Marriage Equality

Right Wing Round-Up

NOM: “Chafee Wants to Impose Gay Marriage on Rhode Island”

First, the National Organization for Marriage attacked Rhode Island Governor Lincoln Chafee for not winning enough votes in the 2010 election, now NOM slams Chafee for allegedly “wasting time trying to redefine marriage.” NOM is no stranger to aggressive ad campaigns and actively tried to smear politicians and judges who support marriage equality in Iowa, New Hampshire, and Washington DC. After Chafee, an independent who was elected Governor in November and replaced a Republican who opposed marriage equality, has become one of NOM’s top targets. Today, the anti-gay group released a new ad criticizing Chafee for backing marriage equality, which NOM believes would impair his ability to focus on economic issues:

NOM: “Chafee Wants to Impose Gay Marriage on Rhode Island”

First, the National Organization for Marriage attacked Rhode Island Governor Lincoln Chafee for not winning enough votes in the 2010 election, now NOM slams Chafee for allegedly “wasting time trying to redefine marriage.” NOM is no stranger to aggressive ad campaigns and actively tried to smear politicians and judges who support marriage equality in Iowa, New Hampshire, and Washington DC. After Chafee, an independent who was elected Governor in November and replaced a Republican who opposed marriage equality, has become one of NOM’s top targets. Today, the anti-gay group released a new ad criticizing Chafee for backing marriage equality, which NOM believes would impair his ability to focus on economic issues:

Right Wing Leftovers

  • Joseph Farah says he "wouldn't vote for Mitt Romney if he were running against Satan himself."
  • Gordon Klingenschmitt says the repeal of DADT will result in a "purge" of Christians from the military.
  • Focus on the Family is not impressed with Barbara Bush's support for marriage equality.
  • FRC 's Robert Morrison says Lila Rose "deserves a Pulitzer Prize."
  • Anti-mosque activist Andy Sullivan opposes the "Ground Zero Mosque" because "according to the IRS, they are a religious 501c3 charity, meaning they cannot have access to federal monies. No religious institution has the right to have access to federal monies."
  • Next, Bill O'Reilly will be asking "magnets, how do they work?"
  • Finally, Bryan Fischer says we need to "start dismantling egregiously wrong precedents such as Roe v. Wade and Lawrence v. Texas."

Right Wing Round-Up

  • PFAW: Senators Attempt to Change Constitutional Definition of Citizenship.
  • Wonk Room: Tea Party Judge Roger Vinson ‘Borrows Heavily’ From Family Research Council To Invalidate Health Law.
  • Steve Benen: A Vision Of Foreign Policy That Only Beck Can Provide.
  • Maddow Blog: Georgia Rep Would End Driver’s Licenses.
  • Alan Colmes: South Dakota Lawmakers Want Bill Requiring Gun Ownership.
  • Towleroad: Barbara Bush Comes Out In Support Of Marriage Equality.
  • TPM: Radio Silence On Rape-Redefining Abortion Bill From The Right.
  • AlterNet: Ayn Rand Railed Against Government Benefits, But Grabbed Social Security and Medicare When She Needed Them.

Right Wing Round-Up

  • PFAW: Senators Attempt to Change Constitutional Definition of Citizenship.
  • Wonk Room: Tea Party Judge Roger Vinson ‘Borrows Heavily’ From Family Research Council To Invalidate Health Law.
  • Steve Benen: A Vision Of Foreign Policy That Only Beck Can Provide.
  • Maddow Blog: Georgia Rep Would End Driver’s Licenses.
  • Alan Colmes: South Dakota Lawmakers Want Bill Requiring Gun Ownership.
  • Towleroad: Barbara Bush Comes Out In Support Of Marriage Equality.
  • TPM: Radio Silence On Rape-Redefining Abortion Bill From The Right.
  • AlterNet: Ayn Rand Railed Against Government Benefits, But Grabbed Social Security and Medicare When She Needed Them.

House GOP Looks to Overturn Marriage Equality in DC

Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) said that his Republican Study Committee, the ultraconservative group that counts a majority of the GOP caucus as its members, told The Hill that he supports congressional action to reverse Washington DC’s marriage equality law. “I think RSC will push for it, and I’m certainly strongly for it,” the Ohio Republican said, “I don’t know if we’ve made a decision if I’ll do it or let another member do it, but I’m 100 percent for it.” Jordan voted against every major piece of gay-rights legislation and recently announced his boycott of CPAC over the conference’s inclusion of GOProud.

