Supreme Court

Pat Robertson on Justice Kennedy: 'Does He Have Some Clerks Who Happen To Be Gays?'

Pat Robertson is wondering if Justice Anthony Kennedy, who wrote the majority opinion on the case striking down a key section of the Defense of Marriage Act, may have been influenced by his sneaky gay clerks. Robertson’s remarks followed a totally impartial 700 Club news segment where Christian Broadcasting Network reporter Paul Strand said that gay rights advocates have “bashed” Christians and the Supreme Court “denigrated” marriage equality opponents.

While speaking to acolyte Jay Sekulow of the American Center for Law and Justice, which Robertson founded, the televangelist said: “let me ask you about Anthony Kennedy, does he have some clerks who happen to be gays?”

Following the wrongheaded talking points of other anti-gay activists, Robertson called into question the sexual orientation of district judge Vaughn Walker who was the first to rule on Prop. 8: “going into California, I understand the district court judge there either was an advocate of homosexual activity, or was a homosexual, or had a wife, some connection.” Sekulow agreed that the judge was biased and said that “there was a real controversy because the judge’s sexual orientation became, unfortunately, part of the case.”

Watch highlights here:

Santorum on DOMA Decision: 'You are Losing Freedom In This Country'

Rick Santorum told conservative talk show host Steve Malzberg yesterday that the Supreme Court’s ruling on the Defense of Marriage Act “demeans democracy” and threatens freedom. The former senator and movie producer said that the DOMA decision, along with President Obama’s “authoritarian” speech on climate change, represent “craziness.”

“You are losing freedom in this country,” Santorum warned. “Hopefully Americans are going to wake up and see that this concentration of power in Washington is damaging to them and their freedom.”

Watch:

Rep. Pitts Claims Gay Marriage Harms Children, Perkins Wonders If We're Becoming Sodom and Gomorrah

On Washington Watch today, Family Research Council head Tony Perkins said that while this morning’s Supreme Court decisions represent “major setbacks for marriage, for family and for freedom,” conservatives can take relief in knowing that “our zip code has not yet been changed to Sodom and Gomorrah, at least not yet.”

Perkins called on anti-gay activists to imitate the prophets of the Old Testament in warning people about the imminent demise of society, which will occur if people refuse to “turn from their destructive and harmful activities.” He continued: “When the bottom fell out, the people had no excuse and they had no one to blame but themselves, because they had been warned.”

Perkins later chatted with Rep. Joe Pitts (R-PA), who said that marriage equality will threaten religious freedom and the wellbeing of children by “changing the form of families.” The congressman said that same-sex unions won’t provide children with a “stable loving family” and as a result “the cost of our social service welfare programs are going to be greatly impacted by this negative consequence of a social experiment that is less in age than the iPhone. This is the leftist redefinition that is happening here on our watch.”

Charisma: Satan Using Gay Marriage to Ban Straight Marriage

Charisma news editor Jennifer LeClaire writes today in her column, “Satan’s End-Time Strategy to Outlaw Traditional Marriage in Full Swing,” that “we are in the end times” as a “satanic agenda” will soon “mainstream gay marriage” and “eventually end” marriage between opposite sex couples.

Clearly, our nation is seeing Romans 1 play out before its very eyes because although we know God, we have chosen not to glorify Him (Rom. 1:21).

Our Supreme Court has “exchanged the truth of God for the lie” (v. 25). A growing number of our citizens are fine and dandy with the fact that women exchange "the natural use for what is against nature,” and more are accepting of the fact that men have left "the natural use of the woman" and have "burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful” (vv. 26-27).

Many of our nation's leaders have given in to a “debased mind” (v. 28). Our nation is marked by “all unrighteousness, sexual immorality, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness” (v. 29). Many of our citizens are “full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness; they are whisperers, backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving, unmerciful” (vv. 29-31).

Our Supreme Court just opened the door to more of the same. Could it be possible that one day marriage as an institution could be outlawed altogether? I believe that is part of Satan’s end-time strategy.

Paul hints at this in a prophetic letter to his spiritual son, Timothy, more than 2,000 years ago. Paul wrote, “Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons, speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their own conscience seared with a hot iron, forbidding to marry” (1 Tim. 4:1-3).

We are in the latter times. We are in the end times even now. And many are indeed departing from the faith. Less than 1 percent of 18- to 23-year-olds have a biblical worldview, according to a recent Barna Group survey. Seven in 10 Protestants ages 18 to 30 who went to church regularly in high school said they quit attending by age 23, LifeWay Research reveals. And the Pew Research Center’s Forum on Religion & Public Life reports that half of former Protestants who left the church said they turned away from their childhood faith because they stopped believing in its teachings—and about 40 percent said they did so because they do not believe in God.

