Texas Same-Sex Marriage Lawyers Seek $740,000 from State

Two things come to mind, the egregious use of tax dollars to fund cases known to be contrary to the Supreme Court ruling.  These so-called "religious liberty" cases are losing, and losing big; the zealots don't care as long as it fits their agenda:

“Had the State of Texas not deprived our clients of their constitutional rights, they in turn would not have had to engage attorneys, and this motion for attorneys’ fees and costs would have been unnecessary. If the State is not held accountable for the legal costs it caused to be incurred, then it will be more likely to engage in similar objectionable conduct in the future.”

Does anyone believe that, had Texas won the case, they would not be demanding legal costs from the plaintiffs,,,

The attorneys for same-sex couples who successfully challenged Texas’ gay marriage ban in federal court are seeking nearly three-quarters of a million dollars in fees and costs from the state.

In a 27-page motion filed Friday, attorneys from Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld in San Antonio asked U.S. District Judge Orlando L. Garcia to award them $720,794 in fees and $20,203 in costs.

Akin Gump represented two same-sex couples in De Leon v. Perry, which was filed in October 2013 and resolved pursuant to the U.S. Supreme Court’s June 26 ruling in favor of same-sex marriage. Under federal law, prevailing parties in civil rights cases are typically eligible for fees and costs.

Texas Same-Sex Marriage Lawyers Seek $740,000 from State

See also::  Lawyers: Texas owes $741,000 in legal fees in gay marriage case

Lawyers for the attorney general’s office are expected to argue that the Texas couples cannot be considered “prevailing parties” because Texas law changed as a result of a June opinion by the U.S. Supreme Court, a legal action they were not part of, the motion said.

But Neel Lane, the lead lawyer for the two couples, disputed that assertion, saying their lawsuit prompted Garcia to declare the Texas ban unconstitutional in February 2014 — delaying enforcement of his ruling only while Texas appealed. The lawsuit eventually led Garcia to issue a permanent injunction barring Texas from enforcing a state law and a constitutional amendment that prohibited gay marriage, Lane said.

“Same-sex marriages in Texas is now lawful, and plaintiffs and other same-sex couples are no longer denied their fundamental right to marry and have their marriages recognized,” Lane told Garcia.

Louie Gohmert tells the Supreme Court: Jesus’ law more important than constitutional law

But Louie, it is not just Moses that is depicted in or on (the East Pediment) the building that occupies 1 First Street, Northeast, Washington, D.C.. You seem to leave out of your narrative that Moses is not given any special emphasis in the numerous depictions:  his figure is not larger than the others;  he is not displaying any type of dominance over the other figures; nor is the Decalogue (a hotly contested notion at best) written in full.  " Over time, the use of two tablets has become a symbol for the Commandments, and more generally, ancient laws. Tablets signify the permanence of the law when “written in stone.”

Specifically in the frieze mentioned, Moses is holding two tablets (let's assume the Ten Commandments),but only commandments six through ten are visible usually considered the more secular of commands.  That would fit with Weinman's design for said frieze,

Weinman’s training emphasized a correlation between the sculptural subject and the function of the building. Gilbert relied on him to choose the subjects and figures that best reflected the function of the Supreme Court Building. Faithful to classical sources and drawing from many civilizations, Weinman designed a procession of “great lawgivers of history” for the south and north walls to portray the development of law. Each frieze in the Courtroom measures 40 feet long by 7 feet, 2 inches high and is made of ivory vein Spanish marble

And, no Louie Christ did not define marriage between one man and one woman.

“It is a matter of a constitutional crisis when the Highest Court in the land not merely strikes down and says that their opinion is more important than Moses’, depicted up there in the center point of this room, more important than Moses’, depicted in the marble wall over the Supreme Court, holding the Ten Commandments,” the congressman said on the House floor.

“The Supreme Court says theirs is more important than the opinions established and stated by Jesus Christ when he said–and he was quoting Moses–that a man shall leave his mother and father, a woman leave her home, and the two will come together and be one flesh, and what God has joined together, let no man put asunder.”

  “The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”
— U.S. Constitution, Article VI, clause 3

Louie Gohmert tells the Supreme Court: Jesus’ law more important than constitutional law

ADDENDUM::Houston man trolls airwaves with anti-gay ads — Project Q Houston

Houston anti-gay crank Steven Hotze won't give up his quest to have Texas defy a U.S. Supreme Court ruling legalizing gay marriage, now taking his fight to the airwaves and asking for your cash to help.

Hotze and his Conservative Republicans of Texas unleashed a TV and radio advertising campaign on Tuesday to pressure Gov. Greg Abbott into calling lawmakers back to Austin for a special session to fight gay marriage. Hotze wants legislators to pass a measure from state Rep. Cecil Bell that would defy an expected Supreme Court ruling legalizing gay marriage in the 13 states, like Texas, that don't yet have marriage equality.

Bell's proposal flopped and in its wake, Abbott refused to call a special session to consider it again.

Hotze is incredulous that Texas lawmakers won't stand with him to oppose a "lawless Supreme Court ruling on marriage."

"Gov. Abbott and the Republican leadership caved to the homosexual political movement and its cheerleader, the Texas Association of Business, and failed to pass legislation to preserve state sovereignty and the marriage amendment," Hotze's 60-second radio spot says.

He keeps up the pressure on Abbott in a 30-second television ad.

Houston man trolls airwaves with anti-gay ads — Project Q Houston

President Santorum Will Protect Children From Gay Marriage | Right Wing Watch

Santorum, who is not unfamiliar with having to field questions from unhinged audience members, responded to the question about child molestation by talking about same-sex marriage. "That's one of the reasons why I talk about the importance of focusing on the nuclear family," he said, adding that the next president must take a stand for the rights of children to be raised by a mother and a father.

If the Supreme Court strikes down state bans on gay marriage, he continued, "that doesn't mean we won't fight and try to push back both as the Congress should and as the president should as a co-equal branch of the government."

"Depending on what they rule," Santorum said, "we would certainly make sure that we are protecting children and that we are creating an optimal atmosphere for every child, as I said, that have their birthright, which is to be raised by their mother and father."

