Marriage Equality

Heritage Foundation Fellow Trots Out Radical Nullification Argument Against Marriage Equality

The anti-marriage-equality movement seems to have anointed Ryan T. Anderson as its next intellectual leader. Anderson, who is now a fellow at the Heritage Foundation, follows in the footsteps of his mentor Robert P. George and National Organization for Marriage founder Maggie Gallagher in being able to talk about the marriage issue without spewing fire and brimstone or talking about how gay people make them want to vomit .

This kinder, gentler approach has endeared Anderson and his predecessors to a movement that’s trying to snatch its image away from the likes of Bryan Fischer and Pat Robertson.

But it also can obscure the fact that Anderson’s supposedly intellectual arguments against marriage equality can still be far out of the mainstream.

On Friday, Heritage promoted on its website a video clip of Anderson speaking at a Stanford University event, where he was asked by an attendee why he, as a gay man, should not be able to file a joint tax return if he gets legally married in California.

Anderson responded that legally married same-sex couples should not have access to all the trappings of legal marriage, because while in some states they can “be issued a marriage license,” they “can’t actually get married” because marriage is inherently a union of a man and a woman.

This is basically a nullificationist argument against benefits for legally married same-sex couples. Like those who argue that gun laws or health care reform aren’t actually law because they violate their impression of what the Constitution says, Anderson is saying that even legal, state-sanctioned marriages don’t count because they violate his view of what marriage is, and therefore should not earn legal, state-sanctioned benefits.

Far from trying to brush over this nullificationist argument against marriage equality, Heritage is actively promoting the video to its followers.

The full clip is four minutes long, but the fun really starts at about the 2:10 mark.

Anderson: The reason that you should not have the option of filing a joint tax return is that you can’t get married, given what marriage is.

Questioner: But I could in California, I can get married.

Anderson: You can be issued a marriage license in the state of California, but you can’t actually get married. And I’m sorry to say it that way, but given what marriage is, a union of sexually complementary…

Questioner: How is that not discrimination?

Anderson: And it’s not discrimination, because everyone is equally eligible for entering into the marital relationship, where you understand marriage as a union of sexually complementary spouses, a permanent, exclusive union of man and a woman, husband and wife, mother and father. If you’re not interested in entering into that sort of a union, you’re not being discriminated against.

What you’re asking us to do is to redefine marriage to include the adult relationship of your choice. And the adult relationship of your choice happens to be a same-sex couple. There are other adults who want to have marriage redefined to include the relationship of their choice, which may be the same-sex throuple or the opposite-sex quartet. So what I’m asking you in response is, what principle are you appealing to when you say this is discrimination to vindicate your rights but not their rights? Because it seems to me that your position ultimately leaves to simply the dissolvement of the marital union.

It’s not that you don’t have a right to get married, it’s that you aren’t seeking out marriage. Marriage is by nature a union of sexually complementary spouses, a union of man and woman, husband and wife, mother and father. And based on just what you’ve said about yourself, it doesn’t sound like you’re interested in forming that sort of a union. It sounds like you’re interested in forming a union with another man, and that’s not a marriage. So that’s why I don’t think the law should treat the relationship that you want to form as a marriage.

Phyllis Schlafly Proud The GOP Has Not Been 'Swept Along In The Gay Tide'

Eagle Forum founder Phyllis Schlafly is boasting of the Republican Party’s opposition to gay rights, which she says is proof that marriage equality is not “the wave of the future.”

On her Wednesday radio bulletin, Schlafly claimed that the Republican National Committee didn’t select Las Vegas to host its convention as “punishment” for the state party’s decision to drop anti-gay, anti-choice language from its platform. She added that she is optimistic that the party will recruit and elect “candidates who will defend marriage and not be swept along in the gay tide.”

If you get your news from the mainstream media, you may believe that the adoption of gay marriage is the wave of the future, that its momentum is so strong that it is unbeatable. But not so fast. That may not be true at all. All this so-called momentum is created by supremacist judges who are trying to impose their left-wing bias even on states where the voters have passed a referendum putting only traditional husband-wife marriage into their state constitution. Unfortunately, we are stuck with some supremacist judges who claim we have a "living" Constitution and pretend that they can rewrite our laws and even our Constitution. This marriage issue will probably go to the U.S. Supreme Court in about a year, and we don't know how the Court will rule.

Let's first look at the so-called momentum to abolish marriage as we have known it for centuries and what the public opinion polls tell us. A new poll by Wilson Research Strategies surveyed Republicans and Republican-leading Independents and found that 82% agree that marriage should be defined only as a union between "one man and one woman." It also found that 75% disagreed that "politicians should support the redefinition of marriage to include same-sex couples."

The Republican National Platform adopted in Tampa in 2012 says: “We reaffirm our support for a constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman.”

After Nevada Republicans dropped traditional marriage from their state platform, the Republican Party promptly punished Nevada by rejecting Las Vegas as a site for the 2016 Republican National Convention. It is unfortunate if marriage becomes a political issue between Republicans and Democrats, but it does look as if politics is going that way. We are looking for candidates who will defend marriage and not be swept along in the gay tide.