Even though the Republican Study Committee claims to be committed to “a limited and Constitutional role for the federal government” and reducing “government regulations [and the] size of government,” anti-gay attacks apparently take priority over its dedication to federalism and small-government.

The DC Council voted overwhelmingly in favor of marriage equality in 2009, and marriage rights for gays and lesbians went into effect in early 2010. National and local Religious Right groups, led by Bishop Harry Jackson, just last week lost a lawsuit challenging the law.

Bishop Jackson has unsuccessfully demanded a popular referendum to decide the fate of marriage equality in the District, saying that the issue should be left up to DC voters rather than their elected representatives in the Council and going so far as writing to Congress to demand a popular vote on the issue. In Congress, however, DC’s Delegate does not have the right to vote on legislation and was stripped by Republicans of her limited voting powers.

Clearly, given his aggressive stance in support of DC’s voters’ ability to have a say in the matter, Bishop Jackson will come out strongly against Congressman Jordan’s proposal any minute now…

House GOP Looks to Overturn Marriage Equality in DC

Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) said that his Republican Study Committee, the ultraconservative group that counts a majority of the GOP caucus as its members, told The Hill that he supports congressional action to reverse Washington DC’s marriage equality law. “I think RSC will push for it, and I’m certainly strongly for it,” the Ohio Republican said, “I don’t know if we’ve made a decision if I’ll do it or let another member do it, but I’m 100 percent for it.” Jordan voted against every major piece of gay-rights legislation and recently announced his boycott of CPAC over the conference’s inclusion of GOProud.

Even though the Republican Study Committee claims to be committed to “a limited and Constitutional role for the federal government” and reducing “government regulations [and the] size of government,” anti-gay attacks apparently take priority over its dedication to federalism and small-government.

The DC Council voted overwhelmingly in favor of marriage equality in 2009, and marriage rights for gays and lesbians went into effect in early 2010. National and local Religious Right groups, led by Bishop Harry Jackson, just last week lost a lawsuit challenging the law.

Bishop Jackson has unsuccessfully demanded a popular referendum to decide the fate of marriage equality in the District, saying that the issue should be left up to DC voters rather than their elected representatives in the Council and going so far as writing to Congress to demand a popular vote on the issue. In Congress, however, DC’s Delegate does not have the right to vote on legislation and was stripped by Republicans of her limited voting powers.

Clearly, given his aggressive stance in support of DC’s voters’ ability to have a say in the matter, Bishop Jackson will come out strongly against Congressman Jordan’s proposal any minute now…

FRC Pressuring House Republicans To Eliminate Marriage Equality in DC

Yesterday we noted that the National Organization for Marriage was undaunted by the fact that the Supreme Court had rejected the Religious Right's challenge to Washington DC's marriage equality law and was vowing to continue the fight and expecting the new Republican majority in the House to help them.

It turns out that the Family Research Council had exactly the same idea and is calling upon its activists to contact Rep. Darrell Issa and urge Congress to "override the D.C. government's decision" and either "reject the marriage law outright or order the District to adopt a new statute that would put this issue on the ballot":

Tuesday's decision was not an endorsement of gay "marriage" in this city or anywhere else. It was simply the court recognizing its own limitations. On matters affecting the District, Congress is the absolute authority. The justices are leaving it to them to clean up this mess, or not.

Last year, when the city council exploited the process and forced same-sex "marriage" on the District, House leaders could have--and should have--gotten involved. Instead, members chickened out and did nothing. Fortunately for D.C. voters, times--and the party majorities--have changed. I've been discussing possible steps GOP leaders could take to do what the city didn't do: give the people a voice. Believe it or not, Congress has the power to override the D.C. government's decisions any time it wants. It could reject the marriage law outright or order the District to adopt a new statute that would put this issue on the ballot. What the Left doesn't want you to know is that D.C. doesn't have the authority to block referendums on marriage. Only Congress does.

