California

Will The Right Sacrifice California to Save Marriage Amendments Elsewhere?

Earlier today I posted audio of David Barton talking with Tim Wildmon and Marvin Sanders of the American Family Association about his relationship with Glenn Beck, but now I want to highlight a more important piece of that discussion that occurred later in the interview when they were discussing the Prop 8 ruling.

All three were convinced that the case was eventually going to end up before the Supreme Court and that when it does, Justice Anthony Kennedy was going to be the deciding vote in favor of allowing gay marriage.  As such, Barton revealed that there is some talk on the Right of not appealing or fighting the Prop 8 ruling and letting California have gay marriage in order to keep the case away from the Supreme Court and thereby saving the marriage amendments in all the other states:

Barton: Right now the damage is limited to California only, but if California appeals this to the US Supreme Court, the US Supreme Court with Kennedy will go for California, which means all 31 states will go down in flames, although right now this decision is limited only to California.

So there's an effort underway to say "California, please don't appeal this. I mean, if you appeal this, its bad for you guys but live with it, but don't cause the rest of us to have to go down your path."

Wildom: So you think the better situation here would be California not to appeal ...

Barton: Well, I'm telling you that that's what is being argued by a lot of folks now because the other Supreme Court attorney who watched this from afar said "on no, you left too many arguments on the table, you stayed technical." And now, knowing what Kennedy has already done in two similar cases to this and knowing that he's the deciding vote, the odds are 999 out of 1000 that they'll uphold the California decision.

If they do, there's not a marriage amendment in the country that can stand. And so the problem is that instead of California losing its amendment, now 31 states lose their amendment. And that won't happen if California doesn't appeal this decision. It's just California that loses its amendment.

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.?

CA Christian School Fires Catholic Employees For Not Being "Born Again"

How do you think the Religious Right would react to a scenario in which several Christian teachers and employees were fired from a school for not holding the proper views?  Most likely, they'd scream "discrimination."

Now how do you think the Religious Right would react to a scenario in which several teachers were fired from a Christian school for not holding the proper views?  Most likely, they'd say the school has the right to set its own religious requirements and to determine who it hires and fires accordingly.

So I am genuinely curious about how they will respond to this story in about a Christian school firing a bunch of Catholic employees for not being "born again": 

Four teachers and seven other workers at a Southern California religious school have been fired because of differences in biblical interpretation and incompatible beliefs.

Most of the dismissed workers were Roman Catholics whose beliefs conflicted with those of Corona's conservative evangelical Crossroads Christian Schools, which last year lost its autonomy and came under the umbrella of the 8,000-member Crossroads Christian Church next door.

"To me, it feels like religious cleansing," said the Rev. John Saville of St. John's Episcopal Church, where fired elementary teacher Marylou Goodman is a parishioner.

The fired employees had been told a year ago of the school's closer relationship with the church and a requirement that they attend a "Bible-believing church," meaning born-again.

The employees had reportedly signed a "statement of faith" which summarized Crossroads' beliefs and saw nothing with which they disagreed, but authorities at the school believed that these employees "weren't living out" the statement, in part because they have not received the proper baptism:

Crossroads is not anti-Catholic, said the Rev. Chuck Booher, senior pastor of the church. But some fundamental Catholic beliefs and practices -- such as praying to saints and the belief that the wine and wafer in communion become Christ's blood and body -- are not in line with Crossroads' teachings, he said.

In addition, Crossroads views only full-body-immersion baptism as valid, based upon interpretations of Biblical verses. Most of the 11 dismissed employees had not undergone baptism by immersion, Frobisher said.

Booher said some dismissed employees did not know why the church required immersive baptism.

"The fact we had teachers who didn't understand that shows we (the church and school) weren't in alignment," Booher said. "We want teachers in our school with a strong enough understanding that we wouldn't have to explain that to them."

...

One teacher who had been raised Lutheran was rehired for the new school year after she underwent a full-immersion baptism, Long said. She now attends Crossroads.

Fischer: Gay Adoption is "Inexcusable" and "Inhumane"

As I have said before, I should probably just change the title of the blog to "Bryan Fischer Watch" since seemingly every other post I write revolves around him saying something outrageously offensive.

Here is the latest, as he discusses the Prop 9 ruling and goes off on how allowing gays to adopt children is "inhumane" and causes children to have life-long psychological problems:

Now [Judge Vaughan] Walker says elsewhere, finding of fact #49, I don't know where he gets this opinion or this information, but he says about 18% of same-sex couples in California are raising children.

If you are adopting children into these homes, you are deliberately creating households with a missing mother or a missing father. That is a terrible, terrible, inexcusable, inhumane thing to do to children.

We believe that the mark of a civilized society is how it treats its most vulnerable, weakest, and youngest members and therefore that's why we want children to be raised in a home with a mom and a dad.

It just breaks my heart, I mean it grieves me to the core of my being to think about children being deliberately places in a household where they will never know the love and care of either a father or a mother. I mean, that's heartbreaking to me. It's terrible because you are damaging these children psychologically for life.

We know that there are long-term psychological problems with children that grow up in same-sex households; we know that they're far more inclined to be promiscuous as they emerge into adolescence; we know that they are far more inclined to experiment with same-sex behavior, which is only natural - it's a terrible, terrible, terrible thing to do to children.

