As he attempts to rebrand himself as a spiritual leader, Glenn Beck has surrounded himself with religious and secular figures who share a fervent opposition to the “homosexual agenda.”
David Barton, founder and president of WallBuilders, spoke at Beck's August 27 event, “Divine Destiny.” He also led the August 16 Glenn Beck Morning Prayer, one of a series of recorded prayers posted online in the days leading up to Beck's rally.
Opposing military service by gay men and lesbians, Barton argued that homosexuality “was long considered too morally abhorrent and reprehensible to openly discuss.” In a 2001 article posted to the WallBuilders website, Barton argued that “there is substantial merit for maintaining the ban on homosexuals in the military.” Barton wrote that “General Washington held a clear understanding of the rules for order and discipline, and as the original Commander-in-Chief, he was the first not only to forbid, but even to punish, homosexuals in the military.” He further stated that “Based on the statutes, legal commentaries, and the writings of prominent military leaders, it is clear that any idea of homosexuals serving in the military was considered with repugnance; this is incontrovertible, with no room for differing interpretations. The thought of lifting this proscription is a modern phenomenon, and would have brought disbelief, disdain, and condemnation from those who established our Armed Forces.” After explaining why “the military [should] be concerned with a person's morality,” Barton discussed why “homosexuality [should] concern a society:”
Why Should Homosexuality Concern a Society?
Public discussions concerning homosexuality are a purely recent phenomenon; it was long considered too morally abhorrent and reprehensible to openly discuss. Consider, for example, the legal works of James Wilson, a signer both of the Declaration and the Constitution and appointed by President Washington as an original Justice on the U. S. Supreme Court. Wilson was responsible for laying much of the foundation of American Jurisprudence and was co-author of America's first legal commentaries on the Constitution. Even though state law books of the day addressed sodomy, when Wilson came to it in his legal writings, he was too disgusted with it even to mention it.
In view of the arguments listed by historical and legal sources, there is substantial merit for maintaining the ban on homosexuals in the military. The Founders instituted this ban with a clear understanding of the damaging effects of this behavior on the military. This ban has remained official policy for over 200 years and one would be hard-pressed to perceive the need for altering a policy which has contributed to making America the world's foremost military power.
Barton reportedly spoke at event to promote gay-marriage amendment. The Minneapolis Star Tribune reported on November 11, 2005, (accessed via Nexis) that Barton was among the speakers at an event designed to promote a state constitutional amendment that would ban same-sex marriage:
At the end of a day of presentations from leading state and national social conservatives, participants were asked to sign a five-point pledge to pray for the proposed constitutional amendment, preach “on God's plan for marriage,” collect petitions, register voters and distribute information on the amendment effort.
The pastors' summit was organized by the Minnesota Family Council in the belief that “the only thing that stands in the way of legalization of same-sex marriage in Minnesota is the church,” said Chuck Darrell, of the council's Minnesota for Marriage project.
Attendees heard speakers who described how pastors have spearheaded marriage amendment drives in states from Oregon to Maine, offered tips for churches to get active without forfeiting tax-exempt status and recounted the history of religious leaders engaging in the American political culture.
David Barton of the Texas-based group Wallbuilders said the Bible condemns not only homosexuality but also capital-gains taxes, progressive income taxes, estate taxes and minimum-wage laws.
State Sen. Michele Bachmann, R-Stillwater, the Legislature's chief proponent of the proposed amendment, led one session on its uncertain status in Minnesota, while her husband, Christian therapist Marcus Bachmann, led another on “the truth of the homosexual lifestyle.”
Barton's group published election guide claiming Obama “supports curriculum that promotes homosexuality. WallBuilders published a voting guide in 2008 claiming that Obama supports “Homosexual Education,” i.e. “curriculum that promotes homosexuality,” and did not “refuse to support gay pride celebrations.”
Dobson endorsed a sermon blaming “lesbian sex” for the “wrath of abandonment” by God, which could result in destruction of a U.S. city. On the June 4, 2007, edition of his radio show, Dobson broadcast and endorsed a sermon by John McArthur, which announced that “You know a society has been abandoned by God when it celebrates lesbian sex,” and that as a result of America's abandonment, “God would be just” in destroying a U.S. city. During his introduction to the sermon, Dobson stated: “I happen to agree with what John MacArthur was saying on this day, and I want to thank him and his team and Woodman Valley Chapel for allowing us to share this message.”
Dobson predicted that same-sex marriage would lead to “group marriage,” incest, bestiality. On the October 7, 2005, edition of his radio show, Dobson predicted that allowing same-sex marriage in the United States would lead to “group marriage,” “marriage between daddies and little girls,” or “marriage between a man and his donkey.” Dobson called this vision of the future “more or less a prophecy,” though, he stressed, not a “divine prophecy, but a prediction.” He said that his specific examples, as well as “anything allegedly linked to civil rights,” will be “doable, and the legal underpinnings for marriage will have been destroyed” if same-sex marriage is legalized.
Dobson claimed homosexuality results when a child doesn't “reattach to his father” emotionally. On the November 22, 2006, edition of CNN's Larry King Live, Dobson offered the following explanation for what causes homosexuality: "[I]t has to do with an identity crisis that occurs too early to remember it, where a boy is born with an attachment to his mother and she is everything to him for about 18 months, and between 18 months and five years, he needs to detach from her and to reattach to his father. It's a very important developmental task and if his dad is gone or abusive or disinterested or maybe there's just not a good fit there. What's he going to do? He remains bonded to his mother."
Dobson joined Medved in warning about the homosexual “subtext” in children's film Happy Feet. During the December 11, 2006, edition of Dobson's radio show, guest Michael Medved claimed that the children's film Happy Feet, an animated film about penguins living in Antarctica, contains a “subtext, as there so often is, about homosexuality.” Dobson then questioned whether the filmmakers are “getting at the idea that homosexuality is genetic.”
