Posts Tagged As: Family Research Council
May 24th, 2016
Time magazine has reported that the Trump campaign is actively courting religious and social conservatives as he turns his attention to the fall general election. A meeting has been set for June 21, and invitees represent just about the entire anti-gay brain trust:
Former presidential candidate Ben Carson is working with Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, and Bill Dallas, who leads United in Purpose, to plan a closed-door session for about 400 social conservative leaders to meet with Trump in the coming weeks in New York City. A broader steering group of about 20 people includes people like American Values president Gary Bauer, Focus on the Family founder James Dobson, and Family Leader president Bob Vander Plaats.
“We are looking for a way forward,” Perkins says. “The main thing here is this is to have a conversation.” He described the planned meeting as “a starting point for many.” The Trump campaign has not publicly confirmed that the meeting will take place.
Other anti-gay activists include Phil Burress (Citizens for Community Values), Ken Cuccinelli, Ronnie Floyd (Southern Baptist Convetion), E.W. Jackson, Harry Jackson, Cindy Jacobs, Joseph Mattera, Penny Nance (Concerned Women for America), Ralph Reed (Faith and Freedom Coalition), Pat Robertson, Rick Scarborough (Vision America), and Tim Wildmon (American Family Association).
Trump’s outreach doesn’t end there:
Trump campaign surrogates are separately organizing a more official faith advisory committee for the candidate, with Mike Huckabee being discussed as a possible national chairman. Televangelist Paula White, a Trump supporter and a senior pastor of New Destiny Christian Center in Florida, have been organizing the group behind-the-scenes with Tim Clinton, president of the 50,000-member American Association of Christian Counselors, according to several people familiar with the project.
February 14th, 2016
The Family “Research” Council’s Tony Perkins has joined Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnel, and GOP presidential candidates Sens. Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio in demanding that Justice Scalia’s seat remain vacant until after the next President is sworn in. According to Perkins:
“The Supreme Court has now become the centerpiece in this presidential election. There has not been an election-year nomination in generations and the Senate must not break that trend now. With the election only 269 days away, the people should decide what president should fill this seat,” concluded Perkins.
You can pretty much count on Perkins being wrong whenever he opens his mouth. Within the current generation — well, the current generation of still-living Supreme Court Justices anyway, there is one Justice who was nominated during an election year. That would be Justice Anthony Kennedy, was nominated by Reagan on November 30, 1987. Cruz counters out that, technically speaking it wasn’t yet an election year and this is supposed to matter somehow. But it seems to me that what really ought to matter is that the Dem0cratic-led Senate had no problem with the idea of confirming him on February 18, 1988, which is about the same spot on the Election year calendar as where we are today. You see, that was back in the olden days when having a split government between the White House and the Senate (where Democrats enjoyed a 55-45 majority) was not seen as an excuse for not getting anything done.
Appointing Supreme Court Justices has often been brought with political calculations. That’s why justices who are considering stepping down are nearly always careful to do so in a non-election year. Which is why it’s true that it’s not common to name a new Justice to the bench during an election year. And yet there is a pretty good history of Supreme Court Justices inconveniently dying in office and their replacements getting named and confirmed throughout the history of the Republic. It’s odd seeing a political party that prides itself on constitutional and historical precedence, not to mention the actions of our much-invoked Founding Fathers, ignore that history.
Besides Kennedy, I’ve found these other examples of Supreme Court nominees ascending to the bench during an election year, even sometimes in during extremely contentious election years. There have even been a few notable lame duck appointments in our history:
William Brennan Jr., was named to the Court through a recess appointment by Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1956, just three weeks before the presidential election. Brennan was selected to succeed Sherman Minton, who resigned following a period of declining health and tired from trying to place peacemaker through the many violent personal feuds among his colleagues. Political calculations played an important role in Brennan’s appointment. Eisenhower’s advisers thought that naming a Catholic Democrat to the bench would help solidify Eisenhower’s support in the Northeast. (They needn’t have worried; Eisenhower defeated Adlai Stevenson in a landslide.) When the Senate returned and took up Brennan’s nomination, he faced fierce opposition from the National Liberal League who thought he’d be too beholden to the Vatican, and from Sen. Joseph McCarthy who objected to Brennan’s characterization of McCarthy’s Red Scare as “witch hunts.” McCarthy wound up being the only Senator to vote against Brennan’s confirmation.
Frank Murphy, Attorney General in the Franklin D. Roosevelt administration, was nominated on January 4, 1940 to fill the seat vacated by the death of Pierce Butler. He was confirmed by the Senate on January 16.
Benjamin N. Cardozo, a well-know Democrat, was appointed by Republican President Herbert Hoover in February 1932 to succeed the legendary Oliver Wendell Holmes. At ninety and in ill health, Holmes had stepped down at the urging of his colleagues. The New York Times hailed Cardozo’s nomination: “Seldom, if ever, in the history of the Court has an appointment been so universally commended.” The still-Republican-controlled Senate confirmed Cardozo by a unanimous voice vote. The following November, Hoover and more than a hundred Republican Representatives were wiped out in Franklin D. Roosevelt’s Democratic landslide.
John Hessin Clarke was nominated by Woodrow Wilson on July 14, 1916, just a few weeks after Clarks Evans Hughes resigned as Associate Justice to run against Wilson in 1916 that year as the Republican Presidential nominee. (Hughes would later be named Chief Justice by Herbert Hoover in 1930.) Clarke was confirmed unanimously on July 24.
Louis Brandeis was nominated by Wilson on January 29, 1916 following the death of Joseph Rucker Lamar four weeks earlier. Brandeis, an Republican economic ally of the Democrat Wilson’s anti-monopoly policies, was so controversial that the Senate Judiciary Committee held a public hearing on the nomination for the first time in history. This resulted in an unprecedented four months gap between Wilson’s nomination and the Senate’s final confirmation.
Mahlon Pitney, a prominent New Jersey Democrat, was nominated by the Republican President William Howard Taft on March 13, 1912 to fill the seat vacated by Marshall Harlan’s death the previous October. Taft was defeated in his bid for re-election the following November.
Rufus Wheeler Peckham ascended to the bench on January 1896 after having been nominated by President Grover Cleveland the month before. Peckham was selected to fill the seat vacated by Howell Edmunds Jackson’s death. All this happened during Cleveland’s second term of office, which, if you will remember, was not consecutive with his first. Benjamin Harrison had defeated Cleveland in 1888, only to lose to Cleveland four years later. By the way, Peckham was the last Supreme Court Justice nominated by a Democratic president and confirmed by a Republican-controlled Senate, although until this year this appears more a product of circumstances than thickheaded GOP posturing. And also by the way, two years earlier, Cleveland nominated Peckham’s brother, Wheeler Hazard Peckham, for a different seat on the Supreme Court. That nomination was blocked in the Senate.
Howell Edmunds Jackson was nominated by Benjamin Harrison on February 2, 1893, nearly three months after Harrison lost his bid for re-election the previous November. (This was when presidential terms began on March 4th. The twentieth amendment changed the start date to January 20 beginning in 1937.)
George Shiras, Jr. was also nominated by Harrison, on July 19, 1892, nearly six months after Justice Joseph P. Bradley’s death, and just a little more than three months before the election that would turn the unpopular Harrison out of office. As unpopular as Harrison had become by 1892 — his economic policies would eventually lead to the Panic of 1893 — he somehow managed to place two Justices on the Supreme Court both during and after his failed bid for re-election.
Melville Fuller was nominated as Chief Justice by Cleveland on April 30, 1888, after the death of Morrison Waite a month earlier. Fuller’s nomination came just a little more than six months before Cleveland lost his bid for re-election to Harrison. Which makes Cleveland the only president to have successfully nominated a Supreme Court justice during two different presidential election years which ended his term in office.
