- Zack Ford @ Think Progress: Fourth Circuit Rules Against Virginia’s Ban On Same-Sex Marriage.
- Hemant Mehta @ Friendly Atheist: Noah’s Ark Theme Park Could Receive More Than $18,000,000 in Tax Breaks from Kentucky Tourism Board.
- David Edwards @ Raw Story: Harlem pastor: God curses ‘homo’ supporters with ‘cancer HIV syphilis’ — then hell.
- Richard Bartholomew: Jim Bakker Off to the Holy Land with Joseph Farah and Jonathan Cahn.
- Luke Brinker @ Media Matters: BarbWire.com: When A Hate Group Creates Its Own Conservative "News" Site.
- Do you have $10 a month that you want to waste? Why not subscribe to Sarah Palin's internet news channel which she will probably just decide to quit running about halfway through?
- Wayne Allyn Root warns that "if we do not secure this border, our entire country in endangered by poverty, by crime, by drugs, and by terrorism."
- "Coach" Dave Daubenmire wants everyone to know that President Obama and his supporters are intentionally seeking to destroy America.
- Laura Ingraham is "keeping an open mind about running for office in the future."
- Finally, Joni Ernst, the Republican Senate nominee in Iowa, seems to think that states have the power to nullify federal laws that they don't like.
Lee Duigon writes today that Americans should “pray that God cuts short the Obama presidency, and punishes all those who enabled it, and erases their foul works from the face of the earth.”
He asks God to “save us” from Obama — whom he claims is more focused on “cracking down” on Christians over gay marriage than enforcing immigration laws — and his supporters: “Rid us of these wicked, lawless rulers. Amen.”
What does the Bible say is the purpose of the civil government? “Rulers” are to be a terror to evildoers (Romans 13:3). But the Obama Regime does everything backwards, so now the government is a terror to peaceable, law-abiding citizens, and the criminals’ best friend.
Want to break our immigration laws? Well, come on in! There will be a slight delay while the “president” draws up an executive order giving you all blanket amnesty, but in the meantime, help yourselves to all the freebies you can grab. The stupid American taxpayer is paying for it.
And don’t worry about law enforcement! We’ve got all we can handle, cracking down on bake sales, Christian bakers who won’t create cakes for same-sex imitation weddings, and all those “war on women” malefactors who don’t what to be forced to pay for someone else’s abortion.
People, please… Pray that God cuts short the Obama presidency, and punishes all those who enabled it, and erases their foul works from the face of the earth.
We have sinned against the Lord, and this Regime has been imposed on us as a scourge. But now the tool used by the Lord boasts itself against Him, and takes His name in vain. We confess our sins, O God–now save us. Not for our sakes, but for your own holy name’s sake.
Rid us of these wicked, lawless rulers. Amen.
Bryan Fischer Cites Mysterious Red River In China As Proof That Everything The Bible Says Is Literally True
On his radio broadcast today, Bryan Fischer seized upon a story about a river in eastern China that mysteriously turned dark red over the weekend, pointing to it as evidence that the Bible can always be trusted since this is exactly what happened in the Book of Exodus.
Saying that this situation is "exactly what you read in the Old Testament account," Fischer proclaimed that "if this could happen, a large river could mysteriously, instantaneously turn blood red in 2014, it could also happen in 1446 B.C."
"Do not abandon your belief in trustworthiness of the Word of God," he concluded.
There is one small difference, of course, since in the story in Exodus the river was turned literally into blood and was not the result of someone illegally dumping dye or chemicals into the river, which is what is suspected of having happened in China.
On his radio program today, Glenn Beck argued that nobody in the GOP is seriously calling for President Obama's impeachment, but Democrats and the media keep talking about it because doing so will help Obama pass immigration reform.
Saying that there is not one person within the Republican Party that is seriously considering impeaching Obama (despite the fact that he totally deserves it), nor even seriously making the case, Beck said that the issue keeps being brought up nonetheless, linking it to the immigration debate by warning that progressives are winning the fight over immigration reform by framing it in terms of "justice" rather than "freedom. "
Conservatives are going to lose the P.R battle, he warned, because "the president is going to change the subject and he's going to make it about impeachment."
"So who wants it?" Beck asked, rhetorically. "The president does, because then he'll be able to say 'I demand justice.'"
Impeachment, Beck explained, is just like the birther and race issues in that they were also ginned up by Democrats and the media, not conservatives and Republicans, in order to help Obama.
"The birther thing is over, the black thing is over," he said, "so now he needs to be able to call for justice" by using the threat of impeachment to promote his political agenda:
In a 2003 interview with the Trinity Broadcasting Network, right-wing pastor Jody Hice, who is now the GOP nominee for an open U.S. House seat in Georgia, claimed that America must follow God’s law or slide down a slippery slope to catastrophe.
Hice, who also told host Ben Kinchlow that Satan is to blame for legal efforts to separate church and state, warned of “disastrous” attempts to “shove God’s law out of the way” in public life.
After Kinchlow said that without “Judeo-Christian” principles in government “people end up killing each other,” Hice claimed that the Ten Commandments “predate Christianity” and therefore do not represent an establishment of religion.