Eagle Forum: Government Is Constitutionally Required To Fight 'Homosexual Conduct'

Eagle Forum’s Virginia Armstrong, the head of the group’s Court Watch Project, today makes the novel argument that the U.S. Constitution doesn’t protect the rights of LGBT people but in fact requires the government to fight “homosexual conduct” in “every legitimate way possible.”

In an article published on Eagle Forum’s website, Armstrong argues that advances in LGBT equality prove “that America is indeed in the ‘danger zone’ and is in dire need of a massive ‘straightening up process.’”

She then argues that the AIDS epidemic shows that “homosexual conduct is what is harmful to gays and lesbians to the degree that governments are not only constitutionally allowed, but constitutionally required, to fight such conduct in every legitimate way possible.”

All emphasis is Armstrong’s:

Has America bent over so far backwards in our spiritual, moral, and constitutional life that we are in danger of “breaking”? This question is central to our current series of Court Watch Briefings. The question has been precipitated by America’s Culture War and echoes the anguished cry of the Father in the famous musical production, “Fiddler on the Roof,” who felt that revolutionary changes in his world were pushing him to the “breaking point.”

We are proving that America is indeed in the “danger zone” and is in dire need of a massive “straightening up process.” Nothing more clearly demonstrates this fact than the recentsame-sex marriage decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court - Perry v. Hollingsworth and Windsor v. U.S.

These statistics bring into bolder relief than ever the fatal flaws of Perry/Windsor . HIV and AIDS is a pandemic , far worse than other such health threats which have sent governments and media around the world into a veritable apoplexy, accompanied by demands for the most severe action possible to stem those threats. Yet, federal (and, now, state) judges are demanding constitutional protections for the conduct which is most responsible for the HIV/AIDS pandemic. Furthermore, Judge Vaughn Walker’s “Finding of Fact” that religious opposition to homosexual conduct “harms gays and lesbians” and is constitutionally protected is so incongruent with reality as to be laughable, if it were possible to laugh about such an adjudicative disaster. The reality, of course, is that the exact opposite is true –homosexual conduct is what is harmful to gays and lesbians to the degree that governments are not only constitutionally allowed, but constitutionally required , to fight such conduct in every legitimate way possible. This example alone illustrates how upside down is Walker’s blast that “harm to homosexuals” results from religious opposition. This falsehood converts a particularly pernicious value judgment into an adjudicative fact given great weight in pro-homosexual court decisions. One of the worst blows to reason, morality, and the Judeo-Christian worldview is the speed with which the Perry/Windsor poison has poured through America’s legal veins…

Religious Right Group Says 'We've Been Focused Too Much' On Gay Marriage And 'Not Focused Enough On Divorce'

The Ruth Institute's Jennifer Johnson wrote on the organization's blog yesterday that marriage equality advocates who criticize the Religious Right for singling out gay marriage while ignoring straight divorce "have a point."

"Have we been too focused on “same sex marriage” and not focused enough on divorce?" she asks. "I think so."

"Divorce is a big problem that Christians have not confronted adequately," she writes. "Thus, we have lost our witness and moral authority in regards to the institution of marriage. At least, that’s how it looks to me. "

The Ruth Institute — which until last year was affiliated with the National Organization for Marriage — doesn't always conform with the Religious Right's messaging, most recently taking issue with the movement's "whining" persecution rhetoric.​

That's not to say that the rest of the Religious Right doesn't care about divorce — the advent of no-fault divorce is frequently brought up as as a milestone in the slippery slope of the sexual revolution, and "covenant marriage" laws are popular among some activists. (Family Research Council president Tony Perkins sponsored the nation's first covenant marriage law when he was a Louisiana state legislator.)  But the movement as a whole knows that villainizing people who get divorced is going to be a less popular strategy than scapegoating the much smaller LGBT population.

Tony Perkins Claims 'Liberal Jewish Folk' Are Undermining Israel By Supporting Marriage Equality

In a June address to the Messianic Jewish Alliance of America, Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council lamented the support for same-sex marriage and abortion rights among “liberal Jewish folk.”

Perkins cited the rise of gay rights as a sign that American society is abandoning the Bible, warning that the U.S. may next disregard biblical directives to support Israel.

He also pointed to the Presbyterian Church (USA)’s recent decision to allow pastors to officiate same-sex weddings and to divest from three American corporations that are involved in West Bank settlements.

Joseph Farah Offers 'Tough Love' To Elton John: Homosexuality Is A 'Vile Practice'

WorldNetDaily editor Joseph Farah is outraged that Elton John cited the teachings of Jesus Christ as a reason to support marriage equality, because obviously only anti-equality activists are allowed to point to scripture.

In a column yesterday, Farah offered the musician some “tough love” that is “designed to save people from really bad decisions.”

After calling same-sex marriage an “absurd” “oxymoron” that validates a “vile practice” and will bring down civilization, Farah argued that gay people can only take part in “make-believe marriages.”