William B. Woods was named to the high court by Rutherford B. Hayes on December 21, 1880, just a few months before Hayes was set to leave office. Hayes, a Republican, was succeeded by another Republican, the ill-fated James Garfield. Associate Justice William Strong waited until after the election to tender his resignation and make way for Woods. As well he should. Strong was one of five Supreme Court Justices who sat on the Electoral Commission whose sorry task it was to sort out the disputed 1876 Presidential election. Strong and his fellow Republican commission members awarded every disputed vote to “His Fraudulency” Rutherford B. Hayes.
Samuel Nelson was nominated by the Whig President John Tyler in February 1845 following the death of Smith Thompson in December, and just one month before the highly unpopular Tyler was to leave office. Tyler had been so hated that he had to fend of an impeachment attempt by his own party in the House of Representatives. Thanks to his enmity with his fellow Whigs and the lack of support among Democrats, four of his own Cabinet nominations were rejected by the Senate, the most of any president before or since. Tyler also had a difficult time getting a replacement for Thompson through the Senate. Before he hit upon Nelson, Tyler had nominated John Canfield Spencer, and Ruben Walworth. With Nelson, the third time was the charm, and despite the Senate’s animosity toward Tyler nominations, he still managed to get Nelson seated on the high court just before leaving office. (The Whigs themselves would go extinct just nine years later.)
Peter Vivian Daniel was a lame-duck nomination by Martin Van Buren on February 26, 1841, to fill the seat vacated by the death of Philip Pendleton Barbour just one day earlier. Daniel was confirmed two days before the Democrat Van Buren was succeeded by his already-controversial Whig successor, John Tyler.
John Catron was nominated by Andrew Jackson on March 3, 1837, on Andrew Jackson’s last full day as President. This case is unusual because Jackson was given the opportunity to name two new justices after Congress expanded the U.S. Supreme Court from seven to nine members. Catron was the only nominee to accept the nomination, leaving the second seat to be filled by Jackson’s successor, Martin Van Buren. The new Senate of the next Congress confirmed Catron’s appointment after Jackson left office. Catron would go on to side with the majority in the Dred Scott decision.
William Johnson was nominated by Thomas Jefferson on March 22, 1804, following the resignation of Alfred Moore the previous January. He was confirmed by the Senate on May 7.
John Marshall, perhaps the most famous and influential of all of the Chief Justices, was nominated to the post by John Adams on January 20, 1801 after the death of Oliver Ellsworth. Adams and his Federalists had lost badly during the 1800 election, and they were about to lose both the Executive Mansion and Congress to Jefferson and the Democratic-Republicans. Adams and the Federalists not only pushed through Marshall’s nomination, but they also passed what became derisively known as the Midnight Judges Act, which reduced the size of the Supreme Court from six members to five (the reduction would occur upon the next vacancy), which meant that it would take two more vacancies before Jefferson could make an appointment. The Judiciary Act of 1801 got its more common name when it was alleged that Adams stayed up until midnight on his last day in office packing the Federal judiciary with his chosen appointments. The controversial law was repealed in 1802, and Jefferson was able to make three appointments to the bench during his eight years in office. Meanwhile, one of those last-minute Adams appointments, William Marbury, went to court to try to force the Jefferson Administration to honor Adams’s commission. That case led to the landmark Marbury v. Madison decision which declared an earlier law that Marbury cited in his attempt to force the commission was itself unconstitutional, thus establishing the doctrine of Judicial Review for all of the courts to come.
Alfred Moore was also nominated by John Adams in April of 1800, seven months before the election that would see the Federalists tossed out of office. Moore was nominated some six months after James Iredell died.
Oliver Ellsworth was nominated by George Washington to be the nation’s third Chief Justice on March 3, 1796, eight months before the election that would make John Adams the nation’s second President. Ellsworth’s nomination closed a contentious chapter in the early history of the Court. In 1795, Washington named John Rutledge as Chief Justice as a recess appointment while the Senate was not in session. Rutledge became Chief Justice on June 30 and on July 16, he have a controversial speech lambasting the Jay Treaty with Great Britain, saying that he’d rather the President would die than sign “that puerile instrument.” That speech cost him support in the Senate, which ratified the treaty with the constitutionally-mandated two-thirds support. By the time the Senate took up Rutledge’s nomination, his support had evaporated and the Senate rejected his appointment.
Samuel Chase was nominated by George Washington on January 26, 1796 to fill the seat made vacant by John Blair’s resignation.
Against that history, I’ve only found six cases where a Supreme Court Justice died or left office and his seat went unfilled until after the next Presidential election:
Earl Warren, the legendary chief justice who will forever be remembered for steering some of the nation’s most important civil rights decisions through the Court, announced his retirement in June 1968. Lyndon Johnson nominated Abe Fortas, already an Associate Justice on the Supreme Court, for the top spot. But a coalition of conservative Republicans and Dixiecrats, led by Strom Thurmund rebelled against the Fortas nomination and its likely extension of the Warren Court’s pro-civil rights legacy. Fortas’s case wasn’t helped when it was learned that his moonlighting teaching job came with a lucrative income secretly provided by a group of Wall Street investors. With a full-on filibuster blocking a vote on Fortas’s confirmation, Johnson was forced to withdraw the nomination. Fortas resigned in 1969 as his ethics problems continued to grow. The Supreme Court plodded along without a Chief Justice until Richard Nixon nominated Warren Burger the following June.
Roger B. Taney, the nation’s fifth Chief Justice, died on October 12, 1864, just three weeks before Abraham Lincoln’s successful re-election bid, although by then his soon-to-be landslide re-election was no longer in doubt. Perhaps that explains why Lincoln wasn’t in any hurry to fill the post. Lincoln selected his former Secretary of the Treasurer and longtime frenemy Salmon P. Chase to succeed Taney on December 6, 1864. The Senate confirmed him that very same day.
Peter Vivian Daniel, who himself ascended to the bench as a lame-duck appointment in 1941, died n May 31, 1860 during James Buchanan’s last year in office. Buchanan didn’t seem to be in much of a hurry to replace Daniel. Neither was Buchanan’s successor, Abraham Lincoln, who waited until 1862 to name Samuel Freeman Miller to the bench.
John McKinley died on July 19, 1852 as Millard Fillmore was in the middle of his last year in office. Fillmore, the last Whig President, tried three times to fill the vacancy. Three times Fillmore’s nominations were rejected by the Democratic-controlled Senate. Fillmore’s successor, Franklin Pierce, took the rare step of consulting with a group of sitting Supreme Court justices to fill McKinley’s seat. He chose Alabama lawyer John A. Campbell in an attempt to appease southern Senators. The Senate unanimously approved Campbell’s appointment, and he would later form part of the majority for the infamous Dred Scott decision. Meanwhile, the Whigs never recovered form Fillmore’s presidency. The party outlasted Fillmore’s administration by a mere two years.
Henry Baldwin died in 1844 during Tyler’s last year in office. Tyler made two tries to replace him, nominating Edward King, and then John M. Read. The Senate refused both appointments, and the seat remained vacant until James Polk became president. Polk tried two more times to fill the seat, naming James Buchanan (the future president who refused the appointment) and George Washington Woodward, who the Senate refused to confirm. Finally Polk nominated Richard Cooper Grier on August 3, 1846 and the Senate unanimously approved his nomination the next day.
Robert Trimble died on August 25, 1828 during John Quincy Adam’s last year in office. Adams, a Democratic-Republican, nominated John J. Crittenden to fill the spot, but Andrew Jackson’s Democratic supporters in the Senate (who that year had split off from the Democratic-Republican) refused to confirm him. After Jackson became president the following March, he named John McLean to the position.
