Muddling Toward Maturity Blog

NEW YORK TIMES: "YOUNG OPPONENTS OF GAY MARRIAGE UNDAUNTED BY BATTLE AHEAD"

I think this NYT article by Ashley Parker both insightful and fair though some of the statistics allegedly favoring gay marriage need substantial updating.   Reuter's latest poll shows only 41% support for gay marriage.  (See my comments below).   Excerpts from the NYT article:

They identify themselves as part of the “pro-marriage movement” and see themselves at the beginning of a long political struggle, much like the battle over abortion. If they can begin shifting the terms of the debate away from gay rights and toward the meaning of marriage, they say, they have a chance to survive short-term defeats. . .

“Proponents of same-sex marriage have done a fantastic job of telling the story of same-sex marriage through music and television and film,” said Eric Teetsel, 29, the executive director of the Manhattan Declaration, which describes itself as a movement of Christians for life, marriage and religious freedom. “I think it’s really a case where once they hear the other side of the issue, and really think about it deeply, we’re going to win a lot of those folks back.” . . .

Last week, the Heritage Foundation released a report by Ryan T. Anderson, 31, in defense of traditional marriage, “Marriage: What It Is, Why It Matters, and the Consequences of Redefining It.” Mr. Anderson, a Heritage Foundation fellow, has also held briefings for members of Congress, their staff members and others to explain his arguments against same-sex marriage, and he and two co-authors released a book last year laying out their case in depth. . .

“When you de-link marriage from childbearing, you then have to increase the complexity of that relationship,” said Caitlin Seery, 25, the director of programs for the Love and Fidelity Network, which works with college groups to advocate traditional marriage. 

Opponents of same-sex marriage say they realize they may lose the current fight, but they optimistically take the long view, pointing to Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court case that legalized abortion. At the time, they say, opponents of abortion were told their cause was lost, but the fight continues 40 years later. . .

“If you take the longer view of history — I’m not talking just 15 years, I’m talking 40 years or even 100 years — I can’t help but think that the uniqueness of man-woman marriage will be adjudicated over time,” said Andrew T. Walker, 27, a policy analyst at the Heritage Foundation.

 Either way, they are not planning on giving up any time soon.

 “Even if we are doomed, and I’m totally naïve, I think it’s important that I do this work anyway,” said Mr. Teetsel, of the Manhattan Declaration. “If what I believe is true is true, then I’ve got a responsibility to be on its side for as long as I can be.”

Me: Read the whole article.  You'll be surprised at the number of young people in their 20s who are involved in the pro-marriage movement.  One problem with statistics in the article is that they are now inaccurate.  The Family Research Council cited yesterday an "astonishing large survey sample" conducted by the Reuters Corporation that showed only 41% of Americans support same-sex marriage.  Keep reading for FRC's summary of Reuter's latest poll.

CAN WE STILL PRAY AT GOVERNMENT MEETINGS?

From the Family Research Center (FRC):  [I have highlighted in bold print certain sentences to help introduce the subject under discussion}

On January 7, the director of FRC's Center for Religious Liberty, Ken Klukowski, filed a compelling brief with the U.S. Supreme Court concerning efforts to prevent prayer at the beginning of government meetings (whether they be municipal, county, state, or federal).

Signed by 49 Members of Congress, including the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, the document makes a convincing argument that prayers before government meetings are constitutional and a matter of religious liberty for all Americans. You can read the brief in its entirety here.

FRC filed the brief on behalf of the Members to support the Alliance Defending Freedom's petition to the U.S. Supreme Court in the case Town of Greece v. Galloway. In Galloway, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled that the use of public prayer before town meetings in the town of Greece, New York was an unconstitutional violation of the First Amendment.

The Second Circuit Court maintained that a prayer is unconstitutional if it contains frequent Christian references or if those saying the prayer say "we" when offering it. Also, the Second Circuit Court ruled that government-meeting prayers are unconstitutional if too few prayers in a given venue are offered by non-Christians. Ironically, this was despite the town of Greece's highly inclusive policy that allowed even practicing Wiccans and atheists to offer civic prayers.