Just as with the Pope, Santorum is uttering bullshit.

In response to a question concerning the prevalence of abuse - gay/lesbian couples or marriages versus straight - I stated the following:

Although I am not aware of any incidents of abuse, that doesn't mean it doesn't happen.  I believe the statistics are about equal in regards to prevalence. 

The Reich has a really bad habit of citing the 2012 Mark Regnearus study in which he claimed to “prove” same-sex parenting is inherently harmful to children.  This study has been seriously panned as flawed methodologically and ethically.  (For more critique of said study see here.)

As an example, a review carried out by the American Medical Association:

,,, The data does not show whether the perceived romantic relationship ever in fact occurred; nor whether the parent self-identified as gay or lesbian; nor whether the same sex relationship was continuous, episodic, or one-time only; nor whether the individual in these categories was actually raised by a homosexual parent (children of gay fathers are often raised by their heterosexual mothers following divorce), much less a parent in a long-term relationship with a same-sex partner. Indeed, most of the participants in these groups spent very little, if any, time being raised by a “same-sex couple." (p 33)

This from a review of, or concerning, the audit that was done by the publishing journal Social Science Research:

Among the problems Sherkat identified is the paper’s definition of “lesbian mothers” and “gay fathers”—an aspect that has been the focus of much of the public criticism. A woman could be identified as a “lesbian mother” in the study if she had had a relationship with another woman at any point after having a child, regardless of the brevity of that relationship and whether or not the two women raised the child as a couple.

Sherkat said that fact alone in the paper should have “disqualified it immediately” from being considered for publication.

In his audit, he writes that the peer-review system failed because of “both ideology and inattention” on the part of the reviewers (three of the six reviewers, according to Sherkat, are on record as opposing same-sex marriage). What’s more, he writes that the reviewers were “not without some connection to Regnerus,” and suggests that those ties influenced their reviews.

The Regnerus study was funded in part ($695,000) by the conservative think tank Witherspoon Institute, who actively oppose LGBT issues among many other social issues of import.  As numerous writers critiquing said study have pointed out, Burroway highlights very well, "All sorts of studies are funded by all sorts of institutions which support a variety of causes. Those sources can come from conservative, anti-gay organizations, or (as is the case with many studies which are favorable to LGBT issues) they can come from pro-gay sources such as the Williams Institute or other organizations. The source of funding can indicate a potential conflict of interest, but the true value of a study rests on the methodology of the study itself."

This point is also echoed by Bartlett in his review:

“There should be reflection about a conservative scholar garnering a very large grant from exceptionally conservative foundations,” he writes in the audit, “to make incendiary arguments about the worthiness of LGBT parents—and putting this out in time to politicize it before the 2012 United States presidential election.”

Sherkat considers Regnerus to be “a bright young scholar,” and, years ago, he wrote a letter of recommendation for him. Sherkat believes that Regnerus, whom he has known for two decades, made a decision to push a conservative political agenda in his academic work a number of years ago, and that this paper is evidence of it.

I find it a bit ironic, that Burroway in his analysis of the Regnerus study concludes with mention of the Witherspoon Institute and one Robert P. George.  An individual that I have written about in regards to a Frank Schaeffer's article that features numerous power brokers behind the Reich and its creation.  (I have since highlighted the section where I speak of George.)

Members of the Institute include Robert P. George, who drafted the Manhattan Declaration and whose recent paper in The Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy on same-sex marriage was critiqued at length by BTB’s Rob Tisinai. The Withersoon Institute reportedly has close associations with such organizations as the National Organization for Marriage, the Family Research Council, and the secretive Catholic order Opus Dei. George also sits on the board of directors for the Bradley Foundation, which also provided funds for this study.

I have said on numerous occasions, nothing the Reich does is without an end game in site.  And as I noted yesterday in regards to Frederick Clarkson's piece about the "legal manuals" coming from the Reich, ",,,Christian Right leaders of the culture war intend to fight LGBTQ Rights and marriage equality in the states, in the towns and cities, and in many kinds of institutions, no matter what the federal government and the courts may say."

Just how dishonest is the Reich in obtaining their end game:

The strategy is for sociological experts to sow just enough doubt about the wisdom of change such that preserving the status quo seems the only reasonable path. As the New York Times recently reported, in 2010 the conservative Heritage Foundation gathered social conservatives consisting of Catholic intellectuals, researchers, activists and funders at a Washington meeting to plot their approach. The idea was for conservative scholars to generate research claiming that gay marriage harms children by placing them in unstable gay homes and by upending marital norms for straights. A solid consensus of actual scholarship—not the fixed kind being ginned up at Heritage—has consistently found that gay parenting does not disadvantage kids, and no research has shown gay marriage having any impact on straight marriage rates. But trafficking in truth was not the plan. The plan was to tap into a sordid history of linking gay people with threatening kids, and to produce skewed research that could be used as talking points to demagogue the public.

But the Heritage plan was not to get invited to the cocktail parties of tenured radicals. It was to get Regnerus and other conservative thinkers on the witness stand to combat the airing of real research with enough fake research to create the illusion of a genuine debate. They hoped to avoid an embarrassing repeat of the 2010 Prop 8 trial in defense of California’s gay marriage ban, wherein the state’s witnesses withered under cross-examination. At one point, an expert witness was nearly disqualified after acknowledging he had never done any research on same-sex marriage and had only published two scholarly articles ever, one on Victorian cabinetmakers.
,,,
Judge Friedman didn’t fall for any of it. “The Court finds Regnerus’s testimony entirely unbelievable and not worthy of serious consideration,” he wrote in what must be one of the most stinging and decisive repudiations of an expert witness in memory. He cited evidence that the conservative research was “hastily concocted at the behest of a third-party funder” which clearly expressed its wish for skewed results. Dismissing the defense’s other witnesses just as strongly, the judge wrote that “The Court was unable to accord the testimony of Marks, Price, and Allen any significant weight.” He concluded that “The most that can be said of these witnesses’ testimony is that the ‘no differences’ consensus has not been proven with scientific certainty, not that there is any credible evidence showing that children raised by same-sex couples fare worse than those raised by heterosexual couples.”

