Culture War

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

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

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

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

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



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

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



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



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

Religious Right Reactions to DOJ's DOMA Decision

Earlier today it was reported that President Obama had ordered the Justice Department to stop defending the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act.

So far, reactions from the Religious Right have been few and far between but we are going to post them here as they trickle in:

National Organization for Marriage:

“We have not yet begun to fight for marriage,” said Brian Brown, president of NOM.

“The Democrats are responding to their election loss with a series of extraordinary, extra-constitutional end runs around democracy, whether it’s fleeing the state in Wisconsin and Indiana to prevent a vote, or unilaterally declaring homosexuals a protected class under our Constitution, as President Obama just did,” said Brown. “We call on the House to intervene to protect DOMA, and to tell the Obama administration they have to respect the limits on their power. This fight is not over, it has only begun!”

...

“On the one hand this is a truly shocking extra-constitutional power grab in declaring gay people are a protected class, and it’s also a defection of duty on the part of the President Obama,” said Maggie Gallagher, Chairman of NOM, “On the other hand, the Obama administration was throwing this case in court anyway. The good news is this now clears the way for the House to intervene and to get lawyers in the court room who actually want to defend the law, and not please their powerful political special interests.”

FRC:

"It's a dereliction of duty,'' said Tom McClusky, senior vice president of Family Research Council Action. "Whether they agree with the law or not is irrelevant...The Obama administration has purposely dropped the ball here."

AFA:

"I think it's a clear sign that we simply cannot avoid engaging on the social issues," Bryan Fischer, director of issue analysis for the group, told TPM. "Mitch Daniels has called for a truce on social issues and that would be fine if the homosexual lobby was willing to lay down arms, but they're obviously not and this proves it. A truce is nothing more than a surrender."

Fischer said he was not surprised by the president's decision.

"Frankly I was surprised that President Obama pretended to be a defender of natural marriage as long as he did," he said.

He said that the White House move should serve as "a wake-up call to all conservatives that fundamental American values regarding the family are under all-out assault by this administration. It ought to represent a clarion call to man the barricades before we lose what is left of the Judeo-Christian system of values in our public life."

Focus on the Family:

Tom Minnery, a vice president with Focus on the Family, said the Obama administration did not aggressively defend the Defense of Marriage Act in any case. "If the federal government will not defend federal laws, we're facing legal chaos," Minnery said. "If the administration can pick and choose what laws it defends, which law is next?"

"We would hope Congress uses the tools at its disposal to counter this decision and defend marriage," Minnery said.

ADF:

“Typically, when a law is challenged, the government has a duty to defend the law, and typically they do so with the most vigorous possible defense,” said Jim Campbell, attorney with the conservative Alliance Defense Fund. “In this case, we’ve seen executive branch officials refuse to do so.”

Official FRC statement:

"This decision by President Obama and the Department of Justice is appalling. The President's failure to defend DOMA is also a failure to fulfill his oath to 'faithfully execute the office of President of the United States.' What will be the next law that he will choose not to enforce or uphold?

"Marriage as a male-female union has been easily defended in court and overwhelmingly supported by the American people. There is absolutely no excuse beyond pandering to his liberal political base for President Obama's decision to abandon his constitutional role to defend a federal law enacted overwhelmingly by Congress.

"With this decision the President has thrown down the gauntlet, challenging Congress. It is incumbent upon the Republican leadership to respond by intervening to defend DOMA, or they will become complicit in the President's neglect of duty," concluded Perkins.

Liberty Counsel:

Today President Barack Obama instructed the U.S. Attorney General, Eric Holder, and the Department of Justice to cease defending the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). “This is outrageous and unthinkable that the President would abandon the defense of marriage,” said Mathew Staver, Founder and Chairman of Liberty Counsel. “President Obama has betrayed the American people by his refusal to defend the federal law that affirms what many courts upheld as constitutional, namely, that marriage is between one man and one woman,” said Staver.

...

“Regardless of President Obama’s own ideological agenda, as President, he and his Attorney General have a duty to defend lawfully passed legislation, especially when the essence of the law has been upheld by many courts. Thirty states have passed marriage amendments affirming marriage as one man and one woman. Today President Obama has abandoned his role as President of the United States and transformed his office into the President of the Divided States. He has been the most divisive president in American history. He has today declared war on the American people and the fundamental values that are shared by most Americans. His radicalism resulted in the historical push-back in the 2010 elections. His radicalism today will come back around when the people respond to this betrayal in 2012,” said Staver.

TVC:

“The Obama Administration has been sabotaging marriage in direct contradiction to his campaign promises. Today, President Obama takes his most unprecedented step yet, choosing to rule and reign through executive decree in what could only be called a supra-constitutional act. After massive defeats at the polls in November, a total repudiation on health care, and staring down a cost-cutting Congress, Obama is looking to secure what little base remains. Obama’s actions today are an unprecedented grab for power and perhaps the most audacious in the 235 year history of the American republic.

“President Obama believes he has “concluded” that the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional, as passed along by Attorney General Eric Holder -- effectively asserting that Obama may rule by whim and decree.

“We are a nation of laws, not whims.

“Virtually every state in the country has overwhelmingly passed laws and state constitutional amendments protecting marriage. This unprecedented power grab demands the immediate reaction of the United States House of Representatives, who must do everything possible to fight back against what can only be described as a despotic and alarming attack on the rule of law.”

Catholic League:

Now Obama is officially on record as president opposing the defense of marriage. Thus does he pit himself against the 1996 law that was signed by President Bill Clinton, and opposed by only 15 percent in the House and 14 percent in the Senate. He also stands in opposition to the over 30 state initiatives affirming marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

Now that Obama is totally out of the closet, it will spur a genuine effort to adopt a constitutional amendment affirming the integrity of marriage.

Gary Bauer:

The president is the chief law enforcement officer, not the chief justice! It is not up to Barack Obama to determine which laws he likes and which laws he doesn’t. It is his responsibility to enforce the law until the nation’s highest court decides the law does not pass constitutional analysis.

But this president sees things very differently — he’s here to fundamentally transform America, by, among other things, redefining marriage ...

