Human Rights Campaign

Did NOM Hire Someone to Unsuccessfully Find ‘Victims’ of Gay Parents?

HRC got its hands last night on a December 2009 National Organization for Marriage strategy document, which was unsealed in connection to NOM’s court challenge to Maine’s campaign finance disclosure laws.

The most explosive revelation in the document is NOM’s explicit plan to drive a wedge between the gay community and blacks and Latinos. But another part of their effort to recruit “hearts and minds” to the anti-marriage cause is also startling. Not only did NOM propose to document anti-gay “victims” of gay rights with emotional videos– a plan they implemented with a set of glossy films in upstate New York, for instance – they proposed to hire a staff member at $50,000 a year “to identify children of gay parents willing to speak on camera”:

Did NOM end up hiring someone to find children of gay parents who they could portray as “victims”? If so, it seems that a year’s worth of full-time work didn’t turn up a single child of gay parents who was willing to be portrayed as a “victim” of marriage equality.
 

FRC Prayer Team Mobilizes to Protect America From "Evil Presidential Proclamation"

Every week, the Family Research Council issues a list of "prayer targets" which usually consist of political issues in the news that members of its "prayer team" should focus on for that week.

This week's list of targets includes the White House proclamation recognizing June as "Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Pride Month":

Homosexual Agenda -- Tuesday, President Obama proclaimed June "Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Pride Month." In the Proclamation, he boasts of his administration's achievements to advance the homosexual agenda: opening the Armed Forces to openly practicing homosexuals "for the first time in our Nation's history;" adding rules to eliminate discrimination against LGBT's in federal housing programs; giving federal rights to LGBT's to visit partners in the hospital; appointing homosexuals to top federal executive and judicial positions; targeting foreign laws that discriminate against LGBT's; leading a campaign to put "sexual orientation" in a U.N. resolution -- the first, ever, to specifically mention LGBT people. He further touted implementing and enforcing the Hate Crimes Prevention Act; efforts to reduce bullying and discrimination in schools; promoting the "It Gets Better" video; and his recommitment to increase funding for AIDS awareness and prevention.

Also Tuesday, homosexual activist Joe Salmonese of the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) announced his organization's "Call it Out" Campaign, a nationwide "effort to expose hatred -- not just on national TV, but in communities." HRC is creating a website where activists can register their accusations and complaints to silence any American who makes a public statement perceived as being "hostile" toward homosexuals or their agenda.

Meanwhile, U.S. efforts to promote homosexuality worldwide march on. FRCAction Senior V.P. Tom McClusky writes, "we are spending tax dollars on a Gay Bulgarian Film Festival (flyer here) [and] an "after show party... [W]hile the Administration is slow to defend oppressed Christians in Muslim and communist countries that are being killed for their beliefs, they took less then one day to condemn the Russian government for barring a homosexual pride parade in Moscow... [N]ew guidelines issued on Saturday...for the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) program... tax dollars will now be available to force acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle in [recipient] countries, with little regard for the beliefs in the targeted countries... [recipients are required to] endorse the behavior that leads to AIDS. When President Bush started PEPFAR it was probably one of the most effective international outreach programs in decades, largely due to the effort to work with the targeted countries on the best way to solve AIDS crisis. President Obama's colonialist approach is likely to lead to more countries rejecting U.S. aid..." (Proclamation; "Call it Out," International Gay Outreach).

* Pray that God will protect America from the spiritual effects of this evil Presidential Proclamation. May Christians -- who will be targeted by HRC's smear campaign -- enjoy God's protection. And may this administration's efforts to promote homosexuality overseas be resisted and defeated at home and abroad!

The Right's Freedom of Speech vs The Left's Campaign of Intimidation

As Brian noted yesterday, the Religious Right was unified in its support of Paul Clement for resigning from his position at King & Spalding after the law firm backed out of defending the Defense of Marriage Act in court.

To hear the Religious Right tell it, this decision by King & Spalding was the result of a campaign of intimidation by gay rights groups - in fact, that is pretty much what the Family Research Council said:

Looking for attorneys that won't buckle under pressure? Don't bother contacting King & Spalding. In a stunning announcement, the Atlanta-based firm just dropped the most high-profile client on its books: the U.S. House of Representatives. Barely a week ago, Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) hired King & Spalding to go to bat for the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) when the Obama administration refused. Within hours, the homosexual community was up in arms. Led by the so-called Human Rights Campaign, activists promised to target the firm until its attorneys dropped the case. Five days later, they did. Unable -- and unwilling -- to take the heat, King and Spalding took the cowardly way out.

...

Once again we see how the activists who are trying to redefine marriage want to shut down any and all public debate. King & Spalding have proven that they are not advocates for the law -- but for a small but influential cabal that want to undermine policy and society.

Amazing, isn't it, how when gay rights groups dare to speak up, the FRC sees it as a campaign of intimidation ... but when Religious Right groups do it, FRC hails them for simply exercising their rights:

The Big Mac attack on family values is finally over! After a five-month boycott, Americans finally got what they ordered-McDonald's agreement to stop financing the homosexual agenda. Back in May, the fast food giant joined the Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce to the dismay of millions of customers who did not feel served. At the time, company Vice President Richard Ellis refused to back down, even calling conservatives "haters" in a public statement. The American Family Association launched a national campaign to force McDonald's to eat its words. And eat them, they did! This week, McDonald's announced that Ellis had resigned from the GLCC. In an email to franchises, the company said, "It is our policy not to be involved in political and social issues. McDonald's remains neutral on same-sex marriage [and the] 'homosexual agenda...'" We thank McDonald's -- and those of you who used your buying power to encourage values on the menu and in company policy.

Just last year, Tony Perkins was part of a group called Citizens Against Religious Bigotry that was formed solely protest a proposed Comedy Central program about Jesus Christ called "JC." The group preemptively targeted potential advertisers and warned them that if they did not promise never to advertise on the show, they'd be labeled as anti-Christian bigots ... and the group quickly declared victory:

Members of the coalition wrote to more than 300 potential advertisers for this show. The letters explained the nature of the program and stated how offensive the "JC" project would be, not only to the 83 percent of Americans who identify themselves as Christians, but also to many non-Christians including those who signed the petition. Coalition members then followed up with phone calls to the advertisers, speaking directly with representatives from most of the corporations that received the original letter.

Not one single sponsor indicated their intention to buy advertising time on the "JC" program if the program ever made it to Comedy Central's air.

"With literally zero advertiser support for this program, the only reason Comedy Central would put it on their broadcast schedule is in an effort to offend Christianity and Christians. There is no valid business reason for airing 'JC.'

"In light of this demonstration of overwhelming success, the Coalition's advertiser outreach will stand down. In the event that any advertiser changes its mind, that advertiser and its executives will be publicly called to account for supporting anti-Christian bigotry."

This group have the support of dozens of Religious Right organizations ... the very same organizations who are now complaining about a campaign of "intimidation" against King and Spalding.

Focus On The Family Dubs Anti-Bullying Programs “Pro-Homosexual Curriculum”

The Religious Right continues to parade the myth that gays and lesbians are trying to “recruit” followers in schools, and are increasingly using the lie as the basis of their opposition to anti-bullying programs. Leaders and groups continue to describe anti-bullying policies as attempts to “homosexualize their children” and “promote homosexuality in kids” through “homosexual indoctrination.”