“A marriage that is not consummated has long been considered incomplete, not deserving of any legal recognition whatsoever,” he wrote. “So please tell me how a same-sex couple consummates one of these make-believe marriages? Acts of sodomy were never considered consummation in the eyes of the law.”

Not only has man put asunder individual marriages, but people like Elton John, Barack Obama and a host of judges have, some in the name of Jesus, attempted to put asunder the entire concept of marriage.



Mind you, just the practice of homosexuality is an abomination, according to Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 23:13. Romans 1:26-27 show this view did not change after Jesus’ death and resurrection. But what Elton John is advocating and practicing is something more than just the practice of an “abomination” and a “vile practice.” He’s also promoting the profaning of marriage, an institution Jesus said was created by God in the Garden of Eden.

Let me lay some cards on the table, not with the intent of being mean to people who feel differently, but in the spirit of tough love, designed to save people from really bad decisions:

1.Same-sex marriage is an oxymoron. “Marriage” is and shall always remain an institution between one man and one woman. No civilization or culture in the history of the world has ever experimented with same-sex marriage, though there were questionable experiments with polygamy, always fraught with severe and negative consequences. Bible-believing Jews and Christians consider marriage a divinely created institution. This account was confirmed by Jesus in the gospels when He was asked about divorce. What today’s proponents of same-sex marriage seek to do is redefine marriage, claiming this institution that has long been seen as the literal building block of civilized, productive and self-governing societies is “discriminatory” because it prohibits homosexuals from participating. Nothing could be more absurd.

2. Legally speaking, though, even in an increasingly secular society like ours, there is a reason same-sex marriages could never be recognized. A marriage that is not consummated has long been considered incomplete, not deserving of any legal recognition whatsoever. A marriage union that remains unconsummated never happened in the eyes of the law. So please tell me how a same-sex couple consummates one of these make-believe marriages? Acts of sodomy were never considered consummation in the eyes of the law. Again, this suggests that whatever it is the homosexual activists are trying to achieve through their relentless campaign, it is not marriage. It would have to be some complete and utter corruption of the idea of marriage.

It’s time to lay it on the line with some plain talk: Two men cannot marry each other because they cannot consummate that union. Period. End of story. Two women cannot marry each other because they cannot consummate that union. Period. End of story.

Anti-Gay Archbishop Under Investigation For Sexual Misconduct

John Nienstedt, the Catholic archbishop who championed the failed effort to ban same-sex marriage in Minnesota, is facing a church investigation over allegations of inappropriate sexual relationships with other men, including priests and seminary students.

“I believe that the investigators have received about ten sworn statements alleging sexual impropriety on the part of the archbishop dating from his time as a priest in the Archdiocese of Detroit, as Bishop of New Ulm, and while coadjutor and archbishop of St. Paul and Minneapolis,” church whistleblower Jennifer Haselberger told the magazine Commonweal, adding that Nienstedt “also stands accused of retaliating against those who refused his advances or otherwise questioned his conduct.”

Haselberger previously revealed that Neinstedt was failing to properly investigate instances of alleged sexual abuse by priests, including one priest who may have had an “unprofessional relationship” with Neinstedt.

Nienstedt vigorously denied the allegations, and stressed in his statements that none of the claims of sexual misconduct “involve minors.” Last year, he was investigated by local law enforcement for allegedly touching a boy’s buttocks during a confirmation ceremony, but was not charged.

Under Neinstedt, the archdiocese of Minneapolis and St. Paul joined with fellow Minnesota dioceses to deliver hundreds of thousands of dollars to anti-gay groups, together becoming the largest donor to the unsuccessful campaign pushing a state marriage amendment.

Neinstedt warned Catholics that “there ought not be open dissension” on the issue of marriage equality and urged them to pray against gay rights. According to the Minnesota LGBT site The Column, the archdiocese also “sent out more than 400,000 DVDs that urged voters to vote for candidates that supported putting a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage on the ballot in 2012.”

During the campaign to ban marriage equality, Neinstedt said Satan is behind gay rights and called homosexuality a “grave evil.”

He has criticized the film Brokeback Mountain as an attack on Jesus Christ that would bring down society and described homosexuality as the “result of psychological trauma” that “must be understood in the context of other human disorders: envy, malice, greed, etc.”

Kevin Swanson Attacks 'Satanic,' 'Antichrist' Presbyterians For Approving Marriage Equality

“Generations Radio” host Kevin Swanson lambasted the Presbyterian Church (USA) last week for voting to allow same-sex marriages to take place in their churches, which Swanson said means the denomination has teamed up with the Antichrist.

“The Presbyterian Church of the United States of America, a purported Christian church, a church that had something of a Christian heritage, but of course now rotten to the very core, has adopted the Neronic agenda and effectively joined the ranks of the Antichrist,” he said, referring to the Roman emperor Nero.

Swanson went on to accuse the church of “marrying dogs” and deciding to become the “Nero Association of America.”

