Arizona

I've been having a bit of difficulty putting together a post regarding what the Right has to say about their anti-gay amendment wins in Florida, California, and Arizona not because I don't know what to say about it, but because they don't seem to know what to say about it. 

As of this writing, aside from ProtectMarriage.com thanking supporters and voters and insisting that their victory in California "doesn’t discriminate or take rights away from anyone," no major Religious Right groups have had much to say about any of this.  Powerhouse groups like Focus on the Family, the Family Research Council, Concerned Women for America, Eagle Forum, and the ACLJ have all been oddly silent. 

In fact, the only things I've really been able to find have been Richard Land crowing that "if traditional marriage can win in California, it can win in any of the 50 states when it's put to a vote of the people" and Ken Blackwell saying if Prop 8 "hadn't passed, we would have seen a floodgate opened in terms of same-sex marriage. Now, we've closed that gate." 

Of course, you can always count on Matt Barber to having something to say about it and he does not disappoint by providing his unique spin which suggests that Barack Obama's historic victory last night means he is now obligated to embrace the Right's anti-gay agenda:  

The passage of these three state constitutional amendments is an indicator that Obama, who has pledged full support for every single demand of extremist homosexual pressure groups, must recalibrate his far-left positions on these and other social issues if he wishes to be an effective leader ... The institution of legitimate marriage is a cornerstone of any healthy society. If you introduce counterfeit money into society, it devalues the dollar. By the same token, if you introduce counterfeit "gay marriage" into society, it devalues the institution of natural marriage. President-elect Obama owes his African-American supporters and the rest of America assurances that he will work to protect the cornerstone institution of legitimate marriage and reject the free-speech killing, religious liberties chilling agenda of the radical homosexual lobby."

Just yesterday I was writing about Lou Engel and his prayer warriors, noting that in this election cycle he had become far more openly political and had started linking up with DC's Religious Right insiders like Tony Perkins and Mike Huckabee.

And now today comes word that James Dobson himself is set to participate in Engel's rally of prayer and fasting this weekend in opposition to gays getting married in California:

On Saturday, tens of thousands of people will gather at San Diego's Qualcomm Stadium for corporate prayer and fasting for the protection of traditional marriage and the soul of our nation.

Family advocates from across the nation are expected to travel to California to be a part of the day of prayer and worship. Joining them will be Dr. James Dobson, founder and chairman of Focus on the Family.

"It is not a festival, it is a fast," Dr. Dobson said on Wednesday's radio broadcast. "It's a day of concerted prayer from 10 o'clock in the morning till 10 o'clock at night."

Dr. Dobson said he hoped thousands would join him at the free gathering.

Jenny Tyree, marriage analyst for Focus on the Family Action, said Dr. Dobson's presence in California is significant.

"Dr. Dobson is a recognized champion of marriage," she said. "His listeners know his heart for nurturing marriages, as well as his passion for strengthening the definition of marriage in our laws.

"His steadfast stance in support of traditional marriage gives strength to voters in California and across the country who share his esteem for our most pro-child institution."

The San Jose Mercury News has more:

"This vote on whether we stop the gay-marriage juggernaut in California is Armageddon," Charles Colson, the former Nixon administration official turned evangelical leader, said in a video that is being quoted by pastors around the state. On Saturday some of the nation's best-known evangelical leaders are hoping to fill Qualcomm Stadium in San Diego for a rally on behalf of the proposed ban.

Lou Engle — the charismatic founder of TheCall, an evangelical 12-hour gathering of prayer and fasting with a strong following among young people — will be one of the evangelical leaders at the rally, along with James C. Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family, and Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council.

That combination of leaders is "extraordinary. It just tells about the significance of the moment and the real need to pray," Engle, whose ministry is based in Kansas City, said in an interview Wednesday. "I spoke recently with a man from a Muslim country, who said to me, 'Lou, we're praying for you all over the world, for what you're doing, because if same-sex marriage stands in California, it will sweep all over the world.' "

Despite the votes in Arizona and Florida, "California is the focus, because everybody knows that California is the influential one," Engle said.

The global reach of Silicon Valley is another means California has to spread its influence on gay marriage, a senior leader of one prominent Christian group said.

By publicly opposing Proposition 8, companies like Google and Apple have "irritated" people across the country who buy their products, said Carrie Gordon Earll, senior director of public policy for Focus on the Family, a Colorado-based group that has donated more than $350,000 to back Proposition 8. Apple last week said it would contribute $100,000 to the No on 8 campaign, and Google founders Sergey Brin and Larry Page have made large individual donations.

The issue "has become national in part because those corporations have made it so," Earll said. "People may think twice about buying that iPod."

