been doing, they will find out that there are people who are known associates of groups we call terrorist groups whose wives have come and have children here and go back with American passports. I don’t use the term terrorist babies that’s an oxymoron, but others have, or terror babies, I mean a baby is a gift from God, it’s not a terror.

After discussing “terror babies” with Perkins and Wildmon, he went on to suggest that Muslim terrorists and progressives have “thrown in together” because “they hate conservatives and they don’t care that much for Christianity.” Gohmert adds that “if the radical Jihadists took over, the first people they kill are the extreme leftists that have thrown in with them right now”:

You know the great irony, the extreme leftist media that is throwing in with the radical Jihadists, the great irony is, if the radical Jihadists took over, the first people they kill are the extreme leftists that have thrown in with them right now. They would not have the freedom of press to say the things that they want or disagree with the government, all of those things would go by the wayside. It is ironic that the two groups throw in together. In fact, my friend Andy McCarthy had a great article about how leftists and jihadists have thrown in together in this effort, not because they have anything at all in common other than that they hate conservatives and they don’t care that much for Christianity.

Religious Right Group Says Anti-Bullying Programs Will "Homosexualize" Children

Rick Green of WallBuilders hosted Elizabeth Swanson of the Protect Kids Foundation, a virulently anti-gay group that opposes programs to protect children from bullying and harassment in schools. Like other groups such as Focus on the Family, the California Family Council, Mission America, and the Family Research Council, the so-called Protect Kids Foundation claims that gay-rights proponents “indoctrinating kids to accept and adopt LGBT lifestyles, starting in kindergarten.” David Barton, the head of WallBuilders, himself said that public school students “are getting homosexual indoctrination” and manufacturing the bullying problem.

According to the Protect Kids Foundation, gay-rights advocates are “obsessed with power” and “are determined to transform schools, kids, and culture into their hedonistic vision of a new utopian America…radically transforming society by using our children as pawns for social change.” The organization believes that the immense bullying faced by students who are gay or perceived as gay in schools is not a significant issue, accusing supporters of anti-bullying policies of “fabricating an issue and claiming victim status to gain power” and “indoctrinating impressionable school children.” In their words, the establishment of anti-bullying programs “stigmatizes the normal and normalizes what has for centuries been deemed deviant” and somehow takes away the rights of heterosexuals who don’t support attempts to “homosexualize their children”:

The civil rights issue actually runs in favor of the estimated 96% of the population who are not homosexual. Having LGBT activists homosexualize their children will trample upon their civil rights. For the first time in our history, America is faced with a powerful movement that defines its alleged “rights” in terms of the deprivation of the fundamental rights of others. As a result, the homosexual movement is depriving other Americans of civil liberties guaranteed by the Bill of Rights.

Swanson told Green on WallBuilders Live that people should “reclaim” the word 'homophobic,' which she believes, has unfairly become a “pejorative” and a “racial epithet.”

Rick, you said a very key word, 'tolerance,' that we're going to teach tolerance. But the redefinitions of the words go even further. So when you look at the definitions that GLSEN has put forward, there’s a document called Tackling LGBT Issues in the Schools, and it’s a document prepared jointly by GLSEN and Planned Parenthood. And interestingly, the definition that they use of the word “homophobe,” “homophobia” or a “homophobic level of attitude,” which is a word I do not normally use because that word in itself was created by an activist who wanted to get back at people that were disagreeing with homosexuality as a moral good. So to me the term is a pejorative term, a racial epithet if you would, that should not be used because you’re basically name calling people right there if you say ‘Oh, they’re homophobic,’ so that’s a word that needs to be reclaimed and not used in our every day vernacular when talking about this issue.

300: Religious Right Forming It Own Spartan Army

For months now, we have been chronicling how self-described prophets and apostles have been merging 7 Mountains/Dominionism with "mainstream" Religious Right activism ... and increasingly the man at the center of this appears to be the Family Research Council's Tony Perkins.

Perkins was among the first to embrace Lou Engle and transform him into a Religious Right leader and now he seems to be doing the same with Rick Joyner of The Oak Initiative.

Just today we noted that Joyner, Jerry Boykin, and Janet Porter were gathering for a conference next month and as I was looking for more information about that, I stumbled across this video of Perkins, Joyner, Boykin and Frank Turek discussing the importance of Christians getting deeply involved in politics. 

Perkins explains the absolute necessity of getting Christians into all levels of government while Boykin compared Christians today to the Spartan army and quoted King Leonidas by declaring "molon labe" ["come and get them"] when he and his army were told to lay down their weapons. 

Likewise, Boykin declared "molon labe," stating that he will not be silenced and challenged those in Washington who are out to take his liberties, rob his grandchildren, and destroy America to just try to take them from him.

