marry

Was Anthony Weiner An Unwitting Pawn Of An Islamic-Socialist Plot?

Did Huma Abedin, a top aide to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, marry disgraced New York Rep. Anthony Weiner to usher in an Islamic, socialist, Alinskyist plot to takeover America? So says conservative Washington Times blogger Eliana Benador, who posits (in an article since pulled from the website) that the power-hungry Abedin may have married Weiner to advance the “pro-Muslim political agenda” backed by President Obama, George Soros, and her close friends Bill and Hillary Clinton, whose actions “signal their socialist agenda, which includes domination of the U.S. by a Muslim ruled world.” But their nefarious plans could be ruined by the congressman’s recent scandal.

Benador believes that Weiner may have even converted to Islam to marry Abedin, noting that no one can trust anything they say anyway because “an element of sharia that states there is a legal right and duty to distort the truth to promote the cause of Islam.” Good thing that Benador is asking the question everyone’s been thinking, “has Huma been groomed to access leading political movers and shakers to advance the cause of Islam in America, including a politically positioned marriage to Congressman Anthony Weiner?”

Congressman Weiner‘s indiscretions, however, might end up inconveniencing the present Administration’s plans. “How?” you might ask.

The clues may be found in the marriage of Huma Abedin, a devout Muslim, and Anthony Weiner, a Jew.



When looking broadly at the Anthony Weiner–Huma Abedin union, we have to wonder if the coupling of a Jewish American man and a Muslim woman of her pedigree was fostered by love or by a socialist political agenda.



Less than a year ago, in July 2010, Huma Abedin married Jewish U.S. Representative Anthony Weiner (D-NY). Attesting to the strength of her relationship with the Clintons, former President William J. Clinton officiated at the ceremony. Not unlike President Obama, the Clintons, as well as powerful politicos such as George Soros, are devotes of Saul Alinksy, who is considered “the founder of modern Community Organizing.” From my position, I clearly see that the actions of this group signal their socialist agenda, which includes domination of the U.S. by a Muslim ruled world.

Which begs the question of whether Huma Abedin been groomed by family and political leaders to carry this agenda forward? It’s noteworthy that Time Magazine listed Huma Abedin in its “40 under 40” list of the new generation of civic leaders and “rising stars in American politics.” That certainly puts her in a position to move the Alinsky-group agenda forward.

The Imam of New York has stated: “I would tell her [Huma] to be a little bit patient. In our book, if you think your wife, or husband, is doing something unacceptable, you start by counseling her.”

Counseling? For whom, Huma or Anthony? The Imam’s statement seems to state that Huma is in need.

Regardless, those are words of compromise offered by a leading Muslim Imam trying to make us forget that the Koran actually advocates stoning wives for adultery while turning a blind eye toward the sexual mis-deeds of the husband.

It is also important, when looking at this situation, to remember that observant Muslims practice Taqiyya , an element of sharia that states there is a legal right and duty to distort the truth to promote the cause of Islam.

Given the defense articulated by the Imam, which would be offered only for a Muslim man, we must believe this opportunity to remove this Muslim woman from a union with an non-believer would be quickly taken. Therefore we must consider that Mr. Weiner *may* have converted to Islam, because if he did not, we have to consider the unlikely, that being that Ms. Abedin has abandoned her Muslim faith, even while she still practices.

However, we should also bear in mind that any who are Jewish by orthodox standards will always remain Jewish, even if they have converted to another faith. This may explain rumors that Mr. Weiner went to his synagogue looking for moral support.

The question that begs to be asked, however, is, has Huma been groomed to access leading political movers and shakers to advance the cause of Islam in America, including a politically positioned marriage to Congressman Anthony Weiner?

If that is so, Anthony Weiner may be proven to be the weak link in a pro-Muslim political agenda.

And the final test of that may be in Huma Abedin’s reactions to her husband’s lack of moral principals.

Update (2:01) the article has now been pulled from The Washington Times website.

Hartzler Stands By Her Anti-Gay Comments

During the Eagle Forum Collegians 2011 Summit with Phyllis Schlafly, Congresswoman Vicky Hartzler (R-MO) delivered a speech on why young conservatives should oppose marriage equality, claiming that legalizing gay marriage is akin to legalizing pedophilia, incest, and letting three-year olds drive a car. We attended the conference and posted the video:

Hartzler: Some people say, why does it matter to you as a government official? I care about someone else, I’m committed, I should be able to marry. Well, think about it. That starts you down the road to opening up licensure to basically meaning that the license would mean nothing if you let everybody with that standard. For instance, if you just care about somebody and you have a committed relationship, why not allow one man and two women, or three women to marry? There are a lot of people in this country that support polygamy. Why not? If they’re committed to each other, why should you care?

Why not allow group marriage? There are people out there who want that. I think it’s called polyamory, it’s got some big name. But anyway, group marriage, I understand. Well, is that the best policy? Why not allow an uncle to marry his niece? Why not allow a 50-year-old man to marry a 12-year-old girl if they love each other and they’re committed? So, pretty soon, if you don’t set parameters, you don’t have any parameters at all, the license means nothing — the marriage means nothing.



