National Organization for Marriage

2010 Right Wing Candidates Weekly Update 10/06

Sharron Angle

Tea Party: Blasts GOP establishment while talking up “juice” with Senate leaders in talk with Nevada Tea Party nominee (WaPo, 10/4).

Poll: Fox News poll showing Angle up by 3% criticized as weighted towards conservatives (LVRG, 10/5).

Government: Claims that Sharia law is on the march and that “government isn't what our founding fathers put into the Constitution” (PFAW Blog, 10/1).

Ad: New ad maliciously attacks Harry Reid over illegal immigration, DREAM Act (KVVU, 10/5).

Ken Buck

Poll: Bennet leads Buck by 1% in new Colorado poll (Public Policy Polling, 10/5).

Religious Right: Reverses himself on Personhood Amendment, which would ban abortion (CBS, 10/4).

Outside groups: Race leads the nation in spending from outside groups (Denver Post, 10/5).

Carly Fiorina

Religious Right: National Organization for Marriage launches bus tour for Fiorina to win over Latino voters (OC Weekly, 10/4).

Ad: RNC donates $2 million to help put Fiorina back on the air (Oakland Tribune, 10/4).

Poll: Trails Boxer by 4% in latest Reuters/Ipsos poll of California voters (Reuters, 10/5).

Joe Miller

Government: Supports repeal of the 17th Amendment, seeks term limits Amendment (News-Miner, 10/5).

Palin: Attempted to block “troopergate” investigation of Palin (Alaska Dispatch, 10/1).

2012: Todd Palin angry that Miller refuses to confirm if Sarah Palin is qualified to be president (Salon, 10/5).

Unemployment: Although he seeks their elimination, his wife received unemployment (HuffPo, 10/5).

Outside groups: Tea Party Express releases ad targeting Murkowski (The Hill, 10/4).

Christine O’Donnell

China: In 2006, said that China plotted overthrow of US (WaPo, 10/5).

Ad: Tells viewers “I’m not a witch; I’m nothing you’ve heard: I’m you” in new ad (ABC, 10/4).

Rand Paul

Government: Claims Medicaid leads to “intergenerational welfare” (Lexington Herald Leader, 10/4).

Social Security: Suggests raising retirement age in debate (Salon, 10/2).

Ad: DSCC blasts Paul for $2,000 Medicare deductible proposal, non-Kentucky ties (DSCC, 10/5).

Controversy: Calls Conway ad that features father of drug-abuse victim “creepy” (AP, 10/1).

Marco Rubio

Social Security: New Crist ad blasts Rubio for supporting retirement age increase (The Page, 10/5).

Religious Right: Wins endorsement of Florida Right to Life (LifeNews, 10/4).

Finances: New questions raised about Rubio’s expenses (Sun Sentinel, 10/4).

Pat Toomey

Wall Street: MoJo looks into Toomey’s past in derivatives trading (Mother Jones, 10/5).

Social Security: Stands by privatizing Social Security (Crooks and Liars, 9/29).

Maine Candidate Does Not Appreciate Being Linked to "Really Creepy" NOM Mailers

Brian Hale is a pastor and also the Republican candidate for House District 85 in Maine and has recently begun receiving some help from the National Organization for Marriage ... unwanted help, as it turns out, because Hale does not appreciate being associated with the anti-gay mailers that NOM is sending out:

The two-sided flier features a smiling family of four with a "Welcome to Maine, the way life should be" placard and a single photograph of Hale. Hale said the family in the picture is not even his family.

On the flip side of the flier is a photograph of [incumbent Rep. Jeffre] McCabe, with his e-mail address and two men in bow ties, arm-in-arm, appearing atop a wedding cake.

"Now it's time to let Jeff McCabe know we don't agree with his decision to back same-sex marriage," the flier reads.

...

Hale says he supports traditional marriage, meaning a union between a man and a woman, but said his campaign did not send the fliers.

"I think this is tasteless; I'm not enjoying this," Hale said Monday. "I think this is an incidence of friendly fire -- someone thought they were helping me and they're not. I'm running as a fiscal conservative -- that's what I'm going around talking to people about. I'm not running an anti-gay campaign. The first time that I heard anything about this or its contents is when I pulled it out of my mailbox."

Hale said he showed the flier to his wife and daughters and they agreed that it was inappropriate. His 16-year-old daughter Hanna called it "really creepy," he said.

"People are thinking I am the one who put this out," Hale said. "I can see how one might understand that -- it has my photo on it and my e-mail address, both of which I believe were pulled off the Internet. People are seeing this and saying, 'Pastor Hale is a homophobe' -- and I'm not."

...

Hale said his campaign literature has the state-mandated "paid for and authorized by the committee to elect Brian Hale," while the fliers do not. The return address on the fliers is for the National Organization for Marriage, based in Washington D.C., a group that opposes same-sex marriage.

Right Wing Leftovers

LaBarbera Turns On NOM Over DADT

When the debate over the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell was going on a few weeks back, the National Organization for Marriage-affiliated "Protect Marriage: One Man, One Woman" raised a few eyebrows with a Tweet that came out in support of repealing DADT:

There is no need to prohibit gays and lesbians from openly serving in the Armed Forces. They should have the opportunity to serve.

This, of course, has outraged Peter LaBarbera, who now has NOM in his sights

I couldn’t believe this item, which we are late to report: the National Organization for Marriage (NOM), the leading pro-traditional-marriage group in the country, has come out for allowing open homosexuals in the military (see Sept. 9th NOM tweet above).

This is the latest exercise in “pro-family” political and strategic folly. For all the great work that it does, NOM is dead wrong on this one. In addition to degrading morale, cohesion and discipline in the Armed Forces, creating an officially pro-homosexual U.S. military would establish a new, federal government-enforced ”civil rights” paradigm that would be used to push the homosexual agenda on the rest of the nation. That of course includes same-sex “marriage” and punishing/”re-educating” moral opponents of homosexuality. I doubt that NOM would support tradition-minded, Christian soldiers and sailors from Small Town America being subjected to radical, pro-homosexual “diversity” lectures — but that’s what’s coming if NOM’s regrettable tweet comes to pass.

Can’t NOM see that it is undercutting its own cause (and the truth) by pandering to the ”Gay” Lobby’s goal of homosexuality as a state-backed “civil right”? Long before “gay marriage” became a major issue, “sexual orientation” laws created the legal basis for punishing moral critics of sodomy. And let’s be clear: when pro-family marriage advocates talk up “equal rights for gays and lesbians” (as the Prop 8 appeal brief does here), they are engaged in a dangerous double-game — because so many homosexual ideologues believe their “right” to be approved as a homosexual supersedes YOUR right to disagree with their lifestyle. It’s a zero-sum game between “gay rights” and religious/moral rights, as lesbian lawyer and Obama EEOC appointee Chai Feldblum puts it; of course, she thinks “gays” should win and Christians should lose in most cases. In that sense, GLBT activists like Feldblum are pro-discrimination, even as they tout ”equality.”

