Defense of Marriage Act

Religious Right Outraged By Changes To Passport Application

The State Department has announced that, beginning in February, the spaces for "mother's name" and "father's name" on passport applications will be replaced with "parent one" and "parent two" ... and, of course, the Religious Right is outraged:

“Only in the topsy-turvy world of left-wing political correctness could it be considered an ‘improvement’ for a birth-related document to provide less information about the circumstances of that birth,” Family Research Council president Tony Perkins wrote in a statement to Fox News Radio. “This is clearly designed to advance the causes of same-sex ‘marriage’ and homosexual parenting without statutory authority, and violates the spirit if not the letter of the Defense of Marriage Act.”

Robert Jeffress, pastor of the First Baptist Church in Dallas, agreed. “It’s part of an overall attempt at political correctness to diminish the distinction between men and women and to somehow suggest you don’t need both a father and a mother to raise a child successfully,” said Jeffress. “(This decision) was made to make homosexual couples feel more comfortable in rearing children.”

UPDATE: Apparently FRC is so outraged by this that they had to release an statement:

"Only in the topsy-turvy world of left-wing political correctness could it be considered an 'improvement' for a birth-related document to provide less information about the circumstances of that birth. Yet that is the result of the State Department's decision to remove the words 'mother' and 'father' from Consular Reports of Birth Abroad.

"The dictionary defines 'birth' as 'the emergence of a new individual from the body of its parent' or 'the act or process of bringing forth young from the womb.' Since science has yet to create an artificial womb, in the human species that 'body' or 'womb' always belongs to a female parent, i.e., the mother. And since science has yet to master human cloning, the newborn human being has always received half of his or her genetic inheritance via the sperm of a male parent, i.e., the father. It would be helpful if a certificate related to 'birth' would identify which is which.

"This is clearly designed to advance the causes of same-sex 'marriage' and homosexual parenting without statutory authority, and violates the spirit if not the letter of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). But it does so at the expense of fundamental biological reality – and social reality as well. The State Department's abolition of motherhood and fatherhood would be almost comical, if it did not fly in the face of the mounting social science evidence that children are most likely to thrive when born into a family led by their own married biological mother and father.

"President Obama's Justice Department is purposefully failing to defend the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in the courts, so it is little surprise that his State Department would show the same disrespect for U.S. law. The House of Representatives should take their oversight rule very seriously and intervene in both these circumstances."

Wendy Wright: There’s No Discrimination in America, Except for that Committed by “Homosexual Activists”

Wendy Wright, the president of Concerned Women For America, in the conservative publication The American Thinker ridicules the Obama Administration’s claims that bigotry and inequality still exist in the U.S., but goes on to claim that the Religious Right represents the actual victim of discrimination at the hands of “homosexual activists.” Such fatuous allegations are nothing new from Wright, who participated in the “Green Dragon” series that believes the environmental movement is surreptitiously trying to destroy Christianity and dismissed a study which showed that the children of same-sex parents are as “well adjusted” as their peers because it didn’t conform to her anti-gay prejudice.

In her article, “What Obama Thinks of America,” Wright is incensed that the Obama Administration still believes that discrimination survives in the U.S. and facetiously asks “Which American laws or institutions enshrine discrimination?” However, she then blasts the Obama Administration for not confronting the “homosexual activists” who are leading “a campaign of harassment, threats, vandalism, and attacks on employment against people who support traditional marriage, with particular venom toward religious people.” Essentially, Wright and the CWA strongly endorse discriminatory laws and bigoted views that target gay and lesbian Americans, but in her opinion proponents of anti-gay bigotry like herself are the real victims of intolerance:

Sometimes the best way to find out what a person thinks about you is to find out what he tells others.

That's why the report on America's human rights record filed by the Obama administration with the U.N. is particularly interesting.



What comes through is that President Obama's crew thinks America is congenitally discriminatory, and his administration is bravely soldiering into this morass against the unwashed masses to create an equal society.

As the report states, "[w]ork remains to meet our goal of ensuring equality before the law for all." Which American laws or institutions enshrine discrimination? Not mentioned. No matter -- when you're convinced that Americans are bigots, there is no need to provide proof.

The administration crows in the report about passing the incredibly divisive and unconstitutional health care act. It devotes a section to the bill, with glowing aspirations of how it will end the discrimination of a racist medical system. (Remember, these people see everything through the filter of race or identity politics -- even health care.)

Yet religious freedom (in which the U.S. excels in contrast to other countries) gets a few measly paragraphs with boilerplate generalities. Whereas the health care bill earned details like how many Asian-American men suffer from stomach cancer, the examples of a defense of religious freedom were a Native American primary school student's right to wear his hair in a braid and a Muslim girl's right to wear a hijab.

Maybe this administration is not keen on religious freedom. The issue is so old-school...yesterday's news...Christian. And it inconveniently conflicts with one of President Obama's priorities highlighted in the report, a priority that threatens religious freedom -- privileges for those who engage in homosexual, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender behavior.

Homosexual activists conducted a campaign of harassment, threats, vandalism, and attacks on employment against people who support traditional marriage -- with particular venom toward religious people. The vile assaults on Carrie Prejean for merely expressing her views pulled away the curtain that had been hiding how homosexual activists routinely treat decent people who dissent. It raised the question: Who is the aggressor, and who is victim?

Did you get that? "In each era of our history" -- that is, America is historically and inherently bigoted. Makes you wonder why they'd want to live here.

LGBT advocates (lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender) claim that sexual orientation is an inborn identity, like skin color or ethnicity, and they excoriate people who use the term "gay lifestyle" because it implies choices and actions. Yet the report's first boast of tackling discrimination against this group was the striking down of a law criminalizing sodomy. Apparently, particular actions do define homosexuality.

Wright goes on to argue that the Justice Department intentionally lost the Massachusetts cases challenging the constitutionality of the Defense Of Marriage Act, a charge which Focus on the Family thinks deserves a congressional investigation by Darrell Issa, and that any move towards equality for gays and lesbians actually represents prejudice:

Remember, since he ran for president, Obama has claimed that he does not upport same-sex "marriage." Yet he opposes the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), the clearest federal statute that protects marriage as the union of a man and a woman.

Obama's Justice Department sabotaged its defense of DOMA in a legal challenge, making such weak arguments that it guaranteed a loss. And he opposed California's Proposition 8, a constitutional amendment to define marriage as between a man and a woman. So Obama opposes federal and state measures that define and enforce traditional marriage.

That's where the report to the U.N. really gets interesting. It states, "Debate continues over equal rights to marriage for LGBT Americans at the federal and state levels, and several states have reformed their laws to provide for same-sex marriages, civil unions, or domestic partnerships."



President Obama is, as he said in his inaugural address, remaking America. Too bad his image of America -- and what he wants to turn us into -- is so prejudiced.

FRC Explains Decision to Skip CPAC

The Family Research Council's Tom McClusky explains why FRC will not participate in this year's CPAC, saying they decided end the relationship years ago because they were tired of having to battle to get their issues included and that the move to allow GOProud to sponsor the event "only cemented our decision":

We left CPAC a couple of years ago (before GOProud was a twinkle in anyone’s eye) in part because we saw they were moving away from conservative principles and also because of a growing concern over the management of CPAC. We know many friends as well as former CPAC employees over the years and know how the place operates. I didn’t hear anyone here at FRC voicing surprise when a leading ACU official was caught embezzling a few weeks ago. GOProud only cemented our decision that we should continue to stay away – just as the inclusion of other non- and anti -conservative groups have done in prior years.

...

When CPAC first launched in 1973, it was a small gathering of dedicated conservatives. The conference was an example of the coalition that elected President Ronald Reagan as our 40th President. The conference embodied what is called the three-legged stool of traditional social values, economic conservatism, and a strong national defense. Traditional moral values, such as marriage between a man and a woman, are a part of longstanding, conservative philosophy. The importance of the institution of marriage between a man and a woman cannot be separated from the discussion of limited government and fiscal conservatism.

