Arise Christians against SCOTUS Violations


Bible-- Homosexuality Ungodly Abomination

John R. Houk

© April 8, 2015

 

What do Public Advocate of the U.S., Joyce Meyer Ministries, the Lincoln Institute, the Abraham Lincoln Foundation, Institute on the Constitution, Conservative Legal Defense and Education Fund and Pastor Chuck Baldwin have in common? Include in that commonality these organizations and Ministries: National Religious Broadcasters, the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association, Samaritan’s Purse, In Touch Ministries, Pathway to Victory, The Chuck Colson Center for Christian Worldview, Dallas Theological Seminary, The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, Daniel L. Akin, Mark L. Bailey, Francis J. Beckwith, Robert A.J. Gagnon, Robert Jeffress, Byron R. Johnson, Eric Metaxas, Albert Mohler Jr., Charles F. Stanley, John Stonestreet and Owen Strachan.

 

What they ALL do have in common are the U.S. Appellate, Supreme Court and Traditional Marriage. They all are taking a stand against homosexual same-sex legally mandated marriage ESPECIALLY as the Judicial Branch making it legal as opposed to State legislatures and people’s State Initiatives.

 

ONLY a handful of American States have made same-sex marriage legal by legislative action or a voter’s Initiative. A significant majority of American States have been forced to recognize same-sex marriage at the hands of the Federal Judicial system on every level. 

 

SO, I have to wonder. What Constitutional Article or Amendment gives the Judicial Branch to legislate laws? My understanding of the U.S. Constitution is that only the Amendment process of the U.S. Congress and/or each individual American State has that authority. All the Courts should be involved with is ruling if a law is constitutional or not. Then order the appropriate action from Congress to correct any unconstitutional provisions of a law. AND if the U.S. Constitution does not address an issue each individual State has the Liberty enact a law pertaining to its jurisdiction.

 

Amendment X

 

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

 

Here is a pretty good picture of the Original Intent of the 10th Amendment which includes the legal marriage of the 9th Amendment:

 

Ninth Amendment: “The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

 

Tenth Amendment: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

 

What was the original purpose of these two Amendments? … The truth of the matter is that the two Amendments were intended to be a pair that would secure the rights of the people by ensuring a federal government of limited powers. The original purpose of what became the Ninth and Tenth Amendments is embodied in a letter from James Madison to George Washington in 1789. Madison wrote, “If a line can be drawn between the [federal] powers granted and the rights retained, it would seem to be the same thing, whether the latter be secured by declaring that they shall not be abridged, or that the former shall not be extended.” In other words, what became the Ninth and Tenth Amendments serve virtually identical and reciprocal purposes. (Bold-Italic text added by this Editor)

 

… The Tenth plainly says that there is a federal government only of limited enumerated powers. This is of course a most important principle to announce and clearly enshrine in the Constitution, but it alone is not enough precisely because those powers can always be interpreted to be limitless. … The Ninth was therefore also included to say that in applying those federal enumerated powers, it is forbidden to construe them to the point where everything conceivable falls within those powers so long as they do not violate a right specified in the previous listed Amendments to the Constitution that became the Bill of Rights. The Tenth Amendment stands for the proposition that there is only an enumeration of powers and no more, and the Ninth stands for the proposition that the notion of limited and defined powers is to be taken seriously.

 

Federalist (those who argued for the ratification of the Constitution) Governor Edmund Randolph clearly expressed this intent behind what would later became the Ninth and Tenth Amendments at the Virginia Ratifying Convention of 1788. He asked, “If it would not fatigue the house too far, I would go back to the question of reserved rights. The gentleman supposes that complete and unlimited legislation is vested in the Congress of the United States. This supposition is founded on false reasoning… [I]n the general [federal] Constitution, its powers are enumerated. Is it not, then, fairly deducible, that it has no power but what is expressly given it?–for if its powers were to be general, an enumeration would be needless… [Regarding a government] body arising from a compact, and with certain delineated powers…a bill of rights…would not be [necessary]… for the best security that can be…is the express enumeration of its powers” (emphasis added). The “retained rights” of the Ninth Amendment are reserved by the Tenth Amendment’s making clear there is an enumeration of powers. It is in making sure that the federal government is one of limited and defined powers, and that these limitations are taken seriously, that the reserved rights of the people are protected.