Carly Fiorina—No Moderate

Although you won't find it on Carly Fiorina's campaign website's list of endorsements, the far-right Government Is Not God PAC is going all-in for Fiorina's race for US Senate. Government Is Not God PAC's official blog lauds Fiorina's ultraconservatism, and says that "if someone with the support of Sarah Palin, who is as socially conservative as Carly Fiorina wins in California it will mark a huge shift in American politics and send a wave of fear over the far left. We must win this seat!" They have already contributed $1,000 to Fiorina's campaign and ask donors to contribute more.

According to their website, "GING-PAC supports only candidates who affirm that they are pro-life, pro-family and stand firmly against the unbiblical welfare state that is destroying the spiritual and economic greatness of our nation" and that "Candidates seeking GING-PAC support must complete a questionnaire concerning their stand on issues such as abortion, gambling, drug use, home schooling, school prayer, property rights, Second Amendment rights, welfare, defense and taxation."

So what does Government Is Not God PAC believe in? Their survey asks candidates if they "oppose laws allowing homosexuals to adopt children" and "believe clergy should have the right to support or disapprove of candidates for political offices from the pulpit." Candidates are also asked if they "support the right of students and teachers to publicly acknowledge the Creator" and support "eliminating the U.S. Department of Education."

During the 2008 campaign, Government Is Not God PAC launched the website soundthealarmnow.com, which claimed that Barack Obama's presidential campaign was supported by terrorists and his election victory would be celebrated by the "Death to America Coalition." The fictional news video also suggested that President Obama would meet with Osama bin Laden and sound the Muslim call to prayer five times a day in The Capitol.

Will Carly Fiorina stand by an organization that is fundamentally opposed to gay rights and a purveyor of discredited conspiracy theories about President Obama?

The Right's Plan For Stopping Gay Marriage: Intimidate The Supreme Court

Take one guess what the topic of James Dobson's radio program was yesterday

With his ruling this week that Proposition 8 is “unconstitutional,” Judge Vaughn Walker nullified the will of 7 million Californians who voted to pass the state constitutional amendment in November ’08. On today’s broadcast, Dr. Dobson is joined by Chuck Colson, Dr. Robert George, and Professor Timothy George in a passionate discussion regarding imperious judges, what this ruling means, and what America might look like in the future if Judge Walker’s ruling is not overturned by a higher court of law. The panel also points out that this dramatic turning point in our nation’s history might finally stir believers to stand up and defend religious liberties in America.

Aside from all the outrage and hand-wringing about how the ruling is destroying religious freedom in American, the discussion did provide an interesting revelation into how the Religious Right plans to lay the groundwork for fighting gay marriage as this case makes its way to the Supreme Court.

It seems that for the Right, the role of the Supreme Court is not to make decisions based upon the Constitution's fundamental principles and values, but is rather to hand down decisions that reflect the baises of the people.  As such, the Right plans to start laying the groundwork now to make it clear to the Justices on the Supreme Court that they will not tolerate any decision that recognizes marriage equality:

Chuck Colson: The Supreme Court has not, ever, handed down a decision which flew into the face and teeth of a strong moral consensus against it. I don't think, if we build a real groundswell of opinion now over the next several months, that the Supreme Court will rule in supporting what happened in California two days ago. I don't believe it; I believe that this is an opportunity that we have to build a groundswell of support that will cause the Supreme Court not to legalize gay marriage.

Robert George: What we have here is an unconstitutional, indeed anti-constitutional decision, of a lower court judge and we have to hope that the Supreme Court of the United States, when the issue reaches them, will reverse the judge's holding. Chuck Colson's right: it might very well depend on whether we make clear to the Justices that the redefinition of marriage, the destruction of historic understanding of marriage as the union of man and woman simply will not be accepted by us, we the people, as legitimate.

Colson: I think we have to make an appeal to our secular neighbors and I really believe that if we present this case well, Jim ... believe me, if we present it well and if we speak to the common good and we speak to what is just and right in society, if we do that, we're going to get a lot of people joining us. And we're going to see those polls continue to show what they have been showing consistently, and that is that the American people do not want marriage to be anything other than a man and a woman. And when this case gets to the Supreme Court, if we have built a groundswell, we're going to win this case.

It seems that for the Religious Right, the only legitimate court decisions are ones that support their agenda and so the proper way to make sure that courts issue correct decisions is to seek to intimidate judges by making clear that any decision they don't like "will not be accepted by us, we the people, as legitimate."

So keep that in mind the next time you hear the Religious Right talking about the sanctity of the Constitution and the proper role of the courts.

Fischer: Prop 8 Ruling Proof That "Homosexuals Should be Disqualified From Public Office"

When Elena Kagan was first nominated to the Supreme Court, rumors swirled that she was a lesbian, which was more than enough evidence for Byran Fischer, who declared that all gays are biased, deviant borderline pedophiles who do not belong in public office.

So take just one guess how he is responding to the Prop 8 ruling:

Although almost no other organizations other than the American Family Association are making an issue of this, Judge Walker should have recused himself from this case since he is a practicing homosexual. This created a clear conflict of interest, and he had no business issuing a ruling on a matter on which he had such a huge personal and private interest.

His own personal sexual proclitivies utterly compromised his ability to make an impartial ruling in this case. After all, the bottom line issue is whether homosexual behavior, with all its threats to psychological and physical health, is behavior that should be promoted in any rational society.

Judge Walker has already decided this issue for himself, and has no business putting himself in a place where his own personal value judgments could be substituted for the express will of the people of California.