He also worried that the Presbyterian Church in America, a more conservative denomination, may be next in line to adopt the Satanic attack of marriage equality: “I think it’s time to stop watching the PCUSA, I think it is time to start watching the PCA and the Southern Baptists because they’re next, so to speak, that’s where the battleground is moving. If you were Satan you’d go, ‘PCUSA is in the bag, now let’s go pay attention to the PCA and see if we can gain a little ground down here.’”

Lamenting that the United States is becoming an “apostate” nation, Swanson hailed Uganda’s extreme anti-gay laws.

“Praise be to God. He’s got something happening and if he’s going to abandon the West to their homosexuality, their imploding birth rates and their drying up and dying, then that’s the way it goes,” he said. “In Uganda, these guys are standing strong.”

Self-Aware Bobby Jindal Is Tired Of 'Candidates Who Tell Us One Thing Then Go Do Another'

In an interview earlier this month with the Iowa blog Caffienated Thoughts, noted paragon of consistency Bobby Jindal lamented about “candidates who tell us one thing then go do another” on judicial nominations.

Jindal was discussing recent court decisions in favor of marriage equality, which he suggested could be grounds for recalling judges. In 2012, Jindal joined the failed effort to recall an Iowa Supreme Court justice who had joined the court’s unanimous marriage equality ruling.

The Louisiana governor spent the first half of the interview deriding the Common Core education standards — which he previously backed — as a “federal takeover of education."

Ben Carson Explains How Gay Marriage Is A Marxist Plot To Impose The 'New World Order'

In his keynote speech at the National Organization for Marriage’s March for Marriage gala last week, Dr. Ben Carson explained how Marxists are using LGBT rights to destroy American unity and impose the "New World Order."

Carson said he knows about this plot from reading right-wing conspiracy theorist W. Cleon Skousen’s book “The Naked Communist.”

Earlier in the speech, Carson told the audience that gay-rights opponents are the real victims of “injustice” because they just want to be “left alone.”

“When we talk about liberty and justice for all, doesn’t that mean that people can be left alone, that no-one else gets to change definitions on them and change life for them?” he asked.

“They have no right to say to me that I must change the way I think in order to accommodate what they believe,” he said. “That’s where the injustice comes from, and we have to understand that.”

William Owens: 'We Must Be Willing To Die' In Fight Against 'Abnormal' LGBT Rights

Before addressing last week’s March for Marriage, where he called for a new anti-gay “civil rights movement,” Rev. William Owens appeared on “The Capitol Hill Show” with Tea Party News Network host Tim Constantine to promote the rally.

Owens told Constantine that allowing gay people to marry takes away his rights, without of course saying which rights he is losing exactly. He is suffering so greatly, in fact, that he called for “another civil rights movement to reclaim our rights” with people who are “willing to die” to oppose LGBT equality.

Constantine: When I talk to people around the country, I always hear support for traditional marriage and yet the gay movement continues to march on, some in the legislature, mostly in the courts. Have we gone to a place where we can’t turn back or can common sense prevail once again?

Owens: We can turn back but it’s going to take another civil rights movement to reclaim our rights. We must be willing to suffer, we must be willing to die, we must be willing to go to jail, that’s what it is going to take to turn around what these idiots have put in motion.

During a vicious rant against the “abnormal” transgender community, Owens railed against President Obama as “the most immoral president” in all of American history.

It’s a terribly slippery slope and marriage is just a small part of it. They plan to turn this whole society as if we have no gender. They are supporting any form of abnormal life with human beings. In the state of California today, boys can go to girls’ restrooms and girls can go to boys’ restrooms. This transgender thing, a teacher will be able to come to school dressed as a man one day and as a woman the next. It’s terrible that this president has started this country on an immoral course. I’ve said it then and I’ll say it again, he is the most immoral president we have ever had.

Owens also complained that Obama is acting like “he’s Almighty God” by supporting LGBT rights, including such wrongdoings as allowing “gays in the White House.”

The disgraceful thing about gay people adopting children: Two men, one pretending to be a woman; two women, one pretending to be a man. It’s absolutely disgraceful. When you do the studies, when you look at families, children need a female mother and a male father. I have two babies, I’ve got one one-year-old and one two-years-old, and those children know the difference in their mother and their dad. It’s just deplorable with this president, and I put it at the feet of the president, because he’s the one giving all of these orders as if he’s Almighty God, kingdom high, to embrace the community of gay parades, gays in the White House, he has endorsed it and has taken our course on a terribly slippery slope on the morals of this country.

Pat Robertson Sidesteps Question About Polygamy In The Bible By Ranting Against Gay Rights

Today on “The 700 Club,” Pat Robertson fielded a question from a viewer who asked: “In the Old Testament men had many wives and it seems like it didn’t go against God. Where does it say in the Bible that man should have only one wife?”

Robertson responded that the viewer should consider moving to Utah or Saudi Arabia, and then insisted that the Bible condemns polygamy. However, he admitted that “somehow” many biblical figures, such as Solomon, were polygamists. Rather than explain the inconsistency, he joked that Solomon must have “taken a lot of vitamins, that poor old man,” and launched into a diatribe against gay rights.