Today’s news should put to rest any suggestion that Obama has moved to the center. He has just aligned himself with the most radical elements in the culture war who are trying to redefine normalcy.

I’ll have more on this tomorrow, but I have to be honest with you: I’m worried our side has gone back to sleep. Financial support for our work has dropped significantly. But the left is energized. Obama suddenly feels free to abandon the law and let the militant homosexual rights movement force same-sex “marriage” on every state in the nation. A liberal politician is urging the unions to “get a little bloody” in the streets.

The Tea Party protests have ebbed while the left-wing radicals are fired up. The momentum seems to have shifted back to the left. Men and women of faith must remain engaged in the public policy battles of the day. The culture war is real and only one side can prevail.

Religious Right Reactions to DOJ's DOMA Decision

Earlier today it was reported that President Obama had ordered the Justice Department to stop defending the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act.

So far, reactions from the Religious Right have been few and far between but we are going to post them here as they trickle in:

National Organization for Marriage:

“We have not yet begun to fight for marriage,” said Brian Brown, president of NOM.

“The Democrats are responding to their election loss with a series of extraordinary, extra-constitutional end runs around democracy, whether it’s fleeing the state in Wisconsin and Indiana to prevent a vote, or unilaterally declaring homosexuals a protected class under our Constitution, as President Obama just did,” said Brown. “We call on the House to intervene to protect DOMA, and to tell the Obama administration they have to respect the limits on their power. This fight is not over, it has only begun!”

...

“On the one hand this is a truly shocking extra-constitutional power grab in declaring gay people are a protected class, and it’s also a defection of duty on the part of the President Obama,” said Maggie Gallagher, Chairman of NOM, “On the other hand, the Obama administration was throwing this case in court anyway. The good news is this now clears the way for the House to intervene and to get lawyers in the court room who actually want to defend the law, and not please their powerful political special interests.”

FRC:

"It's a dereliction of duty,'' said Tom McClusky, senior vice president of Family Research Council Action. "Whether they agree with the law or not is irrelevant...The Obama administration has purposely dropped the ball here."

AFA:

"I think it's a clear sign that we simply cannot avoid engaging on the social issues," Bryan Fischer, director of issue analysis for the group, told TPM. "Mitch Daniels has called for a truce on social issues and that would be fine if the homosexual lobby was willing to lay down arms, but they're obviously not and this proves it. A truce is nothing more than a surrender."

Fischer said he was not surprised by the president's decision.

"Frankly I was surprised that President Obama pretended to be a defender of natural marriage as long as he did," he said.

He said that the White House move should serve as "a wake-up call to all conservatives that fundamental American values regarding the family are under all-out assault by this administration. It ought to represent a clarion call to man the barricades before we lose what is left of the Judeo-Christian system of values in our public life."

Focus on the Family:

Tom Minnery, a vice president with Focus on the Family, said the Obama administration did not aggressively defend the Defense of Marriage Act in any case. "If the federal government will not defend federal laws, we're facing legal chaos," Minnery said. "If the administration can pick and choose what laws it defends, which law is next?"

"We would hope Congress uses the tools at its disposal to counter this decision and defend marriage," Minnery said.

ADF:

“Typically, when a law is challenged, the government has a duty to defend the law, and typically they do so with the most vigorous possible defense,” said Jim Campbell, attorney with the conservative Alliance Defense Fund. “In this case, we’ve seen executive branch officials refuse to do so.”

Official FRC statement:

"This decision by President Obama and the Department of Justice is appalling. The President's failure to defend DOMA is also a failure to fulfill his oath to 'faithfully execute the office of President of the United States.' What will be the next law that he will choose not to enforce or uphold?

"Marriage as a male-female union has been easily defended in court and overwhelmingly supported by the American people. There is absolutely no excuse beyond pandering to his liberal political base for President Obama's decision to abandon his constitutional role to defend a federal law enacted overwhelmingly by Congress.

"With this decision the President has thrown down the gauntlet, challenging Congress. It is incumbent upon the Republican leadership to respond by intervening to defend DOMA, or they will become complicit in the President's neglect of duty," concluded Perkins.

Liberty Counsel:

Today President Barack Obama instructed the U.S. Attorney General, Eric Holder, and the Department of Justice to cease defending the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). “This is outrageous and unthinkable that the President would abandon the defense of marriage,” said Mathew Staver, Founder and Chairman of Liberty Counsel. “President Obama has betrayed the American people by his refusal to defend the federal law that affirms what many courts upheld as constitutional, namely, that marriage is between one man and one woman,” said Staver.

...

“Regardless of President Obama’s own ideological agenda, as President, he and his Attorney General have a duty to defend lawfully passed legislation, especially when the essence of the law has been upheld by many courts. Thirty states have passed marriage amendments affirming marriage as one man and one woman. Today President Obama has abandoned his role as President of the United States and transformed his office into the President of the Divided States. He has been the most divisive president in American history. He has today declared war on the American people and the fundamental values that are shared by most Americans. His radicalism resulted in the historical push-back in the 2010 elections. His radicalism today will come back around when the people respond to this betrayal in 2012,” said Staver.

TVC:

“The Obama Administration has been sabotaging marriage in direct contradiction to his campaign promises. Today, President Obama takes his most unprecedented step yet, choosing to rule and reign through executive decree in what could only be called a supra-constitutional act. After massive defeats at the polls in November, a total repudiation on health care, and staring down a cost-cutting Congress, Obama is looking to secure what little base remains. Obama’s actions today are an unprecedented grab for power and perhaps the most audacious in the 235 year history of the American republic.

“President Obama believes he has “concluded” that the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional, as passed along by Attorney General Eric Holder -- effectively asserting that Obama may rule by whim and decree.

“We are a nation of laws, not whims.

“Virtually every state in the country has overwhelmingly passed laws and state constitutional amendments protecting marriage. This unprecedented power grab demands the immediate reaction of the United States House of Representatives, who must do everything possible to fight back against what can only be described as a despotic and alarming attack on the rule of law.”