It’s their right to marry whoever they want, but we’re saying marriage is between a man and a woman. So, there’s a difference there. But it’s not a right in the Constitution as far as that goes either. It’s not a right of anybody — of a 3-year-old to be able to drive a car. You know, the government has set some parameters that they think is correct.

After the video was posted, Hartzler reiterated her argument while also suggesting that her comments were “misconstrued.” The Congresswoman told PoliticsMO.com that she stands by her ‘slippery slope’ analogy, adding that she only meant to say that gay people getting married is like thirteen year olds driving cars:

Speaking to PoliticMo Monday, Hartzler clarified, saying she said – or meant to say – 13 year old, not three year old.

“I was saying that if you change the standard in the country to having marriage be, which is what they want, that just anybody that has a loving and committed relationship, then you set yourself on a slippery slope legally in courts to having other people come forward with similar arguments that would be objectionable to almost everyone,” she said. “So, that’s another reason why it makes sense to just keep the traditional definition of a man and a woman and that it’s my main point there is that it’s wide public policy.

“So, obviously those comments are just being misconstrued by those,” she said.

Liberty University Law Prof: On Gay Rights "Satan Obviously Doesn’t Want Us To Look To The Truth of Scripture"

Last month, Peter LaBarbera used his radio show, Americans for Truth Hour, to highlight a speech given by Liberty University law professor Rena Lindevaldsen, who serves as Lisa Miller's attorney in her position with Liberty Counsel. Lindevaldsen, speaking against marriage equality, declared that Christians can’t compromise on the issue of LGBT rights because that would mean “deny[ing] the truth of the scripture” and “Satan obviously doesn’t want us to look at the truth of scripture.” This is just the latest in a long line of anti-gay statements from Liberty University and the affiliated Liberty Counsel, which in the past has claimed gay marriage is a fight against an "Antichrist Spirit" and would like to see President Obama impeached for extending leave to domestic partners. 

 

To accept homosexuality as healthy and normal necessarily means we as Christians deny the truth of the scripture. There is simply no sound biblical position of neutrality on this issue. As Christians we have to treat the Bible as our action plan, therefore we have to refuse to legitimate [sic] any actions that the Bible calls sin.

And that’s one reason as Christians we hear we should compromise on the marriage battle. Let’s allow civil unions. Let’s allow domestic partnerships. When we do that, however, we compromise on scripture by calling what God says is sin, good.

Our only options as Christians, if we’re going to adhere to scripture, is to fight for marriage and everything that’s included in that. We don’t want to give up all the rights of marriage and simply protect the name of marriage because that’s not what the Bible is about when you hear about marriage.

That’s also why we shouldn’t get out of the marriage business all-together which is what some Christians say. “Let’s just give it over to churches, let them marry who they want and government gets out of the business.” That’s not the way the government works though. Government in all areas of life seeks to steer people into conduct it thinks is good, and is helpful to society. And that’s why it is involved in marriage, because time and again marriage between one man and one woman has shown to be the most optimal environment for raising godly children who are productive citizens.

And so to get out of the marriage business, as I like to call it, altogether simply means there’s going to be a void. There’s going to be a vacuum. Something fills that void. In essence, evil will sweep in and run rampant on the issues of marriage, relationships, and homosexuality.

Satan obviously doesn’t want us to look to the truth of scripture. The truth of scripture is that God has a different plan than same-sex sexual conduct for your life.  And so if Satan and those who are essentially advancing his agenda do not what to shed light on the truth, we have to.

Geller: Obama Is An Illegitimate Child And Therefore An Illegitimate President

Pamela Geller’s rabid anti-Muslim activism helped her win friends in the conservative movement and the Republican Party, and she even had her own panel at CPAC earlier this year. But Geller has now been focusing her efforts on a different issue: Birtherism. Geller accused President Obama of doctoring his birth certificate and took to the Birther website WorldNetDaily to claim that Obama is ineligible to be president because his parents had a sham marriage. Virginia School of Law professor G. Edward White plainly points out that the term “natural born citizen” is “understood to mean a person born in the United States or born abroad to parents who are both American citizen” (emphasis mine) and had nothing to do with the children of purported “sham marriages.” But for Geller, who now professes to be an expert on Obama’s parents’ romantic life, even if Obama was born in the United States he can’t be considered a “natural born citizen” because the Founders wouldn’t have wanted “an illegitimate child of a foreign bigamist” to be President:

The release of Barack Hussein Obama I's immigration file is stunning in what it reveals and the questions it poses. BHO I's visa expired Aug. 8, 1961 (Barack Junior was born Aug. 4, 1961) – is that why he married Obama's mother? Stanley Ann Dunham was a white girl in a family way with a mixed-race child, desperate for legitimacy in a culture that condemned such behavior as abject immorality, and Barack Obama Sr. was a con man from Kenya desperate to stay in the USA. Was the marriage merely a business arrangement (she was 17 when she got pregnant)? Is that why it was so important to place the ads in the Hawaiian papers announcing the birth of the future president – because his father was about to be deported?