Family Research Council has had a long history with CPAC, the American Conservative Union (ACU) and the American Conservative Union Foundation (ACUF). For over a decade, FRC was a cosponsor of CPAC, sponsoring popular panels on marriage and life. Every year, (at least in the eight I have been with FRC,) we have had to push a reluctant ACU to continue these panel discussions. A few years ago, we finally opted out of the event after deciding that the annual fight over conservatism with CPAC officials was a waste of energy and time ..

McClusky also takes issue with claims that GOProud is a gay conservative group, saying that they are, in fact, "a homosexual organization that is marginally conservative":

As for the separate issue of GOProud, they are an organization that opposes basic conservative principles. It’s not a conservative organization that happens to be gay; it is a homosexual organization that is marginally conservative.

GOProud’s website explains just how radical its priorities are. This is a group that opposed the death tax and ObamaCare — not because they aren’t sound economic policies — but because they “discriminate” against “gay families.” Its platform doesn’t end there. One of the group’s top 10 “principles” is to create “enterprise zones” for homosexuals, despite the fact that the average income for gays and lesbians is higher than most everyone else. At least two more of its “principles” call for the overturning of the Defense of Marriage Act. Additional priorities include allowing homosexuals to serve openly in the military and defeating any attempt to protect one-man, one-woman marriage. The group even ran ads criticizing President Obama for not doing enough for the homosexual community.

...

[A]fter the elections GOProud further tried to divide conservatives by releasing a letter demanding that the Republican Party stay away from social issues. Ignoring their own demand, they continued pushing to overturn the law on homosexuals serving openly in the military. Hypocritical much?

You will be hard pressed to find anyone here looking to back down from a debate on the issues but it also isn’t our job to legitimize CPAC or GOProud as if they represent conservative goals and principles.

Focus on the Family Wants House Republicans to Investigate the Justice Department over DOMA Cases

Tom Minnery, Vice President of Government and Public Policy at CitizenLink (formerly Focus on the Family Action), is insisting that House Republicans investigate the Justice Department over their handling of the Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, in order to fulfill the desires of the GOP’s Religious Right supporters.

Earlier this year, Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley and Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders brought two separate cases to a federal judge in Boston contesting DOMA’s constitutionality. The Justice Department defended DOMA and argued that the law is constitutional, but the Judge ruled otherwise and found that the law was unconstitutional under the equal protection clause and the Tenth Amendment.

Infuriated by the judge’s ruling, Religious Right activists were so assured of DOMA’s constitutionality that they maintained that the Justice Department must have intentionally mishandled the cases and purposefully lost. Tom McClusky of the Family Research Council said that “in part, this decision results from the deliberately weak legal defense of DOMA that was mounted on behalf of the government by the Obama administration,” and Mat Staver of Liberty Counsel and David Barton of WallBuilders recently discussed why they believe the Justice Department “threw the case.”

Today, Focus on the Family’s Tom Minnery called for social conservatives to be more demanding of congressional Republicans than they were when Republicans previously had control of Congress:

On Nov. 2, 2010, the Republicans again won control of the House, by an even larger margin than they did in 1994. It was once again a severe rebuke of the policies of the Democratic Party. We hope it won’t again cause a severe misreading of results by conservative Christians. What we learned in 1994 was that simply having power isn’t enough. What matters is what is done with that power.

Minnery goes on to say that the Religious Right should push the House Committee On Oversight and Government Reform, to be led by Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA), to investigate the Justice Department’s management of the DOMA case to show that the GOP is serious about opposing marriage equality:

Will there be comprehensive hearings by House oversight committees on the unwillingness of the Justice Department to thoroughly defend, as the Constitution requires, legal challenges to federal laws? I have in mind the Defense of Marriage Act. The Justice Department has failed to provide an adequate defense against lawsuits seeking to tear away this law.

He also resuscitated the false claim that the government is using taxpayer funds to subsidize abortion, asking, “Will they try hard to undo health care reform, aiming specifically at its vast expansion of government-paid abortions?”

While Issa has already said that his committee may launch inquiries into everything from climate change science to consumer protection efforts to the Justice Department’s handling of the “New Black Panther Party” case, Minnery and other Religious Right activists will work to pressure Issa to include the DOMA cases among his growing lists of investigations.

 

Mat Staver Claims that Obama’s “Radical” Support for Same-Sex Partner Benefits Led to “Tidal Wave Against Him”

Liberty University Law School Dean and Liberty Counsel Chairman Mat Staver joined David Barton and Rick Green on WallBuilders Live to denounce Obama and the Justice Department for failing to win cases on Defense Of Marriage Act (DOMA), which a federal judge in Boston ruled unconstitutional in July. Staver believes that Obama’s record of supporting gay rights undermined government action to effectively defend DOMA, and Staver went on to attack Obama for extending a number of health benefits to same-sex partners of eligible federal employees. According to Staver, Obama’s support for such benefits displays his “radical, liberal policies” that he believes voters overwhelmingly oppose and rejected in the midterm election:

He’s writing these executive orders as though that is able to change law, it’s not able to change law. What Obama’s trying to do is use a sleight of hand, an under the table kind of approach, to in fact change the law through these executive orders. He’s acting as though the law’s on his side, that it would include benefits for homosexuality and transsexuals and others. So he is forcing that through the system even though the laws are to the contrary. This is exactly what ultimately resulted in this tidal wave against him on Tuesday during the midterm elections, his radicalism and his forced agenda on the American people despite the fact that the people of America reject those radical, liberal policies.

However, Staver would have difficulties reconciling his argument with polling: a September poll conducted by the Associated Press shows that 58% of Americans agree that “couples of the same sex [should] be entitled to the same government benefits as married couples of the opposite sex,” and 52% even support federal recognition of same-sex marriages. Staver may be using Barton’s tremendously flawed reading on how opposition to same-sex marriage impacted the midterm election, while in reality “only 1%” of voters said “same-sex marriage was the single most important issue.”

Barton’s co-host Rick Green goes on to laud Staver for his role in training Religious Right activists at the Law School of Liberty University, which was founded by the late Jerry Falwell, to use the “right Biblical worldview” to shape government, politics, and the courts:

What they’re doing in terms of raising up this next generation. Not only the lawyers graduating from Liberty Law School but think of how many more people with the right Biblical worldview coming through a school like that will want to go be the bureaucrats, and we always think of that word as a negative word but the Justice Department and all these places and all these folks that work there in the past mostly did not have that Biblical worldview because we discouraged young people from going into those arenas. But because of what Mat’s doing and other schools out there doing that kind of thing I think we’re gonna have a lot more people coming into government for good reasons.

Perhaps Green wants more appointees like Monica Goodling, the graduate of Rev. Pat Robertson’s Regent University Law School, who drew attention for her Religious Right activism in the Bush Administration’s Justice Department. Goodling was implicated in the Bush White House’s drive to politicize the Justice Department and replace US Attorneys with partisan appointees. The Justice Department's Office of the Inspector General “concluded that the evidence showed that Goodling violated both federal law and Department policy, and therefore committed misconduct, when she considered political or ideological affiliations in hiring decisions for candidates for career positions within the Department.” For example, Goodling fired a US Attorney as a result of rumors that she was a lesbian and denied a promotion to a prosecutor because his wife was a Democratic activist. While Goodling was not a graduate of Liberty, Regent University has the same goals of training young right wing activists for government roles to advance the Religious Right’s agenda.

Family Research Council and Concerned Women For America pull out of CPAC, Religious Right Boycott Gains Momentum

The American Conservative Union’s Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), one of the largest gatherings of right wing activists and a platform for Republican presidential candidates, continues to lose participants as a result of GOProud’s sponsorship of the event. GOProud is a conservative organization that supports gay rights that broke off from the Log Cabin Republicans for allegedly moving “way too far to the left.”