 

Nonetheless, this concern underlying the Ninth and Tenth Amendments is in contravention with Supreme Court jurisprudence. The principles announced in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments has been intentionally gutted by the modern Supreme Court since the New Deal.  … The Court stated in the most famous footnote of Constitutional law, in Footnote 4 of the US v. Carolene Products (1938) decision, that there is a “narrower scope for operation of the presumption of Constitutionality when legislation appears on its face to be within a specific prohibition of the Constitution, such as those of the first ten amendments.” The idea expressed by the Supreme Court is the most famous footnote precisely because it is still the framework for much of Supreme Court jurisprudence today. The footnote states that there is a “presumption of Constitutionality” given to federal laws unless a right enumerated in the first ten amendments is at issue. This specifically turns the original meaning of the Ninth Amendment on its head, it contradicts the very purpose of the Ninth Amendment’s inclusion at the end of the Bill of Rights. SHOULD READ ENTIRETY (Original Purpose Of The Most Significant Ignored Amendments To The Constitution: The 9th And 10th; By Steve Lackner; Free Republic; 6/30/11 [at SteveLackner.com – dead link at time of posting] and 7/1/11 3:32:19 AM [at Free Republic])

 

Undoubtedly a little more research will uncover more SCOTUS overreach, but I want to draw attention to a report by Bob Unruh writing for WND. Unruh’s post is the source of the organizations and Ministries I listed above that are taking a stand for Religious Liberty and a stand against the moral abomination of homosexual same-sex marriage.

 

Those great Christians are confronting the SCOTUS Justices with the Word of God and the fact that SCOTUS rulings are infringing on the Rights of individual States to define what marriage is.

 

Unfortunately the Unruh article only focuses on First Amendment violations forced on We The People rather including the imperative of the 10th Amendment and I discovered in reading up on this issue, the significance of the 9th Amendment.

 

JRH 4/8/15

Please Support NCCR

****************************

SUPREMES WARNED: ‘GOD’S JUDGMENT’ NOW LOOMING

‘Scripture attests that perversions violate the law of the land’

By BOB UNRUH

April 7, 2015

WND

 

In a stunningly blunt brief, a team of lawyers acting on behalf of a number of Christian and liberty-focused organizations has told the U.S. Supreme Court that to mandate same-sex marriage is to invite God’s judgment.

 

And that’s probably not going to turn out well.

 

The brief was filed by the William J. Olson law firm and the U.S. Justice Foundation on behalf of Public Advocate of the U.S., Joyce Meyer Ministries, the Lincoln Institute, the Abraham Lincoln Foundation, Institute on the Constitution, Conservative Legal Defense and Education Fund and pastor Chuck Baldwin.

 

The Supreme Court is to hear arguments later this month in a case coming from the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in which judges said state residents are allowed to define marriage in their state. The appeal to the Supreme Court contends barring same-sex marriage violates the U.S. Constitution.

 

Other briefs already have pointed out that marriage existed before any government, law or constitution, so the judiciary doesn’t have the authority to allow people to simply change the definition.

 

The new brief goes much further.

 

“Should the court require the states and the people to ‘ritualize’ sodomite behavior by government issuance of a state marriage license, it could bring God’s judgment on the nation,” the brief warns. “Holy Scripture attests that homosexual behavior and other sexual perversions violate the law of the land, and when the land is ‘defiled,’ the people have been cast out of their homes.”

 

The brief cites Leviticus 18:22 and 24-30, a biblical passages that seldom finds its way into popular discourse.

 

Verse 22 states, “Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.”

 

And the subsequent section warns against such defilement.

 

“If you defile the land, it will vomit you out as it vomited out the nations that were before you. … Keep my requirements and do not follow any of the detestable customs that were practiced before you came and do not defile yourselves with them,” the Old Testament passage states.

 

Conservative icon Phyllis Schlafly doesn’t mince words in her astounding new book, “Who Killed the American Family?” blaming “feminists, judges, lawmakers, psychologists, school districts” and others.

 

The court filing, citing the book of 2nd Peter, continues: “Although some would assert that these rules apply only to the theocracy of ancient Israel, the Apostle Peter rejects that view: ‘For if God … turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha (sic) into ashes condemned them with an overthrow, making them an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly’” (King James Version).