Fresh from her interview with David Brody of Pat Robertson's Christian Broadcasting Network where she voiced her support for a federal marriage amendment and complained that both she and God were being mocked, Sarah Palin has found time to reach out to an even bigger Religious Right audience, this time granting an interview to James Dobson.

From the Colorado Springs Gazette:

One of Sarah Palin’s most prominent local supporters, Focus on the Family founder James Dobson, didn’t go to her rally Monday at Sky Sox stadium, but he did manage to sneak in a phone interview with her after the event. The 18-minute interview will air Wednesday on Dobson’s “Focus on the Family” radio show.

Tom Minnery, senior vice president of government and public policy of Focus on the Family Action, the lobbying arm of Focus, wouldn’t divulge the details of the interview. But he said Dobson spoke with Palin about the pressure of the campaign and the attacks on her since Sen. John McCain chose her in August as his running mate.

“She is smart, articulate and has a Christian testimony, so we can see why the national media is out to get her,” Minnery said Monday.

Dobson had once said he would never vote for McCain. But soon after McCain chose Palin, Dobson said he vote for the Arizona senator for president.

Minnery said Dobson is impressed by the Alaska governor’s conservative values, including her opposition to abortion, even in cases of rape and incest.

“Her future in politics is bright,” Minnery said. “People are drawn to her.”

Dobson’s interview with Palin can be heard Wednesday.

Considering that Dobson declared that "a lot of people were praying, and I believe Sarah Palin is God's answer” when he learned of the nomination, it is probably safe to assume that this is not going to be a particularly difficult interview for either of them.

Acronyms like DINO (Democrat in Name Only) and RINO (Republican in Name Only) are generally thrown around as pejoratives, suggesting that the person in question claims to be a member of one party while disagreeing with or failing to support key issues by which that party is traditionally identified. 

Nobody better exemplifies this term than Harry Jackson, who continues to get mileage out of pretending that he is a Democrat:

Similarly, evangelical leader Bishop Harry R. Jackson, Jr., who leads a socially conservative black pastors group called High Impact Leadership Coalition, has urged his black congregation in Maryland as well as other black Christians to vote on their values rather than their race.

Jackson is a registered Democrat but has joined several Focus on the Family Action broadcasts to criticize Obama for his support of abortion and same-sex “marriage.”

Yesterday, Jackson joined a group of African American and Latino pastors in Florida to rally supporters to ban gay marriage and again used his Democratic affiliation to create the impression that his efforts are something beyond standard right-wing activism:

A group of black and Latino pastors pledged Wednesday to rally support among their congregations for Amendment 2, the measure that would essentially ban gay marriage in Florida.

...

"We are not standing here against gays," Bishop Harry R. Jackson Jr. the coalition's leader and pastor of Hope Christian Center in Beltsville, Md., said at a news conference at the Tampa church. "We're standing simply to proclaim that marriage should be preserved."

Nearly 40 pastors stood behind Jackson, the second gathering of bay area pastors working to support Amendment 2. This month, a separate, similar effort launched that drew mostly white Southern Baptist pastors.

Jackson, who is a black Democrat, said he aims to build bridges between minority and white clerics so they can work together on social issues from a biblical perspective.

As we pointed out several months ago, Jackson's "Democratic" affiliation is purely a political tactic, which he fully admits:

I voted for President Bush, but here in Maryland—a primarily Democratic state—in order to vote in the primaries that affect the election, you need to be a Democrat. That's where I started. Over time, however, I've found that I have very little in common with the Democratic Party in terms of national moral values issues. Still, being able to say I'm a registered Democrat disarms many of the people who want to write me off as an "Oreo" or an "Uncle Tom."

Need more proof?  Well, generally Democrats don't respond to allegations that one of John McCain's high-level staffers is gay by calling on McCain to be more vocal in support of efforts to deny marriage equality in order to minimize the damage:

A conservative Christian pastor and political activist says the revelation that John McCain's Senate chief of staff is an open homosexual should compel the presidential hopeful and his running mate Sarah Palin to "rise up" and "unashamedly" declare their support for traditional marriage.

...

Bishop Harry Jackson, Jr., of the High Impact Leadership Coalition says the Buse revelation is not likely to diminish McCain's support among conservatives. However, the Maryland pastor is concerned that U.S. senator has not been more vocal about the marriage amendment battles in Florida, California, and his home state of Arizona.

It looks like the Alliance Defense Fund is moving ahead with its efforts to potentially get dozens of churches stripped of their tax-exempt status: 

Declaring that clergy have a constitutional right to endorse political candidates from their pulpits, the socially conservative Alliance Defense Fund is recruiting several dozen pastors to do just that on Sept. 28, in defiance of Internal Revenue Service rules.