In the brief, Klukowski argues:

Since its creation, the United States House of Representatives has begun its daily sessions with prayer. Both chambers of the First Congress passed resolutions to hire a salaried chaplain, whose foremost duty is to open each session with a formal invocation seeking the blessing of God on the people's elected Representatives as those leaders discharge their official duties ... These (congressional signatories) regard legislative prayer as important for policymaking bodies, both to solemnize official occasions and to seek God's blessing, wisdom, and guidance in making consequential decisions. Each Member also represents municipalities, school districts, and counties--not unlike Petitioner Town of Greece--and part of a sovereign State, each of which is governed by a body that practices legislative prayer at the outset of its meetings and sessions.

FRC President Tony Perkins, noting the importance of the case, said:

The Founders understood that religion is good for society, and defended "the free exercise thereof." Family Research Council is honored that 49 Members of Congress, including the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, have chosen FRC to present their arguments to the nation's highest Court. We hope the Supreme Court will reject the freedom-threatening Second Circuit opinion in this case, and reverse it.

FRC's friends at the Alliance Defending Freedom have compiled a list of all relevant briefs, including FRC's and that of a group of distinguished theologians.

As we go forward advancing our cherished religious liberty in this effort, we ask for your prayers, both for wisdom for us and for a sound outcome from the nation's senior jurists.

Sincerely,

Rob Schwarzwalder
Senior Vice-President
Family Research Council

JOURNALISTIC LIES ABOUT THE FAMILY RESEARCH COUNCIL

The accusation: that FRC supports the death penalty for homosexuals in Uganda.  Totally false.  It doesn't.  But liberals spread their lies fervently.  And that produces hate.  And hate produces killers.  One man recently tried to kill all the members of the FRC office staff.

PLease read the following statement by the Family Research Council:  (The bolding is my own)

It used to be that the media reported the story. Now they are the story. With fewer journalists able to separate the news from their personal politics, groups like FRC are no longer fighting bias--but outright deception. If you read Monday's Update or follow me on Twitter, then you know that FRC was highly complimentary of Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni, who took the bold step of leading his country in a public prayer of confession for a multitude of sins Uganda committed over the last 50 years, including the genocide of Idi Amin. "We want Uganda to be known as a nation that fears God and as a nation whose foundations are firmly rooted in righteousness and justice..."

Not surprisingly, the U.S. media wasn't nearly as impressed by this gesture as FRC--a fact I alluded to in a tweet that same day. "American liberals are upset that Ugandan Pres is leading his nation in repentance--afraid of a modern example of a nation prospered by God?"

Well, as we learned two years ago, if you want to get the press's attention, just say the word "Uganda" and wait for the firestorm. For years, the African nation has been condemned for its severe laws criminalizing homosexuality. Despite allegations to the contrary, FRC has never supported that policy--or any policy that imposes the death penalty on homosexuals. What we do oppose is the suggestion that gay and lesbian acts are universal human rights. So when Congress introduced a resolution in 2010 denouncing Uganda's punishment for homosexuality, FRC fought--at the request of some Members--to strike the pro-homosexual "human rights" language from the final measure.

Several liberals, including David Weigel at the Washington Post, chose to misrepresent our involvement as an indication that we opposed the entire bill! "Family Research Council Lobbied against Resolution Condemning Uganda Anti-Homosexuality Law," Weigel's headline read. It was a convenient storyline for extremists like the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) who resort to demonizing FRC when they can't compete with us ideologically. Although Weigel later posted a retraction, the damage had already been done.

Now, more than two years later, the lies about FRC's position have resurfaced. After Monday's story, HRC had the audacity to post that by applauding President Museveni, FRC was "praising the 'kill the gays' bill." I challenge anyone with a half a brain to read my tweet or Update story and conclude that FRC is any way supporting the death penalty of homosexuals. But gay activists have their hooks so deeply in the mainstream media that reporters no longer bother to check their facts. Once the blogs start spreading the lies of organizations like HRC and SPLC, they percolate up to reporters like Carolyn Lochhead at the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, who regurgitate HRC's garbage without so much as a courtesy call to our office. And these aren't harmless little lies either. They're the same intentional misrepresentations that led to the controversy over FRC's alleged ties to Chick-fil-A--culminating, as you may remember, in the violent shooting of one of our own employees!

Americans need to understand that this cozy relationship between the liberal media and unreliable sources like HRC is fostering a culture of hatred and violence--that same culture that led to the attempted mass murder of the entire FRC office. While it's troubling that any organization would deliberately spread untruths, it's more disturbing that someone who claims the title of journalist would report these lies as fact. Is it any wonder that distrust of the media is at an all-time high?

Update 11/30/12 - Current news is that Uganda's anti-homosexuality bill will not contain the death penalty.