Republicans are now trying to say that there is a “tradition” of waiting until the next president is elected before filling a Supreme Court vacancy during the president’s last year in office. But it turns out that there is precious little evidence of any such “tradition.” The actual history of the Republic says otherwise, although there are exceptions. And when you look at those exceptions, they are just about always during periods of political crises. Johnson was so badly despised by members of his own party that he had already withdrawn from the primary. Buchanan, well he more or less sit on his hands as a civil war loomed. Fillmore was so disastrous he broke his party for all time, completing a feat that his Whig predecessor, Tyler, very nearly accomplished eight years earlier. And John Quincy Adams had the misfortune of being president just as the anti-establishment Andrew Jackson began his scorched-earth path to the Executive Mansion. The Constitution tells us that the Senate has the obligation to consider any Supreme Court nominations sent its way, but history tells us that when the Senate is broken, it tends to stay broken, at least until the next election comes along and clears the air. Which means that the Republican-led gridlock in Congress now threatens to create a Republican-induced gridlock in the Supreme Court. Yes, there’s precedent for that, but not a good one.
June 26th, 2015
America Family Association’s Tim Wildmon calls it a “Spiritual 9/11”
“We’re not surprised but extremely disappointed by the Supreme Court’s decision. I fear for our country, quite frankly, because this is a spiritual 9/11, I believe. We have said to God Almighty, We don’t care what you say about marriage and your definition of what’s natural and normal.
“If you look in the scripture, often times when God’s people rebelled against Him, He turned them over to destruction. Christians need to pray for mercy and we need to pray for a revival in the land.
“I think the next line of defense is religious freedom. We must take a stand for religious freedom in this country and fight back in the courts and in the state legislatures, if not the federal legislature, to uphold religious freedom.”
The Family “Research” Council’s Tony Perkins’s reaction was a veritable word salad of anti-equality talking points:
“Five justices on the Supreme Court have overturned the votes of 50 million Americans and demanded that the American people walk away from millennia of history and the reality of human nature.
“In reaching a decision so lacking in foundation in the text of the Constitution, in our history, and in our traditions, the Court has done serious damage to its own legitimacy.
“No court can overturn natural law. Nature and Nature’s God, hailed by the signers of our Declaration of Independence as the very source of law, cannot be usurped by the edict of a court, even the United States Supreme Court.
“Marriage is rooted not only in human history, but also in the biological and social reality that children are created by, and do best when raised by, a mother and a father. No court ruling can alter this truth.
“It is folly for the Court to think that it has resolved a controversial issue of public policy. By disenfranchising 50 million Americans, the Court has instead supercharged this issue.
“Just as with Roe v. Wade in 1973, the courts will not have the final say on this profound social matter. The American people will stand up for their right to have a voice and a vote, especially as they experience the ways in which redefining marriage fundamentally impairs their freedom to live and work in accordance with their beliefs.
“With this ruling, the Supreme Court has set our government on a collision course with America’s cherished religious freedoms, explicitly guaranteed in the First Amendment of the Constitution.
“Americans will not stop standing for transcendent truth, nor accept the legitimacy of this decision. Truth is not decided by polls or the passage of time, but by the One who created time and everything that exists therein.
Perkins may have been long-winded, but not nearly as much as National Organization for Marriage’s Brian Brown. I won’t post the full thing — it’s way to long — but one way to sum it up is to imagine him stamping his foot and screaming, “We’re not irrelevant, damn it!“:
Though expected, today’s decision is completely illegitimate. We reject it and so will the American people. It represents nothing but judicial activism, legislating from the bench, with a bare majority of the Justices on the Supreme Court exercising raw political power to impose their own preferences on marriage when they have no constitutional authority to do so. It is a lawless ruling that contravenes the decisions of over 50 million voters and their elected representatives. It is a decision that is reminiscent of other illegitimate Court rulings such as Dred Scott and Roe v Wade and will further plunge the Supreme Court into public disrepute.
Make no mistake about it: The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) and countless millions of Americans do not accept this ruling. Instead, we will work at every turn to reverse it.
The US Supreme Court does not have the authority to redefine something it did not create. Marriage was created long before the United States and our constitution came into existence. Our constitution says nothing about marriage. The majority who issued today’s ruling have simply made it up out of thin air with no constitutional authority.
Mission America’s Linda Harvey says your children are in danger:
“Parents, it’s time to make some hard decisions. Your children will now be told in public schools that there is only one view of sexuality and it is that anything goes. Thirteen year olds can ‘date’ people of the same sex and go full speed into the homosexual life, and any efforts to prevent them from doing so will be subject to restraint by the full force of law. And so, God help us,” she said.
“The majority on this court has defied the testimony of nature, anatomy, history and Almighty God. Jesus declared marriage to be one man and one woman in Matthew 19,” Harvey stated. “Because of this arrogant and unsustainable decision, America now stands in defiance of God, and we can only pray now for His mercy on our nation.”
Austin Ruse gets his dystopian imagination worked up over “what’s next“:
What’s next? It is hard to tell.
Proponents of abortion thought Roe v. Wade effectively ended that debate, but recent history has shown that to be abundantly false.
But the road ahead is decidedly uphill for those who support traditional marriage. Some have already called for a Constitutional Amendment to define marriage as between a man and a woman. Others have called for an incremental battle that would include federal and state protections for those who oppose same-sex marriage. This would include protection for county clerks who may resist issuing same-sex marriage licenses.
The fear now is that the federal government, under urging from the gay community, will work to stamp out any vestige of opposition or even dissent, including eliminating accreditation and tax exempt status for religious schools that do not recognize same-sex marriages.
Rose’s imagination isn’t nearly as colorful as Scott Lively’s though. Lively is positively apocalyptic:’
In response to the ruling, Mr. Obama called it an example of “justice that arrives like a thunderbolt.” That phrase turns logic and morality on its head as it relates to official government endorsement of sexual perversion. But I suspect it will eventually, perhaps very soon, be recognized in retrospect as an unwitting prophecy about God’s punishment on America for what she has just done.
12:30pm I just received an email from my ex-‘gay’ friend Greg Quinlan informing me that today’s “gay marriage” ruling happens to fall on the anniversary of the fall of Jerusalem and the Kingdom of Judah in 586BC to Babylonian King Nebuchadnezzer: the ninth day of the fourth month of the Hebrew calendar.
“Coincidentally,” in our daily chapter by chapter Bible study at Holy Grounds Coffee House that we began in Genesis more than two years ago, we arrived today at Jeremiah 39, which reads in verse 2: 2And on the ninth day of the fourth month of Zedekiah’s eleventh year, the city wall was broken through.
Now consider all of this in light of Revelation 16: 17Then the seventh angel poured out his bowl upon the air, and a loud voice came out of the temple from the throne, saying, “It is done.” 18And there were flashes of lightning and sounds and peals of thunder; and there was a great earthquake, such as there had not been since man came to be upon the earth, so great an earthquake was it, and so mighty. 19The great city [Jerusalem] was split into three parts, and the cities of the nations fell. Babylon the great [America] was remembered before God, to give her the cup of the wine of His fierce wrath. 20And every island fled away, and the mountains were not found. 21And huge hailstones, about one hundred pounds each, came down from heaven upon men; and men blasphemed God because of the plague of the hail, because its plague was extremely severe.
May 27th, 2015
Anti-gay activist and Charlotte pastor Michael Brown has long been fond of demonstrating his contempt for gay people, his callousness towards bullying, and his astonishing arrogance as to his own discernment of truth. He will twist and turn any factlet that he encounters and has less credibility than your ordinary used car salesman, but generally he has, in our interactions, avoided demonstrably false declaration of observable facts.
