discrimination

Does Focus On The Family Stand By Its Campaign Against Anti-Bullying Initiatives?

Back in August, Focus on the Family launched “True Tolerance,” its campaign to stop schools from implementing anti-bullying plans that include protections for LGBT students. Since the start of the school year, there have now been five reported cases of teens who have committed suicide following anti-gay bullying. GLSEN has been documenting anti-gay bullying, and according to a 2009 survey, the vast majority of LGBT students reported being verbally harassed, and “40.1% reported being physically harassed and 18.8% reported being physically assaulted at school in the past year because of their sexual orientation.”

Focus on the Family, however, says that bullying isn’t the problem, anti-bullying policies are. The group’s True Tolerance campaign argues that school strategies to target bullying are really covert ways for “activists who want to promote homosexuality in kids” to “capture the hearts and minds of our children at their earliest stages.”

Candi Cushman of True Tolerance asserts that “gay activists” are “infiltrating classrooms under the cover of ‘anti-bullying’ or ‘safe schools’ initiatives.” That’s why Focus on the Family claims to be defending the “innocence and purity” of children against LGBT groups that conspire “under the cover of so-called safe-school initiatives” and use “‘Safety’… as a political arm-twisting tool to force an adult agenda into schools.”

True Tolerance goes on to suggest:

Listing certain categories creates a system ripe for reverse discrimination, sending the message that certain characteristics are more worthy of protection than others. Instead of bringing more peace and unity, this can politicize the school environment and introduce divisiveness among different groups of students and parents.

Why not emphasize instead the things we have in common as Americans? For example, we can unite around the teachings of our Founding Fathers—in particular, the principle that all men are created equal and that they are endowed with unalienable rights.

Under the calls for unity and equality, Focus on the Family turns the victims of bullying into the victimizers, claiming that the supposed discriminatory and manipulative actions of “gay activists” are the real problems in schools. After what we’ve seen in the last few weeks, maybe Focus on the Family should rethink its opposition to protecting all students from bullying.

 

LaBarbera Turns On NOM Over DADT

When the debate over the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell was going on a few weeks back, the National Organization for Marriage-affiliated "Protect Marriage: One Man, One Woman" raised a few eyebrows with a Tweet that came out in support of repealing DADT:

There is no need to prohibit gays and lesbians from openly serving in the Armed Forces. They should have the opportunity to serve.

This, of course, has outraged Peter LaBarbera, who now has NOM in his sights

I couldn’t believe this item, which we are late to report: the National Organization for Marriage (NOM), the leading pro-traditional-marriage group in the country, has come out for allowing open homosexuals in the military (see Sept. 9th NOM tweet above).

This is the latest exercise in “pro-family” political and strategic folly. For all the great work that it does, NOM is dead wrong on this one. In addition to degrading morale, cohesion and discipline in the Armed Forces, creating an officially pro-homosexual U.S. military would establish a new, federal government-enforced ”civil rights” paradigm that would be used to push the homosexual agenda on the rest of the nation. That of course includes same-sex “marriage” and punishing/”re-educating” moral opponents of homosexuality. I doubt that NOM would support tradition-minded, Christian soldiers and sailors from Small Town America being subjected to radical, pro-homosexual “diversity” lectures — but that’s what’s coming if NOM’s regrettable tweet comes to pass.

Can’t NOM see that it is undercutting its own cause (and the truth) by pandering to the ”Gay” Lobby’s goal of homosexuality as a state-backed “civil right”? Long before “gay marriage” became a major issue, “sexual orientation” laws created the legal basis for punishing moral critics of sodomy. And let’s be clear: when pro-family marriage advocates talk up “equal rights for gays and lesbians” (as the Prop 8 appeal brief does here), they are engaged in a dangerous double-game — because so many homosexual ideologues believe their “right” to be approved as a homosexual supersedes YOUR right to disagree with their lifestyle. It’s a zero-sum game between “gay rights” and religious/moral rights, as lesbian lawyer and Obama EEOC appointee Chai Feldblum puts it; of course, she thinks “gays” should win and Christians should lose in most cases. In that sense, GLBT activists like Feldblum are pro-discrimination, even as they tout ”equality.”

Our constitutional rights come ultimately from God. Homosexuality, like all sin, is against God’s will (and against Nature). Therefore, it cannot be the basis for “constitutional” rights.