Stanley Ann Dunham could not have been so savvy as to know that BHO I was a Muslim polygamist. Yet clearly, Barack Hussein Obama Sr., was never divorced from his first wife in Kenya. The Immigration and Naturalization Service suspected that the elder Obama's marriage to Dunham was a sham, arranged strictly to secure immigration status for him. Despite the fact that BHO I had married Dunham, the government wasn't buying it: An INS official wrote in 1961 that the agency should "make sure an investigation is conducted as to the bona-fide of the marriage."



It is interesting to note that BHO I claims in the documents to have divorced first wife, Kezia, "verbally." According to the Shariah, a man can divorce his wife by repeating it three times. Further, when BHO I returned to Kenya, he apparently lived with his first Kenyan wife and his American third wife, suggesting that the "divorce" he ostensibly secured to marry Dunham was a transitory ruse.

That would make the president illegitimate. In 1787, illegitimate children had different rights. There is no way the founders of this great nation intended for an illegitimate child of a foreign bigamist to attain the highest, most powerful position in the new land.

Similarly, WND editor Joseph Farah maintains that if Obama is eligible to serve as president, then so are “anchor babies,” or the US-born children of illegal immigrants. Unfortunately for Farah, so-called “anchor babies” are in fact American citizens:

We have a pretender to the throne sitting in the highest office of the land – the most powerful elected position in the world.

America has, without a vote, without a constitutional amendment, without even a court decision, dumbed down the eligibility requirement for the presidency. And that is unacceptable. …

Americans do not want illegal aliens to serve as presidents. That's not what the founders envisioned at all. But conceding to Obama's eligibility will open the door to American presidents who were "anchor babies" – children born of illegal aliens born on U.S. soil.

That's not what the Constitution means. That's not what the founders intended. And it's not what Americans want today.

Whalen: Vacate Walker's Proposition 8 Decision

Ed Whalen is back with another nonsensical article, arguing in the National Review that since Judge Vaughn Walker, who was appointed by George H. W. Bush, is openly gay, his decision to overturn Proposition 8 should be vacated and he should have been disqualified from ruling on the case in the first place. Using Whalen’s logic, white judges should be barred from ruling on cases involving white people, female judges should not be allowed to rule on cases involving women, and Jewish judges should be prohibited from ruling on cases involving Jews or Judaism:

In taking part in the Perry case, Judge Walker was deciding whether Proposition 8 would bar him and his same-sex partner from marrying. Whether Walker had any subjective interest in marrying his same-sex partner — a matter on which Walker hasn’t spoken — is immaterial under section 455(a). (If Walker did have such an interest, his recusal also would be required by other rules requiring that a judge disqualify himself when he knows that he has an “interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding.”) Walker’s own factual findings explain why a reasonable person would expect him to want to have the opportunity to marry his partner: A reasonable person would think that Walker would want to have the opportunity to take part with his partner in what “is widely regarded as the definitive expression of love and commitment in the United States.” A reasonable person would think that Walker would want to decrease the costs of his same-sex relationship, increase his wealth, and enjoy the physical and psychological benefits that marriage is thought to confer.



Now that Walker has finally disclosed facts that would have warranted his disqualification from Perry, the appropriate remedy is for the Ninth Circuit — or, if necessary, the Supreme Court — to vacate Walker’s judgment upon a request by Prop 8 proponents. As the Supreme Court ruled more than two decades ago in Liljeberg v. Health Services Acquisition Corp. (1988), where a district judge has violated section 455(a) by deciding a case that he should have disqualified himself from, it is “appropriate to vacate the judgment unless it can be said that [the losing party] did not make a timely request for relief, or that it would otherwise be unfair to deprive the prevailing party of its judgment.” In that case, the losing party did not learn of the facts requiring disqualification until ten months after the court of appeals had affirmed the district court’s judgment, so the question was whether the judgment that had become final on appeal should nonetheless be set aside. The Court found the request for relief to be timely, as the delay was attributable to the judge’s failure to disclose the facts requiring disqualification. A request now by Prop 8 proponents to vacate Walker’s judgment would indisputably be timely (and would clearly not involve any unfairness to the Perry plaintiffs), as the appeal on the merits is still pending, and Walker has only now revealed the information requiring his disqualification.