Finally, Joyner announced that Christians have more than enough people to take control, but they need to bind together and, as such, would soon be unveiling coalition called "300":

Right Wing Leftovers

  • The Family Research Council is overjoyed that House Republicans will step up to defend DOMA.
  • Lila Rose and the Susan B. Anthony List are touring the country in their effort to de-fund Planned Parenthood.
  • I am genuinely confused by Alan Keyes' latest WND column.
  • Trent Franks for Senate?
  • I guess the Christian Anti-Defamation's Boycott didn't work so well, which is why Larry Grard had to sue.
  • Finally, Concerned Women For America's concern for child prostitutes means they should be arrested and jailed by the police.

CWA: Obama the "Despot" is Discriminating Against Americans by Not Defending DOMA

When the Attorney General Eric Holder announced that the Department of Justice will end its defense of the unconstitutional Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), Religious Right groups were naturally apoplectic. Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council likened President Obama to a Middle East dictator, the Traditional Values Coalition blasted the “unprecedented power grab,” and Mat Staver of Liberty Counsel said Obama “betrayed the American people.” However, the government will continue to enforce DOMA and the move by the Department of Justice was not without precedent, as the Bush and Clinton administrations both refused to defend laws that they found to be unconstitutional. Even David Barton agrees that the Obama administration has the right to drop its defense of DOMA.

Concerned Women for America’s Mario Diaz believes that the DOMA decision represents a grave turning point in American history as a “tyrannical move” by President Obama, who he accuses of lying about “his putative Christian faith.”

Ironically, Diaz argues that Obama and Holder are “suppress[ing] the rights of the majority of Americans” and don’t think certain people “deserve the same protections other Americans enjoy” by dropping the defense of a law which singles out gays and lesbians for discrimination. In fact, CWA finds the decision so scary that it believes that the future of marriage in America will entail a man leaving his bride at the altar for another man:

Wednesday, February 23, 2011, should be a day all Americans remember. It was the day when President Obama betrayed the majority of Americans by refusing to defend the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), in fact ordering the Department of Justice (DOJ) to abandon the protection of the federal law preserving marriage as the union between one man and one woman.

This decision – just like his pretended support for traditional marriage during the presidential campaign – was purely political for the President whose radical liberalism grows starker by the day. Obama is counting on the powerful homosexual lobby to come out in full force for him, but Americans must not forget this tyrannical move by the president. Even as we focus on issues of the economy, jobs, and spending, we must remember that a morally bankrupt nation can never flourish. All the tax cuts in the world can never repair a nation’s broken spirit.



So, just like any other despot, Obama decided unilaterally to make the decision for all of us ignorant Americans who support DOMA, and we should be grateful.

Shame on him. And shame on us if we just stand by silently and take it. We should not! We must speak out.

Truthfully, we have been too silent for far too long. President Obama and Mr. Holder have been actively working against DOMA and, therefore, against all Americans ever since they took office. Even on the cases where they decided to “defend” DOMA, they were actually undermining its reasoning by abandoning the most effective arguments.

DOJ’s mission statement says it is “...to ensure fair and impartial administration of justice for all Americans.” But President Obama and the attorney general have made a mockery of impartiality. They have chosen to side with an extreme, liberal minority and chose to suppress the rights of the majority of Americans.

Simply put, if you support DOMA, this president and his administration view you as the enemy who does not deserve the same protections other Americans enjoy. We are on our own.

Land Takes Preemptive Shot At Daniels Presidential Bid, Calls Truce "Political Suicide"

Writing for the Wall Street Journal, Richard Land took a preemptive strike against Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels, who raised eyebrows after calling for a “truce” on social issues and is considering a run for president. Land writes just one day after a WSJ poll found that the majority of GOP primary voters would be sympathetic to the “truce” offered by Daniels, who believes that the nation should be focusing on economic issues instead of fighting the “culture war.” Land, like many other Religious Right leaders, has come out swinging against Daniels’s proposal and dubbed the truce “political suicide.” The influential head of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission said that if Daniels continues to pursue the truce, he would go the way of former Sen. Phil Gramm, who lost many socially conservative supporters in his failed 1996 campaign for president. Land writes:

Indiana governor and likely Republican presidential candidate Mitch Daniels has suggested that Americans call a "truce" on divisive social issues until our precarious financial house is back in order. Many pundits have praised the idea, typically thrilled that a Republican leader seems willing to jettison, even temporarily, strong positions on abortion or gay marriage. But social conservatives are mad, and rightly so.

Throughout the 1980s and '90s, social conservatives were the foot soldiers for Republican victories—only to see their issues bargained away or shoved to the bottom of the GOP agenda, beneath issues of fiscal and foreign policy. Reacting to Gov. Daniels, former Arkansas governor and presidential candidate Mike Huckabee recently said: "For those of us who have labored long and hard in the fight to educate the Democrats, voters, the media and even some Republicans on the importance of strong families, traditional marriage and life to our society, this is absolutely heartbreaking."

Perhaps Gov. Daniels interprets the emergence of the tea party as a sign that GOP candidates don't have to depend on social-issues voters as they once did. That seems unlikely. As Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council has said, "Calling for a truce on core conservative principles might get you some high profile media sound bites, but it won't win you the Republican presidential nomination."