"The answer for us," Bishop Jackson said yesterday, "is to return to the political process." And you can help! With a strong new Speaker at the helm, Americans can demand that our nation's capital follow our nation's law--which is that marriage is the union of a man and woman. Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) is the Chairman of the House Government Oversight Committee. As a representative from California, where Proposition 8 is under attack, he knows firsthand the importance of leaving these issues in voters' hands. Email or call him (202-225-3906) today and encourage him to give the people of Washington, D.C. the same opportunity.

FRC Pressuring House Republicans To Eliminate Marriage Equality in DC

Yesterday we noted that the National Organization for Marriage was undaunted by the fact that the Supreme Court had rejected the Religious Right's challenge to Washington DC's marriage equality law and was vowing to continue the fight and expecting the new Republican majority in the House to help them.

It turns out that the Family Research Council had exactly the same idea and is calling upon its activists to contact Rep. Darrell Issa and urge Congress to "override the D.C. government's decision" and either "reject the marriage law outright or order the District to adopt a new statute that would put this issue on the ballot":

Tuesday's decision was not an endorsement of gay "marriage" in this city or anywhere else. It was simply the court recognizing its own limitations. On matters affecting the District, Congress is the absolute authority. The justices are leaving it to them to clean up this mess, or not.

Last year, when the city council exploited the process and forced same-sex "marriage" on the District, House leaders could have--and should have--gotten involved. Instead, members chickened out and did nothing. Fortunately for D.C. voters, times--and the party majorities--have changed. I've been discussing possible steps GOP leaders could take to do what the city didn't do: give the people a voice. Believe it or not, Congress has the power to override the D.C. government's decisions any time it wants. It could reject the marriage law outright or order the District to adopt a new statute that would put this issue on the ballot. What the Left doesn't want you to know is that D.C. doesn't have the authority to block referendums on marriage. Only Congress does.

"The answer for us," Bishop Jackson said yesterday, "is to return to the political process." And you can help! With a strong new Speaker at the helm, Americans can demand that our nation's capital follow our nation's law--which is that marriage is the union of a man and woman. Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) is the Chairman of the House Government Oversight Committee. As a representative from California, where Proposition 8 is under attack, he knows firsthand the importance of leaving these issues in voters' hands. Email or call him (202-225-3906) today and encourage him to give the people of Washington, D.C. the same opportunity.

Iowa GOP Hopes to Ban Gay Marriage and Civil Unions as Vander Plaats Mobilizes Pastors

The battle over marriage equality in Iowa is heating up as Republicans in the State House are moving forward with plans to ban gay marriage and civil unions, an attempt to reverse a unanimous 2009 State Supreme Court decision in favor of marriage equality. To amend the constitution, “an amendment would require approval by state lawmakers during two legislative sessions, and then approval by voters at the ballot box.” Encouraged by major Republican gains in the midterm elections and the removal of three pro-equality Justices through retention votes, Iowa Republicans have emphasized restrictions on gay-rights and reproductive-rights in their legislative agenda, and Religious Right leader Bob Vander Plaats is pressing for the removal of the entire Supreme Court.

Vander Plaats’s new organization, The Family Leader, recently blasted pro-equality faith leaders in an alert message that questions their faith, stating: “167 ‘religious’ leaders signed a letter delivered to the Iowa Legislature saying that people of faith support homosexual ‘marriage.’ Don’t stay silent while others speak for you and misrepresnt [sic] God.” The group calls on pastors to sign an alternative petition which describes “homosexual behavior” as “immoral and sinful” and “harmful both to the individuals who choose to participate in it and the society that chooses to accept it.”

The mobilization of pastors by The Family Leader comes at a time when, according to the Des Moines Register, Republican leaders are trying to prohibit not only gay marriage but also other forms of legal rights for gay couples such as civil unions and domestic partnerships. The Register reports:

House Republicans will introduce legislation this week to begin the process to amend the Iowa Constitution to ban not only same-sex marriage but also civil unions and domestic partnerships.

That prospect raised alarm with civil rights advocates, who said it would legalize discrimination.