Our constitutional rights come ultimately from God. Homosexuality, like all sin, is against God’s will (and against Nature). Therefore, it cannot be the basis for “constitutional” rights.

LaBarbera is livid that NOM is apparently throwing anti-gay activists such as himself under the bus and accuses the group of assisting "liberals in castigating the more principled fighters against the homosexual agenda as somehow 'bigoted' and extreme" and is therefore demanding that NOM refuse to "support ANY aspect of the larger homosexual agenda even as it continues its important work protecting traditional marriage."

UPDATE: It looks like LaBarbera has removed this post,  as the original link now returns only a "page not found" message.

National Organization for Marriage on the attack in New Hampshire

Republican Presidential hopefuls aren’t the only ones going to New Hampshire to take down Democratic governor John Lynch: the National Organization for Marriage is launching a $425,000 ad campaign to oppose the governor. In June of last year, Governor Lynch signed a bill legalizing same-sex marriage, which put him in NOM’s crosshairs. NOM has also spent $235,000 attacking members of Iowa’s Supreme Court, which unanimously decided that same-sex couples have a right to marry under the state constitution, who are up for a retention vote. Moreover, the group spent tens of thousands of dollars in unsuccessful efforts to defeat members of the DC Council that voted in favor of legalizing same-sex marriage.

Hopefully, their ads in New Hampshire will be just as "memorable" as their Gathering Storm ad. NOM will surely utilize the same deceptive tactics and bigoted rhetoric present in their other ads, especially since they are working with the New Hampshire group Cornerstone Action, the political arm of the state’s foremost Religious Right organization. Cornerstone Action believes that adultery should be a criminal offense, and in 2007 their executive director claimed that same-sex couples are “unnatural” and worked to oppose civil unions as an “acceptance of a behavior that is jeopardizing the health of our children.” Without a doubt, the gubernatorial race in New Hampshire will be another test of NOM’s plans to defeat public officials who back LGBT equality.

Right Wing Round-Up

NOM Loses Big in DC

We noted a few days ago that the National Organization for Marriage was desperately trying to get something of value from the money it was pouring into DC elections. Now we know what they got: not much.

NOM-supported mayoral candidate Leo Alexander got less than one percent of the vote. And Ward 5 candidate Delano Hunter, the primary beneficiary of NOM’s spending, ended up with only 20 percent in his bid to unseat Councilmember Harry “Tommy” Thomas. That translates into 3,091 votes with 16 of 18 Ward 5 precincts reporting.
 
During the campaign, Hunter bristled when it was suggested that NOM was bankrolling him, saying he’d received only $450 from the group. That may have been true in terms of direct contributions, but NOM’s Eight-day Pre-primary report filed with the DC Board of Elections and Ethics shows that even before the final week of the campaign NOM had spent nearly $1000 for robo-calls on Hunter’s behalf, nearly $15,000 for production and distribution of flyers, nearly $15,000 for direct mail, and more than $1500 for pro-Hunter palm cards.  
 
The same pre-primary report shows that NOM gave $36,950 to Bob King in August for production and distribution of flyers targeting every elected DC official running for office who had supported marriage equality. That comes on top of almost $80,000 NOM reported paying King in July and more than $60,000 reported on a June finance report.

 

Right Wing Round-Up

NOM: Desperate in DC

As we’ve been reporting, the National Organization for Marriage has been pumping money into Washington D.C.’s Democratic Party primaries in order to make good on its threat to punish elected officials who supported the District’s marriage equality law. With NOM’s mayoral candidate Leo Alexander barely registering in the polls (one percent among likely voters), and its candidate for the at-large council seat knocked off the ballot for failing to collect sufficient valid signatures, NOM’s last best hope seems to be helping Ward 5 council candidate Delano Hunter make a respectable showing this Tuesday, September 14. 

To make that happen, NOM is pouring its resources into attacks on Ward 5 Councilmember Harry ‘Tommy’ Thomas. We recently noted the chutzpah it took for NOM, which has bragged about efforts to get “white suburban Christian Republicans”  to fund anti-equality candidates in DC, to send voters a flyer complaining about a fictional flood of “outside” money from San Francisco and New York supposedly attacking Hunter.
 
NOM’s latest flyer is even worse. It seems calculated for maximum divisiveness, featuring a rich, snooty, white guy looking down his nose at voters with claims that “DC Elites” are disrespecting voters in majority-Black Ward 5 by preventing a referendum on marriage equality. The flyer’s theme fits with comments by Bishop Harry Jackson, who has worked tirelessly to inflame racial divisions over the issue.
 
Hunter, who lost badly to Thomas in a recent straw poll of Ward 5 Democrats, didn’t help himself during a Friday debate on “The Politics Hour,” a local public radio show. He's the only one of four candidates who does not support marriage equality and had a hard time giving a clear answer about his position. By the end of the show he was pushed into promising that if elected he wouldn’t try to change the law. So what exactly is NOM hoping to get from its six-figure investment in DC’s elections? I guess an Election Day margin between Thomas and Hunter that will allow NOM leaders to come up with some face-saving spin about their failed efforts to start the “war” that Jackson promised marriage equality would bring to D.C.:
 
 

NOM's Capital Chutzpah

The National Organization for Marriage, which has been pouring money into District of Columbia elections to punish officials who supported DC’s  new marriage equality law, has sent voters in the city’s Ward 5 a lurid campaign piece supporting an anti-marriage-equality candidate (see below) and warning that “Outside Special Interests are Targeting Delano Hunter.” 

Thousands of dollars from homosexual activists outside Ward 5 are attacking Delano Hunter because he supports our right to vote on whether the District legalizes ‘gay marriage.’
 
Radical, gay marriage activists are flooding Ward 5 with money to defeat Delano Hunter, not because they don’t like his plan to improve our community, but only because he supports the Biblical definition of marriage.
 
The outside gay activists don’t care about our right to home rule and right to vote on gay marriage. They only care about their agenda to redefine marriage. Don’t let them target Delano Hunter.
 
Of course, flooding states with “outside special interest” money is NOM’s own modus operandi.
 
In July, we noted that NOM’s Brian Brown was bragging about the formation of the DC Values PAC:
 
Bishop Jackson's heroic leadership has lead to something no one has ever seen before: a coalition of black Democrats leaders and white suburban Christian Republicans to help elect pro-marriage and pro-life black Democrats in the District of Columbia. 
 
Outside money, anyone? The August 10 filing for the DC Values PAC at the DC Office of Campaign Finance showed that the PAC had raised $3,275 – of which $2,500 was from outside the District of Columbia, including $1000 from Maryland-based “Harry Jackson Jr. Enterprises Inc.”
 