In November, the far-right American Principles Project instigated the CPAC boycott over GOProud’s involvement back in November, and groups such as American Values, Capital Research Center, the Center for Military Readiness, Liberty Counsel, Liberty University, and the National Organization for Marriage followed the APP’s lead in boycotting the conference.

Today, WorldNetDaily, which has provided support for the boycott movement, reports that the Family Research Council and Concerned Women For America have decided to boycott CPAC. FRC and CWA are easily the largest groups to join the boycott movement, and FRC hosts a similar conference that is geared to Religious Right activists, the Values Voter Summit. WorldNetDaily reports on their decision and the ensuing praise from anti-gay rights activists Peter LaBarbera and Mat Staver:

"We've been very involved in CPAC for over a decade and have managed a couple of popular sessions. However, we will no longer be involved with CPAC because of the organization's financial mismanagement and movement away from conservative principles," said Tom McClusky, senior vice president for FRC Action.

"CWA has decided not to participate in part because of GOProud," CWA President Penny Nance told WND.



"Excellent. It is gratifying to see FRC and CWA respond appropriately to CPAC's moral sellout of allowing GOProud as a sponsor," said Peter LaBarbera, president of Americans for Truth about Homosexuality, the nation's best-known organization dedicated exclusively to opposing the homosexual political agenda.

"By bringing in GOProud, CPAC was effectively saying moral opposition to homosexuality is no longer welcome in the conservative movement," said LaBarbera. "Would CPAC bring in an organization specifically devoted to promoting abortion and pretend it's conservative?" LaBarbera has formerly participated in CPAC, but said he may protest the conference this year.

"Shame on CPAC for defending the absurd proposition that one can be 'conservative' while embracing moral surrender – in this case the idea espoused by GOProud of the government granting 'rights' and benefits based on sinful sexual conduct long regarded as anathema to biblical and Judeo-Christian values," LaBarbera added.

"[ACU has] gone libertarian, that's their focus," said Mat Staver, president of Liberty Counsel, a public interest law firm. "Libertarianism is right on the economy, often wrong on national defense, and doesn't care about social conservatism. Libertarians only respect one leg of the Reagan revolution, and you can't stand for long on one leg."



"We said GOProud is not a conservative organization," said Staver. "They are undermining the military" by promoting open homosexuality, and "undermining marriage" by opposing the Defense of Marriage Act, which preserves the traditional definition of marriage by limiting it to one man and one woman.

"Anything that undermines marriage also undermines our freedom and economy," said Staver. "It is contrary to our fundamental values to have as a cosponsor an organization that promotes same-sex marriage."

"GOProud doesn't fit in any of the areas of conservatism within CPAC," Staver continued. "We asked CPAC to disassociate themselves from GOProud, but they refused to.

"The only way we would return to CPAC now is if CPAC openly disassociated itself from GOProud and carried on a pattern of activity that convinces us they are truly broad-based conservatives."

The decision by Family Research Council and Concerned Women For America may spur other groups and speakers to join the boycott, although others could take the path of Ryan Sorba of Young Americans for Freedom who used his speech at CPAC to attack homosexuality and condemn GOProud’s participation:

Pawlenty Appoints Religious Right Advocate, Wife of Staffer to District Court

Since Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty is considering a run for the GOP presidential nomination, he ought to be prepared to answer questions about his decisions, such as the one to bypass the state's Commission on Judicial Selection in order to appoint an attorney with ties to the Religious Right to a seat on a district court ... especially since said attorney also happens to be the wife of his Deputy Chief of Staff:

On Tuesday, Gov. Tim Pawlenty appointed Jamie L. Anderson to the 4th Judicial District Court following the retirement of Judges Tanja Manrique. Press reports note that Anderson is the wife of Pawlenty’s deputy chief of staff and that the appointment raised eyebrows because the governor bypassed the standard judicial selection process to tap a friend’s wife who has little major legal experience. But one fact may shed some light on the appointment: Anderson has ample religious right experience.

Pawlenty picked Anderson without going through the Commission on Judicial Selection, which vets applications for judicial positions and makes recommendations to the governor. Pawlenty skipped that process, and while legally he has that right and past governors have also done the same, local media picked up on it because Anderson is a friend of Pawenty’s. As MinnPost notes, she’s married to Paul Anderson, who serves as his deputy chief of staff.

“Anderson was a surprise choice because she works for a small firm, has not been a prominent lawyer and was not screened through the Commission on Judicial Selection,” the Star Tribune wrote on Tuesday.

But she has handled some high-profile cases for the religious right.

Anderson served as counsel for the Minnesota Family Council (MFC) when that group recently petitioned a Hennepin County judge to become defendants in a case seeking to overturn Minnesota’s ban on same-sex marriage. Three couples have filed suit against Hennepin County and the State of Minnesota challenging the state’s Defense of Marriage Act. The case will be heard in the 4th Judicial District Court, the same court where Anderson was appointed.

Jason Shellack, an attorney for the same-sex couples, said that Anderson joined the case this fall. The Family Council had enlisted the help of James Dobson’s Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) in its bid to be named a defendant in the case, but needed a local attorney to back the ADF’s case. When a previous local attorney dropped the case, Shellack said, Anderson joined up to assist MFC and ADF.

A judge rejected MFC’s request to be named as a defendant in the case late last month.

...

In 2009, Anderson represented Child Evangelism Fellowship of Minnesota (CEF) along with Jerry Falwell’s Liberty Counsel, an evangelical legal group, in a suit against the Elk River School District. The district allowed outside groups such as the Boy Scouts to send literature home with students, but when the CEF asked to send literature about Christianity home with students, the district said no.

Will The Right File Suit To Stop DADT Repeal? (UPDATED)

Judging by Monday's "Washington Update" from the Family Research Council, they seemed resigned to the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell

It's been a long, hard fight. And as sobering as the outcome may be, we can all be proud that we stood our ground and did what was right for our soldiers and our country. Now it's time to leave the outcome, however ominous it may be, in the hands of the Lord.

But that apparent resignation did not last long, as the very next day FRC announced that they would be working with Sen. John McCain and other Republicans on ways to limit and ultimately repeal it:

As for FRC, who will take great pleasure in seeing this lame-duck finally limp out of town, we'll be spending the next couple of weeks reassessing the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" debate. In fact, I've already been in conversations with Hill leaders about holding hearings in the New Year, as well as statutory and legislative oversight steps that can be taken to turn back aspects of the repeal and slow down--if not stop--the rest. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and others will be working with FRC to put a strict evaluation process in place. We want to ensure that the Pentagon is monitoring the effect of this radical change on the men and women in harm's way. One way to do that is demanding specific measurables--like tracking the sexual assaults, dips in recruitment and retention, combat distractions, and more. If there's the slightest disruption to the military's mission, you can bet that FRC will be on the Hill, demanding to revisit this repeal.

And it looks like FRC also expects to see suits filed to stop it:

Of course, back when federal District Judge Virginia Phillips struck down DADT in September, FRC blasted her "judicial activism":

This is the very definition of judicial activism -- when you are unable to achieve your desired policy goals through the democratic process, simply go to court and get a judge to decree that it must be so.

But now that Religious Right was to unable to achieve its desired policy goals through the democratic process, they have apparently decided to simply go to court and try to get a judge to decree that it must be so.

UPDATE: FRC's Tom McClusky has informed us that the Fox 5 report misrepresented the point that he was making, which was that he believes that lawsuits will be filed by those who pushed for the DADT repeal, citing it as they seek other changes in policy regarding things like Defense of Marriage Act and various benefits currently available to only married couples. FRC would not file and would not support lawsuits seeking to overturn the repeal of DADT, as the organization believes this is not a matter for the courts to decide because the US Constitution clearly leaves it up to Congress.
 