The effort by the Arizona-based legal consortium is designed to trigger an IRS investigation that ADF lawyers would then challenge in federal court. The ultimate goal is to persuade the U.S. Supreme Court to throw out a 54-year-old ban on political endorsements by tax-exempt houses of worship.

"For so long, there has been this cloud of intimidation over the church," ADF attorney Erik Stanley said. "It is the job of the pastors of America to debate the proper role of church in society. It's not for the government to mandate the role of church in society."

…

Rather than wait for the IRS to investigate an alleged violation, the organization intends to create dozens of violations and take the U.S. government to court on First Amendment grounds.

"We're looking for churches that are serious-minded about this, churches that understand both the risks and the benefits," Stanley said, referring to the chance that they could lose their coveted tax-exempt status or could set a precedent.

Stanley said three dozen church leaders from more than 20 states have agreed to deliver a political sermon, naming political names.

"The sermon will be an evaluation of conditions for office in light of scripture and doctrine. They will make a specific recommendation from the pulpit about how the congregation would vote," he said.

"They could oppose a candidate. They could oppose both candidates. They could endorse a candidate. They could focus on a federal, state or local election."

Fortunately, the good folks at Americans United are all over this and have already released a brochure debunking ADF’s bogus line of argument:  

The free speech rights of religious leaders are already broadly protected by the U.S. Constitution. Clergy can and do address public policy concerns, ranging from abortion, gay rights and gun control to poverty, civil rights and the death penalty. They may support legislation pending in Congress or the state legislatures, or call for its defeat. They may endorse or oppose ballot referenda. Indeed, discussion of public issues is a common practice in religious institutions all over America.

The only thing houses of worship may not do is endorse or oppose candidates for public office or use their resources in partisan campaigns. This restriction, which is found in federal tax law, is not limited to churches and other religious ministries. In fact, it is applied to every non-profit organization in the country that holds a tax exemption under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code.

Contrary to the claims of many in the Religious Right, the IRS is not singling out houses of worship for special regulation. Thousands of educational, scientific, charitable and literary organizations hold the 501(c)(3) status, and all must abide by the legal requirement barring involvement in elections.

Why does this rule exist? The answer is obvious upon a moment's reflection: Non-profit organizations receive tax exemption because their work is charitable, educational or religious. That tax benefit comes with conditions. One requirement is that tax-exempt organizations refrain from involvement in partisan politics. This is a reasonable rule, since tax-exempt groups are supposed to work for the public good, not spend their time and money trying to elect or defeat candidates.

After all the controversy provoked by the fact that John McCain was set to attend a fundraiser with Jack Abramoff crony Ralph Reed, it looks like the McCain campaign and Reed both wised up and decided not to be seen together at last night’s fundraiser in Atlanta:

John McCain raised more than $1.75 million for Republicans Monday at a fundraiser clouded by confusion over the role of a political operative connected to disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff.

The downtown event was promoted by Ralph Reed, a former head of the Christian Coalition. McCain's campaign said the event was organized by the Republican National Committee , not Reed, who was linked to the Abramoff scandal that McCain investigated in the Senate.

McCain didn't raise the issue during his 22-minute appearance. Instead, he thanked donors to the Republicans' umbrella campaign fund.

"Everybody in this room could be someplace else," the Arizona senator told the crowd of several hundred. "Everybody in this room could be donating to some other cause or to their own well-being. But I want to thank you."

Reed was not seen inside the hotel ballroom; a McCain campaign spokeswoman said he did not attend.

Matt Taibbi, fresh off his time undercover at John Hagee’s church, returns to the pages of Rolling Stone to chronicle John McCain’s on-going struggle to win over the Christian Right. Taibbi tracked down Mat Staver of the Liberty Counsel who was deeply involved in the July meeting in Colorado where a variety of right-wing heavy-hitter decided to finally  back McCain because they basically had no other option and then issued their own “Declaration of American Values” which, Staver tells Taibbi, they want to make clear was not a declaration of support for McCain:

It's McCain's newfound status as the lesser of two evils that recently won him a previously unthinkable triumph — the pledged support of more than 100 Christian groups who met in Denver on July 1st to create a so-called "Declaration of American Values." Organized by Mat Staver, chairman of the fundamentalist group Liberty Counsel, the declaration was an attempt to reunite a Christian right that, as Staver tells me, had suffered "through a fractious primary season. There were a lot of hurt feelings." The group — which included notables on the religious right like Phyllis Schlafly and Tim Lahaye — settled on a list of 10 basic principles, including the perennial sanctity of life and anti-gay-marriage stuff, as well as some weirder and less biblically obvious demands supporting unfettered gun ownership and opposing taxation "of a progressive nature."