Not so today.
In a desire to “explain” the decision of the people of Ireland to include gay Irish citizens fully into civil life – or to do so in a way that demonizes gay people (his favorite tactic) – Brown repeats a lie and calls it “absolutely right”.
In a hit piece hosted by
Family Research Counsel’s American Family Research’s OneNewsNow, Brown pushed his theme of “tried and true tactics of bullying, intimidation, media bombardment, aggressive activism, and massive U.S. funding” by the horrible horrible gays. And as evidence, he presents a letter that he claims is from “a woman who supports our ministry and lives in Ireland”:
We tried so hard to prevent it, but were up against every political party and up against millions of US dollars that were being poured into the yes campaign. American billionaire, Chuck Feeney alone contributed over $24 million.
See there! Americans paid for the Yes campaign! Feeney gave $24 million!
Except that isn’t true. Not even close. It’s a false statement presented by The Irish Catholic and the National Catholic Register and other opponents of equality in an effort to conflate social pressure efforts with a political referendum so as to suggest that the results are not valid. For example:
Between 2004 and 2014, Feeney’s foundation virtually created the gay-rights movement in Ireland, with direct investment of more than $17 million and priceless indirect support, according to Breda O’Brien, a Catholic columnist at The Irish Times, research compiled on the blog Yes Funding Exposed and Atlantic Philanthropies’ own website and reports.
Wow, that certainly sounds damning. Except that the referendum hasn’t been going on since 2004. And most of the funds had nothing at all to do with same sex marriage.
Here’s what happened: Mr. Feeney and many others both in and outside Ireland have contributed over the years to various groups, including those who have the goals of advocating for gay Irish people. And part of their efforts include public outreach to change hearts and minds as to how one treats your gay son, niece, or neighbor. And, over time, part of that discussion included the notion that civil services should be offered to gay people on the same terms as straight people, including the rights of marriage.
In 2010, the government set in place civil unions so as to offer rights without the prestige of marriage. They argued that the nation’s constitution prohibited same-sex marriage and only through a vote of the people could that be change.
Then, a few years ago, a referendum was set by the government and scheduled for 2015. Campaigns were created to support or oppose the referendum.
But Ireland bans foreign contributions to political referendums. And, after accusations by the No Campaign, the press made inquiries. (TheGuardian)
Atlantic Philanthropies declined to answer questions about the claims, but backers of the yes campaign firmly rejected them. They said their group adhered to the strict rules on campaign funding set up by Ireland’s Standards in Public Office (Sipo) commission. The Sipo register of lobby groups shows that at least 10 of the pro-gay marriage organisations have fully complied with its rules, including a ban on foreign donations.
Brian Sheehan, the co-director of pro-gay marriage group Yes Equality, said: “Atlantic Philanthropies are not funding the Yes Equality referendum campaign. Yes Equality is fully funded through its supporters organising fundraising initiatives throughout Ireland.
“In addition we ran a crowdfunding campaign to raise monies for our poster, bus tour and booklet campaigns. All elements of the Yes Equality campaign are appropriately registered with the Standards in Public Office commission. Yes Equality is entirely dependent on generous small donations from around the country. The average donation made to Yes Equality has been â‚¬70.”
Get that? The Yes Campaign registered it’s fund with an oversight agency and the media verified their compliance. Feeney’s funds may have gone to various groups, but none went to the Yes Campaign.
Now Brown and others may say that this is splitting hairs, a mere technicality. They might argue that because Mr. Feeney funded organizations that advocate for marriage equality, he is funding the campaign in a more general sense. He’s not actually funding buttons and flyers and posters, maybe, but he’s helping fund groups that are pro-gay so it’s all the same really.
But that is nonsense. A contribution to Amnesty International is not a contribution to the Yes Campaign. A contribution to a Child and Family Agency is not a contribution to the Yes Campaign. Even if some members of each group – like most Irish – voted Yes.
It makes as much sense to say that anyone who has given to the Catholic Church in Ireland is “funding the No Campaign”. After all, Catholic Bishops called for the adherents to go to polls and vote No.
There is a difference between funding organizations with an ideological bent and who seek a social position, and funding an actual campaign for a referendum. This is a clear distinction and one that Michael Brown knows well.
But, as is becoming more and more the case with anti-gay activists, honesty holds little currency. And it appears to me that Michael Brown has taken the step from truth-spinner and fact-bender to blatant liar.
May 22nd, 2015
How about with a little bit of snark? Throughout the Family “Research” Council’s 32-year history, it has promoted the lie that gays and lesbians were far more likely to molest children, even though it is not and never has been true. In fact, we now know that, at least as of yesterday, it’s FRC leaders who are statistically much more likely to molest kids than pretty much any other group.
That fact came to light after Josh Duggar, the executive director of FRC Action, the group’s political lobbying arm, resigned amid allegations that he had molested at least five girls between 2002 and 2003.
Josh Duggar joined the Family “Research” Council in 2013 to become their rock-star anti-gay activist. Last December, he led successful effort to defeat an LGBT nondiscrimination ordinance in Fayetteville, Arkansas. He charged that the ordinance would pose a threat to children, an argument that his mother, Michelle Duggar, repeated in a robocall to voters. ThinkProgress has a pretty good round-up of examples of Josh Duggar’s lectures on family values. As FRC’s superstar political executive, he campaigned on behalf of ultra-conservative candidates in Kansas, Virginia, and Mississippi, and he’s had so many photos and selfies taken with GOP presidential aspirants that there’s an entire Tumbler dedicated to them.
Josh Duggar reached his rock-star status as the scion of the humongous Duggar clan, headed by Jim Bob and Michelle Duggar. The family follows a strict form of conservative Christianity which includes the Quiverfull and Christian Patriarchy movements. The names of those movements are suggestive. The Quiverfull movement eschews birth control so that families can raise up large numbers of children as foot soldiers for Christ, while the Christian Patriarchy movement teaches that families must follow a strict patriarchal order. Millions of viewers have become familiar with these movements through the Duggars’ TLC reality series “19 kids and counting.” It had debuted as “17 Kids and Counting” in 2008. That series grew out of a series of TLC specials, including “14 Children and Pregnant Again!” (2005), Raising 16 Children” (2005), and “16 Children and Moving In” (2005), in which they move into a 7,000 square-foot house that was partly built by TLC.
But it was at about that time when Springdale, Arkansas, police had opened a felony investigation against the Duggar’s oldest son, Josh. The scandal magazine InTouch Weekly broke the story yesterday, that Springdale police opened their investigation following a tip from Oprah Winfrey’s Harpo Studios, which had received an email from an un-named Arkansas resident detailing some of Josh’s molestations. The Northwest Arkansas Democrat-Gazette added that at the same time Harpo Studios passed on the email to authorities, Springdale police were notified about a letter “containing allegations of improper touching in the Duggar home. The report says the letter, written 31/2 years earlier, had been found in a book lent by a family friend of the Duggars to someone else.”
Police followed up and interviewed Jim Bob and Michelle Duggar, who said that they learned in March 2002 that Josh, then 14, had, on multiple occasions, touched another girl’s breasts and genitals while she slept. Their reaction? They “disciplined (Josh) after this incident,” but otherwise kept quiet.
Then nine months later, they found out that “there was another incident” — actually incidents, as multiple girls were involved. This time, Jim Bob consulted church elders — none of whom reported the abuse to authorities — and promised to send Josh to a “program [that] consisted of hard physical work and counseling.” That “program” appears to have been little more than helping out a family friend in the remodeling business for three months, although new reports are emerging that the family friend, Harold Walker, was a former leader at the Little Rock-based Institute in Basic Life Principles Training Center. The faith based and unaccredited center was founded by Bill Gothard, who resigned after more than thirty young women and teenagers claimed they were sexually harassed by Gothard.