But it is not just Regnerus spouting bad information in support of the Reich, another study oft cited  (especially in regards to the recent SCOTUS hearing concerning Marriage equality), was done by Donald Paul Sullins (2015).  His study is just as bad as the Regnarus study as one of the first major flaws is the fact that Sullins has no information about whether the same-sex couples were actually married.  A point noted by Zack Ford over at Think Progress:

Sullins conducted an analysis of data from the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) that had been collected from 1997-2013. He concluded that information about the 512 same-sex parents identified in the study demonstrates that their children have more emotional problems compared to couples raised by their biological different-sex couples. That these children fare worse, he concludes, “justifies social and policy concerns about differences between family structures, including between opposite-sex and same-sex families.” In other words, same-sex couples should not be allowed to marry because they make inferior parents.

One of the first major flaws, however, is the fact that Sullins has no information about whether the same-sex couples were actually married. As he notes, “Almost all opposite-sex parents who are raising joint biological offspring are in intact marriages, but very few, if any, same-sex parents were married during the period under observation.” The same-sex couples were instead defined as “those persons whose reported spouse or cohabiting partner was of the same sex as themselves.” No conclusions can actually be drawn about the impacts of legalizing same-sex marriage because the study, by its own admission, collected no data about same-sex marriage or its effect on children.

Both Sullins and Regnarus have provided reviews and defended each others work:

Regnerus himself provides an overview of the research. In his attempt to defend it, however, he in turn reveals that it also has the very same flaws as his own study. In particular, the NHIS similarly contains no information about family formation. Sullins notes that many of the children had a biological connection to one of the same-sex parents, but it’s unknown if these are from prior relationships, which would suggest their negative outcomes are related to a broken home instead of having two parents of the same sex. Regnerus used the same conflation; only two of the children in his study were actually raised from birth by same-sex couples and they did not exhibit the same negative outcomes as those children who had parents that separated before one entered a same-sex relationship. Incidentally, Sullins has likewise defended Regenerus’ conclusions about the supposed inferiority “gay and lesbian families,” ignoring the significance of this flawed conflation.

Finally, just as damning as Regnerus' association with the Witherspoon Institute, so to is Sullins' alliance with the anti-gay Family Research Council‘s Marriage and Religion Research Institute

Just as the Pope should have known better about making his claim "[c]hildren mature seeing their father and mother like this; their identity matures being confronted with the love their father and mother have, confronted with this difference, he does is just asinine and diminishes any good he may be doing."  So too with Rick Santorum,"the next president must take a stand for the rights of children to be raised by a mother and a father."

President Santorum Will Protect Children From Gay Marriage | Right Wing Watch

Beck: Gay Activists 'Are Making Exactly The Same Demands As Were Happening In Sodom And Gomorrah' | Right Wing Watch

Let's just say for the sake of argument that Beck is correct in his twisted understanding of the Sodom story, "two angels arrived at Lot's house when the men of Sodom and Gomorrah demanded they be sent outside so they could have sex with them, which Lot rejected, offering his own daughter as a substitute."  According to Beck, "to know" means they want sex so from his perspective the story is about an attempted gang rape.  That's bad, right? And, what does that have to do with homosexuality?

Ignoring Ezekiel 16:49-50 for now (ya know the verses that kind of tell you what the Sodom story was all about), here is what Beck ignores; as do most fundies simply explained by John Corvino   "Lot is the so-called hero of the story,,, so when faced with a mob of angry rapists, what does he do? Why, he does what any upstanding man would do. He offers them his virgin daughters. If you ever want an example of the Bible portraying women as expendable property, you need look no further than the Sodom and Gomorrah story."

What is intriguing about Corvino's take on the matter, and it is something I never thought about in all my years of study, the same plot occurs again in Judges 19, "This time, however, the guest tosses his concubine outside and closes the door. (Again, he’s supposed to be one of the good guys.) The mob violently rapes her until morning, when she finally collapses dead."

Congratulations Glenn, you taught your daughter that she was an expendable piece of property.

The reason he opposes gay marriage, he explained to her, is because gay activists only want it so that they can use it to force Christians to violate their faith, just like during the time of Sodom and Gomorrah.
,,,
"Think of the people who won't do floral arrangements for gay weddings," he continued. "Think about the people who are bakers. Now there's another one with a DJ. They just say, 'I don't want to participate.' That's what Lot was saying, we don’t want to participate. And in exchange for not participating, I'll give you something I shouldn't be offering, but I'll comprise this far but no further. We're making exactly the same mistakes and they are making exactly the same demands as were happening in Sodom and Gomorrah."

Beck: Gay Activists 'Are Making Exactly The Same Demands As Were Happening In Sodom And Gomorrah' | Right Wing Watch

Marco Rubio: Gay Rights 'A Real And Present Danger' To Freedom | Right Wing Watch

Marco Rubio was the subject of a fawning profile on today’s edition of “The 700 Club,” in which host Pat Robertson hailed the GOP presidential candidate as “the Democrats’ worst nightmare.”

In an interview with the Christian Broadcasting Network’s David Brody, Rubio warned that gay marriage represents “a real and present danger” to America because gay rights advocates are bent on labeling any anti-gay messages, including those from churches, as “hate speech.”

“We are at the water’s edge of the argument that mainstream Christian teaching is hate speech because today we’ve reached the point in our society where if you do not support same-sex marriage, you are labeled a homophobe and a hater,” Rubio said. “So what’s the next step after that? After they’re done going after individuals, the next step is to argue that the teachings of mainstream Christianity, the catechism of the Catholic Church, is hate speech. That’s a real and present danger.”

Dan Arel, in his OP concerning the Rubio interview, makes a good point,

If you are unfamiliar with the term “strawman” you just saw a clear definition. While the LGBT community and its allies are fighting tooth and nail to be treated equally by the federal government, it has never once tried to silence religion or apply any label to it. Rubio has invented an enemy that doesn’t exist and is attacking it.

But why would Rubio fear Christianity could be labeled hate speech? Because what he is saying again and again is, in fact, hate speech. Rubio is fighting to make sure LGBT citizens of the U.S. are given fewer rights than straight ones. He actively campaigns on making them second-class citizens.

