Matt Barber's ever-classy site suggests gay people are literally crushing fellow humans
To highlight its umpteenth post (this week) designed to turn our fellow citizens against us (and I don't mean just our rights—I mean us), Matt Barber's rabid attack site, BarbWire.com, is running this image:
If it were just this one pic, you might write it off as gentle ribbing. But if you combine it with the other images Matt has chosen to run since his site's launch...
...a certain pattern starts to emerge.
Folks, they've stopped debating us and are now trying to make our fellow citizens hate us. I wish I was overstating that—I really do. But I simply can't un-see what I am seeing. The denigrations are getting louder and more personal, and the goals are seeming far more sinister than they did in the past.
And Matt Barber, to the surprise of no one who has followed the Liberty Counsel attorney and Liberty University law teacher through his illustrious career of animus, is leading the march.
Bryan Fischer is on to our comic book villain–in-chief
President Obama is secretly working to destroy the United States from within, and gays in the military is just one of his ways of doing it. Thus goes the latest from the American Family Association's senior analyst, Bryan Fischer:
If a Machiavellian genius were to set out to destroy the United States, he would do three things. Disarm and weaken our military so it cannot defend us against foreign enemies. Disarm the National Guard so it cannot defend the States against the federal government. Nationalize and militarize law enforcement by weaponizing bureaucrats.
That version of the U.S. would be helpless, governed by a tyrant, and without a cultural or moral core. It would soon cease even to faintly resemble the country bequeathed to us by the Founders.
Whether by malevolent design or stupendous ineptitude and rash impulse, this is precisely the blueprint being followed by our current president.
Obama is deliberately reducing the army’s troop strength to pre-World War II levels. With open homosexuals serving in the military and women foolishly and dangerously being prepped for combat roles, military morale is plummeting and recruitment is suffering. The president has reduced our military’s goal from being able to fight a two-front war to fighting a one-front war with some ability for holding actions on a second front. Such pronounced weakness invites aggression from our enemies.
FULL: Bryan Fischer: If president wanted to destroy this country, this is how he’d do it [AFA]
There is no evidence that Don't Ask Don't Tell repeal has aversely affected recruitment, and evidence to suggest that it hasn't. But I guess when you are attempting to turn the American public against their president through insinuations that he is a secret traitor hoping to destroy his country, facts don't really matter all that much.
It's unclear if President Obama will respond to these claims about his character, leadership, and secret dreams. It's unclear because I can't get an answer from his secret underground lair where he spends his days petting his hairless kitty and laughing maniacally while torturing his foes in a cage that hangs precipitously over a gigantic cauldron of boiling lava. And he's going to get away with it, too, unless Bryan, Fred, Daphne, Shaggy, Velma, and Scooby get there in time.
Southern Baptist Theological Seminary's Al Mohler 'can't give' us acceptance; good thing we're not asking
In a chat with Tony Perkins, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary president Albert Mohler today declared that he and his fellows "can't give" LGBT people their support or acceptance because that would just condemn us. Here's that:
You know what, Al? Have a good old time not giving us your support. Throw an anti-pride parade, if you must. Hell, throw an annual backyard barbecue where you stand around with crossed arms, pursed lips, and judgmental glances, and spend the whole day talking about how unwilling you are to ever tell an LGBT person that we'll get to frolic in God's eternal kingdom. I'm sure you'll get some folks to turn out, some of whom will likely even bring chips and soda. A time will be had by all.
Just don't confuse your personal "tsk tsk"-ing for merit. And don't even think about—DON'T. EVEN. THINK. ABOUT—inscribing that personally-held faith view into our shared public policy. We "can't give" you that.
NOM fails to trip up Oregon marriage case
Ever since D.C.-based pro-discrimination special interest group NOM stepped in with a bid to intervene in the court case against Oregon's discriminatory marriage ban, clued-in politicos have speculated that NOM was trying to delay the case so that it might force a ballot fight instead. Since the pro-equality side is open to that possibility, if we are unable to achieve our rights through the court, NOM's thinking is that if that process moves forward (which it would in the case of a drawn out legal fight), they will be able to convince enough interested parties—the judge, Oregon citizens, the media, etc.—to pressure the judge to let the process play out through an election day popularity contest instead of through a scrutinizing court.
Fortunately, the judge dealt NOM a major blow this afternoon:
Moments ago, Judge Michael McShane denied the National Organization for Marriage’s attempt to delay tomorrow’s scheduled oral arguments in federal lawsuit challenging Oregon’s marriage ban.
With Judge McShane’s ruling today, oral arguments will proceed as scheduled tomorrow afternoon at the Federal Courthouse in Eugene. However, the judge will consider NOM’s motion to intervene in the case and has scheduled oral arguments on that issue for May 14th. If the motion to intervene is accepted, Judge McShane would then schedule a second briefing schedule on summary judgement or move the case to trial.
FULL: BREAKING: Federal judge denies NOM’s attempt to delay oral arguments [OR United]
While that May 14 thing might sound like a still-open door, I'd put NOM's chances there at slim-to-[the number of wins NOM has banked since election night 2012] (aka none). NOM didn't jump in until the last minute, NOM has no real reason to jump into this state's matter at all, and NOM likely doesn't have standing. It's likely the judge is just letting NOM have its say, in order to quell the "ACTIVIST COURTS DIDN'T LET US HAVE OUR WAY SO WE'RE THE VICTIMS!!!" headlines that would come if he completely shut them out (and will still probably come, even though he didn't).
I'm confident that what we're witnessing here is yet another complete and utter NOM failure. That's happening so often these days, it's almost gotten stale. Almost.