Calling for a constitutional amendment to forbid same-sex marriage, Dobson wrote that the “homosexual activist movement ... is poised to administer a devastating and potentially fatal blow to the traditional family.” In his September 2003 newsletter headlined “Marriage on the Ropes,” which is still available on Focus on the Family's South African website, (PDF version) Dobson wrote that “The homosexual activist movement, which has achieved virtually every goal and objective it set out to accomplish more than 50 years ago, is poised to administer a devastating and potentially fatal blow to the traditional family.” Dobson went on to say that “the institution of marriage is on the ropes and western civilization itself appears to hang in the balance” because, in part, the Canadian Supreme Court found the “exclusivity of marriage between one man and one woman to be unconstitutional,” the “U.S. Supreme Court struck down the Texas law prohibiting sodomy,” and a " virtual avalanche of gay and lesbian advances that have descended on us." He went on to discuss the “gay and lesbian movement['s] ... shocking and outrageous objectives:”
The history of the gay and lesbian movement is that its adherents quickly move the goal line as soon as one has been breached, revealing even more shocking and outrageous objectives. In the present instance, homosexual activists, heady with power and exhilaration, feel the political climate is right to tell us what they have wanted all along. This is the real deal: most gays and lesbians do not want to marry each other. That would entangle them in all sorts of legal constraints. Who needs a lifetime commitment to one person? The intention here is to destroy marriage altogether. With marriage as we know it gone, everyone would enjoy all the legal benefits of marriage (custody rights, tax-free inheritance, joint ownership of property, health care and spousal citizenship, etc.,) without limiting the number of partners or their gender. Nor would “couples” be bound to each other in the eyes of the law. This is clearly where the movement is headed.
Studies show that homosexual men, in particular, have a difficult time honoring even the most basic commitments of “marriage.” A recent study conducted in the Netherlands - a “progressive” nation in which gay marriage has been legal for several years - found that the average homosexual relationship lasts only 1.5 years, and that gay men have an average of eight sexual partners per year outside of their “primary” relationship! Does that sound like a stable child-rearing environment to you? By stark contrast, 67 percent of first marriages in the United States last 10 years or more, and more than 75 percent of heterosexual married couples report being faithful to their vows.
I have only begun to describe the meltdown that will occur if same-sex marriage is finally thrust upon society. But for the moment, there is time to act. It will be too late if we don't act now. How can we counter the drive to obtain legal recognition of same-sex marriage? It is with a Constitutional amendment.
Rep. Randy Forbes (R-VA) led a prayer during “Divine Destiny.”
Forbes cosponsored the “Marriage Protection Amendment” that would amend the Constitution to define marriage as “the union of a man and a woman.” Forbes cosponsored proposed constitutional amendments in both the 111th Congress and the 110th Congress that would define marriage as only “the union of a man and a woman.” From the bills' text:
Section 1. This article may be cited as the 'Marriage Protection Amendment'.
Section 2. Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.
Forbes on banning employment discrimination based on sexual orientation: “Eventually if we chip away at enough of our values we'll lose our foundation.” In a November 8, 2007, Washington Times article (accessed via Nexis) on the House passing the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which would prohibit discrimination against employees on the basis of sexual orientation, the paper reported that "[s]ome conservative lawmakers also say extending special rights to homosexuals could harm protections granted to married couples." It then quoted Forbes as saying that "[t]his country's great because of the ideals of our Founding Fathers, but eventually if we chip away at enough of our values we'll lose our foundation."
Gallagher is a professional anti-gay activist. Gallagher is the president of the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy and is the founder and chairman of the board of the National Organization for Marriage (NOM). Both groups are virulently opposed to the “threat to marriage” they claim is posed by same-sex marriage. Under Gallagher's leadership, NOM spent nearly $2 million in support of Proposition 8, which banned same-sex marriage in California.
Gallagher: Polygamy is “better” than same-sex marriage, “winning the gay-marriage debate” comparable to the fall of Communism, losing that debate “means losing American civilization.” In a July 14, 2003, National Review column, Gallagher claimed that "[p]olygamy is not worse than gay marriage, it is better," because "[a]t least polygamy, for all its ugly defects, is an attempt to secure stable mother-father families for children." Gallagher went on to argue that there has not been a “culture that has survived without a reasonably functional marriage system” and that losing the debate over gay marriage “means losing American civilization.” She also likened the battle over gay marriage to the battle against communism, stating that "[w]inning the gay-marriage debate may be hard, but to those of us who witnessed the fall of Communism, despair is inexcusable and irresponsible."
Gallagher supports constitutional ban on same-sex marriage. In her March 3, 2004, testimony before the Senate's Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Property Rights, Gallagher expressed her support for an amendment to the Constitution that would ban gay marriage. Gallagher concluded that “when we lose the ideal” of a marriage between a man and a woman, “the likelihood of deprivation, poverty and suffering for children dramatically increase.” She also criticized the argument that discriminating against same-sex couples is akin to discriminating against interracial couples, claiming that "[t]he race analogy implies that people who believe that children need mothers and fathers are the legal and moral equivalents of racists," and stated that "[l]aws banning interracial marriage had nothing to do with the purposes of marriage. They were about keeping two different races separate so that one race could continue to oppress the other. Marriage, by contrast, is about bringing two different sexes together."
Gallagher opposes same-sex marriage, claiming "[i]t's wrong for government to base a policy on a lie about human nature." In a April 9 speech at Franciscan University, Gallagher expressed her opposition to same-sex marriage, stating that “marriage is the union of a man and a woman because children need a mom and a dad.” She also contended that "[i]t's wrong for government to base a policy on a lie about human nature." Gallagher included "[t[he same-sex marriage battle" as a “part of a larger crisis in marriage” that she had been combating for 20 years.