This is also a massive insult to the millions of LGBT Christians. The thing is, Rubio only believes there is one kind of Christian, his kind, and if you’re not on his side, you’re not a true Christian.

Marco Rubio: Gay Rights 'A Real And Present Danger' To Freedom | Right Wing Watch

Colorado Republican calls gay people ‘snakes’ — wants a new St. Patrick to drive them out of Ireland

Point one, what do you expect from someone who can't tell myth from reality?

Point two, like Steven L. Anderson, Chap My Lips is taking ONE verse, cherry-picked from the Bible and making a theology around it:  "Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder." (Matt 19:6)

The issue, if one reads the text immediately following, it tells you what Jesus was referring to - divorce:  "They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?" (Matt 19:7)  If one reads the text preceding said verse, you will find the context, "The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?" (Matt 19:3)  This has to do with gay marriage how?

Point three, and this point highlights why one verse theology never works.  No, Gordon, Christ did not "define marriage between one man and one woman".  If one continues to read Matthew 19, one will read this, "But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given. For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it." (vv 11-12)

In other words Christ has qualified an exception to Adam and Eve (Gen 2:24) by citing three kinds of eunuchs to whom His marriage teaching does not apply.  Context is important Gordon, but it is obviously something you don't understand as you also ignore the fact that "one man with one woman" is not God's rule for marriage because scripture makes exceptions for other situations as well.

Need I go on?

A Colorado Republican and TV evangelist calls for a new St. Patrick to expel modern-day “snakes” — the preacher’s term for gay people — out of Ireland, Right Wing Watch reports.

During a taping of his “Pray in Jesus Name” show, which airs on an online channel called “Pray in Jesus Name News,” State Representative Gordon Klingenschmitt (R-Colorado Springs) reacted to Ireland’s vote this month in favor of legalizing gay marriage throughout the country.

“There was a time when it was said that St. Patrick drove the snakes out of Ireland,” Klingenschmitt reminds viewers. “And now I’m concerned that the snakes have returned to Ireland. And when I say snakes, I’m not talking about physical snakes, I’m talking about the demonic spirits inside of some of the people you see parading their sin in pride around the country, rejecting not just the Catholic Church but rejecting Jesus Christ himself.”

“And some people think oh, you know,” Klingenschmitt continues mockingly, “the Irish Catholics they’re rejecting the Pope.”

“No!” the former Navy chaplain clarifies sternly.

“It’s the young people rejecting Jesus Christ,” Klingenschmitt explains, “is what’s happening here,” and cites a Bible verse in favor of heterosexual marriage to support his thesis.

“What God has joined together,” the preacher says dramatically, “let no one separate.”

“Jesus Christ defined marriage between one man and one woman,” Klingenschmitt finally says in a video clip Right Wing Watch posted Friday, “and maybe it’s time for another St. Patrick to go back into Ireland and preach the good news that Jesus can make you free from sin and drive out the snakes once again.”

Colorado Republican calls gay people ‘snakes’ — wants a new St. Patrick to drive them out of Ireland

US Christians ‘bankrolling’ no campaign in Ireland’s gay marriage referendum | World news | The Guardian

  Just like NOM and Brian Brown has absolutely nothing to do with what is occurring in Russia?

With just five days to go before Ireland’s historic referendum on the legalisation of gay marriage, a bitter row has broken out between supporters and opponents over the funding of their respective campaigns. Supporters of a yes vote have accused opponents of a lack of transparency over finances and of accepting funding from rightwing Christian groups in the US.

Ireland’s referendum is the only one in the world where a national electorate is being asked to legalise gay marriage. If it is passed on Friday, gay couples will have the right under the state’s constitution to marry – at present only civil partnerships are recognised in law. Marriage equality would provide full rights of inheritance but, despite it being a contentious issue in the campaign, would not alter the law on adoption, which was recently changed to allow gay couples to adopt.

A yes vote would also mark yet another defeat for the Catholic church and the political power it used to wield in Ireland.

[,,,]
One of the no side’s strongest supporters in the US is the lavishly funded National Organisation for Marriage (NOM). In a letter to supporters around the world, it has urged evangelical Christians to visit keepmarriage.org, which is campaigning for a no vote.
 
“Just like in campaigns for marriage here in America,” the letter says, “slanted public opinion polls become fodder to influence and depress supporters of marriage. This is happening in Ireland. If [the no campaign] can manage to pull off a victory, it will be a tremendous boost to the cause of marriage worldwide. Please do what you can to bring awareness to their efforts.”

However, a spokesperson for NOM in the US denied this weekend that it had channelled funds to any of the three main opposition groups to gay marriage during the campaign. NOM is aware that foreign donations to lobby groups during referendums in Ireland are banned, the spokesperson said.

US Christians ‘bankrolling’ no campaign in Ireland’s gay marriage referendum | World news | The Guardian

Texas plans to defy Supreme Court if they rule in favor of same-sex marriage

Now, while the country waits for the Supreme Court decision on same-sex marriage believed to be ruled on in June, Texas is gearing up to pass its own law that will restrict the rights of homosexuals regardless of the court’s ruling, or so they believe.

“We as Texans have a sovereign right to define and regulate marriage,” Republican state Rep. Cecil Bell, the author of the bill, told Talking Points Memo on Tuesday. “I don’t believe that this bill puts anyone in a lesser position than what they were in before. What this does is codify Texas law.”

Texas officials however do not think there is anything discriminatory about the bill because it doesn’t remove rights from same-sex couples, yet.

This is the 20th anti-gay bill state lawmakers have put forth this term. Only two have made it out of committee though; this one and another that is meant to protect clergy from being forced to participate in same-sex marriages, a rather useless bill since the federal law already handles that.

[,,,]
The bill is nothing but Texas being a bully again, and trying to show the federal government they will not listen to their laws and throw around the word “sovereign” as though it means they are above the law. Texas lawmakers seem bent on becoming the most hateful groups of lawmakers in the country.

