California

As we noted yesterday, Miss California Carrie Prejean was going to be featured in a new National Organization for Marriage ad released today.

Well, NOM has put it out and here it is:

Joined by Carrie Prejean, the now-famous beauty contestant who lost her crown when she spoke up for marriage, the National Organization for Marriage today launched the second in a series of television ads to be released as part of NOM's ongoing Religious Liberty Ad Campaign. The new ad, "No Offense," opens with footage of Ms. Prejean's response to a question she was asked regarding same-sex marriage during the Miss USA competition on April 19, 2009. The ad highlights the efforts of same-sex marriage activists to silence and discredit pro-marriage advocates, calling them "liars," "bigots," and worse. Over the protests of gay marriage advocates, a group of prominent religious liberty scholars (including scholars both for and against same-sex marriage) recently warned the Connecticut legislature that a bill codifying the state supreme court's ruling on same-sex marriage raised the potential of "widespread and devastating" effects for religious liberty, if robust exemptions were not provided for faith groups and religious organizations.

The most interesting part comes near the end with the narrator asserts that advocates of marriage equality are trying to silence those who oppose it "because they don't want to debate the consequences of same-sex marriage. They want to silence opposition. Some of the nation's foremost scholars warn that gay marriage can create widespread legal conflicts for individuals, small businesses, and religious organizations."

The NOM ad then flashes the quotes "will create widespread and unnecessary legal conflicts" and "effects would be ... devestating" on the screen, but doesn't say where they came from.

In the press release on its website, NOM instead links to these two letters [PDFs] addressed to Christopher Donovan, Speaker of the House in Connecticut, showing where the quotes came from.  The only problem is that the authors weren't warning of the "devastating" effects of gay marriage - they were urging the state legislature to pass an exemption for religious organizations when it enacted its marriage equality law:

We write to provide you with an analysis of the effects of Raised Bill 899 on religious liberty. Those effects would be widespread and devastating. If Raised Bill 899 is passed in its current form—without religious-conscience protections—many religious organizations and individuals will be forced to engage in conduct that violates their deepest religious beliefs, and religious organizations would be limited in crucial aspects of their religious exercise.

In the only comprehensive scholarly work on same-sex marriage and religious liberty to date, legal scholars on both sides of the same-sex marriage debate agreed that codifying same-sex marriage without providing robust religious accommodations will create widespread and unnecessary legal conflict.

The second letter comes from Douglas Laycock, Yale Kamisar Collegiate Professor of Law at the University of Michigan, who is a supporter of same-sex marriage and wrote to the Connecticut Legislature to urge them to add such an exemption in order to prevent the Religious Right from playing the victim:

[I]is it in the interest of the gay and lesbian community to create religious martyrs in the enforcement of this bill. To impose legal penalties or civil liabilities on a wedding planner who refuses to do a same-sex wedding, or on a religious counseling agency that refuses to provide marriage counseling to same-sex couples, will simply ensure that conservative religious opinion on this issue can repeatedly be aroused to fever pitch. Every such case will be in the news repeatedly, and every such story will further inflame the opponents of same-sex marriage. Refusing exemptions to such religious dissenters will politically empower the most demagogic opponents of same-sex marriage. It will ensure that the issue remains alive, bitter, and deeply divisive.

Connecticut legislators did ultimately provide such an exemption when it passed its marriage equality legislation ... and NOM itself hailed it:

The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) applauds the Connecticut legislature which, in a surprise move today, adopted substantive religious liberty protections as part of what was expected to be a routine bill implementing the Connecticut court decision ordering same-sex marriage.

"We are just grateful that the Connecticut legislators acknowledged and addressed the serious potential implications of same-sex marriage for traditional faith communities," said Maggie Gallagher, president of NOM. "We hope this decision represents a change of heart among gay marriage advocates and a new willingness to accept broad conscience protections."

So NOM posted two letters urging the passage of a religious exemption to the state's marriage equality law - an exemption that was granted and hailed by NOM - yet is taking quotes from those letters out of context in their new ad to suggest that marriage equality itself will somehow have devastating effects for the nation, when the letters said nothing of the sort.