“I said when they make these rulings that they are making about homosexuality, when they are making these rulings about other sexual practices, it won’t be long before they cancel the laws for bigamy,” he said. “It was said by Rick Santorum in the United States Senate, surely enough those laws will come down and surely enough they will. Everything goes.”

Renew America Pundit Warns Gay Marriage Will Turn Us Into Marxist Slaves

Donald Hank of Renew America responded to the decision of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) to allow pastors to officiate same-sex weddings by accusing Presbyterians of “blasphemy against the Holy Spirit” and supporting “social Marxism.”

“This is social Marxism and we are slaves to it in the US,” he writes. “Isn’t it time to throw off the chains? It's all up to the people.”

He adds that gay marriage “is like saying a dog is a cat” and will allow for “our culture and hence our sovereignty to be destroyed.”

Hank insists that gay marriage is wrong simply because people “deep down” feel is wrong, citing the assassination of the Roman Emperor Elagabalus, whom historians have said was either gay or transgender: “In Elagabulus' case, he was eventually assassinated. The people’s will was done.”

Now, if a Presbyterian "pastor" performs a "gay" wedding, then under the above-cited rule, he is tacitly averring that the Holy Spirit called him to perform it. Since the definition of marriage throughout the Bible refers only to a union between a man and a woman, this pastor is actually averring that the Holy Spirit called him to perform a "marriage" that is counter to Biblical principles. This can clearly be construed as blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.



The only reason people bend over and grab their ankles for these activists is fear. They use raw power of intimidation to force the legal system to apply a definition that does not exist. So-called same sex "marriage" has been legally accepted in several countries and states and yet, the main requisite for this change in law was never met, namely, a legal change in the definition of marriage. And changing this definition after millennia is like saying a dog is a cat. Homosexual activists can – and do – force the hands of crooked judges and lawyers and politicians all they want to go along with this pretense that marriage has always applied to both heterosexual and homosexual unions.

However, deep down inside people resent being told that, for example, a cat is a dog. Deep down they'd be saying "if it barks it's not a damn cat!" And they'd be mad, rightfully so! And let's stop pretending this is only about religion. For Christians and Orthodox Jews (and also for Muslims), it may be mostly about religion. But for everyone, religious or not, it is about language: words and their definitions. The only way you could legitimately change the definition of marriage so as to include same sex unions would be to prove that human physiology changed recently to something that it never was in those thousands of years when only people of opposite sexes could marry each other. But you can't prove that because nothing like that happened. Granted, there were crazies like Roman Emperor Elagabulus, who are said to have "married" another man, but their actions of this kind were condemned by the grassroots. In Elagabulus' case, he was eventually assassinated. The people's will was done.

Thus, human nature did not change to usher in the "gay" marriage craze. Something else changed, and that is, a revolution that overturned all traditions and common sense through social engineering. And this brings us to the issue of sovereignty. A sovereign country has a right to defend its traditions and be what it always has been. In this point, Russia is actually superior to the West. Westerners have let down their guard, allowing the far left, posing in civil rights garb, to sell out our culture. We pretend it is an individual rights issue but it is a sovereignty issue. By inventing a right to "marry" someone of the same sex we have allowed our culture and hence our sovereignty to be destroyed. And yet sovereignty is in many ways more important than individual rights, because nowadays, rights are faddish and redefined regularly by activists antagonistic to culture, so they can no longer be defined. Yet sovereignty is something we all sense, as in my analogy with the cat-dog confusion. We sense it inherently but are afraid to say so. This is social Marxism and we are slaves to it in the US.

Isn't it time to throw off the chains? It's all up to the people. We define – and redefine – words through the way we use them. Language is power. We must stop giving away our power.

Anti-Gay Activists Call For 'Civil Disobedience' In Wake Of Marriage Equality Rulings

Denunciations of today’s court rulings striking down marriage equality bans in Indiana and Utah are beginning to trickle in from anti-gay activists, with the two cases representing additional defeats for an already struggling movement.

Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council — ignoring the fact that one of the Tenth Circuit Court judges who ruled in favor of marriage equality was recommended by Sen. Jim Inhofe and appointed by George W. Bushblamed the rulings on the Obama administration and leftists who have been “packing the federal courts with liberal jurists” in order to realize “a radical social agenda.”

Perkins also said that he will represent the “indignant Americans who are tired of seeing the foundations of a free and just society destroyed by a handful of black-robed tyrants.”

While disturbing, today's rulings come as no surprise given the rising disdain for the rule of law promoted by the Obama administration. These latest rulings are not just about redefining marriage but they are a further attempt by the courts to untether our public policies from the democratic process, as well as the anthropological record.

While judges can, by judicial fiat, declare same-sex 'marriage' legal, they will never be able to make it right. The courts, for all their power, can't overturn natural law. What they can do is incite a movement of indignant Americans, who are tired of seeing the foundations of a free and just society destroyed by a handful of black-robed tyrants. The Left has long believed packing the federal courts with liberal jurists is the means of fulfilling a radical social agenda, as the American people refuse to endorse that agenda at the polls or through their elected representatives.