Texas plans to defy Supreme Court if they rule in favor of same-sex marriage

Continuation of,,,Hyperbole gets you no where

H/T: Dave Foda for this story

NY pastor: Justin Bieber is trans and ‘cut off his breasts’ because Obama’s ‘evil spirits’ misled him

“We’re talking about young girls, 6 to 10 years of age,” Atlah World Missionary Church Rev. James David Manning said in a YouTube video that was posted on Friday. “They can be led or influenced to cut off their breasts once they get into puberty. They can be led to have operations — like Justin Bieber — they can think that the best choice for their life is to cut off their breasts.”

“And then by the time they reach the age of 20 years old, they say, ‘I wish I had never cut off my breasts, I wish I had never mutilated my flesh, I wish I had never cut off my penis, I wish I had never done that, I was just young. And the people in the church or the people in the media said or gave the impression that I had a right to choose any kind of sexual orientation that I wanted to choose, and so I cut off my penis or I cut off my breasts.’”

One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest::Shit on the Floor

The Little Mermaid - Under The Sea

 Creationists Freak Out Over Evolutionary ‘Back To The Sea’ Super Bowl Commercial (VIDEO)

99 Bottles Of Beer On The Wall by Atticus

Rick Perry's Comparison Of Homosexuality To Alcoholism Is Nothing New From The Anti-Gay Right

 Then Rick Santorum jumped to Perry's defense. The problem with that, Santorum once said, in regards to "redefining" marriage, "It’s like saying this glass of water is a glass of beer. Well, you can call it a glass of beer, but it’s not a glass of beer. It’s a glass of water. And water is what water is. Marriage is what marriage is."

Which later morphed into this inane analogy:  “I can call this napkin a paper towel,” the former Pennsylvania senator explained. “But it is a napkin. And why? Because it is what it is. Right? You can call it whatever you want, but it doesn’t change the character of what it is.”"

Now we have Mike Huckabee throwing his two-cents into the ring, Huckabee compares being gay to drinking, swearing,,,

Human Rights Campaign statement regarding Rick Perry's comparison of homosexuality to alcoholism.

Others that suffer from head in ass syndrome

Republican National Committeeman Dave Agema recently got in trouble with his own party after he, among other offensive remarks, compared gay people to alcoholics. So did top Religious Right leaders Mat Staver and Tony Perkins. Robert Jeffress, a Texas pastor close to Perry, also “equates being gay with alcoholism or a genetic proclivity toward violence,” according to the Dallas-based D Magazine.

Stories I will be contemplating for next week::Unicorns, War On Little Free Libraries, Evidence that Jonah was Swallowed by a Whale, and another Bad Analogy

Supreme Court Will Hear Four Cases Challenging Same-Sex Marriage Bans - BuzzFeed News

The cases ask the justices whether Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee bans on same-sex couples’ marriages and bans on recognition of same-sex couples’ marriages from out of state violate the Constitution’s due process and equal protection guarantees.

The two questions granted by the court for argument are: 1) “Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex?” and 2) “Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-state?”

There will be 90 minutes of argument on the marriage question and 60 minutes of argument on the marriage recognition question, per the court’s order.

The coming showdown before the justices over same-sex couples’ marriage rights has quickly become seen as inevitable following the Nov. 6, 2014, decision of the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals to uphold the bans in Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee. The ruling set up a disagreement with other appeals courts to have considered the issue; the 4th Circuit, 7th Circuit, 9th Circuit, and 10th Circuit courts of appeals all have struck down such bans on various grounds.

The justices generally step in once such a circuit split has been created — a fact referenced last year by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg when she was discussing the pending marriage cases across the country — and, on Friday, the justices took the leap.

Supreme Court Will Hear Four Cases Challenging Same-Sex Marriage Bans - BuzzFeed News

‘Only God’ Can Stop Gay Marriage - The Daily Beast

Two points I harp about, the rash of alleged "religious liberty" incidents and the exporting of hate,,,

"They have a tough road ahead, and more and more they're being honest about that. That's becoming their new cry, now they're the David against Goliath," said Jeremy Hooper, a political consultant who has monitored the activities of anti-LGBT groups for a decade. “They're owning the fact that they're at a loss now.”

Those who have watched anti-gay groups closely suggest that there will be two major strategic shifts in their strategy.

First, as opposition to gay marriage collapses, American anti-LGBT activists will slow their battle against it. Instead, they’ll fight for the rights of those who hold anti-gay views—with resources shifting to so-called “religious freedom” groups.

"It's becoming increasingly evident that where the opponents of same-sex marriage can make a serious case is that it is a violation of religious liberty to sanction same-sex marriage," said Jonathan Rauch, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and a long-time adovate for marriage equality. “[Their strategy is] to circle the wagons and say, look, if we're not going to win the debate on the public legitimacy of same-sex marriage, we can win the religious liberty one so that we don't have to be a part of this."

And second, with falling support domestically, many anti-LGBT groups will take their message abroad to places where the momentum is with them.

“It looks like the hardest core of anti-gay marriage advocates are turning their attention overseas, by lobbying for anti-gay marriage and anti-gay rights in places like Uganda and Russia,” Rauch said.

‘Only God’ Can Stop Gay Marriage - The Daily Beast

So of course Tomczak had to respond

So the other day I posted the following on Facebook:

Listen to the sound of my voice. Attention youth of the world: I want you to live your lives being exactly who you are. Be true to yourself—the most important thing is to be true to yourself. The second most important thing is that you wear Ellen underwear and only Ellen underwear. And now, audience, look into my vortex and dance with me.

It was part of Ellen Degeneres' response to Larry Tomczak's hit piece "Are You Aware of the Avalanche of Gay Programming Assaulting Your Home?" published by The Christian Post. 

In the above named piece, Tomczak hits the usual ReichWing talking points of "indoctrination and propaganda,"  advocating of the "gay lifestyle" and throwing a bit of the Bile in for good measure - Romans 1:24-27.  What he misses, something which Ellen has throughout her career epitomizes, love and compassion: "Love your neighbor as yourself." (Matt 22:39)

You would think that after the ludicrous failure of One Million Moms threatened boycott of JCPenney because DeGeneres was appointed as its spokeswoman in 2012, that those within the Reich would have learned their lesson when an individual honestly stands traditional values - Here are the values I stand for: I stand for honesty, equality, kindness, compassion, treating people the way you'd want to be treated and helping those in need. To me, those are traditional values - without deceit, "LGBTQ advocates are extremely deceptive, sophisticated and strategic in working to lead a generation over the cliff to destruction."