Focus on the Family has been at the forefront of challenging anti-bullying policies, which often cover the widespread harassment and bullying directed towards LGBT youth. Through initiatives like “True Tolerance” and the “Day of Dialogue,” Focus on the Family uses anti-gay rhetoric to attack proponents of anti-bullying policies.

When the White House recently held a conference on the problem of bullying in schools, Focus on the Family’s political arm CitizenLink quickly announced their disapproval and said that Obama is trying “to promote pro-homosexual curriculum”:

The White House Conference of Bullying Prevention, which took place Thursday, provided a platform for gay activists and their allies to promote their agenda — which increasingly is being pushed into the classroom.

Ellen Kahn, director of the Human Rights Campaign’s Family Project, was more than happy to have the president’s ear. At the summit, she was working to get HRC’s “Welcoming Schools” campaign into more elementary schools. The curriculum addresses “family diversity, gender stereotyping and name-calling in K-5 learning environments.”



“That’s the problem with allowing this issue to become politicized by special-interest groups: It sends the wrong message to our children,” said Candi Cushman, education analyst at CitizenLink.

“Do we really want to send the message that they’re only worth protecting based on what political category they belong to or their sexual identity? No. What we should be teaching them is that they have innate dignity and worth because they are a sacred creation of God, no matter how they identify.”

Meet Congresswoman-Elect Vicky Hartzler: Missouri’s Anti-Gay Zealot

Following last Tuesday's election, RWW will bring you our list of the "The Ten Scariest Republicans Heading to Congress." Our seventh candidate profile is on Missouri's Vicky Hartzler:

Although Ike Skelton, the long-time representative in Missouri’s fourth congressional district, was far from a supporter of LGBT equality, Vicky Hartzler, who defeated him in this year’s election, has based her political career on supporting discrimination against gays and lesbians.

A former state legislator, she was the spokeswoman and public face of the Coalition to Protect Marriage in Missouri, which successfully amended the state constitution to include a ban same-sex marriage (which was already banned by statute) in 2004. The New York Times writes that her group used “church functions, yard signs and a ‘marriage chain’ of rallies across the state,” and Hartzler “said she hoped that the outcome would send a loud message to the rest of the country: ‘Here in the heartland we have a heart for families, and this is how deeply we feel about marriage.’”

Her work helped her receive praise from Religious Right leaders like Mike Huckabee, Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council, and Penny Nance of Concerned Women PAC.

Mother Jones asked if Hartzler was the “most anti-gay candidate in America” since she believes that repealing Don’t Ask Don’t Tell will “put us at risk,” maintains that sexual orientation is a choice and therefore gay people aren’t entitled to civil rights, and dubbed hate crimes legislation one of the “the extreme agenda items of the gay movement.”

Paul Guequierre of the Human Rights Campaign told Mother Jones that while “Ike Skelton has not been a friend of the LGBT community,” unlike Hartzler, “he does not wake up in the morning thinking about what he can do to harm the LGBT community.”

A staunch anti-choice activist, Hartzler supported legislation which “would have allowed for prosecutors to charge women who obtained late-term abortions with murder” and “also have permitted second-degree murder charges to be filed against doctors who performed such procedures.” She was also the chief sponsor of a bill that would pressure women seeking an abortion to view their sonograms. Throughout her career in the State House, she consistently received perfect ratings from the right-wing Missouri Family Network.

Hartzler wrote a book for Christian activists running for office called “Running God’s Way: Step by Step to a Successful Political Campaign,” which “discusses how to run a political campaign by using events and stories in the bible as a guide.” Phyllis Schlafly gave her a laudatory introduction at an Eagle Forum event, calling her book “a manual for action.”

In a profile by the American Family Association, Hartzler said that she found inspiration from God to run for public office at the age of nine, and her book maintains that “Christians must become more active in politics if they are to have the impact God calls them to have.” Hartzler said that her book provides Christian candidates with “the tools and inspiration they need to bring God’s light in a darkening world.”

According to one sympathetic review in a local newspaper, Hartzler’s book “praises Absalom — a rebellious son of King David, God’s anointed leader for Israel and according to Christian theology an early example of divinely ordained rule prefiguring that of Jesus Christ — as being the “first politician” and an example for modern political leaders. In Hartzler’s words, ‘Absalom won over the hearts of the people of Israel using time-tested campaign strategies. We, too, can campaign successfully following these same guidelines.’”

A climate change denier, Hartzler asserted that she does not believe in climate change since she read “some articles that [said] it’s actually decreasing, that we have climates getting colder…and certainly, I don’t believe that if there is a climate change that man has a very significant role in that.”

Hartzler ran an ugly anti-immigrant ad against Ike Skelton, where she claimed that by voting to reauthorize the Children’s Health Insurance Program he supports “welfare benefits” for “illegal immigrants”, and criticized him for opposing a measure that would prohibit illegal immigrants from attending public schools as “giving illegal immigrants free education.”

She appealed to Tea Partiers by slamming government spending, as she blasted Congress’s spending plans and said that “we just want the government to leave us alone here in Missouri’s 4th.” However, according to the Kansas City Star, Hartzler’s “farm has received $774,325 in federal subsidies from 1995 to 2009.” She defended the government farm subsidies as a “national defense issue,” and claimed that she would not support cuts to Social Security, Medicare, or defense.

In an editorial board interview she couldn’t name any programs she would cut funding to other than “the Lady Bird Highway Beautification projects. She indicated that garden clubs could do some of this work along the highways, saving public funds.”

However, Hartzler does appear to support spending money to expand the role of the Navy in Missouri, as she argued that under Skelton’s watch the landlocked state has “the smallest Navy here that we have had since the early 1960s.”

Hartzler blended her Tea Party lip service and Religious Right advocacy to topple one of the most powerful members of the House, and will now bring her years of anti-equality and anti-choice activism to become a prominent voice of the Far-Right in the GOP-led House.

 

 

 

 

 

Right Wing Reactions to Prop 8 Decision

I'll be updating this post as more statements are released reacting to the decision to oveturn Prop 8, but Focus on the Family is out with the first statement blasting the ruling (if you don't count Harry Jackson, who Tweeted a statement hours ago):

“Judge Walker’s ruling raises a shocking notion that a single federal judge can nullify the votes of more than 7 million California voters, binding Supreme Court precedent, and several millennia-worth of evidence that children need both a mom and a dad.

“During these legal proceedings, the millions of California residents who supported Prop 8 have been wrongfully accused of being bigots and haters. Nothing could be further from the truth. Rather, they are concerned citizens, moms and dads who simply wanted to restore to California the long-standing understanding that marriage is between one woman and one man – a common-sense position that was taken away by the actions of another out-of-control state court in May 2008.

“Fortunately for them, who make up the majority of Californians, this disturbing decision is not the last word.

“We fully expect the judge’s decision to be overturned upon appeal. The redeeming feature of our judicial system is that one judge who ignores the law and the evidence must ultimately endure the review and reversal of his actions from the appellate courts.

“We do want Americans to understand the seriousness of this decision, however. If this judge’s decision is not overturned, it will most likely force all 50 states to recognize same-sex marriage. This would be a profound and fundamental change to the social and legal fabric of this country.

“Our Founders intended such radical changes to come from the people, not from activist judges. Alexander Hamilton, in advocating for the ratification of our Constitution in 1788, argued that the judiciary would be ‘the least dangerous’ branch of government. Today’s decision shows how far we have come from that original understanding.”