Gallagher suggested same-sex marriage would set the legal precedent for polygamy. In a May 20, 2008 op-ed, Gallagher alleged that California's decision to allow same-sex marriage set the precedent for polygamy. Gallagher claimed that “the California court grounded same-sex marriage in a larger human right to form families of choice and to have the government sanction all family forms as having equal dignity” and asked: “Polygamy anyone?” Gallagher also attacked California's ruling, claiming that “Protestants, Catholics, Jews and Muslims who see marriage as the union of husband and wife, and view sexual activity as best confined to marriage so defined, are in the exact position as racists under California law.”
Gallagher suggested same-sex marriage will redefine “infidelity” and “monogamy.” In a June 17, 2008, op-ed, Gallagher suggested that gay marriage would lead to a redefinition of “infidelity” and “monogamy” in our culture:
Oddly, at the moment of its greatest apparent victory, the consequences of gay marriage are becoming ever more clear.
As the gay marriage movement becomes more confident of inevitable victory, it is also becoming more open and explicit about what gay marriage will mean for the rest of us.
For example, redefining “infidelity.” Back in the '90s, when Andrew Sullivan first suggested gay couples had a thing or two to teach opposite-sex couples about our rigid insistence on sexual fidelity, public reaction was so negative that he recanted (and to this day he gets mad if you even mention he said it!).
But from the new-won confidence of his legally recognized gay marriage in Massachusetts, Eric Erbelding is quite comfortable explaining to The New York Times: “Our rule is you can play around because, you know, you have to be practical.” Eric says most married gay couples he knows are “for the most part monogamous, but for maybe a casual three-way.”
For the most part ... except for the casual three-way?
Try explaining that one to your wife.
But hey, if the word “marriage” can be redefined as a civil rights imperative, why balk at lesser ideas like “monogamy” or “fidelity”?
Gallagher: “Many gay married couples reject 'heteronormative' assumptions about marriage.” In another June 17, 2008, article, this time for National Review Online, Gallagher claimed that “many gay married couples reject 'heteronormative' assumptions about marriage.” She again cited Andrew Sullivan and Eric Erbelding's comments about fidelity and monogamy and also cited those of David Benkof, “a gay columnist who gave up sex with men when he adopted a Torah-observant lifestyle” who criticized the "[p]roblematic kinds of relationships that are 'commonly found in the LGBT community but virtually unheard of among opposite-sex couples.'" Gallagher also claimed that polygamy could be the “next natural step” of same-sex marriage and that “if fidelity in marriage is culturally optional ... the case for monogamy will surely be weakened as well.”
Jim Garlow, senior pastor of Skyline Wesleyan Church in San Diego, led the August 19 Glenn Beck Morning Prayer.
Garlow: “We need to repent of those that would try to destroy marriage.” Leading the August 19 Glenn Beck Morning Prayer, Garlow discussed what it means to “restore honor.” Garlow proceeded to attack abortion, euthanasia, government debt, and same-sex marriage:
It means that we have to move back to integrity. We have to move back to embracing moral values -- God-given, biblical values. And so as a nation, we need to repent of certain things -- the repenting of 50 million babies being killed in the womb. We need to repent of a debt that 535 people in Washington, D.C., along with an executive officer, would run our nation in such severe debt that they would literally involved themselves in robbery and debt of future generations. They would be taking property, in effect, from those yet unborn. That's immoral. That's a Biblical issue.
We need to repent of those that would try to destroy marriage, the definition of marriage, and redefine it so that little children -- little boys and little girls -- would have two daddies and two mommies. In other words, 100 percent of those families would lack either a mommy or a daddy, the most bedrock institution in all of history.
During Glenn Beck Morning Prayer, Garlow plugged website which opposes same-sex marriage. During his morning prayer, Pastor Garlow plugged the website Prayandact.com several times. The “About” section of the website lists “three foundational principles of justice and the common good,” including the “sacredness of marriage as the covenantal union of husband and wife.” The website “call[s] on all faithful Christians to join us in the fight to ... protect and revitalize marriage.” In addition to Garlow, Black Robe Regiment members James Robison and Richard Land are listed on “The People” section of PrayandAct.com.
Garlow “founded and led” group of pastors that campaigned for California's Proposition 8. According to his bio, Garlow “founded and led the California Pastors Rapid Response Team, a group of several thousand pastors that was committed to preserving the traditional, natural definition of marriage as being one man, one woman, which recently experienced a victorious campaign with Proposition 8 receiving over 7 million votes, 52.3% of the vote.” Proposition 8, passed in 2008, amended the California state constitution to provide that “only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”
Garlow: Same-sex marriage will lead to churches being “forced to hire active homosexuals,” pastors “imprisoned” for preaching against “homosexual acts.” In an August 6 statement responding to a federal court overturning Proposition 8, Garlow wrote:
The day will come -- not immediately, but eventually -- unless this foolishness is ended -- when churches will be forced to hire active homosexuals. Pastors will be forced to perform gay marriages, or their churches will lose their 501(c)3 status, and consequently, in many cases, they'll lose their church buildings. Like [Swedish] Pastor Ake Green, pastors will be fined and imprisoned for advocating a biblical view of homosexual acts.
Although critics scoff at this suggestion, they most certainly don't seem too concerned about the thought of it happening. They suffer from a severe case of political amnesia, forgetting that there was a day -- not so long ago -- when the radical homosexual agenda was satisfied with “civil unions” and “domestic partnership” saying, “we will never ask for the word 'marriage.' ” Only the most historically inattentive could fail to note these continual gradations.