NOM itself reported making $82,446.40 in independent expenditures in July, with all but $4000 of that going to King & Associates for production and distribution of flyers attacking the mayor and councilmembers who had voted for marriage equality legislation. (A campaign finance report from June had shown another $60,900 going to King & Associates, which is run by Ward 5 Advisory Neighborhood Commissioner Bob King.) 
 
In addition, NOM donated more than 85 percent of the income reported by Stand4Marriage DC’s initiative effort in its July 31 filing - $40,000 out of $46,122. In an intriguing twist, almost every single contributor in that report is listed as living in DC, even though the zip codes and city names make it clear that many are from around the country. Among the reported contributors are those residing in Nashville, DC; San Diego, DC; and Tucson, DC.
 
Hunter is challenging incumbent Councilmember Harry Thomas, whose support for marriage equality legislation generated some heated opposition and made him a top NOM target. In an August 23 straw poll held by the Ward 5 Democrats, Thomas handily defeated Hunter, 613 to 239, with two other candidates far behind. The Democratic primary will be held September 14.

NOM's Capital Chutzpah

The National Organization for Marriage, which has been pouring money into District of Columbia elections to punish officials who supported DC’s  new marriage equality law, has sent voters in the city’s Ward 5 a lurid campaign piece supporting an anti-marriage-equality candidate (see below) and warning that “Outside Special Interests are Targeting Delano Hunter.” 

Thousands of dollars from homosexual activists outside Ward 5 are attacking Delano Hunter because he supports our right to vote on whether the District legalizes ‘gay marriage.’
 
Radical, gay marriage activists are flooding Ward 5 with money to defeat Delano Hunter, not because they don’t like his plan to improve our community, but only because he supports the Biblical definition of marriage.
 
The outside gay activists don’t care about our right to home rule and right to vote on gay marriage. They only care about their agenda to redefine marriage. Don’t let them target Delano Hunter.
 
Of course, flooding states with “outside special interest” money is NOM’s own modus operandi.
 
In July, we noted that NOM’s Brian Brown was bragging about the formation of the DC Values PAC:
 
Bishop Jackson's heroic leadership has lead to something no one has ever seen before: a coalition of black Democrats leaders and white suburban Christian Republicans to help elect pro-marriage and pro-life black Democrats in the District of Columbia. 
 
Outside money, anyone? The August 10 filing for the DC Values PAC at the DC Office of Campaign Finance showed that the PAC had raised $3,275 – of which $2,500 was from outside the District of Columbia, including $1000 from Maryland-based “Harry Jackson Jr. Enterprises Inc.”
 
NOM itself reported making $82,446.40 in independent expenditures in July, with all but $4000 of that going to King & Associates for production and distribution of flyers attacking the mayor and councilmembers who had voted for marriage equality legislation. (A campaign finance report from June had shown another $60,900 going to King & Associates, which is run by Ward 5 Advisory Neighborhood Commissioner Bob King.) 
 
In addition, NOM donated more than 85 percent of the income reported by Stand4Marriage DC’s initiative effort in its July 31 filing - $40,000 out of $46,122. In an intriguing twist, almost every single contributor in that report is listed as living in DC, even though the zip codes and city names make it clear that many are from around the country. Among the reported contributors are those residing in Nashville, DC; San Diego, DC; and Tucson, DC.
 
Hunter is challenging incumbent Councilmember Harry Thomas, whose support for marriage equality legislation generated some heated opposition and made him a top NOM target. In an August 23 straw poll held by the Ward 5 Democrats, Thomas handily defeated Hunter, 613 to 239, with two other candidates far behind. The Democratic primary will be held September 14.

Right Wing Leftovers

Ted Olson's Been Brainwashed By His "New Young Democrat Wife"!

Conservatives have been very confused and upset for quite some time now that their former hero Ted Olson not only supported marriage equality but actually became a leading advocate, playing a key role in getting Proposition 8 struck down.

What on earth happened to Olson, George W. Bush's Solicitor General and Federalist Society stalwart, they wondered?    

Well, now we know:  his new Jezebel of a wife has brainwashed him ... or so says the National Organization for Marriage:

How did Mr. Federalist Society decide it’s okay to use the U.S. Constitution to require gay marriage? The New York Times is reporting that his new young Democrat wife may be a key reason.

This NOM post in turn links to this post by Ed Whelan who says that he will wisely "refrain from further comment" on how Olson's wife has completely destroyed his integrity: 

Ted Olson and his anti-Prop 8 media machine have been aggressively leveraging his past associations with conservative legal causes in support of his newfound support for the invention of a constitutional right to same-sex marriage. In so doing, they’ve tried to obscure the fact that the position that the Constitution can and should be interpreted to invalidate traditionalmarriage laws can’t possibly be reconciled with the conservative legal principles that Olson used to purport to stand for. (I’m not addressing here the very different question whether a conservative can soundly support legislative revision of marriage laws to include same-sex couples.)

For anyone who has wondered what really accounts for Olson’s new position, I pass along these excerpts from a New York Times article last week on the influence of Lady Booth Olson, Olson’s wife since 2006:

Lady Olson was more than just a minor behind-the-scenes player in this potentially pivotal case.

“Lady could not have been more supportive of this,” Mr. Olson said in an interview shortly before Vaughn R. Walker, chief judge of the United States District Court hearing the case, ruled on Aug. 4 that Proposition 8 was unconstitutional. “And she’s certainly influenced my views — her ideas, her approach, her feelings.” …

Mr. Olson’s previous wife, Barbara, was a conservative commentator who was killed on Sept. 11, 2001, when she was on the hijacked plane that crashed into the Pentagon. Some friends hypothesize that Lady Olson just might have softened some of her husband’s views.

“In my innermost thoughts, I like to think he thought that on some level, but Ted’s never said that,” Mrs. Olson said. “He’s very proud. He owns his own decisions.”

I think that I’ll refrain from further comment.

They're Losing and They Know It

Do you ever get the impression that, despite all their bluster, anti-marriage equality activists are not only losing their battle against gay marriage, but that they are fully aware that they are losing this battle?

Because this commentary piece by Kathleen Gilbert in LifeSiteNews.com certainly has a distinctly defeatist feel to it:

When the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) wrapped up its Summer for Marriage Tour in Washington, D.C. yesterday, the scene may not quite have been what true marriage supporters would hope to see.

The speakers – which included NOM executive director Brian Brown, civil rights leader Walter Fauntroy, and D.C. marriage leader Bishop Harry Jackson - eloquently and forcefully put forth the case for marriage. But as the rally began at 2 p.m., no more than 50 supporters were present; by the time the crowd waxed to its full size, there may have been 100.