LaBarbera is livid that NOM is apparently throwing anti-gay activists such as himself under the bus and accuses the group of assisting "liberals in castigating the more principled fighters against the homosexual agenda as somehow 'bigoted' and extreme" and is therefore demanding that NOM refuse to "support ANY aspect of the larger homosexual agenda even as it continues its important work protecting traditional marriage."

UPDATE: It looks like LaBarbera has removed this post,  as the original link now returns only a "page not found" message.

Repealing DADT = Denying Spiritual Comfort to Dying Soldiers

I put together this quick video featuring some of the "highlights" from the Family Research Council's anti-DADT repeal press conference, including Harry Jackson warning that "introducing sexual tension and conduct into our barracks" would create a slippery slope toward allowing adultery in the military.  Jackson also claimed that any comparison between discrimination African Americans and gays is "insulting" and a "revision of American history"; a point which was echoed by Aubrey Shines who called any such comparison "asinine." Finally, Austin Nimocks of the Alliance Defense Fund warned that "the agenda of sexual liberty and anarchy does not mix with religious freedom" and asked where you would be willing to deny those serving in the military the "spiritual counsel of their chaplain and of their God as they are looking at death":

Right Wing Round-Up

Of Love and Revolution

For all the flag-waving Tea Party placards accusing the Obama administration of unconstitutional acts and treason, it seems that threats of revolution against the constitutional republic of the United States are coming mostly from the right wing – and not just from fringe militia groups.

We recently noted that Religious Right activist Chuck Colson has launched an effort to bully the Supreme Court into opposing marriage equality by threatening that a pro-equality ruling would result in “cultural Armageddon.” And we have noted the American Family Association’s Bryan Fischer’s repeated warnings that the federal government’s “tyranny” will lead to “civil unrest.” Speakers at last year’s How To Take Back America conference suggested “Second Amendment” responses to health care reform and urged participants to buy more guns and ammunition. 

Now we see that the National Organization for Marriage, whose director Brian Brown has been claiming on his anti-equality road trip that it is an organization grounded in love, is picking up on the theme as NOM’s Maggie Gallagher writes in an op ed that "American politics are in a quasi-revolutionary phase": 

The people, symbolized first in the eruptions of Tea Parties, are rebelling against elites who believe they can ignore our voices and our values….

Rush Limbaugh had his finger on the truth. In the nearly half-hour speech he gave after the Proposition 8 ruling ("the American people are boiling over!"), Rush said that Walker "did not just slap down the will of 7 million voters. Those 7 million voters were put on trial -- a kangaroo court where everything was stacked against them. ... Those of you who voted for Prop 8 in California are guilty of hate crimes. You were thinking discrimination. That's what this judge has said! Truly unprecedented."

Yes, it is. We are entering into a new phase in the battle not only for marriage, but for self-government, for the legitimacy of the views and values of the Ameircan people.

This is a fight we cannot dodge, and must and will win.

Buckle down, it's going to be a ride!

Of course, this isn’t the first time a NOM leader has suggested possibly deploying a revolutionary response to judicial rulings recognizing marriage equality. When Mormon author Orson Scott Card joined NOM’s board last year, we and others drew attention to his own threats, which he made in writing in a Mormon newspaper:

How long before married people answer the dictators thus: Regardless of law, marriage has only one definition, and any government that attempts to change it is my mortal enemy. I will act to destroy that government and bring it down, so it can be replaced with a government that will respect and support marriage, and help me raise my children in a society where they will expect to marry in their turn….

American government cannot fight against marriage and hope to endure. If the Constitution is defined in such a way as to destroy the privileged position of marriage, it is that insane Constitution, not marriage, that will die.

We have our own question: why is it that the standard right-wing response to votes in Congress or court decisions that they don't like is to threaten revolution against the U.S.?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

...

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

FRC Again Asks MA Residents to Contact "Senator Kirk"

Does anyone at the Family Research Council actually know who the two US Senators are who represent Massachusetts? 

They are Sen. John Kerry and Sen. Scott Brown.

And the reason I ask is because for the second time in a month, FRC is asking Massachusetts residents to contact "Sen. Kirk" ... this time to "take a firm and principled stand against the Employment Non-Discrimination Act":

Does FRC really not know that Paul Kirk was just the interim Senator tapped to fill the late Ted Kennedy's seat and that he was replaced by Scott Brown earlier this year?  You'd think they would considering that they hailed Brown's election as "the culmination of thousands of townhalls, tea parties, and angry voters" a mere six months ago.