What I find comical, the LGBT community is not interested in turning anyone gay, it is the homophobic community who wants everyone to be homophobic.  Which makes me think that these anti-gay tirades we hear coming from the Reich are generated more by a need to quell their inner demons rather than keeping people away from a "gay life style."  (Which I am still trying to figure out exactly what that is.)

One final point concerning Tomczak's initial post (yes, he responded to Ellen) it's in the title, "the [a]valanche of [g]ay [p]rogramming [a]ssaulting [y]our [h]ome."  Who exactly is forcing them to listen to "gay programming?"  With hundreds of cable and/or satellite channels, there has to be "some" that cater to Christianity; I can think of 12 (Daystar, TBN, CBN, CTN, TCT, BYU, Church Channel, Cornerstone, EWTN, HIS, Liberty Channel, The Word).  Unless one is seeking a "fight" or five-minutes of fame, it is hard not to avoid Ellen. "If you ask me, Larry is watching a lot of gay TV."

So of course Tomczak had to respond, and fails miserably by prattling on about, you guessed it, religion.

Ellen, a nation rises or falls on marriage. If we dismantle this pillar of society, as it has existed for over 5,000 years of Western civilization and redefine it to accommodate other arrangements such as yours (or those advocating for polyamorous, polygamous or other configurations), what will be the consequences for this sacred institution and the future of our nation?

The true Christian church must stand as a "sign of contradiction" amid ever-changing cultural trends. With kindness and courage we must remain faithful to the truth, whether it is popular or not. We must honor a higher law than man, just as Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. expressed in his classic "Letter from a Birmingham Jail" and is magnificently portrayed in the film Selma.

He assumes that everyone operates under the assumption that the Bible is God's instruction to man and that our laws fall under the strictures of said instructions.  Sorry to say Larry, I am not under God's law.  Just because you believe (and teach) that we should all live our lives under your God's rules and feel shame because of what you (and your ilk) believe, is wrong.   You are denying a basic human and Constitutional right to pursue happiness by asking "us" to go against our very nature and not be authentic. You ask "us" to accept being discriminated against for something that harms no one.

You sir are the last person anyone should be listening to in regards to values (biblical or not), consequences, truth, or moral teachings. 

The Rev. Larry Tomczak,,,was named in a Maryland lawsuit filed against leaders of Sovereign Grace Ministries, a denomination he helped found in the 1980s.

You're upset because you were characterized "as an angry, mean-spirited 'fundamentalist,'" who "[y]ears ago,,,was lost,,,but I found a path of redemption in a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. Forty-five years later I continue to follow Him and His revolutionary teachings. What I share with you is out of a commitment to be a faithful servant who upholds those teachings."  What you should be upset about is your own hypocrisy.  What you should have shared is this:

,,,the ruling by Montgomery County Circuit Court Judge Sharon V. Burrell didn’t address the allegations of abuse. She ruled that the plaintiffs had to sue within three years of turning 18 and that date has passed for most of the alleged victims.
,,,
The pastors and churches charged in the lawsuit could still face criminal charges because there is no statute of limitations on felonies.

You can try and distance yourself all you want from these allegations, but as Enttinger states:

Not reporting child abuse makes no sense in the “normal” world, but in a church influenced by the Shepherding Movement, once you’re sucked into their cult culture logic, it makes perfect sense.

The New Calvinists are a pretty tangled network of mostly middle-class white dudes who tend to function as an old boys’ club. Total power corrupts and these guys have charm, bald heads, melodramatic preaching tics, and Calvinist guilt on their side. There’s a lot of money to be had in this pastoring business, and there are a lot of questions to be answered about the financial ethics of Mahaney and Mark Driscoll (and these are the only two I have stuff to link to on this subject, but I’m sure there’s more digging to be done).

You may no longer be part of Sovereign Grace Ministries but you are still involved in seeding churches, ",,,and for the past forty years has given himself to planting churches,,," You helped create this monster of a scandal, your own efforts created this cult.

The problem with the Shepherding Movement influence on a generation of post-denominational Calvinist churches is that you have people in authority with too much power because they set up shop in a hurry during a emotional high of chasing “the Spirit.” The laissez-faire, trusting culture of post-denominational Jesus Movement Christians seems to have been a safe haven for a whole crop of sexual predators. And when those in authority are either predators themselves or cronies with them, you can see why the abuse often went unreported.

Your actions, and those of your peers, are reminiscent of the movie Song for a Raggy Boy in which rape, violence and murder were rationalized by men who claim to be doing God's work. 

In a recent article you claim, "Thankfully the judge dismissed the charges. They were blatantly false accusations,,," leaving out that, ",,,THE MOTIONS OF ALL DEFENDANTS TO DISMISS ARE GRANTED ON STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS GROUNDS,,,."  As highlighted above, there is no statute of limitations on felonies the accusations still stand whether you choose to sweep them under the rug or not.

And just for the sake of brevity, I won't bring up your wonderful book advocating child abuse The Little Handbook on Loving Correction, formerly called, God, the Rod, and Your Child's Bod.

Counter-protesters interrupt Westboro Baptist Church pickets at Blazers game, stage dance party | OregonLive.com

About 20 members of Westboro Baptist Church arrived at the Moda Center Saturday to picket the Portland Trail Blazers for its support of gay marriage -- only to be surrounded by several hundred counter-protesters who had already gathered.

Both demonstrations began peacefully. But as church members tried to regroup, the crowd followed. At one point a scuffle broke out as a counter-protester appeared to grab for a church member's sign.

The church members left after less than 20 minutes.

Counter-protestors stuck around for a dance party in the Rose Quarter, complete with stage lights and speakers.