Catholic League:

Now Obama is officially on record as president opposing the defense of marriage. Thus does he pit himself against the 1996 law that was signed by President Bill Clinton, and opposed by only 15 percent in the House and 14 percent in the Senate. He also stands in opposition to the over 30 state initiatives affirming marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

Now that Obama is totally out of the closet, it will spur a genuine effort to adopt a constitutional amendment affirming the integrity of marriage.

Gary Bauer:

The president is the chief law enforcement officer, not the chief justice! It is not up to Barack Obama to determine which laws he likes and which laws he doesn’t. It is his responsibility to enforce the law until the nation’s highest court decides the law does not pass constitutional analysis.

But this president sees things very differently — he’s here to fundamentally transform America, by, among other things, redefining marriage ...

Today’s news should put to rest any suggestion that Obama has moved to the center. He has just aligned himself with the most radical elements in the culture war who are trying to redefine normalcy.

I’ll have more on this tomorrow, but I have to be honest with you: I’m worried our side has gone back to sleep. Financial support for our work has dropped significantly. But the left is energized. Obama suddenly feels free to abandon the law and let the militant homosexual rights movement force same-sex “marriage” on every state in the nation. A liberal politician is urging the unions to “get a little bloody” in the streets.

The Tea Party protests have ebbed while the left-wing radicals are fired up. The momentum seems to have shifted back to the left. Men and women of faith must remain engaged in the public policy battles of the day. The culture war is real and only one side can prevail.

GOProud: Driving a Wedge Deep Into The Heart of the Conservative Movement

With CPAC kicking off tomorrow, Metro Weekly profiles GOProud, the gay conservative group that has set off a culture war within the conservative movement and whose participation in the conference led to a boycott by several Religious Right organizations. 

And while we don't agree with most of GOProud's agenda and believe their sense of smug self-satisfaction is annoying and entirely undeserved, we do whole-heartedly support their effort to drive a deep wedge into the conservative movement in order to marginalize the "nasty, anti-gay bigots" who make up the Religious Right: 

''No, we're not giving cover to bigots," he argues. "What we're doing is separating the people who don't agree with the left-wing agenda from the real bigots. You can be against ENDA and hate crimes and federal safe schools legislation and not be a bigot. If you're Tony Perkins, you're a bigot. You're against all of that stuff not because of any federalist reasons, but actually because you're just a nasty, anti-gay bigot.''

...

''When you demonstrate some common ground, when you say, 'You wanna know what? We actually think that these policies that you support anyway are good for gay people, and here's why,' then all of a sudden they say, 'Well, wait a second, maybe I don't have a problem with gay people. All of these crazy things that we've been told by the Tony Perkinses of the world aren't true. These guys and gals, they're not here trying to snatch my children, they're not here in leather chaps.'''

...

Not everyone agrees with Breitbart and Norquist, even outside of the right-wing anti-gay groups. The Heritage Foundation and Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) are the two biggest names to drop out of CPAC based, at least in part, on GOProud's role at the conference.

This is Barron's time to go on the attack.

Of the Heritage Foundation's decision, he says, ''They've chosen to – and it's a mystery to me why – but they've chosen to align themselves with the losers" ...

''Look, Heritage does a lot of good work, and I didn't want – it looks terrible for them, and I didn't want to have them humiliate themselves. But they've seemed hell-bent on it. Their story keeps changing and now we're down to the truth, which is: It was about us. And they've lost donors. They've lost supporters.''

With a nod of agreement from LaSalvia, Barron concludes, ''There's a lot of people in the conservative movement who are looking very differently at the [Heritage Foundation].''

He's singing the same tune when it comes to DeMint, who is joined by Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) in claiming GOProud as part of his reason for staying away from this weekend's conference.

Of those calling for the boycott, Barron says, ''They're all excited that Jim DeMint is boycotting. And that's fantastic. I'm glad that he's willing to be on the Island of Political Misfit Toys with [World Net Daily's Joseph] Farah and the Concerned Women for America.''

GOProud: Driving a Wedge Deep Into The Heart of the Conservative Movement

With CPAC kicking off tomorrow, Metro Weekly profiles GOProud, the gay conservative group that has set off a culture war within the conservative movement and whose participation in the conference led to a boycott by several Religious Right organizations. 

And while we don't agree with most of GOProud's agenda and believe their sense of smug self-satisfaction is annoying and entirely undeserved, we do whole-heartedly support their effort to drive a deep wedge into the conservative movement in order to marginalize the "nasty, anti-gay bigots" who make up the Religious Right: 

''No, we're not giving cover to bigots," he argues. "What we're doing is separating the people who don't agree with the left-wing agenda from the real bigots. You can be against ENDA and hate crimes and federal safe schools legislation and not be a bigot. If you're Tony Perkins, you're a bigot. You're against all of that stuff not because of any federalist reasons, but actually because you're just a nasty, anti-gay bigot.''

...

''When you demonstrate some common ground, when you say, 'You wanna know what? We actually think that these policies that you support anyway are good for gay people, and here's why,' then all of a sudden they say, 'Well, wait a second, maybe I don't have a problem with gay people. All of these crazy things that we've been told by the Tony Perkinses of the world aren't true. These guys and gals, they're not here trying to snatch my children, they're not here in leather chaps.'''

...

Not everyone agrees with Breitbart and Norquist, even outside of the right-wing anti-gay groups. The Heritage Foundation and Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) are the two biggest names to drop out of CPAC based, at least in part, on GOProud's role at the conference.

This is Barron's time to go on the attack.

Of the Heritage Foundation's decision, he says, ''They've chosen to – and it's a mystery to me why – but they've chosen to align themselves with the losers" ...

''Look, Heritage does a lot of good work, and I didn't want – it looks terrible for them, and I didn't want to have them humiliate themselves. But they've seemed hell-bent on it. Their story keeps changing and now we're down to the truth, which is: It was about us. And they've lost donors. They've lost supporters.''

With a nod of agreement from LaSalvia, Barron concludes, ''There's a lot of people in the conservative movement who are looking very differently at the [Heritage Foundation].''

He's singing the same tune when it comes to DeMint, who is joined by Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) in claiming GOProud as part of his reason for staying away from this weekend's conference.