Fischer's Religious Test: Romney's Mormon Faith "Ought To Be An Issue in 2012"

Bryan Fischer generally kicks off his daily radio program with an extended discussion of a particular passage of Scripture, followed by a related prayer.  On Friday's program, the piece of Scripture was "The Resurrection and Marriage" from Luke 21: 27-40 ... but this discussion went on far longer than normal, giving Fischer an opportunity to rail against marriag equality and also to declare that Mitt Romney's Mormon faith "ought to be an issue in 2012" and that Romney ought to be forced to publicly declare whether he embraces Mormon teachings that conflict with the Bible so that voters can decide "whether they want somebody with those convictions sitting in the Oval Office":

The purpose of marriage, ultimately, is children. That;'s it. Now there are other purposes: it's there for pleasure; it's there for companionship, and all of those are celebrated in the Scriptures. But the fundamental purpose of the institution of marriage is the procreation of children. And God has designed that relationship - one man, one woman - that's why we can never call homosexual relationships "marriages" because procreation is impossible. It is a biological impossibility with them. When you have a married couple that wants to conceive and can't, that's a tragedy. Homosexual couples - conception is an impossibility, biologically. And that's why we never should dignify those relationships with the term "marriage" ...

[We were] talking in the first segment about Jesus' teach and the resurrection and about marriage. This is interesting, by the way - remember, Mitt Romney is fully intending to run for the presidency in 2012. I read an article this morning - well, I just kind of scanned it - talking about the fact that his Mormon theology could be a serious problem for him in 2012 and I believe frankly that his Mormon theology ought to be an issue in 2012. I mean, we're talking about the most powerful person in the world.

Religious convictions are out most deeply held convictions. These are the deepest part of us; things we believe to be true about God and God's truth and God's will. And Mitt Romney believes that there will be marriages in Heaven, that you will populate your own planet and will be siring children for all of eternity. This is flatly contradictory to what Jesus teaches. He says quite directly "in the resurrection, they neither marry nor are given in marriage." I mean you can't get any more direct than that - they neither marry nor are given in marriage. And yet the LDS church teaches that people will be married for all of eternity.

So a direct contradiction between Mormon theology and the teaching of Jesus Christ himself and so I think it's appropriate for Mr. Romney to be about the various distinctions of LDS theology, does he believe them. There's no Christian that has to be embarrassed about publicly embracing any of the fundamental elements. You take the Apostle's Creed, the great creeds of the church and you ask any Christian candidate for public office "do you believe in the Trinity?"A Christian has no hesitation to saying "yes." Do you believe in the inspiration of the Scripture? Absolutely. Do you believe in the sinless life of Christ? Absolutely. Do you believe in the resurrection of Christ? Absolutely. Do you believe in the universal church? Absolutely. Do you believe in the second coming of Christ? Absolutely.

No Christian needs to have any hesitation about publicly embracing the fundamentals of Christian theology and I think it's important to ask Mr. Romney, does he embrace the fundamentals of LDS theology and let the American people decide whether they want somebody with those convictions sitting in the Oval Office.

House Republicans Plan Strategy To Overturn DC Marriage Equality Law

A leading House Republican is pledging to follow-through on his promise to force a referendum on the District of Columbia’s 2010 marriage equality law. In January, Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) and Religious Right activists demanded that the rights of gays and lesbians to marry in D.C. be put to a popular vote after the Supreme Court rebuffed an attempt by Harry Jackson to compel a referendum. Jordan is head of the Republican Study Committee, the principal caucus for House conservatives, and wants to take advantage of Congress’s disproportionate power over District affairs in order to push his opposition to marriage equality. CQ reports (subscription only):

Jim Jordan, chairman of the 176-member Republican Study Committee, is leading an effort by conservatives to press House leaders for floor votes in opposition to gay marriage.

Jordan’s first project is a draft proposal that would set up a referendum to overturn a year-old District of Columbia law recognizing marriages of gay and lesbian couples. The move comes as conservatives express a desire to move beyond a focus on spending cuts and expand the House majority’s legislative agenda to include social issues.

The Supreme Court declined in January to take up a case aimed at clearing the way for a referendum to ban gay marriage in the nation’s capital. City officials have blocked the referendum on the grounds that it would violate a city human rights law.

Jordan said he expects the draft measure to draw strong support from House Republicans. He and other conservatives say they are weighing how best to promote the vote as an example of Republicans fulfilling a campaign promise. The GOP’s 2010 Pledge to America vowed that a Republican majority would “honor families, traditional marriage, life and the private and faith-based organizations that form the core of our American values.”



Jordan says he will press for a floor vote to allow fellow conservatives to make clear their opposition to gay marriage. “We want to advance marriage. That’s the pledge. Our party should be all about defending marriage as it has always been defined,” he said.

Reps. Steve King of Iowa and Vicky Hartzler of Missouri have also been calling for floor action to demonstrate opposition to gay marriage. Hartzler has gathered 98 cosponsors for a resolution condemning the Obama administration’s decision to stop defending restrictions on gay marriage.

Family Research Council's "The Top Ten Harms of Same-Sex 'Marriage'" Defies Logic

The Family Research Council released a pamphlet authored by senior fellow Peter Sprigg about the purported “harm” of marriage equality to American society. Sprigg, who previously said that he wants to “export homosexuals from the United States” because “homosexuality is destructive to society,” discusses the ten reasons he believes that equal rights for gays and lesbians are dangerous, ranging from a “diversity bag” in a Massachusetts school (Reason #2) to the predicted rise of adultery if gays were allowed to marry (Reason #5) and the legalization of polygamy (Reason #10).