Counter-protesters interrupt Westboro Baptist Church pickets at Blazers game, stage dance party | OregonLive.com

‘Only God’ Can Stop Gay Marriage - The Daily Beast

Those who have watched anti-gay groups closely suggest that there will be two major strategic shifts in their strategy.

First, as opposition to gay marriage collapses, American anti-LGBT activists will slow their battle against it. Instead, they’ll fight for the rights of those who hold anti-gay views—with resources shifting to so-called “religious freedom” groups.

"It's becoming increasingly evident that where the opponents of same-sex marriage can make a serious case is that it is a violation of religious liberty to sanction same-sex marriage," said Jonathan Rauch, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and a long-time adovate [sic] for marriage equality. “[Their strategy is] to circle the wagons and say, look, if we're not going to win the debate on the public legitimacy of same-sex marriage, we can win the religious liberty one so that we don't have to be a part of this."

And second, with falling support domestically, many anti-LGBT groups will take their message abroad to places where the momentum is with them.

“It looks like the hardest core of anti-gay marriage advocates are turning their attention overseas, by lobbying for anti-gay marriage and anti-gay rights in places like Uganda and Russia,” Rauch said.

‘Only God’ Can Stop Gay Marriage - The Daily Beast

Jeb Bush: Gay couples’ rights should depend on where they live - Salon.com

Notice Bush's reference to "mob rule." As I have stated before, the rights of a minority cannot be impinged upon by the rights of a majority. Just because the "community" believes its views are correct and proper, does not make it the "law of the land."
__
Listen to the Beltway chattering class, and you could be forgiven for forming the impression that Jeb Bush will be the courageous centrist in the Republican Party’s 2016 presidential field. He’s the guy who will absolutely refuse to pander to the party’s rabid right-wing base, rising or falling without backing down from his heretical positions on issues like education and immigration reform. Of course, the meme of Bush the Moderate conveniently glides over his thoroughly conservative views on issues like abortion, taxes, climate change, and government regulation; that he is considered a centrist says far more about the ever-rightward march of the Obama-era GOP than it does about Bush’s worldview.

On Sunday, Bush offered further evidence that he’s hardly a moderate, criticizing a recent federal court decision to allow marriage equality in Florida, where Bush was governor from 1999 to 2007. Echoing previous comments, Bush essentially argued that same-sex couples’ rights should be contingent on where they live.

“It ought be a local decision. I mean, a state decision,” Bush said in an interview with the Miami Herald. “The state decided. The people of the state decided. But it’s been overturned by the courts, I guess.”

Jeb Bush: Gay couples’ rights should depend on where they live - Salon.com

Ten Years From Now | NOM Blog

Not quite as nice as Brad Paisley's "Letter to Me" (5th Gear, 2007), I can only hope that a majority of what Brown "cites" come true.

But I am also a bit confused as to this "preservation of marriage" or "redefining marriage." I would have to say that if there is any redefinition going on, it would be at the hands of the church. Biblical references aside for the moment, me thinks that Brown needs to acquaint himself with the work of John Boswell, Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality: Gay People in Western Europe from the Beginning of the Christian Era to the 14th Century, which shows that the Roman Catholic Church did not condemn homosexuality until at least the 12th century. Or, The Marriage of Likeness: Same Sex Unions in Pre- Modern Europe which lists in detail some same sex union ceremonies found in ancient church liturgical documents.

Though Boswell's work is considered controversial by some, his findings need explaining especially in light of pre-Christian Greek attitudes towards homosexual relationships. Although I am loathe to cite the following due to interpretational controversy, one cannot ignore the presentation of Achilles and Patroclus in Homer's Illiad or Aeschylus' Myrmidons; even Plato had something to say in the Symposium, Phaedrus offers his commentary. Again in the Symposium, we have Pausanias of Athens and Agathon. And last, Alexander the Great and Hephaestion.

"For Roman citizens, marriage was a duty and was not meant for the purpose of fulfilling erotic needs. Therefore, it was considered normal for a male to look for sexual fulfillment outside marriage, though females did not have such liberty. Presumably, the main Greco-Roman moral view on human sexuality was that sexuality was good, as long as it did not interfere with a person's obligations to the state or family or involve the abuse of free children or married women. Other views stated that sexuality was dangerous and should be limited. People that held such beliefs would usually commit themselves to celibacy or limit their sexual activities either to marriage, or strictly for the purpose of procreation. Such views, though, did not preclude homosexual acts; they simply aimed to reduce promiscuous heterosexual activity."

As to he so-called "biblical" marriage,,,

Vaughn Roste, in 2004, put this piece together Biblical Marriage: A Bad Source For Debate:

1. Marriage consists of one man and one or more women. (Gen 4:19, 4:23, 26:34, 28:9, 29:26-30, 30:26, 31:17, 32:22, 36:2, 36:10, 37:2, Ex. 21:10, Judges 8:30, 1 Sam 1:2, 25:43, 27:3, 30:5, 30:18, 2 Sam 2:2, 3:2-5, 1 Chron 3:1-3, 4:5, 8:8, 14:3, 2 Chron 11:21, 13:21, 24:3).
2. Nothing prevents a man from taking on concubines in addition to the wife or wives he may already have. (Gen 25:6, Judges 8:31, 2 Sam 5:13, 1 Kings 11:3, 1 Chron 3:9, 2 Chron 11:21, Dan 5:2-3).
3. A man might chose any woman he wants for his wife (Gen 6:2, Deut 21:11), provided only that she is not already another man's wife (Lev 18:14-16, Deut. 22:30) or his [half-]sister (Lev 18:11, 20:17), nor the mother (Lev 20:14) or the sister (Lev 18:18) of a woman who is already his wife. The concept of a woman giving her consent to being married is foreign to the Biblical mindset.
4. If a woman cannot be proven to be a virgin at the time of marriage, she shall be stoned. (Deut 22:13-21).
5. A rapist must marry his victim (Ex. 22:16, Deut. 22:28-29) - unless she was already a fiancÈ, in which case he should be put to death if he raped her in the country, but both of them killed if he raped her in town. (Deut. 22:23-27).
6. If a man dies childless, his brother must marry the widow. (Gen 38:6-10, Deut 25:5-10, Mark 12:19, Luke 20:28).
7. Women marry the man of their father's choosing. (Gen. 24:4, Josh.15:16-17, Judges 1:12-13, 12:9, 21:1, 1 Sam 17:25, 18:19, 1 Kings 2:21, 1 Chron 2:35, Jer 29:6, Dan 11:17).
8. Women are the property of their father until married, and their husband after that. (Ex. 20:17, 22:17, Deut. 22:24, Mat 22:25).
9. The value of a woman might be approximately seven years' work. (Gen 29:14-30).
10. Inter-faith marriages are prohibited. (Gen 24:3, 28:1, 28:6, Num 25:1-9, Ezra 9:12, Neh 10:30, 2 Cor 6:14).
11. Divorce is forbidden. (Deut 22:19, Matt 5:32, 19:9, Mark 10:9-12, Luke 16:18, Rom 7:2, 1 Cor 7:10-11, 7:39).
12. Better to not get married at all - although marriage is not a sin. (Matt 19:10, I Cor 7:1, 7:27-28, 7:32-34, 7:38).