Of those calling for the boycott, Barron says, ''They're all excited that Jim DeMint is boycotting. And that's fantastic. I'm glad that he's willing to be on the Island of Political Misfit Toys with [World Net Daily's Joseph] Farah and the Concerned Women for America.''

AFA: Boehner Leading "War" Against "The Powers of Evil"

In a new fundraising letter asking for help to “restore our nation to its Christian roots,” the American Family Association asks its supporters to pray for House Speaker John Boehner, who AFA says is leading a war against the “powers of evil” – meaning pro-equality and pro-choice members of Congress.

After recounting the biblical story of Moses relying on the help of Aaron and Hur to keep his arms raised and help the Israelites defeat Amalek, the AFA letter says this:
 
We are at war with the powers of evil no less than Moses was. In the physical realm of politics, our leader is House Speaker Boehner.
 
Even as you read this letter, he is combating those in Congress who seek to destroy our families and the unborn. As he does so, we need to be holding him up in prayer!
 
It’s worth noting that the Amalekites that the AFA invokes for comparison to its political opponents were, according to scriptures, the most despicable and implacable enemies of Israel and God, so much so that God ordered that they all be slaughtered, including women, children, and animals.
 
The AFA letter also asks recipients to sign a postcard to Boehner, which reads:
 
Dear Mr. Speaker
 
I am thankful that God has chosen you to lead the 112th Congress, as you are a man of faith and integrity. I want you to know that I am praying for you. I am praying especially that you will guide your fellow Representatives to govern as they campaigned!
 
As you know, our country is engaged in a great culture war. The outcome of this conflict will determine whether or not America survives as a free and blessed nation.
 
I am counting on you to protect our families - especially the unborn - by following the Constitution and acting on Godly principles. Working together and trusting God, we can restore our nation to the greatness which He bestowed on it at its founding, and one [sic] again, make this an honorable and just nation for our posterity.
 
Speaker Boehner received some praise for his response to the recent shootings in Arizona. Will he now  repudiate AFA’s portrayal of his colleagues as “the powers of evil?”

AFA: Boehner Leading "War" Against "The Powers of Evil"

In a new fundraising letter asking for help to “restore our nation to its Christian roots,” the American Family Association asks its supporters to pray for House Speaker John Boehner, who AFA says is leading a war against the “powers of evil” – meaning pro-equality and pro-choice members of Congress.

After recounting the biblical story of Moses relying on the help of Aaron and Hur to keep his arms raised and help the Israelites defeat Amalek, the AFA letter says this:
 
We are at war with the powers of evil no less than Moses was. In the physical realm of politics, our leader is House Speaker Boehner.
 
Even as you read this letter, he is combating those in Congress who seek to destroy our families and the unborn. As he does so, we need to be holding him up in prayer!
 
It’s worth noting that the Amalekites that the AFA invokes for comparison to its political opponents were, according to scriptures, the most despicable and implacable enemies of Israel and God, so much so that God ordered that they all be slaughtered, including women, children, and animals.
 
The AFA letter also asks recipients to sign a postcard to Boehner, which reads:
 
Dear Mr. Speaker
 
I am thankful that God has chosen you to lead the 112th Congress, as you are a man of faith and integrity. I want you to know that I am praying for you. I am praying especially that you will guide your fellow Representatives to govern as they campaigned!
 
As you know, our country is engaged in a great culture war. The outcome of this conflict will determine whether or not America survives as a free and blessed nation.
 
I am counting on you to protect our families - especially the unborn - by following the Constitution and acting on Godly principles. Working together and trusting God, we can restore our nation to the greatness which He bestowed on it at its founding, and one [sic] again, make this an honorable and just nation for our posterity.
 
Speaker Boehner received some praise for his response to the recent shootings in Arizona. Will he now  repudiate AFA’s portrayal of his colleagues as “the powers of evil?”

Daniels Comes Under Attack For Attending CPAC (UPDATED)

As we have been noting over the last several week, more and more right-wing groups are dropping out of CPAC, angry that organizers have allowed the gay conservative group GOProud to participate.

Many of these same groups have also been angry at Gov. Mitch Daniels ever since he called for a "truce" in the culture war, so I guess it was only a matter of time before groups like the American Principles Project (which kicked off the boycott of CPAC) would start attacking Daniels for agreeing to participate in CPAC:

"Unfortunately, while Governor Daniels is slated to speak at CPAC's 'Reagan Dinner,' he has failed to understand how Ronald Reagan fused the three critical legs of the conservative movement into one coherent governing philosophy," says Andy Blom, executive director of the American Principles Project. "Discarding one makes the whole obsolete."

..."Governor Daniels' selection is an affront to the millions of conservatives who believe that social issues such as abortion and traditional marriage are non-negotiable."

According to CPAC organizers, Haley Barbour, Liz Cheney, Newt Gingrich, Mitch McConnell, Tim Pawlenty, Rick Perry, Paul Ryan, Rick Santorum are all "confirmed speakers" at this year's event, as is Michele Bachmann.

So is their participation an "affront to the millions of conservatives" as well?  Will the Religious Right start also attacking them for participating in CPAC too? 

UPDATE: Upon reading the entire APP statement, it turns out that they were slamming CPAC for inviting Daniels, not Daniels for attending CPAC (which, frankly, makes even less sense): 

The American Principles Project today blasted the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) for giving a major platform to potential 2012 presidential candidate Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels, who recently called on Republicans to make a “truce” on social issues, abandoning a key tenet of the conservative movement.

“Unfortunately, while Governor Daniels is slated to speak at CPAC’s ‘Reagan Dinner,’ he has failed to understand how Ronald Reagan fused the three critical legs of the conservative movement into one coherent governing philosophy,” said Andy Blom, executive director of the American Principles Project. “Discarding one makes the whole obsolete.”

In November, the group organized a coalition of conservative organizations protesting CPAC’s inclusion of GOProud because it is “fundamentally incompatible with a movement that has long embraced the ideals of family and faith,” it wrote in a letter to CPAC Chairman David Keene and his fellow board members.

“Governor Daniels’ selection is an affront to the millions of conservatives who believe that social issues such as abortion and traditional marriage are non-negotiable.”

Since APP launched the coalition, concern has grown and other groups have pulled out of the conference, including many past sponsors.