He is Exhibit A as to why homosexuals should be disqualified from public office. Character is an important qualification for public service, and what an individual does in his private sexual life is a critical component of character. A man who ignores time-honored standards of sexual behavior simply cannot be trusted with the power of public office.

This, by the way, is why Elana Kagan should not be elevated to the Supreme Court. Although she has not come out of the closet herself, her lesbian partner has, and Ms. Kagan’s sexual preference is an open secret in Washington circles. Her indulgence in sexually aberrant behavior should make her ineligible to serve on the highest court in the land.

Fischer goes on to demand Walker's impeachment, saying that if conservative leaders in Congress do not take action to remove him from the bench, Religious Right voters will stop voting for them. 

And less you think this is just typical Religious Right hyperbole, rest assured that Fischer and the American Family Association are entirely serious, as they have now launched a campaign to get Walker impeached:

Judge Walker's ruling is not "good Behaviour." He has exceeded his constitutional authority and engaged in judicial tyranny.

Judges are not, in fact, unaccountable. They are accountable to Congress, which can remove them from office.

Impeachment proceedings, according to the Constitution, begin in the House of Representatives. It's time for you to put your congressman on record regarding the possible impeachment of Judge Walker.

I am going to mention just one more time that Fischer is listed as a "confirmed speaker" at the next Family Research Council Values Voter Summit as are, as of today, Rep. Michele Bachmann, Rep. Mike Pence, and Mike Huckabee.

Prop 8 Ruling Sets Off Religious Right Blame Game

Among the expected reactions of outrage from the Religious Right to the ruling striking down Proposition 8 yesterday was one very strange response from Liberty Counsel.

Instead of focusing its ire on the judge who wrote the decision, Liberty Counsel dedicated the bulk of its statement to attacking the Alliance Defense Fund for doing such a poor job of defending the constitutionality of Proposition 8: 

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.

You may recall that shortly after the court case began, the ADF-associated attorneys representing the Yes on 8 side made a concerted effort to prevent Liberty Counsel from intervening in the case ... mainly because LC was just way too rabidly anti-gay, and that would just undermine the Prop 8 supporters' attempts to demonstrate that their side was not motivated by anti-gay bias:

It was a sunny summer morning, but inside a San Francisco federal courtroom the outlook for Rena Lindevaldsen of Liberty Counsel was cloudy.

Charles Cooper, representing the official anti-gay marriage forces in a federal court challenge to Proposition 8, wasn't fighting hard enough, she insisted. He wouldn't try to prove, for instance, that homosexuality is an "illness or disorder."

"Individuals should be entitled to treatment to change your sexual orientation," Lindevaldsen argued.

Cooper's team quickly deflected Liberty Counsel's attempt to intervene, saying it just wanted to fight battles that "can't be won." That left Cooper -- a consummate Beltway insider who avoids the kind of language favored by Lindevaldsen -- and his firm the sole legal representatives for 7 million Californians that supported Prop 8.

...

The official Yes on 8 effort has tried to distance itself from "fringe" groups that are too "strident or combative," [Yes on 8 General Counsel Andrew] Pugno said.

"I think it's fitting that the demeanor and tone of our lead counsel would reflect the demeanor and civilized tone that we tried to maintain during the campaign," he said.

Liberty Counsel even took their case to the Ninth Circuit in an effort to force its way into the case, claiming that the Prop 8 attorneys were insufficiently hostile to gays and would therefore would be unable or unwilling to present the strongest defense.

Liberty Counsel's attempt to inject itself into this case was ultimately rejected by the court ... and now the group is blaming the Alliance Defense Fund for having blown the case. 

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.”

Right Reacts Preemptively to Expected Prop 8 Loss

The decision in the Proposition 8 trial is expected soon and backers of Prop 8 are expecting to lose, which is why they have already filed papers seeking a stay on the decision as they appeal it to the Ninth Circuit.

And Bishop Harry Jackson has already released a statement voicing his outrage about it via a series of Twitter posts:

Prop 8 Decision Threatens Core Civil Right to Vote for Marriage -This is a travesty of justice. The majority of Californians - and two-thirds of black voters in California - have just had their core civil right to vote for marriage stripped from them by an openly gay federal judge who has misread history and the Constitution to impose his San Francisco views on the American people.

The implicit comparison Judge Walker made between racism and marriage is particularly offensive to me and to all of us who remember the reality of Jim Crow.

It is not bigotry it is biology that discriminates between same-sex couples and opposite-sex couples. To make a marriage requires a husband and a wife because these unions are necessary to make new life and connect children to their mother and father.

Judge Walker’s slur will not stand the test of time and history. We demand that Congress and the Supreme Court act to protect all Americans’ right to vote for marriage.

Dobson Memo Announces Plans to Launch Political Arm For His New Organization

You know who we haven't mentioned here in a while?  James Dobson. 

Ever since he left Focus on the Family, he has sort of fallen off the radar, but rest assured that he is still hard at work advancing his Religious Right agenda, only on a much smaller scale with his new effort "Family Talk With James Dobson."

For instance, earlier this month he hosted a two-day discussion with Tony Perkins and Gary Bauer about how President Obama is on a mission to systematically destroy the Christian faith and another two-day discussion with Chuck Colson and Robert George about the same thing.