And while the group came out in support of McCain, Staver is anxious that this not be interpreted as a broad expression of enthusiasm by the Christian right. "Uh, the media somewhat didn't accurately report that," he says with obvious fright in his voice. "This wasn't a Declaration of American Values in support of John McCain. This was a statement of support for those core values." It was agreed, Staver clarifies, that supporting McCain in this election was merely the best choice for the "short term." And the reason for that, he says, is that the election of Barack Obama would "decimate American values." From there, Staver is off and running about Obama's record on abortion rights and gay marriage, and how generally an Obama election would bring about the end of civilization; he said almost nothing about McCain.

This is a point Staver seems eager to get across, as he told the same thing to Dan Gilgoff back in July, explaining that their support for McCain was done out of political necessity and is aimed at asserting their influence within the Republican Party in order to try and prevent this sort of situation in the future: 

Last week's decision by nearly 100 conservative Christian activists meeting in Denver to coalesce around presumptive Republican presidential nominee John McCain was a major coup for a candidate whose relationship with the Christian Right has been famously stormy. But the Denver meeting's organizer, Mathew Staver--founder and chairman of Liberty Counsel and dean of Liberty University School of Law--says the activists' new unity around McCain should not be taken as evidence of a stepped-up religious outreach effort by the Arizona senator, or as a sign that evangelicals are warming to him personally.

In fact, Staver said in an interview yesterday that much of the Denver meeting was focused on building a long-term strategy for the Christian Right to avoid getting stuck with another figure like McCain.

Taibbi also relates this anecdote, which suggests either that James Dobson has changed his mind once again on whether he’ll support McCain or that his spokesman can’t keep track of his waffling:

As a result, the most influential leaders on the Christian right are keeping their distance. "Uh, no," says a spokesman for Focus on the Family, when I ask if Dobson has changed his mind about McCain, even with Obama on the ticket. "He hasn't changed his mind. No way."

After getting blasted for backtracking on his opposition to gay adoption, FRC is now praising McCain's muddled commitment to family values: "We applaud the Arizona Senator for his support of traditional families, which study upon study affirms as the best environment for raising children. I hope this is only the beginning of a longer, more pointed dialogue about pro-family policies by the GOP's presidential nominee."

It was just five months ago that James Dobson declared unequivocally that he would not, under any circumstances, ever support John McCain for president, saying “I cannot, and I will not, vote for Sen. John McCain, as a matter of conscience.”   In fact, so opposed to McCain was Dobson that he went so far as to organize an effort to secure one million signatures in opposition to McCain’s nomination and then publicly reiterated his vehement opposition to his nomination just a few months later.  

But wouldn’t you know it, like every other craven political calculation and empty threat he has ever made, Dobson has changed his mind and concluded that Barack Obama is such a monumental threat to this nation that he almost has no other choice but to blatantly violate his own conscience for the greater good of the Republican Party:

Conservative Christian leader James Dobson has softened his stance against Republican presidential hopeful John McCain, saying he could reverse his position and endorse the Arizona senator despite serious misgivings.

"I never thought I would hear myself saying this," Dobson said in a radio broadcast to air Monday. "... While I am not endorsing Senator John McCain, the possibility is there that I might."

So why is Dobson suddenly changing his tune?  In short, he is absolutely terrified of Obama:

He is also supportive of the entire gay activist agenda.  We're not just talking about showing respect for people and equal rights for all citizens of the United States.  It’s not referring to it in those terms. He’s talking about homosexual marriage. I mean, he makes no bones about that. He's talking about hate crimes legislation which would limit religious liberty, I have no doubt about that, that ministers and others - people like us - are going to very quickly be prohibited from expressing your faith and your theology on certain views.  … Just so many aspects of his views on that issue that keep me awake at night frankly … that he is so extreme, that he does threaten traditional family life and pro-moral values … This has been the most difficult moral dilemma for me.  It’s why you haven’t heard me say much about it because I have struggled on this issue.  And there are some concerns here that matter to me more than my own life and neither of the candidates is consistent with my views in that regard. But Senator McCain is certainly closer to them then Senator Obama, by a wide margin. And there's no doubt, at least no doubt in my mind, about whose policies will result in more babies being killed. Or who will do the greatest damage to the institution of marriage and the family. I'm convinced that Senator McCain comes closer to what I believe. So I am not endorsing Senator McCain today … But as of this moment, I have to take into account the fact that Senator John McCain has voted pro-life consistently and that's a fact. He says he favors marriage between a man and a woman, I believe that. He opposes homosexual adoption. He favors smaller government and lower taxes and he seems to understand the Muslim threat, which matters a lot to me – I am very concerned about that.

Below is the full transcript of today’s program in which Dobson and the Southern Baptist Convention's Al Mohler explain just how “alarming” Barack Obama’s political and theological views are and the dire threat he poses to “traditional family life and pro-moral values":