“The Beltway wisdom among Republican insiders boils down to a simple mantra: Social issues are a thing of the past. But this theory falls apart outside of the Washington bubble. The Republican sweep in the House was dominated by pro-life, pro-family candidates, and polling shows large majorities want to see action on these issues,” said Mr. Blom.

APP has already announced that it is boycotting CPAC because it is insufficiently socially conservative.  So what exactly do they think they are going to accomplish by slamming CPAC for inviting someone, like Daniels, who they also think is insufficiently socially conservative?

Eagle Forum: Constitution at 'White-Hot Center' of Culture War

People For the American Way has just published a new report by Senior Fellow Jamie Raskin which exposes the Tea Party’s dangerously distorted view of the Constitution and core constitutional values. (Is the 14th Amendment the authoritative constitutional source for the nation-defining civil rights revolution of the 1950s and 1960s, or is it an illegitimate pretext for an assault on private business owners’ rights and responsibilities?)

With fortuitous timing, Eagle Forum has just sent an activist alert declaring the Constitution to be the central front in the Culture War that America’s “internal enemies” are waging against religion and society. The Eagle Forum “briefing” is one more sign of the Religious Right’s efforts to co-opt the rhetoric of the Tea Party movement for its own Constitution-subverting agendas.
 
As America enters the year of 2011, new government officials are taking their seats all over the nations, at all levels of government. If our nation is to survive and thrive (neither of which has been happening in recent years), we must all face certain fundamental facts and act accordingly… Three such facts are:
1.     America is, and has for decades been, engulfed in the flames of a Culture War; 
2.     The Constitution has long been a white-hot center of this War and we therefore must Revive the Constitution!; 
3.     The Courts continue to be the major "weapon of choice" of the forces fighting against the Constitution and the culture in the Culture War.
 
The Eagle Forum “briefing” quotes rejected Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork and other conservative thinkers arguing that the culture war war reflects hostility toward religion and religious institutions, noting that Bork has identified the nation’s internal enemies as “judge-led.”
 
America's Culture War can therefore be understood only as a War of Worldviews…. In America's Culture War, the bitterly opposing worldviews and the constitution theories they advocate may be outlined as followed, with more familiar terms included in parentheses.
 
Worldviews: 
Humanistic ("Pulverize our Foundations") 
v. 
Judeo-Christian ("Protect Our Foundations!") 

Constitution Theories: 
Reconstructionists (Activist/Liberal) ("Kill the Constitution") 
v. 
Constitutionalists (Restraintist/Conservative) ("Revive the Constitution")
 
The Eagle Forum alert concludes that 2011 is a “banner year” to “launch a massive counter-attack to Revive the Constitution.”

Right Wing Round-Up

Why The Religious Right Never Talks About Divorce

Via Al Mohler we get this fascinating study by Mark A. Smith of the University of Washington in "Political Science Quarterly" entitled "Religion, Divorce, and the Missing Culture War in America" [PDF].

In it, Smith examines why Religious Right groups who spend all of their time talking about family values and the sanctity of marriage seem to give only lip-service, at best, to fighting divorce, despite the fact that it is repeatedly mentioned in the Bible. The Right may mentione it, generally when bemoaning the deteriorating culture, but they invest little to no effort in actually trying to change the laws to make it more difficult to obtain a divorce.

Smith notes that neither Jerry Falwell with his Moral Majority nor Pat Robertson with his Christian Coalition paid much attention to the issue; a trend which continues today with the Family Research Council: 

The FRC regularly sends email alerts to its members and supporters in an attempt to inform, persuade, and reinforce their attitudes and beliefs about matters of interest to the group. In 2006 and 2007, the FRC dispatched hundreds of these, most of which contained three paragraph-length items. Surprisingly for an organization that structures its activities around marriage and the family, only 8 of the 1,366 items centered on divorce. In the context of its total volume of communication with members and supporters, the FRC rarely broached the topic of divorce. The organization has stated that “we will not relent in our insistence to reform divorce laws,” but that abstract support has
not been matched by a sustained commitment to spending time or resources on the issue.

Perhaps the FRCʼs emails do not accurately reflect its priorities, meaning that analyzing a different facet of the groupʼs activities would yield a different answer. Accordingly, it will be useful to examine the messages the FRC expresses when it broadcasts its views through the mass media. As part of a larger strategy to influence both the mass public and political leaders, the FRCʼs staff regularly write editorials and attempt to publish them in leading news outlets. During 2006 and 2007, the staff succeeded in placing editorials on topics falling within the organizationʼs mission, including abstinence programs in schools, gay rights and hate crimes, abortion laws in the states, and judicial activism regarding online pornography. Yet FRC staff also published editorials that criticized wasteful government spending, warned against universal health care, and challenged the science behind global warming. Certainly no one could deny that government spending, health care, and global warming are important subjects for American citizens and political leaders to consider. For an organization whose self-definition holds that it “champions marriage and the family,” however,
these issues are considerably removed from its core mission.

The FRC has stated that constraints of budget, time, and staff prevent it from engaging questions surrounding same-sex marriage and heterosexual divorce at the same time, but it managed to allocate its scarce resources to addressing many other issues of current interest. Even if one could justify on practical or biblical grounds prioritizing gay marriage over divorce, such a view could hardly justify pushing divorce all the way to the bottom of the pecking order, below issues with only a tenuous connection to marriage and the family. Of course, a comprehensive search of all of the FRCʼs communications with members, the media, and government officials from 1983 to the present would probably uncover sporadic advocacy for changing public policy regarding divorce. Such a finding would not undermine the conclusion drawn here, namely that the subject occupies a low spot on the groupʼs priority list. Indeed, in the statement from its Web site quoted above, the FRC conceded that it spends little time on divorce.

Smith notes that FRC's lack of focus on divorce is especially odd given that FRC President Tony Perkins authored the nationʼs first covenant marriage bill back when he was a state legislator in Louisiana. 

