Marriage Equality

Linda Harvey Attacks Target For 'Pushing Deviance And Perversion Into Everyone's Lives'

On her “Mission America” radio program yesterday, Linda Harvey weighed in on the National Organization for Marriage’s boycott of Target in response to the company’s filing of a court brief in support of marriage equality.

Harvey echoed NOM in taking particular issue with Target’s characterization of same-sex marriage bans as “bans” and “discrimination.”

“Have you noticed how this is how headlines often read these days?” Harvey said. “They talk about laws on natural marriage as being ‘bans’ on same-sex so-called marriage. And that’s incorrect because people who are male can still marry people who are female. The only obstacle for a few people is the presence of unnatural desires. Those desires can change with a different mind and heart.”

Later in the broadcast, Harvey read from a response she received from Target, in which the company expressed support for the “LGBT community.”

“So where’s the inclusivity for traditional values families? Target also thinks there’s an LGBT community, but what about a Christian morals community? Do they get the fact that most people have had it up to here with pushing deviance and perversion into everyone’s lives in America? That most Americans don’t accept the idea of two men or two women being married when they are obviously not?”

Joseph Farah: Being Against Same-Sex Marriage Is A Sexual Orientation

In a WorldNetDaily column today, Joseph Farah came up with a creative argument for exempting businesses that deny services to gay couples from nondiscrimination laws. Opposing same-sex marriage, Farah argues, is itself a “sexual orientation” and therefore a law prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation is actually discriminatory against the sexual orientation of marriage equality opponents.

Let me pose a hypothetical intellectual challenge: The law that forms the basis for the action against the Giffords in New York is a provision that bans discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Yet, isn’t that precisely what is happening to the Giffords? Are they not being coerced to accept and approve someone else’s sexual orientation? Are they not permitted to hold their own sexual orientation, one that acknowledges their God’s definition that marriage is a union of one man and one woman?

The Giffords are not campaigning to prevent other people from following their own conscience as to their sexual choices and activities. It’s just the opposite. They are being coerced by the state to take part in the sexual choices and activities of others.

Isn’t that obvious?

Farah finishes things up on more familiar ground, attempting to tie together the gay rights movement and Islamic radicals.

When “non-discrimination” becomes victimization of those with different religious and moral convictions, we literally have the establishment of a state religion and, effectively, the repeal of the First Amendment.

Who wants that?

It’s not Christians.

It’s not Jews.

Just look around and see for yourself.

Some people are trying to get the state to force those with different values, morals and religious idea to serve them in ways that violate their consciences.

I only see that kind of coercion demanded among two groups of people today – those who believe in the unlimited power of the state as their “god” and others who believe their god wants them to kill or subjugate all “infidels.”

FRC's Craig James Stumped By Question Likening Gay Marriage Bans To Anti-Miscegenation Laws

Craig James — the former Fox Sports host who now works at the Family Research Council — hosted “Washington Watch” yesterday, where he attacked the federal judge who struck down Florida’s same-sex marriage ban for “overriding and striking down the will of the people.”

James’ statements prompted a caller to ask him if he believes a judge should then similarly uphold a ban on interracial marriage if it was supported by the state’s voters. James responded that the courts in that case should overrule the people because judges should decide cases based on the Bible and “the Bible doesn’t speak against that.”

Of course, a startling number of voters — including half of Mississippi Republicans — believe that interracial marriage should be illegal, and that was the view held by a majority of Americans only a few decades ago.

“Among religious groups, evangelicals remain the most opposed to interracial marriage,” Christianity Today notes, and leading Religious Right pastors like the late Bob Jones believed that the Bible unambiguously opposes miscegenation and desegregation and pastors who support integration have “gotten away from the Bible.” “The Bible is clear on this,” Jones said.

Later in the show, another caller said that while bans on interracial marriage are wrong, they are constitutional nonetheless: “If the people voted for it and it became the law, then we would have to abide by it…. If the people voted against interracial marriage and it became the law, then we would have to live by that. ”

James didn’t disagree: “You know, unfortunately, I’m 53 years old and the country is changing and the rule of law is something that now is kind of, use it when it is good to you and don’t in other times. We are definitely in a changing mentality in this country.”

FRC: 'People Need To Be Alarmed' About 'Very Dangerous' Gay Marriage

On yesterday’s edition of “Washington Watch,” the Family Research Council’s Craig James and Travis Weber discussed a federal judge’s decision to strike down Florida’s ban on same-sex marriage, warning that the decision will have dangerous and unforeseen consequences.