Hice also described his campaign to place copies of the Ten Commandments throughout public buildings is part of a spiritual battle to save America.
“Are we going to be a nation that is led by people who acknowledge God? Who acknowledge God’s law and acknowledge the role of God’s law in our society and the founding of our country? Or are we going to be led by people who totally reject God?” Hice continued. “It’s a frightening thing if we don’t rise up.”
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.
Schneider once spoke along with John Paulk, an ex-gay representative for Focus on the Family who also left the movement and now says he is gay, on a panel with the ex-gay group NARTH on the legitimacy of ex-gay pseudo-science, and was featured in a Family Research Council statement as “living proof that homosexuals can change.”
Jeremy Hooper details how Schneider was a top ex-gay advocate for several Religious Right groups:
Yvette Cantu Schneider has one of the most robust pedigrees of anyone who has ever worked in the so-called "ex-gay" movement. From the late nineties right through to the second decade of the twenty-first century, Yvette managed to find herself laboring for and with just about every top anti-LGBT group and activist you've heard of. From her high-profile start at the Family Research Council to her work with California's Proposition 8 campaign—with many stops, at many different groups and campaigns along the way—Yvette became one of that movement's most visible faces and certainly one of the most known women in a line of "work" known mainly for its male spokespeople.
To this day, Yvette remains one of the key people who anti-gay voices like to cite in order to prove that "change" works. In a December 19, 2013, press release concerning the Duck Dynasty brouhaha, notorious anti-gay activist Peter LaBarbera, who was a colleague of Yvette's during their shared time at the Family Research Council, cited Schnieder as an example of a person who has "ovecome homosexuality through faith in Jesus Christ." "Ex-gay" websites continue to list her as among their ranks and push her story as a source of inspiration. The American Family Association continues to sell a video, "It's Not Gay," in which Yvette appears as a talking head. They all still claim Yvette as being both an example and a worker bee for their side.
In a nutshell: Yvette no longer wishes to identify with the "ex-gay" or anti-LGBT movement; is sorry for the pain she caused as part of that world; is highly questioning of the idea of "ex-gay" itself; and is now fully supportive of LGBT people, our truths, and our families. Yvette has made her sincerity clear to me, saying "as opposed to when I was doing things for the Christian Right out of duty and obligation, I'm doing it because I want to and feel it's the right thing to do." She hopes that by speaking out, she can start to undo any damage she might've helped to impart.
Schneider writes for GLAAD about how she played a part on behalf of the Religious Right’s anti-gay political agenda:
That evening was the Fine Line event in support of Proposition 8 at The Rock Church in San Diego. It would be simulcast to churches across California in an attempt to sway the God-loving, church-going faithful to vote for a constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union between a man and woman. I was a panelist; the token “ex-gay” spokesperson, chosen to vouch for the evangelical Christian belief that while people may not choose to be gay, they can certainly choose not to stay gay. Every detail of the event had been pre-planned and rehearsed. The texts, phone calls, and emails from viewers and attendees asking questions were actually written and recorded in advance by those of us who would serve on the panel. But for some reason, as the event drew near, I couldn’t shake the nerves. My heart wasn’t in this event; deep down I knew I didn’t belong here. But I played my part, and delivered my lines.
This young woman adored her father, and wanted things in their household to remain as they had always been. She feared that the advent of gay marriage would ruin any chance of her father staying with the family. I told her she didn’t have the power to change anyone; no one does. The best she could do was to love and spend time with her father. He was still the same man she had always known and loved. As she sobbed over the breakup of her parents and family, an errant thought darted through my head: If we as a society didn't condemn homosexuality, gay people wouldn't feel pressured into marrying heterosexually, against their true attractions, and families wouldn't be torn apart when the gay spouse could no longer continue the ruse. I had seen a number of gay Christians marry an opposite sex partner, only to leave when they couldn't pretend any longer. It wasn't fair to the spouse, the kids, or themselves. My doubts about the efficacy of change and the evangelical Christian stance against gay rights of any kind nagged at me.
I spent the next few years digging deep within my soul to unearth my true self--the authentic me who celebrates the worthiness and equality of all people. The me who knows we all deserve to be who we are, not who others want and expect us to be. It was only when I embraced this true self that I regained my life. It meant shedding many of the beliefs I had espoused for decades—beliefs about what it means to be gay, and what it means to treat people with dignity and respect.
Michele Bachmann: Gays Want To Let Adults 'Freely Prey On Little Children Sexually'
7/25/14 @ 11:30am
Benham Group Disrupts 'Synagogue Of Satan' Unitarian Universalist Worship Services, Receives Proclamation From Mayor
7/22/14 @ 12:35pm
Minnesota GOPer: Fossil Record Proves Humans Lived Alongside Dinosaurs
7/15/14 @ 3:00pm
Fox Host Gretchen Carlson Warns Seinfeld's 'Festivus' Promotes Anti-Christian Persecution
7/15/14 @ 11:05am
WorldNetDaily Pundit Thinks Americans Must Dislike America Because They Didn't Elect Sarah Palin
7/16/14 @ 1:15pm