After Josh returned from Arkansas, Jim Bob took him to family friend and Arkansas State Trooper, Jim Hutchens, who gave Josh a “very stern talk,” but otherwise took no official action. Hutchens, it turns out, is serving a 56-year prison on child porn charges. When police asked to talk to Josh, the Duggars lawyered up — after two lawyers refused to take the case — and refused to cooperate further. The investigated ended in late 2000 because the statute of limitations ran out. The Democrat-Gazette reports however than investigators filed a “family in need of services” affidavit in Juvenile Court, which resulted in a trial in 2007. The records of that trial are sealed.
Well, now that this has come to light, TLC has announced that they are pulling “19 Kids and Counting” from their schedule. That was after having unwisely run a three-hour “19 Kids and Counting” marathon last night, which provoked a giant social media backlash. Another seven-hour marathon had been scheduled for tonight.
Immediately following Josh Duggar’s resignation, the Family “Research” Council issued the following statement:
“Today Josh Duggar made the decision to resign his position as a result of previously unknown information becoming public concerning events that occurred during his teenage years.
“Josh believes that the situation will make it difficult for him to be effective in his current work. We believe this is the best decision for Josh and his family at this time. We will be praying for everyone involved,” concluded (FRC President Tony) Perkins.
You can bet that this statement is a very far cry from the one they would have released had it been the oldest son of a famous same-sex couple who had been accused of molesting children. It’s also interesting that FRC posted the statement to its front page where it will likely disappear over the weekend, instead of to a dedicated press release where it might remain available for future reference. Meanwhile, the Dugger family — Jim Bob and Michelle, Josh, and his wife Anna — posted these three statements on Facebook:
From Jim Bob and Michelle:
Back 12 years ago our family went through one of the most difficult times of our lives. When Josh was a young teenager, he made some very bad mistakes and we were shocked. We had tried to teach him right from wrong. That dark and difficult time caused us to seek God like never before. Even though we would never choose to go through something so terrible, each one of our family members drew closer to God. We pray that as people watch our lives they see that we are not a perfect family. We have challenges and struggles everyday. It is one of the reasons we treasure our faith so much because God’s kindness and goodness and forgiveness are extended to us — even though we are so undeserving. We hope somehow the story of our journey — the good times and the difficult times — cause you to see the kindness of God and learn that He can bring you through anything.
Twelve years ago, as a young teenager I acted inexcusably for which I am extremely sorry and deeply regret. I hurt others, including my family and close friends. I confessed this to my parents who took several steps to help me address the situation. We spoke with the authorities where I confessed my wrongdoing and my parents arranged for me and those affected by my actions to receive counseling. I understood that if I continued down this wrong road that I would end up ruining my life. I sought forgiveness from those I had wronged and asked Christ to forgive me and come into my life. I would do anything to go back to those teen years and take different actions. In my life today, I am so very thankful for God’s grace, mercy and redemption.
I can imagine the shock many of you are going through reading this. I remember feeling that same shock. It was not at the point of engagement, or after we were married – it was two years before Josh asked me to marry him. When my family and I first visited the Duggar Home, Josh shared his past teenage mistakes. I was surprised at his openness and humility and at the same time didn’t know why he was sharing it. For Josh he wanted not just me but my parents to know who he really was — even every difficult past mistakes. At that point and over the next two years, Josh shared how the counseling he received changed his life as he continued to do what he was taught. And when you, our sweet fans, first met me when Josh asked me to marry him… I was able to say, “Yes” knowing who Josh really is – someone who had gone down a wrong path and had humbled himself before God and those whom he had offended. Someone who had received the help needed to change the direction of his life and do what is right. I want to say thank you to those who took time over a decade ago to help Josh in a time of crisis. Your investment changed his life from going down the wrong path to doing what is right. If it weren’t for your help I would not be here as his wife — celebrating 6 1/2 years of marriage to a man who knows how to be a gentleman and treat a girl right. Thank you to all of you who tirelessly work with children in crisis, you are changing lives and I am forever grateful for all of you.
Do you notice what’s included in these statements? God has forgiven him and so should you. Also, they’re closer to God now. (Is that supposed to make it okay? I wonder how Josh’s victims feel.) And lots of concern for Josh’s well-being in this “difficult time” — but don’t worry. He’s moved on and is much better now.
Notice what’s missing? Any mention of his victims or their difficult times, which must undoubtedly stretch back at least a dozen years and is being revived all over again today. How are they doing today? Are they thankful for their “journey”?
This is more than mere hypocrisy. That word is far too trivial to use here. This is abusive, both in the original acts of molestation, and in the parents unconscionable decision to turn their entire family into a public spectacle. Because here’s the thing: At least one of the victims was a daughter of Jim Bob and Michelle.* That fact right there, which they well knew at the time and were busy sweeping under the rug, makes their decision to turn their entire family reality TV starts all the more revolting. For the sake of their pride and the opportunity to become big-time TV stars and culture war activists, they coerced at least one sexual abuse victim in their own family to smile and pretend that nothing was wrong. I can’t imagine too many things more vile than that.
* A number of other sites have reported this detail about Josh’s victims, and it’s not too difficult to find out more, including the precise numbers and other details. I recognize how important it is to keep sexual abuse victims’ details private, and I struggled with whether to provide this information here. But I decided to include this because it is particularly germane to a broader issue of abuse that goes beyond Josh’s activities and the parents’ egregious response. Please do no disclose any further details about the victims in the comments. They will be deleted, without exception.
October 6th, 2014
Family “Research” Council’s Tony Perkins has cornered the market on rose-colored glasses this afternoon:
If liberals should be anything, it’s worried. When it comes to marriage, time is not on their side. Deep down, the Left knows it needed the Court to force same-sex “marriage” on America before more people saw the fallout for Christians like Aaron and Melissa Klein. Or sportscasters like Craig James. Or CEOs like Brandon Eich. Ask them if same-sex “marriage” is just about two people who love each other. For them, it was about losing their business, their livelihood, and their freedom.
If the Supreme Court thinks America isn’t ready for same-sex “marriage,” they’re right. As more states are forced to recognize it, people will see the ensuing attacks on religious freedom. They’ll feel the wedge driven between parents and their children when school curriculum is changed to contradict the morals moms and dads are teaching at home. They’ll shudder as more people lose their jobs because they refuse to celebrate (not just tolerate) same-sex “marriage.” Maybe then they’ll realize that the true goal is not about the marriage altar — but fundamentally altering society.
As disappointing as the Supreme Court’s silence is, the good news is that the debate over same-sex “marriage” will continue. With 92 cases on marriage flooding the courts, conservatives have a chance to push back and demand that Congress step in where SCOTUS has not. By refusing to get involved in a mess it helped create, the justices are leaving our laws vulnerable to rogue judges on the lower courts. With the exception of one district court, the benches have been filled with black-robed tyrants who insist on substituting their radical ideology for history, legal precedent, and the consensus of voters and the law. That has to stop.
October 6th, 2014
The first step in the KÃ¼bler-Ross model is denial and the second step is anger, but leave it to anti-gay activists to go through the steps in the wrong order. They hit anger first, but now they’re backtracking to denial:
— FRC (@FRCdc) October 6, 2014
— Peter Sprigg (@spriggfrc) October 6, 2014
And Concerned Women for America’s Penny Nance:
“It is important to note that the Supreme Court has not ruled on the constitutionality of same-sex ‘marriage.’ They have merely declined to address the issue at this point in time, and that is actually better than imposing their view of marriage on the whole country. Americans are having a robust debate on this important issue, and for the Supreme Court to interrupt that debate and decide the issue for the country would be disastrous.”