After James denounced the judge for “overriding and striking down the will of the people,” Weber lamented that the judge’s “inability to comprehend any moral components or any moral insight into marriage” is “very dangerous” as it could pave the way for Big Government tyranny.

“People need to be alarmed,” Weber continued. “We kind of need to step back from this issue — the issue of marriage. Mention it and people get all uptight and they come at it with their preconceived opinions.”

“If we just kind of step back and take a quick history lesson, we can look throughout history at many governments that viewed moral authority as simply ending with the state and there is nothing above that, there is no insight into law beyond what the state itself said it was. Do we want that? No, all we need to do is look at the horror which that view has wrought upon humanity.”

Scott Lively Takes On 'Dangerous Heresy' Of Gay-Affirming Christians

Something that might bug Religious Right leaders even more than the expansion of marriage equality in the U.S. is the increasing acceptance of homosexuality and LGBT equality among Christians.

The latest salvo against Christians who challenge anti-gay interpretations of scripture comes from Scott Lively. Lively originally gained notoriety for his book "The Pink Swastika," which blamed homosexuals for the rise of Nazi Germany, but may now be more well known for his travels fanning anti-gay sentiment and encouraging the passage of anti-gay legislation in Uganda and around the globe. Earlier this month Lively lectured prominent Christian singer Vicky Beeching, who recently came out as a lesbian, for having “given in to the lie that she is a homosexual.” Lively asserted, “There’s no such thing as a gay person.”

His latest project is a brochure that is meant to take on gay-affirming Christians — even Christians who decry the Religious Right’s obsession with homosexuality but agree that it is a sin. Lively is promoting the brochure on Matt Barber’s wildly anti-gay BarbWire as “An Open Letter to Christian Leaders in America.”

The brochure includes 18 short interpretations of Bible passages that Lively says make his point that homosexuality is not just another sin, but “the harbinger of God’s wrath.”

In his “open letter” he portrays the LGBT equality movement as pursuing a long-term “blueprint for supplanting Biblical morality with sexual anarchy — in essence, the overthrow of family-centered Christian civilization.” The only remaining barrier to gay “cultural hegemony” is the Christian Church, which is why gay rights activists are trying to destroy it from within. Lively’s brochure warns:

A dangerous modern heresy called “gay theology” is infiltrating the Christian church at an alarming pace. Many believers, fearful of being called “haters,” are trivializing the threat by calling homosexuality “just another sin.”

Lively uses his open letter to promote himself as a speaker, spokesman, and workshop leader. But, he insists, “This is not a marketing campaign.”

We are not offering the brochure for sale. We simply want your help to quickly disseminate the brochure to every Christian leader in America. We will provide as many copies of this brochure as you can use at our cost of $.07 per piece plus shipping and whatever donation you feel led to offer. Alternatively, if you provide us an up-to-date list of pastors or other leaders we will send it to them ourselves (but please provide help with postage). Or if you desire to print your own supply, we will send you the artwork. If for any reason you dislike the brochure, we exhort you to take action in your own way to spread the warning and rally believers against this dangerous modern heresy called “gay theology.”

Lively’s brochure is produced by Defend the Family International, an arm of his Abiding Truth Ministries.

Robert George: Marriage Equality Judges Ignore His Brilliant Arguments

Robert George, the reigning intellectual godfather of the Religious Right, complains in an interview with the Christian Post today that judges who recognize the right of same-sex couples to marry are not only ignoring the Constitution, they are ignoring his own brilliant arguments.

George, co-author of the Manhattan Declaration and co-founder of the National Organization for Marriage, published a law review article and book, “What is Marriage? Man and Woman: A Defense” with Sherif Gergis and the Heritage Foundation’s Ryan Anderson. George is quite proud that Justice Samuel Alito cited their arguments in his dissent to the Supreme Court decision overturning part of the Defense of Marriage Act. But he cannot accept that any judge with a commitment to the Constitution could possibly disagree with him.

George broadly renounces all judges who have ruled in favor of marriage equality as engaging in a “pure ideological power play.” He acknowledges that marriage equality rulings have come from judges nominated by both Republicans and Democrats, but portrays them all as “liberal judges who don’t like traditional morality and the traditional understanding of marriage and want to overturn it.”