We are in the latter times. We are in the end times even now. And some are indeed giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons. Look at the likes of Rob Bell, with his “no hell” theology; John Crowder, with his distorted hypergrace messages; and Carlton Pearson, with his universalistic “gospel of inclusion.” Then there’s the false justice movement that talks about Jesus while holding Bible studies, worship meetings and performing good works—but it’s a different Jesus at the center. These are just a few of the doctrines of demons circulating through the church today that are leading us toward the end-time harlot church.

We are in the latter times. We are in the end times even now. And some are indeed speaking lies in hypocrisy. Some are indeed living with a seared conscience. So the question is, Will 1 Timothy 4:3 be the next part of this prophetic Scripture to come to pass? Will we see governments forbidding marriage? I believe it’s inevitable as we get closer to the Second Coming of Christ. I believe the institution of traditional marriage will come under attack in parts of the earth as the deceptive gay marriage agenda continues to gain momentum.

Today’s rulings from the U.S. Supreme Court are about more than allowing gays to tap into federal benefits that, until now, were reserved for couples in traditional marriages. Today’s rulings set into motion a dynamic that could mainstream gay marriage in this nation sooner than later—and forward the satanic agenda to eventually end a godly institution that’s almost as old as the world itself.

Bryan Fischer Says Anti-Gay Activists Now 'Second Class Citizens,' Mat Staver Likens DOMA Case to 'Altering the Laws of Gravity'

American Family Association spokesman Bryan Fischer claimed on his radio show today that anti-gay activists will become “second class citizens” and be relegated to “steerage status” as a result of the Supreme Court’s decision on the Defense of Marriage Act: “They’ve done to us exactly what they were falsely accusing us of doing to homosexuals.”

His guest, Mat Staver of Liberty Counsel, who is also the dean of Liberty University Law School, agreed, saying that the decision “demeans the institution of the United States Supreme Court.”

Staver agreed with Fischer that states should “simply ignore” the Supreme Court’s ruling …just as the government should ignore a court decision that upholds slavery, like Dred Scott, or a ruling which “alters the laws of gravity.”

“You can’t redefine marriage into something that it’s incapable of being, it’s incapable of being two people of the same sex,” Staver continued, adding that gay marriage is the “height of hubris” and “undermines the very foundation of our government.”

Earlier today, Staver argued that the Supreme Court “lost legitimacy” with its DOMA ruling:

Marriage predates government and civil authorities. No civil authority, including the Supreme Court, has the authority to redefine marriage. Marriage was not created by religion or government and is ontologically a union of one man and one woman. For any Court or civil authority to think it has the authority to redefine marriage is the height of hubris. Deconstructing marriage will hurt children and society. While today’s decision on DOMA did not redefine marriage, it has provided the foundation on which to do so. Today’s decision is the equivalent of the 1972 contraception decision involving unmarried couples and the so-called right to privacy on which the 1973 abortion decision in Roe v. Wade was constructed. Today, the Supreme Court has damaged its image, lost legitimacy, and set in motion considerable harm to society and to the State of the Union.

Gohmert: Gay Marriage Signals Collapse of Civilization

At a press conference attacking the Supreme Court’s DOMA ruling today, Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) claimed that gay marriage always emerges “at the end of a great civilization.” He said the “holy quintet” of the Supreme Court has gone “against the laws of nature and nature’s God,” and now America will suffer the consequences:

Nance: Gay Marriage Like 'Counterfeit Money,' Will 'Hurt Everyone'

Penny Nance of Concerned Women for America claimed today that anti-gay marriage activists should get ready for “persecution” now that the Supreme Court has overturned the Defense of Marriage Act. Speaking on The Mike Huckabee Show, Nance warned that same-sex marriage is like “counterfeit money” that “takes at something that’s the real deal and diminishes it,” adding that the legalization of polygamy is coming next.

Later in the show, Nance said the government will “cast aside” around “two thousand years of tradition” and “hurt everyone” by recognizing same-sex unions.

AFA: With DOMA Decision, America Is 'Shaking Its Fist at God,' Christians Will be 'Crushed'

American Family Association president Tim Wildmon and radio host Sandy Rios have maintained a miserable mood on American Family Radio today after the Supreme Court’s decision on DOMA. Rios argued that the gay rights “freight train” will compel Christians “to bow the knee or to be crushed.” “This is going to get rough,” Rios said, “they are going to infringe on each of us, our children [and] our jobs.”

Later, Wildmon said that “this is a very sad day in our country” because “this is America shaking its fist at God almighty.”