Elsewhere in D.C. a larger crowd gathered with handmade, colorful signs and a playful attitude in support of same-sex “marriage.” Reports put the crowd at 250, which appears accurate from photos.

...

Speaking with LifeSiteNews.com after the rally, Brown expressed frustration at the timidity of marriage supporters, and the slow abandonment of even conservative media, which has begun shying away from tackling the difficult issue. Even conservative icons Ann Coulter and Glenn Beck have recently indicated that they are at least unwilling to question the homosexualist position.

"It's frightening. People need to get their news from some source where it's fair and the truth is coming out, and they're just accepting the lies being told," he said.

When Gay Marriage is a Civil Rights Issue vs. When Is It Not

If there is one thing we have learned from the Religious Right during the fight over gay marriage, it is that comparing this issue to the Civil Rights Movement is both utterly inaccurate and extremely offensive:

But, as it turns out, the fight over gay marriage is a civil rights battle - a battle to protect the civil rights of Christians, according to the National Organization for Marriage's Brian Brown:

Brown approached the crowd on Sunday with the same language that he believes gay rights advocates have been misusing.

"I believe that this fight is the beginning of a new civil rights movement, and I don't say that in any shallow way," he said.

He explained to The Christian Post in an interview ahead of the rally that “a lot of African-American leaders … are tired of their struggle being hijacked by those who are attempting to use the civil rights movement to redefine marriage.”

Pushing back against comparisons between laws banning interracial marriage with ones that prohibit gays and lesbians from marrying, Brown contended, “Marriage is not based upon race. It's based upon the fact that there are men and women and men and women are brought together in marriage. So trying to compare same-sex marriage to overturning laws against interracial marriage is comparing apples to oranges.”

Brown said they are not fighting the marriage battle with Scripture, but with reason and the Constitution.

“Unaided reason alone tells us that marriage is the union of a man and a woman. We can understand by reason that marriage is that institution that brings men and women together and connects them with any children they may bear. No other relationship can do what marriage does. Our stand is based on the Constitution and is based on defending civil rights – our civil rights.”

So Harry Jackson and other African American ministers believe it is offensive, and even borderline racist, to compare the struggle for marriage equality to the Civil Right Movement ... except for when they do it: 

"Same-sex marriage advocates have attempted to steal the right of the people to vote in the name of civil rights. [But] you're stealing others' civil rights," [Harry] Jackson commented.

Of Love and Revolution

For all the flag-waving Tea Party placards accusing the Obama administration of unconstitutional acts and treason, it seems that threats of revolution against the constitutional republic of the United States are coming mostly from the right wing – and not just from fringe militia groups.

We recently noted that Religious Right activist Chuck Colson has launched an effort to bully the Supreme Court into opposing marriage equality by threatening that a pro-equality ruling would result in “cultural Armageddon.” And we have noted the American Family Association’s Bryan Fischer’s repeated warnings that the federal government’s “tyranny” will lead to “civil unrest.” Speakers at last year’s How To Take Back America conference suggested “Second Amendment” responses to health care reform and urged participants to buy more guns and ammunition. 

Now we see that the National Organization for Marriage, whose director Brian Brown has been claiming on his anti-equality road trip that it is an organization grounded in love, is picking up on the theme as NOM’s Maggie Gallagher writes in an op ed that "American politics are in a quasi-revolutionary phase": 

The people, symbolized first in the eruptions of Tea Parties, are rebelling against elites who believe they can ignore our voices and our values….

Rush Limbaugh had his finger on the truth. In the nearly half-hour speech he gave after the Proposition 8 ruling ("the American people are boiling over!"), Rush said that Walker "did not just slap down the will of 7 million voters. Those 7 million voters were put on trial -- a kangaroo court where everything was stacked against them. ... Those of you who voted for Prop 8 in California are guilty of hate crimes. You were thinking discrimination. That's what this judge has said! Truly unprecedented."

Yes, it is. We are entering into a new phase in the battle not only for marriage, but for self-government, for the legitimacy of the views and values of the Ameircan people.

This is a fight we cannot dodge, and must and will win.

Buckle down, it's going to be a ride!

Of course, this isn’t the first time a NOM leader has suggested possibly deploying a revolutionary response to judicial rulings recognizing marriage equality. When Mormon author Orson Scott Card joined NOM’s board last year, we and others drew attention to his own threats, which he made in writing in a Mormon newspaper:

How long before married people answer the dictators thus: Regardless of law, marriage has only one definition, and any government that attempts to change it is my mortal enemy. I will act to destroy that government and bring it down, so it can be replaced with a government that will respect and support marriage, and help me raise my children in a society where they will expect to marry in their turn….

American government cannot fight against marriage and hope to endure. If the Constitution is defined in such a way as to destroy the privileged position of marriage, it is that insane Constitution, not marriage, that will die.

We have our own question: why is it that the standard right-wing response to votes in Congress or court decisions that they don't like is to threaten revolution against the U.S.?

Robertson and Gallagher React to Prop 8: "Pray For This Country"

The Prop 8 decision was, not surprisingly, the top story on today's edition of "The 700 Club" and the segment featured this rather ominous quote from the National Organization for Marriage's Maggie Gallagher:

I'm quite confident that, as serious as the threat from gay marriage is, it is not going to triumph in the end because political regimes that base themselves on lies about human nature cannot last in the end.

And when it came time for Pat Robertson to weigh in on the decision, he reacted with utter disbelief:

Ladies and gentleman, what are we facing? The homosexuals want to destroy the church and they want to destroy marriage. That's what it amounts to. It doesn't matter how sacred an institution is and how important it is to society as long as there can be confirmation that this lifestyle is acceptable. That's what they want.

Man, pray for this country.

Right Wing Reactions to Prop 8 Decision

I'll be updating this post as more statements are released reacting to the decision to oveturn Prop 8, but Focus on the Family is out with the first statement blasting the ruling (if you don't count Harry Jackson, who Tweeted a statement hours ago):

“Judge Walker’s ruling raises a shocking notion that a single federal judge can nullify the votes of more than 7 million California voters, binding Supreme Court precedent, and several millennia-worth of evidence that children need both a mom and a dad.

“During these legal proceedings, the millions of California residents who supported Prop 8 have been wrongfully accused of being bigots and haters. Nothing could be further from the truth. Rather, they are concerned citizens, moms and dads who simply wanted to restore to California the long-standing understanding that marriage is between one woman and one man – a common-sense position that was taken away by the actions of another out-of-control state court in May 2008.

“Fortunately for them, who make up the majority of Californians, this disturbing decision is not the last word.

“We fully expect the judge’s decision to be overturned upon appeal. The redeeming feature of our judicial system is that one judge who ignores the law and the evidence must ultimately endure the review and reversal of his actions from the appellate courts.