Garlow reportedly encouraged his followers by telling the story of a pastor who told him same-sex marriage would unleash “a spirit worse than radical Islam.” On October 2, 2008, Sandhya Bathija of Americans United for the Seperation of Church and State listened in on a conference call organized by Concerned Women of America in which Garlow spoke with participants about campaigning for Proposition 8. According to Bathija, Garlow offered the following encouragement to the callers:
“When I find myself up past the midnight hour,” he said, “asking 'why am I doing this?' I think of the conversation that took place in Cairo, Egypt, between an Egyptian Christian pastor who has been severely persecuted by Islam and a man named Lou Engle” (Engle is the theocracy-minded founder of The Call, a fundamentalist youth movement, who is leading a 40-day fast to pass Proposition 8.)
“When Lou was in Cairo, Egypt,” Garlow continued, “this pastor said to him, as a pastor that suffers at the hands of radical Islam, he said, 'The eyes of the world are on California. We're watching California and the vote on marriage. Because if you fail there to stop it, if you fail to stop it, what will be unleashed across the world will be a spirit worse than radical Islam.' ”
HAGEE: All hurricanes are acts of God, because God controls the heavens. I believe that New Orleans had a level of sin that was offensive to God, and they are -- were recipients of the judgment of God for that. The newspaper carried the story in our local area that was not carried nationally that there was to be a homosexual parade there on the Monday that the Katrina came. And the promise of that parade was that it was going to reach a level of sexuality never demonstrated before in any of the other Gay Pride parades. So I believe that the judgment of God is a very real thing. I know that there are people who demur from that, but I believe that the Bible teaches that when you violate the law of God, that God brings punishment sometimes before the day of judgment. And I believe that the Hurricane Katrina was, in fact, the judgment of God against the city of New Orleans.
Hagee said the coming Antichrist will be “a blasphemer and a homosexual.” On March 16, 2003, Hagee reportedly gave a sermon in which he warned of the coming Antichrist, which he described as a seductive figure with “fierce features,” as well as “a blasphemer and a homosexual.”
Father Terence Henry, president of Franciscan University in Steubenville, Ohio, led the August 26 Glenn Beck Morning Prayer.
Henry: People “who do not honor or acknowledge God” want to “redefine the institution of marriage.” Leading the August 26 Glenn Beck Morning Prayer, Henry invoked the people in our country that “do not honor or acknowledge God.” He said, “They want to exercise control over life at its very beginning through abortion, and the power to end lives if they deem them no longer useful, through euthanasia. They want to redefine the institution of marriage, as revealed by God in the Book of Genesis. They, in effect, want to substitute themselves for God, which is the Original Sin.” During the prayer, he also compared Beck to Paul Revere.
Franciscan University reportedly bans “groups that promote homosexuality.” According to a March 7, 2008, report in The New York Sun, a guide of conservative Catholic schools lists Franciscan University as one of several Catholic colleges that “often require several courses in Catholic theology and ban co-educational housing, as well as groups that promote homosexuality.”
Franciscan University offers courses that refer to homosexuality as “deviant behavior” that “beset” the “inalienable rights and duties of parents.” Franciscan University's 2010-2011 undergraduate course catalog lists courses titled “Deviant Behavior” and “Human Life Studies II: Life Issues and the Family” that include the study of homosexuality as a “deviant behavior” and a “social force” besetting the family:
DEVIANT BEHAVIOR focuses on the sociological theories of deviant behavior such as strain theory, differential association theory, labeling theory, and phenomenological theory. The behaviors that are primarily examined are murder, rape, robbery, prostitution, homosexuality, mental illness, and drug use. The course focuses on structural conditions in society that potentially play a role in influencing deviant behavior.
HUMAN LIFE STUDIES II: LIFE ISSUES AND THE FAMILY explores the social, historical, political, and ethical dimensions of the family and the inalienable rights and duties of parents, which are beset today by such social forces as divorce, homosexuality, radical feminism, population control, eugenics, and State control of the family. An appreciation of the family and the duties and rights of parents is central to respect for the dignity of human life.
Alveda King, niece of Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., spoke at Beck's August 28 event at the Lincoln Memorial.
At Beck's “non-political” event, King spoke out against same-sex marriage. Despite Beck's repeated insistence that the event would be non-political, King used her speech to warn that the “procreative foundation of marriage is being threatened,” and listing that as one of the reasons “America is nearly bankrupt.”
King compared same-sex marriage to “genocide.” At an August 7 National Organization for Marriage Rally in Atlanta, King said: “It is statistically proven that the strongest institution that guarantees procreation and continuity of the generations is marriage between one man and one woman. I don't know about you, but I'm not ready to be extinct and none of us wants to be. We don't want genocide, we don't want to destroy the sacred institution of marriage.”
King reportedly told Coretta Scott King her support for abortion rights and gay rights would bring “curses on your house and your people.” On August 27, Salon reported of Alveda King: “In 1994, she released a letter condemning Coretta Scott King's support for abortion and gay rights, saying it would bring 'curses on your house and your people ... cursing, vexation, rebuke in all that you put your hand to, sickness will come to you and your house, your bloodline will be cut off.'”
King: Repealing DOMA would “unleash a storm of sexual immorality.” In a column published November 17, 2008, by LifeSiteNews.com, King wrote: “Add to this Mr. Obama's unprecedented support for homosexual rights and anti-procreative marriage legislation, which includes his promise to overturn the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and which would unleash a storm of sexual immorality such as America has never seen: then we can see which way the wind is blowing.”
King: Obama's purported “support of gay marriage” is “anathema to the dream of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.” In a August 15, 2008, Townhall column, Floyd and Mary Beth Brown quoted King as saying, “Senator Obama's answer to the ills of society, of higher government spending, weaker national defense, continued tax dollars to Planned Parenthood, and support of gay marriage, are diametrically opposed to everything African Americans truly believe and an anathema to the dream of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.”
