Marriage Equality

Heritage Foundation Fellow Trots Out Radical Nullification Argument Against Marriage Equality

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Questioner: How is that not discrimination?

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

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

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

GOP House Candidate Jody Hice Touts Bundy Ranch Standoff As Symbol Of Anti-Gay Fight

In a radio program posted online Monday, Georgia pastor Jody Hice, the GOP nominee to replace Paul Broun in the U.S. House, linked the anti-government Bundy ranch standoff to anti-gay politics, saying that the militia groups that faced off against the Bureau of Land Management in Nevada were a symbol of Americans standing up against Big Government incursions on their liberties…like the legalization of same-sex marriage.

“There is unquestionably an undercurrent that is taking place across America where people are getting fed up,” he said. “They are saying to themselves and now beginning to say to themselves, ‘Enough is enough. We are not going to sit back while our government tramples over our liberties.’”

I will never forget these ranchers on horseback continuing to walk slowly toward the BLM. They were prepared to die. They were ready for confrontation. They were saying, ‘Enough is enough. You’re not going to trample on our rights any more. You have gone far enough and no further will you go.’

I mean, that was the statement being made by the ranchers and they continued marching toward the BLM. You will remember what happened, eventually the BLM never fired a shot, instead they got in their vehicles and left. Again, one of the other reasons they did not fire a shot is because all these ranchers, the cowboys and many, many others around them were themselves armed and ready for action if it came to that point, thank God it did not, but they were prepared just in case.

Now, that’s the image that comes to my mind. There is unquestionably an undercurrent that is taking place across America where people are getting fed up. They are saying to themselves and now beginning to say to themselves, ‘Enough is enough. We are not going to sit back while our government tramples over our liberties.’

And the examples are numerous. We could deal with different scenarios I don’t know how many times, they are abundant in the various ways in which this is taking place.

Now, I want to give you just what is the latest example: the whole battle over gay marriage, and in particular gay marriage as it relates to businesses, that businesses cannot remain committed to their personal religious convictions if there is ever a confrontation between those religious beliefs and same-sex marriage.

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

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

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

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

All emphasis is Armstrong’s:

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

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

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

GOP Representative Goes From Christian Revival Meeting To Supporting Marriage Equality

Last week, Rep. David Jolly, a Republican from Florida, spoke at Rodney Howard-Browne's ongoing "Celebrate America" revival meeting in Washington, DC which was organized in order to bring about a Third Great Awakening in America by lighting "fires right in the belly of the beast" so that God can "cast a Gospel net across the capital."

Speaking about 46:00 into the gathering, Jolly told the crowd that he grew up the son of a preacher and accepted Jesus as his Savior at five years old and now his faith serves as the foundation of his views about government.

"I subscribe to a view of freedom that is rooted in the tenets of faith," Jolly declared, explaining that human beings are granted liberty and freedom by God and then decide how much power to turn over to the government in order to protect those rights.

As members of Congress, he said, "we don't apologize for our Christian faith, we own our Christian faith, we share our Christian faith" because elected representatives have the responsibility "to do what we believe is right for the future of our country and reflect the biblical principles as we act upon that."

Jolly concluded by asking the audience to pray for all elected leaders "because we are at a point in world history where man cannot get us out of this alone and it's going to take a divinely inspired wisdom from the Lord Jesus Christ and as I said at the beginning, we don't apologize for that."

Saying that the only reason he is in Congress at the moment is because that is where God wants him to be, Jolly promised that "I will work every day to reflect the biblical principles and faith principles we all believe in and I will do my part to join you in leading this country in what we believe is the right direction based upon the foundation of faith and I will do that until the same Hands of Providence that brought me to this office lead me out of it":

That was all pretty standard Religious Right language, which is why we didn't even bother writing it up when we first watched it yesterday ... but that was before Jolly announced his support for marriage equality:

Rep. David Jolly (R-Fla.) announced his support for gay marriage Monday, saying that he believes it is "fully appropriate" for a state to recognize both same-sex marriages and "traditional" ones, even though he, as a Christian, believes in the the latter.