And he has also penned a new memo explaining that God told him he was not allowed to retire because "there is still too much work to be done" and to that end Family Talk will soon be launching a 501c4 political organization so that they can take a more active role in the fight: 

I have never been more concerned about this great nation and its families than I am right now. Every day, it seems, another tenant of traditional morality goes down in flames. When I left Childrens Hospital of Los Angeles and USC School of Medicine, the institution of the family was already showing signs of cracking. I’m not claiming to be a prophet, but I foresaw three decades ago what we are experiencing as a nation today. The Judeo-Christian system of values was despised even then in some circles. The only thing that has changed is that the assault on the family and cultural morality has become much more vicious.

The institution of marriage is undergoing a complete overhaul. For example, despite the fact that 30 out of 30 states have voted to define marriage as being exclusively between one man and one woman, various courts have begun chipping away at that foundation. One of them, a district court in Massachusetts, struck down the federal Defense of Marriage Act, DOMA, on July 8th, which was passed by the votes of 427 members in Congress, and signed by President Bill Clinton. It has been the law of the land since 1996. A single, arrogant, imperious judge has decided to declare the law null and void. The Obama Administration might not choose to appeal the ruling, which causes me anguish.

On another front, the Ninth Circuit Appeals Court is considering the constitutionality of Proposition 8, by which the exclusivity of traditional marriage between one man and one woman was affirmed by the people of California. The Ninth Court is the most liberal appellate court in the land, yet the future of marriage rests in its hands, at least for now. A decision is expected any day.

The attack on America’s institutions continues in full swing. The National Day of Prayer has been declared unconstitutional, and Congress is about to end the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy for the military, which will make open homosexuality legal in all branches of our Armed Forces.

The country is being systematically bankrupt, and beginning January 1, 2011, every family is going to be hit with draconian new taxes. Even the marriage penalty tax is scheduled to be reinstated. We MUST fight this attempt to undermine the financial integrity of the family!

Judge Elena Kagan, President Obama’s selection for the open seat on the U.S. Supreme Court, may be confirmed by the time you get this letter. She has encountered little opposition from Republicans to this point. Kagan is a supporter of partial birth abortion and holds numerous other leftist positions.

And on it goes. This is a time for Christian people to be in fervent prayer for our country.

Family Talk will fight with all its resources to defend the family against those who would destroy it. We will wage war on those who would manipulate children for political purposes, or try to weaken the military. These and other institutions of our democracy need all the help they can get. We want to be counted among those who will stand firm against the forces that are trying to bring Western Civilization down.

In order to do that job more effectively, we hope to start a 501(c)(4) organization just as soon as we are able to accomplish it financially. This will be a vitally important addition to the Family Talk tool chest, helping us do even more to address the moral and cultural issues confronting the family. Our day will come, but it is not here yet.

Of course, that might have to wait a bit because elsewhere in the memo, Dobson reports that "only 25% of the required funds are coming in to support Family Talk even at current levels."

But perhaps the most interesting revelation is that Dobson admits that though he intended to eventually step away from Focus on the Family, the Board basically forced him out this year:  

There is another reason for my departure. There is wisdom in the old adage that two captains can sink a ship. Jim Daly was my choice to succeed me, and we saw many things similarly. It gradually became clear, however, that we had significant philosophical differences. Jim has expressed his views on these matters in numerous articles and interviews. I have not spoken about them until now, but my perspectives are quite different, especially when it comes to confronting those who would weaken the family and undermine our faith. When I recognized these divergent views, therefore, I knew that I would be leaving, probably on June 1st or August 27th of this year. Our board of directors agreed but asked us to complete the transition on February 26th. Thus, my tenure at Focus on the Family suddenly came to an end.

Tea Party Activsts To Use Dogs to Protest Mosque, Intimidate Worshipers

The Islamic Center of Temecula, California has been seeking permits to build a mosque for over a year and a half and its proposal is scheduled to come before the Temecula planning commissioners on Aug. 18.

And so Tea Party activists are planning to protest outside of the Islamic Center's existing facility and urging participants to bring dogs in order to intimidate worshipers because "Muslims hate dogs": 

An e-mail alert sent to area newspapers last week announced that a one-hour "singing – praying – patriotic rally" will begin at 12:30 p.m. July 30 at the Islamic Center’s existing facility. The advisory – sent by a leader of a conservative coalition that has been active with Republican and Tea Party functions – recommended participants "bring your Bibles, flags, signs, dogs and singing voices."

"We will not be submissive," the notice proclaimed. "Our voices are going to be heard!" The alert went on to question what its authors described as Islamic beliefs. It suggested that participants sing during the rally because Muslim "women are forbidden to sing." It suggested that rally participants bring dogs because Muslims "hate dogs."

Fischer Says No to Immigration Reform Because Hispanics Support Gay Marriage and Have Babies Out of Wedlock

The AFA's Bryan Fischer has taken a leading role in pushing back against the handful of Religious Right leaders who have come out in support of immigration reform.  One of the claims being made, especially by Richard Land, in favor of reform is that Hispanics are "tailor-made to be social conservatives," so the GOP and Religious Right should support opportunities for them to gain citizenship.

Not surprisingly, Fischer isn't buying it, responding that Hispanics have a high rate of illegitimacy, which proves that their values are rather questionable: 

Richard Land, in arguing for a guaranteed path to citizenship for illegal aliens already in the country, repeatedly stresses how pro-family the Hispanic community is, and assures us they will be the natural allies of the conservative movement.