• Politico reports that there is a rebellion brewing among the GOP's base and that "activists and officials say the party is as resolute as ever, if not more so, on cultural issues – regardless of the soundings of some party elites."
• Carrie Prejean continues to capitalize on her anti-gay Miss USA fame and has signed on with "one of the country's premier Christian PR firms, A. Larry Ross Communications—which represents such evangelical powerhouses as Rick Warren."
• You know the times they are a changing when Promise Keepers starts opening its events to women.
• YouDiligenceTM is teaming with Focus on the Family to provide Internet safety services to families who want to protect their children from online predators and cyber-bullies and inappropriate online exchanges. Maybe they should have put this in place a few weeks ago.
• Mike Huckabee says George Soros is behind the Obama administration's decision to release the torture memos.
• Concerned Women for America's Wendy Wright wonders if the timing of the swine flu scare was "a political thing to push the [Kathleen] Sebelius nomination through." Seriously. Glenn Beck makes the same allegation.
• Finally, there is this, which speaks for itself:

Utah County Republicans defeated a resolution opposing well-heeled groups that a delegate claims are pushing a satanic plan to encourage illegitimate births and illegal immigration.

Don Larsen, a Springville delegate, offered the resolution, titled "Resolution opposing the Hate America anti-Christian Open Borders cabal," warning delegates that an "invisible government" comprised of left-wing foundations was pumping money into the Democratic Party to push for looser immigration laws and anti-family legislation.

• Did you know that Former U. S. Sen. Rick Santorum is getting paid $1,750 a piece for every inane column he writes for the Philadelphia Inquirer?
• Phyllis Schlafly will receive the James C. Dobson Vision and Leadership Award at this year's Values Voter Summit.
• Miss California is quickly becoming a right-wing hero/martyr thanks to her stated opposition to marriage equality during the Miss USA pageant.
• Liberty Counsel is launching its annual "Friend or Foe" Graduation Prayer Campaign, vowing to "litigate to ensure that prayer and religious viewpoints are not suppressed during public school graduation ceremonies."
• The Susan B. Anthony List is urging "pro-life Senators to do all they can -- including support a filibuster -- in order to stop abortion activist Dawn Johnsen's nomination for Office of Legal Counsel," saying her nomination "holds significant implications for our next Supreme Court battle."
• Finally, Alveda King weighs in on the recent DHS report, complaining that it makes no sense to suggest that anti-abortion militants might link up with racist groups because "Abortion is the white supremacist's best friend."

As I noted last week, Rick Warren had been on something of a media rehabilitation tour over the last few days, giving interviews to a variety of outlets, that was set to culminate with an appearance on ABC's "This Week" with George Stephanopoulos that never materialized:

Pastor Rick Warren abruptly canceled an appearance on ABC’s “This Week” in which he would have had the opportunity to clarify his denial last week that he had ever endorsed California’s anti-gay-marriage ballot measure, when in fact he had done so on videotape.

A Warren aide e-mails the best-selling evangelical pastor’s view on both issues:

“Easter weekend is like the Super Bowl for a megachurch like Saddleback; this year they were expecting upwards of 43,000 to attend 43 service venues and locations offered at 13 separate service times, requiring an intense several weeks of preparation by the pastor and his team.

“I received a call from a Saddleback colleague (Pastor Rick’s chief-of-staff) [Saturday] morning that Dr. Warren awoke ill. He had already preached the first four services, beginning Thursday night (two of the Friday services were taped for broadcast six times over the weekend on the Fox News Channel.) I was informed that he would have to clear his schedule of interviews and preaching appearances yesterday in order to regain his strength to get back in the pulpit on Easter Sunday.

Warren had been coming under fire ever since he tried to claim to Larry King that his support for Proposition 8 and his past anti-gay statements were wildly overblown; assertions that didn’t fool or change the minds of anyone and ended up just bringing back the very issue he was trying to downplay.

Undoubtedly, questions over just what is Warren’s actual position on this issue was going to come up during his interview with Stephanopoulos, which would have just generated even more coverage and so it look like Warren just decided to cancel in order to avoid the whole thing.  