 

The brief says the “continuing application of this Levitical prohibition is confirmed by the Book of Jude: ‘Even as Sodom and Gomorrha (sic), and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.”

 

The brief argues: “Whatever justification any judge may believe compels a state to define marriage to include same-sex couples, it is not found in the Constitution, nor is it based in any constitutional principles. For any judge to require a state to define marriage to include same-sex couples is an usurpation of authority that he does not have under the laws of man or God, and is thus illegal.”

 

Christian evangelist Franklin Graham defended traditional marriage on his Facebook page Tuesday.

 

“God’s Word doesn’t need a majority vote. God’s Word is true regardless of the winds of moral change, and we must stand up for biblical truth in the midst of a depraved society.”

 

WND previously reported some of the top names in Christian ministry – including the National Religious Broadcasters, the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association, the Chuck Colson Center, Southern Baptists, Albert Mohler and Charles Stanley – asked the U.S. Supreme Court to protect marriage as God defined it.

 

Their brief also was filed in the Obergefell v. Hodges case, where the 6th Circuit ruled residents of Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee can define marriage for themselves.

 

That brief was filed by Liberty Institute on behalf of the National Religious Broadcasters, the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association, Samaritan’s Purse, In Touch Ministries, Pathway to Victory, The Chuck Colson Center for Christian Worldview, Dallas Theological Seminary, The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, Daniel L. Akin, Mark L. Bailey, Francis J. Beckwith, Robert A.J. Gagnon, Robert Jeffress, Byron R. Johnson, Eric Metaxas, Albert Mohler Jr., Charles F. Stanley, John Stonestreet and Owen Strachan.

 

“In reaching its decision, this court should reaffirm that the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment protects religious dissenters who disagree with state-recognized same-sex marriage and to reaffirm the importance of free debate and free inquiry in this democratic republic,” the brief states.

 

Liberty Institute President Kelly Shackelford said religious liberty and free speech “are our first American freedoms.”

 

“We hope the Supreme Court will use this opportunity to affirm the Sixth Circuit and reaffirm the constitutional rights of all Americans to speak and act according to their beliefs,” he said.

 

When the Alabama Supreme Court prevented a federal judge from imposing same-sex marriage there earlier this year, it argued the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the right of states to decide the issue when it overturned the federal Defense of Marriage Act in the Windsor case.

 

In its order, the Alabama court wrote: “An open question exists as to whether Windsor’s ‘equal dignity’ notion works in the same direction toward state laws concerning marriage as it did toward DOMA. The Windsor court stated that ‘the history of DOMA’s enactment and its own text demonstrate that interference with the equal dignity of same-sex marriages, a dignity conferred by the states in the exercise of their sovereign power, was more than an incidental effect of the federal statute.’”

 

The Alabama court noted that in Windsor, New York’s law allowed same-sex couples to obtain marriage licenses.

 

“Thus, the ‘dignity’ was conferred by the state’s own choice, a choice that was ‘without doubt a proper exercise of its sovereign authority within our federal system, all in the way that the Framers of the Constitution intended.’”

 

The Alabama court thus asked: Why, if New York could make that choice, would Alabama be deprived of exactly the same choice?

 

“The problem with DOMA was that it interfered with New York’s ‘sovereign’ choice,” the Alabama court said. “Alabama ‘used its historic and essential authority to define the marital relations’ and made a different ‘sovereign’ choice than New York. If New York was free to make that choice, it would seem inconsistent to say that Alabama is not free to make its own choice, especially given that ‘the recognition of civil marriages is central to state domestic relations law applicable to its residents and citizens.’”

 

The new brief makes several other points, including that the “constitutional foundation” for the “‘right’ to marry any person of one’s choice” is simply fabricated.

 

“The same-sex advocates have posited that their right to marry is an evolutionary one, having gradually emerged from the dark ages of the common law into the full bloom of a social science consensus of marriage equality,” the brief explained.

 

But to travel that path would be to “ignore what [the court] clearly acknowledged in Marbury v. Madison – that the power of judicial review is limited by the words of the Constitution, and by its original purpose – to secure the right of the people to limit future governments by principles designed to be permanent, not to empower this court to change the Constitution to fit the changing times.”