For Republicans to do anything to de-energize this voting bloc would amount to political suicide.

Most social conservatives are also fiscal conservatives. They recognize that a federal government that borrows more than 40 cents of every dollar it spends is committing generational theft, spending our grandchildren's money and impoverishing their future. Social conservatives also argue that government has such high costs partly because of the broken families, broken communities and broken ethics generated by moral relativism.



As Mark Twain reportedly observed, "History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme." There once was a promising Republican presidential candidate known for being an economic guru and master of the numbers: Sen. Phil Gramm. At one point in 1996, he had raised more money than any other candidate. Like Gov. Daniels, Sen. Gramm had a sterling social conservative voting record and his lack of telegenic charisma was seen as an advantage, in contrast to President Clinton's slick persona. But Sen. Gramm's candidacy went down in flames after he dismissed a question about social issues by saying: "I'm not running for preacher, I'm running for president."



There is a deep longing in large segments of the American populace for a restoration of a morality that emphasizes personal obligations and responsibilities over rights and privileges. Such a society will have a restored moral symmetry in which exemplary personal and professional behavior is rewarded and less exemplary behavior is not. As Jesus reminded us, "Man shall not live on bread alone."

Santorum to Address New Hampshire Tea Party and Religious Right Gathering

In another sign that former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum is running for President, Fox News has suspended his contract as a commentator and he is scheduled to address the “Tax Payer Tea Party Rally” in Concord, New Hampshire on April 15th. John DiStaso of the Union Leader reports that Santorum is “is the first likely presidential candidate to confirm an appearance” to the event hosted by the pro-corporate group Americans for Prosperity and the far-right Cornerstone Action. “With all eyes once again focused on New Hampshire, Cornerstone Action is excited to co-sponsor the largest tea party rally in the state,” said Cornerstone’s Kevin Smith in a statement announcing the rally.

Cornerstone is an ultraconservative organization that flaunts its close relationship with national groups like the Alliance Defense Fund, the Family Research Council, CitizenLink, and the National Organization for Marriage. In fact, Cornerstone worked with NOM to run ads attacking the governor for signing the state's marriage equality law and is collaborating with NOM and the FRC to repeal the law. Good As You notes that Cornerstone also endorses the discredited "ex-gay" therapy groups such as Exodus International, Love Won Out, PFOX, and the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH). In addition, Cornerstone is a top sponsor of the Creationist movie “The Genesis Code.”

Roll Call also reports that “Cornerstone will ask each Republican presidential candidate to sign a pledge agreeing marriage should be between one man and one woman.”

While Rick Santorum has previously addressed Cornerstone events, it is very likely that more Republican candidates will seek the support of the militantly anti-gay group to bolster their New Hampshire campaigns.

Right-Wing Activists Malign Goodwin Liu Even As Conservative Legal Minds Support His Confirmation

Legal scholar Goodwin Liu, President Obama’s nominee for the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, is receiving a second hearing at the Senate Judiciary Committee today. Liu, who is an Associate Dean and Professor of Law at the Berkeley School of Law and a renowned legal scholar, has unsurprisingly found himself to be a top target of right-wing activists.

Ed Whalen of the Nation Review accuses Liu of “trying to fool senators and get himself appointed to the Ninth Circuit, where he would (among countless opportunities for mischief)” overrule California’s Proposition 8. In addition, a coalition of right-wing groups including the Judicial Crisis Network, Family Research Council, Concerned Women for America, Liberty Counsel, American Values, the Center for Military Readiness, the Media Research Center, the Traditional Values Coalition, Americans for Limited Government, and Citizens United have signed on to a memo condemning Liu for representing the “extreme liberal agenda of judicial activism.”

But Richard Painter, the Associate Counsel to the President during the Bush Administration, points out that while many ideological right-wing activists oppose Liu, prominent conservative legal minds like John Yoo, Ken Starr, and Clint Bolick endorse his confirmation and corroborate Liu’s qualifications. “The attacks are rife with extravagant and tendentious readings of Liu’s record,” Painter writes, “and they are based on selective quotations of Liu's writings that even then don’t prove the point”:

Liu's opponents have sought to demonize him as a "radical," "extremist," and worse. National Review Online's Ed Whelan has led the charge with a "one-stop repository" of attacks on Liu. However, for anyone who has actually read Liu's writings or watched his testimony, it's clear that the attacks--filled with polemic, caricature, and hyperbole--reveal very little about this exceptionally qualified, measured, and mainstream nominee.



Far from being radical, Liu's view probably comports with the intent of the framers who bequeathed the Constitution to their descendants with the intent that it be a useful document. Few if any of our ancestors would have intended that we run our businesses, farm our land, educate our children, or live our lives exactly the way they did, even if they did intend that the Constitution give us principles of self-government that would last for generations. Liu's perspective may be more realistic than that of some of his opponents; his view is certainly not radical.