As we saw with Roe v. Wade in 1973 – despite the Left's earnest hopes, the courts do not have the final say. The American people will have the final word as they experience the consequences of marriage redefinition and the ways in which it fundamentally alters America's moral, cultural and political landscape.

Jeff Allen, an Indiana-based pastor and senior editor of BarbWire, called for “elected leaders and Christians [to] defiantly rise up and engage in civil disobedience” to stop this “national tragedy” and “the death of democracy.”

“Each victory for the homosexual activists represents another nail in America’s coffin,” he wrote, adding that “these decisions require that reason be jettisoned in favor of unrestrained deviancy.”

Federal courts in Indiana and Utah on Wednesday blatantly overthrew the will of the people and subversively imposed same-sex “marriage” on the citizens of both states. The judicial oligarchy (tyranny of the few) continues flexing the muscle of its apparently unchecked power. The death of democracy is undeniably upon us. Each victory for the homosexual activists represents another nail in America’s coffin.

According to WLFI.com, a ruling from an elitist U.S. District Judge in Indiana wrongly declared that the prohibition was unconstitutional because it violated guarantees of equal protection and due process.



Separately, a rogue appeals court ruled 2-1 that Utah’s traditional marriage amendment was unconstitutional as well, saying that the gender of the two persons cannot be considered as a reason to deny a marriage license. And that’s just it — these decisions require that reason be jettisoned in favor of unrestrained deviancy.



The light of morality and freedom is being brutishly snuffed out right before our very eyes. It’s a national tragedy unfolding at an accelerating pace.

And this is not a good harbinger of things to come — unless our elected leaders and Christians defiantly rise up and engage in civil disobedience.

National Organization for Marriage’s Brian Brown unsurprisingly accused the judges of “activism” and “sophistry.”

Today's split decision of a panel of judges in the 10th Circuit is not surprising given that this Circuit refused to even order a stay of the district court decision when it came down during the Christmas holidays. While we strongly disagree with the two judges in the majority, we are encouraged by the strong defense of marriage articulated by Justice Paul Kelly in his dissent, and especially his defense of the sovereign right of the people of Utah to decide this issue for themselves. This principled recognition by a federal judge considering the marriage issue underscores that the people of a state are entitled to respect and deference in their desire to promote marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Indeed, the US Supreme Court decided in the Windsor case that the federal government must respect the right of states to define marriage. The majority in the Utah case engage in sophistry to attempt to argue their way around the Supreme Court's ruling that it is up to the states to define marriage. As Justice Kelly noted in his dissent, ‘If the States are the laboratories of democracy, requiring every state to recognize same-gender unions—contrary to the views of its electorate and representatives—turns the notion of a limited national government on its head.'



The elected representatives of the people of Indiana have decided, for good and proper reasons, to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman. It is judicial activism for a single judge to substitute his own views on marriage for the considered opinion of the people's representatives. This is just the latest example of activism from the federal bench, but we fully expect this decision to eventually be reversed when the US Supreme Court upholds the right of states to define marriage as a man and a woman. In the meantime, it is imperative that the state legislature move forward a state constitutional amendment preserving marriage so that the people always remain in control of the definition of marriage in Indiana.

Tenth Circuit Court Rips Apart Right-Wing's Bogus 'Religious Freedom' Case Against Gay Marriage

Today, the Tenth Circuit Court upheld a lower court’s decision striking down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage. In its decision [PDF], the court dismantled several arguments from the state’s attorneys about the supposedly negative impacts of same-sex marriage on children and opposite-sex couples.

But one argument that jumped out was the state’s claim that a prohibition on same-sex unions is needed to safeguard “religious freedom,” a claim that is gaining popularity among Religious Right activists who are finding less and less success with outright bigotry.

The court pointed out that the increasingly widespread argument doesn’t hold up to scrutiny:

Appellants’ fourth and final justification for Amendment 3, “accommodating religious freedom and reducing the potential for civic strife,” fails for reasons independent of the foregoing. Appellants contend that a prohibition on same-sex marriage “is essential to preserving social harmony in the State” and that allowing same-sex couples to marry “would create the potential for religion-related strife.”

Even assuming that appellants are correct in predicting that some substantial degree of discord will follow state recognition of same-sex marriage, the Supreme Court has repeated held that public opposition cannot provide cover for a violation of fundamental rights.



Appellants acknowledge that a state may not “invoke concerns about religious freedom or religion-related social strife as a basis for denying rights otherwise guaranteed by the Constitution.” But they argue that the social and religious strife argument qualifies as legitimate because a fundamental right is not at issue in this case. Because we have rejected appellants’ contention on this point, their fourth justification necessarily fails.

We also emphasize, as did the district court, that today’s decision relates solely to civil marriage. See Kitchen, 961 F. Supp. 2d at 1214 (“[T]he court notes that its decision does not mandate any change for religious institutions, which may continue to express their own moral viewpoints and define their own traditions about marriage.”). Plaintiffs must be accorded the same legal status presently granted to married couples, but religious institutions remain as free as they always have been to practice their sacraments and traditions as they see fit.