Reaction to DADT Vote: "The Few, the Proud, the Sexually Twisted"

Today, the Senate voted 63-33 to invoke cloture and bring the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell to a final vote later today.  With repeal of DADT all but a foregone conclusion, the Religious Right has begun releasing statements which we are going to chronicle here as they come it.

And judging by the early statements from the likes of Bryan Fischer of the American Family Association, this vote is literally going to mean the end of America:

We are now stuck with sexual deviants serving openly in the U.S. military because of turncoat Republican senators ... Had the cloture vote failed, we would still have sane moral and sexual standards governing military personnel policy. But sadly those days are gone, perhaps forever.

...

The armies of other nations have allowed gays to serve openly in the military. The reason they could afford to do this is simple: they could allow homosexuals to serve in their military because we didn’t allow them to serve in ours.

They knew they could count on the strength, might, power, and cohesion of the U.S. military to intervene whenever and wherever necessary to pull their fannies out of the fire and squash the forces of tyranny wherever they raised their ugly heads around the world.

Those days are now gone. We will no longer be able to bail out these other emasculated armies because ours will now be feminized and neutered beyond repair, and there is no one left to bail us out. We have been permanently weakened as a military and as a nation by these misguided and treasonous Republican senators, and the world is now a more dangerous place for us all.

It’s past time for a litmus test for Republican candidates. This debacle shows what happens when party leaders are careless about the allegiance of candidates to the fundamental conservative principles expressed in the party’s own platform.

Character-driven officers and chaplains will eventually be forced out of the military en masse, potential recruits will stay away in droves, and re-enlistments will eventually drop like a rock.

The draft will return with a vengeance and out of necessity. What young man wants to voluntarily join an outfit that will force him to shower naked with males who have a sexual interest in him and just might molest him while he sleeps in his bunk?

This isn’t a game, and the military should never be used, as is now being done, for massive social re-engineering. The new Marine motto: “The Few, the Proud, the Sexually Twisted.” Good luck selling that to strong young males who would otherwise love to defend their country. What virile young man wants to serve in a military like that?

If the president and the Democrats wanted to purposely weaken and eventually destroy the United States of America, they could not have picked a more efficient strategy to make it happen.

Rarely can you point to a moment in time when a nation consigned itself to the scrap heap of history. Today, when the Senate normalized sexual perversion in the military, was that moment for the United States. If historians want a fixed marker pointing to the instant the United States sealed its own demise, they just found it.

Family Research Council:

Family Research Council President Tony Perkins issued the following statement following the vote:

"Today is a tragic day for our armed forces. The American military exists for only one purpose - to fight and win wars. Yet it has now been hijacked and turned into a tool for imposing on the country a radical social agenda. This may advance the cause of reshaping social attitudes regarding human sexuality, but it will only do harm to the military's ability to fulfill its mission.

"It is shameful that the Democratic leadership, aided by Republican Senators, has forced through such a radical change in a lame-duck session of Congress. The 1993 law which is to be repealed was adopted only after months of debate and at least a dozen Congressional hearings. The repeal has been forced through only eighteen days after the Pentagon released a massive report, which raised more questions than it answered on the impact the overturning of this policy will have on our nation's military.

"It is clear why this was done: not to enhance the military's ability to accomplish its mission or to enhance national security. Rather, it is a political payoff to a tiny, but loud and wealthy, part of the Democratic base. They knew that the Congress elected last month would never adopt such legislation - certainly not without a more thoughtful and deliberative process.

"We thank Senators John McCain, James Inhofe, Jeff Sessions and Jim DeMint, as well as all of those who voted to support our troops over advancing a liberal social agenda. These senators fought hard for our men and women in uniform, and their efforts will not be forgotten."

Peter LaBarbera:

Peter LaBarbera, president of Americans For Truth About Homosexuality, which opposes the “gay” activist agenda, said today’s vote, potentially clearing the way for repealing the military ban, is the most important homosexuality-related congressional vote ever held: “If the lame-duck Congress succeeds in ‘gaying down’ our military this weekend, it will take a disastrous leap toward “mainstreaming” deviant, sinful homosexual conduct – not just in the military but in larger society — thus further propelling America’s moral downward spiral.

...

Americans are tired of religious phoneys like [Sen. Joseph] Lieberman – politicians who use their religion as a PR prop while actively undermining its moral dictates. Claiming to be an “observant” Jew, Lieberman wears his religion on his sleeve (perhaps he will walk, not drive, on the Jewish Sabbath Day today to cast his pro-homosexuality vote!). Stealing the moral authority of “civil rights” is the only way Lieberman can rationalize his role as a crusader for the ‘Gay’ Lobby on Capitol Hill — when His religion, a form of Orthodox Judaism, condemns homosexual acts as an “abomination”

...

Said Brian Camenker, founder of the pro-family group Mass Resistance, who attends an Orthodox synagogue in the Boston area:

“Sen. Joseph Lieberman, who has the incredible chutzpah to call himself an Orthodox Jew, will desecrate the holy Sabbath to go to work – the U.S. Senate – and vote to force the integration of homosexuality into the U.S. military. He is a shameful disgrace and an embarrassment to Orthodox Jews everywhere.”

Freedom Federation:

Mathew Staver, on behalf the Freedom Federation, made the following statement in response to the Senate’s vote to repeal Section 654, Title 10, U.S.C. (1993), which is usually mislabeled by the subsequent Executive policy known as “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (DADT): "Our armed forces should take heart, because the American people will not turn its back on you. This vote happened because opportunistic Senators – only days before Christmas – put political interest groups above supporting our men and women in uniform."

Staver continued, "This action will be overturned in the next Congress because it breaks the bond of trust that must exist between the military and those who command in the Pentagon and Congress. Today’s vote will prove as costly to its proponents as ObamaCare was to its advocates. We promise a full mobilization of faith-based and policy organizations, veterans, and military families in the states of every Senator who voted for repeal of DADT against the advice of our service chiefs and during a time of war. Those Senators – and the Pentagon leaders responsible for this breach of trust – should understand that they will be the object of concerted political action against them."

MassResistance:

The U.S. military took its first step on the sexual slippery slope when it admitted women to the military academies in the mid-1970s. Later, women began serving on the frontlines (just one way Bill Clinton ensured the decline of our once proud military and kowtowed to the radical feminists). The denial of reality—that there was no new element of sexual tension acting as a distraction from discipline—began then.

The incorporation of women at least involved normal sexuality. And if a woman became pregnant, she would be discharged. Still, enormous damage has been done.

Now, with the repeal of the ban on homosexuals serving openly, we will see increased tensions, this time with an unnatural and perverted sexuality endangering discipline—and it will be more pervasive in the daily life of a soldier. Where men and women are at least segregated in their housing, bathrooms, etc., this will not be the case with homosexuals.

What a betrayal by our new Senator Brown to vote for the repeal of this important element of discipline. But then, he probably doesn’t have a problem showering no matter who is ogling him:

 Gordon Klingenschmitt:

"A chaplain friend of mine asked God this week, 'why do you allow evil to grow in America, and open homosexuality to be forced upon our military?' To which God answered him from Psalm 92:7: 'When the wicked spring as the grass, and when all the workers of iniquity do flourish; it is so that they shall be destroyed forever.'

"Homosexual sin will always be a stench in the nostrils of Almighty God, an abomination which God condemns and shall punish with everlasting destruction. Even if the Senate had voted 100 to 0 to legalize sin, they could not remove God from His throne of Judgment, before which every knee shall bow, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord.

"I hereby call upon the new Congress to never certify that the military is ready to implement repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell, and instead pass strong laws protecting the rights of Christian troops (especially chaplains) to openly speak their opinions about what the Bible calls sin, to refuse common showers, sleeping quarters and 'social re-education' without repercussion, guaranteeing religious freedom even outside of chapel services. If free speech and free religion rights of Christian chaplains and troops are not protected, then the military is not ready to certify or implement repeal, and will quickly begin to persecute good people of Christian conscience.