Not so fast. According to the Christian Post, 57% of Latino Catholics in California support homosexual marriage. Let’s not forget that Latinos make up 36.6 percent of California’s population.

The good news, if you happen to be an evangelical, is that just 22 percent of Latino Protestants support gay marriage.

If getting pro-family illegals legalized is the goal, perhaps Dr. Land can be persuaded to amend his recommendation and give preference to Protestant illegal aliens.

Also, the illegitimacy rate among Hispanic women is over 50%. I’m not sure pro-family values are as strong in the Hispanic community as Dr. Land wants to believe.

Now that is more like what we have come to expect from Fischer.

Behold The Instructors and Curriculum for LaBarbera's 3 Days of Hate Conference

Peter LaBarbera has unveiled the instructor list and official curriculum for his upcoming three day anti-gay hatefest/"truth academy" ... and it is pretty much going to be the gay-hatingest thing you have ever seen: 

Truth Academy Instructors:

  • Matt Barber, Liberty Counsel ; Board Member, AFTAH
  • Cliff Kincaid, America’s Survival; Accuracy in Media
  • Prof. Robert Gagnon, Pittsburgh Theological Seminary, author, The Bible and Homosexual Practice
  • Arthur Goldberg, Jews Offering New Alternatives to Homosexuality (JONAH), author, Light in the Closet: Torah, Homosexuality, and the Power to Change
  • Laurie Higgins, Illinois Family Institute
  • Robert Knight, Coral Ridge Ministries; author, Radical Rulers: The White House Elites Who Are Pushing America Towards Socialism, keynote presenter
  • Peter LaBarbera, Americans For Truth About Homosexuality
  • Prof. Rena Lindevaldsen, Liberty University School of Law
  • Greg Quinlan, Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays (PFOX); Pro-Family Network
  • Ryan Sorba, Young Conservatives of California

THURSDAY 

Welcoming Remarks, Peter LaBarbera, President, Americans For Truth About Homosexuality: “From gay pride to gay tyranny”

10:10 – 11:10 – Prof. Rena Lindevaldsen, Liberty University School of Law: “History of modern ‘gay’ activism and the courts”

11:20-12:20 – Matt Barber, Liberty Counsel; Board Member, AFTAH: “Masculine Christianity: a non-defensive approach to the Culture War over homosexuality”

1:20-2:20 – Ryan Sorba, Young Conservatives of California: “The ‘born gay hoax”

2:30 – 3:30 – Laurie Higgins, Illinois Family Institute: “Using reason and logic in answering pro-homosexuality arguments”

3:40-4:40 – Arthur Goldberg, JONAH (Jews Offering Healthy Alternatives to Homosexuality), author, Light in the Closet: Torah, Homosexuality, and the Power to Change: “Can gays change? Is gay parenting good for kids? Presenting the research on homosexuality”

4:50-6:00 – PANEL DISCUSSION and Q & A:

Theme: “Can the effort to ‘mainstream’ homosexuality in American culture be stopped?”

Panelists: Rena Lindevaldsen, Matt Barber, Laurie Higgins, Ryan Sorba, Arthur Goldberg, and Greg Quinlan, Cliff Kincaid; Moderator: Peter LaBarbera

7:45 – 9:15 – Greg Quinlan, Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays (PFOX); Pro-Family Network: “An Ex-Gay Christian Discusses Love, Truth and Homosexuality”

FRIDAY

9:00 – 10:00 – Prof. Robert Gagnon, Pittsburgh Theological Seminary: “From abomination to ‘gay’: answering ‘queer theology’ — Old Testament”

10:10 – 11:10 – Prof. Rena Lindevaldsen, Liberty University School of Law: “The zero-sum game: homosexuality-based ‘rights’ vs. religious and First Amendment freedoms”

11:20-12:20 – Laurie Higgins, Illinois Family Institute: “Corrupting children, politicizing schools: the homosexual youth agenda”

1:20-2:20 – Arthur Goldberg, JONAH (Jews Offering New Alternatives to Homosexuality: “The gender confusion agenda: ‘transgender rights’”

2:30 – 3:30 – Cliff Kincaid, America’s Survival, Accuracy in Media: “The battle over blood: ‘gay’ health risks and public policy”

3:40-4:40 – Prof. Rena Lindevaldsen, Liberty U. School of Law: “The legal strategy to stop homosexual ‘marriage’: triumphs and pitfalls”

5:00-6:00 – PANEL DISCUSSION and Q & A:

Theme: “Returning the debate to behavior – getting off the ‘GLBT’ playing field”

Panelists: Rena Lindevaldsen, Matt Barber, Laurie Higgins, Ryan Sorba, Arthur Goldberg, Cliff Kincaid, Robert Knight, Robert Gagnon, Gregg Quinlan; Moderator: Peter LaBarbera

7:45 – 9:15 – Robert Knight, Coral Ridge Ministries; author, Radical Rulers: The White House Elites Who Are Pushing America Towards Socialism: “From destroying DOMA to homosexualizing the military: Obama’s radical homosexual/transsexual agenda for America”

SATURDAY

9:00 – 10:00 – Prof. Robert Gagnon, Pittsburgh Theological Seminary: “’Jesus Never Said Anything about Homosexuality’”; Answering ‘Queer Theology’ — New Testament”

10:10 – 11:10 – Robert Knight, Coral Ridge Ministries: “Destructive legacy: Alfred Kinsey and the (Homo)Sexual Revolution”