Prop 8: Engle Calls It The End of Democracy While Garlow Warns Of Bestiality

Jim Garlow, pastor of Skyline Wesleyan Church, was a key leader in the effort to pass Proposition 8 and earlier this year explained how he brought Lou Engle in to lead their prayer and fasting effort; an effort which paid off where somewhere between 4:20-4:50 pm on November 1 during TheCall rally in San Diego they felt that "something had snapped in the Heavenlies" and "we knew God had moved":

Garlow's Prop 8 success led Newt Gingrich to tap to him to head his new Renewing American Leadership organization ... and so it is not particularly surprising to see Garlow (and Engle) reacting with alarm to the court decision striking down their handiwork:

"The next court case could conceivably say that if three people wanted to marry or four people or five people or if someone wanted to marry their dog or their horse, they have a right to that because no longer do we have a right to ‘discriminate' based on equal protection," Garlow said.

Proposition 8 advocates argue that same-sex marriage is not ideal for child rearing, but they say it also has serious implications on religious freedom.

"It's a chilling moment," said TheCall founder Lou Engle, who organized a prayer rally in support of Proposition 8 in September 2008. "Democracy is crumbling, and I believe, again, we're going to see the persecution of the church. ... Across the board, religious freedom now is being trumped by gender freedom."

Garlow said in several areas where gay marriage has been legalized, Christians have lost personal and religious liberties. He points to Swedish pastor Ake Green, who was jailed after preaching that homosexuality is a sin, and to a Christian camp in Ocean Grove, N.J., that lost a discrimination lawsuit filed after it refused to allow a lesbian couple to hold a commitment ceremony at its facility.

"If we lose on this one, we lose the capacity to be able to proclaim the gospel as we know it," Garlow said.

And, as we've noted before, Garlow and Engle are planning to dust off their Prop 8 playbook heading into the 2010 midterm elections: 

The case could take years to reach the Supreme Court, but conservative observers believe Wednesday's ruling could impact the upcoming midterm election. Garlow said voters with conservative moral values "are going to rise up and say enough is enough."

He and Engle are encouraging that kind of activism through Pray & Act, an initiative calling for 40 days of prayer and fasting in the run up to Nov. 2. The effort begins Sept. 20 and ends with a webcast event at the Lincoln Memorial Oct. 30.

Garlow said he believes there is a 27-month window to "turn" the nation toward biblical values. "I'm not trying to deadline God, but my sensing is we have a short window left after which it will be too late to see America ever return to any sense of God-honoring truths," he said. "That being the case, prayer and fasting is critical."

Engle, too, is urging prayer and political activism. He believes the timing of TheCall Sacramento, being held Sept. 3-4, is strategic.

"God, in times of crisis, calls for solemn assemblies when there is no hope and there's no remedy," Engle said. "I think this is an incredible opportunity for people to gather from all over America to say: ‘God, we have no recourse ... We are coming to You for help in the time of trouble, to ask forgiveness for treating so lightly marriage in the church.'

"We [will] come together and ask God for some kind of sovereign intervention," he added. "We need to pray for a great awakening."

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.”

Engle: Universities Are Teaching Students to Accept the Mark of the Beast

On Monday, a federal judge ruled in favor of Eastern Michigan University in a case brought by the Alliance Defense Fund of behalf of a former student in the university's counseling program who was dismissed from the program after she refused to counsel a gay client. 

The student contended that her religious views prohibited her from counseling such a patient and sued the university for discrimination while the university contended that it adheres to the American Counseling Association's code of ethics which requires counselors to provide nonjudgmental assistance to patients.

The court ruled in the school's favor ... and Lou Engle see it as a dangerous precedent:

So says prayer leader Lou Engle, who worries the decision this week could set "the precedent for Christian students being expelled in universities across America who refuse to compromise biblical views on morality" ..."The federal judge is declaring that Christian kids do not have a voice to stand for a moral truth [and their] biblical convictions on the issue of homosexuality and immorality in the nation," said Engle, founder of TheCall, a prayer movement that has drawn thousands of college-age youth. "This is a profound moment."

But Engle also sees a bright side, in that this coming persecution will provide good practice for Christians in refusing to accept the Mark of the Beast:

Engle said Christian students will be forced to take a stand. "We're in the days of Daniel. ... You've got to trust that God will bring you divine promotion when you refuse to bow down to the image," he said. "To compromise for the sake of getting a grade, you're practicing to receive the mark of the beast."

"In other words, if you can't stand in this day, how are you going to stand when the real pressure heats up?" Engle continued. "We're going to find out who the real Christians are."