WASHINGTON UPDATE FROM THE FAMILY RESEARCH COUNCIL

Todays update:

A Time to Spend ANDA Time to Cut

July 18, 2012 - Wednesday

It may be the last appropriations bill released this year, but it's by no means the least! Congressman Denny Rehberg (R-Mont.) made sure of that. As Chairman of the House subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Rep. Rehberg gave Planned Parenthood and NARAL plenty to complain about when he unveiled his Committee's spending plan for the next fiscal year. Apart from shaving off billions from the Labor, HHS, and Education Department budgets, the measure also takes direct aim at ObamaCare, its mandates, and abortion. Even the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, home to the Left's pet media outlets NPR and PBS, would lose the crutch of millions of taxpayer dollars.

To the delight of most taxpayers, Planned Parenthood would be the bill's biggest casualty. With the blessing of Appropriations Chairman Hal Rogers (R-Ky.), conservatives took an axe to the organization's federal gravy train--zeroing out every last penny to America's largest abortion business. Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) tried to reinstate the funds in today's mark-up, but failed 9-5. In fact, under the leadership of Rep. Rehberg, the Committee went the other direction adding a bundle of other pro-life policies. The Chairman also took the opportunity to attach the Abortion Non-Discrimination Act (ANDA) to the broader bill, which would help end discrimination against pro-lifers in the health care industry. If it survives, ANDA would give medical workers legal recourse if they're sidelined for their pro-life views.

And speaking of conscience rights, employers might have a fighting chance at protecting theirs after today's debate. Despite enormous pressure to pull the language, Rep. Rehberg stuck to his guns and included a section that exempts employers who have moral objections to contraception or abortion pills from covering them. Rep. Nita Lowey (D-N.Y.) did her best to strike the policy, but Republicans doubled up the opposition and voted her amendment down 9-5. And they didn't stop there! The good news spilled over into two other provisions: one blocking the funds for ObamaCare's implementation and another restoring $20 million for abstinence education grants, which had been all but destroyed when President Obama took office.

Of course, the media is counting out the bill before it even reaches the floor. Help prove them wrong! Contact Republican leaders Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) and House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) and encourage them to schedule the legislation--and its pro-life, pro-freedom gains--for a vote.

Boy Scouts' Courage Merits Support

Despite relentless pressure to make its message more politically correct, the Boy Scouts of America (BSA) has never wavered from instilling character into generations of America's sons. And according to national spokesman Deron Smith, that won't change any time soon. After an extensive two-year review, which involved everyone from executives to adult volunteers, the organization reaffirmed its commitment to keeping the Scouts "morally straight" yesterday by upholding its ban on homosexuality. "The vast majority of the parents of youth we serve value their right to address issues of same-sex orientation within their family, with spiritual advisers, and at the appropriate time and in the right setting," Smith said. "[We] came to the conclusion that this policy is absolutely the best policy for the Boy Scouts."

For years, the Scouts have taken a public beating from the Left--all because they stayed focused on what benefits the boys they serve rather than turning the organization on its head to meet the needs of a handful of homosexuals who want to be scout masters. The BSA tried to create membership criteria in the best interest of kids' safety and parents' rights.

In 2010, when the group made dozens of cases of child sexual abuse from the 1960s-1980s public, it was obvious that the organization wasn't arbitrarily opposed to homosexual scout leaders when it banned them from serving in the late 1990s (a decision that the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed in 2000). Far from being intolerant, the Scouts took the necessary steps to cut down on the episodes of men sexually abusing boys that had been plaguing the BSA since the middle of the last century. Allowing the Scouts to appoint leaders who represent their values protects other organizations' rights of association and preserves the peace of mind of parents who want to make sure their children are mentored in healthy ways.

Most people don't realize that nearly 70 percent of all Scout troops were chartered and are supported by faith-based organizations. If homosexuals were allowed to serve in the BSA, thousands of churches would be forced to disenfranchise their troops, effectively killing the organization. So today, while so many continue to pile on the Scouts, FRC salutes them. Whether it's learning how to sharpen a knife, cook a meal, or help a neighbor, the BSA has invested billions of hours into creating generations of responsible citizens. But more importantly, the Scouts are teaching boys something our culture doesn't: how to become men worthy of respect.

** For more on the Boy Scouts, don't miss my interview on today's "Mike Huckabee Show." Click here for the audio.