11:20-12:20 – Greg Quinlan, PFOX, Pro-Family Network: “The big, pink plan for a lavender culture”/”How to lobby effectively”

1:20-2:20 – Cliff Kincaid, America’s Survival; Accuracy in Media: “Combating pro-homosexual media bias, confronting pro-gay ‘conservatives’”

2:30-3:40 – Prof. Robert Gagnon, Pittsburgh Theological Seminary: “Agreeing with God: a truly biblical approach toward ‘out and proud’ homosexuality”

3:50-4:50 – Ryan Sorba, Young Conservatives of California: “Confronting the zeitgeist: new strategies to turn around younger Americans on ‘gay rights’”

5:00-6:00 – Matt Barber, Liberty Counsel, AFTAH Board Member: “Don’t Ask, Don’t Bleed: stopping Obama’s campaign to homosexualize the U.S. military”

6:00-6:20 – Closing remarks, Peter LaBarbera, Americans For Truth

Right Wing Leftovers

  • Lame.
  • Focus on the Family President Jim Daly reportedly broke his ankle in a motorcycle accident today.
  • If you thought Joseph Farah's "Taking Back America Conference" couldn't get any worse, you were wrong.
  • Janet Porter is still hard at work on her movie script.  How sad.
  • Star Parker explains why she should be elected to Congress with typical humility.
  • Finally, the quote of the day from Burt Prelutsky:"With the 24/7 media attention that's been devoted to the ecological disaster, it is easy to regard the leak as the worst thing that's ever happened to the environment. But even now it only ranks as about the 35th worst oil spill in the past hundred years. Something else that we should not lose sight of is that the Gulf is a magnet for hurricanes, just as California is one for earthquakes and New York City is one for Islamic terrorists. That means that bad stuff is always going to be happening – and if people are going to live in such places, they have to accept the risks."

Right Wing Leftovers

  • Shockingly, the Religious Right opposes Elena Kagan.
  • The Maine ethics commission has rejected the National Organization for Marriage's request to have its investigation dismissed.
  • Does it seem odd that an out-of-state Republican group would spend $500K+ to get Green Party candidates on the ballot in Texas?
  • Giving Elliot Spitzer a TV show is just like giving O.J. Simpson a TV show.
  • Ralph Reed and Marco Rubio meet up in California.
  • Bryan Fischer continues his "all public policy should be based on the Bible" agenda by explaining that it is okay to make immigrants show their papers because Nehemiah had papers.
  • Attention potential spies:  Peter LaBarbera is on to you.

Kagan's Confirmation Represents an "Existential Threat" To Jews In America

Normally, when we post a release from Rabbi Yehuda Levin it is about how allowing gays to serve in the military will cause natural disasters or cause God to repeal his "Divine Grace from our military's struggles" which will thus make us lose wars.

But in an apparent effort not to be typecast as merely an anti-gay loon, Levin is branching out, today releasing a statement opposing the confirmation of Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court on the grounds that she is Jewish and that she will issue "extremist decisions" from the bench - the combination of the two, you see, will inevitably cause a "backlash" of anti-Semitic violence to sweep the nation, representing an "existential threat" to Jews in America: 

It is clear from Ms. Kagan's record on issues such as abortion-on-demand, Partial-Birth-Abortion, the radical homosexual and lesbian agenda, the "supremacy" of the anti-family panoply over religious liberties of Biblical adherents, et. al., that she will function as a flame-throwing radical, hastening society's already steep decline into Sodom and Gommorah.

It should be clear that Ms. Kagan's long line of forebearers, presumably tracing back to Sinai, would have sacrificed their lives rather than embrace the anti-G-d, counter-sanctity agenda that she has lived and promoted.

We are puzzled as to why President Obama would not honor a different minority with this nomination. We fear a backlash, fed by pent up grass-roots resentment over extremist decisions Ms. Kagan is bound to issue.

In these socially and economically trying times, we are most concerned about being scapegoated and targeted by even a tiny subset of the tens of millions of citizens simply fed up with an imperial anti-family, anti-Biblical Judiciary (an example being Judge Walker, now addressing California's Prop. 8). We wonder: exactly what was the President thinking?

For the record, let this statement serve as an unequivocal protest, establishing that Ms. Kagan's philosophy and approach are antithetical to traditional Judaism. We emphatically reject her ascendancy to the Court!

We urge decent Senators of both parties to have mercy on the nation, in light of the direction we are heading. This nomination must be delayed in committee for as long as possible, and then either voted down or filibustered. We family and religious people will surely employ our last weapon - the ballot box - to respond to those who ignore this existential threat, and insist on contaminating the cultural wellsprings from which we and our children are forced to drink.

It is late in the game. We implore voters to convey these concerns to their Senators - feckless and otherwise.

The War On Norquist Gets Personal

When the news broke that Grover Norquist had agreed to join the board of GOProud, the conservative gay group, the reaction from the Religious Right was disappointment mixed with an attempt to edify Norquist about supposedly radical nature of the group in order to get him to see the error of his ways.

When that didn't work, they tried convincing him that his willingness to work with GOProud was going to undermine his "prestige" and effectiveness as social conservatives wondered if they could trust him.

That didn't work either, so now they have gone into full-attack mode, as Brent Bozell does in his latest commentary:

Comes now the news that fiscal conservative leader Grover Norquist, a man who prides himself on forming grand working coalitions, has joined the board of a group called GOProud, calling the group “an important part of the conservative movement” with a commitment to “core conservative values.”