Republicans, who took control of the House in the Nov. 2 elections, had pledged to pass a measure this legislative session that would eventually allow Iowans a vote on same-sex marriage. But the resolution they've prepared is more sweeping than that, a move intended to help place finality on the issue of the legality of same-sex unions, said Rep. Dwayne Alons, R-Hull, who is the lead sponsor of House Joint Resolution 6.

"I think the biggest issue is that if that (a same-sex marriage ban) is carried forward, and then Iowa does civil unions and recognizes that as a substitute status, then, from what I've seen in other states," people would come to consider same-sex civil unions as equal to marriage, Alons said.

As of late Wednesday, no Democrats had signed on as co-sponsors of the bill. Fifty-six of the 60 House Republicans are listed as co-sponsors. The measure is expected to easily pass the House, but Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal has vowed to block consideration of a same-sex marriage amendment in that chamber.

The resolution says: "Marriage between one man and one woman shall be the only legal union valid or recognized in this state."

Des Moines attorney James Benzoni said such an amendment would run counter to the intent of Iowa laws that prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation.

"The problem you're going to have is that it allows prejudice," Benzoni said. "It's going to open the door now for discrimination, for bullying, for treating people as second-class citizens."

The wording raised questions about whether private companies and governments in Iowa could still extend benefits to domestic partners. State government, for example, provides domestic partnership benefits to same-sex couples.



Those who agree with the Iowa Supreme Court ruling have noted that same-sex couples have in previous years been shut out from hospital visitation and inheritance rights. The U.S. Government Accountability Office has listed more than 1,100 benefits the government provides to married couples.

The Rev. Keith Ratliff Sr. of Des Moines, president of the NAACP State Conference for Iowa and Nebraska, has helped lead protests against same-sex marriage. He said Wednesday he agrees with the attempt to also keep domestic partnership or civil unions from gaining legal status.

Ratliff said he believes same-sex marriage further erodes the family, similar to the way that two-income families have eroded traditional nuclear families.

"I think there is an immediate consequence to gay marriage because people let their guard down in relation to what the word of God says," Ratliff said.

Iowa GOP Hopes to Ban Gay Marriage and Civil Unions as Vander Plaats Mobilizes Pastors

The battle over marriage equality in Iowa is heating up as Republicans in the State House are moving forward with plans to ban gay marriage and civil unions, an attempt to reverse a unanimous 2009 State Supreme Court decision in favor of marriage equality. To amend the constitution, “an amendment would require approval by state lawmakers during two legislative sessions, and then approval by voters at the ballot box.” Encouraged by major Republican gains in the midterm elections and the removal of three pro-equality Justices through retention votes, Iowa Republicans have emphasized restrictions on gay-rights and reproductive-rights in their legislative agenda, and Religious Right leader Bob Vander Plaats is pressing for the removal of the entire Supreme Court.

Vander Plaats’s new organization, The Family Leader, recently blasted pro-equality faith leaders in an alert message that questions their faith, stating: “167 ‘religious’ leaders signed a letter delivered to the Iowa Legislature saying that people of faith support homosexual ‘marriage.’ Don’t stay silent while others speak for you and misrepresnt [sic] God.” The group calls on pastors to sign an alternative petition which describes “homosexual behavior” as “immoral and sinful” and “harmful both to the individuals who choose to participate in it and the society that chooses to accept it.”

The mobilization of pastors by The Family Leader comes at a time when, according to the Des Moines Register, Republican leaders are trying to prohibit not only gay marriage but also other forms of legal rights for gay couples such as civil unions and domestic partnerships. The Register reports:

House Republicans will introduce legislation this week to begin the process to amend the Iowa Constitution to ban not only same-sex marriage but also civil unions and domestic partnerships.

That prospect raised alarm with civil rights advocates, who said it would legalize discrimination.

Republicans, who took control of the House in the Nov. 2 elections, had pledged to pass a measure this legislative session that would eventually allow Iowans a vote on same-sex marriage. But the resolution they've prepared is more sweeping than that, a move intended to help place finality on the issue of the legality of same-sex unions, said Rep. Dwayne Alons, R-Hull, who is the lead sponsor of House Joint Resolution 6.

"I think the biggest issue is that if that (a same-sex marriage ban) is carried forward, and then Iowa does civil unions and recognizes that as a substitute status, then, from what I've seen in other states," people would come to consider same-sex civil unions as equal to marriage, Alons said.