And then there’s this, from the Family Policy Institute of Washington:
However, this is certainly not the final word on this subject either in the courts or in the culture. In the courts, there are several other cases working their way up through the system. The Supreme Court could be waiting for one of those cases to delay their final decision a couple of years. Culturally, the conversation over this issue is just getting started. In one sense, proponents of redefining marriage are just finishing their opening argument. Time will afford the chance for a rebuttal.
…In thirty years, it is the children of same-sex relationships who will be arguing most forcefully on our behalf. That is not because those children will hate the same-sex couples who raised them but because they will be immune to the argument that the only possible reason to support natural marriage is because you hate gay people. They will also have a perspective that those who deal only in theory and never in practice will have no response for.
The other steps are bargaining, depression and acceptance. I’m not sure where delusional falls into the scheme of things.
October 6th, 2014
— Peter LaBarbera (@PeterLaBarbera) October 6, 2014
The Supreme Court, by doing nothing, just issued the de facto Roe v. Wade ruling of sodomy-based marriage.
— Bryan Fischer (@BryanJFischer) October 6, 2014
SCOTUS refuses to issue stays, redefined marriage soon in UT, WI, IN, VA and OK. Religious freedom under greater threat now. Here we go…
— Thomas Peters (@AmericanPapist) October 6, 2014
— Peter Sprigg (@spriggfrc) October 6, 2014
The Family “Research” Council’s Tony Perkins says the sky is falling:
“Unfortunately, by failing to take up these marriage cases, the High Court will allow rogue lower court judges who have ignored history and true legal precedent to silence the elected representatives of the people and the voice of the people themselves by overturning state provisions on marriage. Even more alarming, lower court judges are undermining our form of government and the rights and freedoms of citizens to govern themselves. This judicially led effort to force same sex ‘marriage’ on people will have negative consequences for our Republic, not only as it relates to natural marriage but also undermining the rule of and respect for law.
“The Court decision ensures that the debate over natural marriage will continue and the good news is that time is not on the side of those who want to redefine marriage. As more states are forced to redefine marriage, contrary to nature and directly in conflict with the will of millions, more Americans will see and experience attacks on their religious freedom. Parents will find a wedge being driven between them and their children as school curriculum is changed to contradict the morals parents are teaching their children. As more and more people lose their livelihoods because they refuse to not just tolerate but celebrate same-sex marriage, Americans will see the true goal, which is for activists to use the Court to impose a redefinition of natural marriage on the entire nation.
Ryan T. Anderson is not throwing in the towel:
This is an unfortunate setback for sound constitutional self-government and a setback for a healthy marriage culture. …Declining to review these cases does not speak one way or the other to the merits of the cases. But it does leave in place bad rulings from lower courts—and it will make it harder for courts to do the right thing in the future.
Nevertheless, as citizens, we must rally in support of our constitutional authority to pass laws making marriage policy. We must insist that law and culture promote the truth about marriage.
Neither is NOM’s Brian Brown:
…[G]iven what the Supreme Court has allowed to happen, the only alternative to letting unelected judges impose their view of marriage on Americans across the country is to pursue a process that will allow the American people to decide for themselves what is marriage. It is critical not only to marriage but to the republican form of government in this country to amend the Constitution to reaffirm the meaning of marriage. We therefore call on the US Congress to move forward immediately to send a federal marriage amendment to the states for ratification.
“We call upon Americans vigorously to contest this development by turning to the political process, starting with the upcoming mid-term elections. We urge voters to hold politicians accountable and demand to know if they will accept the illegitimate act of attempting to redefine marriage or whether they will stand with the American people to resist. In particular, we urge Republicans to hold their party leaders to account, and to demand that they remain true to their belief that marriage is the union of one man and one woman which was a pillar of the party’s founding in 1856, and remains essential to society’s well-being today.
Alliance Defending Freedom (formerly the Alliance Defense Fund), which is defending several of these states’ marriage bans, is doing all it can to keep that lipstick on the pig:
US Supreme Court holds off on taking up marriage issue
Monday, October 06, 2014
The following quote may be attributed to Alliance Defending Freedom Senior Counsel Byron Babione regarding the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision Monday declining to hear cases involving marriage laws in several states, including petitions ADF attorneys filed in defense of Oklahoma’s and Virginia’s marriage laws:
“The court’s decision not to take up this issue now means that the marriage battle will continue. Several federal courts – including those in the 5th, 6th, 8th, and 11th circuits – still have cases working their way to the Supreme Court. ADF will continue to remain a leader in the critical effort for the freedom of the people. The people should decide this issue, not the courts.”
April 11th, 2013
The Republican National Committee is meeting in Los Angeles over the next three days beginning today, and one of the first items on the agenda for consideration is a resolution that states:
WHEREAS, the institution of marriage is the solid foundation upon which our society is built and in which children thrive; it is based in the conjugal relationship that only a man and a woman can form; and
WHEREAS, support for marriage has been repeatedly affirmed nationally in the 2012 Republican National Platform, through the enactment of the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996, signed into law by President Bill Clinton), and passed by the voters of 41 States including California via Proposition 8; and
WHEREAS, no Act of human government can change the reality that marriage is a natural and most desirable union; especially when procreation is a goal; and
WHEREAS, the future of our country is children; it has been proven repeatedly that the most secure and nurturing environment in which to raise healthy well adjusted children is in a home where both mother and father are bound together in a loving marriage; and
WHEREAS, economically, marriage is America’s greatest weapon against child poverty no matter what ethnic background individuals are; and, based on the facts of stunning recent articles, marriage is the best way for society to get out of poverty and raise emotionally healthy children; and
WHEREAS, The U.S. Supreme Court is considering the constitutionality of laws adopted to protect marriage from the unfounded accusation that support for marriage is based only on irrational prejudice against homosexuals; therefore be it
RESOLVED, the Republican National Committee affirms its support for marriage as the union of one man and one woman, and as the optimum environment in which to raise healthy children for the future of American; and be it further
RESOLVED, the Republican National Committee implores the U.S. Supreme Court to uphold the sanctity of marriage in its rulings on California’s Proposition 8 and the Federal Defense of Marriage Act.
The GOP platform last summer was probably the most anti-gay platform in the party’s history. After Barack Obama won re-election in a campaign which included support for marriage equality, there were some suggestions that the Republican Party should soften its anti-gay positions. But after RNC Chairman Reince Priebus issued the official “autopsy” of the 2012 presidential elections which called on the party to become more “inclusive and welcoming,” a coalition of social conservatives responded with a letter to GOP leadership warning that “an abandonment of its principles will necessarily result in the abandonment of our constituents to their support.” The letter writers also protest that their anti-gay stance does not mean the party can’t can’t attract gay voters:
Many homosexuals are active in the GOP because they agree with Republicans on economic issues. The fact that the Party is strongly committed to traditional marriage has not prevented their involvement through GOProud or Log Cabin Republicans. We deeply resent the insinuation that we have treated homosexuals unkindly personally.
And we would like to point out that in the four blue states where voters narrowly voted for same sex marriage in 2012, Mitt Romney, who refused to discuss the issue, lost by an average of five points more than the state initiatives to preserve marriage.
Republicans would do well to persuade young voters why marriage between a man and a woman is so important rather than abandon thousands of years of wisdom to please them.
…Real and respectful communication is needed with our organizations. Alleged gaffes by candidates in 2012 on social issues could have been avoided if Party leadership had consulted us, the experts on how to articulate those positions.