Watch:

Wildmon, who yesterday wondered if opponents of gay marriage will soon be “hauled off to jail,” warned in a statement that “persecution” is imminent:

We are deeply saddened by today’s decision to not only allow but encourage same-sex marriage in our country—a country that was founded on biblical principles. We mourn for America’s future, but we are not without hope.

Our next line of defense is to vigorously protect our religious liberty. The homosexual lobby and agenda is running rampant across America, and is even pervading our elementary schools. The judicial activism that is being demonstrated is deplorable as the Supreme Court is imposing its will on the people and legislatures of the fifty states in our United States of America.

Now, we must warn against the coming persecution, the barrage of criticism and the aggressive action of the homosexual agenda to indoctrinate and change the thoughts and convictions of Americans to accept this lifestyle as the new normal. In addition, the trend of classifying statements that have a biblical foundation as ‘hate speech’ is one that AFA will do everything in its power to prevent.

Rep. Huelskamp: 'Radical' DOMA Decision Means 'Children Will Be Hurt'

Rep. Tim Huelskamp (R-KS), a staunch opponent of gay rights, warned that the Supreme Court’s ruling on the Defense of Marriage Act will harm children. Speaking at a Heritage Foundation summit today, Huelskamp claimed that “children will be hurt” by the “radical” decision and accused the justices of having “substituted their personal views on marriage for the constitutional decisions of the American voters and their elected representatives.”

Watch:

AFA: DOMA Decision Will Lead to God's Judgment, Death of Marriage

American Family Association spokesmen Fred Jackson and Sandy Rios were despondent while reacting to the Supreme Court’s decision striking down the Defense of Marriage Act. “It’s a big win for gay activists today,” Rios said, “it’s not a good day for us.”

“They kept shouting DOMA's dead, I thought that was pretty metaphorical, marriage is dead too, for the future of this country,” she added.

Jackson went even further and alleged that “God’s judgment will be upon us” as a result of the ruling.

Watch:

Tony Perkins Cheers Gutting of Voting Rights Act

While civil rights leaders are denouncing the 5-4 Supreme Court decision gutting the Voting Rights Act, the Family Research Council’s Tony Perkins is cheering.  In an email alert sent at the end of the day on Tuesday, Perkins says, “With help from the U.S. Supreme Court, America may finally be turning a page on the racial politics that have haunted our last 50 years.”  Oh, yes, giving a green light to the kind of blatantly discriminatory voter disenfranchisement efforts that we’ve seen in recent elections is certainly going to help America “turn the page” on racial politics.

Like other Religious Right leaders, Perkins loves to denounce “judicial activism” when judges uphold reproductive choice or legal equality for LGBT people. But he happily embraces this ruling in which a narrow Court majority rejected a huge bipartisan congressional vote that reauthorized the Voting Rights Act in 2006 on a matter in which the Constitution specifically and intentionally gives Congress wide discretion. Perkins complains that “Congress insisted on reauthorizing a Voting Rights Act that was rooted in one of the darkest chapters of U.S. history.” And he claims that “In recent days, the Voting Rights Act has been a tool for a liberal and politically-motivated DOJ to shape laws to its advantage.”

Perkins seems deeply concerned about “the red tape of the Voting Rights Act” that he said has been “unnecessarily handcuffing” states whose history of disenfranchisement meant that they had to have changes in voting procedures pre-approved by the Justice Department or by a three-judge District Court in the District of Columbia. In contrast, Perkins seems utterly unconcerned about more recent voter disenfranchisement campaigns waged by the GOP and its allies. 

Perkins cites Chief Justice John Roberts’ disingenuous suggestion that the court was not acting in a way that would encourage discriminatory disenfranchisement. "Our decision in no way affects the permanent, nationwide ban on racial discrimination in voting," Roberts insisted. "Congress may draft another formula based on current conditions."

Is there anyone who thinks Roberts and Perkins actually want the federal-government-hating Tea Party Republicans who are calling the shots in the House of Representatives to support the creation of a new formula that would subject more states to federal oversight?  Perkins makes his thoughts on that point abundantly clear with this comment about the Justice Department: “And in an administration as corrupt as President Obama's is proving to be, the less power it has over the states, the better!”

Right Wing Round-Up - 6/25/13

  • PFAW Foundation: Court Conservatives in Shelby County v. Holder Deal Terrible Blow to the Voting Rights Act. 
  • Slate: Watch as a State Senator Wages an Epic Filibuster to Block Sweeping New Abortion Restrictions.
  • Liberal America: Glenn Beck Revisits Chinese Missile Conspiracy. Has He Changed His Mind? 