As of late Wednesday, no Democrats had signed on as co-sponsors of the bill. Fifty-six of the 60 House Republicans are listed as co-sponsors. The measure is expected to easily pass the House, but Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal has vowed to block consideration of a same-sex marriage amendment in that chamber.

The resolution says: "Marriage between one man and one woman shall be the only legal union valid or recognized in this state."

Des Moines attorney James Benzoni said such an amendment would run counter to the intent of Iowa laws that prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation.

"The problem you're going to have is that it allows prejudice," Benzoni said. "It's going to open the door now for discrimination, for bullying, for treating people as second-class citizens."

The wording raised questions about whether private companies and governments in Iowa could still extend benefits to domestic partners. State government, for example, provides domestic partnership benefits to same-sex couples.



Those who agree with the Iowa Supreme Court ruling have noted that same-sex couples have in previous years been shut out from hospital visitation and inheritance rights. The U.S. Government Accountability Office has listed more than 1,100 benefits the government provides to married couples.

The Rev. Keith Ratliff Sr. of Des Moines, president of the NAACP State Conference for Iowa and Nebraska, has helped lead protests against same-sex marriage. He said Wednesday he agrees with the attempt to also keep domestic partnership or civil unions from gaining legal status.

Ratliff said he believes same-sex marriage further erodes the family, similar to the way that two-income families have eroded traditional nuclear families.

"I think there is an immediate consequence to gay marriage because people let their guard down in relation to what the word of God says," Ratliff said.

NOM vows to Continue Fighting Marriage Equality in DC

Yesterday, the Supreme Court rejected the challenge to Washington, DC's marriage equality law, much to the dismay of the Religious Right.

But if you thought that was going to be the end of the challenge, think again, as the National Organization for Marriage today announced that it will continue to fight it and expects the new GOP majority in the House to help them:

Yesterday, the Supreme Court of the United States denied an appeal by marriage defenders to the DC City Council’s implementation of same-sex marriage.

Brian Brown, president of the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) pledged to continue to push for the right of District residents to vote on marriage as the union of a man and a woman:

“While we are disappointed that the US Supreme Court did not decide to take the case challenging the denial of the civil rights of District residents to vote on the definition of marriage, we are by no means done pressing this issue. With a pro-marriage majority in the new Congress we will explore a number of avenues to force the District to fulfill their constitutional responsibility to voters. As the four Court of Appeal justices who dissented in this case made clear, the District of Columbia owes it to the voters to allow them to decide the critical issue of marriage which has existed since before there was a District of Columbia. In order to curry favor with the same-sex marriage special interest group, members of the City Council have turned their backs on their own constituents. It is ironic that these same council members champion the right of District votes to be heard in national elections but then deny those same residents the right to vote on the definition of marriage. We will press our belief with Congress that the constitution of the District requires that voters be allowed to decide this important issue.”

NOM vows to Continue Fighting Marriage Equality in DC

Yesterday, the Supreme Court rejected the challenge to Washington, DC's marriage equality law, much to the dismay of the Religious Right.

But if you thought that was going to be the end of the challenge, think again, as the National Organization for Marriage today announced that it will continue to fight it and expects the new GOP majority in the House to help them:

Yesterday, the Supreme Court of the United States denied an appeal by marriage defenders to the DC City Council’s implementation of same-sex marriage.

Brian Brown, president of the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) pledged to continue to push for the right of District residents to vote on marriage as the union of a man and a woman:

“While we are disappointed that the US Supreme Court did not decide to take the case challenging the denial of the civil rights of District residents to vote on the definition of marriage, we are by no means done pressing this issue. With a pro-marriage majority in the new Congress we will explore a number of avenues to force the District to fulfill their constitutional responsibility to voters. As the four Court of Appeal justices who dissented in this case made clear, the District of Columbia owes it to the voters to allow them to decide the critical issue of marriage which has existed since before there was a District of Columbia. In order to curry favor with the same-sex marriage special interest group, members of the City Council have turned their backs on their own constituents. It is ironic that these same council members champion the right of District votes to be heard in national elections but then deny those same residents the right to vote on the definition of marriage. We will press our belief with Congress that the constitution of the District requires that voters be allowed to decide this important issue.”