But Smith also notes that there is very little chance that FRC or any other Religious Right group is going to "move beyond just saying that they endorse divorce reform and actually turn that abstract support into concrete action" because Americans so widely accept divorce to such an extent that even a significant portion of the Religious Right's base would oppose such efforts:

Needless to say, it is not a winning strategy for mobilization to tell your potential constituents that they have committed immoral acts that you are attempting to restrict through governmental regulations. Without an organized and vocal constituency making positions on divorce a litmus test for political support, it is difficult to imagine how the issue could join the ongoing culture war.

Right Wing Round-Up

Barton Assures Fischer that Beck "Absolutely" Opposes Gay Marriage

Ever since Glenn Beck told Bill O'Reilly that he didn't think that gay marriage represented a threat to our country, he's been hammered by anti-gay activists for selling out the conservative movement and was even accused by the AFA's Bryan Fischer of siding with "people who want to use the anus for sex" over Christians.

Interestingly, yesterday had Beck's BFF David Barton on his radio program to talk about the concerns being raised about Beck's Mormon faith and his "Restoring Honoro" rally and toward the end of the interview Fischer asked Barton is Beck was "with us" when it came to opposing gay marriage, and Barton assured him that Beck "absolutely is":

Fischer: David, got about twenty seconds, lot of controversy about what Glenn Beck said on the Bill O'Reilly program. You may have a perspective on where Glenn Beck is at on the issue of marriage. Is he with us on protecting natural marriage in law and the Constitution?

Barton: He absolutely is and that was made clear on that Saturday in the Restoring Honor [rally] - both life and marriage were made forefronts in that thing, traditional marriage. And if you read the full transcript, you'll find that Beck did not smash marriage, he just said that's a fruit, if we get God back in the country, marriage and abortion will take care of themselves.

Of course, if you actually read the transcript, it doesn't appear that that was the point that Beck was making at all:

O'REILLY: Why don't you do the culture warrior stuff?

BECK: Because honestly, right now, I mean, the one part of culture that I am doing a lot of is faith. But general faith. We have got to get back to our churches, our synagogues, our mosques, whatever it is, as long as it's not telling to you blow things up. Get back to God and get back to the Founding Fathers.

O'REILLY: I don't know if that's going to happen. I mean, it's a noble thing you're trying to do, because spirituality is a good thing. Introspection is a good thing. But let's take the gay marriage deal. You know, big ruling in California. You really didn't cover that much, right?

BECK: No.

O'REILLY: Why?

BECK: Because honestly, I think we have bigger fish to fry. You can argue about abortion or gay marriage or whatever else you want.

O'REILLY: Yes.

BECK: The country is burning down. I personally think these…

O'REILLY: Isn't that one of the reasons, because we're getting away from the traditional way we used to live into this progressive...

BECK: Instead of arguing about these divisive things, let's get back into our churches and our synagogues and...

O'REILLY: You're not going to get people going back unless there 's a reason to go back.

BECK: Here's the reason, America. Your country is burning down. I don't think marriage, that the government actually has anything to do with...

O'REILLY: But they do have…

BECK: That is a religious rite.

O'REILLY: I know, but they do have something to do, because gay marriage is going to be a reality in this country in 10 years.

BECK: Why do they have anything to do with it?

O'REILLY: Because they choose to, and you're not going to stop them, all right?

BECK: Actually, this is where we disagree.

O'REILLY: The Supreme Court may rule against gay marriage. Very possible.

BECK: You're willing to continue to go down the road of just accepting "well that's the way it is."

O'REILLY: I'm not accepting anything. I wrote a book about it. Don't give me this accept. Come on.

BECK: He's so hostile.

O'REILLY: Yes. I have to correct you. You are ignoring the profound change in the American family.

BECK: No, I'm not.

O'REILLY: But you're not covering it.

BECK: Because I think that the thing that needs to be covered -- Bill, I believe in a symphony. If we're all playing clarinets, we ain't going to get very far. A symphony needs to sound. I'm covering what I cover. You cover what you cover. Both of us are saying the same thing. Watch the culture.

O'REILLY: Do you believe -- do you believe that gay marriage is a threat to the country in any way?

BECK: A threat to the country?

O'REILLY: Yes. Is it going to harm?

BECK: No. Are the gay -- will the gays come and get us?

O'REILLY: OK. Is it going to harm the country in any way?

BECK: I believe that Thomas Jefferson said, "If it neither breaks my leg or picks my pocket, what difference is it to me?"

You know, given that Barton specializes in re-writing American history, I guess it shouldn't be terribly surprising to discover that he is willing re-write all of history to suit his needs, including things that happened just a few weeks ago.

Barbour: Religious Right is "Using Up Valuable Time and Resources" On Issues Voters Don't Care About

Earlier this year, Gov. Mitch Daniels came in for all sorts of criticism from the Religious Right for suggesting that truce might be needed in the culture wars so that the nation can focus on addressing economic and security issues.

If there is one thing the Religious Right hates, it is being told that their issues should be placed on a back burner or that they don't motivate voter turn out.  In fact, just yesterday we noted that the Religious Right was warning House Republicans not to ignore social issues as they lay out their issues and agenda, warning that it would be an "electorally costly mistake for the future for the GOP to write off" the anti-choice, anti-gay social conservatives who make up much of the grassroots base.

So I am guessing that this is not going to sit well with them:

Republican Governor's Association Chair Haley Barbour cautioned Republican candidates on Wednesday against bringing social issues into the campaign, arguing that any discussion beyond the economy would prove distracting and problematic to their election hopes.

In a breakfast sponsored by the Christian Science Monitor, the Mississippi Republican was asked for his take on remarks made earlier in the year by Mitch Daniels, the Indiana Governor, who had urged social and fiscal conservatives to reach an informal truce for the purposes of 2010.

"I think what Mitch said is very similar to what I have responded to today," Barbour replied. "The voters have on their mind the economy, jobs, spending, debt and taxes and good campaigns are about the issues that are on the peoples minds.

"I'll put my bonafides up against anybody as a social conservative," he added, noting that as governor, Mississippi was voted the safest state in the country for an unborn child. "But that ain't going to change anybody's vote this year because people are concerned about job, the economy, growth and taxes... you are using up valuable time and resources that can be used to talk to people about what they care about."