Land expressed his desire to instruct his parishioners to vote against candidates who support same-sex marriage. During an interview with Media Matters' Joe Strupp, Land said he planned to boost voter involvement in his church and guide parishioners to use their voting rights to influence government decisions. As Strupp reported:
Land also said he planned to boost voter involvement and guide parishioners to use their voting rights to influence government decisions on many issues.
“Energizing all of our members to register to vote, to be informed as to where the country stands on issues and leave it to them to connect the dots,” Land said. “I will do my best to make sure they know what the bible says about the sanctity of human life, marriage and the notion of man.”
Asked to be more specific on which issues he would discuss with parishioners with regard to voting, he cited abortion, same-sex marriage, assisted suicide and out-of-wedlock births.
“I think gay marriage is an oxymoron,” Land said. “Marriage is between a man and a woman.”
Land's group filed an amicus brief in support of Proposition 8. On August 16, CNSNews.com reported:
Dr. Richard Land, president of the Ethics and Religious Liberties Commission (ERLC) of the Southern Baptist Convention, said the judge's finding was disturbing, but predictable -- his denomination had filed a “friend of the Court” to challenge the finding even before the decision was issued.
“We filed an amicus brief case in this case because we had already heard that this was out there, and that the people who were making the appeal to overturn Proposition 8 were going to say that the religious beliefs of Southern Baptists and Roman Catholics and other groups 'create an animus' and were 'the products of centuries of hate,'” Land said.
The biblical position on homosexuality isn't “hate speech,” he said.
“The confession of faith of the Southern Baptist Convention, which states what the Bible says about the family and about marriage - those are not the products of centuries of hate or animus toward homosexuals. They are adherence to the revealed teachings of the Creator of the universe -- God Almighty. These are religious affirmations of revealed truth,” Land said.
“It is quite clear that God condemns same-sex relations as particularly abhorrent. And if that is indeed the case, and we believe it is, it is an act of love towards those who are engaged in such relationships to tell them that they are violating the most sacred laws of God,” he said. “It would be indifference -- or worse -- to not tell them.”
Land called for a constitutional amendment “defining marriage as being between one man and one woman.” In an August 4 statement reacting to the ruling that found Proposition 8 unconstitutional, Land said:
“If and when the Supreme Court agrees with the lower court, then the American people will have to decide whether they will insist on continuing to have a government of the people, by the people and for the people, or whether they're going to live under the serfdom of government by the judges, of the judges and for the judges.
”Our forefathers have given us a method to express our ultimate will. It's called an amendment to the Constitution. If the Supreme Court fails to uphold the will of the people of California -- if we are going to have our form of government altered by judicial fiat -- then the only alternative left to us is to pass a constitutional amendment defining marriage as being between one man and one woman.
Land called decision of CA Supreme Court to allow same-sex marriage “incredible judicial arrogance.” On the August 16 broadcast of his radio show, Land called the California Supreme Court's 2008 decision to allow same-sex marriage, and the implementation of that decision, a case of “incredible judicial arrogance,” and mocked the court for having found “some previously undiscovered constitutional right for people of the same sex to get married to each other.”
Rabbi Daniel Lapin, president of the American Alliance of Jews and Christians, spoke at “Divine Destiny” and led the August 17 Glenn Beck Morning Prayer. Lapin is also a member of Beck's newly created Black Robe Regiment.
Lapin claimed that “in time,” “homosexual behavior does indeed threaten the durability of a society.” In a May 9, 2005, column co-written with Rev. Ken Hutcherson, Lapin responded to criticism of his position on homosexuality. He and Hutcherson said that “homosexual behavior does indeed threaten the durability of a society -- maybe not immediately, but in time.” They further stated that "[b]y the time the perils of homosexual marriage become obvious, it might well be too late" because "[i]t is hard, if not impossible, to think of a society for which rampant homosexuality was not a symptom of impending extinction."
Lapin compared a gay pride event in Jerusalem to “the Nazis marching in Skokie.” In an April 6, 2005, article from the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, Lapin was quoted saying his initial reaction to hearing about a 10-day Jerusalem World Pride festival was “that it was déjà vu ... This was the Nazis marching in Skokie.” Lapin was referring to an incident in 1977 when the National Socialist Party of America -- an American neo-Nazi group -- attempted to stage a march in Skokie, Illinois, a suburb of Chicago that was home to a large population of Holocaust survivors. Lapin claimed that he was “not saying that the homosexuals are Nazis,” but that “there is such a thing as deliberate provocation. To hold the march in Jerusalem, which is certainly the center of biblical civilization -- and this is the same Bible that tells us that homosexuality is immoral -- is a provocation.”
Lapin referred to the decision to support defining marriage as only between a man and a woman as choosing “life over death.” In a column for United Press International (accessed via Nexis), Rabbi Lapin lamented the fact that Americans were ignoring a Senate vote against a constitutional amendment that would define marriage as only “the union of a man and a woman.” Lapin suggested to “those who ignore the public debate on homosexual marriage and to those who feel it is irrelevant in their lives and to those who advertise their tolerance by singing 'live-and-let-live,' ” that “the time has come to choose continuity over change. The time has come to choose heaven over earth, and yes, life over death.”
Lapin praised Schlessinger for opposing “the radical project of gay activists ... to eliminate religious values from public life.” In a May 30, 2000, press release, available via the internet archive (PDF version), which was excerpted in The Washington Times (accessed via Nexis), Lapin defended Dr. Laura Schlessinger as “one of America's most forceful and persuasive advocates for traditional marriage and family” after she came under fire for controversial remarks on homosexuality. He continued by praising the fact that Schlessinger “opposes the radical project of gay activists, and the secular Left in general, to eliminate religious values from public life.” Lapin also criticized Procter & Gamble for withdrawing as a sponsor of Schlessinger's show for being an “example of how often ideology trumps business judgment. P&G has always marketed its products to families. Very few homosexuals buy Pampers.”