"I also hereby invite my own network of up to 125,000 patriot pastors across America, to whom I have, and shall again fax free voter guides before the November 2012 election, to mobilize Church voters to throw out these 25 pro-homosexual Senators up for re-election in 2 years: Snowe (R-ME), Scott Brown (R-MA), Ensign (R-NV), James Webb (D-VA), Nelson (D-NE), Nelson (D-FL), McCaskill (D-MO), Tester (D-MT), Conrad (D-ND), Sherrod Brown (D-OH), Casey (D-PA), Feinstein (D-CA), Carper (D-DE), Akaka (D-HI), Cardin (D-MD), Stabenow (D-MI), Klobuchar (D-MI), Menendez (D-NJ), Bingaman (D-NM), Gillibrand (D-NY), Whitehouse (D-RI), Cantwell (D-WA), Kohl (D-WI), Lieberman (I-CT), Sanders (I-VT)."

Alliance Defense Fund:

The conservative legal group, Alliance Defense Fund, issued a statement after the vote saying "The Senate's cave-in to pressure from activists to impose homosexual behavior on our military will place our troops' religious liberties in unprecedented jeopardy. Indeed, the first official casualty of this hurried vote may well be the religious freedom of chaplains and Service members." ADF Litigation Counsel, Daniel Blomberg, went on to say " no Americans, and especially not our troops, should be forced to abandon their religious beliefs."

The ADF says it stands ready to defend Service members if they are ever unconstitutionally required to choose between "serving their country or obeying their God as a result of this damaging policy decision."

E.W. Jackson:

The unintended consequences on the military are staggering. Does this include transgender and transvestite individuals? What happens if homosexuals are married in one of the states which allow same sex marriage? Will the military recognize those marriages? There are too many unanswered questions.

"What of Christians who believe that homosexuality is sin? Are they to be silenced? Subjected to discipline or discharge? Will they live in close quarters with men or women attracted to the same sex? When homosexuality is given protected status, Christians are muzzled or persecuted for their beliefs, and their First Amendment Rights are trampled. This has happened in corporations all over America. The message is 'be silent or lose your job.' In the military, you cannot merely find another job. If keeping qualified people is the priority, what about the Christians who may be forced to leave the military because the environment is hostile to their faith? The message from Gates and Mullen is, 'Get out.' The repeal of the 'Don't Ask Don't Tell' law is a disaster of historic proportions and it must be reinstated. My organization and others will to fight to make sure that happens."

Traditional Values Coalition:

The attack against our military through the repeal of the 1993 law is an organized campaign against religion, biblical morality, and military culture.

A vote to repeal is an assault against the moral foundations of our society, which is based on Judeo-Christian values. This is only part of the total war that LGBT activists are waging against our culture.

LGBT activists are doing a victory dance over conquering our U.S. military – but this is only a skirmish in a long battle to homosexualize our entire culture. I expect to see an effort down the road to include "transgenders" in the military. That should be an interesting debate.

In addition, LGBT activists are now turning their guns on passage of the Employment Nondiscrimination Act (ENDA), which will be a disaster for businesses, charitable groups and Christian organizations. Schools will be forced to hire transgender teachers. They'll also be pushing for repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).

One of the new big guns in the LGBT artillery is called Equality Matters, which is a spin-off of the disreputable group known as Media Matters, run by gay activist David Brock. Guess who will be running Equality Matters? Why none other than Richard Socarides, a Fox News contributor and former gay senior advisor on domestic policy for President Clinton.

Equality Matters just launched its web page today and will be a major force in attacking traditional values in the years ahead.

Media Matters is a George Soros front organization designed to smear conservative journalists and to funnel misinformation into the so-called mainstream media. This Soros front currently has a $13 million yearly budget to assault Fox News and other credible news outlets.

All is not lost, however. With Republicans controlling the House in January, it is likely that conservatives will be successful in holding back at least some of the LGBT objectives until we can change Presidents in 2012. If we can elect a strong conservative, we might be able to reverse many of the current victories achieved by Obama and his LGBT friends.

Christian Anti-Defamation Commission:

After a long and difficult fight, the struggle for maintaining the military policy of “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” was lost for now. There are some hard truths for those who uphold traditional biblical morality to face. Being able to admit we have a problem is the first step towards making the changes we need to reverse this and other gains made by sexual anarchists and secularists.

The last thing we need to do is surrender biblical moral standards to sexual libertines, as if God’s holy nature has somehow changed with public opinion polls.

Homosexual behavior is intrinsically sinful and we cannot renegotiate God’s moral law. No apologies are necessary for agreeing with Jesus, the Apostles, the Law and the Prophets. History, science, scripture and eternity concur.

Homosexual sin, like every other kind of sin, always results in some kind of death. But sexual sin in general, and homosexual sin in particular, is singled out in the Old and New Testament as particularly deadly. Because of this, the unrepentant person trapped in homosexuality, just like all other sinners, is to be pitied and the object of our compassion.

Spiritually, they are dead to God’s mercy and transforming grace in Christ. Sadly, it was unrepentant homosexual Ellen DeGeneres who emceed the Christmas in Washington TV Show this year with President Obama and family smiling as they blindly celebrated the birth of the Savior. They never saw the incongruence of it all.

...

Ultimately, we must resolve that Providence has ordained the repeal of “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” for now. It could not have happened if God had willed otherwise. But why?

In times like these when our nation defies the moral law of the living God, we must ask, “Is God hardening our heart like he did the defiant Pharaoh?” God did it to show His mighty power in the outpouring of ten plagues on the gods of Egypt and by destroying Pharaoh and his army.

Is God letting America ripen in her rebellion before He wields the mighty sickle of His wrath? It’s worth considering as our nation’s military now serves under a shameful, pink flag.

In the meantime Christian, humbly pray, boldly preach and persevere by the power of the Holy Spirit knowing that God is not mocked and one day His righteousness will prevail.

Richard Land:

"This is a very, very sad day for America," Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, told Baptist Press. "It is an honor and a privilege, not a right, to serve in our nation's military. There are multitudes of reasons why the military is the most respected national institution in American life. I have heard from privates and seamen all the way through generals and admirals that this will cause significant numbers of people to resign from the military -- in the middle of two wars."

...

"The reality is that in America today, an all-volunteer military is significantly disproportionately from red-state America," Land said. "And the resignations from the military will be disproportionately from red-state America. So, quite rapidly the military will go from an organization in which homosexuals are underrepresented in ratio to a percentage of the population to an institution where they are overrepresented, which will only accelerate the rate of resignation. Legislators who voted for this disproportionately never served in the military. The opposition was led by legislators who have served."

Concerned Women for America:

"Instead of answering questions about the rights of homosexuals in this country, rescinding DADT only serves to further muddy the waters. Will Christian chaplains be forced out of the military if they don't accept the repeal? Will homosexual partners receive preference over heterosexual families for military family housing? These are just the first of many questions surrounding implementation of this impending law, not to mention how it could severely affect our military personnel. We hoped our Congress would focus on the needs of the military and the protection of the country rather than force through this social engineering experiment during the lame duck Congress on the weekend before Christmas.

"For the social conservatives of this country, a good majority of whom voted in this new Congress, the fight over homosexual rights does not end at DADT. In no way does this repeal usher in an acceptance of same-sex marriage. Voters in 31 out of 31 states have voted to protect marriage as between one man and one woman, including supposedly liberal states such as Maine, Michigan, Oregon and California (twice). In Iowa this past election, three Supreme Court justices were voted out of office for legalizing same-sex marriage over the heads of the voters. When voters are fully informed, they reject the extreme homosexual rights agenda."