Randy Thomasson and Save California:

"Natural marriage, voter rights, the Constitution, and our republic called the United States of America have all been dealt a terrible blow. Judge Walker has ignored the written words of the Constitution, which he swore to support and defend and be impartially faithful to, and has instead imposed his own homosexual agenda upon the voters, the parents, and the children of California. This is a blatantly unconstitutional ruling because marriage isn't in the U.S. Constitution. The Constitution guarantees that state policies be by the people, not by the judges, and also supports states' rights, thus making marriage a state jurisdiction. It is high time for the oath of office to be updated to require judicial nominees to swear to judge only according to the written words of the Constitution and the original, documented intent of its framers. As a Californian and an American, I am angry that this biased homosexual judge, in step with other judicial activists, has trampled the written Constitution, grossly misused his authority, and imposed his own agenda, which the Constitution does not allow and which both the people of California and California state authorities should by no means respect."

Concerned Women for America:

Wendy Wright, President of Concerned Women for America (CWA), said:

“Judge Walker’s decision goes far beyond homosexual ‘marriage’ to strike at the heart of our representative democracy. Judge Walker has declared, in effect, that his opinion is supreme and ‘We the People’ are no longer free to govern ourselves. The ruling should be appealed and overturned immediately.

“Marriage is not a political toy. It is too important to treat as a means for already powerful people to gain preferred status or acceptance. Marriage between one man and one woman undergirds a stable society and cannot be replaced by any other living arrangement.

“Citizens of California voted to uphold marriage because they understood the sacred nature of marriage and that homosexual activists use same-sex ‘marriage’ as a political juggernaut to indoctrinate young children in schools to reject their parent’s values and to harass, sue and punish people who disagree.

“CWA stands in prayer for our nation as we continue to defend marriage as the holy union God created between one man and one woman.”

CWA of California State Director Phyllis Nemeth said:

“Today Judge Vaughn Walker has chosen to side with political activism over the will of the people. His ruling is slap in the face to the more than seven million Californians who voted to uphold the definition of marriage as it has been understood for millennia.

“While Judge Walker’s decision is disappointing it is not the end of this battle. Far from it. The broad coalition of support for Proposition 8 remains strong, and we will support the appeal by ProtectMarriage.com, the official proponent of Proposition 8.

“We are confident that Judge Walker’s decision will ultimately be reversed. No combination of judicial gymnastics can negate the basic truth that marriage unites the complementary physical and emotional characteristics of a man and a woman to create a oneness that forms the basis for the family unit allowing a child to be raised by his or her father and mother. Any other combination is a counterfeit that fails to provide the best environment for healthy child rearing and a secure foundation for the family. It is this foundation upon which society is – and must be – built for a healthy and sustained existence.”

Family Research Council:

FRC President Tony Perkins released the following statement:

"This lawsuit, should it be upheld on appeal and in the Supreme Court, would become the 'Roe v. Wade' of same-sex 'marriage,' overturning the marriage laws of 45 states. As with abortion, the Supreme Court's involvement would only make the issue more volatile. It's time for the far Left to stop insisting that judges redefine our most fundamental social institution and using liberal courts to obtain a political goal they cannot obtain at the ballot box.

"Marriage is recognized as a public institution, rather than a purely private one, because of its role in bringing together men and women for the reproduction of the human race and keeping them together to raise the children produced by their union. The fact that homosexuals prefer not to enter into marriages as historically defined does not give them a right to change the definition of what a 'marriage' is.

"Marriage as the union between one man and one woman has been the universally-recognized understanding of marriage not only since America's founding but for millennia. To hold that the Founders created a constitutional right that none of them could even have conceived of is, quite simply, wrong.

"FRC has always fought to protect marriage in America and will continue to do so by working with our allies to appeal this dangerous decision. Even if this decision is upheld by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals-the most liberal appeals court in America-Family Research Council is confident that we can help win this case before the U.S. Supreme Court."

Liberty Counsel:

Although Liberty Counsel has defended the marriage laws in California since the battle began in 2004, the Alliance Defense Fund, representing the Prop 8 initiative, opposed Liberty Counsel’s attempt to intervene on behalf of Campaign for California Families. The California Attorney General did not oppose Liberty Counsel’s intervention, but ADF did. Liberty Counsel sought to provide additional defense to Prop 8 because of concern that the case was not being adequately defended. After ADF actively opposed Liberty Counsel, ADF presented only two witnesses at trial, following the 15 witnesses presented by those who challenged the amendment. Even Judge Walker commented that he was concerned by the lack of evidence presented by ADF on behalf of Prop 8. Liberty Counsel will file an amicus brief at the court of appeals in defense of Prop 8.

The California Supreme Court previously stated, “The right of initiative is precious to the people and is one which the courts are zealous to preserve to the fullest tenable measure of spirit as well as letter.” Moreover, the U.S. Constitution cannot be stretched to include a right to same-sex marriage.

Except for this case, since Liberty Counsel was excluded by ADF, Liberty Counsel has represented the Campaign for California Families to defend the state’s marriage laws since 2004 and has argued at the trial, appellate and state Supreme Court levels.

Mary McAlister, Senior Litigation Counsel for Liberty Counsel, commented: “This is a classic case of judicial activism. The Constitution is unrecognizable in this opinion. This is simply the whim of one judge. It does not reflect the Constitution, the rule of law, or the will of the people. I am confident this decision will be overturned.”

Alliance Defense Fund:

“In America, we should respect and uphold the right of a free people to make policy choices through the democratic process--especially ones that do nothing more than uphold the definition of marriage that has existed since the foundation of the country and beyond,” said ADF Senior Counsel Brian Raum.

“We will certainly appeal this disappointing decision. Its impact could be devastating to marriage and the democratic process,” Raum said. “It’s not radical for more than 7 million Californians to protect marriage as they’ve always known it. What would be radical would be to allow a handful of activists to gut the core of the American democratic system and, in addition, force the entire country to accept a system that intentionally denies children the mom and the dad they deserve.”

...

“The majority of California voters simply wished to preserve the historic definition of marriage. The other side’s attack upon their good will and motives is lamentable and preposterous,” Raum said. “Imagine what would happen if every state constitutional amendment could be eliminated by small groups of wealthy activists who malign the intent of the people. It would no longer be America, but a tyranny of elitists.”

“What’s at stake here is bigger than California,” Pugno added. “Americans in numerous states have affirmed--and should be allowed to continue to affirm--a natural and historic public policy position like this. We are prepared to fight all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court if necessary.”

Capitol Resource Institute:

"Today's ruling is indicative of an out-of-control judiciary willing to circumvent California's direct democracy by imposing their point of view," said Karen England Executive Director of Capitol Resource Institute (CRI). "Family values are under constant assault now more then ever. CRI was instrumental in passing proposition 22 in 2000 and we fought to get proposition 8 on the ballot and subsequently in California's Constitution. We will continue to battle interest groups who wish to redefine one of our oldest institutions; the institution of marriage. We will continue to represent the 7 million Californians who took to the polls in favor of marriage."

American Family Association:

“This is a tyrannical, abusive and utterly unconstitutional display of judicial arrogance. Judge Walker has turned ‘We the People’ into ‘I the Judge.’