Fischer: Unconstitutional to Recognize Pro-Gay Marriage Supreme Court Ruling

Bryan Fischer is joining his American Family Association colleague Gary Glenn in calling on states to simply ignore any Supreme Court ruling that strikes down bans on same-sex marriage. Fischer even argues that it would be unconstitutional to follow a court decision that favors marriage equality, which he claims would effectively remove “We the people” from the Constitution.

Anything short of upholding DOMA, anything short of upholding Prop 8 in California will be a setback for the rule of law, it will be a setback for a constitutional form of government; in fact you can just eliminate the first three words of the Constitution: “We the people.” That will be utterly meaningless if the Supreme Court does not uphold Prop 8 and does not uphold DOMA, period. Anything short of that and the American people have been robbed of the capacity and the right and the authority to be a self-governing people.



If the states were to do it, the thirty states that have marriage amendments say, ‘fine, the Supreme Court has issued its ruling, we’re going to ignore it, they have exceeded their authority, we have no obligation. In fact, if we recognize their ruling, we give credence to it, then we are violating the Constitution because the Constitution gives them no authority to do that to us so we have compounded their unconstitutional act with an unconstitutional act of our own.

Perkins: Gay Marriage Ruling Will Undermine Court's Legitimacy, Freedom in America

Family Research Council head Tony Perkins yesterday chatted with Tim Wildmon of the American Family Association on Today’s Issues to discuss the Supreme Court’s imminent decisions on Proposition 8 and the Defense of Marriage Act. Perkins warned that if the Proposition 8 is overturned, then the “legitimacy of the court” will be called into question.

Despite all evidence pointing to overwhelming support for marriage equality among young voters and heaviest resistance among seniors, Perkins said in reference to gay rights advocates that “time is not on their side.”

“They need the court to impose this on the entire nation, because the more time that it takes them to push their agenda, the more Americans will realize the unintended consequences of it,” Perkins claimed. “It’s going to be a clear and present danger to the freedom of speech and the freedom of religion in our country.”

After Perkins bizarrely argued that marriage equality supporters are in a race against time, Wildmon wondered if opponents of gay marriage would be “hauled off to jail” in a few years. Perkins added that anti-gay activists may be “prosecuted by our government” soon as marriage equality eviscerates freedom.

Watch:

Perkins: I would think they’re going to be hard-pressed to overturn California’s Prop. 8. That would have serious ramifications, I think, for I really think the legitimacy of the court to undermine what the voters of California did.



Perkins: There’s this idea that this is inevitable, that’s what they want to present, this idea that this is inevitable, I think certainly to influence the court and the American people. The reason they’re trying to make it appear to be inevitable is because time is not on their side. They need the court to impose this on the entire nation because the more time that it takes them to push their agenda, the more Americans will realize the unintended consequences of it. This is not just about the marriage altar; this is about fundamentally altering America: religious liberty, parental rights, free speech, all of that goes by the wayside if we embrace this notion of redefining natural marriage.



Wildmon: For the next year or two, three years perhaps, in terms of the Christian community in this country that wants to defend natural marriage and believes in Romans 1 among other biblical verses that homosexuality is sin, are we going to be able to believe that teaching anymore without being hauled off to jail?

Perkins: Well you certainly can believe it. I do think there is coming a choice, whether or not that happens immediately, that we have to choose between not only believing scripture but living according to it and being prosecuted by our government, the time frame in which that happens I’m not certain. But clearly we’re already saying those who hold to a biblical view of morality are being marginalized and stigmatized with the intention of silencing them in the public square. It’s going to be a clear and present danger to the freedom of speech and the freedom of religion in our country.

Staver: SCOTUS Ruling for Marriage Equality Will Have 'A Catastrophic Consequence' for 'Human Existence'

In December, Liberty Counsel head Mat Staver told conservative radio host Janet Parshall that a Supreme Court ruling favorable to marriage equality “could cause another civil war” or even a second revolution. While speaking to Parshall last week, Staver argued that the court’s decision would have “a catastrophic consequence” for freedom, liberty and even “human existence” itself.

The Liberty University law school dean, who said that Obama will introduce “forced homosexuality,” went on to say that the Supreme Court’s decision could lead to civil and criminal penalties for opponents of same-sex marriage, such as losing one’s job. As a result, anti-gay activists “cannot acknowledge that decision as being a legitimate one” and should treat the Supreme Court as “an illegitimate institution.”