Right Wing Round-Up

  • PFAW Statement: Federal Judge Blocks Portions of Arizona’s SB1070.
  • Alan Colmes: Florida Church Plans “Burn A Koran Day” September 11.
  • Brian Beutler @ TPM: Sherrod Critic: She Used 'Lynching' To Gin Up Democratic Voters.
  • Towleroad: FRC Hits Holland, MI with Anti-Gay Ad Based on Discredited Pamphlet as City Considers Anti-Discrimination Ordinance.
  • The Advocate: Elisabeth Hasselbeck Cracks Lesbian Code.
  • Alvin McEwen: Court knocks down latest religious right cause célèbre.
  • Eric Boehlert: Why are RW pundits suddenly silent about NJ Gov. Christie? Or, paging Rush Limbaugh.
  • The Big Picture: Fools Gold: Inside the Glenn Beck Goldline Scheme.
  • Finally, the quote of the day from Jonathan Chait, responding to the Joe Klein quote I used as the QOTD yesterday: "My view is that Gingrich says dumb, angry things constantly and without regard to electoral ambitions. He is a dumb, angry man."

Taylor Momsen Is Destroying Society!

You know, it is not everyday that I get to write a post that includes the words "Bill Donohue" and "dildo,"  so when the opportunity presents itself, there is now way that going to pass it up the opportunity.

It seems that Donoue and others are outraged that 17 year old actress Taylor Momsen admitted to masturbating: 

Dr. Bill Donohue, President of The Catholic League, concurred.

“Our society was a much happier place when Annette Funicello pranced around as a ‘Mickey Mouse Mouseketeer,’ and now we have Taylor Momsen prancing around with a dildo in hand," he said. Looks like this gal's got lots of issues. No wonder she voiced her insanity in a magazine called Disorder.”

Dr. Scott Turansky of the National Center for Biblical Parenting echoed similar sentiments.

“Taylor Momsen is projecting a negative image that will result in failure in her life," he told FOX411.com. "Sadly, she is influencing other young women to follow in her steps. Unfortunately the fame and fortune of Miss Momsen is misleading and many of these girls will find out only too late that they're following the wrong model.”

For the life of me, I can't figure out what the sex habits of a 17 year-old girl have to do with the Catholic League's mission to defend "the right of Catholics – lay and clergy alike – to participate in American public life without defamation or discrimination" or why Donohue felt compelled to speak out on this issue. 

ACLJ: Leading The Fights For and Against Restricting Religious Freedom

Does it seem at all hypocritical to anyone else that the ACLJ is on TV screaming about the "Ground Zeo Mosque" and leading the fight against it:

NO Mosque at Ground Zero

Ground Zero. The site of the 9/11 Islamic terrorist attacks at the World Trade Center in New York. Americans know — it is sacred ground. But now, there's a real push to build an Islamic mosque at this very site — headed by Imam Rauf, who reportedly has a troubling record of support for causes tied to terrorism ... including the recent Gaza-bound flotilla that carried terrorists to attack Israel. In fact, Imam Rauf has even said that the ''United States' policies were an accessory'' to 9/11.

So the ACLJ is fighting back: We're serving as lead counsel in a critical case — representing families of those who lost loved ones in the 9/11 terrorist attacks. We need your help.

Stand with the ACLJ and send a message to New York — NO Mosque at Ground Zero. Add your name below to the Committee to STOP the Ground Zero Mosque — and join with us in demanding that New York City reject this troubling proposal.

While, at the same time, billing itself as experts on Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act:

RLUIPA is a law designed to protect religious assemblies and institutions from zoning and historic landmark laws that substantially interfere with the assemblies' and institutions' religious exercise. It also protects individuals and religious institutions, including churches, mosques, and synagogues, in their use of land and buildings for religious purposes.

And pledging to remain the leading defender of the religious freedoms protected by RLUIPA:

Churches across the nation are increasingly facing discrimination from local zoning authorities with respect to location or improvement of their facilities. Zoning Boards often want to eliminate churches from downtown and commercial areas because churches do not generate retail and tax revenue. They also attempt to restrict churches in residential areas for allegedly creating traffic and noise problems. The result has been that our nation's houses of faith have their freedom to worship where and how they choose violated by ignorant or hostile zoning officials.

...

Both before enactment of RLUIPA and since its passage, the ACLJ has been in the vanguard of defending churches from the unconstitutional application of zoning laws. The ACLJ has successfully defended both churches, and small groups of believers, against over-zealous zoning authorities. The ACLJ remains committed to the principle that the use of zoning laws to curtail the religious freedoms of churches is unconstitutional.