 

On the issue of homosexuality, the American people “have seen a flurry of judicial opinions with ‘no foundation in American constitutional law’ overturning laws which were ‘designed to prevent piecemeal deterioration of the sexual morality’ desired by the people.”

 

“These opinions together constitute what [was] described as ‘an act, not of judicial judgment, but of political will.’”

 

The problem is social science isn’t static, the document said.

 

“Prior to 1973, the American Psychiatric Association consensus was that homosexuality was a mental disorder. Now the consensus is that homosexuality is a positive virtue. Who knows what tomorrow may bring.”

 

The brief said today people are being told that marriage cannot constitutionally be based on “a divinely revealed moral foundation, but only according to the secular reasons of men.”

 

Beware, the brief says.

 

“The nation was not so founded. The Declaration of Independence, the nation’s charter, grounded our nation on the biblical ‘Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God,’ embracing the principle that all men ‘are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,’ putting its case for liberty before ‘the Supreme Judge of the world,’ and acting in ‘firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence.’”

 

Such a change would require the “entire revision” of every family law in the country, closure of adoption agencies and government persecution of those who preach against homosexuality, the brief warns.

 

And there would be no logical barrier to three men or three women marrying: “Why not an uncle and a niece as in New York?”

 

“The current accepted vernacular is said to be “lgbttqqiiaa+,” standing for “lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, transsexual, queer, questioning, intersex, intergender, asexual, ally and beyond,” the brief notes. “Indeed, some consider pedophilia to be a legitimate sexual orientation, returning us to the pagan pederasty of ancient Greece.”

 

Nearly all orders for states to recognize same-sex marriage have come from federal judges. The judges have simply overridden the will of the state’s residents who voted, often overwhelmingly, to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

 

That was the scenario in California, where the fight over marriage ended up at the U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled only on a technicality – the standing of those supporting the state constitution – and not the merits of the case.

Of the three dozen states that now have been forced to recognize same-sex marriage, only a handful enacted it through their own legislative or administrative procedures.

 

The Alabama court noted: “Only 12 states have accepted same-sex marriage as a result of choices made by the people or their elected representatives. The 25 other states that now have same-sex marriage do so because it has been imposed on them by a federal court.”

 

California Supreme Court Justice Marvin Baxter warned of the fallout from approving same-sex marriage in 2008.

 

Baxter said the court’s decision to overturn a “deeprooted” standard for marriage opened a Pandora’s box.

 

“Who can say that, in 10, 15 or 20 years, an activist court might not rely on the majority’s analysis to conclude, on the basis of a perceived evolution in community values, that the laws prohibiting polygamous and incestuous marriages were no longer constitutionally justified?”

Two justices of the U. S. Supreme Court already have made a public stand for same-sex marriage, having performed ceremonies.

 

The actions by Elena Kagan and Ruth Ginsburg have prompted citizens groups to call for them to recuse themselves from the coming decision, but they have declined to do so.

 

Kagan performed a Sept. 21 same-sex marriage for her former law clerk, Mitchell Reich, and his partner in Maryland. Ginsburg performed a same-sex marriage at the Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts in Washington, D.C., in August 2013.

 

“Both of these justices’ personal and private actions actively endorsing gay marriage clearly indicate how they would vote on same-sex marriage cases already before the Supreme Court,” the American Family Association said.

__________________________________________

Arise Christians against SCOTUS Violations

John R. Houk

© April 8, 2015

_________________________________

SUPREMES WARNED: ‘GOD’S JUDGMENT’ NOW LOOMING

 

Bob Unruh joined WND in 2006 after nearly three decades with the Associated Press, as well as several Upper Midwest newspapers, where he covered everything from legislative battles and sports to tornadoes and homicidal survivalists. He is also a photographer whose scenic work has been used commercially.

© Copyright 1997-2015. All Rights Reserved. WND.com

MASSACHUSETTS FAMILY CAMPAIGN GETTING GLOBAL ATTENTION


Brian Camenker 2

Brian Comenker – MassResistance

 

Bob Unruh writing for WorldNetDaily lets Americans (especially Biblical-Christian Americans) become aware of the activist work of MassResistance. MassResistance actively fights the Homosexual Agenda (AFA explanation) on normalizing the unbiblical lifestyle. Largely thanks to President Barack Hussein Obama and activist Left Wing Courts homosexuality has been jammed down the throat of Americans. Today all across the media (News and Entertainment) Biblical Christian beliefs are disparaged particularly referencing homosexuality.