If the court goes the wrong way within the next week on these issues, it will become an illegitimate institution and we should treat it as such. It is that dire. It is exactly as simple and as plain as you said it: God said marriage is between one man and one woman, and some civil institution says no it’s not. That has a catastrophic consequence for our religious freedom, for the very function of the family, for marriage, for our human existence, for civil society and for any area of our liberty, it is a catastrophic game changer and it will be more destructive than Roe v. Wade. Why? Because Roe v. Wade, as destructive as it is and it is destructive, does not force you to have an abortion. Now Obamacare is forcing us now to fund abortion. But this will not just simply say, ‘ok same-sex marriage, I don’t agree with it but I can go on and live my life,’ no. You want to work in the DOJ? You’ve got to support it. You want to work in any other area? You’ve got to endorse it. This will not be coexistence, this will not be the government’s got a bad policy, this will be the government’s got a bad policy but you must advance it, you must support it; if you don’t, you will be punished, you won’t have your job, you will be punished in some other civil or even criminal way. That’s why it’s going to be more coercive than Roe v. Wade, it is a line—I’m telling you, I’m hoping people understand this—that we cannot cross. If we cross that line, we have to push back; we cannot acknowledge that decision as being a legitimate one.

Arizona Congressman Calls for 'National Referendum' to Reverse Supreme Court on Voting Rights

Rep. Paul Gosar, an Arizona Republican, told Mike Huckabee on Monday that the U.S. should consider a “national referendum” to make voter registration more difficult.

The two were discussing the Supreme Court ruling that invalidated an Arizona law mandating that people registering by mail to vote in the state using a federal voter registration form produce additional documentation to prove their citizenship. The federal form already requires voters to certify under oath that they are citizens. Civil Rights groups worried that the Arizona requirement would disenfranchise low-income voters and jeopardize voter registration drives.

Gosar told Huckabee that the ruling, which found that Arizona’s requirement was preempted by federal law, was “very disappointing,” adding, “We really have to solve this process from the federal level, with regards to either legislation or a national referendum.” It is unclear what he meant by a “national referendum.”

Gosar also lamented that the Department of Justice under Attorney General Eric Holder has “upheld or disdained certain groups’ privileges over others,”  echoing Justice Antonin Scalia’s dismissal of the Voting Rights Act as a “racial entitlement.” (Scalia, however, wrote the opinion striking down the Arizona law.)
 

Huckabee: This morning, the Supreme Court handed down a very significant decision striking down your state’s law regarding voter documentation. Did the ruling surprise you? And what kind of reaction are you hearing from your home state?

Gosar: Well, I mean, they’re disappointed. They cited the supremecy clause, the federal government over the states, and they bypassed what would be legal documentation. I think that’s what’s eluding us is that what, you know, what is being dictated to the states in regard to voter safety. But then you have a federal government that fails to respond, particularly when you look at the Department of Justice under Eric Holder and how they have upheld or disdained certain groups’ privileges over others. I think it’s very disappointing, and it tells me that we really have to solve this process from the federal level, with regards to either legislation or a national referendum.

Penny Nance Upset Pastors Would Rather Focus on Fighting Sex Trafficking than Opposing Gay Marriage

As we mentioned yesterday, Concerned Women for America is launching a new campaign to encourage young people to oppose abortion rights and marriage equality. CWA president Penny Nance writes in the Christian Post this week that young people are increasingly supportive of legalizing same-sex marriage because pastors have focused on issues like sex trafficking rather than addressing why gays and lesbians should be barred from marrying.

She urges readers to work towards “thwarting threats to society's foundations and threats to anyone's religious freedom,” warning that if same-sex marriage is legalized then “children, communities, and governments suffer.”

Nance claims right-wing youth will be like David fighting the gay Goliath in the midst of “judicial despots” on the Supreme Court attempting to “redefine God’s law.”

The Supreme Court is reviewing challenges to state and federal laws that define marriage as the union of a man and a woman. Lower courts ruled against these marriage laws, so now the Supreme Court has the opportunity to uphold marriage and return authority for marriage policy to citizens and their elected representatives, or step in as judicial despots and cut the debate short by making a broad stroke ruling. And pastors and conservative politicians are stuck in a game of "Would You Rather?"

• Would you rather address the issue of sex trafficking or marriage? Sex Trafficking.

• Would you rather talk about abortion or the definition of marriage? Abortion.

• Would you rather talk about financial responsibility or marital responsibility? Easy choice.

We are losing battles as Christian conservatives follow their leaders into no man's land -- the land of not actually saying what you believe, where no man is offended because no man actually says anything. The issue of marriage is the perfect example. Many feel it is just too hard to talk about this issue. As it becomes more and more politically incorrect to support marriage only defined as the union between one man and one woman, many have decided to be silent in this area and just focus on other things. "Love," they say.