DC Marriage Foes’ Voting-Rights Hypocrisy Exposed

Yesterday the U.S. Supreme Court rejected a last-ditch legal challenge to marriage equality in the District of Columbia and exposed as hypocritical posturing the claims by Bishop Harry Jackson and his Religious Right allies to be representing the interests of DC voters.

Throughout the past year’s legal challenges to DC’s marriage equality law, Jackson and his allies have argued that District voters have a civil right to vote on the city’s new marriage equality law, in spite of consistent legal opinions and court rulings that such a vote would violate the city’s Human Rights Act by putting civil rights to a vote.
 
But when the conservative U.S. Supreme Court declined to consider the clergy’s latest request, the response of one local advocate was telling. Rev. Anthony Evans called the Supreme Court’s action “a travesty of justice:”
 
“This law was forced down the church’s throat and what the Supreme Court has set up is the greatest civil war between the church and the gay community,” Evans said. “And let me just state for the record, we don’t want that fight. We love our gay brothers and sisters. But if the Supreme Court is not going to acknowledge the fact that we have a right as religious people to have a say-so in the framework of religious ethics for our culture and society, then we reject the Supreme Court on this issue.”
 
Evans “civil war” rhetoric seems particularly poorly chosen at a moment when Americans of all political persuasions are looking for more civility in political rhetoric, not to mention his Tea-Party-on-steroids declaration that he “rejects” the U.S. Supreme Court .
 
But what really exposes as fraudulent the claims by marriage foes to be waging a civil rights struggle on behalf of DC voters is Evans’ bragging that “he and others opposed to the marriage law lobbied GOP leaders on the Hill to strip  congressional delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.) of her voting privileges on the House floor.”  Evans said his working with House Republicans to revoke even the limited floor voting privileges of DC's congressional delegate was “punishment for her wholehearted support of same-sex marriage.”
 
Of course, national Religious Right groups made it clear months ago that they don't really care about the second-class-citizen status of DC residents when they said that city officials’ support for marriage equality and the Human Rights Act is proof that the District doesn’t deserve self-determination.

DC Marriage Foes’ Voting-Rights Hypocrisy Exposed

Yesterday the U.S. Supreme Court rejected a last-ditch legal challenge to marriage equality in the District of Columbia and exposed as hypocritical posturing the claims by Bishop Harry Jackson and his Religious Right allies to be representing the interests of DC voters.

Throughout the past year’s legal challenges to DC’s marriage equality law, Jackson and his allies have argued that District voters have a civil right to vote on the city’s new marriage equality law, in spite of consistent legal opinions and court rulings that such a vote would violate the city’s Human Rights Act by putting civil rights to a vote.
 
But when the conservative U.S. Supreme Court declined to consider the clergy’s latest request, the response of one local advocate was telling. Rev. Anthony Evans called the Supreme Court’s action “a travesty of justice:”
 
“This law was forced down the church’s throat and what the Supreme Court has set up is the greatest civil war between the church and the gay community,” Evans said. “And let me just state for the record, we don’t want that fight. We love our gay brothers and sisters. But if the Supreme Court is not going to acknowledge the fact that we have a right as religious people to have a say-so in the framework of religious ethics for our culture and society, then we reject the Supreme Court on this issue.”
 
Evans “civil war” rhetoric seems particularly poorly chosen at a moment when Americans of all political persuasions are looking for more civility in political rhetoric, not to mention his Tea-Party-on-steroids declaration that he “rejects” the U.S. Supreme Court .
 
But what really exposes as fraudulent the claims by marriage foes to be waging a civil rights struggle on behalf of DC voters is Evans’ bragging that “he and others opposed to the marriage law lobbied GOP leaders on the Hill to strip  congressional delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.) of her voting privileges on the House floor.”  Evans said his working with House Republicans to revoke even the limited floor voting privileges of DC's congressional delegate was “punishment for her wholehearted support of same-sex marriage.”
 
Of course, national Religious Right groups made it clear months ago that they don't really care about the second-class-citizen status of DC residents when they said that city officials’ support for marriage equality and the Human Rights Act is proof that the District doesn’t deserve self-determination.