Those so-called “experts” who signed the letter were:
According to Politico, the anti-gay resolution is expected to pass overwhelmingly tomorrow when it goes before the full committee, although it’s not clear whether the resolution’s final form will be the same as the version that has circulated today.
January 28th, 2013
This email went out moments ago under the subject line, “Will the Boy Scouts stand up to bullies?”
For decades, the Boy Scouts of America (BSA) have heroically withstood attacks from homosexual activists. Now, officials from the organization have indicated that this may be about to change. The BSA says that it is “discussing potentially removing the national membership restriction regarding sexual orientation.”
“Be prepared.” The motto of the venerable organization that has helped develop countless boys into men, preparedness is not only an aspiration, but a descriptor. Thus far they’ve been prepared to withstand the constant bullying by those who work to bring down all that the millions of dedicated Scouts and Scout leaders stand for.
A departure from their long-held policies would be devastating to an organization that has prided itself on the development of character in boys. In fact, according to a recent Gallup survey, only 42 percent of Americans support changing the policy to allow homosexual scout leaders.
As the BSA board meets next week, it is crucial that they hear from those who stand with them and their current policy regarding homosexuality. Please call the Boy Scouts of America at 972-580-2000 and tell them that you want to see the organization stand firm in its moral values and respect the right of parents to discuss these sexual topics with their children.
Please call the Boy Scouts at 972-580-2000!
Oh yes, do please call the Boy Scouts at 972-580-2000 — that’s 972-580-2000! — and thank them for opening Scouting up to those who have been bullied the most. Operators are standing by.
November 7th, 2012
This was supposed to be the morning when Americans got up and shook off the nightmare of the last four years. Instead, they awakened to a new one: a profound drubbing of the Republican Party that is supposed to be the guardian of the conservative vision our nation so desperately needs. On every level–presidential, congressional, social–it was a bruising day for our movement that no amount of spin can improve…
Among the more demoralizing losses yesterday were the outcomes in Maryland, Minnesota, Washington, and Maine, where natural marriage lost for the first time in America by popular vote. It was a significant moment for the radical Left, which was helped to victory by the most pro-gay President in American history. But contrary to what the Left will say, the narrow margin for victory in these four states offers plenty of evidence that a solid majority of Americans still opposes same-sex “marriage.” Despite being outspent 8-to-1 in some of the most liberal states in the country, we witnessed record-setting petition efforts that crossed every racial, party, and socioeconomic divide. And while homosexuals may be celebrating an end to our movement’s perfect record, they still have a long way to go to match the 32 states where Americans voted overwhelmingly to protect the union of a man and woman. And that includes North Carolina, where President Obama’s endorsement of same-sex “marriage” likely cost him the state’s electoral votes.
In a glimmer of good news on the marriage front, the support for marriage in these four states actually out-polled Mitt Romney, who won 48% of the popular vote. In the weeks and months ahead, we’re confident that as voters see and experience the consequences of redefining marriage, many will reconsider their support. How can I be so certain? Forty years after Roe v. Wade, the nation is more pro-life, and the abortion issue is far from settled. As with same-sex “marriage,” the Left can make it legal, but they can never make it right.
August 23rd, 2012
Family Research Council released this “clarification” of the reasons that they are (correctly) listed as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center:
Does FRC claim that “gay people are child molesters?”
FRC has never said, and does not believe, that most homosexuals are child molesters. However, it is undisputed that the percentage of child sex abuse cases that are male-on-male is far higher than the percentage of adult males who are homosexual. This suggests that male homosexuality is a risk factor for child sexual abuse. Homosexual activists argue that men who molest boys are not actually “homosexual;” but scholarly evidence undermines that claim. It also cannot be disputed that there is a sub-culture within the homosexual movement that advocates “intergenerational” sexual relationships. FRC’s writings on this topic–unlike the SPLC’s–have been carefully documented with references to the original scholarly literature.
We have illustrated clearly that the “scholarly evidence” refutes rather than supports FRC’s claims.
As for there being some sub-culture that advocates intergenerational sexual relationships, they must be very sub-culture indeed. So sub that no one knows who they are nor are we aware of any such advocacy.
These blatantly false claims alone would qualify FRC as a hate group.
Does FRC want to “criminalize” homosexuality?
FRC has made no effort to reinstate sodomy laws since the U.S. Supreme Court struck them down in the 2003 case of Lawrence v. Texas. In a 2010 interview on a different topic, the question of whether we should “outlaw gay behavior” in U.S. civil law was raised not by an FRC spokesman, but by MSNBC’s Chris Matthews. The spokesman affirmed that FRC (like three Supreme Court justices) believed Lawrence was wrongly decided; but the interview left some viewers with the mistaken impression that “re-criminalizing” homosexuality is a policy goal for FRC. It is not.
You will notice that they do not deny that they want to criminalize homosexuality. Because they do. It’s simply not a stated “policy goal”.
This bolsters their case for qualification as a hate group.
Does FRC want to kick homosexuals out of the country?
Just days after an interview was posted online in 2008, an FRC spokesman publicly apologized on the FRC website for having used the words “import” and “export” as metaphors for voluntary immigration and emigration by homosexuals. The interview related to legislation which would grant special preference in immigration to foreign nationals who are the homosexual partners of American citizens.
Well, now, where I come from we call that a lie. Rather than “metaphors for voluntary immigration and emigration”, what Peter Sprigg actually said was:
I would much prefer to export homosexuals from the United States than to import them into the United States because we believe homosexuality is destructive to society.
I see nothing “voluntary” in that statement. And, frankly, lying about the original statement makes the subsequent apology somewhat suspect.
Does FRC support the execution of homosexuals in Uganda ?
This charge was refuted as soon as it appeared in 2010. FRC has publicly opposed the much-publicized bill (never adopted) in Uganda that would have imposed criminal penalties for various offenses related to homosexual conduct, and the death penalty for something known as “aggravated homosexuality.” We responded to requests from Congressional offices for advice on the wording of a resolution condemning the Uganda bill–then reported those contacts as “lobbying,” as is required by law. FRC did not “lobby” against the resolution; our advice was limited to suggestions for language that would accurately describe the Uganda bill and the state of international law.
I wasn’t in the room. But I’ll let you guess whether I believe they are telling the truth.
August 22nd, 2012
Floyd Lee Corkins II, 28, was indicted on Federal and D.C. charges today in connection with last week’s shooting of an unarmed security guard at the Family Research Council’s Washington D.C. headquarters. The Federal charge is the interstate transportation of a firearm and ammunition from his home in Virginia to the District of Columbia. The D.C. charge is assault with intent to kill while armed. Corkins is scheduled to appear in court on Friday for a joint preliminary hearing and detention hearing.
August 21st, 2012
The Log Cabin Republicans yesterday were all kinds of proud over the impact they had in helping to shape the Republican platform this week. LCR chief R. Clarke Cooper told BuzzFeed’s Chris Geidner that the draft platform’s preamble approved yesterday morning includes the statement, “We embrace the principle that all Americans have the right to be treated with dignity and respect,” which they took as some kind of an olive branch to the gay community. Bless their little hearts. And they also sold themselves a little short. I managed to find another reference to dignity and respect in the main body of the draft platform. Maybe you can find it too.