In sum, Liu is eminently qualified. He has support from prominent conservatives. He would fill a judicial emergency vacancy, and he would add important diversity to the bench. He is pragmatic and open-minded, not dogmatic or ideological, as his support for school vouchers shows.

Many, though by no means all, of his scholarly views do not align with conservative ideology or with the policy positions of many elected officials in the Republican Party. (This might not have been the case thirty years ago, but many moderates have since left the Republican Party.) Nevertheless, his views are part of the American legal mainstream. The independence, rigor, and fair-mindedness of his writings support a confident prediction that he will be a dutiful and impartial judge.

Right Wing Leftovers

  • The Family Research Council has filed a FIOA request because they are "deeply concerned that officials at the Department of Justice were collaborating with the litigants in the Proposition 8 case."
  • Speaker John Boehner says social issues will not be ignored.
  • Rep. Eric Cantor says the House will step up to defend DOMA.
  • Anti-Islam activist Robert Spencer wants to know why the US doesn't step up and outlaw Islam.
  • Remember Larry Grard? He's suing.
  • Finally, I am excited that thrice-married Newt Gingrich is forming a presidential exploratory committee and would like to announce my new policy that so long as he maintains this ridiculous charade, I intend to routinely refer to him as "thrice-married Newt Gingrich."

Perkins: Obama Acting like a Middle East Dictator over DOMA

Opponents of marriage equality continue to demand that Republicans put up a huge fight against the Obama administration’s decision to stop defending DOMA, and Rep. Steve King (R-IA) is even threatening by tweet that “if President Obama won’t redirect Holder’s DOJ to aggressively defend U.S. DOMA law, I will move aggressively to cut their budget.”

Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council is meeting with congressional Republican leaders to plot strategy, and yesterday appeared on Bill Bennett’s “Morning in America” to discuss why he believes the Department of Justice made the decision that DOMA is unconstitutional.

Perkins initially likened Obama to a Middle East dictator for his actions on DOMA:

Perkins: The fact that the president is taking this on and saying, ‘look I don’t care what the Congress said,’ really it’s a challenge to the Congress and their authority as to whether or not who’s going to make the laws of the land. This would be fitting if it were in the Middle East in one of these dictatorships that are falling right now, but this is the United States of America.

Later, Bennett and Perkins agreed that the DOMA decision was a manufactured, “dangerous and destructive distraction” to stop Americans from thinking about Obama’s supposed failure to handle problems in the Middle East and at home:

Bennett: You’re analysis is great, you know I’m always very candid with you Tony, I’m just so baffled by this. I can’t recall a time when there’s been more news in a week, you know, to just list all the countries in the Middle East takes half a segment. Then look what’s going on in Wisconsin, and Ohio, and Indiana, and this situation in Libya where we’re trying to get American citizens on a ferry out of that country. I just am dumbfounded, why they picked this moment to do this.

Perkins: They can’t handle them.

Bennett: Part of leadership is priorities, to pick this moment to attack marriage? Go ahead, instruct me.

Perkins: Look, I mean if you can’t handle those problems and solve them then why not create a domestic distraction?

Bennett: I mean that’s the height of irresponsibility.

Perkins: But I think that’s exactly what it is.

Bennett: This is a distraction, and a dangerous and destructive distraction.

Perkins: Obama Acting like a Middle East Dictator over DOMA

Opponents of marriage equality continue to demand that Republicans put up a huge fight against the Obama administration’s decision to stop defending DOMA, and Rep. Steve King (R-IA) is even threatening by tweet that “if President Obama won’t redirect Holder’s DOJ to aggressively defend U.S. DOMA law, I will move aggressively to cut their budget.”

Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council is meeting with congressional Republican leaders to plot strategy, and yesterday appeared on Bill Bennett’s “Morning in America” to discuss why he believes the Department of Justice made the decision that DOMA is unconstitutional.

Perkins initially likened Obama to a Middle East dictator for his actions on DOMA:

Perkins: The fact that the president is taking this on and saying, ‘look I don’t care what the Congress said,’ really it’s a challenge to the Congress and their authority as to whether or not who’s going to make the laws of the land. This would be fitting if it were in the Middle East in one of these dictatorships that are falling right now, but this is the United States of America.

Later, Bennett and Perkins agreed that the DOMA decision was a manufactured, “dangerous and destructive distraction” to stop Americans from thinking about Obama’s supposed failure to handle problems in the Middle East and at home:

Bennett: You’re analysis is great, you know I’m always very candid with you Tony, I’m just so baffled by this. I can’t recall a time when there’s been more news in a week, you know, to just list all the countries in the Middle East takes half a segment. Then look what’s going on in Wisconsin, and Ohio, and Indiana, and this situation in Libya where we’re trying to get American citizens on a ferry out of that country. I just am dumbfounded, why they picked this moment to do this.

Perkins: They can’t handle them.