“It’s inexcusable for him to deprive the citizens of California of their right to govern themselves, and cavalierly trash the will of over seven million voters. This case never should even have entered his courtroom. The federal constitution nowhere establishes marriage policy, which means under the 10th Amendment that issue is reserved for the states.

“It’s also extremely problematic that Judge Walker is a practicing homosexual himself. He should have recused himself from this case, because his judgment is clearly compromised by his own sexual proclivity. The fundamental issue here is whether homosexual conduct, with all its physical and psychological risks, should be promoted and endorsed by society. That’s why the people and elected officials accountable to the people should be setting marriage policy, not a black-robed tyrant whose own lifestyle choices make it impossible to believe he could be impartial.

“His situation is no different than a judge who owns a porn studio being asked to rule on an anti-pornography statute. He’d have to recuse himself on conflict of interest grounds, and Judge Walker should have done that.

“The Constitution says judges hold office ‘during good Behavior.’ Well, this ruling is bad behavior - in fact, it’s very, very bad behavior - and we call on all members of the House of Representatives who respect the Constitution to launch impeachment proceedings against this judge.”

Traditional Values Coalition:

"It is an outrage that one arrogant and rogue federal judge can take it upon himself to overturn a centuries old definition of marriage and family," said Rev. Lou Sheldon, chairman and founder of Traditional Values Coalition (TVC). "On November 4, 2008, 7 million voters of California cemented into the state constitution a definition of marriage for one man and one woman only. Now with US District Court Judge Vaughn Walker's ruling today he has completely undermined the expressed will of voters at the ballot box. Direct Democracy has been blatantly attacked today."

"First it was the California Supreme Court's decision in 2008 to overturn Prop 22 and force the people of California to accept homosexual marriages. Well, the people adamantly rejected their ruling and homosexual marriages and they passed Prop 8, which was designed to forever tie the hands of judges from redefining marriage. Now one judge has yet again slapped the people in the face, even though the state constitution now clearly tells them what marriage means; we spelled it out for them in black and white," Sheldon added. "This is a blatant sign of judicial activism and lack of judicial restraint."

Sheldon added: "There is more at stake than just traditional marriage and the centuries long definition of the family. This ruling seriously undermines the expressed vote and will of the people on initiatives and proposed amendments they approve at the ballot box. This judge's ruling says that any vote of the people will have no weight, credence, sovereignty, value or worth at all. On appeal, the courts will either realize their limits and not undermine the constitutional power of the vote, or they will continue to demonstrate the most blatant arrogance and impose judicial tyranny by declaring that they alone, and not the people, have the ultimate final say on all matters of the state. Democracy, the constitution and the people would be beneath them."

TVC state lobbyist Benjamin Lopez, who was publicly credited by homosexual State Senator Mark Leno for the defeat of his proposed homosexual marriage bill in 2005, echoed Sheldon's statements:

"The issue at hand now is whether the will of 7 million voters outweighs that of either 7 Supreme Court justices or any one judge anywhere in the state. Homosexual marriage advocates may kick and scream the loudest demanding that Prop 8 be struck down, but they should be drowned out by the deafening voice of 7 million Californians who settled this issue not once, but twice already. We are hear because homosexual radicals continue to act like immature children who throw tantrums when they do not get their way."

"Same-sex marriage supporters repeatedly beat the drum of civil rights to equate their cause to the legitimate struggles of minority groups and say the public is on their side. Yet not even in 'liberal' California have they won over the people so they must resort to sympathetic, liberal black-robed activists who sit on the bench to force same-sex marriage on the people.

"If folks think that the Tea Party movement is a force to be reckoned with now, wait until the silent majority of pro-family voters flex their political muscle once again. Judges beware, you will go the way of Rose Bird, stripped of their robes and kicked off the bench," Lopez added.

The battle of same-sex marriage began in March 2000 when California voters overwhelmingly passed Proposition 22. It stated: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." Homosexual marriage advocates challenged Prop 22 in court and in March 2005, San Francisco Superior Court Judge Richard Kramer struck it down ruling it in violation of the equal protection clause. Kramer's ruling was then challenged all the way to the California Supreme Court. In early 2008 the high court upheld Kramer's ruling allowing homosexual marriages to take place. Voters passed Prop 8 in November 2008 cementing Prop 22's language into the state constitution. After challenges to Prop 8 reached the state supreme court, the justices upheld Prop 8 and allowed for some 18,000 same-sex marriages to stand. The current ruling by Judge Walker was the result of a challenge to the California Supreme Court's ruling.

Richard Land:

 “This is a grievously serious crisis in how the American people will choose to be governed. The people of our most populous state—a state broadly indicative of the nation at large demographically—voted to define marriage as being between one man and one woman, thus excluding same-sex and polygamous relationships from being defined as marriage. 

“Now, an unelected federal judge has chosen to override the will of the people of California and to redefine an institution the federal government did not create and that predates the founding of America. Indeed, ‘marriage’ goes back to the Garden of Eden, where God defined His institution of marriage as being between one man and one woman.

“This case will clearly make its way to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and then to the Supreme Court of the United States, where unfortunately, the outcome is far from certain. There are clearly four votes who will disagree with this judge—Roberts, Thomas, Scalia, and Alito. The supreme question is: Will there be a fifth? Having surveyed Justice Kennedy’s record on this issue, I have no confidence that he will uphold the will of the people of California.

“If and when the Supreme Court agrees with the lower court, then the American people will have to decide whether they will insist on continuing to have a government of the people, by the people and for the people, or whether they’re going to live under the serfdom of government by the judges, of the judges and for the judges. Our forefathers have given us a method to express our ultimate will. It’s called an amendment to the Constitution. If the Supreme Court fails to uphold the will of the people of California—if we are going to have our form of government altered by judicial fiat—then the only alternative left to us is to pass a constitutional amendment defining marriage as being between one man and one woman.

“Many senators who voted against the federal marriage amendment the last time it came up said publicly if a federal court interfered with a state’s right to determine this issue, they would then be willing to vote for a federal marriage amendment. Ladies and gentlemen, prepare to vote.

“Despite egregious court rulings like this one, there is nonetheless an unprecedented effort going on across the nation of Christians uniting for sustained prayer, for revival, awakening and deliverance. I encourage everyone to join me in this effort and go to 4040prayer.com for more information.” 

National Organization for Marriage:

"Big surprise! We expected nothing different from Judge Vaughn Walker, after the biased way he conducted this trial," said Brian Brown, President of NOM. "With a stroke of his pen, Judge Walker has overruled the votes and values of 7 million Californians who voted for marriage as one man and one woman. This ruling, if allowed to stand, threatens not only Prop 8 in California but the laws in 45 other states that define marriage as one man and one woman."

"Never in the history of America has a federal judge ruled that there is a federal constitutional right to same sex marriage. The reason for this is simple - there isn't!" added Brown.

"The 'trial' in San Francisco in the Perry v. Schwarzenegger case is a unique, and disturbing, episode in American jurisprudence. Here we have an openly gay (according to the San Francisco Chronicle) federal judge substituting his views for those of the American people and of our Founding Fathers who I promise you would be shocked by courts that imagine they have the right to put gay marriage in our Constitution. We call on the Supreme Court and Congress to protect the people's right to vote for marriage," stated Maggie Gallagher, Chairman of the Board of NOM.