“We do want Americans to understand the seriousness of this decision, however. If this judge’s decision is not overturned, it will most likely force all 50 states to recognize same-sex marriage. This would be a profound and fundamental change to the social and legal fabric of this country.

“Our Founders intended such radical changes to come from the people, not from activist judges. Alexander Hamilton, in advocating for the ratification of our Constitution in 1788, argued that the judiciary would be ‘the least dangerous’ branch of government. Today’s decision shows how far we have come from that original understanding.”

Randy Thomasson and Save California:

"Natural marriage, voter rights, the Constitution, and our republic called the United States of America have all been dealt a terrible blow. Judge Walker has ignored the written words of the Constitution, which he swore to support and defend and be impartially faithful to, and has instead imposed his own homosexual agenda upon the voters, the parents, and the children of California. This is a blatantly unconstitutional ruling because marriage isn't in the U.S. Constitution. The Constitution guarantees that state policies be by the people, not by the judges, and also supports states' rights, thus making marriage a state jurisdiction. It is high time for the oath of office to be updated to require judicial nominees to swear to judge only according to the written words of the Constitution and the original, documented intent of its framers. As a Californian and an American, I am angry that this biased homosexual judge, in step with other judicial activists, has trampled the written Constitution, grossly misused his authority, and imposed his own agenda, which the Constitution does not allow and which both the people of California and California state authorities should by no means respect."

Concerned Women for America:

Wendy Wright, President of Concerned Women for America (CWA), said:

“Judge Walker’s decision goes far beyond homosexual ‘marriage’ to strike at the heart of our representative democracy. Judge Walker has declared, in effect, that his opinion is supreme and ‘We the People’ are no longer free to govern ourselves. The ruling should be appealed and overturned immediately.

“Marriage is not a political toy. It is too important to treat as a means for already powerful people to gain preferred status or acceptance. Marriage between one man and one woman undergirds a stable society and cannot be replaced by any other living arrangement.

“Citizens of California voted to uphold marriage because they understood the sacred nature of marriage and that homosexual activists use same-sex ‘marriage’ as a political juggernaut to indoctrinate young children in schools to reject their parent’s values and to harass, sue and punish people who disagree.

“CWA stands in prayer for our nation as we continue to defend marriage as the holy union God created between one man and one woman.”

CWA of California State Director Phyllis Nemeth said:

“Today Judge Vaughn Walker has chosen to side with political activism over the will of the people. His ruling is slap in the face to the more than seven million Californians who voted to uphold the definition of marriage as it has been understood for millennia.

“While Judge Walker’s decision is disappointing it is not the end of this battle. Far from it. The broad coalition of support for Proposition 8 remains strong, and we will support the appeal by ProtectMarriage.com, the official proponent of Proposition 8.

“We are confident that Judge Walker’s decision will ultimately be reversed. No combination of judicial gymnastics can negate the basic truth that marriage unites the complementary physical and emotional characteristics of a man and a woman to create a oneness that forms the basis for the family unit allowing a child to be raised by his or her father and mother. Any other combination is a counterfeit that fails to provide the best environment for healthy child rearing and a secure foundation for the family. It is this foundation upon which society is – and must be – built for a healthy and sustained existence.”

Family Research Council:

FRC President Tony Perkins released the following statement:

"This lawsuit, should it be upheld on appeal and in the Supreme Court, would become the 'Roe v. Wade' of same-sex 'marriage,' overturning the marriage laws of 45 states. As with abortion, the Supreme Court's involvement would only make the issue more volatile. It's time for the far Left to stop insisting that judges redefine our most fundamental social institution and using liberal courts to obtain a political goal they cannot obtain at the ballot box.

"Marriage is recognized as a public institution, rather than a purely private one, because of its role in bringing together men and women for the reproduction of the human race and keeping them together to raise the children produced by their union. The fact that homosexuals prefer not to enter into marriages as historically defined does not give them a right to change the definition of what a 'marriage' is.

"Marriage as the union between one man and one woman has been the universally-recognized understanding of marriage not only since America's founding but for millennia. To hold that the Founders created a constitutional right that none of them could even have conceived of is, quite simply, wrong.

"FRC has always fought to protect marriage in America and will continue to do so by working with our allies to appeal this dangerous decision. Even if this decision is upheld by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals-the most liberal appeals court in America-Family Research Council is confident that we can help win this case before the U.S. Supreme Court."

Liberty Counsel:

Although Liberty Counsel has defended the marriage laws in California since the battle began in 2004, the Alliance Defense Fund, representing the Prop 8 initiative, opposed Liberty Counsel’s attempt to intervene on behalf of Campaign for California Families. The California Attorney General did not oppose Liberty Counsel’s intervention, but ADF did. Liberty Counsel sought to provide additional defense to Prop 8 because of concern that the case was not being adequately defended. After ADF actively opposed Liberty Counsel, ADF presented only two witnesses at trial, following the 15 witnesses presented by those who challenged the amendment. Even Judge Walker commented that he was concerned by the lack of evidence presented by ADF on behalf of Prop 8. Liberty Counsel will file an amicus brief at the court of appeals in defense of Prop 8.

The California Supreme Court previously stated, “The right of initiative is precious to the people and is one which the courts are zealous to preserve to the fullest tenable measure of spirit as well as letter.” Moreover, the U.S. Constitution cannot be stretched to include a right to same-sex marriage.

Except for this case, since Liberty Counsel was excluded by ADF, Liberty Counsel has represented the Campaign for California Families to defend the state’s marriage laws since 2004 and has argued at the trial, appellate and state Supreme Court levels.

Mary McAlister, Senior Litigation Counsel for Liberty Counsel, commented: “This is a classic case of judicial activism. The Constitution is unrecognizable in this opinion. This is simply the whim of one judge. It does not reflect the Constitution, the rule of law, or the will of the people. I am confident this decision will be overturned.”

Alliance Defense Fund:

“In America, we should respect and uphold the right of a free people to make policy choices through the democratic process--especially ones that do nothing more than uphold the definition of marriage that has existed since the foundation of the country and beyond,” said ADF Senior Counsel Brian Raum.

“We will certainly appeal this disappointing decision. Its impact could be devastating to marriage and the democratic process,” Raum said. “It’s not radical for more than 7 million Californians to protect marriage as they’ve always known it. What would be radical would be to allow a handful of activists to gut the core of the American democratic system and, in addition, force the entire country to accept a system that intentionally denies children the mom and the dad they deserve.”

...

“The majority of California voters simply wished to preserve the historic definition of marriage. The other side’s attack upon their good will and motives is lamentable and preposterous,” Raum said. “Imagine what would happen if every state constitutional amendment could be eliminated by small groups of wealthy activists who malign the intent of the people. It would no longer be America, but a tyranny of elitists.”