The court also demolished another favorite claim of the Religious Right: that gay couples do not have a right to marry simply because they historically have not had a right to marry:

As the Court later explained, “[m]arriage is mentioned nowhere in the Bill of Rights and interracial marriage was illegal in most States in the 19th century, but the Court was no doubt correct in finding it to be an aspect of liberty protected against state interference by the substantive component of the Due Process Clause in Loving v. Virginia.”



Appellants’ reliance on the modifier “definitional” does not serve a meaningful function in this context. To claim that marriage, by definition, excludes certain couples is simply to insist that those couples may not marry because they have historically been denied the right to do so. One might just as easily have argued that interracial couples are by definition excluded from the institution of marriage. But “neither history nor tradition could save a law prohibiting miscegenation from constitutional attack.” Lawrence, 539 U.S. at 577-78 (quotation omitted); see also Williams v. Illinois, 399 U.S. 235, 239 (1970) (“[N]either the antiquity of a practice nor the fact of steadfast legislative and judicial adherence to it through the centuries insulates it from constitutional attack . . . .”); In re Marriage Cases, 183 P.3d 384, 451 (Cal. 2008) (“[E]ven the most familiar and generally accepted of social practices and traditions often mask an unfairness and inequality that frequently is not recognized or appreciated by those not directly harmed by those practices or traditions.”), superseded by constitutional amendment as stated in Strauss v. Horton, 207 P.3d 48, 59 (Cal. 2009).

Ben Carson Unveils Grand Compromise On Marriage: Gay People Can't Get Married

Conservative activist Ben Carson told Newsmax TV host Ed Berliner today that “of course” he can broker a compromise on contentious social issues like marriage equality. Carson’s proposed compromise on marriage? Gay people can do what they want…but they can’t get married.

Arguing (wrongly) that the legal definition of marriage has never changed in America or in thousands of years of world history, Carson said that the idea of same-sex marriage is just as absurd as insisting that “2+2=5.”

In return for not being allowed to get married, Carson explained, gay people “can do what they want to do,” but also shouldn’t accuse people of bigotry. 

Carson offered his grand compromise as an example of the kind of solution included in his new book, “One Nation: What We Can All Do To Save America’s Future.”

He previously suggested that abortion rights foes should run as pro-choice candidates in order to win elections.

Tim Huelskamp Predicts Marriage Equality Will 'Destroy' Marriage And The Family

After delivering a feisty speech at last week’s “March for Marriage” about how “real men” must stop gay marriage from harming women, Rep. Tim Huelskamp chatted with the conservative website CNSNews about gay marriage and adoption rights.

The Kansas Republican agreed with a CNSNews reporter’s suggestion that marriage equality will “destroy the institution of marriage and of [the] family” and warned that it will pave the way for polygamy.

When asked if he also opposes the right of gay couples to adopt children, Huelskamp tried to avoid the question by repeating the myth that the government shut down Catholic Charities and in doing so violated the First Amendment.

In reality, a few Catholic Charities branches have chosen to shut down certain services because they refuse to comply with nondiscrimination policies that are a condition for receiving taxpayer subsidies.

AFA Wants Libraries To Dump 'Sexually Perverse' Gay Children's Book

Bryan Fischer of the American Family Association was, unsurprisingly, upset to learn that some public libraries have been stocking “The Princes and the Treasure,” a children’s book that, in the words of its author Jeffrey Miles, "tells the story of two handsome princes who go on a quest to save a princess, but fall in love with each other, get married, and live happily ever after."

Fischer tells the Christian Post that “this book is a particularly pernicious form of sexually perverse propaganda” that “no responsible library should ever include” in its collection.

He adds that parents have the right not just to prevent their own kids from reading the book but to keep it from other children who might talk to their kids about it: "Christian parents don't want to be concerned only about their own children, they want to keep this kind of warped literature out of the hands of other children as well.”

Bryan Fischer, the director of issue analysis for the American Family Association, a nonprofit Christian organization that supports traditional marriage, told CP on Thursday that "because of the power fairy tales, this book is a particularly pernicious form of sexually perverse propaganda."

"The stories and the images that children store up in their minds from fairy tales have a very powerful imprinting effect on their tender young souls," Fischer said. "And the bottom line is that no responsible library should ever include a book like this on its shelves, and no responsible school should ever use this book as a part of its curriculum."

He continued, "The reality is that no library can stock every book that's ever been published. So libraries choose all the time not to stock certain books. There's nothing wrong with parents asking the library not to stock a book of this nature."

Fischer noted that Christian parents aren't only concerned about what their children are reading, but they're also concerned about the literature that's influencing other children in their communities.

"Christian parents don't want to be concerned only about their own children, they want to keep this kind of warped literature out of the hands of other children as well," he asserted. "And if parents want this book for their children, there's nothing to stop them from going to Amazon and buying it with their own money. But taxpayer dollars should not be spent on tripe like this."

We discussed similar book censorship efforts in our recent report, “Book Wars.”

Via Book Patrol.