So the ACLJ is leading the fight against attempts to restrict where religious organizations can build their worship sites ... while also leading the fight to restrict where religious organizations can build their worship sites?  

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.

Right Wing Round-Up

  • David Weigel: Tea partyers push back against 'The Rise of the New Right' with boycott.
  • Americans United: Publicly Funded Evangelical Agency Fights For Religious Discrimination.
  • Iowa Independent: Will Vander Plaats run as an independent?
  • Sarah Posner: Lou Engle Attempts To Backpedal On Uganda Anti-Gay Bill.
  • Steve Benen: Sessions Scrapes The Bottom of the Barrel.
  • Crooks and Liars: N.C. Republican candidate: Feds and BP spilled oil on purpose.
  • County Fair: Right-wing runs with dubious claim that Obama admitted "I am a Muslim".
  • Bruce Wilson: Angle's Nevada PAC Promoted Crackpot Conspiracy Theories Attacking Gays, Atheists.

AFA's Fischer Suddenly Discovers The Importance of The Separation of Church and State

The AFA's Bryan Fischer has made no secret of the fact that he does not like Muslims because, as he says, "devout Muslims simply cannot become good Americans."

Interestingly, Fischer's unrelenting hatred of Islam seems to suddenly be making him see the value of separation of church and state. In his latest post, he offers his comments on a WorldNetDaily article about a group of Muslims in Kansas who are requesting that city officials set apart a section of a city-owned cemetery strictly for Muslim use .. and Fischer is outraged by the idea that a religious group wants public officials to sanction their specific religious demands to the exclusion of others (Fischer's comments are in bold): 

A coalition of Muslim leaders in Garden City, Kan., has told city officials they want part of the public municipal cemetery to be set aside – with a fence or other marker – to be reserved for their use exclusively.

The key word here is "exclusively." Non-Muslims not allowed. In other words, they want city officials to participate in a blatant exercise in religious discrimination. You will note that they are aiming for sanctified property in a public cemetery, thus gaining official government recognition of Sharia law. Worrisome? Not unless you realize that Muslims will not be content to stop here. Their goal is to take over every cemetery in America and run them according to the dictates of Islam. Those who think this is hyperbolic exaggeration haven't been paying attention. The Muslim Brotherhood has made it quite plain that the goal is ultimate domination by Islam of every public institution in America. The time to stop the takeover is now.

Jim Hahn, the city's cemetery caretaker, said there used to be a number of divisions – for Catholics, Protestants and others – in the city facility, but those divisions have been removed.

"We try to accommodate everyone as best we can, and we're trying to get away from sectioning off sections of the cemetery to specific people," he told the newspaper. "The way I look at it, being a municipal cemetery, you want to stay as neutral as possible. There are a lot of different religions out there, and we try to accommodate them as best we can while fitting in with our rules and regulations."

Notice here the fundamental incompatibility of Islam with Western values, and with our national slogan, "E Pluribus Unum." While the city is moving in the direction of erasing religious distinctions in the cemetery, Muslims want to reinstitute them. They want to Balkanize American society. They want to go back to the days of segregation, which would represent a huge step backward for American society. If they are successful here, this will be but a beachhead for further and more aggressive attempts to impose Muslim concepts on compliant but misguided public officials.

But Mohamad Abdulkadir, a leader of the Somalians, told the newspaper two members of his ethnic community died in recent months and were taken to a Muslim cemetery in Wichita.

"If they deny our request, maybe we can buy some land, but we're waiting to see what (city officials) say," he told the paper.

This of course is their solution. If they want their own Muslim burial grounds in a Christian nation, then nobody is stopping them from buying a piece of property and turning it into the cemetery of their choice. What they should not expect is official governmental sanction for Sharia law.

This is qute a change from Fischer's speech last year at the Values Voter Summit when he declared that only Congress was restrained by the First Amendment's ban on the establishment of religion and that it was "constitutionally impossible ... for a city council ... to violate the First Amendment."

But that apparently only applies so long as the religion is question if Christianity.  If the religion seeking a form of establishment and sanction from elected officials is Islam, then it is an absolute outrage. 

Religious Right Launches Citizens Against Religious Bigotry To Target Comedy Central

A few weeks ago, Comedy Central announced that it had a new program in development called "JC" that is about Jesus Christ who moves to New York to "escape his father's enormous shadow."