"Gay marriage groups like the Human Rights Campaign, Freedom to Marry, and Equality California will, no doubt, be congratulating themselves over this "victory" today in San Francisco. However, even they know that Judge Walker's decision is only temporary. For the past 20 years, gay marriage groups have fought to avoid cases filed in federal court for one good reason - they will eventually lose. But these groups do not have control of the Schwarzenegger v. Perry case, which is being litigated by two egomaniacal lawyers (Ted Olson and David Boies). So while they congratulate themselves over their victory before their home-town judge today, let's not lose sight of the fact that this case is headed for the U.S. Supreme Court, where the right of states to define marriage as being between one man and one woman will be affirmed--and if the Supreme Court fails, Congress has the final say. The rights of millions of voters in states from Wisconsin to Florida, from Maine to California, are at stake in this ruling; NOM is confident that the Supreme Court will affirm the basic civil rights of millions of American voters to define marriage as one man and one woman," noted Gallagher.

Robert George - American Principles Project:

“Another flagrant and inexcusable exercise of ‘raw judicial power’ threatens to enflame and prolong the culture war ignited by the courts in the 1973 case of Roe v. Wade,” said Dr. Robert P. George, Founder of the American Principles Project. “In striking down California’s conjugal marriage law, Judge Walker has arrogated to himself a decision of profound social importance—the definition and meaning of marriage itself—that is left by the Constitution to the people and their elected representatives.”

“As a decision lacking any warrant in the text, logic, structure, or original understanding of the Constitution, it abuses and dishonors the very charter in whose name Judge Walker declares to be acting. This usurpation of democratic authority must not be permitted to stand.”

Judge Walker’s decision in Perry v. Schwarzenegger seeks to invalidate California Proposition 8, which by vote of the people of California restored the conjugal conception of marriage as the union of husband and wife after California courts had re-defined marriage to include same-sex partnerships.

“The claim that this case is about equal protection or discrimination is simply false,” George said. “It is about the nature of marriage as an institution that serves the interests of children—and society as a whole—by uniting men and women in a relationship whose meaning is shaped by its wonderful and, indeed, unique aptness for the begetting and rearing of children.

“We are talking about the right to define what marriage is, not about who can or cannot take part. Under our Constitution the definition and meaning of marriage is a decision left in the hands of the people, not given to that small fraction of the population who happen to be judges.”

“Judge Walker has abandoned his role as an impartial umpire and jumped into the competition between those who believe in marriage as the union of husband and wife and those who seek to advance still further the ideology of the sexual revolution. Were his decision to stand, it would ensure additional decades of social dissension and polarization. Pro-marriage Americans are not going to yield to sexual revolutionary ideology or to judges who abandon their impartiality to advance it. We will work as hard as we can for as long as it takes to defend the institution of marriage and to restore the principle of democratic self-government,” concluded Dr. George.

Newt Gingrich:

"Judge Walker's ruling overturning Prop 8 is an outrageous disrespect for our Constitution and for the majority of people of the United States who believe marriage is the union of husband and wife. In every state of the union from California to Maine to Georgia, where the people have had a chance to vote they've affirmed that marriage is the union of one man and one woman. Congress now has the responsibility to act immediately to reaffirm marriage as a union of one man and one woman as our national policy. Today’s notorious decision also underscores the importance of the Senate vote tomorrow on the nomination of Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court because judges who oppose the American people are a growing threat to our society.”

Barber: Gays Want To Imprison Christians

When it was first reported that Dale Mcalpine, a Christian street preacher in Britain, was arrested for saying that homosexuality is a sin, you know it was only a matter of time before the Religious Right in the US started using this incident to work up fears about how this is exactly what gays want to do to Christians here in America.

Case in point:

Liberty Counsel Cultural Affairs Analyst Matt Barber raised the warning that such cases will be seen more and more in America, too.

"We know that what's happening in Europe and what's happening in Canada offers us a window into the future of what will happen here in the United States," he said. "The hate crimes laws and employment sexual orientation laws such as ENDA, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act here in the United States, have been the precursor to the more oppressive hate speech laws," Barber explained.

"Make no mistake, those laws we have now for hate crimes and the more present danger with ENDA, these laws are the precursor in the U. S. for the same kind of criminalization of Christianity that's happening in the U. K.," Barber said.

...

"Their goal is to silence any dissent and to silence under any penalty of law the Biblical recognition and expression of a traditional Judeo-Christian world view relative to sexual behavior and sexual morality," Barber said.

He warned if unchecked, the radical homosexual lobby will ensure that the U.S. goes the same direction as Britain.

"We've seen the same kind of vague language and loopholes that are used to prosecute Mr. McAlpine in Great Britain show up in laws employed here in the United States to prosecute individuals for non-violent speech, for simply sharing a Biblical world view relative to sexual morality," Barber said.  

This WND article also contains audio of the entire interview with Barber, during which he also claims that after he first learned of this incident, he "started perusing a number of homosexual news sites and homosexual blogs" and found that "the majority of homosexuals and homosexual activists for this same kind of homophobia/hate speech persecution here in the United States" and goes on to say that this is exactly what the Human Rights Campaign, the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, Kevin Jennings, Chai Feldblum want to see happen in this country. 

Worst. Boycott. Ever.

Shortly after voters in Maine repealed a law that granting marriage equality rights to gays and lesbians, Larry Grard, a reporter from The Morning Sentinel in Waterville, Maine fired off an email to the Human Rights Campaign declaring "you hateful people have been spreading nothing but vitriol since this campaign began. Good riddance!"

Shortly thereafter Grard lost his job with the paper and he became, for a short while, a right-wing cause célèbre, at least until everyone moved on to other issues.  Everyone, that is, except Gary Cass of the Christian Anti-Defamation Commission who has continued to flog the issue for months, recently culminating in a demand that Grard be reinstated in his job and that local businesses stop advertising in any outlet owned by the paper's parent company, MaineToday Media, until some sort of acceptable settlement was reached.

Not surprisingly, everyone in Maine pretty much ignore Cass's threat and so now he has kicked it up a notch and announced a wholesale boycott against a long list of local companies which continue to advertise with the "anti-marriage and anti-Christian" MaineToday Media: 

In our letter to their advertisers we specifically asked that they stop advertising in any MaineToday Media publication until this matter with Larry is equitably resolved. We informed them that our plan was to communicate with people across the state of Maine who supported the “Yes on 1” campaign and urge them not to patronize businesses that advertise in MaineToday Media publications.

In addition, we followed up the letter with a phone call to the advertisers to give them another opportunity to be taken off of the boycott list by pledging not to advertise. As of now, CADC is calling for a boycott of thirty-three businesses who have decided to continue to advertise with MaineToday. More may be added.

With your active support of this boycott we are hoping that soon MaineToday Media would feel the error of their way and immediately make it right with Larry. We are determined to get justice for Larry who stood with the majority of the citizens of Maine to defend marriage. We can’t sit back and allow a Christian to be fired simply for standing up for biblical values.

Please, help us fight for justice for Larry. It might be your job next!

The CADC is a tiny, fringe right-wing group headquartered in Vista, CA which has almost no money and even less influence or reach. 

But apparently Cass thinks that he's got enough clout to get residents on the other side of the country in Maine to boycott dozens of local establishments like Rebecca's Place in Augusta and Fred's Coffee in Oakland and Damon's Quick Stop in Skowhegan and Andre’s Barrels & Buckets in Starks.