When asked by The Washington Post whether he supports gay marriage, in light of a Florida judge's decision last week to overturn the state's ban, Jolly said that his personal views on marriage are that it should be limited to one man and one woman. But, he added, states should not be defining the "sanctity" of marriage.

“As a matter of my Christian faith, I believe in traditional marriage," said Jolly in a statement to The Post. "But as a matter of Constitutional principle I believe in a form of limited government that protects personal liberty. To me, that means that the sanctity of one’s marriage should be defined by their faith and by their church, not by their state. Accordingly, I believe it is fully appropriate for a state to recognize both traditional marriage as well as same-sex marriage, and therefore I support the recent decision by a Monroe County Circuit Judge.”

When a member of Congress can cater to a Religious Right event and then, a week later, announce his support for government recognition of gay marriage, it starts to become increasingly obvious that anti-gay activists’ fight against marriage equality is on its last legs.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Staver: Gay Marriage Is 'A Direct Attack On Who God Is'

Rodney Howard-Browne, a pioneer of the Holy Laughter movement, is currently leading a three-week long revival event in Washington, DC called "Celebrate America" that is featuring a variety of Religious Right leaders.

Liberty Counsel's Mat Staver was among the first speakers to participate over the weekend where he declared that America is a modern day Pompeii that is on the verge of total destruction because of its embrace of things like abortion and gay marriage.

As Staver explained, not all sins are equal because, according to 1 Corinthians 6, sexual sins alone are committed against one's own body and so they are "unique from any other sin."

As such, he said, by accepting homosexuality and gay marriage, our society is "moving into a direct attack on who God is."

"When you destroy human sexuality," Staver proclaimed, "and when you destroy human life created in the image of God and you destroy God's creation of marriage as man and woman, husband and wife, male and female, when you destroy that, you destroy your understanding of who God is. That's where we are moving right now in America":

Cain TV Editor Doesn't Want To Think About 'Dude On Dude Action' At Burger King

The editor of Herman Cain’s website is upset by the news that Burger King is planning to sell an LGBT pride themed burger at one San Francisco location, but is consoled by the fact that his own ability to cook has landed him a “super-hot wife” who’s “a girl, by the way.”

Dan Calabrese wrote last week at Cain TV thatwhen I get ready to consume my lunch, the thing I want to be thinking about is dude-on-dude action.”

“… I don't remember the last time adulterers, murderers or drunk drivers convinced a burger chain to name a product after them, and publicly declared their pride in what they do,” he added. “You're the ones who are making it an issue, not me.”

Flaming broiled.

Sigh. I can tell you for sure that when I get ready to consume my lunch, the thing I want to be thinking about is dude-on-dude action.

Hold the pickles

Hold the lettuce

Lunch and gay sex can't upset us!

 

I actually prefer the Whopper to its counterparts at McDonald's and Wendy's, and the ice cream shakes are really good when the machine doesn't break (which is sadly not that often).

Problem, though:

You tell me not to judge you for what you do that is in blatant rebellion against the Word of God. OK. You tell me not to be a hater and not to obsess over certain sins when others are just as troubling to God. Fair enough.

But I don't remember the last time adulterers, murderers or drunk drivers convinced a burger chain to name a product after them, and publicly declared their pride in what they do. You're the ones who are making it an issue, not me. I'm just telling you what God's Word says. If you don't want to hear that, then don't insist on constantly making it a topic of public conversation. (Then again, the thieves have the Hamburglar, so there is that.)

So if Burger King wants let its affiliation be known in the culture war, again I say, fair enough. One more reason I'm glad I learned to cook in college. Not only do I not need Burger King, but it helped me to attract a super-hot wife who remains super-hot even after 17 years of marriage to me.

She's a girl, by the way.

The American Decency Association, meanwhile, is all but declaring a boycott of the chain, telling OneNewsNow, "When we hear of a corporation that is just making decisions such as this, this is clearly a time for people to use whatever means they can to express that concern at their local Burger King.”