Bennett: Part of leadership is priorities, to pick this moment to attack marriage? Go ahead, instruct me.

Perkins: Look, I mean if you can’t handle those problems and solve them then why not create a domestic distraction?

Bennett: I mean that’s the height of irresponsibility.

Perkins: But I think that’s exactly what it is.

Bennett: This is a distraction, and a dangerous and destructive distraction.

DOMA Decision Becomes Test Of GOP Fealty To Religious Right

When news broke that the Obama administration had decided to stop defending DOMA in court because the law in unconstitutional, the Religious Right went nuts and immediately swung into action to get Congress to step in and take up the fight.

But as both the Washington Post and New York Times report, the GOP establishment doesn't appear particularly eager to wade into this battle:

President Obama’s decision to abandon his legal support for the Defense of Marriage Act has generated only mild rebukes from the Republicans hoping to succeed him in 2012, evidence of a shifting political climate in which social issues are being crowded out by economic concerns.

The Justice Department announced on Wednesday that after two years of defending the law — hailed by proponents in 1996 as an cornerstone in the protection of traditional values — the president and his attorney general have concluded it is unconstitutional.

In the hours that followed, Sarah Palin’s Facebook site was silent. Mitt Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts, was close-mouthed. Tim Pawlenty, the former governor of Minnesota, released a Web video — on the labor union protests in Wisconsin — and waited a day before issuing a marriage statement saying he was “disappointed.”

Others, like Newt Gingrich, the former House speaker, and Haley Barbour, the governor of Mississippi, took their time weighing in, and then did so only in the most tepid terms. “The Justice Department is supposed to defend our laws,” Mr. Barbour said.

Asked if Mitch Daniels, the Republican governor of Indiana and a possible presidential candidate, had commented on the marriage decision, a spokeswoman said that he “hasn’t, and with other things we have going on here right now, he has no plans.”

But if the GOP thinks it can sit this one out, it had better think again because its Religious Right base is demanding that Republican leaders and candidates step up and make this a central issue heading into 2012:

Angered conservatives are vowing to make same-sex marriage a front-burner election issue, nationally and in the states, following the Obama administration's announcement that it will no longer defend the federal law denying recognition to gay married couples.

"The ripple effect nationwide will be to galvanize supporters of marriage," said staff counsel Jim Campbell of Alliance Defense Fund, a conservative legal group.

On the federal level, opponents of same-sex marriage urged Republican leaders in the House of Representatives to intervene on their own to defend the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, against pending court challenges.

"The president has thrown down the gauntlet, challenging Congress," said Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council. "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."

Conservatives also said they would now expect the eventual 2012 GOP presidential nominee to highlight the marriage debate as part of a challenge to Obama, putting the issue on equal footing with the economy.

...

Perkins, the Family Research Council leader, suggested that House Republicans would risk alienating their conservative base if they did not tackle the marriage issue head-on.

"The president was kind of tossing this cultural grenade into the Republican camp," he said.

"If they ignore this, it becomes an issue that will lead to some very troubling outcomes for Republicans."

DOMA Decision Becomes Test Of GOP Fealty To Religious Right

When news broke that the Obama administration had decided to stop defending DOMA in court because the law in unconstitutional, the Religious Right went nuts and immediately swung into action to get Congress to step in and take up the fight.

But as both the Washington Post and New York Times report, the GOP establishment doesn't appear particularly eager to wade into this battle:

President Obama’s decision to abandon his legal support for the Defense of Marriage Act has generated only mild rebukes from the Republicans hoping to succeed him in 2012, evidence of a shifting political climate in which social issues are being crowded out by economic concerns.

The Justice Department announced on Wednesday that after two years of defending the law — hailed by proponents in 1996 as an cornerstone in the protection of traditional values — the president and his attorney general have concluded it is unconstitutional.

In the hours that followed, Sarah Palin’s Facebook site was silent. Mitt Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts, was close-mouthed. Tim Pawlenty, the former governor of Minnesota, released a Web video — on the labor union protests in Wisconsin — and waited a day before issuing a marriage statement saying he was “disappointed.”

Others, like Newt Gingrich, the former House speaker, and Haley Barbour, the governor of Mississippi, took their time weighing in, and then did so only in the most tepid terms. “The Justice Department is supposed to defend our laws,” Mr. Barbour said.

Asked if Mitch Daniels, the Republican governor of Indiana and a possible presidential candidate, had commented on the marriage decision, a spokeswoman said that he “hasn’t, and with other things we have going on here right now, he has no plans.”

But if the GOP thinks it can sit this one out, it had better think again because its Religious Right base is demanding that Republican leaders and candidates step up and make this a central issue heading into 2012:

Angered conservatives are vowing to make same-sex marriage a front-burner election issue, nationally and in the states, following the Obama administration's announcement that it will no longer defend the federal law denying recognition to gay married couples.

"The ripple effect nationwide will be to galvanize supporters of marriage," said staff counsel Jim Campbell of Alliance Defense Fund, a conservative legal group.