First, Sprigg argues that if married gay couples receive health benefits for their families, their relationships would be “subsidized” by the public through entitlement programs. Sprigg finds it deplorable that people would like their spouse or child to receive benefits after they pass away:

Reason #1: Taxpayers, consumers, and businesses would be forced to subsidize homosexual relationships.

One of the key arguments often heard in support of homosexual civil “marriage” revolves around all the government “benefits” that homosexu¬als claim they are denied. Many of these “benefits” involve one thing—taxpayer money that homosexuals are eager to get their hands on. For example, one of the goals of homosexu¬al activists is to take part in the biggest government entitlement program of all—Social Security. Homosexuals want their partners to be eligible for Social Security survivors benefits when one partner dies.

The fact that Social Security survivors benefits were intended to help stay-at-home mothers who did not have retirement benefits from a former employer has not kept homosexuals from de¬manding the benefit.1 Homosexual activists are also demanding that children raised by a homo¬sexual couple be eligible for benefits when one of the partners dies—even if the deceased partner was not the child’s biological or adoptive parent.

Later, Sprigg claims that if gays and lesbians have equal marriage rights, then straight people would be less likely to marry. Why? According to Sprigg, few gay couples would get married if they had the right to, and straight couples would naturally follow their “poor example” and not get married:

Reason #4: Fewer people would marry.

Even where legal recognition and marital rights and benefits are available to same-sex couples (whether through same-sex civil “marriages,” “civil unions,” or “domestic partnerships”), relatively few same-sex couples even bother to seek such recognition or claim such benefits.



Couples who could marry, but choose instead to cohabit without the benefit of marriage, harm the institution of marriage by setting an example for other couples, making non-marital cohabitation seem more acceptable as well. If same-sex “marriage” were legalized, the evidence suggests that the percentage of homosexual couples who would choose cohabitation over “marriage” would be much larger than the current percentage of heterosexual couples who choose cohabitation over marriage. It is likely that the poor example set by homosexual couples would, over time, lead to lower marriage rates among heterosexuals as well.

Sprigg also blames marriage equality laws for a fall in the birthrate in certain states, arguing that people would have fewer children if gay couples are allowed to wed. Of course, he uses absolutely no evidence to back up this assertion:

Reason #9: Birthrates would fall.

There is already evidence of at least a correlation between low birth rates and the legalization of same-sex “marriage.” At this writing, five U.S. states grant marriage licenses to same-sex couples. As of 2007, the last year for which complete data are available, four of those five states ranked within the bottom eight out of all fifty states in both birth rate (measured in relation to the total population) and fertility rate (measured in rela¬tion to the population of women of childbearing age).



The contribution of same-sex “marriage” to de¬clining birth rates would clearly lead to significant harm for society.

Right Wing Round-Up

 

Right-Wing Commentator Calls Marriage Equality "An Act of Societal Suicide"

Conservative activist Alan Caruba usually works as a shill for corporations and is the former communications director of the American Policy Committee, which staunchly opposes environmental protections and the United Nations. Instead of criticizing regulations on businesses, Caruba yesterday launched a tirade against the Obama administration’s decision to stop defending the unconstitutional Defense of Marriage Act, calling marriage equality “an act of societal suicide” and the administration’s decision “a stealth attack on the nation.” He also derided the Obama administration for bringing the “homosexual agenda” in schools, appointing Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court, and repealing Don’t Ask Don’t Tell:

I have always thought that "gay" was an odd choice of words to describe homosexuals because those whom I have known rarely evinced much happiness about being regarded by the rest of society as aberrations. They may have made their personal peace with it, but the notion that a society based on heterosexuality should regard them as "normal" defies logic.

Granting homosexuals the right to marry is an act of societal suicide. I will cite some examples below.

In late February, the White House and its Department of Justice announced that it would no longer defend the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) which defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman. It is a warning of moral decay that America has reached a point where it requires a law to assert this definition, recognized from the dawn of civilization, of mankind itself.



This is giving parents fits, but it was President Obama who installed Kevin Jennings as the White House "safe schools" czar in the Department of Education even though Jennings is a major homosexual activist who has pushed the homosexual agenda in the nation's schools. Jennings, prior to his appointment, was the founder and executive director of the nationwide Gay Lesbian Straight Education Network.

President Obama nominated Elena Kagan to a lifetime position as an Associate Justice on the Supreme Court despite her activism as Dean of the Harvard Law School during which she expelled military recruiters over the Armed Forces' ban on homosexuals. She called it a "moral injustice of the first order." She was known for recruiting homosexual activists to the school's faculty such as the former ACLU lawyer, William Rubenstein, to teach "queer" legal theory and elevated an outspoken lesbian professor, Janet Halley. She encouraged Harvard students to get involved in homosexual activist legal work.

These White House appointments are just one part of what millions of Americans have come to realize as measures taken to undermine the nation's moral authority, its legal system, its economy, its military strength and defense, and its energy security.