NOM's John Eastman Compares Supreme Court's DOMA Decision To Dred Scott

In his speech to the March for Marriage today, National Organization for Marriage chairman John Eastman compared the Supreme Court’s decision striking down a key part of the discriminatory Defense of Marriage Act to the infamous Dred Scott decision.

Eastman cited Justice Scalia’s “call to arms” in his dissent to the DOMA decision, paraphrasing it as, “the court should never take away controversial issues away from the voters in this country.”

“The last time the court tried to do that a century and a half ago on the slavery question, Abraham Lincoln refused to comply,” he said.

Ruben Diaz Claims Satan Runs Public Schools

New York state Sen. Ruben Diaz told “March for Marriage” participants today that even if the Supreme Court legalizes same-sex marriage, they must continue the fight because the American people are behind them.

He pointed to the case of government organized prayer in public schools, which was ruled unconstitutional in the 1962 case Engel v. Vitale. As a result, Diaz maintained, Satan took over the schools, leading to waves of crime and disobedience.

Diaz said this year’s decision in Town of Greece v. Galloway proves that the cause to preserve government-sponsored prayer is not lost, and that anti-gay activists can win as well. He went on to falsely claim that neither voters nor lawmakers have voted to legalize same-sex marriage.

Syndicate content

Marriage Equality Posts Archive

Miranda Blue, Monday 07/28/2014, 2:31pm
The anti-marriage-equality movement seems to have anointed Ryan T. Anderson as its next intellectual leader. Anderson, who is now a fellow at the Heritage Foundation, follows in the footsteps of his mentor Robert P. George and National Organization for Marriage founder Maggie Gallagher in being able to talk about the marriage issue without spewing fire and brimstone or talking about how gay people make them want to vomit . This kinder, gentler approach has endeared Anderson and his predecessors to a movement that’s trying to snatch its image away from the likes of Bryan Fischer and... MORE
Brian Tashman, Friday 07/25/2014, 12:40pm
Eagle Forum founder Phyllis Schlafly is boasting of the Republican Party’s opposition to gay rights, which she says is proof that marriage equality is not “the wave of the future.” On her Wednesday radio bulletin, Schlafly claimed that the Republican National Committee didn’t select Las Vegas to host its convention as “punishment” for the state party’s decision to drop anti-gay, anti-choice language from its platform. She added that she is optimistic that the party will recruit and elect “candidates who will defend marriage and not be swept... MORE
Miranda Blue, Tuesday 07/22/2014, 12:41pm
Eagle Forum’s Virginia Armstrong, the head of the group’s Court Watch Project, today makes the novel argument that the U.S. Constitution doesn’t protect the rights of LGBT people but in fact requires the government to fight “homosexual conduct” in “every legitimate way possible.” In an article published on Eagle Forum’s website, Armstrong argues that advances in LGBT equality prove “that America is indeed in the ‘danger zone’ and is in dire need of a massive ‘straightening up process.’” She then argues that... MORE
Miranda Blue, Friday 07/11/2014, 11:13am
The Ruth Institute's Jennifer Johnson wrote on the organization's blog yesterday that marriage equality advocates who criticize the Religious Right for singling out gay marriage while ignoring straight divorce "have a point." "Have we been too focused on “same sex marriage” and not focused enough on divorce?" she asks. "I think so." "Divorce is a big problem that Christians have not confronted adequately," she writes. "Thus, we have lost our witness and moral authority in regards to the institution of marriage. At least, that... MORE
Brian Tashman, Wednesday 07/09/2014, 3:40pm
In a June address to the Messianic Jewish Alliance of America, Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council lamented the support for same-sex marriage and abortion rights among “liberal Jewish folk.” Perkins cited the rise of gay rights as a sign that American society is abandoning the Bible, warning that the U.S. may next disregard biblical directives to support Israel. He also pointed to the Presbyterian Church (USA)’s recent decision to allow pastors to officiate same-sex weddings and to divest from three American corporations that are involved in West Bank settlements. MORE
Brian Tashman, Thursday 07/03/2014, 11:45am
WorldNetDaily editor Joseph Farah is outraged that Elton John cited the teachings of Jesus Christ as a reason to support marriage equality, because obviously only anti-equality activists are allowed to point to scripture. In a column yesterday, Farah offered the musician some “tough love” that is “designed to save people from really bad decisions.” After calling same-sex marriage an “absurd” “oxymoron” that validates a “vile practice” and will bring down civilization, Farah argued that gay people can only take part in “make-... MORE
Brian Tashman, Wednesday 07/02/2014, 11:15am
John Nienstedt, the Catholic archbishop who championed the failed effort to ban same-sex marriage in Minnesota, is facing a church investigation over allegations of inappropriate sexual relationships with other men, including priests and seminary students. “I believe that the investigators have received about ten sworn statements alleging sexual impropriety on the part of the archbishop dating from his time as a priest in the Archdiocese of Detroit, as Bishop of New Ulm, and while coadjutor and archbishop of St. Paul and Minneapolis,” church whistleblower Jennifer Haselberger... MORE