Meet Tim Griffin: Karl Rove’s Man in Congress

Following last Tuesday's election, RWW will bring you our list of the "The Ten Scariest Republicans Heading to Congress." Our fifth candidate profile is on Tim Griffin of Arkansas:

Running in an open Democratic district, Tim Griffin defeated progressive champion Joyce Elliott to win the election to represent Arkansas’s 2nd Congressional District.

Tim Griffin worked in the two Bush presidential campaigns and McCain’s 2008 campaign as the Republicans’ chief opposition researcher. In 2000, he said with regards to his opposition research department: “We think of ourselves as the creators of the ammunition in a war…. We make the bullets.” Conservative columnist Robert Novak called Griffin “a protégé of Karl Rove, who is a leading practitioner of opposition research — the digging up of derogatory information about political opponents.”

He received notoriety in 2004 for his work to advance the false smears propagated by the discredited group Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.

Griffin next came to light when President Bush appointed him U.S. Attorney as part of his ongoing efforts to politicize the Department of Justice. “In December 2006, US Attorney Bud Cummings was fired from his district in Northeast Arkansas and replaced with Tim Griffin,” writes investigative journalist Shannyn Moore, as the Bush Administration used a little known provision of the USA Patriot Act to avoid confirmation hearings and votes by the US Senate. Deputy Attorney General Paul McNaulty later testified that “Cummings was fired to make a place for Griffin at the urging of Karl Rove and Harriet Miers,” the former White House Counsel. Kyle Sampson, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales’s Chief of Staff, wrote in an email that “getting him appointed was important to Harriet, Karl, etc.”

Paul Charlton, who was also ousted in the Bush Administration’s Purge of US Attorneys, said that Griffin “spread the rumors around the White House that Bud Cummins was not a good U.S. attorney” in order to get him fired. Another U.S. Attorney who was pushed out during the purge, David Iglesias, maintains that Tim Griffin “never should have been U.S. Attorney, he was fundamentally unqualified.”

When defending Griffin’s nomination, the Bush Administration used “misleading talking points” which significantly exaggerated his experience as a prosecutor.

Griffin continued his deeply political work while serving as a U.S. Attorney, but was forced to resign in 2007 when he was caught in a “vote caging” operation to prevent minorities from voting. The BBC uncovered emails sent by Griffin during the 2004 campaign which included ‘caging lists’ to bar typically marginalized groups voting, and Griffin’s “caging lists were heavily weighted with minority voters including homeless individuals, students and soldiers sent overseas.”

According to Iglesias, his management of the vote caging maneuvers represents “reprehensible conduct and it may be illegal.” As a result of his disreputable background, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) rated him one of the “most corrupt” candidates for Congress.

When he was not working in the Bush Administration or for GOP campaigns, Griffin was a high-paid consultant and earned hundreds of thousands of dollars while working for “lobbying and consulting firms on shadowy causes,” including the corporate astro-turf campaign that was fighting Alaska’s Clean Water Initiative.

Throughout his congressional campaign, Griffin has closely followed the Karl Rove-playbook of appealing to both corporate interests and the Religious Right. Griffin wants to repeal health care reform and once supported the elimination of corporate taxes in favor of a national sales tax. At a candidate forum, he even went out of his way to laud the state’s relatively low wages for workers and anti-union laws.

An opponent of equal rights and a woman’s right to choose, Griffin supports a Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage, believes that employers should be allowed to fire their employees due to their sexual orientation, and has pledged to protect the discriminatory Defense Of Marriage Act (DOMA). The fervently anti-choice group Americans United for Life Action ran ads boosting Griffin and criticizing his opponent, saying that she does not care about “the life of an innocent child.”

After a long career of dirty tricks, corporate astro-turfing, and Rovian politics, Griffin is a darling of the Republican leadership and set to become a star member of the GOP’s freshman class.

Watch this segment from the Bill Moyers Journal on Tim Griffin:

 

 

 

FRC: If Survey Says Soldiers Don't Oppose Repealing DADT, The Survey Must Be Flawed

Last week, leaked results from the Pentagon's survey revealed that most soldiers were unopposed to repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell.

So, if you are the Family Research Council, it can only mean that the survey is flawed and cannot be trusted

The Pentagon study used six instruments to collect service member views about homosexuality and the proposed repeal, the most critical aspect of the study. Those instruments include closed door town hall-like meetings followed by focus groups and two confidential web-based comment sites. However, these instruments lack the scientific rigor of random sampling allegedly used by two Pentagon surveys, one for military members and another for their spouses. But those surveys are suspect.

The military member survey ignores important questions and has serious flaws.

  • It fails to ask whether the homosexual ban should be repealed and whether the respondent is homosexual.
  • It asks numerous questions about the impact perceived homosexuals have on unit performance and for a variety of undefined military concepts like readiness. The poll fails to corroborate the validity of the perceptions.
  • It presents homosexuality -- which is not defined -- as a neutral factor and privacy questions only offer accommodation answers.
  • Only one in four members randomly selected to participate in the survey actually participated.

The military spouse survey has similar flaws.

  • It fails to ask whether the homosexual ban should be repealed and the impact of open homosexuality for military children.
  • It does not address religious and moral objections to homosexuality nor define homosexuality.
  • It does not address privacy and spousal concerns about open homosexual behavior in the military community.
  • It assumes homosexual couples will receive the same benefits as married heterosexual military couples--although granting such benefits would likely violate the federal Defense of Marriage Act.

Congress should insist on receiving detailed results from these surveys, carefully scrutinize how the Pentagon uses the views collected from these six instruments, and reject any analysis based on unscientific and or biased questioning.

Barber Wants Obama Investigated for "High Crimes and Misdemeanors"

There are few Religious Right activists who can match Liberty Counsel's Matt Barber in terms of anti-gay animosity, so I guess it should come as no surprise that he wants to see President Obama impeached ... for extending leave to domestic partners: 

In the opinion of Liberty Counsel's Matt Barber, Obama's order to change the 1997 Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) to include a 24-hour "leave without pay" benefit to domestic partners represents another abuse of power.

"He has, via unconstitutional executive fiat, unilaterally and arbitrarily disregarded the federal Defense of Marriage Act, known as DOMA, which states that the federal government only recognizes legitimate marriage as between one man and one woman," Barber contends.

But he is hopeful the voting public will send a message to the president.

"After November 2, it's my hope that some gutsy legislators in Congress will begin to look at this and other legally dubious actions by this president to determine if we may have high crimes and misdemeanors here on the part of this despotic man," the Liberty Counsel attorney adds.

Liberty Counsel Panics That Conservative Hostility to Gay Marriage Is Waning

The Liberty Counsel is "totally APPALLED that certain conservative leaders are backing down in their defense of marriage while making major concessions to the views of the pro-homosexual community."

Obviously, "certain conservative leaders" means "Glenn Beck, Ann Coulter, and others who waffle to take a strong public stand for the protection of marriage," which is why LC has started a petition demanding that conservatives: 

1. Express support for a Federal Marriage Amendment that defines marriage as being "a union between one man and one woman."

2. Demand that conservative party chairmen - and other conservative congressional, gubernatorial, and party leaders - make the protection of marriage a key part of their policy positions.

LC's goal is to get 100,000 signatures over the next 30 days "so that we can present these petitions directly to nationally recognized leaders, especially those who are caving in to pressure from pro-homosexual activists."

Here is the petition:

As an American who recognizes the crucial importance of the sanctity of marriage to the welfare of any culture, I am appalled by conservative leaders who are waffling in support of the definition of marriage as being "a union between one man and one woman." I am also outraged by President Obama's outspoken intent to repeal the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), and by activist judges disregarding the clearly expressed will of the majority of the people by striking down states' pro-marriage initiatives. I am deeply concerned that pro-homosexual activism is undermining the very foundations of our culture.

I believe that events in California, Massachusetts, and other states have signaled the beginning of an avalanche of judicial challenges against marriage in our country, and I am therefore asking you to actively protect the sanctity of marriage by:

1. Making the protection of marriage a key issue in your party's policy statements and official platform.
2. Publicly supporting a Federal Marriage Amendment stating that "marriage is a union between one man and one woman."
3. Working to preserve the federal Defense of Marriage Act.