In 2012 Americans will clean house in the White House and the Congress, electing men and women who understand that homosexuality is an unfit condition for marriage, for service in the military, and that its justification in the states and the courts is a stealth attack on the nation.

Right-Wing Commentator Calls Marriage Equality "An Act of Societal Suicide"

Conservative activist Alan Caruba usually works as a shill for corporations and is the former communications director of the American Policy Committee, which staunchly opposes environmental protections and the United Nations. Instead of criticizing regulations on businesses, Caruba yesterday launched a tirade against the Obama administration’s decision to stop defending the unconstitutional Defense of Marriage Act, calling marriage equality “an act of societal suicide” and the administration’s decision “a stealth attack on the nation.” He also derided the Obama administration for bringing the “homosexual agenda” in schools, appointing Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court, and repealing Don’t Ask Don’t Tell:

I have always thought that "gay" was an odd choice of words to describe homosexuals because those whom I have known rarely evinced much happiness about being regarded by the rest of society as aberrations. They may have made their personal peace with it, but the notion that a society based on heterosexuality should regard them as "normal" defies logic.

Granting homosexuals the right to marry is an act of societal suicide. I will cite some examples below.

In late February, the White House and its Department of Justice announced that it would no longer defend the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) which defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman. It is a warning of moral decay that America has reached a point where it requires a law to assert this definition, recognized from the dawn of civilization, of mankind itself.



This is giving parents fits, but it was President Obama who installed Kevin Jennings as the White House "safe schools" czar in the Department of Education even though Jennings is a major homosexual activist who has pushed the homosexual agenda in the nation's schools. Jennings, prior to his appointment, was the founder and executive director of the nationwide Gay Lesbian Straight Education Network.

President Obama nominated Elena Kagan to a lifetime position as an Associate Justice on the Supreme Court despite her activism as Dean of the Harvard Law School during which she expelled military recruiters over the Armed Forces' ban on homosexuals. She called it a "moral injustice of the first order." She was known for recruiting homosexual activists to the school's faculty such as the former ACLU lawyer, William Rubenstein, to teach "queer" legal theory and elevated an outspoken lesbian professor, Janet Halley. She encouraged Harvard students to get involved in homosexual activist legal work.

These White House appointments are just one part of what millions of Americans have come to realize as measures taken to undermine the nation's moral authority, its legal system, its economy, its military strength and defense, and its energy security.

In 2012 Americans will clean house in the White House and the Congress, electing men and women who understand that homosexuality is an unfit condition for marriage, for service in the military, and that its justification in the states and the courts is a stealth attack on the nation.

Right Wing Round-Up

Right Wing Round-Up

Right Wing Round-Up

Right Wing Round-Up

Land and Dobson Blame Feminism For the Fact That Nobody Wants to Marry Their Awesome Daughters

James Dobson recently appeared on Richard Land's radio program to discuss his latest book "Bringing Up Girls" during which he warned that if parents don't pay close attention to their children, the culture will drag them off to Hell while the two men lamented that their amazing daughters cannot find any good men to marry, and it is all feminism's fault:

Dobson: If you, mom and dad, if you are running yourself ragged and you've got two extremely busy, demanding careers and you're not paying attention to what's going on with your kids and you're distracted and you're overworked and you're really thinking about something else, the culture will take your kids to Hell.

The feminist movement coming out of the Sixties and Seventies, and to some degree continuing today, has emphasized only masculine characteristics and degraded feminine characteristics. As a result, these little girls are growing up as aggressive, sexually aggressive girls, crude language, immodesty, predatory kinds of behavior - guess who does most of the calling now? And the hook-up culture, girls actually believe that the only way that they can get respect and have a boyfriend is to go to bed with them. And the guys take what they can get and their gone and guess who is left to try and figure out what happened to them. And by then they may have a baby or at least be pregnant or had an abortion or a disease and the girls pay the price for it and it breaks my heart, it really does.

Land: You know, it's true because boys have learned - first of all, they're not encouraged to be aggressive; they're encouraged to be passive and be perpetual boys - and so they've learned, in a culture that is training women to be sexually aggressive, to just stand and wait.

It's why so many of our young people aren't getting married - I know girls like this, women like this in the twenties and thirties who desperately want to get married.

Dobson: I have one of them. I have a daughter who is the catch of the century - I mean she is a wonderful, beautiful girl and she loves people, she loves the Lord and there are no guys out there.

I mean there are very few that are not tainted by the sitcom kind of attitude toward men where they're just fools ...

Land: They're adolescents. They're middle-aged adolescents. I have a daughter as well who would very much like to be married.

Land and Dobson Blame Feminism For the Fact That Nobody Wants to Marry Their Awesome Daughters

James Dobson recently appeared on Richard Land's radio program to discuss his latest book "Bringing Up Girls" during which he warned that if parents don't pay close attention to their children, the culture will drag them off to Hell while the two men lamented that their amazing daughters cannot find any good men to marry, and it is all feminism's fault:

Dobson: If you, mom and dad, if you are running yourself ragged and you've got two extremely busy, demanding careers and you're not paying attention to what's going on with your kids and you're distracted and you're overworked and you're really thinking about something else, the culture will take your kids to Hell.