You know, Mitch Daniels thought that it was his bonafides as a social conservative that gave him the standing and credibility to be able call for a truce in the culture wars, but that didn't stop him for getting raked over the coal ... so if Barbour thinks that the Religious Right is going to simply accept it when he tells them that they "are using up valuable time and resources" talking about issues nobody cares about, I think he is going to be in for a bit of a surprise.

Barton: Beck May Be Mormon, But He's More Christian Than Wallis, Clinton, and Pelosi

Earlier this week we posted audio of Glenn Beck appearing on David Barton's "Wallbuilders Live" radio program, where Barton and Beck discussed how the upcoming "Restoring Honor" rally was being orchestrated by God in order to unleash revival upon America.

This seemed an especially interesting development because Beck is a Mormon and evangelicals like Barton generally don't consider Mormons to be Christians or believe that Mormons and Christians worship the same god. 

As it turns out, Barton has apparently been getting lots of questions from concerned supporters about his endorsement of Beck, prompting him to write a defense, arguing that Beck is more of a true Christian than are self-proclaimed Christians like Nancy Pelosi and Bill Clinton: 

I have appeared numerous times on Glenn's program to talk about historical and political issues, particularly as related to faith and Biblical values. On those programs, I have had repeated opportunity to inform Americans about (as our WallBuilders' motto declares) "America's forgotten history and heroes, with an emphasis on our moral, religious, and constitutional heritage." I have also participated in several major arena rallies with Glenn.

As a result of these appearances, I have received numerous letters and calls from concerned Christians, some of whom respectfully inquire as to why I would appear with a Mormon, while others directly attack me for doing so. As far as I can tell, most of these concerns stem from judging Glenn based by the label of "Mormon" rather than by the fruits he produces.

For example, no one has yet been to point to any instance where Glenn has attacked or undermined Christ or Christianity on any of his programs. To the contrary, on repeated occasions it has been quite the opposite. (Recall his specific programs on individual salvation, atonement, and redemption through Christ.) Nevertheless, some of his critics refuse to take Glenn at his self-evident words but instead attempt to read into them some secret and hidden meaning, thereby judging him not by his fruits or words but rather by some conspiratorial and unseen meaning they seek to impute to him.

...

Christians concerned about Glenn's faith should judge the tree by its fruits, not its labels. After all, Nancy Pelosi and Bill Clinton openly call themselves Christians, as do Evangelical Christian ministers such as Jim Wallis and Joel Hunter. Although these individuals have the right labels, they have the wrong fruits; yet many Christians have a more visceral reaction to Glenn than to Pelosi, Clinton, or Wallis. This is wrong; it is not Biblical.

...

In conclusion, I have been with Glenn in numerous settings; I have watched him up close and can heartily endorse both his public and his private life. I have witnessed his tender heart, his love for God, and his passion to keep God in America. Glenn and I have prayed together on numerous occasions; he has sought God for specific guidance on numerous situations and I have personally not only seen God answer him but have also seen Glenn completely change his plans after feeling the Lord was leading him to move in a different direction or address a different subject. I judge Glenn by his fruits, not by his labels, and I am honored to call Glenn not only an ally and a fellow warrior (and a General) in the culture war, but especially to call him a good friend.

This ought to serve as a good reminder to Beck that his own religious views are seen as suspect by many, so maybe he ought to keep that in mind before he starts demonizing the religious views of others.

LaBarbera's Conference Overrun By Spies

Back in June, when Peter LaBarber announced his three day anti-gay "Truth Academy," he made it clear that those who did not share his anti-gay views or agenda would not be welcome and that he would actively be screening applicants: 

This is a rigorous, 3-day program featuring some of the leading pro-family experts on homosexuality in the Culture War. Prospective attendees will need to be approved with references; this is not open to pro-homosexual activists but only to those who share AFTAH’s belief that homosexuality is immoral and that the GLBT movement is destructive to America and a direct threat to our religious freedom.

So how did that work out?

Well, Truth Wins Out got someone inside who provided audio recordings and Hemant Mehta (aka “The Friendly Atheist”) likewise had two sources inside who have provided an exhaustive recounting of the conference - one of Mehta's sources actually struck up a discussion with another attendee, only to find out that that person was also there as a spy. 

Now that spy, Timna Axel, has written her own long piece providing an inside view of the conference:

Reading Bible passages that describe God's strictly heterosexual design for marriage, Professor Rena Lindevaldsen of Liberty University traced a history of court cases which systematically de-linked procreation from marriage.

"I firmly believe we got to where we are today because we as a nation strayed from God's standard," she said. In her view, the last U.S. Supreme Court case which correctly described marriage was Murphy v. Ramsey, a case on polygamy decided 125 years ago. Decrying Lawrence v. Texas, which protected citizen privacy from anti-sodomy laws, Prof. Lindevaldsen admitted that she didn't want "the government peeking into my bedroom." However, privacy in this case should be sacrificed because "laws normalize conduct."

While anti-gay federal laws would merely discourage bad conduct, pro-gay federal laws would effectively criminalize Christianity, according to LaBarbera, who cited the cases of Canada and England. In his example, laws which prohibit renters from discriminating based on sexual orientation would make it illegal to fulfill the Christian ideology.

This scriptural keystone explains the absolute inability of these believers to compromise on gay marriage. "Sexual sin is sexual sin," asserted LaBarbera. "The truth is the truth." To budge one inch for domestic partnerships or civil unions is moral cowardice, and would open the floodgates for normalizing other sexual sins such as adultery and incest.

LaBarbera hailed his conference as a "tremendous success," but its becoming clear that a significant number of the 50 or so people LaBarbera claims attended were really there as undercover spies.

Interesting, LaBarbera is also offering DVDs and CDs from the conference ... but who needs to waste money on them when we are getting so much inside coverage of the event from the countless spies in attendance?

You Ain't Seen Nothing Yet: Ominous Rumblings From the Right

As I noted last week, it appears as if the Religious Right's primary plan for upholding Proposition 8 and preventing marriage equality is not so much to argue why stopping gay marriage is necessary and constitutional, but rather to simply warn that there will be hell to pay if they are not.