Lapin: Same-sex marriage “has the potential to cause significant damage to the essence of our society.” In a statement on the Vermont Supreme Court's decision to grant marital benefits to same-sex partners, available via the internet archive (PDF version), Lapin claimed that “The Court's decision will negatively affect the family structure that has served society so well for hundreds of generations.” He further wrote that “married partners provide a vital service to society, that same-sex partners can not provide.” Lapin also claimed that "[u]nless it is over-ruled, it has the potential to cause significant damage to the essence of our society."
Patrick Lee, a professor of bioethics at Franciscan University of Steubenville, spoke at “Divine Destiny.”
At Beck's “non-political” 8-27 event, Lee denounced same-sex marriage. Despite Beck's repeated insistence that the event would be non-political, Lee stated during “Divine Destiny” that marriage “is not up to our choice, rather marriage has an objective nature, and we as a community must respect the true nature of marriage.”
Lee: The argument that that “same-sex unions are marriages ... harms children and families” is “sound.” In a July 1, 2008, article for The Monist, Lee wrote that he agreed with the argument made by professor Margaret Somerville that allowing the “political community [to] declare that (some) same-sex unions are marriages ... harms children and families,” saying that “Margaret Somerville's argument is sound,” and adding that same-sex couples who raise children are not married, just as hetrosexual couples who choose not to raise children are not married:
Should the political community declare that (some) same-sex unions are marriages? Margaret A. Somerville has ably argued that it should not, that doing so harms children and families. Adele Mercier vehemently disagrees, describing Professor Somerville's argument as “contorted,” “circular,” based on “inert premises;” accusing her of multiple confusions, and of harboring “hidden (or at least unacknowledged) motives.”
I argue, on the contrary, that Margaret Somerville's argument is sound, the confusions attributed to her by Professor Mercier are not actually in her argument, and so we need not speculate about Professor Somerville's motives. Her motives are likely just what they appear to be, and what I hope are Professor Mercier's too, namely, a lively concern for families and married life, and for the legitimate rights and well-being of everyone affected by what the political community affirms in its laws regulating marriage.
The argument advanced by Margaret Somerville is essentially this. In every society we find the following type of relationship: an inherently procreative relationship between men and women, that includes a commitment to share their lives with each other, and if children come to be, to rear those children together. That such a community does exist in every society is indisputable. Of course, other relationships are sometimes called by the word 'marriage', but these are different types of relationship. For example, men and women may cohabit and view children as merely an optional extra or as burdens to be avoided. Or two or more individuals may form a friendship for the sake of raising children--for example two sisters, or several celibate religious men or women. But neither of these relationships should be described as marriages. Finally, two people of the same sex may perform sexual acts on each other, may have a friendship, and also be dedicated to raising children together. But this also is not the same type of community as marriage; for in this arrangement, the sexual relationship is unrelated to the purpose of raising children.
Lee: “If the state declares same-sex unions equivalent to marriage, it obscures the nature of marriage ... Doing that will almost certainly further weaken the institution of marriage.” In the same article, Lee wrote:
A second reason why the political community should protect and promote genuine marriage is this: where this institution is strong, people's sexual passions and energies--which are frequently difficult to control, and can lead to self-centeredness and exploitation--are channeled toward an intelligible good. It is not that the sexual impulse must be repressed; rather, it needs to be directed to a genuine good.And the intelligible goods it realizes and promotes are marriage itself and families built on the foundation of marriage. In a good marriage one's sexual desires and actions are integrated into one's commitment to one's family and spouse. If the state declares same-sex unions equivalent to marriage, it obscures the nature of marriage--a community that transcends romantic affections. In effect, it will send themessage that marriage is centrally about the romantic attachment andsexual relationship of adults to (or among) each other rather than about a relationship which by its nature is oriented to and suited forbecoming family. Doing that will almost certainly further weaken theinstitution of marriage.
Lee: Legalizing same-sex marriage would “inevitably send” fathers the message “that their role is despensable.” In the same article (later portions accessed via Nexis), Lee wrote:
Ideally, then, the child should be raised by his or her own loving and responsible biological parents. In a society that respects, promotes, and protects genuine marriage, this will happen much more frequently than in a society which in effect falsely tells fathers that their role is dispensable--a message that redefining marriage to include same-sex unions would inevitably send. For, since most same-sex couples have no intention of raising children, and since a same-sex union is not especially suited for that--in contrast to genuine marriage--to declare same-sex unions marriages would affirm that marriage is essentially concerned only with sexual or romantic relationships between adults, rather than a community structured by its orientation to becoming family. This would affirm, as Professor Somerville points out, that marriage is a mere social construct rather than a natural institution antedating the legal pronouncements of the state. Moreover, there would then be no principled reason why marriage should be long-lasting, or only between two people, these requirements being logical consequences of marriage's orientation to children.
Lee launched petition campaign in support of Sen. Sam Nunn's opposition to “lift[ing] the ban on military service for homosexuals.” According to an April 3, 1993, article in the Atlanta Journal and Constitution (accessed via Nexis), Lee placed ads in the Atlanta Journal and Constitution and the New York Times “encouraging people to sign petitions supporting Sen. Sam Nunn (D-Ga.), chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, in his opposition to President Clinton's announced intention to lift the ban on military service for homosexuals.” Lee also reportedly “said he does not support a possible compromise on the issue ... that would simply eliminate questions about sexual orientation from military enlistment documents.” Additionally, the article quoted Lee encouraging Nunn “to remain strong in his original statements that homosexuals have no place in the military.”