The feminist movement coming out of the Sixties and Seventies, and to some degree continuing today, has emphasized only masculine characteristics and degraded feminine characteristics. As a result, these little girls are growing up as aggressive, sexually aggressive girls, crude language, immodesty, predatory kinds of behavior - guess who does most of the calling now? And the hook-up culture, girls actually believe that the only way that they can get respect and have a boyfriend is to go to bed with them. And the guys take what they can get and their gone and guess who is left to try and figure out what happened to them. And by then they may have a baby or at least be pregnant or had an abortion or a disease and the girls pay the price for it and it breaks my heart, it really does.

Land: You know, it's true because boys have learned - first of all, they're not encouraged to be aggressive; they're encouraged to be passive and be perpetual boys - and so they've learned, in a culture that is training women to be sexually aggressive, to just stand and wait.

It's why so many of our young people aren't getting married - I know girls like this, women like this in the twenties and thirties who desperately want to get married.

Dobson: I have one of them. I have a daughter who is the catch of the century - I mean she is a wonderful, beautiful girl and she loves people, she loves the Lord and there are no guys out there.

I mean there are very few that are not tainted by the sitcom kind of attitude toward men where they're just fools ...

Land: They're adolescents. They're middle-aged adolescents. I have a daughter as well who would very much like to be married.

Santorum: It's "Common Sense" That We Should Not "Defy Nature" By Letting Gays Get Married or Adopt

Today, CNS News posted a nearly two hour long interview with Rick Santorum conducted by CNS News editor-in-chief Terry Jeffrey which covered a wide range of issues, including Santorum's opposition to giving gays the right to marry or adopt children, saying it is "common sense" that we should not "defy nature" just because "a certain group of people want to be affirmed by society": 

Santorum also declared that he finds it "almost remarkable" that a black man like President Obama would support a woman's right to choose and say "we are going to decide who are people and who are not people":

Santorum: It's "Common Sense" That We Should Not "Defy Nature" By Letting Gays Get Married or Adopt

Today, CNS News posted a nearly two hour long interview with Rick Santorum conducted by CNS News editor-in-chief Terry Jeffrey which covered a wide range of issues, including Santorum's opposition to giving gays the right to marry or adopt children, saying it is "common sense" that we should not "defy nature" just because "a certain group of people want to be affirmed by society": 

Santorum also declared that he finds it "almost remarkable" that a black man like President Obama would support a woman's right to choose and say "we are going to decide who are people and who are not people":

Religious Right Preparing to Fight For Repeal of Gay Marriage in New Hampshire

While New Hampshire’s Democratic Governor John Lynch survived his reelection race despite a barrage of attack ads from anti-equality groups like the National Organization for Marriage, Republicans won veto-proof majorities in both the State House and Senate. As a result, Religious Right groups such as the Family Research Council have committed to do “whatever it takes” to repeal New Hampshire’s law legalizing gay marriage, which passed in 2009 and went into effect last year. In 2009, Religious Right groups succeeded in overturning a Maine law legalizing gay marriage that was passed by the legislature and signed by the governor by flooding the state with anti-gay activists and misleading ads, and now they have set their sights on New Hampshire. While the Republican majorities in both chambers have the votes to pass a repeal bill, it will require 2/3 majorities to override the governor’s veto. The Concord Monitor reports on how organizations are gearing-up for a major battle over the future of marriage equality in the Granite State:

The lead organizations in the fight are likely to be Cornerstone Action and New Hampshire Freedom to Marry. Cornerstone is affiliated with a national organization - CitizenLink (formerly Focus on the Family) - which could support state efforts. But both sides are also attracting attention from other groups.

On the side of repealing gay marriage, the National Organization for Marriage spent nearly $1.5 million on campaign ads against Lynch. The day after the November election, National Organization for Marriage President Brian Brown said in a press release that the organization is "poised to start taking back territory where (gay marriage) was wrongly enacted in places like New Hampshire and Iowa. That will be the next battleground, and we are confident of victory."

Brown said last week that the organization will continue to work closely with Cornerstone "to make sure that the wrong of forcing same-sex marriage on New Hampshire is corrected."

The Family Research Council also has a presence in New Hampshire, which it plans to continue. It contributed the legal maximum donation of $5,000 to Cornerstone's PAC during the elections. Tom McClusky, senior vice president of the group's policy wing, said the group has invested in making New Hampshire's Legislature more friendly to traditional marriage. "We don't want to see that go to waste," McClusky said.



How much money and effort will be poured into the New Hampshire campaign depends on what type of bill is ultimately proposed. In Maine, which held a statewide referendum that ultimately vetoed the state's gay marriage bill, local and national activists spent more than $6 million to sway public opinion.