Iowa-based talk show host Steve Deace, for his part, is suggesting that the “Proud Whopper” discriminates against Christians:

 

Barber: Hobby Lobby Decision 'Bodes Very Well' For Christians Who Want To Discriminate Against Gays

In the wake of the Supreme Court's Hobby Lobby decision, Miranda noted how anti-gay activists were excited by the prospect that the decision had set a precedent that could now be used to exempt Christian businesses from having to comply with anti-discrimination laws when it comes to issues like gay marriage.

On today's "Faith and Freedom" radio broadcast, Liberty Counsel's Matt Barber addressed exactly this issue, saying that he is hopeful that anti-gay Christians will now have a solid defense when they refuse to "be an indentured servant" by providing services to "a counterfeit gay marriage" because this ruling was "a strong rebuke of all those sexual orientation laws around the country in cities and municipalities and states that say somehow gays win, Christians lose, sexual orientation trumps all."

"This decision, if you read between the lines," Barber asserted, "it says religious freedom is sacrosanct, including for the business owner."

Saying that nowhere in the Constitution does it say that Christians are required to participate in sin by providing services for a gay wedding that mocks God, Barber believes that this decision "sends a strong signal" that religious liberty is protected by the Constitution and by law while sexual orientation is not.

"Clearly the First Amendment and RFRA, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, read through the prism of this decision," Barber said, "I believe bodes very well for Christians who say 'we will not partake and give any recognition to fake same-sex marriage'":

Scott Lively: There Is A Gay Agenda, And It 'Reflects An Insane And Satanic Delusion'

Like many of us, Scott Lively spent the Fourth of July weekend reflecting on the “gay agenda,” and on Sunday published a WorldNetDaily column arguing that said agenda very much exists and in fact “reflects an insane and Satanic delusion which breeds chaos."

Lively argues, as he does frequently, that he didn’t mind when the gay rights movement was about “the right to be left alone,” but he doesn’t like what he sees as the post-Stonewall turn toward the “radically Marxist goal” of destroying the family and all of society.

Mentioning the “gay” agenda in the presence of an LGBT activist or any other Cultural Marxist is like pulling the string on a Sheriff Woody doll, you hear precisely the same recording each time: “What gay agenda? There is no gay agenda.”

But, of course, the audacious lie that the now-global LGBT political movement has “no agenda” is as transparent as the Emperor’s new clothes. Indeed, their agenda is not only undeniable, it has unfortunately become unavoidable!

An agenda is simply a plan or list of matters to be acted upon by a person or group related to a strategic goal to be achieved. By definition, every person or group with a goal has one.

The original goal of the “gay” movement was best summarized by Dale Jennings of the Mattachine Society as “the right to be left alone.” Before Stonewall: Activists for Gay and Lesbian Rights in Historical Context, Phd Dececco (John), John Dececco, Phd, Vern L Bullough, Vern L Bullough, RN, PhD, Haworth Press, 2002, p 88. That goal can be translated as “tolerance.” I think it is fair to say that the vast majority of pro-family advocates and activists in the world today (including this writer) would gladly support that goal.

However, with the violent Stonewall Riot of June 28, 1969 (celebrated annually today as “Gay Pride Day“), the movement adopted a radical Marxist goal and agenda heavily influenced by Herbert Marcuse of the Frankfort School of “Cultural Marxists.”

In conclusion, the “gay” agenda is to eliminate the existing Judeo-Christian model of civilization, grounded in marriage-based procreative sexuality, to make way for an irrational and impossible Cultural Marxist model which imagines family-less unlimited “sexual freedom” (anarchy), while somehow preserving orderliness in every other aspect of human society. It reflects an insane and Satanic delusion which breeds chaos, and can only be stopped by unceasing reaffirmation of Biblical values and the natural family by the rest of us.

Mike Farris Stopped The ERA Because It Would Lead To Gay Marriage

Earlier this month, David Barton, Rick Green, and Mike Farris held a webinar focused on promoting an Article V Convention of the States, the latest right-wing plan to bring together representatives from all fifty states to draft constitutional amendments that will dramatically limit the power of Congress and the federal government.