Best of luck with that.

AFA Declares Victory, Suspends Pepsi Boycott

The American Family Association is convinced that its crusade of Pepsi has been successful and so it has decided to suspend its boycott:

American Family Association (AFA) has suspended its boycott of PepsiCo. After monitoring the company for several months, AFA is satisfied the company has withdrawn its major financial contributions to gay activist groups.

AFA launched a boycott of PepsiCo after the company made $500,000 donations to Human Rights Campaign (HRC) and Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG) in 2008. Records from PepsiCo, HRC and PFLAG indicate repeat donations did not occur in 2009.

AFA President Tim Wildmon said more than 500,000 people signed the Boycott PepsiCo Pledge.

Wildmon said a few minor issues remain, and AFA will continue to bring these to the attention of PepsiCo. “We feel we have made our point," he said. "Boycotts have been a last resort for us at AFA, and the PepsiCo boycott was started to address issues of concern to us – especially the promotion of the homosexual agenda in the culture. AFA will continue to challenge major U.S. companies to remain neutral in the culture wars rather than to use their resources to promote controversial issues.”

Pots Calling Kettles "Radical"

It is amazing to see militantly anti-gay right-wing extremists like Peter LaBarbera and Elaine Donnelly claiming that President Obama's upcoming speech at the Human Rights Campaign's annual dinner will somehow "alienate" people because he is associating with "radicals."

But, once again, Mat Staver of the Liberty Counsel takes the cake, slamming Obama for forcing "taxpayers" to foot the bill and adding an attack on his Noble Peace Prize just for good measure:

President Barack Obama is scheduled to speak Saturday night at a fundraising event for the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), a far-left lobbying group that promotes forcing Americans to accept and applaud homosexual behavior. The group regularly lobbies to force Americans to affirm homosexuality and targets youth with weekly "Queerly Speaking" YouTube videos to advance its agenda. Obama's appearance at the fundraiser raises questions about the propriety of a President speaking at such an event, when taxpayers must pay the cost for his travel and security.

...

Mathew D. Staver, Founder of Liberty Counsel and Dean of Liberty University School of Law, commented: "Obama is the most divisive President in American history. He seems to relish in promoting radical policies and ideas that drive a wedge between people who hold contrasting beliefs and values. Obama will be known as President of the Divided States, because he has taken a radical stance in the culture war. He is on the wrong side of life, morality, and liberty. Although Obama was recently given the Nobel Peace Prize, he has done nothing to advance peace in this Nation or abroad. When abroad, he apologizes for America and is embarrassed by American exceptionalism. Domestically, Obama promotes a culture war. He is not the symbol of peace."

Meet the Religious Right's Newest Target

Earlier this week, President Obama nominated Chai R. Feldblum to be Commissioner of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

It took the Traditional Values Commission all of three days to begin its smear campaign, starting with this piece entitled "If You Hate America You Have a Lawyer":

President Obama has picked Chai R. Feldblum to become a member of the Employment Opportunity Commission, the federal agency which enforces workplace civil rights laws. If confirmed, she would serve 5 years on the EEOC and issue edicts that will impact all areas of employment.

Feldblum isn’t known by most Americans but her career experience and employers make her a sort of general counsel to the Forces of Darkness. She has worked for the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the pro-homosexual Human Rights Campaign Fund and she founded something called the Moral Values Project, a "gender equity" group meant to sound like something conservative.

She is a lesbian and has played a major role in pushing the LGBT agenda in American culture for the past 20 years.

...

In short, she wants the gay agenda to trump the First Amendment and religious freedom to impose the gay agenda on all Americans – including those with strongly held religious beliefs about homosexuality.

“Once again, President Obama has demonstrated there is no one too radical to serve in his administration,” said TVC Executive Director Andrea Lafferty.

“By picking Feldblum, he has signaled to his many fringe group fans on the Left that he will help them accomplish all of their goals to undermine the Constitution and overturn biblical morality and decency in America.

"Liberals hate America and so does a President who insists on appointing them to positions of power and responsibility within his already tottering administration."

When You Are Wrong, Blame The Gays

The other day Daimeon over at Pam's House Blend caught the Maine Family Policy Council posting this image on its website along with this description:

Who would know the meaning of the symbols shown below, for example? The bumperstickers on this car in Augusta are a silent 'dog-whistle' which tells other homosexuals that the owner supports the Human Rights Campaign, the nation's largest homosexual rights organization (the yellow and blue equal sign) and has had some contact with a sadomasochist organization in Georgia (a map of the state of Georgia drawn with the colors used by the sadomasochist movement, black and blue.)

The only problem was that the decal of the state of Georgia with a blue line across it is actually "displayed in honor of those injured or killed in the line of duty" in law enforcement.

Today, Jeremy at Good As You noted that MFPC has owned up to the mistake, but did so by blaming gays and society and pretty much everyone but themselves:

Yesterday The RECORD ran a photo of an auto in Augusta which sported two decals, one for the Human Rights Campaign, and one for what we incorrectly stated was the decal of a sadomasochistic organization. It was instead a "Thin Blue Line" decal which honors police.

Given the similarity of the "Thin Blue Line" design to the flag of the sadomasochistic movement, the mistake was understandable ... This is an error that anyone could have made, and is understandable in a society which is no longer shamed by perversion, but actually boasts of perversion and publically endorses it as "pride." The fault lies ultimately with those who seek to normalize deviancy.

We regret, however, if we have unwittingly and unintentionally associated anyone with this despicable movement.

This sort of insanity and vitriol is not an anomaly. In fact, just a few weeks ago the MFPC claimed that "call for same sex marriage and other forms of sexual immorality" are directly linked to urban blight and even said that crops were failing in the state due to gay marriage.

Amazingly, the organization is not just some crackpot fringe group, but is rather a "fully associated" affiliate of Focus on the Family whose leaders routinely participate in events with representatives from groups like the Family Research Council and Concerned Women for America.

Steele Seeks to Weather the Storm As Criticism Mounts

Since setting of a firestorm last week with his heretical comments about homosexuality and reproductive choice, Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele is trying to withstand the onslaught of criticism by calling off all television appearances and hunkering down to focus on the nuts and bolts of running the RNC (which, among other things, apparently includes redecorating his office to include a Bowflex.).

But that doesn’t mean that outrage has subsided and, if anything, the criticism appears to be mounting.

Concerned Women for America is blasting him for his “woefully misinformed view of the homosexual lifestyle” while the Family Research Council’s Tony Perkins says that if Steele and the GOP are trying to create a “big tent” for the party, they are going to find out it’s nothing but a “empty big tent [if they] keep doing what they're doing."

Matt Barber of the Liberty Council has likewise weighed in, complaining that Steele "sounded like he was on the payroll of Planned Parenthood":

I am starting to wonder whether Michael Steele is on the payroll of the RNC or whether he's on the payroll of the [Democratic National Committee], because that sounds like something that Howard Dean or any spokesman for the Human Rights Campaign or the radical homosexual lobby would have said.

While many on the Right have been harshly critical of Steele, few have gone so far as to openly call for his resignation, as Star Parker has done in her latest column:

From what I see, the Republican National Committee representatives who picked Michael Steele as their new chairman made a mistake. I think Steele ought to step aside … This is not a time when we can muddle through with a leader who is not sure who he is, who is not clear about the principles of his party, and who is not consumed with the importance of the cultural war that we now confront. Mr. Obama certainly knows his own values with clarity and knows exactly what his objectives are … The Republican Party needs a chairman who wants to fight this fight. It seems pretty clear that Michael Steele is not that man.