At the heart of Warren’s problem is his apparent desire to be all things to all people, as Amy Sullivan succulently explained it:

Warren's other habit is to do his best to agree with whomever he's speaking to. I suspect it comes partly from his pastoral experience, but even more from a desire to prove that he's not one of "those" evangelicals. He wears Hawaiian shirts. He has an easy laugh. He hugs people. A lot. If James Dobson is the Grinch, Rick Warren wants to be Mr. Rogers.

It's why when he's talking to Larry King, Warren mentions his gay friends and says he "never once even gave an endorsement in the two years Prop 8 was going." And when he's talking to Sean Hannity, Warren voices his agreement when the FOX host advocates assassinating the president of Iran. And when he sits down with the Wall St. Journal, he gets downright snarky about Democrats and religious liberals.

When it comes to gay marriage, Warren dearly wants to be a Southern Baptist who believes that marriage should be between a man and a woman--but also a man whose gay friends understand he's not intolerant. He appears to have missed the fact that the gap between those two impulses is what the debate over gay marriage is all about. That's not surprising, though, since as I wrote earlier this year, Warren also "wants to be both the universally admired pastor who speaks to the nation and the influential leader who mobilizes religious conservatives for political ends. But those are two inherently conflicting roles, and he cannot be both, no matter how hard he tries."

The dilemma he has created for himself can be pretty well summed up by this Washington Times article from over the weekend noting that while Warren initially angered liberals with his anti-gay stances and statements, he’s now angered the Religious Right by trying to back away from those very statements:

Evangelical leaders say they are bewildered and stunned by the Rev. Rick Warren's apparent turnaround on gay marriage after the famous California pastor said earlier this week that he was not a proponent of California's Proposition 8.

…

"I was extremely troubled by the way he appeared to be so anxious to distance himself from the same-sex issue and to make clear he was not an 'activist' and that he'd only addressed the issue in a very minor way," said the Rev. Al Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Ky.

Wendy Wright, president of Concerned Women for America, said his denial is "absolutely baffling."

"Whether he supports Proposition 8 now, after the fact, is overshadowed by the bizarre claim that he did not say what the evidence so clearly proves he said."

Charisma Magazine ran an article on the new National Organization for Marriage ad we mentioned yesterday in which various right-wing leaders say that the recent marriage vote in Vermont is proof that this debate was never about legal benefits but is really part of an effort to fundamentally redefine society:

Pro-family leaders say the vote in Vermont, which in 2000 became the first state to create civil union laws that gave same-sex couples the federal benefits of marriage, is proof that the debate over gay marriage was not about legal benefits.

"That was merely the wedge to demand more, to require that everyone in society accept what cannot-by nature-be, that marriage can be something other than one man and one woman," said Wendy Wright, president of Concerned Women for America.

Austin R. Nimocks, senior legal counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund, which has argued in court on behalf of traditional marriage supporters, said civil union laws are tools to usher in gay marriage nationally.

"This move [in Vermont] also demonstrates without question that ‘civil unions' are never acceptable middle ground," Nimocks said. "Instead, they are the groundwork used to pave the way toward what you see today. Other states should not be naïve."

NOM executive director Brian Brown said his organization's new ad campaign was about protecting their religious freedom, saying that if states are allowed to pass marriage equality laws then those who "believe that marriage is the union of a man and a woman [are going to be treated as] the equivalent of bigots." And it looks like NOM will be getting some help in this effort, as it is also reported that Harry Jackson is setting up his own campaign to prevent Washington, DC from following Vermont's lead:

Bishop Harry Jackson, founder of the Maryland-based High Impact Leadership Coalition, is setting up an office in the District of Columbia and launching a grass-roots campaign to oppose a gay marriage bill he said will likely be introduced in the District within the next 60 to 90 days.

Because the U.S. Congress governs the District, such a move would be a direct challenge to DOMA. Jackson, who is black, said educating African-American and Hispanic pastors in particular about gay marriage efforts will be key in preserving traditional marriage.

"In November, we had three simultaneous, major victories," Jackson said, referring to the passage of marriage amendments in Florida, Arizona and California. "We saw that the church uniting around racial boundaries is what makes the difference. ... When people who know the Lord know the issues, then we find people voting the right way."