WallBuilders has been airing portions of this webinar on its daily radio program this week and on today's installment, Farris noted that lots of conservatives leaders are supporting such a convention, with the exception of the Eagle Forum's Phyllis Schlafly, who has been vehemently opposed to the idea for years.

In defending the need for an Article V convention, Farris bent over backwards to praise Schlafly as his "dear, wonderful friend" who is simply wrong about this issue, saying that "in a fifty years career of absolute perfection, she's entitled to one mistake."

Farris went on a brag that he had worked side-by-side with Schlafly in fighting against the Equal Rights Amendment in the 1970s, noting that they argued against it by warning that it would lead to gay marriage:

One of the arguments we made was if you do this, it's gonna lead to homosexual marriage and people laughed at us.

Homosexual marriage? That's the craziest idea in the world!

Well, it turns out, we weren't so crazy after all.

Gee, it's good thing they stopped the ERA, otherwise we'd have the legalization of gay marriage rapidly spreading all across the country. Thank goodness Farris and Schlafly stopped that from happening!

Jesse Lee Peterson Explains That Marriage Can't Be A Partnership Because 'That Term Partner Came From The Homosexuals'

Tea Party activist Jesse Lee Peterson’s group BOND held a conference on “fatherhood and men” in Los Angeles earlier this month, at which Peterson moderated a panel discussion featuring radio host Morris O’Kelly, author and pundit Andrew Klavan, and Dr. Albert Gibbs, a clinical psychologist.

Gibbs seemed to have not known what he was getting into, and spent the entire discussion responding in disbelief to to Peterson’s unhinged questions.

For instance, at one point, Peterson asked Gibbs if a man should “be the head of his wife.” When Gibbs responded that he and his wife are partners in the relationship, Peterson told him that he shouldn’t use that word because “that term partner came from the homosexuals” and that any marriage based on partnership means “the man is weak.”

Barber: Gay Marriage Is 'The Brainchild' Of Satan

On today's "Faith and Freedom" radio broadcast, Mat Staver and Matt Barber cited recent remarks made by Pope Francis about how "the Devil wants to destroy" the family in order to declare that gay marriage is "the brainchild" of Satan himself.

"Marriage is the cornerstone institution of any healthy society," Barber asserted, "and so clearly the Father of Lies, the Enemy of the World hates marriage, wants to destroy marriage and so this concept of counterfeit marriage, of same-sex marriage, that is the brainchild, Mat, of none other than the Father of Lies himself."

Staver was in complete agreement, saying that gay marriage is an effort to "abolish all truth" as part of Satan's "attack on God."

"Ultimately, at the end of the day," Staver said, "it is a spiritual attack ... This is the bidding of the Devil. This is a spiritual assault on all of us who are made in the image of God":

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

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

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

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

Benham Brothers Ready To Die In Battle

The Religious Right mythologizing of David and Jason Benham continues. The Benham brothers – whose plans for a reality TV show on HGTV were scrapped by the network after Right Wing Watch reported on the brothers’ anti-gay, anti-choice, anti-Islam activism – were featured speakers at last week’s Road to Majority conference, sponsored by Ralph Reed’s Faith and Freedom Coalition. And they’re on the schedule for the much bigger Values Voter Summit in September.

A Christian Post story on their appearance at Road to Majority frames their experience in typical martyrs-to-their-faith rhetoric, saying their reality show “was canceled because they spoke about their Christian views.”

Now, we don’t know exactly what motivated HGTV’s decision, but it seems to be a pretty good bet that it had nothing to do with the fact that the Benhams are outspoken about their Christian faith, and more to do with the fact that they had been outspoken advocates of limiting other people’s rights – as when Jason urged Charlotte, North Carolina, officials to deny permits for LGBT pride events, or when David took part it protests against the Islamic community center that critics inaccurately dubbed the “Ground Zero Mosque.”