In response, a collection of Religious Right leaders have banded together to form Citizens Against Religious Bigotry and urge advertisers not to support the program

Citizens Against Religious Bigotry will unveil a campaign Thursday to protest Comedy Central’s new animated show about Jesus Christ called “JC.” The coalition of Jewish and Christian leaders are urging advertisers to boycott the show, based on Comedy Central programs, such as South Park, which have mocked or disparaged Christ and other religious leaders.

“After we reveal the vile and offensive nature of Comedy Central’s previous characterizations of Jesus Christ and God the Father, we expect these advertisers to agree wholeheartedly to end their advertising on Comedy Central and discontinue their support for unabashed, anti-Christian discrimination,” said Brent Bozell, president of Media Research Center and founding member of Citizens Against Religious Bigotry.

Bowell said his group will publicize advertisers who agree to boycott the Comedy Central show and those who refuse.

Bozell will be joined at a Thursday press conference to protest the show by Tony Perkins, Family Research Council president; Michael Medved, syndicated talk radio host; Bill Donohue, Catholic League president; Tim Winter, Parents Television Council president; and Rabbi Daniel Lapin, The American Alliance of Jews and Christians president.

The group is sending a letter to potential advertisers, giving them two weeks to report on whether they will agree to boycott the program, warning that failure to respond will mean they support religious bigotry: 

As a sponsor, you have the power to act upon your corporate values and send a clear message to Viacom and its channels that this type of blasphemous programming has no place in our homes. It cannot be an effective use of sponsorship dollars to underwrite content that is certain to offend and alienate viewers. And of course, the damage to our children is virtually immeasurable. No sponsor could possibly say they would be proud to be associated with such insensitive material.

...

We are reaching out to you and other leading television sponsors, and we ask you now to agree with us and respond. We must hear from you in the next two weeks, so time is of the essence. On June 17 our coalition of like-minded organizations will hold a national press conference where we will identify which sponsors have responded to this effort and have agreed not to sponsor Comedy Central.

If you fail to respond to this letter before that time we will assume that your company is open to sponsoring the kind of religious bigotry on display by Comedy Central. We look forward to hearing from you directly.

Lively: Repealing DADT Will Outrage Muslims and Lead To More Terrorism

It is remarkable to watch right-wing commentators desperately trying to come up with new and convincing reasons why Don't Ask, Don't Tell should remain in place.  

In the last few days, we've seen the Family Research Council's Peter Sprigg claims that it'll lead to widespread gay rape, while his colleague, FRC President Tony Perkins claims that it'll destroy the religious freedom of military chaplains.

At the same time, Cliff Kincaid’s America’s Survival has been warning that our soldiers will be destroyed by "disease-tainted gay blood" ... and he is now being outdone by Scott Lively, who has set out his own list of reasons, including his standard "the Nazis were gay" claims, along with warnings about the reinstatement of the draft, the ultimate takeover of the military by gays, and that we are endangering the lives of all Americans by outraging Muslims:

Once homosexuals are invited to serve, the authorities will be committed to integrate them into the ranks, which means “sensitivity” training, anti-discrimination policies, and all of the other “politically correct” nonsense that has been such a disaster in the other spheres of our society. These policies have smacked of pro-“gay” fascism in the civilian world; how much worse would it be in the rigidly-controlled environment of the military?

A sizable percentage of men would not willingly subject themselves to such an environment. So, ironically, reinstatement of the draft would be made necessary by “homophobia,” and for that reason the anti-war Lefties would suddenly become defenders of compulsory service.

...

Most people don’t realize that male homosexuality does not always lean to the effeminate. Historically, male homosexuality was much more often associated with hyper-masculine warrior societies which were usually very brutal and very politically aggressive. The most recent example was in Germany. Hitler’s initial power base when he launched the Nazi Party was a private homosexual military force organized and trained by a notorious pederast named Gerhard Rossbach. Rossbach’s homosexual partner Ernst Roehm, who was also Hitler’s partner in forming and building the Nazi Party, converted the “gay” Rossbachbund into the dreaded SA Brownshirts.

...

Next would come a severe drop in enlistments and re-enlistments, triggering the reinstatement of the draft. This would in turn begin a degeneration of the moral and ethical culture of the services as those with the highest personal values would be most likely to leave, being replaced, in many cases, by men whose motivation is to share a male-dominated environment with others of similar sexual proclivities.

...