Marriage is vital to the social well-being of any nation. I urge you to use your influence to make the defense of marriage a bedrock issue in your party's platform and campaigns. My position on the definition of marriage being "between one man and one woman" is completely non-negotiable!

Right Wing Leftovers

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

FRC's Call2Fall Hopes to Prevent God From Destroying America Due To Our "Sexual Immorality and Perversion"

It really is remarkable how the Family Research Council is slowly transitioning from a political group with a religious agenda to a religious group with a political agenda.

Case in point: this weekend's second annual Call2Fall event through which FRC seeks to lead churches across the nation on a "journey back to God, to His forgiveness and favor, [which] begins on our knees in humility and repentant prayer."

As we noted before, FRC is even providing participants and leaders with suggested sermons and prayer targets - targets that just happen to coincide with FRC's right-wing political agenda, warning that the Obama administration's embrace of the LBGT community's "immoral social agenda" is a "threat to us all" because it will cause God to unleash his wrath upon our nation: 

Immoral Social Agenda -- June was declared by our President to be "Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgendered Equality Month." At a White House party for homosexual activists, the President recounted his pro-homosexual record and promised a host of new benefits, rights and special protections for the LGBT community. But this privileged new class, whose members are identified by their bizarre sexual practices, presents many threats to society: threats to public health, public morals, the wellbeing of children, threats to religious liberty and, indeed, to themselves. Our Creator condemns their practices as "abominable" and morally reprehensible (see Lev 18:30). Historically, many American states have had laws against homosexual behavior, yet now it is celebrated in the White House. Scripture warns that those who practice and those who approve these things are objects of God's wrath (Rom 1:32). Scripture warns that these practices will cause the very land to "vomit out its inhabitants" (Lev 18:25). Thus, public approval is a threat to us all.

The President's commitment to implement the LGBT agenda (e.g., the so-called "Hate Crimes" law, the proposals to repeal both the military's policy of prohibiting homosexuals from serving and the "Defense of Marriage Act," the pro-homosexual "Employment Non-Discrimination Act," and other measures) has far-reaching implications for America. God reminds us in the New Testament that "by turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to ashes he condemned them to extinction, making them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly" (2 Pet 2:6); and "In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire " (Jude 7).

FRC also warns that Christians need to fall on their knees and repent the nation's slide into "economic tyranny" and for our "corporate guilt" including "America's recent treatment of Israel, widespread abortion, the subjection of our children to immoral 'sex education,' pornography, promiscuity, divorce, same-sex 'marriage,' violent entertainment, and more" ... and has produced a handy "Catalogue of Sins" [PDF] for which individuals, families, churches, and state should repent.

And thus, the need for nationwide prayer and repentence:

Pray that God will use Call2Fall to birth a new spirit of prayer and repentance in churches across America. May He help pastors to lead their churches in repentant prayer! May a new season of prayer and solemn assembly that move God's heart begin across our nation! May God send revival to His Church and another Great Awakening to America! May our children inherit a land where Christ is honored as Savior and Lord. May America yet become a "city on a hill" to the nations.

I'd like to point out that the man running the show over at FRC and leading this Call2Fall effort, Tony Perkins, was a witness for the Republicans in Elena Kagan's confirmation hearing just yesterday.

Brody Gets Company As Right Freaks Over Obama Recognizing "Two Fathers"

You know, if David Brody had just waited a few hours, he would have actually had a few instances of Religious Right leaders voicing their outrage over the White House Father's Day proclamation that he could cite instead of having to pass off his own outrage as analysis.

For instance, Peter LaBarbera:

Americans For Truth About Homosexuality (AFTAH) President Peter LaBarbera today condemned President Barack Obama for “gaying down” the noble institution of fatherhood by extolling “nurturing families” with “two fathers” in his Father’s Day proclamation yesterday.

Obama is the most pro-homosexual-agenda president in American history, and is currently working to subvert both the legal ban on open homosexuals serving in the military, and the Defense of Marriage Act, which affirms traditional marriage in federal law ... [E]ven if two homosexual men keep their disordered relationship “faithful,” homosexual parenting would not be worthy of celebration, LaBarbera said: “It is wrong to force children into a situation where they have two men modeling immoral behavior — condemned by God and all major religions — as the most important role models in their lives.”

“Gay parenting is a selfish social experiment whose long-term effect on children has not yet been determined — biased homosexual-authored studies notwithstanding,” he said. “We know that dad-and-mom-led homes are the best for children. That is the timeless brand of fatherhood that Obama should be promoting.”

And Tim Wildmon:

"This is the first time in our nation's history that a president has used Father's Day as an excuse to promote the radical homosexual agenda and completely redefine the word 'family,'" said AFA president Tim Wildmon. "Virtually all Americans have the common sense to recognize that children need both a mother and a father. Rudimentary biology tells us it's impossible for a child to have two fathers. But here we have the leader of our nation and the Democrat Party celebrating sexual behavior which is contrary to nature and pushing a household structure that we know is harmful to children. This is a sad day for the American family.

Added Wildmon, "This again shows how out-of-step the president is with most Americans. Same-sex parenting is not in any way the moral or functional equivalent of the parenting done by a mom and a dad. Yet our President is so committed to normalizing homosexual conduct that he is putting the twisted sexual desires of adults ahead of the needs of children.

Cindy Jacobs' Prayer Warriors Target Prop 8 Case

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Norquist Assailed For Supporting Gay Conservative Group

Every Wednesday, anti-tax activist Grover Norquist hosts a meeting where a hundred or more right-wing activists gather for an off-the-record strategy session

There is no official list of who is in attendance, but it is probably safe to assume that representatives of groups like Focus on the Family and the Family Research Council regularly participate. 

Earlier this week Norquist has signed on with GOProud, the conservative gay group, which has been met with much dismay from Focus on the Family:

I was so disappointed to learn that Grover Norquist, the president of the conservative and influential Americans for Tax Reform, had joined the board of GOProud, a political advocacy group of “gay conservatives and their allies.”

Grover’s move to join the ranks of those who perpetuate the gay agenda, which has in its crosshairs the destruction of marriage, is as dishonoring to the movement he claims, as it is disheartening.

Historically, conservatism has been built on a 3-legged stool of traditional social values, economic conservatism, and a strong national defense. So when Grover said that he “shares GOProud’s commitment to ‘core’ conservative values,” he’s obviously leaving out a key component that many in his cause hold dear ... Grover’s decision to uphold one leg of the conservative stool while simultaneously working to destroy another is not doing his fellow conservatives any favors, and in the end may leave the movement he loves with one less leg to stand on. What’s that saying about a house divided against itself?

And the Family Research Council is equally outraged at the betrayal

I was somewhat surprised to see that Americans for Tax Reform's president, Grover Norquist, has decided to join the Advisory Council of the homosexual group GOProud. Grover is usually a masterful Republican strategist and coalition builder -- but in this case, he seems prepared to compromise a unified conservative movement in order to appease a tiny minority of the overall population. GOProud is not a conservative organization that happens to be gay. It's a homosexual organization that's marginally conservative. GOProud's own website explains just how radical its priorities are. This is a group that opposes the death tax and ObamaCare -- not because they aren't sound economic policies -- but because they "discriminate" against "gay families."

And the platform doesn't end there. One of the group's top 10 "principles" is to create "enterprise zones" for homosexuals, despite the fact that the average income for gays and lesbians is higher than most everyone else. At least two other of its "principles" call for the overturning of the Defense of Marriage Act. Among their other priorities: allowing homosexuals to serve openly in the military and defeating any attempt to protect one-man, one-woman marriage. They even ran ads criticizing President Obama for not doing enough for the homosexual community!