For its part, the American Family Association is conducting a survey of its activists to see if they think that, in light of remarks, Steele should resign as Chairman of the Republican National Committee” and the results are not looking too good for him considering that nearly 95% of the respondents want to see him step down:

Yes, Michael Steele should resign as Chairman of the Republican National Committee.       78,578

No, Michael Steele should not resign as Chairman of the Republican National Committee.   5,011

Right Wing Leftovers

  • Peter LaBarbera weighs in on the decision to include Eugene Robinson in the Inauguration ceremonies, calling it a "tragic departure from America's godly, Judeo-Christian heritage" while Tony Perkins calls Robinson "divisive," saying the move was "designed to placate angry liberals." For his part, Rick Warren applauded the decision.
  • Just weeks after passing an anti-discrimination ordinance, the Kalamazoo City Council has rescinded it after an outcry from the American Family Association.
  • Speaking of the AFA, they have launched a boycott against Pepsi for its donations to the Human Rights Campaign and Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays ... though they had no complaints last month when Pepsi partnered with Liberty University.
  • Today's episode of Dr. Phil featured "expert" advice from Focus on the Family's Glenn Stanton and the National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality's Joseph Nicolosi - Good as You and Queerty have more.
  • Finally, despite the fact that he passed away last month, Paul Weyrich still seems to be penning columns for Townhall.

Religious Right, "Heartened" by Warren Pick, Accuses Us of Trying to Silence the Church

David Brody posts this statement from Tony Perkins, proclaiming himself heartened by Barack Obama's decision to have Rick Warren deliver the invocation during his unpcoming inauguration:

I'm heartened by his choice of one of America’s leading evangelical pastors who is pro-life and pro-marriage for this honor. It was magnanimous of Obama, in light of the fact that his debate with John McCain at Warren’s church in August was one of the high points of the campaign for McCain. (This was the event where Warren asked, When does life begin? and Obama replied that the question is above my pay grade.) Warren has distanced himself from the religious right by emphasizing issues more popular with liberals, such as AIDS relief and global warming. But he has also been consistent in his support for the unborn and for the natural definition of marriage, and late in the campaign Warren did endorse California’s marriage amendment, Proposition 8 (which Obama opposed).

Perkins then goes on to cite our opposition to this decision, as well as the opposition from the Human Rights Campaign, which he sees as proof that we are trying to silence the church: 

Joe's desire to exclude Pastor Warren from the inaugural, based upon his religious convictions, proves the concerns over the homosexual desire to silence the Church. Let’s hope that Rick Warren will use his channel of communication to the new President to press him for more pro-family policies*rather than simply being used by Mr. Obama to make political inroads with evangelicals.

Focus on the Family is pleased as well:

"It's nice to see a conservative evangelical pastor play such a prominent role in such an important event," said Tom Minnery, a senior vice president at Focus on the Family, which has fiercely criticized Obama over his support for abortion rights and other issues. "I think what it does is it underscores the importance of evangelicalism in the country."

If the goal here was to excite the Religious Right and allow them to play the victim while angering the progressive base, then mission accomplished.  But that is probably not a particularly good strategy since, as Michelle Goldberg notes: "insulting your supporters to win the support of your opponents is no way to build unity."

Feuding Anti-Abortion Activists Agree: Obama Bad

When Randall Terry, founder of the militant anti-abortion group Operation Rescue, recently sued Troy Newman over the use of the name, he certainly opened up a can of worms.

A number of former OR activists issued a statement on Newman’s behalf, calling for Terry’s repentance for “unbiblical lifestyle decisions”; “[W]e can no longer remain silent while Mr. Terry continues to fleece unsuspecting pro-life people out of hundreds of thousands of dollars for his personal and selfish gain,” they added. Terry responded with his own list of supporters vouching for his character.

And Flip Benham, who runs Operation Rescue/Operation Save America, put aside his distaste for Terry (“Giving more money to Randall Terry is like giving booze to an alcoholic,” he has said) to attack both Newman and the former OR activists who criticized Terry. “These are the same ones who would not stand with Operation Rescue leadership in the fall of 1993 and call the premeditated shooting (murder) of abortionists, sin,’” wrote Benham, recalling the darkest period of the militant anti-abortion movement.

But while Flip Benham’s Operation Rescue and Troy Newman’s Operation Rescue remain locked in their bitter name dispute, there is at least one thing they can agree on: Barack Obama.

Newman’s OR called for anti-abortion activists to descend upon an Obama appearance at the National Council of La Raza convention in San Diego this past weekend:

“Abortionists are famous for targeting minority communities and those who are most vulnerable. When Obama throws his support behind the abortion industry, he is also tacitly supporting the exploitation of Latinos and African Americans,” said Operation Rescue spokesperson Cheryl Sullenger. “Operation Rescue urges all pro-life supporters in the San Diego area to let their voices be heard in protest of Obama’s extremist abortion policies, and his tacit approval of the abortion industry’s despicable pattern of racial exploitation.”

Meanwhile, Benham’s group is conducting an anti-abortion campaign in Atlanta, which doesn’t seem to have much to do with Obama. But in announcing a church OR plans to picket, the group adds:

According to their bulletin, this is a UCC church which will host the Human Rights Campaign Gospel Concert. The HRC is the largest group advocating gay & lesbian rights and the UCC is the denomination of Rev. Jeremiah Wright and Barak Obama. For the first time in the history of our nation, we have a man running for president who is neither a Christian nor a patriot.

Lest John McCain get too excited about this new source of support, they don’t have a whole lot of nice things to say about him, either. Benham wrote back in October, “[T]here is no way we true evangelical Christians will support Giuliani, McCain, Thompson, or Romney.”

And Randall Terry, who led a small band of protesters against GOP candidate Rudy Giuliani over the winter, recycled the same language (“an enemy inside your camp”) for McCain in an interview with Playboy:

Q: What impact would a John McCain presidency have on the pro-life agenda?

A: If McCain would appoint judges who would overturn Roe, it could be a huge boon. I don’t think we have any assurance that would happen. Justices Anthony Kennedy, David Souter and Sandra Day O’Connor were all appointed by Republican presidents who did not do their homework. If presidents Reagan and Bush Sr. had done what they said they would do, we would already have overturned Roe because we wouldn’t have had Kennedy, Souter and O’Connor. There’s a very strong movement afoot in the conservative wing of the Republican Party to deny McCain the White House. Their attitude is, an enemy outside your camp makes you vigilant and unites you, but an enemy inside your camp makes you dead because he can cut your neck in the night or poison your food by day.

Pretty Good Deal

When Matt Barber of Concerned Women for America announced recently that he had discovered “proof” of the “gay agenda”—in the form of gays and lesbians looking for government jobs—we had a hard time taking him seriously. But vigilant anti-gay activist Brian Camenker is on the case, searching for intrigue in the appointment of a gay administrative judge:

Brian Camenker, a pro-family advocate in Massachusetts, is questioning why a prominent homosexual activist was appointed to judge, amidst controversy over a political donation and more than $120,000 in campaign funds.