The Institution of marriage is the foundation of civil society. Its success as an institution will determine our success as a nation. It has been proven by both experience and endless social science studies that marriage is best for children. Children raised in intact married families are more likely to attend college, and are physically and emotionally healthier, are less likely to use drugs or alcohol, are less like to to engage in crime, and are less likely to get pregnant outside of marriage. The success of marriage directly impacts the economic wellbeing of individuals. Furthermore, the future of marriage affects freedom. The lack of family formation not only leads to more government costs, but also more government control over the lives of its citizens in all facets. We recognize and honor the courageous efforts of those who bear the many burdens of parenting along, even as we believe that marriage, the union of one man and one woman must be upheld as a national standard, a goal to stand for, encourage, and promote through laws governing marriage. We embrace the principle that all Americans should be treated with respect and dignity.
Marriage and the Judiciary
A serious threat to our country’s constitutional order, perhaps even more dangerous than presidential malfeasance, is an activist judiciary, in which some judges usurp the powers reserved to other branches of government. A blatant example has been the court-ordered redefinition of marriage in several States. This is more than a matter of warring legal concepts and ideals. It is an assault on the foundation of our society, challenging the institution which, for thousands of years in virtually every civilization, has been entrusted with the rearing of children and the transmission of cultural values.
Defense of Marriage
That is why congressional Republicans took the lead in enacting the Defense of Marriage Act, affirming the right of States and the federal government not to recognize same-sex relationships licensed in other jurisdictions. An activist judiciary usurps the powers reserved to other branches of government and endangers the foundation of our society. We oppose the Administration’s open defiance of this constitutional principle — in its handling of immigration cases, in federal personnel benefits, in allowing same-sex marriage at a military base, and in refusing to defend DOMA in the courts — makes a mockery of the President’s inaugural oath. We commend the United States House of Representatives and those State Attorneys Generals who have defended these laws when they have been attacked in the courts. We reaffirm our support for a constitutional amendment defining marriage as a union of one man and one woman. We applaud the citizens of the majority of States which have enshrined in their constitutions the traditional concept of marriage, and we support the campaigns underway in several other states to do so.
That doesn’t sound like a platform influenced by the Log Cabin Republicans. It sound much more like — actually, virtually identical to — something that would have come out of an email blast from the Family “Research” Council:
Family Research Council president Tony Perkins told BuzzFeed: “You should read the entire plank on marriage, which I wrote. I feel very happy about it. I feel pretty optimistic about the outcome here.” [Emphasis added]
Ordinarily, whenever you read someone claiming sole credit for something, you can usually be safe in ignoring the boast. But when you go back and read these sections again, especially the first one, Perkins’s boast appears to be well-founded. Just try to find one iota of difference between these platform statements and the daily blasts from the Family “Research” Council. I mean, hell, even the FRC can include a throw-away line about dignity and respect for all Americans.
August 20th, 2012
Radio host and Huffington Post Gay Voices editor Michelangelo Signorile is tired of the Family Research Council’s attempt to pin the blame for last week’s shooting on the Southern Poverty Law Center’s ranking the FRC as among just twenty-six anti-gay hate groups. Signorile has penned an open letter to FRC’s Tony Perkins challenging him to a discussion about hate and its consequences:
But let’s be clear about why FRC is in that category. After all, there are thousands of conservative and religious groups across the country that are opposed to marriage equality, many of which also believe homosexuality to be a sin, but the SPLC does not deem them all hate groups. It’s only a tiny handful of conservative groups that have been given that distinction by the SPLC. They are listed as hate groups “based on their propagation of known falsehoods — claims about LGBT people that have been thoroughly discredited by scientific authorities — and repeated, groundless name-calling.” Also, two years ago, an FRC official said “homosexual behavior” should be outlawed. You wouldn’t repudiate him. It was also revealedthat the FRC contributed $25,000 to stop a congressional resolution to condemn the “kill the gays” bill in Uganda, which would have made homosexuality punishable by death. You worried that the resolution could make it appear as if homosexuality is acceptable. If that Ugandan bill, and even tacit approval of it, isn’t “hate,” what is?
Perhaps you recall that in July 2008, a man armed with a shotgun went on a shooting rampage inside a church in Knoxville. The Tennessee Valley Unitarian Universalist Church, like many Christian churches and denominations across the country, is welcoming of LGBT people. The gunman killed two people and severely wounded several others. Police said that the killer’s motive was to target gays and liberals. “This isn’t a church, it’s a cult,” the killer wrote in a four-page letter he had left behind. “They embrace every pervert that comes down the pike…. [T]he only way we can rid ourselves of this evil is kill them in the streets, kill them where they gather.”
I wouldn’t claim, as you did with regard to the SPLC, that the FRC gave that killer a “license to shoot.” No one knows what’s inside the mind of a premeditated killer. But I would ask: Where do people like this killer get the distortions and ugly mischaracterizations that convince them that gay people are evil? More so, where do others who wouldn’t engage in gun violence but who do harm to LGBT people in other ways — firing them from their jobs, throwing them out of their homes, bullying them in schools — get their misinformation about gay people? They get it from a wide array of sources that contribute to a culture that demonizes LGBT people. And you and the Family Research Council are among those who feed into that culture.
In this original BTB Investigation, we unveil the tragic story of Kirk Murphy, a four-year-old boy who was treated for “cross-gender disturbance” in 1970 by a young grad student by the name of George Rekers. This story is a stark reminder that there are severe and damaging consequences when therapists try to ensure that boys will be boys.
When we first reported on three American anti-gay activists traveling to Kampala for a three-day conference, we had no idea that it would be the first report of a long string of events leading to a proposal to institute the death penalty for LGBT people. But that is exactly what happened. In this report, we review our collection of more than 500 posts to tell the story of one nation’s embrace of hatred toward gay people. This report will be updated continuously as events continue to unfold. Check here for the latest updates.
In 2005, the Southern Poverty Law Center wrote that “[Paul] Cameron’s ‘science’ echoes Nazi Germany.” What the SPLC didn”t know was Cameron doesn’t just “echo” Nazi Germany. He quoted extensively from one of the Final Solution’s architects. This puts his fascination with quarantines, mandatory tattoos, and extermination being a “plausible idea” in a whole new and deeply disturbing light.
On February 10, I attended an all-day “Love Won Out” ex-gay conference in Phoenix, put on by Focus on the Family and Exodus International. In this series of reports, I talk about what I learned there: the people who go to these conferences, the things that they hear, and what this all means for them, their families and for the rest of us.
Prologue: Why I Went To “Love Won Out”
Part 1: What’s Love Got To Do With It?
Part 2: Parents Struggle With “No Exceptions”
Part 3: A Whole New Dialect
Part 4: It Depends On How The Meaning of the Word "Change" Changes
Part 5: A Candid Explanation For "Change"
Using the same research methods employed by most anti-gay political pressure groups, we examine the statistics and the case studies that dispel many of the myths about heterosexuality. Download your copy today!
And don‘t miss our companion report, How To Write An Anti-Gay Tract In Fifteen Easy Steps.
Anti-gay activists often charge that gay men and women pose a threat to children. In this report, we explore the supposed connection between homosexuality and child sexual abuse, the conclusions reached by the most knowledgeable professionals in the field, and how anti-gay activists continue to ignore their findings. This has tremendous consequences, not just for gay men and women, but more importantly for the safety of all our children.
Anti-gay activists often cite the “Dutch Study” to claim that gay unions last only about 1½ years and that the these men have an average of eight additional partners per year outside of their steady relationship. In this report, we will take you step by step into the study to see whether the claims are true.
Tony Perkins’ Family Research Council submitted an Amicus Brief to the Maryland Court of Appeals as that court prepared to consider the issue of gay marriage. We examine just one small section of that brief to reveal the junk science and fraudulent claims of the Family “Research” Council.
The FBI’s annual Hate Crime Statistics aren’t as complete as they ought to be, and their report for 2004 was no exception. In fact, their most recent report has quite a few glaring holes. Holes big enough for Daniel Fetty to fall through.