We all have friends and family who are homosexuals and we love them. We feel for them and we care deeply about their well being. As Christians, our whole belief system is summarized in loving God above all and our neighbor as ourselves. And that is our chief objective.

We know there is a growing proportion of believers who seek to live peacefully in this world yet have a growing realization of their place on today's frontlines. We are unable to feign ignorance any longer, as those who touted 'tolerance', unabashedly refuse to tolerate our belief system.



You and I deserve to have the debate. We'd rather not have the Supreme Court step in and try and decide for a nation how it feels on an issue so important, like it did in Roe v. Wade, forever affecting the ability of states to decide for themselves the public policy best for its citizens. We want traditional marriage preserved and supported in law and culture.

It's time to preach to the choir, because the choir has stopped singing truth and has instead taken up a politically correct tune deafening our culture to the reality of what's at stake. As Martin Luther put it, "If I profess with the loudest voice the clearest exposition, every portion of the truth of God except precisely that little point which the world and the Devil are at that moment attacking, I am not confessing Christ, however boldly I may be professing Christianity."

As Believers we are called not just be a light to this world, but also to be the salt of the earth and preserve our culture by thwarting threats to society's foundations and threats to anyone's religious freedom.

Marriage is the special union crafted as a holy covenant between a man, a woman, and God. Marriage is the only institution by which our children are conceived and the best in which to raise them. Marriage identifies the recognizable authority of a mother and a father who are ordained with the responsibility of rearing the future generation. We could never grant these same responsibilities to two heterosexuals who simply live together because marriage is more than a living arrangement. When the government broadens the definition of marriage beyond its traditional parameters, children, communities, and governments suffer. We are already suffering from a 43 percent out of wedlock birth rate in this nation. Anything that further erodes and diminishes marriage must be avoided for many reasons, not the least of which being the incredible damage wrought on our society.

The time has come to decide whether you will be the David to this Goliath in our culture. Are you willing to sacrifice your time to educate yourself on the statistics that back up our Biblical beliefs? Are you willing to sacrifice your energy to speak truth in love to those who question your beliefs? Are you willing to choose this day whom you will serve?

Whether the Supreme Court rules to uphold the Defense of Marriage Act or not, our mission does not change. We know there is a battle raging, but our 'great commission' with Christ has given us the ability to equip ourselves and be willing to engage. Where the battle rages, loyalty is proved. That one point of loyalty may be different for each of us. It may be marriage, abortion, national sovereignty, religious liberty, fiscal responsibility, support for Israel, or freedom of conscience. Your belief is personal, but your profession of faith must be public. While the Supreme Court, your state, and your local school board can redefine America's laws, they can never redefine God's law. We are willing. Are you?

AUL Report Highlights Rift in Anti-Choice Movement

The anti-choice movement has for several years been experiencing a quiet rift over extreme state-level measures would ban all abortions – and in some cases, in vitro fertilization and some forms of birth control – in a head-on challenge to Roe v. Wade. As Personhood USA and Janet Porter gain more and more success in pushing “personhood” and “heartbeat” bills at the state level, national pro-life groups who oppose the laws for strategic reasons find themselves in a bind.

In March, when North Dakota passed a “heartbeat” bill which would ban nearly all abortions in the state and strike directly at Roe v. Wade, it also passed two narrower measures banning abortion based on genetic abnormalities or the sex of the fetus. The national anti-choice group Concerned Women for America praised heartbeat the bill,  while Americans United For Life issued press releases that ignored the bill and praised the narrower measures. National Right to Life went even further, actively speaking out against the North Dakota bill and similar “heartbeat” measures in other states.

In an article for the National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly this week, Americans United For Life’s senior counsel, William Saunders, lays out his fears of what would happen if the Supreme Court were given the opportunity to reconsider Roe v. Wade. While he praises the “admirable and inspiring” efforts behind the trio of new abortion restrictions in North Dakota, Saunders warns that a direct challenge to Roe will give the Supreme Court a chance to rewrite their 1973 decision on more solid “equal protection” footing.

Instead, he argues, anti-choice activists should target incremental measures at wearing away the opposition of Justice Anthony Kennedy, who voted to uphold the so-called “partial birth” abortion ban in Gonzales v. Carhart. “Can the statute be fashioned so as to make it as easy as possible for him (and the others) to go the one step (or two or ten) further than Gonzales in restricting abortion?,” he asks.

Taken together, these three laws provide significant food for thought.