“What’s at stake here is bigger than California,” Pugno added. “Americans in numerous states have affirmed--and should be allowed to continue to affirm--a natural and historic public policy position like this. We are prepared to fight all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court if necessary.”

Capitol Resource Institute:

"Today's ruling is indicative of an out-of-control judiciary willing to circumvent California's direct democracy by imposing their point of view," said Karen England Executive Director of Capitol Resource Institute (CRI). "Family values are under constant assault now more then ever. CRI was instrumental in passing proposition 22 in 2000 and we fought to get proposition 8 on the ballot and subsequently in California's Constitution. We will continue to battle interest groups who wish to redefine one of our oldest institutions; the institution of marriage. We will continue to represent the 7 million Californians who took to the polls in favor of marriage."

American Family Association:

“This is a tyrannical, abusive and utterly unconstitutional display of judicial arrogance. Judge Walker has turned ‘We the People’ into ‘I the Judge.’

“It’s inexcusable for him to deprive the citizens of California of their right to govern themselves, and cavalierly trash the will of over seven million voters. This case never should even have entered his courtroom. The federal constitution nowhere establishes marriage policy, which means under the 10th Amendment that issue is reserved for the states.

“It’s also extremely problematic that Judge Walker is a practicing homosexual himself. He should have recused himself from this case, because his judgment is clearly compromised by his own sexual proclivity. The fundamental issue here is whether homosexual conduct, with all its physical and psychological risks, should be promoted and endorsed by society. That’s why the people and elected officials accountable to the people should be setting marriage policy, not a black-robed tyrant whose own lifestyle choices make it impossible to believe he could be impartial.

“His situation is no different than a judge who owns a porn studio being asked to rule on an anti-pornography statute. He’d have to recuse himself on conflict of interest grounds, and Judge Walker should have done that.

“The Constitution says judges hold office ‘during good Behavior.’ Well, this ruling is bad behavior - in fact, it’s very, very bad behavior - and we call on all members of the House of Representatives who respect the Constitution to launch impeachment proceedings against this judge.”

Traditional Values Coalition:

"It is an outrage that one arrogant and rogue federal judge can take it upon himself to overturn a centuries old definition of marriage and family," said Rev. Lou Sheldon, chairman and founder of Traditional Values Coalition (TVC). "On November 4, 2008, 7 million voters of California cemented into the state constitution a definition of marriage for one man and one woman only. Now with US District Court Judge Vaughn Walker's ruling today he has completely undermined the expressed will of voters at the ballot box. Direct Democracy has been blatantly attacked today."

"First it was the California Supreme Court's decision in 2008 to overturn Prop 22 and force the people of California to accept homosexual marriages. Well, the people adamantly rejected their ruling and homosexual marriages and they passed Prop 8, which was designed to forever tie the hands of judges from redefining marriage. Now one judge has yet again slapped the people in the face, even though the state constitution now clearly tells them what marriage means; we spelled it out for them in black and white," Sheldon added. "This is a blatant sign of judicial activism and lack of judicial restraint."

Sheldon added: "There is more at stake than just traditional marriage and the centuries long definition of the family. This ruling seriously undermines the expressed vote and will of the people on initiatives and proposed amendments they approve at the ballot box. This judge's ruling says that any vote of the people will have no weight, credence, sovereignty, value or worth at all. On appeal, the courts will either realize their limits and not undermine the constitutional power of the vote, or they will continue to demonstrate the most blatant arrogance and impose judicial tyranny by declaring that they alone, and not the people, have the ultimate final say on all matters of the state. Democracy, the constitution and the people would be beneath them."

TVC state lobbyist Benjamin Lopez, who was publicly credited by homosexual State Senator Mark Leno for the defeat of his proposed homosexual marriage bill in 2005, echoed Sheldon's statements:

"The issue at hand now is whether the will of 7 million voters outweighs that of either 7 Supreme Court justices or any one judge anywhere in the state. Homosexual marriage advocates may kick and scream the loudest demanding that Prop 8 be struck down, but they should be drowned out by the deafening voice of 7 million Californians who settled this issue not once, but twice already. We are hear because homosexual radicals continue to act like immature children who throw tantrums when they do not get their way."

"Same-sex marriage supporters repeatedly beat the drum of civil rights to equate their cause to the legitimate struggles of minority groups and say the public is on their side. Yet not even in 'liberal' California have they won over the people so they must resort to sympathetic, liberal black-robed activists who sit on the bench to force same-sex marriage on the people.

"If folks think that the Tea Party movement is a force to be reckoned with now, wait until the silent majority of pro-family voters flex their political muscle once again. Judges beware, you will go the way of Rose Bird, stripped of their robes and kicked off the bench," Lopez added.

The battle of same-sex marriage began in March 2000 when California voters overwhelmingly passed Proposition 22. It stated: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." Homosexual marriage advocates challenged Prop 22 in court and in March 2005, San Francisco Superior Court Judge Richard Kramer struck it down ruling it in violation of the equal protection clause. Kramer's ruling was then challenged all the way to the California Supreme Court. In early 2008 the high court upheld Kramer's ruling allowing homosexual marriages to take place. Voters passed Prop 8 in November 2008 cementing Prop 22's language into the state constitution. After challenges to Prop 8 reached the state supreme court, the justices upheld Prop 8 and allowed for some 18,000 same-sex marriages to stand. The current ruling by Judge Walker was the result of a challenge to the California Supreme Court's ruling.

Richard Land:

 “This is a grievously serious crisis in how the American people will choose to be governed. The people of our most populous state—a state broadly indicative of the nation at large demographically—voted to define marriage as being between one man and one woman, thus excluding same-sex and polygamous relationships from being defined as marriage. 

“Now, an unelected federal judge has chosen to override the will of the people of California and to redefine an institution the federal government did not create and that predates the founding of America. Indeed, ‘marriage’ goes back to the Garden of Eden, where God defined His institution of marriage as being between one man and one woman.

“This case will clearly make its way to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and then to the Supreme Court of the United States, where unfortunately, the outcome is far from certain. There are clearly four votes who will disagree with this judge—Roberts, Thomas, Scalia, and Alito. The supreme question is: Will there be a fifth? Having surveyed Justice Kennedy’s record on this issue, I have no confidence that he will uphold the will of the people of California.

“If and when the Supreme Court agrees with the lower court, then the American people will have to decide whether they will insist on continuing to have a government of the people, by the people and for the people, or whether they’re going to live under the serfdom of government by the judges, of the judges and for the judges. Our forefathers have given us a method to express our ultimate will. It’s called an amendment to the Constitution. If the Supreme Court fails to uphold the will of the people of California—if we are going to have our form of government altered by judicial fiat—then the only alternative left to us is to pass a constitutional amendment defining marriage as being between one man and one woman.