Lastly, and perhaps most serious is the loss of our moral authority around the world, especially in the Moslem countries. Until now, we have relied upon the partnership of moderate Moslems in our campaign to marginalize the extremists who already call us The Great Satan for our moral ambiguities. Yet how quickly will we lose the popular support of these people and governments when they know that the soldiers we are sending for “nation-building” on Moslem soil are overt, practicing homosexuals? We are handing the extremists an entirely new and powerful recruiting tool, and undermining the goodwill of every socially conservative nation on the planet, culminating in a net increase of danger for our troops and decrease of respect for our way of life.

Backwell: Paul a Victim of a "High Tech Lynching"

Ken Blackwell has come running to Rand Paul's defense, desperately trying to explain away Paul's post-primary claims that he didn't support the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the idea of the government combating discrimination in private enterprises in general.

Or at least that seems to be Blackwell's goal, though it is hard to say as his "defense" is utterly incoherent:

[Rand Paul] a grilling from one end of the chattering class to the other about his supposed opposition to the great Civil Rights Act of 1964. It is a fact that he stumbled in some of his answers to questions about individual titles of that act. Dr. Paul was not alive when the act was debated in front of the whole country in 1964. He needs to bone up on his history.

But the high tech lynching that is taking place now is of a piece with what the liberal media put Clarence Thomas through in 1991. Because Judge Thomas is an original construction jurist, he was seen as a threat by liberal activists. Because Justice Thomas is black, he is vilified by leftists who believe that all minorities must support their left wing causes.

I have literally no idea what that is supposed to mean ... and it only gets worse, as this is the best "defense" of Paul that Blackwell was able to come up with:

Dr. Paul is an opthalmologist. He is expert on astigmatism. What we can clearly see is the moral astigmatism of the left. For example: As a state senator in Illinois, Barack Obama voted not once but repeatedly against giving civil rights protection to newborns who survived abortion attempts. Many of these newborns were black. We know that the abortion license has produced a shockingly disparate impact in the black community. The rate of abortion is 3:1, black-to-white.

The Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is one of the three post-Civil War amendments (along with the Thirteenth and Fifteenth) that deserve to be regarded as a Magna Carta for black Americans. The Fourteenth Amendment says that all persons “born in the United States” are citizens of the United States and of the states in which they reside.

This clear intent of the framers did not matter to state senator Obama. He voted against his state’s version of the Born Alive Infants Protection Act. Was Obama hauled before media tribunals to explain his radical position? Not in the least. The liberal media--which views Obama as “a sort of God” (in the words of Newsweek’s Evan Thomas)--not only did not grill him on this shockingly radical position, they actively covered up his voting record.

You can see the moral astigmatism in the premises of all these liberal interrogators of Rand Paul.

Again, what relevance this is supposed to have to the statements made by Paul is utterly beyond me. As is Blackwell's conclusion that "Paul needs to learn history" simply so he can "avoid 'gotcha' journalists like Rachel Maddow" but that he doesn't need to do that by "reading most U.S. history textbooks" which take a "grim and oppressive view" of America's past.

Blackwell then claims that is was "conservative Republicans [who] joined with liberal Democrats to pass the great Civil Rights Act of 1964" (huh?) and that "the liberal media is trying to sandblast Ev Dirksen’s name from the Senate Office Building named for him" (double huh?):

We can’t let them do it. And helping Rand Paul is one way to stop the left from re-writing history.

Normally, when faced with a column full of falsehoods like this, I'd attempt to set the record straight ... but in this case, Blackwell has written a piece so fundamentally incoherent as to make any such effort absolutely impossible.

Rand Paul, The Right Wing, and the Republican Establishment

On Tuesday, Rand Paul shocked the Republican establishment by winning the GOP Senate primary in Kentucky.

On Wednesday, Paul shocked everybody by suggesting that he doesn't really like the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and thinks that the government has no business fighting discrimination in private enterprises.

Not surprisingly, Republican Senators are not particularly eager to come rushing to Paul's defense, for which they are being criticized by right-wing activists like the Family Research Council's Tom McClusky:

Where the NRSC comes back into play is in how quickly its chairman, Senator John Cornyn (R-Texas), threw Rand Paul under the bus. Instead of talking to the candidate directly, or not commenting at all until he did, the Texas Senator told Politico “I don’t know what he means by that. I support non-discrimination of people, so I would need to talk to him to see what precisely his concerns were.” Translation: “I’m not a racist, but Rand Paul might be.” Not exactly strong support for a candidate you are supposed to be supporting now that he has won his primary. It is very likely the Republicans will pick up a few Senate seats this year, and even more likely two of those seats will be candidates the NRSC did not initially support, Mr. Paul and Mr. Rubio. Despite any victories the Senate Republicans might see it will definitely be time for new leadership at the NRSC prior to the 2012 elections. In that year Senate Republicans have an even larger chance of gaining the majority – but only if they play it smarter than they have been so far.