The Massachusetts governor's council recently voted 6-to-1 in favor of appointing former state senator Cheryl Jacques as an Industrial Accidents Board Judge. Prior to her appointment, Jacques served as the president of the pro-homosexual organization the Human Rights Campaign. As president, she helped the HRC defeat the Federal Marriage Amendment. Jacques was also an outspoken proponent for homosexual causes as a state senator.

Opponents of Jacques claim the appointment is nothing more than a political payoff for the $500 dollars she donated to Governor Deval Patrick's campaign and the subsequent support he received from the homosexual movement. Opponents also question why Jacques still has $127,000 in campaign funds since she has not run for office for some time.

Leaving aside the issue of how one could pursue "the homosexual agenda" from the Industrial Accidents Board, Camenker raises some important questions, like: Is $500 all it takes to secure an appointment in Massachusetts? And to what positions will Gov. Patrick appoint the other 8,850 people who gave him $500?

Alternatively, Camenker—whose group MassResistance was recently labeled a “hate group” by the Southern Poverty Law Center—could be focusing his attention on Jacques for some other reason.

Gays Want to Poison Our Blood Supply!

Recently, the Human Rights Campaign released a statement on a hearing in which the "American Red Cross, the American Association of Blood Banks and America’s Blood Centers [testified] that the ban on blood donations from men who have had sex with men since 1977 should be lifted,” in which HRC President Joe Solmonese commented:

Twentieth century prejudice shouldn’t keep us from 21st century health standards. Our nation’s leading blood services organizations agree that there is no rational justification for treating gay and bisexual men different than straight men. Given modern testing and the fact that anyone can be vulnerable to infection, there is no medical or scientific rationale for this discriminatory policy.

Predictably, Concerned Women for America’s resident anti-gay “expert” Matt Barber weighed in and, instead of criticizing the groups that actually delivered this testimony, chose to attack Solmonese for intentionally endangering the nation’s blood supply:

"Joe Solmonese's demand is incredibly reckless and selfish," said Matt Barber, Policy Director for Cultural Issues with Concerned Women for America (CWA). "Unfortunately, it's a common demand among his fellow extremists.

"In South Africa, militant homosexual activists have been deliberately and surreptitiously violating that nation's blood ban, planning to flood blood services with 70,000 units.  Who knows how much blood has been contaminated or how many innocent people have been infected," said Barber, "This isn't a protest; it's an act of violence.

"Joe Solmonese has severely damaged his credibility here, and he should immediately withdraw his demand.  It's unconscionable that he would place a deceptive and dangerous political agenda above the health and well-being of American men, women and children. 

Barber has been a busy man lately, working to turn anti-gay Oklahoma legislator Sally Kern into a right-wing cause célèbre after she was recorded saying that the gay agenda is the “biggest threat our nation has, even more so than terrorism or Islam,” so it is no surprise that Barber would cite HRC’s position as proof that Kern was indeed correct in her assessment:

In recent days, Oklahoma State Rep. Sally Kern has been viciously attacked and maligned, even receiving death threats, for saying that homosexual activism poses a grave threat.  This represents but one example of many which illustrate her point.  She can rest her case. 

Define 'Freedom' ...

In his state of the union address, President Bush called for a permanent extension of “charitable choice”—no doubt including efforts by his administration to allow faith-based groups receiving federal funding to discriminate in hiring. Reporting on the effort in Congress, the Washington Times quotes an organization taking up Bush’s charge:

A coalition of multidenominational religious groups is fighting to save the language, and the scuffle is complicating efforts in the Senate to renew the SAMHSA [Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration] law. SAMHSA funds and administers a slew of outreach and intervention programs, doling out grants to social service groups that help fight mental illness and addiction. …

"Asking faith-based organizations to ignore religion in making staffing decisions is like asking senators to disregard party affiliation and political ideology in choosing their staff, or requiring the Sierra Club or the Human Rights Campaign to ignore the political and philosophical commitments of potential staff," argued the Coalition to Preserve Religious Freedom in a letter to Mr. Kennedy and Mr. Enzi.

The “Coalition to Preserve Religious Freedom” might sound like an organization that would be outraged when a government-funded program openly refused to hire, say, Catholics or Baptists. After all, the Religious Test clause of the Constitution prohibits the government from requiring officials to be of a certain faith, and civil rights laws protect people from religious employment discrimination at all but private religious institutions. But this group apparently defines “religious freedom” not as an individual liberty but as the right of faith-based groups to discriminate while receiving federal dollars.

In fact, this coalition’s name sounds a lot like that of the Coalition to Preserve Religious Liberty, a group of 50 religious, civil rights, and educational organizations (including PFAW) that formed in the 1990s to oppose efforts to establish state-sponsored prayer and public funding of sectarian schools—quite the opposite of the Coalition to Preserve Religious Freedom.

CPRF is hosted by a group called the Center for Public Justice, and its members include (as of this 2004 document) the National Association of Evangelicals and the Christian Legal Society.

Battle of the Boycotts

To say that the American Family Association has had something of a tense relationship with retail giant Wal-Mart would be an understatement.  In the past, the AFA has targeted the chain for everything from using the phrase “Happy Holidays” instead of “Merry Christmas” to sponsoring Diversity Week at Boise State University.  

Last year, when Wal-Mart partnered with the National Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce, the AFA went ballistic and vowed that “1,000,000 families … will not shop at Wal-Mart or Sam's Club on the Friday or Saturday following Thanksgiving” because of Wal-Mart’s apparent role in furthering the homosexual agenda:   

A quick search for books sold by Wal-Mart found the following related to the promotion of homosexual marriage:

    * What God Has Joined Together: The Christian Case for Gay Marriage

    * Gay Marriage: Why It Is Good for Gay, Good for Straights, and Good for America

    * Legalizing Gay Marriage

    * Why You Should Give a -amn about Gay Marriage

    * Civil Wars: A Battle for Gay Marriage

    * Gay Marriage and Democracy: Equality for All

    * Defending Same-Sex Marriage

    * Why Marriage Matters: America, Equality, and Gay People's Right to Marry

    * Gay Marriage, Real Life: Ten Stories of Love and Family

A quick search of Wal-Mart's website turned up the following number of items for sale:

Gay - 1148

Lesbian - 468

Transgender - 40

Bisexual - 38

Gay Marriage – 26

The AFA eventually backed off its boycott threat once Wal-Mart pledged that it would “not make corporate contributions to support or oppose highly controversial issues unless they directly relate to our ability to serve our customers."

That seemed to placate the AFA, and now that the Human Rights Campaign is urging people not to shop at Wal-Mart because of the store’s refusal to offer domestic partner benefits to its gay and lesbian employees, AFA has come rushing to Wal-Mart’s defense:

Homosexuals have challenged traditional marriage supporters to do battle. We will now see if traditional marriage supporters accept the challenge.

Make every effort to shop at Wal-Mart this Christmas season. The gays want Wal-Mart sales to go down so they can claim victory.

Forward this to your friends and family and urge them to buy at Wal-Mart. Announce this in your Sunday School class, at church, etc. Ask your pastor to announce in church newsletters and bulletins that the homosexuals are challenging those who support traditional marriage. Tell them about the homosexual's efforts to force Wal-Mart to offer "marriage" benefits and Target's support for "marriage" benefits.

The only thing consistent about the AFA’s shift from boycott to “buycott” seems to be their militant opposition to equality for gays and lesbians.