“Many senators who voted against the federal marriage amendment the last time it came up said publicly if a federal court interfered with a state’s right to determine this issue, they would then be willing to vote for a federal marriage amendment. Ladies and gentlemen, prepare to vote.

“Despite egregious court rulings like this one, there is nonetheless an unprecedented effort going on across the nation of Christians uniting for sustained prayer, for revival, awakening and deliverance. I encourage everyone to join me in this effort and go to 4040prayer.com for more information.” 

National Organization for Marriage:

"Big surprise! We expected nothing different from Judge Vaughn Walker, after the biased way he conducted this trial," said Brian Brown, President of NOM. "With a stroke of his pen, Judge Walker has overruled the votes and values of 7 million Californians who voted for marriage as one man and one woman. This ruling, if allowed to stand, threatens not only Prop 8 in California but the laws in 45 other states that define marriage as one man and one woman."

"Never in the history of America has a federal judge ruled that there is a federal constitutional right to same sex marriage. The reason for this is simple - there isn't!" added Brown.

"The 'trial' in San Francisco in the Perry v. Schwarzenegger case is a unique, and disturbing, episode in American jurisprudence. Here we have an openly gay (according to the San Francisco Chronicle) federal judge substituting his views for those of the American people and of our Founding Fathers who I promise you would be shocked by courts that imagine they have the right to put gay marriage in our Constitution. We call on the Supreme Court and Congress to protect the people's right to vote for marriage," stated Maggie Gallagher, Chairman of the Board of NOM.

"Gay marriage groups like the Human Rights Campaign, Freedom to Marry, and Equality California will, no doubt, be congratulating themselves over this "victory" today in San Francisco. However, even they know that Judge Walker's decision is only temporary. For the past 20 years, gay marriage groups have fought to avoid cases filed in federal court for one good reason - they will eventually lose. But these groups do not have control of the Schwarzenegger v. Perry case, which is being litigated by two egomaniacal lawyers (Ted Olson and David Boies). So while they congratulate themselves over their victory before their home-town judge today, let's not lose sight of the fact that this case is headed for the U.S. Supreme Court, where the right of states to define marriage as being between one man and one woman will be affirmed--and if the Supreme Court fails, Congress has the final say. The rights of millions of voters in states from Wisconsin to Florida, from Maine to California, are at stake in this ruling; NOM is confident that the Supreme Court will affirm the basic civil rights of millions of American voters to define marriage as one man and one woman," noted Gallagher.

Robert George - American Principles Project:

“Another flagrant and inexcusable exercise of ‘raw judicial power’ threatens to enflame and prolong the culture war ignited by the courts in the 1973 case of Roe v. Wade,” said Dr. Robert P. George, Founder of the American Principles Project. “In striking down California’s conjugal marriage law, Judge Walker has arrogated to himself a decision of profound social importance—the definition and meaning of marriage itself—that is left by the Constitution to the people and their elected representatives.”

“As a decision lacking any warrant in the text, logic, structure, or original understanding of the Constitution, it abuses and dishonors the very charter in whose name Judge Walker declares to be acting. This usurpation of democratic authority must not be permitted to stand.”

Judge Walker’s decision in Perry v. Schwarzenegger seeks to invalidate California Proposition 8, which by vote of the people of California restored the conjugal conception of marriage as the union of husband and wife after California courts had re-defined marriage to include same-sex partnerships.

“The claim that this case is about equal protection or discrimination is simply false,” George said. “It is about the nature of marriage as an institution that serves the interests of children—and society as a whole—by uniting men and women in a relationship whose meaning is shaped by its wonderful and, indeed, unique aptness for the begetting and rearing of children.

“We are talking about the right to define what marriage is, not about who can or cannot take part. Under our Constitution the definition and meaning of marriage is a decision left in the hands of the people, not given to that small fraction of the population who happen to be judges.”

“Judge Walker has abandoned his role as an impartial umpire and jumped into the competition between those who believe in marriage as the union of husband and wife and those who seek to advance still further the ideology of the sexual revolution. Were his decision to stand, it would ensure additional decades of social dissension and polarization. Pro-marriage Americans are not going to yield to sexual revolutionary ideology or to judges who abandon their impartiality to advance it. We will work as hard as we can for as long as it takes to defend the institution of marriage and to restore the principle of democratic self-government,” concluded Dr. George.

Newt Gingrich:

"Judge Walker's ruling overturning Prop 8 is an outrageous disrespect for our Constitution and for the majority of people of the United States who believe marriage is the union of husband and wife. In every state of the union from California to Maine to Georgia, where the people have had a chance to vote they've affirmed that marriage is the union of one man and one woman. Congress now has the responsibility to act immediately to reaffirm marriage as a union of one man and one woman as our national policy. Today’s notorious decision also underscores the importance of the Senate vote tomorrow on the nomination of Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court because judges who oppose the American people are a growing threat to our society.”

Gingrich Warns of Sharia While Seeking Dominion

Last week, when Newt Gingrich came out in opposition to the "Ground Zero Mosque," I noted that his position seemed rather hypocritical considering that he had recently founded an organization called Renewing American Leadership that has, as its mission, the protection and encouragement of the free exercise of religion in America.

But the hypocrisy at the root of that piece pales in comparison to the hypocrisy at the root of his latest piece:

Radical Islamism is more than simply a religious belief. It is a comprehensive political, economic, and religious movement that seeks to impose sharia—Islamic law—upon all aspects of global society.

Many Muslims see sharia as simply a reference point for their personal code of conduct. They recognize the distinction between their personal beliefs and the laws that govern all people of all faiths.

For the radical Islamist, however, this distinction does not exist. Radical Islamists see politics and religion as inseparable in a way it is difficult for Americans to understand. Radical Islamists assert sharia’s supremacy over the freely legislated laws and values of the countries they live in and see it as their sacred duty to achieve this totalitarian supremacy in practice.

Some radical Islamists use terrorism as a tactic to impose sharia but others use non-violent methods—a cultural, political, and legal jihad that seeks the same totalitarian goal even while claiming to repudiate violence.

Does Gingrich not realize that the man he hired to run Renewing American Leadership, Jim Garlow, is a full-bore advocate of the 7 Mountains Mandate, which is a Dominionist theology that seeks get Christians in control of the levers of power and influence the world over so as to create God's kingdom on Earth and bring about the return of Jesus Christ?