On the federal level, opponents of same-sex marriage urged Republican leaders in the House of Representatives to intervene on their own to defend the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, against pending court challenges.

"The president has thrown down the gauntlet, challenging Congress," said Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council. "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."

Conservatives also said they would now expect the eventual 2012 GOP presidential nominee to highlight the marriage debate as part of a challenge to Obama, putting the issue on equal footing with the economy.

...

Perkins, the Family Research Council leader, suggested that House Republicans would risk alienating their conservative base if they did not tackle the marriage issue head-on.

"The president was kind of tossing this cultural grenade into the Republican camp," he said.

"If they ignore this, it becomes an issue that will lead to some very troubling outcomes for Republicans."

House Republicans and Religious Right Collaborate to Save Unconstitutional DOMA

After the Obama administration announced that it will no longer defend the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) because the law is unconstitutional, groups opposed to marriage equality immediately sprung into action. The Family Research Center, Concerned Women For America, and Focus on the Family’s political arm CitizenLink swiftly demanded that Congress pass a resolution to takeover the legal defense of DOMA. “Marriage advocates are ready to defend God’s design,” said Jennifer Mesko of CitizenLink, “They are calling on Congress to intervene and defend DOMA.”

According to the Washington Times, Religious Right leaders are now plotting with Republicans in Congress to do just that:

House Republicans and conservative groups are working together behind the scenes to fill the legal void created Wednesday when the Obama administration announced that it would no longer defend the federal law banning gay marriage.

The House leadership likely will introduce a resolution early next week to intervene in the four lawsuits pending against the Defense of Marriage Act, better known as DOMA, the 1996 federal law that defines marriage as between one man and one woman, conservative leaders say.

“I know there have been discussions. I’ve been part of the discussions,” said Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council. “The question is how to handle this hot potato. The president is trying to throw a monkey wrench into what’s been a very unified majority.”

Jordan Sekulow, policy director for the American Center for Law and Justice, said that although individual members could introduce their own measures in support of the law, he expects Republicans to present a united front with one resolution.

“We’re already in private discussions with members of Congress about defending DOMA,” said Mr. Sekulow. “A unified voice coming from the House would be more powerful.”

The consensus was that such a resolution would pass easily and with bipartisan support. “I don’t think there’s any question that this would pass,” Mr. Perkins said.



The decision effectively leaves the law defenseless in the face of four lawsuits, two filed in federal court in Massachusetts and two filed in federal court in New York. The Massachusetts cases are now at the appellate level.

“That’s a huge-level disadvantage for whoever takes this up,” said Mr. Sekulow. “Briefs are due soon in the 1st Circuit [Court of Appeals]. Congress is out of session this week. As of now, there’s no one defending DOMA.”

House Republicans and Religious Right Collaborate to Save Unconstitutional DOMA

After the Obama administration announced that it will no longer defend the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) because the law is unconstitutional, groups opposed to marriage equality immediately sprung into action. The Family Research Center, Concerned Women For America, and Focus on the Family’s political arm CitizenLink swiftly demanded that Congress pass a resolution to takeover the legal defense of DOMA. “Marriage advocates are ready to defend God’s design,” said Jennifer Mesko of CitizenLink, “They are calling on Congress to intervene and defend DOMA.”

According to the Washington Times, Religious Right leaders are now plotting with Republicans in Congress to do just that:

House Republicans and conservative groups are working together behind the scenes to fill the legal void created Wednesday when the Obama administration announced that it would no longer defend the federal law banning gay marriage.

The House leadership likely will introduce a resolution early next week to intervene in the four lawsuits pending against the Defense of Marriage Act, better known as DOMA, the 1996 federal law that defines marriage as between one man and one woman, conservative leaders say.

“I know there have been discussions. I’ve been part of the discussions,” said Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council. “The question is how to handle this hot potato. The president is trying to throw a monkey wrench into what’s been a very unified majority.”

Jordan Sekulow, policy director for the American Center for Law and Justice, said that although individual members could introduce their own measures in support of the law, he expects Republicans to present a united front with one resolution.

“We’re already in private discussions with members of Congress about defending DOMA,” said Mr. Sekulow. “A unified voice coming from the House would be more powerful.”

The consensus was that such a resolution would pass easily and with bipartisan support. “I don’t think there’s any question that this would pass,” Mr. Perkins said.



The decision effectively leaves the law defenseless in the face of four lawsuits, two filed in federal court in Massachusetts and two filed in federal court in New York. The Massachusetts cases are now at the appellate level.

“That’s a huge-level disadvantage for whoever takes this up,” said Mr. Sekulow. “Briefs are due soon in the 1st Circuit [Court of Appeals]. Congress is out of session this week. As of now, there’s no one defending DOMA.”