“So they’re abusing their offices, they’re usurping the authority of the elected representatives of the people, and sometimes the people themselves acting through referendums and initiative, to impose their own vision, their own preferences, their own political policy preferences on the American people. It’s not right and it’s unconstitutional.”

George is incensed that judges are applying the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to same-sex couples, because he says the authors of that mid-19th Century amendment were not thinking about marriage equality.

“It’s just an offense against constitutionalism, against the rule of law, against the idea that the people rule themselves in a republican form of government, to seize on a provision like the Equal Protection Clause and to overturn the laws of marriage.”

But most of all, George cannot seem to accept that an ideologically diverse set of judges, in dozens of opinions, could have considered and rejected his arguments.

“It seems to me that the courts, if they’re going to strike down the marriage laws in the name of the 14th amendment, do have an obligation to at least engage the argument that we presented, but so far they haven’t. And I know the reason why they haven’t. The reason why they haven’t… is that they don’t have an answer for the argument.”

That is ridiculous. But don’t take my word for it. I ran Robert George’s claims by Shannon Minter, legal director for the National Center for Lesbian Rights and a major player in marriage equality advocacy. Here’s what he said:

Judges across the country have considered the arguments put forward by Professor George and others—that marriage is essentially tied to heterosexual procreation and to the alleged “sexual complementarity” of men and women—and have overwhelmingly concluded that they are not persuasive. In fact, most of those courts have held that such arguments are so tenuous and illogical that they fail even the lowest level of constitutional scrutiny.

 

Robert Oscar Lopez: Gay Marriage Is A 'Tidal Wave That Swept Up Children'

In a speech to the Stanford Anscombe Society last month, anti-gay activist Robert Oscar Lopez explained that he would support marriage equality…if it didn’t come with protections for children raised by same-sex parents.

“I supported marriage for a long time,” Lopez said, “but the problem is that the people who have supported gay marriage have chosen to yoke gay marriage and gay parenting together.”

“That put me in the horrible situation where I have to oppose gay marriage, because it ultimately means that in order to protect the sexual relationship between two adults, you have to shatter the relationship between a child and either his father or his mother,” he continued.

“A lot of the people who I might have disagreed with ten years ago, who kept on warning that gay marriage was a portal to new things, unfortunately those people were right and gay marriage became this tidal wave that then swept up children,” he said.

Mat Staver: Refusing To Oppose Gay Marriage Like Keeping Silent About The Holocaust

Mat Staver, the head of Liberty Counsel and dean of the Liberty University School of Law, criticized Republican politicians who have been largely mum as a string of federal court rulings have knocked down bans same-sex marriage, including one affecting Liberty University’s home state of Virginia.

He likened such politicians, and those who support marriage equality, to those who were silent in Nazi Germany during the Holocaust. Staver told Radio America host Greg Corombos yesterday that officials who don’t speak out against marriage equality will be harshly judged:

I think from the political right, the Republicans and so forth, those that are Republican elected officials state and federal, those who remain silent will ultimately be held accountable just as much as Democrats who advocate to the contrary. This is not an issue in which you can remain silent any more than you can remain silent during Nazi Germany. That was a moral issue, it was not defined by geography, there was a moral imperative there of the dignity of the human being, you can’t remain silent there and expect no consequences. Nor can you remain silent or advocate to the contrary with regards to the undermining of marriage as a union of a man and a woman.

Predicting that the Supreme Court would eventually take up the case, he said a ruling in favor of marriage equality would be just as invalid as a court striking down the laws of gravity.

“In world history, even when you look at the Greeks and how promiscuous they were, you only have fourteen years outside of the United States and ten years in the United States with this dangerous experiment, so I think no matter what the courts do, you can’t change what is reality, objectively so, male and female,” he added.

Cathie Adams: People Are Fleeing Marriage Equality States

Cathie Adams of the Texas Eagle Forum suggested last week that people are leaving states like Massachusetts for Texas as a result of their different marriage laws, and advised gay Texans and their supporters to simply leave the state.

During the Texas Values anti-gay press conference, Adams said that the state’s ban on same-sex marriage is a reason for its population growth: “Texas is the fastest growing state in the nation and there is a reason for that, and part of that reason is traditional marriage.”