So, as you can see one can not make such a blanket statement that "gay theology" or the "gay agenda" is redefining marriage when it is quite obvious from history, biblical history as well, that marriage was never pigeon holed in the first place. It's just not that simple,,,

_

After Gilgamesh has a series of bad dreams, Enkidu comforts him, saying, “’Take my hand, friend, and we shall go [on] together, [let] your thoughts dwell on combat!’” (Tablet IV).

Ten Years From Now | NOM Blog

Klingenschmitt: Gay Couple Wanting To Marry Is 'In A Hurry To Run Into Hell' | Right Wing Watch

On his "Pray In Jesus Name" program today, Gordon Klingenschmitt, a newly-elected Republican member of the Colorado legislature, discussed this case and wondered why these women were in such a hurry to condemn themselves to Hell.

"Isn't it a tragedy when you can't have homosexual sin right away?" he asked, mockingly. "That's what they're alleging and, of course, it's ridiculous. In God's government, that sin ought to be delayed indefinitely. And, in fact, if they remained abstinent until death, maybe they wouldn't be punished for the sin that they're trying to expedite."

With a sigh, Kilngenschmitt then lamented that "some people are in a hurry to run into Hell":

Klingenschmitt: Gay Couple Wanting To Marry Is 'In A Hurry To Run Into Hell' | Right Wing Watch

Turek: States Should Defend The Institution Of Marriage Just Like The South Defended Slavery | Right Wing Watch

Turek was advocating for a governor to simply refuse to recognize or enforce any federal court ruling striking down their state's gay marriage ban, much like how Andrew Jackson refused to enforce a Supreme Court ruling concerning relations with Native Americans. He predicted that if they were to do so, President Obama would then send out the National Guard to arrest them, at which point Christians would rally around the governor, resulting in all of them ending up in jail.

When hosts Tim Wildmon and Ed Vitagliano wondered just where they might find a governor courageous enough to take such a stand, Turek suggested that South Carolina would be a perfect choice because that state has a history of being willing to fight for states' rights, as demonstrated by the Civil War.

"It started in South Carolina with the Civil War as you know," Turek said, "for the same kind of issue: states' rights. Obviously the issue is different. I mean, slavery was different than obviously this. But, I mean, it was a states' rights issue"

So again we have a Reicher doling out a standard canard: that laws passed by referendum - by direct vote of the people - are somehow superior to laws adopted by ordinary statute and are therefore beyond judicial review. But hidden in Turek's diatribe is nullification, the theory advocating a state’s right to declare a federal law unconstitutional and therefore void. An issue decided on by the SCOTUS in Cooper v. Aaron that states do not have the right to refuse to enforce federal laws simply because they don’t like them. [See also: Bush v. Orleans Parish School Board, 364 U.S. 500 (1960), Ableman v. Booth, 62 U.S. 506 (1859), and United States v. Peters, 9 U.S. (5 Cranch) 115 (1809)]

What is boils down to,,,

1. The Supremacy Clause of Article VI - the Constitution and federal laws are "the supreme law of the land,,,"
2. Article III of the Constitution - the federal judiciary has the final power to interpret the Constitution.

Sorry Frank, stick to the bile, there is no precedence and easier to twist to your own agenda.

Turek: States Should Defend The Institution Of Marriage Just Like The South Defended Slavery | Right Wing Watch

Catholic Capitulation on Marriage | R. R. Reno | First Things

A demonstration of how entrenched right wing ideology is within the minds of some within the Catholic Church. R.R. Reno compares Pope Francis’ appeal to the church to treat gay people more like actual human beings, to the church’s treaty with Adolf Hitler.

These are unforced capitulations. They don’t involve legal coercion. In Creighton’s case, the action was taken over the objection George Lucas, archbishop of Omaha. Which is why I read them as the beginning of what will be a fairly widespreadcapitulation on gay marriage and homosexuality by leaders of Catholic universities and institutions.

[,,,]
I’m sure Pius XII would have denied that signing a Concordat with Hitler’s Germany meant he approved of Nazism. But it conferred legitimacy and dramatically undercut any basis within the Church for resistance. The same goes for the concordat many Catholic institutions are signing with gay marriage. It confers legitimacy on the sexual revolution and undercuts resistance.

I can understand why Pius XII sought the Concordat with Hitler. He hoped to secure a stable basis for the Church’s ministry in Germany. I can also understand why many Catholics (including, perhaps, Pope Francis) want to make their peace with the sexual revolution, putting “divisive” culture-war issues behind them so that they can go on with the work of the Gospel and so forth. Moreover, Hitler in 1933 didn’t look so bad—and respectable gay couples don’t seem a threat to marriage or anything else.

But Pius misjudged, as the horrors that followed made painfully evident. Our age is different. But I fear that when the full implications of the sexual revolution are manifest—calls for marriage equality will lead directly to calls for reproductive equality and a fundamental redefinition of the family—we’ll rue our concordat.

Totally out of step with reality and at odds with the views of the people sitting in the pews.

Catholic Capitulation on Marriage | R. R. Reno | First Things