This is the first we have head of Jackson's nascent effort, but it is something we will certainly be keeping an eye on.

And speaking of Jackson, he is also not happy with Rick Warren for claiming that fighting against marriage equality is not even on his agenda:

"This man who's been called the next Billy Graham, who I really respect with all my heart and love what he's doing in Africa, is falling into a trap that is emblematic of the problem that the entire church is facing in this generation," Jackson states. "And that is that we love the applause of men more than we love the work of God and the gospel. Jesus...told us that we are to honor God first, and that we are not to fear men but we're to fear God."

Jackson argues that Warren was "aiding and abetting a deception around what kind of stance the Bible calls Christians to take" by telling Larry King that opposing the recent Iowa Supreme Court ruling legalizing same-sex marriage was "not his agenda."

"He is the author of The Purpose Driven Life book," Jackson notes, "and therefore people are going to think, 'Well, this is not on my mission -- it's not on my purpose. I don't have to stand for truth.'

"Therefore, his defection -- in terms of his stance on this issue -- [and] his backsliding on this issue, becomes of tremendous damage to the strength of the church in this position."

In one of our posts from yesterday on the right-wing reactions to the marriage equality vote in Vermont, it was noted that the National Organization for Marriage was set to “launch a new national ad campaign that highlights how same-sex marriage undermines the core civil rights of those who believe in the simple truth that marriage is the union of one man and one woman.”

And today they have done just that, releasing this new ad:

There’s a storm gathering.  The clouds are dark and the winds are strong. And I am afraid. Some who advocate for same-sex marriage have taken the issue far beyond same-sex couples.  They want to bring the issue into my life. My freedom will be taken away.

I’m a California doctor who must choose between my faith and my job.

I’m part of a New Jersey church group punished by the government because we can’t support same-sex marriage.

I am a Massachusetts parent helplessly watching public schools teach my son that gay marriage is okay.

But some who advocate for same-sex marriage have not been content with same-sex couples living as they wish.  Those advocates want to change the way I live.

I will have no choice.

The storm is coming.

But we have hope.  A rainbow coalition of people of every creed and color are coming together in love to protect marriage.  Visit NationforMarriage.org. Join Us.

Ben Smith has more:

The National Organization for Marriage, a prominent backer of the successful campaign against same-sex marriage in California, is launching a $1.5 million ad campaign this morning aimed at forestalling same-sex marriage support in other key states.

The campaign, whose 60-second television ad is above, seeks to energize the opponents of gay marriage by making the case that it will impinge directly on their own lives. The ads will air in New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, and Iowa.

"The biggest argument – and the biggest lie – put forward by those who want to redefine marriage is that it's not going to have any affect on you. 'Why should you care? It’s not going o have any affect on your marriage," said NOM executive director Brian Brown. "In state after state we’ve seen same-sex marriage directly conflict with people’s religious beliefs."

Brown cited the decision of Catholic Charities in Massachusetts to stop handling adoptions after a law banned discriminating against gays and lesbians hoping to adopt children.

Backers of same-sex marriage "are saying that it’s right for the law to treat us as evil discriminators," he said.

The ad above, another 30-second spot, feature people claiming same-sex marriage has specifically harmed them, and that with a "storm gathering," they're "afraid."

…

"Our goal is to get two million activists by the election of 2010 who support marriage, and especially to fight against the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act," Brown said.

Yesterday, the Family Research Council released a petition aimed at "Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to urge him to stop lying to himself and the American taxpayer" about his pro-life views, saying "he cannot claim to be pro-life and continue advocate for taxpayer funding of abortion."

FRC's action alert urging people to sign it begins thusly:

Senator Reid used to claim he was pro-life. Since he became Majority Leader in the Senate, however, he is sounding more and more like his pro-abortion colleagues Chuck Schumer and Ted Kennedy. Just recently he told reporters he would be perfectly fine with a health care bill that requires taxpayers to fund abortions.

Is he taking his talking points from the President of Planned Parenthood? Two weeks ago she said that she would pursue making abortion part of President Obama's health care plan.