 

Rather than being upheld as people of high moral virtues Biblical Christians are now stigmatized as homophobic bigots that should be villainized rather than praised. I encourage Biblical Christians to visit MassResistance.org and invest in supporting the activist work going on to combat the Homosexual Agenda (a different link from AFA above).

 

JRH 6/2/14

Please Support NCCR

*****************************

MASSACHUSETTS FAMILY CAMPAIGN GETTING GLOBAL ATTENTION

Hong Kong, Estonia, Finland, Sweden, Australia learn how to fight ‘gay’ agenda

By Bob Unruh

May 31, 2014

WorldNetDaily

 

The few workaholics at the pro-family MassResistance long have been fighting for traditional values, parental involvement in schools, and responsible education system decisions.

 

Until now, they’ve focused much of their attention on Massachusetts, which has provided no lack of work.

 

But now their outreach is touching those who want to pull the reins on “gay-straight” clubs, promotions of books like “King and King” to children, and other components of a strategy pursued by homosexuals to make those lifestyle choices mainstream in Estonia.

 

And Hong Kong.

 

And Finland.

 

And more.

 

The organization created a straightforward video presentation a few months ago simply describing the changes in their state because of the advance of homosexual “marriage” and more.

 

For example, people getting fired for their personal beliefs about lifestyle choices:

WND Video excerpt of MassResistance Youtube Video

 

Or that lawyers can fail their bar exam if they don’t know the proper way to deal with “gay marriage,” and its inevitable breakup:

WND Video excerpt of MassResistance Youtube Video

 

Or that the taxpayers, through their state and local health departments, are teaching children “how to perform sex acts on other males” and giving them a list of “bars in Boston where men can meet for anonymous sex.”

 

And taxpayers are distributing the “black book.”

 

WND Video excerpt of MassResistance Youtube Video

 

Word started spreading.

 

Officials with Mass Resistance soon were contacted by activists in Australia, and now the group’s report is being produced on a DVD in order to provide to churches and other organizations trying to enlighten the nation about the impact of making the lifestyle choice mainstream.

 

“Simply put, its designed to be a tool for individuals, activist groups, and churches to help show the unvarnished and disturbing consequences of ‘gay marriage’ on a society once it’s forced on the population,” the organization reported.

 

“The video is packed with not only descriptions, but actual first-hand documents, photos, and footage. Much of it exclusively shot by MassResistance or gathered in our undercover research, as well as from public documents.”

 

It addresses the impact on schools, the legal and judicial system, politics and government, hospitals and public health, churches and “the slippery slope – further consequences affecting children and society.”

 

“At the beginning of the year the well-funded international homosexual lobby began their lobbying push in Hong Kong to legalize “gay marriage,’” MassResistance said. “Pro-family activists there began working with MassResistance in February.

 

The result? A Cantonese version of the video.

 

“It is now being widely shown in Hong Kong. They told us that they are very pleased that now people can watch the video and it will ‘help them to understand’ what they are really facing,” MassResistance reported.

 

“On Monday, we received the following message from one of the Hong Kong activists: ‘The issue on gender recognition is creeping in as there is a recent court ruling to recognize the reassigned gender after sex reassignment surgery. I saw that transgenderism is also forcing its way to school education at your side. The battle is getting increasingly tough…’”

 

Then when the Finnish parliament began debating “gay marriage,” religious leaders wanted help.

 

“They began using our materials to educate their people. A few days ago they posted a version of our MassResistance video with Finnish sub-titles and began promoting it across the country,” the report said.

 

“We have also just been informed that Swedish and Estonian language versions of the MassResistance video are being prepared for broadcast on national TV in those countries,” the report said.

 

The material also is being used to fight various state campaigns in the U.S. to institutionalize “gay marriage.”

 

“For many across the country and around the world, MassResistance is the go-to place for pro-family activism and information. In addition to the above, in just the last several months we’ve worked with pro-family activists in Australia, Croatia, Jamaica, England, France, Ghana, Uganda, and Canada. And here in the U.S. we’ve worked with activists in Hawaii, Minnesota, Illinois, Utah, Idaho, Louisiana. We get more calls every week.”