The Religious Right revels in manufacturing martyrs. And the Benham brothers are happy to play the part, portraying themselves as targets of a demonic gay rights movement that is out to silence its critics. “If people remain silent, then it’s going to continue to get worse. But when folks step up, and speak boldly the truth, and then it can actually get pushed back,” David told the Christian Post. “You have to be willing to die. I mean, Jason and I had to be willing to lose our show. We had to be willing to lose a book deal…”

In their Road to Majority remarks, the Benham brothers portrayed themselves as warriors.

“We just remember June the 6th, 1944. We know what happened at D-Day. We know what happened on Omaha and Utah beach. There’s something about those men that our dad taught us when we were kids. And he said, ‘Boys, don’t you ever run from bullets. You run toward the bullets.’ There are cultural bullets flying, all over today, especially religious liberty. And what’s happening right now is many spiritual leaders, elected leaders, they are running from bullets. But there’s a remnant of people that are ready to stand and say ‘I’m not running from these bullets any more. I’m gonna take this beach…’”

One of the brothers invoked Meriam Ibrahim, a Christian woman who had been jailed in Sudan for refusing to renounce her faith (and who, it was reported today, is now safe in the US embassy), and then invoked Mel Gibson’s bloody battle epic “Braveheart.”

“Just like in the movie Braveheart, when all the Scottish Army was standing there, and they all had their gear on, and they were lined up and they were unified, and they were ready to fight but not a single one of them wanted to fight.  And then as William Wallace and a few men rode in on horses with blue face paint on. They were ready to pick a fight. And what I see before me right now are a bunch of people with some blue face paint on – so let’s go get it!"

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jennifer Roback Morse Compares 'Sexual Revolution' To Nazism, Says It’s Bringing Back Slavery

Jennifer Roback Morse, head of the Ruth Institute — which was formerly affiliated with the National Organization for Marriage — urged conservative law students earlier this month to resist the “pagan ideology” of the “sexual revolution” like those who resisted Nazism.

In a lecture to the Alliance Defending Freedom’s Blackstone Legal Fellowship, Morse explained that while Christianity ended slavery, the sexual revolution is now bringing it back.

“All of these issues — divorce and remarriage, abortion and infanticide, slavery, the buying and selling of human beings — all of these things, the Christian religion put a stop to. But they’re all on their way back because of the sexual revolution,” she said. “The sexual revolution is bringing back all of these points.”

“We, in fact, are on the right side of history,” she said.

Later in the speech, Morse urged the students in the audience to emulate Maximilian Kolbe and Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s stands against Nazism in resisting the “pagan ideology” of the “sexual revolution.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Via Book Patrol.

William Owens Never Marched 'One Foot For The Same Sex To Get Married'

Rev. William Owens, president of the NOM front organization known as the Coalition of African-American Pastors, spoke at today's March for Marriage where he declared that he had participated in "the real civil rights movement" and "didn't march one yard, one foot for the same sex to get married."

Saying that the push for marriage equality is nothing but a "bully movement," Owens declared that the fight against gay marriage is the modern civil rights movement and, as such, activists must refuse to comply with laws recognizing it and be willing to go to jail if necessary.

"Remember," Owens said, "it took two hundred and some years for the blacks to get their freedom; it will take us time but we can't do it just making speeches and talking, we got to show our force to America, we've got to let these politicians know, these weak-kneed, back-kneed, slimy backed politicians from the president on down know that we will not take it any more":

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

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

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

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

Brian Brown Is Confident That Anti-Gay Activists 'Stand On The Right Side Of History'

Speaking at the March for Marriage rally today, National Organization for Marriage president Brian Brown declared that those fighting against marriage equality will never give up and will eventually be victorious because "we stand for the truth about marriage."

"We know that some day," Brown proclaimed, "whether it's one year, ten years, twenty years, or decades from now, people will look back at this time and remember those of us who stood up for the truth."

Then, quoting Abraham Lincoln, Brown declared that anti-gay activists "stand on the right side of history":

Syndicate content