She continued:

This is good for Texas families. We do not accept the homosexual agenda, that is what we are talking about here. If those who embrace that homosexual agenda want to move to a state that does embrace homosexual marriage, there is a state of Massachusetts that they could move to. But we are finding is that they’re not moving to Massachusetts, what is happening is that Massachusetts is declining in numbers, people are moving out of that state. So why in the world would Texas, that is growing and the fastest growing, want to join Massachusetts, that is declining. People are moving away, they are voting with their feet, out of Massachusetts. Yet, there are liberals who are trying to influence all of us in places like Hollywood and San Francisco. They want to change Texas.

Eagle Forum founder Phyllis Schlafly has similarly claimed that “many Americans are dissenting with their feet, by moving away from same-sex marriage states and into the many states that continue to recognize the value of marriage as being between only one man and one woman.”

Charles Flowers: Gays 'Seek Special Rights' To 'Persecute' Conservatives

The Religious Right group Texas Values announced its support last week for Texas’ appeal to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals after a district court judge struck down the state’s ban on same-sex marriage. Pastor Charles Flowers, who vigorously opposed an anti-discrimination ordinance in San Antonio, joined Jonathan Saenz and other conservative activists to support the appeal and denounce what he called the “HLGC” community: “homosexual, lesbian and gender confused.”

Flowers said that the ban should be upheld as constitutional “because it is Texas law” and “because it is based on the notion that those who choose to practice a certain lifestyle cannot change and yet the preponderance of the evidence refutes that claim.”

In fact, he positioned himself as a spokesman for civil rights activists and proclaimed “a divorce between the Civil Rights Movement and the HLGC agenda citing irreconcilable differences.”

Later, he warned that gays “seek special rights and a protected opportunity to punish and persecute anyone not in agreement with their lifestyle choice.”

Janet Porter: Boycott Target For Its 'Corruption Of Marriage'

Not only is Janet Porter calling on conservatives to ditch Facebook and join her non-operational website ReaganBook, she is now pushing the Religious Right boycott of Target after the company announced its support for marriage equality.

“Target takes aim at natural marriage,” Porter said today in her daily radio commentary. “They are using your hard-earned shopping dollars to stand for counterfeit marriage.”

“I called Target to let them know I won’t be shopping there anymore until they reverse their policy on the corruption of marriage, and you can too…. Stand for marriage by boycotting Target.”

Jim Garlow: Same-Sex Marriages 'Violate' California Law 'Every Single Day'

California Religious Right leader Jim Garlow helped spearhead the campaign to pass Proposition 8, and doesn’t seem to be giving up on his effort to ban same-sex marriage in the state even after the anti-gay amendment was overturned by federal courts.

While speaking to Bryan Fischer yesterday, Garlow insisted that every same-sex marriage — or as he calls it, “so-called gay marriage” — is still a violation of the law.

He said that Proposition 8 “still appears in the [state] Constitution, though it is being violated every single day” by gay couples getting legally married in the state.

Staver: Same-Sex Marriage Not A Right Because Homosexuality Used To Be A Crime

On a recent episode of Liberty Counsel’s “Faith and Freedom” radio program, Mat Staver argued that marriage equality can’t be a fundamental right because it’s not “deeply rooted in our history that you have to protect it,” and in fact “homosexuality has always been considered a crime against nature” and “something that’s been criminalized in our culture.”

A fundamental right in constitutional law has to either be specifically articulated in an enumeration of the Constitution — so a fundamental right would be freedom of speech, freedom of religion, so it’s part of the First Amendment, it’s actually absolutely articulated — and if it’s not articulated, the court has said it has to be deeply rooted in our history such that if you were to not protect it, it would literally unravel the concept of ordered liberty that is so essential to who we are and it is so deeply rooted in our history that you have to protect it. Parental rights can be something that falls within a category such as that.

Now, here, obviously, the issue is, did same-sex marriage become a fundamental right? And the answer clearly is no. If they really were honest, it’s no. And to the contrary, same-sex marriage or homosexuality has always been considered a crime against nature. Instead of protection deeply rooted, it’s been something that’s been criminalized in our culture, not just in America but around the world.

Later in the program Staver discussed the recent appeals court decision striking down Virginia’s marriage equality ban with Liberty University Law School’s Rena Lindevaldsen. Lindevaldsen argued that because the court acknowledged that people in same-sex relationships sometimes raise children from opposite-sex relationships that it undermined the argument that being gay is a fundamental characteristic. “Now they’re saying, by the way, we can have relationships with whoever we want to and we still get this right to marriage,” she lamented.