 

See the full video:

 

[Blog Editor WND used their video format to share the MassResistance video; however below is the Youtube version.]

 

VIDEO: What ‘gay marriage’ did to Massachusetts — Update!

 

 

Posted by MassResistance

Published: Oct 18, 2013

 

This is the update to the blockbuster report and video done previously by MassResistance. Most people don’t know what REALLY happens when same-sex “marriage” is imposed. The effects on society are outrageous and far-reaching.

__________________________________

© Copyright 1997-2014. All Rights Reserved. WND.com.

Bob Unruh joined WND in 2006 after nearly three decades with the Associated Press, as well as several Upper Midwest newspapers, where he covered everything from legislative battles and sports to tornadoes and homicidal survivalists. He is also a photographer whose scenic work has been used commercially.

News anchor: ‘Gay marriage’ critics are racist


Contessa Brewer 4 Left

The Mainstream Media including Fox News is in the tank in favor of the godless Homosexual agenda to pervert Biblical Morals to support the validity of homosexuality as normal. Check out this recent WND article that begins with a focus on NBC news journalist Contessa Brewer but elaborates on a fund raiser for National Lesbian & Gay Journalists Association. One of the surprising sponsors for me was Fox News which usually is a voice for the Conservative perspective in a sea of committed Leftist journalism.

 

Kincaid then dropped the hammer when he said what the real agenda of the NLGJA is:

 

Let us be clear: the National Lesbian & Gay Journalists Association is a special interest group that manipulates news coverage on behalf of the homosexual movement, and they brag about their successes. Their website boasts how the Associated Press has just released a statement announcing a new AP Stylebook entry for husband and wife, “coming after a requested revision by NLGJA.”

 

Thanks to NLGJA’s “Rapid Response Task Force,” AP will now use the terms husband and wife, without quotes, when referring to two men or two women in same-sex marriages. In other words, a man can be a wife, and a woman can be a husband. (Excerpted from: Fox News Helps Fund The Homosexual Agenda; by Tim Brown; Freedom Outpost, 3/23/13; READ ENTIRITY)

 

 

JRH 3/28/13

Please Support NCCR

*****************************

News anchor: ‘Gay marriage’ critics are racist

‘I think that there’s a difference between being objective and being fair’

 

By Garth Kant

March 26, 2013

WND

 

WND Video Graphic of article: http://www.wnd.com/2013/03/nbc-anchor-gay-marriage-critics-are-racist/#ooid=dveTdoYTqPYg4bqtrP8nxjGc8x3Q2Jti

 

As the U.S. Supreme Court hears arguments two key same-sex marriage cases, a prominent member of the establishment media already is delivering her own verdict.

 

NBC’s Contessa Brewer compared people who oppose “gay marriage” to racists.NBC's Contessa Brewer

 

She made the comments at a fundraiser held Thursday night by the National Lesbian & Gay Journalists Association in New York City.

 

Peter LaBarbera of Americans For Truth asked Brewer if she had considered that the media may not be giving fair coverage to opponents of” same-sex marriage.

 

“You know what’s so funny about this? When we’re talking about racism, nobody ever says, ‘Do you think there’s fair coverage for racists?’ That’s my feeling about the matter. I think that there’s a difference between being objective and being fair. And sometimes wrong is wrong, and the right thing to do is say when it’s wrong,” she replied.

 

LaBarbera countered: “A lot of Christians, for example, think that racism is a sin, but they also think that homosexuality [is a sin].”

 

Brewer responded: “You know what I say? I grew up as the daughter of a Baptist preacher, and you know what my answer always is? If you think it’s wrong, then don’t do it. Thank you.”

 

She promptly walked away.

 

Brewer is a former MSNBC anchor who now hosts a weekend show on the cable network, regularly contributes to NBC and recently joined New York’s WNBC as an anchor.

 

Also attending the fundraiser were Matt Lauer and Savannah Guthrie of NBC, Gayle King of CBS News, Christine Romans of CNN, Amy Robach of ABC News and Amanda Drury of CNBC.