Interestingly, Paul doesn't seem to consider himself a Republican candidate so much as he does a Tea Party candidate, telling CBN's David Brody that he has no intention of blindly supporting the GOP and is instead focused on representing and unifying the Tea Party movement so that it can change the Republican Party:

Many people can be a Tea Party candidate but I think in my case it sort of fits the bill very well. I’ve never run for office, never been elected to office and I really and part of the movement in the sense that from the very beginning I went to all their meetings and many people thought that I just had the vote from the beginning. You have to earn the Tea Party vote. I interviewed with every one of the different committees in the Tea Party and they will ask you: will you be a rubber stamp for the Republican Party and that’s not a good thing because they say sometimes the Republican Party is wrong.

...

They do need a Tea Party platform and so I say lets coalesce it into some specific things and these are things I want to run on so when the primary is over and we run in the fall I don’t want to run away from the Tea Party I want to define what the tea party is.

If you go around Kentucky every tea party is by city and sometimes by county and sometimes counties have two of them and sometimes they’re not talking so it will be a job and I’m hoping since I’ve been all around the state and met everyone that I can be a conduit for bringing some of them together and I’ve been suggesting for weeks now lets have a Kentucky Tea Party Convention and try to join together and talk about a platform and I don’t see this as outside the Republican Party. I see this as an influence that can be influential within the Republican Party.

You know, it's hard to see why the Republican establishment should come rushing to defend Paul when Paul considers himself to be a Tea Party candidate on a mission to do away with the Republican establishment.

Syndicate content

discrimination Posts Archive

Kyle Mantyla, Monday 06/27/2011, 2:53pm
Bryan Fischer spent the entire first hour of his radio program today discussing the passage of marriage equality legislation in New York last week in typical Fischer-fashion ... which means me focused on warning about the health risks of gay sex while railing against the "hate crimes" gay activists are committing against Christians. And, for good measure, he also explained that there was no need to "marriage equality" legislation because gays already have the equality to marry ... anyone of the opposite sex: Allow me to just point out, once again, that this is literally... MORE
Brian Tashman, Wednesday 06/08/2011, 3:31pm
The Family Research Council has released new prayer targets, and the group is urging activists to pray to stop the New York state legislature from passing a marriage equality bill. The FRC insisted that activists should not only support opponents of marriage equality, but also pray that those who “seek to shred the fabric of our nation’s moral order be defeated in the next election!” In addition, the group denounced a new effort by Health and Human Services chief Kathleen Sebelius that fights bullying and anti-gay discrimination. In a recent speech, Sebelius said that... MORE
Brian Tashman, Tuesday 06/07/2011, 2:27pm
Only a writer for the ultraconservative WorldNetDaily would believe that the Religious Right is too soft on the issue of gay rights. WND’s Josh Craddock of the Institute for Cultural Communicators claims that the reason more Americans support marriage equality is because social conservatives haven’t fought gay rights or attacked the LGBT community enough. Responding to Focus on the Family president Jim Daly’s recent claim that the Right Wing “probably lost” the debate over equal marriage rights, Craddock alleges that organizations like Focus on the Family... MORE
Kyle Mantyla, Monday 06/06/2011, 5:03pm
Igor Volsky @ Think Progress: Rick Santorum’s 12 Most Offensive Statements. Tim Murphy @ Mother Jones: Michele Bachmann Said What!? Nick @ Bold Faith Type: Allen West's Muslim Exception. David Weigel: Editing Wikipedia to Make Palin Right About Paul Revere. Rachel Tabachnick @ Talk To Action: Texas Gov. Rick Perry Partnering with New Apostolic Groups for Houston "Call to Prayer." Sandhya Bathija @ Wall of Separation: A Tale Of Two Sessions: Religious Right Conferees Decry Discrimination – But Only When It Affects Them. Andy... 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
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
Brian Tashman, Friday 06/03/2011, 10:14am
In May Rep. Pete Stark (R-CA) introduced the Every Child Deserves a Family Act, which prohibits “discrimination in adoption or foster care placements based on the sexual orientation, gender identity, or marital status of any prospective adoptive or foster parent, or the sexual orientation or gender identity of the child involved.” While it is unlikely that the GOP-controlled House would approve the legislation, it is an important step in the fight to ensure that children awaiting adoption or foster care can find homes. But the “pro-family” Religious Right wants to... MORE