Audio: Tony Perkins equates opposing equality with opposing Nazis
Martin Niemöller was a pastor who was imprisoned for opposing Hitler and the Nazis. That oft-repeated "First they came for the..." quote is attributed to him.
So who are Niemöllers modern counterparts? Why people who oppose our civil equality, natch:
FAMILY RESEARCH COUNCIL PRESIDENT TONY PERKINS: "Given the state of our nation, why aren't you here?" Hello, I'm Tony Perkins with the Family Research Council in Washington. Dr. Lawrence White recounts the story of Pastor Martin Niemoller who was arrested and imprisoned for faithfully preaching the word of God in Nazi Germany. The morning after his arrest a fellow minister serving as chaplain at the city jail saw Niemoller in the holding cell. And exclaimed "My brother! What did you do? Why are you here? Niemoller's response, "My brother, given what's happened in our country, why aren't you here?" Recent headlines trumpeted the ouster of former Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich. His crime? Donating $1000, 5 years ago, to California's successful marriage protection amendment. Homosexual activists have now demanded he step down. Eich is not the first, the list of those attacked for supporting natural marriage and/or biblical morality is growing. Duck Dynasty's Phil Robertson, Fox Sports Craig James, The Olympics' Peter Vidmar, and Gallaudet University's Angela McCaskill. They refused to surrender their faith and their freedoms. Given the state of our culture shouldn't your name be on the list?"
Ah, don't you just love a man who fits into just about every majority box (white, male, straight, able-bodied, cisgender, Christian...) justifying his desire to discriminate against a minority population by making flip comparisons to brute genocide?
But why stop there, Tony? Surely you can work an Anne Frank reference into your next piece about how "activists judges" supposedly force Christians to hide in the attic. I mean, if you're going to go Godwin, go big or go home.
'WaPo' conservative columnist: 'Strident' marriage equality opponents have lost
Jennifer Rubin, conservative columnist at Washington Post's "Right Turn" blog:
The strident anti-gay marriage and anti-gay rights forces on the right, having lost their grip on public opinion, now can’t convince fellow Republicans of their views.
The opposition to gay marriage is crumbling on the right, as it is everywhere. The true sign of progress is the deafening silence on the topic in the run-up to the 2014 elections.
FULL: Anti-gay marriage sentiment fading [WaPo's Right Turn blog]
Of course those same strident forces think the answer is to hire likeminded polling firms to come up with surely skewed data, in hopes that it can keep the GOP as the party of discrimination; they'll instantly cast out someone like Rubin, as if she's not a "real" Republican because she breaks ranks on this issue; and they'll portray all advancement as the product of biased forces who have some sort of vendetta against anti-gay Christians. It's all noise.
The truth is that the GOP will stop being the party of proud discrimination or it will become the party of sheer irrelevancy in just a couple of election cycles. Or, alternately, social conservatives can drop their militant resistance to stem cells, cloning, and other scientific breakthroughs, since reversing the natural aging process would be the only way they might—might—hold on to their dwindling support base.
If you feel like you hear about another marriage case every day, here's why
Even though I sift through this stuff with a fine-toothed comb's even more airtight cousin, this stat still surprised me:
What's up with Dakota?
If John Eastman's allowed to intervene in Oregon, I submit his endorsement of this very anti-gay book
The book is called Making Gay Okay, and it's all about "homosexual misbehavior" being something society should shun. The book's publisher describes it like so:
Why are Americans being forced to consider homosexual acts as morally acceptable? Why has the US Supreme Court accepted the validity of same-sex "marriage", which, until a decade ago, was unheard of in the history of Western or any other civilization? Where has the "gay rights" movement come from, and how has it so easily conquered America?
The answers are in the dynamics of the rationalization of sexual misbehavior. The power of rationalization-the means by which one mentally transforms wrong into right-drives the gay rights movement, gives it its revolutionary character, and makes its advocates indefatigable. The homosexual cause moved naturally from a plea for tolerance to cultural conquest because the security of its rationalization requires universal acceptance. In other words, we all must say that the bad is good.
At stake in the rationalization of homosexual behavior is the notion that human beings are ordered to a purpose that is given by their Nature. The understanding that things have an in-built purpose is being replaced by the idea that everything is subject to man's will and power, which is considered to be without limits. This is what the debate over homosexuality is really about-the Nature of reality itself.
Making Gay Okay [Ignatius Press]
And who has given his full-throated endorsement of the book? Why none other than the National Organization For Marriage's chair, John Eastman. Eastman applauds this book for pointing out the "dangers" associated with our equality:
"Reilly has drawn on his extensive knowledge of classical political philosophy to explain the full scope of the dangers inherent in the modern homosexual rights movement. The movement threatens our very understanding of human nature, and hence of the American political regime that derives its understanding of rights and legitimate government from that nature. This book is a stark warning that should be read by every lover of liberty, and a call to action for those who would preserve it."
- John C. Eastman, JD, PhD Chairman, National Organization for Marriage Founding Director, Claremont Institute Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence
Why is this relevant? Why am I mentioning this endorsement of this nakedly anti-gay book for the second time in three weeks?
Answer: This very same John Eastman is trying to intervene in Oregon's marriage case, hoping to argue in defense of the state's ban later this week. Eastman made the desperate last-ditch move today:
Gay marriage: National Organization for Marriage says it will seek to intervene in Oregon case [The Oregonian]
I'm thinking he will be denied, either for lack of compelling reason for the late motion or for lack of standing. But if he gets to get in that court room, then fine. Our side should just read this pointedly anti-gay book aloud, in all its animus-driven, far-reaching, "misbehavior"-denouncing glory and ask the NOM chair which parts he likes, which parts he loves, and which parts he would inscribe into law. I, for one, would love to get that, NOM's real agenda, written into the court record.