While the persistent efforts of pro-life Americans at the state level are admirable and inspiring and must be encouraged, how does one evaluate the wisdom of any particular proposed (or enacted) law? First, I suggest, one must recognize the legal realities—what kinds of statutes will the courts certainly overturn? Of course, this is not to say that the courts should govern this matter. In fact, the usurpation of the political process by courts is, in my view, unconstitutional itself and should be resisted. However, if we know a law will be overturned by a court, we should consider the risk of such a decision. At least one significant risk is that the Supreme Court, in overturning a law, will entrench “abortion rights” more firmly in constitutional jurisprudence, perhaps under an “equal-protection”-based right, as Justice Ginsburg and three colleagues wanted to do in the Gonzales dissent.

Sad as it is to consider, Gonzales was decided by only one vote, that of Justice Anthony Kennedy. The opinion he wrote for the majority, while speaking of the right of the legislature to choose among divided experts in fashioning law and while recognizing that abortion harms at least some women, did no more than uphold the outlawing of one abortion procedure when others were available. Is such a person likely to uphold a ban on all abortions at any point in pregnancy? If so, what rationale for doing so (what basis) is likely to appeal to him? Can the statute be fashioned so as to make it as easy as possible for him (and the others) to go the one step (or two or ten) further than Gonzales in restricting abortion? Might a statute with a ban (or limit) early in pregnancy lead him to “protect” the “abortion right” and vote with Ginsburg and her colleagues in favor of a firm affirmation of a “constitutional” right to abortion? Is it better to move the ball gently, seeking to build momentum for the ultimate reversal of Roe/Doe, or to force the issue with a broad and early ban? While reasonable people can differ on the answers to these questions, the consequences of a possible forty more years of unlimited abortion due to another Casey-like decision by the Supreme Court counsels for very careful consideration of what prudence requires.

Farah: Marriage Equality Will Put America in 'The Dustbin of History'

WorldNetDaily editor Joseph Farah today promoted his 9/11 National Day of Prayer event by warning that a Supreme Court decision in favor of marriage equality will mean that the high court is “legally destroying the very building block of our civilization.” Farah claims that such a ruling will make America fall “into oligarchy and tyranny” and eventually “the dustbin of history like so many empires before it.”

In a few weeks, the U.S. Supreme [sic] will make rulings in two cases that will determine whether America continues as a self-governing nation under the rule of law and will of the people or it goes the way of most other countries and descends into oligarchy and tyranny.

That is what the stakes are in rulings the justices will make on the definition of marriage.

There hasn’t been a more important Supreme Court ruling since Roe v. Wade. Not even Obamacare was this big. Both of those went very badly because of the rulings of justices named to the high court by Republicans. In this case, it will take a straight flush by justices named by Republicans to save America from legally destroying the very building block of our civilization.



I know I have been asking for prayer frequently during these trying days. I’m encouraged by the feedback I have received from thousands to my plea for a 9/11 National Day of Prayer and Fasting.

But I am convinced that without it, this country is headed for the dustbin of history like so many empires before it.

This is no idle request. It’s our only chance for survival. Government is broken. Politics is broken. The culture is broken. God is simply waiting to hear our fervent cries of repentance and deliverance.

Schlafly: 'The Main Goal of the Homosexuals is to Silence Any Criticism'

On her Eagle Forum Live radio program last weekend, Phyllis Schlafly was joined by eminent conspiracy theorist Jerome Corsi. Corsi, who is promoting his new book on the American Civil Liberties Union, told Schalfly that the ACLU and progressives are using the Supreme Court marriage cases as a way to enact hate speech laws and shut down churches. Schlafly agreed, saying, “I do think that the main goal of the homosexuals is to silence any criticism. Most of them aren’t interested in getting married.”

Later in the conversation, Schlafly compared a potential Supreme Court ruling in favor of marriage equality to the infamous Dred Scott decision.

Corsi: The ACLU has been very strong behind the same-sex marriage. They have a whole section of the ACLU devoted to the LGBT agenda, the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender. And, Phyllis, if we get the Supreme Court saying that there’s a constitutional right to same-sex marriage, I think the next thing that’s going to happen is that we’re going to see an attempt to define hate speech, any minister or priest who from the pulpit condemns homosexual behavior from a scriptural basis or on principles of Judeo-Christian faith. And following that, the left will not only try to close that church down, but they’ll do it through pressing to take the tax-exempt status away from the church because the priest or the minister doesn’t agree with their agenda and is now engaged in ‘hate speech.’

Schlafly: Well, I do think that the main goal of the homosexuals is to silence any criticism. Most of them aren’t interested in getting married. But I think that’s what they want to do, and they’re starting out by trying it in the schools.