It’s a gay group. And Norquist thinks social conservatives are going to accept this absolute abandonment?

Traditional marriage and the right of religious people to speak out against homosexuality as a sin are “core conservative values.” Proposition 8 in California – defending the institution of marriage, the only thing the GOP won in 2008 -- was victorious because culturally conservative blacks and Hispanics joined the GOP coalition.

Norquist wants to take the GOP in the exact opposite direction now, full speed ahead, the consequences be damned ... Norquist has declared open war on social conservatives. Note to Chairman Steele: If he succeeds, and they leave the party, the GOP is ruined.

The FRC's Tom McClusky is also going after Norquist as well, openly questioning Norquist's ethics by highlighting, among other things, his ties to Jack Abramoff:

I’ve got to say, many in the conservative movement — especially among social conservatives — saw Grover Norquist’s, the president of Americans for Tax Reform (ATR), move to join the advisory council of the homosexual advocacy group GOProud as “Grover being Grover.” The phrase meaning that he is well known for his questionable affiliations (from being a middle man for convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff, profiting from the oppressed Northern Mariana Islands to partnering with Poker Players Alliance to advocate for legislation that ultimately taxes the Internet) and also for his disdain of social conservative issues like life and marriage (once deriding pro-lifers as “pontificators” and on marriage that he doesn’t “focus on it.”) Yet in this case he is actually going beyond his normal “profit and party before principles” motto.

...

The argument I have heard from Grover’s supporters is that he is willing to work with anyone who fights for lower taxes. However, even here GOProud fails to live up to those standards — unless you define “fighting for lower taxes” to be limited to “fighting for lower taxes for gay families” (as opposed to for everyone). In fact, most of their “conservative” positions are centered and conditional on that the “gay community” gets special carve-outs. They oppose the Death Tax, but according to their own website they oppose it because it “discriminates against gay and lesbian couples for whom there is no marital exemption.” They opposed the health care bill, and again according to their own website, because it “does indeed discriminate against gay families”

Grover of course has every right to associate himself with whomever he wants, but he shouldn’t call himself conservative if he is willing to disregard even ATR principles. By joining GOProud’s board he is not saying “I agree with you 80 percent of the time” but is instead fully embracing their agenda.

Cindy Jacobs' Prayer Warriors Target Prop 8 Case

Last week, Cindy and Mike Jacobs sent out an urgent email to their Generals International Reformation Prayer Network featuring updates on the Prop 8 court case from ProtectMarriage.com Executive Director Ron Prentice. 

In addition to the updates, the Jacobs asked their "intercessors" to to "join with us in fervent intercession for the preservation of traditional marriage in the State of California and the nation" as they wage a "spiritual battle for the soul of the nation":

Why is this so important?  For a variety of reasons not the least of which is that the overturning of the Marriage Amendment in California by a Federal Court will automatically overturn DOMA, the Defense of Marriage Act on a Federal Level that declares marriage between a man and a woman.

God tells us in Genesis that His image is expressed through male and female and in Epheshians it tells us that marriage is to be a testimony of the relationship between Christ and the Church.  THIS IS MORE THAN JUST A COURT CASE THIS IS A SPIRITUAL BATTLE FOR THE SOUL OF OUR NATION!

This is not a battle against flesh and blood as the word says and cannot be won with carnal weapons.  It is a spiritual battle that must be won in prayer.

Please pray and fast through the day of the trial. Let us humble ourselves under the mighty hand of our God and repent and renounce all compromise, complacency and apathy within the church that has allowed us to come to this place at all.  Let us cry out to God for mercy, for Him to take what the enemy has meant for evil and turn it to our good and His Glory!

Always seek God for His Direction in prayer and then as lead agree on these Prayer Points:

  • For God's wisdom, protection and direction for Andy Pugno and his team
  • Pray for all veils of deception to be loosed off of the eyes of the Judge and the prosecuting attorneys
  • That God's presence, life, love, wisdom and truth prevail in that courtroom.
  • That every rebellious, defiant, angry, violent spirit be bound and forbidden from manifesting.
  • Pray God's tangible presence of love be all that people experience when they encounter Christians
  • Pray for a pre-triggering of every trap and snare of the enemy on the enemy's head (Ps 141:9-10)
  • Pray for God's word to be fulfilled for the destruction of the works of the enemy and the open show of the triumph of God.
  • For the souls held in captivity to the homosexual lifestyle to come to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ, that their eyes be enlightened to the truth of his love and saving power
  • Pray through the attached Questions for Closing Arguments submitted by Judge Vaughn Walker to the attorneys
  • Pray protection for all of the intercessors and their families on the ground at the Courthouse

GI's Reformation Prayer Network was created in order to ignite "a holy reformation in every sphere of society" in order to "legislate in the heavens through reformation intercession" and "turn the tide on unrighteousness in the nations of the earth."

Reed's "Christian Coalition 2.0" Launches Annual Convention

It was just one year ago that Ralph Reed announced the formation of his Faith and Freedom Coalition, a more hip, more strident "21st Century version of the Christian Coalition on steroids, married with MoveOn.org, with a sprinkling of the NRA."