FRC Seeks to "Tear Down" Planned Parenthood's "Spiritual Strongholds" With Prayer Rallies

If you need any more proof that "strategic level spiritual warfare" is makings its way from the outward fringes into the heart of the Religious Right movement, look no further than this new Family Research Council prayer update calling upon its activists to "tear down the spiritual strongholds" of Planned Parenthood by holding prayer rallies outside the offices of their members of Congress this Friday: 

Planned Parenthood's activities are an affront to our faith, our understanding of what is right and wrong, the dignity of every human being -- born and unborn, Biblical morality as it applies to human sexuality, our God-given parental rights and the sacred jurisdiction and integrity of every family and its God-given responsibility to protect its young, and much, much more. Moreover they are an affront to our Heavenly Father who has conferred on each of us the right to life from the moment of our conception in the womb, especially since we are made in His image and likeness.

Planned Parenthood's lies have been embraced by many decent Americans, including leaders in our federal government. They have an army of dedicated activists who support them, who march, make calls to Congress, and who support candidates who advocate abortion.

This is not just a matter of philosophical, religious, moral education. Spiritual strongholds prevent many hearts from being moved by plain truth regarding abortion and its impact upon the unborn, individuals, families and society.

Only prayer can tear down the spiritual strongholds that have made Planned Parenthood's deadly achievements possible and their acceptance by large numbers of the American people. Only prayer can pull down the strongholds that motivated once pro-life politicians to compromise their faith in God and moral truth, and to abandon any tender compassion for human life -- all for the sake of political ambition.

Tony is asking pro-life churches, prayer groups, and individuals to help turn the tide by extraordinary prayer over the next few days during this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. He is asking pro-life Christians across America to take just one hour to pray outside their Congressman or one of their Senators' state offices this Friday. Tony asks that you simply go onsite and to stand vigil in unobtrusive prayer from Noon until 1 PM. Go in a group or go pray alone but go! Help us make sure that there is prayer outside every Representative and Senator's office this Friday. No protest, no signs, no controversy -- just heartfelt prayer.

  • Raise up an army of praying believers through whom You can pull down the spiritual strongholds and end taxpayer subsidies for this death-dealing industry. May believers gather at the workplaces of our Representatives and Senators in all 50 states. Turn our Senators' hearts and cause them to vote aright. Orchestrate a Concert of Prayer through that Friday noon hour that will please your heart and undo the dark spiritual forces that have prevailed until now. In Jesus name we pray, Amen

FRC Seeks to "Tear Down" Planned Parenthood's "Spiritual Strongholds" With Prayer Rallies

If you need any more proof that "strategic level spiritual warfare" is makings its way from the outward fringes into the heart of the Religious Right movement, look no further than this new Family Research Council prayer update calling upon its activists to "tear down the spiritual strongholds" of Planned Parenthood by holding prayer rallies outside the offices of their members of Congress this Friday: 

Planned Parenthood's activities are an affront to our faith, our understanding of what is right and wrong, the dignity of every human being -- born and unborn, Biblical morality as it applies to human sexuality, our God-given parental rights and the sacred jurisdiction and integrity of every family and its God-given responsibility to protect its young, and much, much more. Moreover they are an affront to our Heavenly Father who has conferred on each of us the right to life from the moment of our conception in the womb, especially since we are made in His image and likeness.

Planned Parenthood's lies have been embraced by many decent Americans, including leaders in our federal government. They have an army of dedicated activists who support them, who march, make calls to Congress, and who support candidates who advocate abortion.

This is not just a matter of philosophical, religious, moral education. Spiritual strongholds prevent many hearts from being moved by plain truth regarding abortion and its impact upon the unborn, individuals, families and society.

Only prayer can tear down the spiritual strongholds that have made Planned Parenthood's deadly achievements possible and their acceptance by large numbers of the American people. Only prayer can pull down the strongholds that motivated once pro-life politicians to compromise their faith in God and moral truth, and to abandon any tender compassion for human life -- all for the sake of political ambition.

Tony is asking pro-life churches, prayer groups, and individuals to help turn the tide by extraordinary prayer over the next few days during this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. He is asking pro-life Christians across America to take just one hour to pray outside their Congressman or one of their Senators' state offices this Friday. Tony asks that you simply go onsite and to stand vigil in unobtrusive prayer from Noon until 1 PM. Go in a group or go pray alone but go! Help us make sure that there is prayer outside every Representative and Senator's office this Friday. No protest, no signs, no controversy -- just heartfelt prayer.

  • Raise up an army of praying believers through whom You can pull down the spiritual strongholds and end taxpayer subsidies for this death-dealing industry. May believers gather at the workplaces of our Representatives and Senators in all 50 states. Turn our Senators' hearts and cause them to vote aright. Orchestrate a Concert of Prayer through that Friday noon hour that will please your heart and undo the dark spiritual forces that have prevailed until now. In Jesus name we pray, Amen

Religious Right Reactions to DOJ's DOMA Decision

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.

Religious Right Reactions to DOJ's DOMA Decision

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.