Schlafly: If five people on the Supreme Court are able to overturn our definition of marriage, which we’ve had for centuries, we had even before the Pilgrims landed on the Atlantic coast, there’s something wrong with our system. As Abraham Lincoln said in a famous, in his First Inaugural, in describing the Dred Scott case, probably the worst decision in history, and he said, okay, we have to accept what they decided for poor old Dred Scott. But we don’t have to accept it as a precedent and as something that will rule us forever, and we’re going to get this overturned. And if we don’t, we will be just simply subjects of what he called ‘that imminent tribunal.’ And we need to speak out. And before they hand down that decision, you need to pray that they come to the right decision and you all need to get your pastor to tell his congregation to pray for it.

Earlier this week, we reported that Schlafly is calling for a reinstatement of the House Un-American Activities Committee in response to the Boston Marathon bombings. When a caller asked why the ACLU couldn’t be tried for “subversive activity,” Schlafly repeated her demand to reinstate HUAC, and Corsi agreed.

Caller: The question I have is, how is it that no one has taken the ACLU to task in the courtroom and basically charged them with subversive activity?

Schlafly: Well, personally, Dr. Corsi, I think we need a new House Un-American Activities Committee, but I’ll let you answer your way.

Corsi: I’m in favor of it.

Syndicate content

Supreme Court Posts Archive

Paul Gordon, Wednesday 04/02/2014, 3:05pm
This post originally appeared on the People For blog. The Supreme Court's McCutcheon opinion, released this morning, is another 5-4 body blow to our democracy. To justify striking down limits that cap aggregate campaign contributions during a single election cycle, the Roberts Court ignores the way the world really works and makes it far more difficult to justify much-needed protections against those who would purchase our elections and elected officials. Americans are deeply concerned that control of our elections and our government is being usurped by a tiny sliver of extremely wealthy... MORE
Brian Tashman, Friday 03/28/2014, 4:15pm
Eagle Forum’s Virginia Armstrong, who leads the group’s Court Watch Project, writes in a “Court Watch briefing” today that the Supreme Court’s recent decisions on the Defense of Marriage Act and Proposition 8 have displaced the “Judeo-Christian/Constitutionalist worldview” in favor of “Humanism/Reconstructionism,” which she warns “wreaks havoc with the concepts of absolute truth and inherent logic of the Law.” Armstrong writes that the gay rights cases have pushed America to the “breaking point” and into the “... MORE
Brian Tashman, Tuesday 03/25/2014, 11:55am
In a radio bulletin yesterday about today’s Supreme Court hearing on Hobby Lobby’s challenge to Obamacare’s contraception mandate, Fox News commentator Todd Starnes said that the case really presents a choice between Obamacare and God: “Obamacare takes on the Almighty tomorrow at the Supreme Court.” Starnes said that the contraception mandate will “force” Christians to pay for “life-terminating drugs” and will let “Obamacare trump religious liberty.” However, as Tiffany Stanely of The Daily Beast notes, “the... MORE
Miranda Blue, Friday 11/01/2013, 5:04pm
Leading Iowa religious right figures Bob Vander Plaats and Steve Deace got together on American Family Radio today to discuss potential 2016 Republican presidential candidates and how they can move them even further to the right, as they did in 2012. Eventually, the discussion moved to Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, who provoked conservative ire when he said that the Supreme Court’s decision striking down the Defense of Marriage Act was appropriate and would help avert “a culture war.” Deace said that Justice Anthony Kennedy’s majority opinion in the case was actually... MORE
Miranda Blue, Thursday 09/12/2013, 11:51am
In the years since Citizens United, North Carolina has provided a clear example of what happens when a small number of corporate interests, allied with a far-right base, are allowed unbridled influence over elections. MORE
Brian Tashman, Thursday 08/22/2013, 11:50am
Faith and Freedom Coalition executive director Gary Marx has written a column for the Christian Post in which he claims that the Supreme Court’s rulings on DOMA and Proposition 8 have made our democracy only an illusion. After accusing the court of “dismantling American democracy” in their gay rights decisions, Marx lambastes the justices for turning America into “a nation where democracy is a mere visual effect used to spawn a perception of self-rule that no longer ultimately exists.” “The Supreme Court has now served notice to liberty advocates that it is... MORE
Brian Tashman, Friday 08/16/2013, 2:10pm
Gary Bauer yesterday marked the anniversary of the shooting at the Washington D.C. office of the Family Research Council, the group he used to lead, by asking members of his Campaign for Working Families to work against marriage equality. He compared the attempted shooting by Floyd Lee Corkins, who was convicted of committing an act of terrorism, with the “judicial terrorism” of the Supreme Court in the two recent marriage equality cases: “while Corkins thankfully failed in his attack on FRC, five liberal justices on our Supreme Court committed an act of judicial terrorism... MORE