Grover is famous for saying he'll work with anyone who agrees with him "80 percent of the time." But it's been the social issues that he seems willing to sacrifice. His belief that we can have fiscal stability without moral decency is doomed to failure and only drives a deep wedge in a movement that was unified to bring change to Washington this fall.

It is probably safe to assume that next week's Wednesday meeting is going to be a little more tense than normal. 

Barber: "Solicitor Kagan, Do You Identify as a Lesbian?"

When Elena Kagan was first nominated to the Supreme Court, the hard-line anti-gay activists on the Right immediately demanded to know if she was gay on the grounds that gays are immoral, biased, and all around unfit for the court.

But then Politico reported that Kagan was not gay and the Religious Right demands died down ... until today, when Matt Barber returned to the subject in a column for WorldNetDaily:

Media, here's your question: "Solicitor Kagan, do you identify as a lesbian?" Ms. Kagan, your answer is simpler still: "Yes" or "no."

Pipe down, lefties. Yes, it is relevant. Most liberals would disagree, but despite "progressive" protestations to the contrary, character does, in fact, matter. A majority of Americans still consider sexual morality – or a lack thereof – a pertinent factor in contemplating one's fitness for any public service – chiefly, perhaps, a lifetime appointment to our most supreme earthly court.

Every major world religion, thousands of years of history and uncompromising human biology have established that homosexual conduct is among other volitional behaviors rightly filed under "sexual immorality." Indeed, the majority of folks around the world – billions, actually – count this a timeless truth.

But the controversial nature of homosexuality is but one point of concern. Another involves potential conflicts of interest, "real or perceived." If we had a judicial nominee – widely believed a compulsive gambler – tapped to preside over gambling cases, would it not matter? If we had a nominee credibly rumored to use medical marijuana who might someday rule on the legality of medical marijuana, wouldn't such information be germane?

And before you liberals throw out that favorite red herring: "By this logic, Clarence Thomas shouldn't rule on cases involving race or sexuality because he's a black heterosexual male" – remember: skin color is a neutral, immutable characteristic. Being black is what someone is.

On the other hand, being "gay" is what someone does. It involves feelings and changeable behaviors. Homosexual conduct is more akin to the aforementioned gambling or pot smoking behaviors than it is to skin color (and for those in the lifestyle, especially men, sodomy most definitely involves rolling the dice). To compare "black" or "heterosexual" to "gay" is to compare apples to oranges. Understandably, many African Americans find this disingenuous comparison tremendously offensive.

Moreover, "heterosexual" is the state of sexual normalcy. It's our God-given design. There remains no credible or replicated scientific evidence to the contrary. Homosexual conduct is but one of many sexually deviant behaviors. Even Darwin's theory of evolution, which imagines "survival of the fittest," would seem to bolster this self-evident truth. You can choose political correctness. I choose moral and biological correctness.

Still, Kagan's "sexual orientation" remains the pink elephant in the room: Can a sitting justice, potentially engaged in the homosexual lifestyle, be trusted to rule on cases that might well grant special preferred government status to some – including that very justice – while, at the same time, eliminating certain free-speech and religious-liberties rights enjoyed by others? (i.e., hate-crimes laws; the Employment Non-Discrimination Act; constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act; constitutionality of "don't ask don't tell," etc.)

Let's try my favorite thought experiment with this whereby we replace instances of the word "gay" with the word "Christian" and then imagine how the Religious Right would react if we were to write something like this:

But the controversial nature of CHRISTIANITY is but one point of concern ... Still, Kagan's "CHRISTIAN" remains the elephant in the room: Can a sitting justice, potentially engaged in the CHRISTIAN lifestyle, be trusted to rule on cases that might well grant special preferred government status to some – including that very justice – while, at the same time, eliminating the very basic rights enjoyed by others? (i.e., hate-crimes laws; the Employment Non-Discrimination Act; constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act; constitutionality of "don't ask don't tell," etc.)

I'm guessing that if liberals wrote something like that about a Christian Republican SCOTUS nominee, the Right would be outraged about this sort of blatant anti-Christian bigotry.

Syndicate content

Defense of Marriage Act Posts Archive

Brian Tashman, Tuesday 07/26/2011, 11:26am
The American Family Association’s research director and American Family Radio radio talk show host Ed Vitagliano criticized Democratic congressman and civil rights hero John Lewis for supporting marriage equality, saying that “you can only discard the traditional institution of marriage if you abandon God and abandon our Judeo Christian heritage in this country.” According to Vitagliano, Lewis was wrong to cite the civil rights movement to defend his support for equal rights for gays and lesbians: “If you want to cite God for eliminating slavery and Jim Crow laws,... MORE
Brian Tashman, Tuesday 07/26/2011, 9:10am
Rep. Tim Huelskamp (R-KS) told the American Family Association’s OneNewsNow today that the public is behind the GOP’s effort to defend the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) because “85 percent of Americans” oppose marriage equality. Discussing a Senate bill that would repeal DOMA, Huelskamp said: “Eight-five [sic] percent of Americans say, ‘We support traditional marriage,’ and the Senate does the opposite.” Polls show that the majority of Americans support equal marriage rights for gays and lesbians and believe that DOMA should be repealed.... MORE
Brian Tashman, Friday 07/22/2011, 2:58pm
On Washington Watch today, Family Research Council president Tony Perkins criticized Democratic efforts to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which discriminates against gay and lesbian couples, and accused gays and lesbians of “thrust[ing] their bedrooms into the public square.” Perkins went on to say that opponents of gay rights should be proud that they “have compassion and love for those who are bound up in that destructive lifestyle of homosexuality”: Look, we’re not in people’s bedrooms. What they have done is they have thrust their bedrooms... MORE
Coral, Wednesday 07/20/2011, 9:42am
Cross-posted on PFAW blog Senate Republicans have called Tom Minnery of Focus on the Family, David Nimocks of the Alliance Defense Fund and Ed Whelan of the Ethics and Public Policy Center as witnesses in today’s hearing on the “Defense of Marriage Act.” The groups these witnesses represent have a long record of extreme rhetoric opposing gay rights: CitizenLink, Focus on the Family’s political arm, is a stalwart opponent of gay rights in every arena: • Focus on the Family has consistently railed against the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,... MORE
Brian Tashman, Wednesday 07/13/2011, 4:20pm
The Family Research Council has been adamantly defending the clinic founded by Rep. Michele Bachmann and her husband since an undercover investigation revealed that the clinic was practicing discredited ‘ex-gay’ reparative therapy. The Religious Right group, which recently urged people to pray for countries that criminalize homosexuality, wants members to pray for anti-gay laws and clinics that offer “help for homosexuals to break free from addiction to homosexuality.” The FRC writes in its latest prayer alert: Christian Counseling under Assault – This week a... MORE
Kyle Mantyla, Wednesday 06/08/2011, 9:52am
Last year, Randall Terry hit upon the idea of running for president in order to exploit a loophole that would allow him to air graphic anti-abortion ads on television. Today, he announced that his first campaign ad would begin airing in Iowa, though it is mostly just a standard political ad: Barack Hussein Obama is the worst President in our history. He's at war with our founding principles of life and liberty. His bailout of Wall Street, and socialist agenda have enslaved our children to debt…to China. His addiction to Arab oil funds Islamic terrorists, while he leaves billions of... MORE
Brian Tashman, Friday 06/03/2011, 10:42am
Congresswoman Vicky Hartzler (R-MO) built her political career on opposing gay rights: she spearheaded the Missouri campaign to enshrine discrimination in the state constitution and since her election to Congress last November has fought to preserve the Defense of Marriage Act and block the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. Yesterday, Hartzler addressed Eagle Forum Collegians 2011 Summit in Washington on why young people should oppose marriage equality. Joined by Eagle Forum head Phyllis Schlafly, Hartzler compared gay marriage to polygamy and incest, and later argued that we... MORE