Syndicate content

Family Research Council Top Posts

Family Research Council President Tony Perkins invited his colleague Peter Sprigg on to “Washington Watch” yesterday to discuss an Idaho state legislative committee’s decision not to include protections for LGBT people in a proposed nondiscrimination law. Sprigg — who travelled to Idaho earlier this week to testify against the measure — celebrated the decision, saying that banning employment and housing discrimination against LGBT people “would increase the power of government to interfere with the operation of private businesses and private... MORE >
801 G Street, NW Washington, DC 20001 www.frc.org President: Tony Perkins Date of founding: 1983 Membership: 455,000 members. Finances: $10 million (2000 revenue)   MORE >

Family Research Council Posts Archive

Peter Montgomery, Friday 06/21/2013, 10:37am
The Family Research Council’s Tony Perkins is out with his latest anti-Obama screed. In a fundraising letter dated July 17, Perkins slams the president and his administration for “colluding” with the Southern Poverty Law Center as part of a nefarious plan to create a totalitarian government. Perkins complains about the Justice Department utilizing SPLC’s expertise on extremist groups in training sessions; his letter includes a petition to congressional leaders calling for a formal investigation of the SPLC and its relationship with the Obama administration. Perkins has... MORE >
Kyle Mantyla, Tuesday 06/18/2013, 4:30pm
For some reason, Josh Duggar has been named Executive Director of FRC Action. We should probably be prepared to hear a lot from Louisiana State Sen. Elbert Guillory as he seems to be the Right's newest hero. It is becoming increasingly obvious that "Dr. Chaps" Gordon Klingenschmitt literlly has no idea what he is talking about most of the time. Glenn Beck had been teasing that Sen. Mike Lee was going to reveal that Chief Justice John Roberts had been "intimidated" into changing his vote on health care reform but the scoop was a total bust.... MORE >
Kyle Mantyla, Monday 06/17/2013, 4:30pm
Glenn Beck is bringing David Barton and several other members of the "Black Robe Regiment" to Washington, DC on Wednesday when he joins Tea Party Republicans in attempting to stop immigration reform. Speaking of Beck, it looks like his Blaze network is now reporting on his End Times fears as if they were actual news. Ralph Reed's Faith and Freedom Coalition conference last week had dozens of leading Republicans and conservative activists as speakers, but not even 400 actual attendees. It is always funny when conservatives who have always hated President... MORE >
Tory Roberts, Thursday 06/13/2013, 10:35am
The Obama administration announced Monday that it would drop its fight to maintain age restrictions on the sale of emergency contraceptives. The Family Research Council’s Tony Perkins and Anna Higgins of FRC’s Center for Human Dignity responded on yesterday’s Washington Watch by outlining the supposed consequences this decision will have on young girls. Perkins lamented that “inappropriate sexual behavior,” such as “date rape” and relations between adults and minors, “can easily be dealt with” now that the pill is available to minors... MORE >
Brian Tashman, Tuesday 06/11/2013, 2:10pm
On Washington Watch yesterday, Family Research Council president Tony Perkins asserted that the military has experienced a “rise of homosexual assault since the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” and that service members “preferred” the discriminatory policy. “The ramifications of this, the unintended consequences are far and wide,” Perkins lamented, warning that soon the military will have “quotas” to promote gay and lesbian service members. Let’s do a quick rundown of Perkins’ claims, shall we? As we have pointed out... MORE >
Kyle Mantyla, Tuesday 06/11/2013, 1:51pm
Current Family Research Council Executive Vice President Jerry Boykin fancies himself an expert on Marxist insurgencies, so much so that he apparently detects them everywhere he looks. So it was no surprise that when he was on Glenn Beck's television program last night discussing the recent revelations regarding the NSA surveillance program, he declared that the entire program was "right out of Rules For Radicals, Saul Alinsky" and "very much a part of what I consider to be the Marxist model," designed to be used by the Obama administration to discredit its political... MORE >
Brian Tashman, Friday 06/07/2013, 4:55pm
Apparently, the real victim of Hurricane Sandy was Mitt Romney.  Sarah Palin will join the likes of Donald Trump and Pat Robertson at Ralph Reed’s Road to the Majority conference next week.  So much for rebranding the GOP: RNC chairman Reince Priebus hails extremist Virginia lieutenant governor candidate E.W. Jackson as “dynamic” and “articulate.”  We wonder what kind of response Mike Huckabee will get from right-wing activists and Glenn Beck for advocating on behalf of Common Core.  Family Research... MORE >
Miranda Blue, Thursday 06/06/2013, 2:37pm
In his daily email to members yesterday, Family Research Council president Tony Perkins doubled down on his totally unfounded claim that the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell led to a spike in sexual assaults in the military. Perkins writes that “most” servicemembers have become “victims -- not just of assault, but of this new sexually-charged environment,” adding, absurdly, that when Congress repealed Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell it “made sexual attraction a qualification for military service -- on par with academic performance, community service... MORE >