North Carolina Religious Right Leader Blasts 'Despotism' And 'Tyranny' Of Pro-Equality Court Rulings

Last month, North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper announced that he would no longer defend the state’s marriage equality ban  because "there are really no arguments left to be made." 

This did not sit well with Mark Creech, executive director of the North Carolina Action League. In a Christian Post column yesterday, Creech attacked Cooper for “wimpishly” capitulating to “tyranny” and yielding to the “despotism” of “judicial totalitarians.”

By refusing to resist with every legal means possible, Cooper capitulates to a form of tyranny in our day. He abandons his post on the field of battle, throws up the white flag, stands in the very place of the state (a state that voted by 61% for the marriage amendment) and wimpishly replies to the 4th Circuit that North Carolina accepts their judgment and surrenders. Furthermore, he calls on the judges who will preside over the cases currently challenging the state's marriage amendment to stand down and yield to the despotism of two judicial totalitarians.

Hagee: Pro-Choice, Pro-LGBT 'Counterfeit Christians' Are Nation's 'Greatest Problem'

Televangelist John Hagee dedicated his Sunday sermon this week to asking if America can “survive until 2017,” walking through a number of issues that he feared would impede the country’s survival. The chief among these, he said, are “counterfeit Christians” who are pro-choice or support LGBT rights.

“You people who are running around calling yourselves Christians supporting abortion, you are not!” he thundered.

“Our greatest problem in this nation is counterfeit Christianity,” he explained later in the sermon, telling gay-affirming pastors, “Those of you who got on national television and endorsed homosexual lifestyle because the president did so, you are a counterfeit Christian, you are a moral coward, you are a hireling shepherd. Shame on you.”

Hagee also warned that the separation of church and state “will prove suicidal for America.”
 

David Barton Repeats Debunked Claim That Chaplains Are Forced To Perform Same-Sex Weddings

Last year, after the Supreme Court struck down the federal component of the Defense of Marriage Act, David Barton claimed that the ruling would force military chaplains to perform same-sex marriages against their will.

That fear, of course, was completely unfounded and the Pentagon clarified that DOMA repeal would in no way mean that a military chaplain would have to perform a marriage against his will.

But Barton is still claiming that military chaplains are being forced to officiate same-sex weddings that violate their religious beliefs, saying on his “Wallbuilders Live” program today that military commanders are ordering chaplains to “perform homosexual weddings.”

Ben Carson: LGBT-Affirming Pastors Put Their Finger In The Eye Of God

Conservative activist and potential GOP presidential candidate Ben Carson joined James Dobson on Family Talk Radio yesterday, where the two got to talking about LGBT-affirming pastors.

Dobson, joining a long line of anti-LGBT activists who don’t quite understand what bisexuality is, asked what pastors who endorse marriage equality are going to do about bisexual people, who he said “have sex with males and females at the same time.”

“That’s called orgies, that’s what it used to be called” he said.

Carson, for his part, despaired that pastors who approve of same-sex marriage have given a “finger-in-your-eye to God.”

Carson: I find it difficult sometimes to understand why ministers are willing to abandon the scripture to go along and get along. I just find that very puzzling.

Dobson: I do too, especially on the issue of gay marriage. There are many, many formerly conservative big-time ministers — I mean those who have big churches and great influence — who have abandoned that.

Carson: They’ve been beaten into submission.

Dobson: If they’re right to do this today, were they wrong yesterday?

Carson: The bigger issue is, of course, if you can say the Bible is wrong on that, then, you know, why isn’t it wrong on everything, or anything that you don’t want it to say?

Dobson: I have been on a crusade to say to many ministers, and I’ll say it again now, that if men can marry and if the things that are said about same-sex relationships and marriage and the Bible are misunderstandings, what do you do with the rest of LGBT? What do you do with bisexuality? If one of those is right and proper and holy, what about those who have sex with males and females at the same time? That’s called orgies, that’s what it used to be called, or just sleeping around with everybody and it doesn’t matter. How can a Christian minister who reads the Bible condone that?

Carson: Well, you know, my emphasis is that marriage is an institution established by God himself. And when you look in the New Testament, the marriage relationship is used to help us understand His relationship with His people. So when you start distorting that, you’re really going pretty deep into the finger-in-your-eye to God. That’s why I have a hard time understanding why ministers are willing to do that.

Rick Santorum Angry That Marriage Equality Supporters 'Devalued' Marriage

While speaking over the weekend on “Eagle Forum Live,” Rick Santorum said that conservatives need to “reclaim” marriage from the left and “the folks who are trying to change the marriage laws to allow same-sex couples.”