I have to admit that I had to re-read this several times before I realized that the "she" to which FRC referred  was not a typo referencing Reid but was rather referring to Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards.

While I am more that willing to chalk my confusion about this up to my own stupidity, I don't know that I can say the same for this recent op-ed FRC Senior Policy Analyst Robert Morrison in the Washington Examiner in which he complains about ... well, I'm not sure entirely:

With the talk of whether President Barack Obama is a Socialist, it’s no wonder the country is confused. Some ofthe confusion began when NBC’s late Tim Russert made the switch on national TV in advance of the 2000 election. Prior to that, Republican states had been shown on network election maps in blue, with Democratic states in red.

In 1980, CBS showed President Ronald Reagan’s states as deep a blue as a California swimming pool. Jimmy Carter’s small haul of states was an embarrassed red. When Massachusetts, Connecticut, and New York went blue, Dan Rather went green. In 1984, the map went almost all blue again, as Reagan romped to a second landslide victory.

Beginning in 2000, the vision of red state Republicans and blue state Democrats was burned into our minds with the 34-day wait for resolution by the Supreme Court in Bush v. Gore.

It’s time to switch colors back. Around the world, conservative parties’ color is blue. And liberals—oh alright—call yourselves progressives if you insist— are red. It’s the color of Labour in Britain, Liberals in Canada, and the SPD in Germany. The Left is red for a very good reason. It represents revolution. Go see Les Mis if you doubt it.

President Obama should be saluted for reaching out to voters in red states and blue states. Not for him the vicious view of a Michael Moore, who wondered why terrorists would want to kill so many blue state voters on 9/11.

Let’s hope both parties will make their best cases to Americans as Americans. E Pluribus Unum should recognize no division. As the victory of Prop. 8 showed in California this time, and the marriage amendment in Ohio proved last time, voters are entirely capable of making differing judgments on men and measures. It’s time they were treated with more respect.

Apparently, Morrison doesn't like the use of red for Republicans and blue for Democrats and seems to believe that this has something to do with why people think President Obama is a socialist and it's all Tim Russert's fault ... plus, some reference to Michael Moore and gay marriage.

Seriously, this is the entire op-ed ... and I literally have no idea what it means.

• Media Matters notes that, in all fairness, Newt Gingrich is entitled to present himself as a guardian of Catholic values because he's "only been divorced twice so far."
• Speaking of which, Catholics United has responded to the outcry over President Obama's invitation to Notre Dame by calling on "Former Speaker Gingrich and the Cardinal Newman Society to refrain from selectively applying the Catholic faith in service of their partisan agendas."
• The SPLC reports that Scott Lively will be addressing the Murrieta-Temecula Republican Assembly, a local chapter of the conservative GOP activist group California Republican Assembly.
• Pam and Good as You note notes that the AFA seemingly has nothing better to do than harass Pepsico.
• Tips-Q points out that the Christian Coalition is encouraging Senators to sponsor a Resolution sponsored by Senator Jim Inhofe honoring the life of Paul Weyrich.
• Bill Berkowitz has a good round-up of right-wing news.
• Sarah Posner says that the new Newt Gingrich effort is not so new after all, because "he's pitching the same-old, same-old as a reinvented phoenix of a flailing conservative movement."
• Tom Driscoll makes a good point regarding the Right's assertion that David Hamilton was rated "unqualified" by the ABA when he was first nominated to the bench back in 1994: "When someone's level of experience was questioned 15 years ago does it really make sense to cite the same question today? Doesn't the ensuing 15 years actually serving as a justice count for some amount of experience?"
• Finally, Andrew Sullivan highlights a rather remarkable press release off of Christian Newswire.

Yesterday, the New York Times ran an editorial criticizing Senate Republicans for preemptively and hypocritically threatening to filibuster President Obama’s judicial nominees if they are not consulted and approve of any nominees before they are made.

Predictably, Ed Whelan doesn’t like it:

1.  The editorial contends that Republican senators are now “threatening … filibusters if Mr. Obama’s nominees are not to their liking”, and it alleges that this threat is “at odds with their previous views on the subject.”  But the Republican senators’ letter does not threaten filibusters for the purpose of defeating judicial nominees “not to their liking”.  It threatens a filibuster if Democrats trample the traditional blue-slip privilege.  