 

NLGJA says the event was sponsored by NBCUniversal, Bloomberg, CNN, CBS News, Fox News, the New York Times, Newsday, BuzzFeed, Newsday, Voli Light Vodka, Heineken, JetBlue, Hillshire, Eli Lilly and Company, General Motors, GPTMC and Fleishman-Hillard.

 

“We are not an advocacy group,” said NLGJA president Jen Christensen of CNN.

 

“But the entire evening was advocacy. There was no pretense of being even-handed in covering the homosexual rights movement, of which they are clearly a major part,” said Cliff Kincaid of Accuracy in Media and America’s Survival, who covered the event.

 

“This was not just an event where journalists ‘came out of the closet’ for homosexual rights; it was a fundraiser for the cause. Our media paid big money to participate as sponsors and hosts,” added Kincaid, who videotaped the exchange between Brewer and LaBarbera.

 

Kincaid has written a letter to Fox News CEO Roger Ailes questioning Fox’s “funding of the homosexual rights movement.”

 

Natalie Morales of the NBC “Today” show hosted the event and described the establishment media’s treatment of “gay” issues.

 

“Many of us here in this room – the media – we are responsible for opening the world’s eyes to these issues and the stories that have brought about such change,” she told the crowd.

 

“When you think 18 years ago when this organization was founded – think of where the country was back then. And now, 50 percent – according to the Pew poll that we talked about on the news today – support gay marriage, and … some other polls put that number even higher. [This] reflects a change in attitudes in this country.”

 

Morales noted numerous developments in just the past year, including “the repeal of the military’s ban on gays and lesbians, the widening support for same-sex marriage.”

 

“The world seems to be evolving slowly but surely – from the president changing his position [on same-sex marriage] last year, to most recently this week … former Secretary [of State Hillary] Clinton now saying gays and lesbians are full and equal citizens and deserve the rights of citizenship. And last week of course Republican Senator Rob Portman said he now supports gay marriage because he wants his son, who is gay, to have the same rights to love equally. I mean this of course is 2013 but it is happening,” she said.

 

LaBarbera asked Morales: “If you disagree with homosexuality – you’re in a league with racists … if you disagree about gay marriage, disagree about fundamental issues surrounding homosexuality – do you agree with that view?”

 

Morales replied: “I think what’s happening here is this is a new civil rights movement. I mean I think clearly … I believe that gays have as much equal opportunity as we all should have. And I believe that they should be allowed to get married and love equally … But I don’t think everyone else has to believe how we believe. … I think there is a freedom of speech in this country and a freedom of free thought.”

 

There may be two sides to the story, but Brewer indicated which side she prefers. Before speaking with LaBarbera, she told the celebrity gossip TV show “Extra,” “I think it’s so important to embrace equality … and I’ve been a strong supporter of gay rights, same-sex marriage and privacy – politicians on both sides of the aisle [are] finally coming out and saying what should have been said decades ago: that everyone has the right to love who they choose and marry who they choose.”

 

Kincaid observed: “The nature of the bias is evident for everyone to see, however, the bias will take another turn, as journalists will ignore the evidence that the major media have taken one side of the debate. What is significant is the lack of any real major media opposition to this bias.

 

“Even though this event featured all kinds of media celebrities, you will not find the media reporting on themselves, because it would blow their cover – and blow the whistle on the bias they are implementing on a day-to-day basis,” he wrote.

 

LaBarbera said, “This event, like previous ones I had attended, had a ‘gay advocacy’ rather than journalistic feel to it.

 

“Past NLGJA events have featured homosexual journalists — including some working for major media outlets –denigrating pro-family opponents of ‘gay rights,’ and making analogies between covering them and covering hateful racists much like Brewer’s tendentious claim,” he added.

 

“It should be noted that many advocates of homosexual ‘marriage’ and other aspects of ‘gay rights’ – both homosexuals and non-homosexuals alike — reject this extreme characterization of pro-family voices,” LaBarbera observed.

 

Both Morales and Gayle King, co-host of “CBS This Morning” and close friend of Oprah Winfrey, told him “they dispute the idea that opponents of homosexual activism and same-sex marriage are in a league with racists, as Brewer alleged.”

 

But in her remarks Thursday, Morales did indicate the event was linked to political developments.