That certainly seems to be what Bruce Hausknecht of Focus on the Family's Citizenlink is saying:

"I will say that the Supreme Court, even the liberals on the court, ought to be thinking at least twice about the culture wars they will ignite -- just like they did with Roe v. Wade -- if they were to affirm this ruling," he replies.

That said, the analyst suggests that the Supreme Court justices leave the matter up to the states. "They would be smart, even if they want to uphold liberal ideals, to leave this in the legislatures' hands around the country," he says.

Gee, gay marriage would ignite a culture war?  That would be new and utterly unprecedented.  

What exactly does Hausknecht think is taking place now? 

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.”

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

Daniels: "Atheism Leads to Brutality" and Will Destroy America

Over the last several weeks, Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels has been under attack from Religious Right activists for his statement that the nation needed to call a "truce" in the culture wars in order to focus on more important issues.

Obviously, social conservatives refuse to accept any such truce, as fighting the culture war is their entire reason for existing and have begun questioning Daniels' conservative bona fides.

But that is clearly unjustified because, as this interview with him from December demonstrates, he clearly shares their worldview:

Mellinger: Is there part of you that is bothered by the aggressive atheism of a [Sam] Harris, a [Christopher] Hitchens, a [Richard] Dawkins? And what I mean is... this atheism is a little different than atheism has been in the past because it does seek to convert people.

Daniels: I'm not sure it's all that new. People who reject the idea of a God -who think that we're just accidental protoplasm- have always been with us. What bothers me is the implications -which not all such folks have thought through- because really, if we are just accidental, if this life is all there is, if there is no eternal standard of right and wrong, then all that matters is power.

And atheism leads to brutality. All the horrific crimes of the last century were committed by atheists -Stalin and Hitler and Mao and so forth- because it flows very naturally from an idea that there is no judgment and there is nothing other than the brief time we spend on this Earth.

Everyone's certainly entitled in our country to equal treatment regardless of their opinion. But yes, I think that folks who believe they've come to that opinion ought to think very carefully, first of all, about how different it is from the American tradition; how it leads to a very different set of outcomes in the real world.

Syndicate content

Culture War Posts Archive

Brian Tashman, Friday 08/26/2011, 4:31pm
The Catholic League has rallied to the defense of their anti-gay allies the Family Research Council and Focus on the Family as a reaction to a campaign by LGBT rights and women’s rights advocates to have corporations drop out of the Charity Give Back Group, which sponsors the FRC and Focus. The Charity Give Back Group (formerly known as the Christian Values Network) allows customers to shop in a virtual mall and direct proceeds to CGBG affiliated groups, which led to complaints as a number of the CGBG’s charities are actually anti-choice and anti-gay political groups. Yesterday,... MORE
Brian Tashman, Friday 08/26/2011, 9:03am
Since the Charity Give Back Group was forced to defend its financing of right-wing organizations like the Family Research Council and Focus on the Family, spokesman Kevin McCullough (who himself has propagated virulent anti-gay rhetoric) has stated that the campaign to have companies withdraw from the CGBG represents bullying. Tony Perkins, the president of the FRC, even said it was an attempt to “censor” Christians. After Apple dropped out of the CGBG, which was previously known as the Christian Values Network, McCullough told The Christian Post, “We're not asking Apple to... MORE
Kyle Mantyla, Tuesday 08/23/2011, 4:37pm
When something appears as a WorldNetDaily exclusive, you know that it is important and that you can trust the reporting. Hey, remember when Scott Lively was going to give up his anti-gay activism? So much for that. It turns out that the recent Traditional Values Coalition attacks on wasteful spending were totally misleading. Who would have guessed? Looks like the next Awakening conference will be in Florida instead of at Liberty U. Bryan Fischer defends Rick Perry. Finally, quote of the day from Gary Bauer: "Men and women of faith cannot sit on the sidelines... MORE
Kyle Mantyla, Tuesday 08/16/2011, 9:59am
In early 2010, Lisa Miller kidnapped her daughter and fled the country in order to avoid a court order telling her to hand over her daughter to her former partner due to her repeated refusal to abide by custody arrangements. For years, Miller had been represented in court by lawyers at Liberty Counsel who worked to turn this new-found "ex-gay" Christian into a Religious Right cause célèbre.  At least until Miller disappeared, at which point Liberty Counsel went silent and started frantically trying to wash its hands of its involvement, which made sense considering... MORE
Kyle Mantyla, Thursday 07/07/2011, 5:06pm
Sarah Posner @ Religion Dispatches: The Real Story Behind Rick Perry’s Secret Meetings with Pastors. Andy Birkey @ Minnesota Independent: Is Bradlee Dean Michele Bachmann’s Rev. Wright? Ed Brayton @ Dispatches From The Culture War: Liberty Counsel, the ACLU and Attorney Fees. Steve Benen: Why Inhofe Is Mad At The FAA. Jodi Jacobson @ RH Reality Check: Brownback Nominates Operation Rescue Attorney to Kansas Board of Healing Arts. Good As You: Bachmann in '04: Senators who oppose marriage amendment like soldiers who missed Pearl Harbor... MORE
Kyle Mantyla, Friday 06/10/2011, 4:36pm
Lauri Lebo @ Religion Dispatches: David Barton: Creationist Founding Fathers Settled Debate Over Evolution. Steve Benen: What prompted the Gingrich exodus. Andy Birkey @ Minnesota Independent: Bradlee Dean and Minnesota Family Council share more than marriage amendment success. Jeff @ Bold Faith Type: Signs of Fissure Between GOP Establishment and Religious Right. Frances Martel @ Mediaite: GOProud Board President Sticks By Herman Cain After ‘Homosexuality Is A Sin’ Comment. Ed Brayton @ Dispatches From the Culture War: The Fraudulent... MORE
Kyle Mantyla, Friday 06/03/2011, 2:55pm
Yesterday we noted that executives of the American Family Association had attended a Home Depot board meeting to inform the company that Christians would boycott their stores until they decided to drop their support for equality and diversity and "remain neutral in the culture war."  According to the AFA, Home Depot basically told them to take a hike ... and today Bryan Fischer, the AFA's official spokesbigot, conducted an interview with an anonymous fourteen year Home Depot employee named "Robert" who alleged that there is a culture of intimidation and... MORE