Lee: “Preserving the traditional family is vital to the future of any great nation.” In his June 2009, article on the “Seven Principles of the Judeo-Christian Ethic,” Lee wrote:
The biblical view of marriage and family is the basis of our society and serves as the backbone of a healthy social order. The clear plan of God involves a man and a woman producing children within the institution of marriage. Since the joining together of Adam and Eve, marriage has been defined as a holy union between one man and one woman, and out of that union comes children born into a loving home with a father and a mother to nurture them and teach them how to become healthy, productive and responsible citizens.
When God's definition of “marriage” and “family” are no longer respected, these institutions become meaningless. World history has proven over and again that preserving the traditional family is vital to the future of any great nation.
Miles McPherson, pastor of The Rock Church in San Diego, spoke at “Divine Destiny.”
McPherson linked homosexuality and pedophilia, called on congregation to “protect the children” from the “homosexual agenda.” As blogger and author Alvin McEwen noted, McPherson wrote a May 30, 2004, weekly message on his church's website entitled “Sodom and Gomorrah, A City Inflamed,” in which he advanced false claims about a purported connection between homosexuality and pedophilia. As McEwen reported, the post has since been removed from McPherson's site, but is still available from the Internet Archive (PDF version). From the message:
Even in today's society there are absolute moral laws in practice; rape and murder are universally condemned as wrong, yet there is an agenda being pushed on us that says homosexuality is normal and natural and right.
Consequences of a Homosexual Lifestyle
God's Word tells us differently and He provides us of the evidence that homosexuality is not natural or normal. There are physiological repercussions from homosexual behavior; male homosexuals are 430 times more likely to contract HIV than a heterosexual, while heterosexuals have a 1-in-750,000 chance of contracting the virus responsible for HIV, a male homosexual has a 1-in-165 chance of getting HIV. A 20 year old gay male has a 30% chance of either dying or contracting AIDS before the age of 30. They are also 23 times more likely to get other sexually transmitted diseases than a heterosexual.
There are also moral repercussions stemming from homosexual behavior as evidenced by the fact that one third of all sexual crimes against children are committed by homosexuals even though they are representative of only one percent of the population. Pedophilia has even been called central to the gay lifestyle. The agenda of the North American Man Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) is to lower the age of consent so that sex with children will be legal.
Emotionally people suffer from homosexuality. Gays are five times more likely to commit suicide than a straight person. They are suffering depression because of God's judgment and their alienation from Him. So God not only tells us what is right and wrong but that by continually doing what is wrong there will be consequences and this is all evident to us so we have no excuse in suppressing the truth.
McPherson's post also called on his congregation to take action against the “homosexual agenda”:
- The righteous pray for God's intervention. We need to at the very least protect the children with our prayers and actions. Talk to your schools, your churches and your congressmen about your opposition to the homosexual agenda.
- The righteous provide for security, like Lot who would not allow the angels to sleep outside and counseled them to leave the next morning.
- The righteous point out sin and the coming judgment. This leads to the righteous being called judgmental because people do not like to be told they are wrong.
The righteous response by God will be that He will warn us as he did with Abraham. He will save the righteous as He did with Lot and finally He will stop the spread of sin through judgment, as He did with the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. God's grace is the only thing that protects us from suffering the penalty for our sins which is death.
McPherson: “Satan uses the marriage issue to attack the image of God.” As blogger Jeremy Hooper noted, on June 9, 2008, McPherson wrote of same-sex marriage: “This isn't a political or cultural battle; it's a spiritual battle being fought right before your eyes. This issue is so much bigger than either side realizes. As Satan uses the marriage issue to attack the image of God, I urge you to pray for our state.” The post has since been removed from McPherson's site, but is still viewable on the Internet Archive (PDF version).
McPherson reportedly “campaigned in support of Proposition 8.” Los Angeles Times reported that McPherson “campaigned in support of Proposition 8, which banned same-sex marriage in California.”
Chuck Norris, a syndicated columnist, spoke at “Divine Destiny.”
Norris: “we should ... adamantly oppose such aberrant sexual behavior from being condoned or commemorated in our public schools.” From Norris' March 25, 2008, column:
Lastly, I was appalled when I read the American Family Association report that on Friday, April 25, several thousand schools across the nation will be observing a “Day of Silence,” or DOS, which is a nationwide push to promote the homosexual lifestyle in public schools. (DOS is sponsored by an activist homosexual group - the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network.)
Is encouraging or teaching about homosexuality what our forefathers expected for the public education they founded? Even the most liberal among them opposed it. For example, Thomas Jefferson drafted a bill concerning the criminal laws of Virginia, in which he proposed that the penalty for sexual deviance should be unique corporal punishment. Jefferson's views were indeed representative of early America.
“Whosoever shall be guilty of rape, polygamy, or sodomy with man or woman shall be punished, if a man, by castration, if a woman, by cutting thro' the cartilage of her nose a hole of one half inch diameter at the least” (Bill 64, 1779). Can you imagine a statesman proposing such a law today?
While I'm not of course espousing such treatment, I do believe that we should equally and adamantly oppose such aberrant sexual behavior from being condoned or commemorated in our public schools through textbooks or a so-called “Day of Silence.”
Norris said supporters of CA marriage amendment were “following 5,000 years of human history,” defending “honest convictions regarding the boundaries of marriage.” From Norris' November 17, 2008, column on Proposition 8:
The truth is that the great majority of Prop 8 advocates are not bigots or hatemongers. They are American citizens who are following 5,000 years of human history and the beliefs of every major people group and religion - that marriage is a sacred union between a man and a woman. Their pro-Prop 8 votes weren't intended to deprive any group of their rights - they were safeguarding their honest convictions regarding the boundaries of marriage.