Right Wing Leftovers

  • The Supreme Court has rejected the right-wing challenge to Washington, DC's marriage equality law.
  • The ever-brave Sarah Palin sits down for a softball interview with Sean Hannity to defend her "blood libel" video.
  • Rep. Michele Bachmann will be the keynote speaker at the March for Life Rose Dinner.
  • Don't like health care reform?  Why not sign up for a Christian health care co-op?
  • It seems that the developer's attendance estimates for the creationist theme park in Kentucky are wildly optimistic.
  • Randall Terry intends to launch a primary challenge against President Obama so that he can run graphic anti-abortion ads on television and will host a press conference announcing his campaign outside the Holocaust Museum.
  • Finally, the Sarah Palin Battle Hymn is a real thing.

Pawlenty to Meet with Anti-Gay Iowa Group

After telling the American Family Association’s Bryan Fischer that he would work to reinstate Don’t Ask Don’t Tell as President, former Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty will continue to court anti-gay leaders by meeting with Iowa’s Bob Vander Plaats and his organization, The Family Leader. Vander Plaats told the Des Moines Register that his group will be “hosting Governor Pawlenty in Iowa” in early February to discuss “pro-family issues, all the way from life and marriage to economic policy and energy policy.”

After losing the race for the Republican nomination for governor, Vander Plaats became a leader of Iowa’s Religious Right after he coordinated a successful campaign to block the retention of three Iowa Supreme Court justices who supported the Court’s unanimous ruling to legalize same-sex marriage. Vander Plaats, who a former aide said is “obsessed with the gay marriage issue,” has since called for the removal of the entire Supreme Court because of the Court's decision in favor of marriage equality. The Family Leader is the parent organization of Marriage Matters, the Iowa Family PAC, and the Iowa Family Policy Center, an organization that attacks “the public health crisis of same-sex activity” and tells church groups that they can “protect your children” from “homosexual activists.”

Pawlenty, who is currently touring the country to promote his new book Courage to Stand, has been beefing up his credibility with the Religious Right, bragging to Bryan Fischer about his record of appointing far-right judges to Minnesota courts and calling for the reinstatement of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell:

Pawlenty to Meet with Anti-Gay Iowa Group

After telling the American Family Association’s Bryan Fischer that he would work to reinstate Don’t Ask Don’t Tell as President, former Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty will continue to court anti-gay leaders by meeting with Iowa’s Bob Vander Plaats and his organization, The Family Leader. Vander Plaats told the Des Moines Register that his group will be “hosting Governor Pawlenty in Iowa” in early February to discuss “pro-family issues, all the way from life and marriage to economic policy and energy policy.”

After losing the race for the Republican nomination for governor, Vander Plaats became a leader of Iowa’s Religious Right after he coordinated a successful campaign to block the retention of three Iowa Supreme Court justices who supported the Court’s unanimous ruling to legalize same-sex marriage. Vander Plaats, who a former aide said is “obsessed with the gay marriage issue,” has since called for the removal of the entire Supreme Court because of the Court's decision in favor of marriage equality. The Family Leader is the parent organization of Marriage Matters, the Iowa Family PAC, and the Iowa Family Policy Center, an organization that attacks “the public health crisis of same-sex activity” and tells church groups that they can “protect your children” from “homosexual activists.”

Pawlenty, who is currently touring the country to promote his new book Courage to Stand, has been beefing up his credibility with the Religious Right, bragging to Bryan Fischer about his record of appointing far-right judges to Minnesota courts and calling for the reinstatement of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell:

Right Wing Leftovers

  • The Supreme Court will rule soon on Bishop Harry Jackson’s petition to hear a case on the status of DC’s marriage equality law.
  • Jim Garlow and California Republicans plan to rally against the ruling that the cross at the Mt. Soledad Veterans Memorial is unconstitutional.
  • Liberty Counsel’s Mat Staver and “historian” David Barton are teaming up for “South Carolina Awake!”
  • Anti-Islam activist Debbie Schlussel can’t call herself “Director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations” anymore.
  • Speaking of anti-Islam activists, Pamela Geller wants New Yorkers to “Say Yes to Wal-Mart, No to the Mega Mosque.”
Syndicate content