Taking control of the 7 Mountians is the foundational principal of Garlow's new Pray and ACT political organization, which is being prominently featured by Gingrinch's own ReAL website and has the support of a who's who of Religious Right leaders:

Jim Garlow, Skyline Church & Renewing American Leadership
Chuck Colson, Founder Prison Fellowship & BreakPoint
Che Ahn, Harvest International Ministry
Vonette Bright, Co-Founder, Campus Crusade for Christ, International
Bishop Keith Butler, Founding Pastor, Word of Faith International Christian Center
Jim Daly, President & CEO, Focus on the Family
Lou Engle, TheCall to Conscience, TheCall
Father Joseph Fessio, Editor in Chief, Ignatius Press, San Francisco
Maggie Gallagher, National Organization for Marriage
Professor Robert George, Princeton University
Professor Timothy George, Dean, Beeson Divinity School
Jack Hayford, Founder and Chancellor, The King's College and Seminary
Mike Huckabee, Former Governor of Arkansas & Host, The Mike Huckabee Show
Bishop Harry Jackson, Jr., High Impact Church Coalition
Alveda King, Silent No More Awareness Campaign
Richard Land, The Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission
Ron Luce, Founder, Teen Mania & Battle Cry
Bishop Richard Malone, Roman Catholic Diocese of Portland (Maine)
Eva Muntean & Dolores Meehan, Co-Founders, West Coast Walk for Life, San Francisco
Penny Nance, Concerned Women for America
Tony Perkins, Family Research Council
James Robison, Life Outreach, International
Samuel Rodriguez, National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference
Alan Sears, Alliance Defense Fund
Chuck Stetson, Let’s Strengthen Marriage Campaign

Obviously, these leaders and this Dominionist theology do not advocate the use of violence to achieve their goals, but you have to marvel at Gingrich's willingness to warn that "Islamists" are seeking to impose their religious views on all cultural, political, and legal matters while his very own organization is seeking to do the exact same thing.

Right Wing Round-Up

  • Bil Browning @ Bilerico: NOM Sign: Lynch Gay Couples to Save Marriage.
  • HRC: HRC to National Organization for Marriage: Your Summer Bus Tour is a Sham.
  • Frederick Clarkson @ Religion Dispatches: The End of the Religious Right? Not So Fast.
  • Robin Marty @ RH Reality Check: Phyllis Schlafly: Obama "Subsidizing" Illegitimate Babies to Increase Voter Base.
  • Towleroad: Florida AG Bill McCollum Doesn't Like Gay Adoption, Says He Hired Rekers Because Other 'Experts' are Afraid to Testify.
  • Steve Benen: Showing the Scouts Some Love.
  • Eric Lach @ TPM: Tom Tancredo's Top 12 Moments Of Nativism, Racism And Fear-Mongering.
  • Finally, quote of the day from Joe Klein: "Newt Gingrich is clearly running for President. How do I know? He gets dumb and angry when running for office."
Syndicate content

National Organization for Marriage Posts Archive

Brian Tashman, Tuesday 08/28/2012, 2:05pm
A number of Religious Right organizations are coming together for an election season coalition to attack President Obama in swing states. The Family Research Council, National Organization for Marriage, The Family Leader, Concerned Women for America, American Principles Project, the Susan B. Anthony List and Common Sense Issues have joined the “Life and Marriage Coalition,” which FRC head Tony Perkins said is needed to defeat Obama’s “anti-marriage and anti-life policies.” A coalition of the nation’s most prominent conservative social issue groups (... MORE >
Peter Montgomery, Friday 08/17/2012, 9:58am
Religious Right groups have publicly seethed at the Southern Poverty Law Center's decision a couple of years ago to designate several of them as hate groups for consistently spreading false, inflammatory, and defamatory propaganda about LGBT people.  It is now clear that Religious Right leaders are hoping to exploit this week's shooting at the Family Research Council to try to damage the SPLC.   FRC's Tony Perkins said this week that the SPLC gave the shooter "license" to attack the organization by calling it a hate group.  Liberty Counsel's Matt Barber... MORE >
Brian Tashman, Friday 08/03/2012, 3:35pm
The Religious Right has claimed that the protests over Chick-fil-A’s anti-gay stances amount to an attack on freedom, religion, and all things good. Of course, many of the groups making that charge, like the National Organization for Marriage and the American Family Association, are simultaneously leading aggressive boycott and pressure campaigns against companies they don’t like because of the company’s views on gay rights. Yet they seem oblivious to any double standard. Today, Mission America president Linda Harvey made our point for us when she went on to list just a... MORE >
Brian Tashman, Thursday 07/26/2012, 5:25pm
Last year, Liberty Counsel and the Family Research Council were outraged — outraged! — when gay rights advocates began pressuring companies to end their ties to a so-called charity group called the CGBG, which funds anti-gay organizations including LC and FRC. The two groups urged retailers to “remain neutral in the culture wars” and accused gay rights supporters of “economic terrorism.” The FRC even created a website where activists could call on companies to “remain neutral in the current cultural battles, thus enabling you to focus on business and... MORE >
Peter Montgomery, Friday 07/20/2012, 9:33am
Conservatives of all stripes have indignantly cried “class warfare” in response to the Obama administration’s call for increased taxes on the richest Americans. They’ve denounced criticisms of Mitt Romney’s stealthy, wealthy approach to banking and taxes as anti-capitalist and un-American. They charge that liberals concerned about growing economic inequality are unfairly stoking resentment against successful people. Will the same conservatives now denounce a dangerously socialist-sounding fundraising email from the National Organization for... MORE >
Brian Tashman, Thursday 05/31/2012, 2:00pm
Eagle Forum’s San Diego chapter is hosting a conference in June to unite conservatives in Democratic-leaning California before the upcoming election: Tomorrow, Friday June 1, 4-9pm prominent national, state and local leaders will address hundreds of conservatives at the "Rise Up California" Eagle Forum San Diego Convention at Skyline Church in Rancho San Diego. The purpose of the convention is to gather, energize, educate, empower and activate conservative Californians 4 days prior to the primary, and into the November general election. Skyline Church is led by Jim Garlow, a... MORE >
Brian Tashman, Tuesday 05/29/2012, 1:15pm
National Organization for Marriage’s Jennifer Roback Morse stopped by Richard Land Live this weekend, where the embattled head of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission claimed that homosexuality has demonic origins. Land chatted with a caller who thanked him and Morse for fighting the “demon of homosexuality,” and Land agreed with her that “the Devil takes pleasure in anything that causes destruction in human society and the homosexual lifestyle does cause destruction.” He went on to claim that homosexuality was at least... MORE >
Peter Montgomery, Wednesday 05/09/2012, 6:29pm
The National Organization for Marriage has found time between its campaigns to enshrine anti-gay discrimination in state constitutions to join a Religious Right attack on gay activist and author Dan Savage, who has forthrightly apologized for comments he made when some students walked out of a speech he gave at a high school.  Earlier this week, NOM blogger and “culture director” Thomas Peters, speaking about the incident on a Seattle radio show, said NOM wants to debate issues like marriage with civility and respect.  When the interviewer told Peters he has heard... MORE >