And slowly Reed has been working to build it into a brand new right-wing powerhouse, teaming up with leaders like Sarah Palin and Mike Huckabee and Michele Bachmann and Richard Land and Rick Santorum while setting up affiliates in several states in order to train "Tea Partiers, home schoolers and other conservatives to give them the tools they need to identify, educate and turn out conservative voters in their area."

When Reed decided not to run for Congress earlier this year, he explained that it was because he believes that "electing 50 to 100 men and women of character and conservative beliefs to Congress and statewide office over the next two election cycles is a more efficacious way to advance the conservative agenda than seeking public office myself in 2010."

It is becoming increasingly clear that Reed is intent on recovering whatever influence and prestige he may have lost due to this close ties to disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff [PDF] by turning his Faith and Freedom Coalition into a right-wing powerhouse and recapturing his glory days with the Christian Coalition ...and that is why the FFC will be hosting its very own right-wing conference in Washington DC this fall: 

Your Faith & Freedom Coalition is growing by leaps and bounds. We now have more than 300,000 members within 50 states. We have state affiliates up and running in 20 states despite the fact that we have been in operation for only six months. And, just this last week we helped elect conservatives in New Jersey and California who are going to stand up to the liberal agenda. Conservatives across the country recognize that only a grassroots organization like FFC can harness the anti-Obama sentiment boiling in our country and channel it to stop this dangerous administration.

I’d like to invite you today to our first ever Citizen Action Leadership Summit being held in Washington, DC September 9-11 at the famed Mayflower Hotel. We’ll be bringing together activists, donors and famous conservative speakers for three days of training, networking and strategy sessions. We’ve invited a who’s who of special guest speakers, which includes:

Sarah Palin

Newt Gingrich

Karl Rove

Jeb Bush

And many others.

Please visit our website today to make reservations for this historic conservative gathering.

Interestingly, this Citizen Action Leadership Summit is being just one week before the Values Voter Summit, the annual gathering of social conservatives hosted by FRC, Focus on the Family, American Family Association, American Values and others. 

Syndicate content

California Posts Archive

Brian Tashman, Friday 05/13/2011, 11:09am
In an email to supporters, Concerned Women For America CEO Penny Nance said that they have one final opportunity to prevent the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. Nance tells supporters that while the House GOP is likely to approve amendments to three Defense bill that would block the repeal and restrict gay-rights in the military, the Senate would be a graver challenge because Majority Leader Harry Reid “is beholden to the homosexual lobby.” She asks activists to show the Republicans support “in light of the likely response from the radical homosexual activists.... MORE
Kyle Mantyla, Wednesday 05/11/2011, 1:03pm
If anyone out there thinks that Newt Gingrich's serial infidelity will, in any way, sour the Religious Right on his presidential candidacy, think again. As we've noted before, Jim Garlow was the man at the center of the battle to stop marriage equality in California through Proposition 8 and he's already forgiven Gingrich and calling him "the strongest possible candidate." So it is pretty obvious that "family values" leaders will do what is necessary to come up with ways to justify supporting Gingrich despite his history ... and so we'll probably start seeing lots more... MORE
Brian Tashman, Friday 05/06/2011, 3:58pm
Radio talk show host and Religious Right activist Penna Dexter was the keynote speaker at the National Day of Prayer event yesterday in Rapid City, South Dakota. Dexter, a member of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, last year blamed a gay California youth who was murdered by another student for his own death. According to the Rapid City Journal, Dexter lamented that while Osama bin Laden is dead, the “the advancing homosexual agenda” continues to flourish: A smaller than expected crowd of about 350 people, including at least two out... MORE
Miranda Blue, Thursday 05/05/2011, 3:41pm
Here’s a clip to file away for future reference: in his fast-talking, low-fact interview with Jon Stewart last night, David Barton was cornered into giving his blessing to majority-Muslim communities in the United States implementing Sharia law: The Daily Show With Jon Stewart Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c Exclusive - David Barton Extended Interview Pt. 3 www.thedailyshow.com... MORE
Brian Tashman, Thursday 05/05/2011, 12:14pm
  The Daily Show - David Barton Pt. 1 Tags: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook With no academic credentials as a historian, David Barton toldThe Daily Show host Jon Stewart that his involvement in editing textbooks around the country was proof that he is a respected and esteemed historian. However, his work with textbooks if anything reveals his blatant partisanship and pseudo-scholarship. As Mariah Blake writes in The Washington Monthly, Barton’s Christian nation mythology was indeed just one aspect of his role shaping the... MORE
Brian Tashman, Friday 04/22/2011, 2:33pm
The Creation Studies Institute is warning members that, like the Nazis, gay-rights activists are using public schools to indoctrinate students. While many Religious Right groups have alleged that safe-school and anti-bullying programs lead to “homosexual indoctrination,” the Creationist Studies Institute claims that the “gay agenda” has taken over schools because schools have “fully embraced Darwinian Evolution.” “Indeed, the rampant teaching of evolution in our schools that is effectively undermining belief in God and absolute moral standards is not... MORE
Kyle Mantyla, Friday 04/22/2011, 12:43pm
Ever since the earthquake in Japan, Rick Joyner has been incessantly warning that is a sign that the United States is going to be struck by a massive earthquake of its own, based on prophecies received by Joyner's colleagues over twenty years ago. And today he was at it again, warning that this earthquake is "imminent" and urging Christians not only to stock up on food and water but also to stockpile Bibles and Bible study materials because, when the quake comes it'll knock out the power grids and people will be unable to watch TV and will need reading material.  As such, this... MORE