Norris defended Boy Scouts over anti-gay policy. From Norris' June 28 column:
New York is not the only city in which the BSA is feeling some backlash. Since 1928, the BSA in Philadelphia has been housed in a government building rent-free. The city of Philadelphia decided to revoke this special housing-provision privilege because, officials said, BSA's national policy banning gays violates the city's nondiscrimination policies. (On Wednesday, a Philadelphia jury ruled in favor of the Boy Scouts, meaning they will not be evicted from their home or forced to pay rent, at least for now.)
One 1991 BSA position statement states: “We believe that homosexual conduct is inconsistent with the requirement in the Scout Oath that a Scout be morally straight and in the Scout Law that a Scout be clean in word and deed, and that homosexuals do not provide a desirable role model for Scouts.”
Wouldn't you think with all of the cultural hot water the BSA are in, in our courts and in the public square, that the honorary president of the BSA might defend their First Amendment rights to assemble and believe as they have for 100 years?
President Obama became the honorary president of the BSA in March of 2009, and the White House didn't even mention it. And ever since, any discussion or interactions with the BSA have been “don't ask, don't tell.” And how could they, since the president would then have to publicly acknowledge that, as honorary president of BSA, he affirmed the Scout Oath, belief and policies, which prohibit atheists and agnostics from membership, and “avowed” homosexuals from leadership roles?
Sarah Palin spoke at Beck's August 28 event at the Lincoln Memorial.
Palin opposed extending benefits to same-sex couples. In a 2007 interview with Newsweek, Palin expressed her opposition to granting same-sex couples benefits that married couples receive:
In an August 2007 interview with NEWSWEEK, Palin said she had upheld such benefits (angering fellow conservatives) but only because the state Supreme Court said it was unconstitutional to deny them:
NEWSWEEK : And do you have a position on that? Would you like to see it? Do you care?
PALIN: I would vote to further define the definition of marriage as it pertains to benefits even--yes, I would.
NEWSWEEK: That is, not extend benefits to same-sex couples?
PALIN: Correct. And if it took an amendment to our constitution, I would go there ...
Palin: “I wish” there were a federal amendment baring same-sex marriage becase “I don't support gay marriage.” In an interview with CBN's David Brody, Palin stated that she had “voted along with the vast majority of Alaskans who had the opportunity to vote to amend our Constitution defining marriage as between one man and one woman.” She continued by expressing her support for a federal constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, stating: “I wish on a federal level that that's where we would go because I don't support gay marriage.”
Palin refered to homosexuality as a “choice.” In an interview with CBS's Katie Couric on September 30, 2008, Palin responded to media reports about whether the Wasilla Bible Church had “sponsored a conference where gays could be made straight through prayer.” Palin claimed that “the media gets it wrong” and that she didn't “know what prayers are worthy of being prayed.” Palin further elaborated on the issue of homosexuality stating: “I am not going to judge Americans and the decisions that they make in their adult personal relationships.” Palin continued to explain that a gay friend of hers “happens to have made a choice that isn't a choice that I have made” to be gay.
Robison referred to homosexuality as “detrimental to society.” A May 25, 2003, article on Robison in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram quoted the pastor responding to criticism of his views on homosexuality by saying, “Don't call me homophobic. Don't put some fascist title on me because I believe your lifestyle is detrimental to society. ... But now you can practice your lifestyle.”
Robison warns of coming “self-destruct[ion]”: “if we can just keep getting more of our men to have sex with more men, we won't have to worry about babies being born.” On the December 2, 2004, edition of NPR's Fresh Air, host Terry Gross aired a clip from the documentary With God on Our Side: George W. Bush and the Rise of the Religious Right, in which Robison warned of self-destruction caused by men having sex with men, among other things:
GROSS: Let's hear another archival clip from With God on Our Side. This is evangelist James Robison.
ROBISON [audio clip]: Mr. Lincoln said, “We may very well self-destruct.” You don't have to look too long to see the possibility of it today. After all, if we can just keep getting more of our men to have sex with more men, we won't have to worry about babies being born. And if we can just get more women to get out there in the marketplace and start acting like men, and if we can just get other women to look at motherhood as though it is some dread terminal illness, if we can just get society so drunk and so drugged, if ever anybody does get pregnant, then we can abort the baby! That's where we are!
Stanley: "[N]othing is happy or gay about the destructive behavior of homosexuality." In his book Landmines in the Path of the Believer: Avoiding the Hidden Dangers, Stanley wrote that “nothing is happy or gay about the destructive behavior of homosexuality”:
Recently we have witnessed one sexual scandal come to light after another. Lives are shattered by sin. Families are being torn apart by actions of people who are out of control.
Some proclaim they are living a gay lifestyle, but nothing is happy or gay about the destructive behavior of homosexuality. Anything that opposes the principles written in God's Word leads to one ending -- the end Solomon mentioned, a place of extreme emptiness where wind and sorrow breach the soul. Ultimately it ends in a place of extreme sorrow and separation from God. [page 190]
Stanley: “A home is not two men married together, or two women married together, it is a husband and a wife.” In a July 2 sermon about the “rising tide” of socialism in our country, Stanley purported to enumerate the various pieces of evidence of a “war” on Jesus and Christianity taking place in the U.S. He highlighted removing “God's word concerning marriage” and said that “a home is not two men married together, or two women married together, it is a husband and a wife.”:
And then, of course, one other thing at this point as far as this tide is concerned, is we've decided to remove God's word concerning marriage. The very foundation of a nation is its homes. And a home is not two men married together or two women married together, it is a husband and a wife.
The Bible is crystal clear. So you see, if you want to have a society that is rampant with wickedness, you have to get rid of the word of God. So we've decided or trying to decide, some people are, that we do not want the Biblical view of marriage.