The former senator and presidential candidate told host Anne Cori, Eagle Forum founder Phyllis Schlafly’s daughter, that supporters of marriage equality have “devalued marriage” and “divorced marriage from any meaning beyond a romantic relationship,” while Cori lamented the “celebration of single mothers.”

He also warned of polygamy: “If marriage is simply a romantic relationship between two people, and by the way, that’s what it’s devolved to the minds of a lot of Americans, if that’s all that marriage is well then it’s hard to make the argument that any two people or any three or four people shouldn’t be able to get married.”

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.
Syndicate content

Marriage Equality Posts Archive

Miranda Blue, Thursday 08/28/2014, 11:21am
On her “Mission America” radio program yesterday, Linda Harvey weighed in on the National Organization for Marriage’s boycott of Target in response to the company’s filing of a court brief in support of marriage equality. Harvey echoed NOM in taking particular issue with Target’s characterization of same-sex marriage bans as “bans” and “discrimination.” “Have you noticed how this is how headlines often read these days?” Harvey said. “They talk about laws on natural marriage as being ‘bans’ on same-sex so-... MORE
Miranda Blue, Monday 08/25/2014, 11:12am
In a WorldNetDaily column today, Joseph Farah came up with a creative argument for exempting businesses that deny services to gay couples from nondiscrimination laws. Opposing same-sex marriage, Farah argues, is itself a “sexual orientation” and therefore a law prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation is actually discriminatory against the sexual orientation of marriage equality opponents. Let me pose a hypothetical intellectual challenge: The law that forms the basis for the action against the Giffords in New York is a provision that bans discrimination on... MORE
Brian Tashman, Friday 08/22/2014, 4:35pm
Craig James — the former Fox Sports host who now works at the Family Research Council — hosted “Washington Watch” yesterday, where he attacked the federal judge who struck down Florida’s same-sex marriage ban for “overriding and striking down the will of the people.” James’ statements prompted a caller to ask him if he believes a judge should then similarly uphold a ban on interracial marriage if it was supported by the state’s voters. James responded that the courts in that case should overrule the people because judges should decide... MORE
Brian Tashman, Friday 08/22/2014, 3:10pm
On yesterday’s edition of “Washington Watch,” the Family Research Council’s Craig James and Travis Weber discussed a federal judge’s decision to strike down Florida’s ban on same-sex marriage, warning that the decision will have dangerous and unforeseen consequences. After James denounced the judge for “overriding and striking down the will of the people,” Weber lamented that the judge’s “inability to comprehend any moral components or any moral insight into marriage” is “very dangerous” as it could pave the way for... MORE
Peter Montgomery, Wednesday 08/20/2014, 12:20pm
Something that might bug Religious Right leaders even more than the expansion of marriage equality in the U.S. is the increasing acceptance of homosexuality and LGBT equality among Christians. The latest salvo against Christians who challenge anti-gay interpretations of scripture comes from Scott Lively. Lively originally gained notoriety for his book "The Pink Swastika," which blamed homosexuals for the rise of Nazi Germany, but may now be more well known for his travels fanning anti-gay sentiment and encouraging the passage of anti-gay legislation in Uganda and around the globe.... MORE
Peter Montgomery, Tuesday 08/19/2014, 3:47pm
Robert George, the reigning intellectual godfather of the Religious Right, complains in an interview with the Christian Post today that judges who recognize the right of same-sex couples to marry are not only ignoring the Constitution, they are ignoring his own brilliant arguments. George, co-author of the Manhattan Declaration and co-founder of the National Organization for Marriage, published a law review article and book, “What is Marriage? Man and Woman: A Defense” with Sherif Gergis and the Heritage Foundation’s Ryan Anderson. George is quite proud that Justice Samuel... MORE
Miranda Blue, Tuesday 08/19/2014, 12:44pm
In a speech to the Stanford Anscombe Society last month, anti-gay activist Robert Oscar Lopez explained that he would support marriage equality…if it didn’t come with protections for children raised by same-sex parents. “I supported marriage for a long time,” Lopez said, “but the problem is that the people who have supported gay marriage have chosen to yoke gay marriage and gay parenting together.” “That put me in the horrible situation where I have to oppose gay marriage, because it ultimately means that in order to protect the sexual relationship... MORE