The anti gay marriage group there, Stand for Marriage Maine, was led by a local pastor, Bob Emrich, and representatives from the Catholic Diocese in Maine and the National Organization for Marriage. It spent between $2 million and $3 million. The group hired the same public relations firm that worked on a California referendum and got help from the Family Research Council and Family Watch International. Emrich said the National Organization for Marriage was the largest financial contributor, donating around $1.5 million that helped with TV and radio ads, staff, mailings and public relations. The Family Research Council organized rallies and helped with communications and training activists.



For now, there are at least two proposed repeal bills in the Legislature and one constitutional amendment. Only the constitutional amendment has the potential to go on a statewide ballot, but not until 2012. Rep. David Bates, a Windham Republican who proposed two of the bills, said he anticipates moving forward with a repeal bill this session but perhaps not pursuing the constitutional amendment until 2012. A constitutional amendment would require a majority vote of 60 percent in the House and Senate, and a two-thirds' majority of the state's voters. The governor would not have a role.

Bates said it may not make sense to go ahead with a constitutional amendment this year, when it would not appear until 2012, and the goal of repealing gay marriage could be accomplished sooner by a law change. "This legislation is intended to restore the marriage law, to put it back where we were four years ago," Bates said.
Syndicate content

marry Posts Archive

Kyle Mantyla, Wednesday 08/17/2011, 6:00pm
Michael B. Keegan @ Huffington Post: Rick Perry: Uniting the Really Far Right and the Really, Really Far Right. Alan Colmes: Herman Cain Thinks It Would Be “Great” To Impeach Obama. Nice @ Bold Faith Type: Kathryn Jean Lopez Baptizes Rick Santorum's Immoral Record on War and Peace. Jeremy Hooper @ HRC Back Story: Jeremy to Andrew: ‘I marry you with this ring.’ NOM: Take that ring off. Carlos Maza @ Equality Matters: Fox News Hosts Tony Perkins Three Times In Eight Days. God Discussion: Christian dominionism dismissed as... MORE
Miranda Blue, Friday 08/05/2011, 7:14pm
Updated 8/5/2011 On August 6, Texas Gov. Rick Perry will host The Response, a “prayer rally” in Houston, along with the extremist American Family Association and a cohort of Religious Right leaders with far-right political ties. While the rally’s leaders label it a "a non-denominational, apolitical Christian prayer meeting," the history of the groups behind it suggests otherwise. The Response is powered by politically active Religious Right individuals and groups who are dedicated to bringing far-right religious view, including degrading views of gays and lesbians... MORE
Brian Tashman, Thursday 08/04/2011, 1:33pm
Armstrong Williams, the conservative columnist and radio talk show host, wrote in Townhall today that America will soon “be set adrift upon a sea of relativism with no direction, no purpose and no destination.” While positively comparing a television show in Afghanistan that revealed the story of a pregnant woman who had to quickly marry the father of her child to avoid a heavy jail sentence for pre-marital sex to the Casey Anthony case (which apparently represents most American families), Williams suggests that America has abandoned the “moral standards” that he... MORE
Brian Tashman, Friday 07/29/2011, 11:50am
Selective reading of material to support presupposed right-wing views is David Barton’s forte, so it comes as no surprise that the pseudo-historian is using a shoddy poll on same-sex marriage by an ultraconservative organization to claim that very few Americans support marriage equality. On WallBuilders Live yesterday, Barton and co-host Rick Green hosted Austin Nimocks of the Alliance Defense Fund to discuss their opposition to equal marriage rights for gays and lesbians. Barton and Green ended the interview by discussing the ADF poll which claimed that 62% of Americans were against... MORE
Brian Tashman, Wednesday 07/27/2011, 11:02am
While appearing on American Family Radio’s Today’s Issues with Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council and Tim Wildmon of the American Family Association, right-wing activist and onetime Republican congressional candidate Star Parker endorsed the claim that Black families were better off under slavery. She was discussing a pledge signed by presidential candidates Michele Bachmann and Rick Santorum written by The Family Leader which “suggested that black children born into slavery were better off in terms of family life than African-American kids born today.” Parker... MORE
Brian Tashman, Wednesday 07/20/2011, 4:41pm
While reparative therapy, which intends to make gay and bisexual people straight, has already been thoroughly discredited and rejected by the American Psychological Association, among others, a new study from Pat Robertson’s Regent University may also shed doubts on the ability of people to transform from gay to straight. Warren Throckmorton points to a study by Regent University, “Characteristics of Mixed Orientation Couples: An Empirical Study” [pdf] in the Christian psychological periodical Edification, that may deal a heavy blow to the popular right-wing argument that... MORE
Brian Tashman, Monday 07/18/2011, 12:30pm
Writing in the right-wing Charisma magazine’s “Prophetic Insights” feature, David Aaron Richey of the Gulf Coast Christian Center suggests that the prospect of marriage equality for gay and lesbian couples terrifies him more than wars, natural disasters, and potential nuclear accidents. While comparing homosexuality to bestiality, Richey says that religious leaders need to be more active in stopping legislators from “legalizing perversion,” just like Jesus would: I'm not afraid of the many disasters that are happening simultaneously in our world. I'm not afraid... MORE