 

“We are at a turning point. I mean could this event be more perfectly timed? … Next week the Supreme Court will start to hear arguments on two major cases addressing gay rights: of course Proposition 8 (California law), and the Defense of Marriage Act. This is an issue at the forefront of our nation’s collective conscience right now, and making headlines all over the world,” she noted.

 

The Supreme Court heard arguments today on the constitutionality of California’s Proposition 8, which defines in the state constitution marriage as a relationship between one man and one woman. Tomorrow, the court will consider the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, which forbids the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages.

 

SlantRight Editor: The WND article is running a poll at this point that asks: In 2013, what is your view of the ‘mainstream news media’? If you are interested in the poll or taking it scroll to the end of this article at WND.

____________________________

Garth Kant is a WND staff writer. Previously, he spent five years writing, copy-editing and producing at “CNN Headline News,” three years writing, copy-editing and training writers at MSNBC, and also served several local TV newsrooms as producer, executive producer and assistant news director. He is the author of the McGraw-Hill textbook, “How to Write Television News.”

 

© Copyright 1997-2013. All Rights Reserved. WND.com.

Washington State Referendum 74


Referendum-74-Petitions

John R. Houk

© October 2, 2012

 

I am a Conservative Family Values kind of guy. Couple this to know that I grew up in a small town in Washington State (I currently live in Oklahoma). I have a tendency to pay attention to politics in the Evergreen State.

 

Two-thirds of the population of Washington State lives west of the Cascade Mountain Range. This is roughly one-third of the State.  In doing the math then obviously one-third of the population lives on the two-thirds east of the Cascades.

 

This important to know because most people think of Washington State as an in the tank people for Left Wing politics. The in the tank Leftists live west of the Cascades dominated by Seattle-Tacoma metropolitan area. East of the Cascades the voting bloc is generally Conservative even if they have been lifelong Democrats.

 

When I was growing up in Washington the State was divided by just two area codes: 206 and 509. Since I have moved from my beloved Eastern Washington multiple area codes mostly on the West side have emerged. As a kid I learned to call people the Seattle Side people 206ers. Yes it was meant in a pejorative sense.

 

So in Washington State the 206ers have politically bullied the Eastern two-thirds of the State. However once in a while there is a political issue in which 206er Center Left voters agree with Right Wingers and the Center Right voters of Eastern Washington.

 

That political issue is holy matrimony. Recently the Washington State legislature made ungodly same-sex marriage legal. The Washington folks that believe marriage is between a male and a female got together to get enough signatures to get Referendum 74 on the November ballot to repeal the legislative action. Referendum 74 gives the voters the power to what is right and not Left Wing Secular Humanist Moral Relativists.

 

The Traditional Marriage folks had to deal with hostility from homosexual activists that attempted to intimidate voters by publicizing petition signers’ names and addresses. The horror of hate-mail or vandalism is a near terrorist method to strike fear into voters to keep them from signing the petition to place Referendum on the November ballot. Even with the homosexual political terrorism the Traditional Marriage folks got twice as many signatures than was needed.

 

Referendum 74 is the work of Traditional Marriage proponents. Ironically the wording of the people’s initiative to reject State legislation works out like this: a yes vote makes homosexual marriage legal and a no vote makes homosexual marriage illegal. So it is actually fairly neutral with the positive favoring same-sex marriage and the negative rejecting same-sex marriage.

 

Something I might point out: As I was Googling for information about Referendum 74. I should have expected this but I was still a bit disappointed. The top Google listings emphasized the homosexual point of view stigmatizing the Traditional Family view. A quick perusal of the pro-homosexual stands highlighted polls in which Washington State citizens and Catholics support same-sex marriage. These pro-homosexual views treated percentages between 50 and 54 as overwhelming proof that Washington voters are in the tank for same-sex marriage. Forgive me for pointing out if the poll was taken on the West side of the State those percentages are a bit skewed. If the nearly half of those poll stats are coupled with the overwhelming Traditional Marriage voters of the Eastern Washington I suspect the outcome in November will be a bit of surprise for homosexuals. OR maybe it won’t be a surprise knowing that pro-homosexual propaganda is being pumped into the Washington State voters.

 

An email from Eugene Delgaudio is what touched off these thoughts on Referendum 74. Below is that email.

 

JRH 10/2/12

Please Support NCCR