2.  As to the blue-slip privilege:  The editorial states that Judiciary Committee chairman Patrick Leahy “must decide whether to follow the Senate’s ‘blue slip’ tradition, which holds that judicial nominees should not move forward without their home-state senators’ support.”  Two sentences later, it asserts that “Republicans abandoned them [blue slips] when they controlled the Senate under Mr. Bush.”  That assertion is a fantasy, an ignorant statement, or an outright lie.  All that Senate Republicans are seeking is maintenance of the same blue-slip practice that they afforded Democrats under President Bush.  There is nothing that Leahy “must decide”—unless he wants to trample the blue-slip privilege.

Let’s take these points one at a time.

Point 1: Whelan says that the Republicans are not threatening to filibuster only if “the traditional blue-slip privilege” is not observed.  Of course, if this letter were really about “blue-slip privileges” it should have been sent to Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy who is in charge of determining the committee’s blue-slip policy, rather than President Obama.  The letter instead was sent to Obama and it makes no mention of blue-slip policy at all.  What it does make is a demand to be consulted on nominations and a threat to prevent them from moving forward if they are not:

We hope your Administration will consult with us as it considers possible nominations to the federal courts from our states.  Regretfully, if we are not consulted on, and approve of, a nominee from our states, the Republican Conference will be unable to support moving forward on that nominee.

Let's be clear, this has less to do with blue-slip policy than it does with the Republicans' very clear threat to filibuster any judicial nominee of whom they do not approve which, as we pointed out before, is a position that is diametrically opposed to the one they held when George W. Bush was in office regarding the Senate’s role in the confirmation process.

In addition, as this Congressional Research Service report [PDF] from last year explains, Senators from the opposition party have traditionally had little influence over the judicial selection process itself and have exercised their power primarily through the use of the blue-slip.  

Which brings us to Point 2: Whelan asserts that the claim that Republicans ignored the blue-slip policy under President Bush is “a fantasy, an ignorant statement, or an outright lie” and that “all that Senate Republicans are seeking is maintenance of the same blue-slip practice that they afforded Democrats under President Bush.”

What practice would that be?  The one Sen. Hatch had of ignoring the blue-slip policy altogether when it served the GOP’s interests, according to the Congressional Research Service?

The Kuhl nomination appears to represent a significant change in the blue slip policies between Chairman Leahy in the 107th Congress and Chairman Hatch in the 108th Congress. During the 107th Congress, Chairman Leahy required both blue slips to be returned, which meant that no action was taken on Kuhl’s nomination. Without the return of California Senator Barbara Boxer’s (D) blue slip, Senator Leahy had declined to advance the Kuhl nomination in the 107th Congress. However, in the 108th Congress, even without Senator Boxer returning her blue slip, Chairman Hatch held a hearing.

Also in the 108th Congress, shortly before the 2003 August recess, Chairman Hatch held a hearing for Henry Saad of Michigan to be U.S. Circuit Court judge for the Sixth Circuit. Chairman Hatch moved forward with the Saad nomination despite the objection of Michigan Senators Carl Levin and Debbie Stabenow. This marked the first reported instance that a nomination with two negative blue slips has had any committee action since 1985 and only the second known case in committee history. Senators Levin and Stabenow had returned negative blue slips on March 19, 2003.

Is that the sort of treatment Senate Republicans are demanding?  If so, I am sure the Democrats will be happy to acquiesce.

There is simply no way to believe that Senate Republicans are demanding that they receive the same treatment they accorded to Democrats when President Bush was in the White House and the GOP controlled the Senate as they know full-well that Democratic input in the process was all-but-non-existent. They would be, in essence, asking to be marginalized, ignored and steam-rolled.

In short, the letter the Senate Republicans sent to President Obama is not about the arcane minutia of the blue-slip policy. It is, rather, a sign that, far from playing the role they demanded of Democrats under President Bush, they want to assert their power to obstruct the nominations of President Obama as much as humanly possible.