Blog Categories

Blog Archives

Post Tags

Darlene Bogle Gay Civil Rights Gay Marriage Proposition 8 Reconciliation; Freedom2be Sharing Our Stories SOS
Category: Proposition 8

Appeals court sets hearing on Proposition 8 | L.A. NOW | Los Angeles Times

Written by ECWR Web
Tuesday, 16 November 2010 14:24
No Comments

Appeals court sets hearing on Proposition 8 | L.A. NOW | Los Angeles Times.

A federal appeals court Monday scheduled a two-hour hearing on Proposition 8, California’s anti-gay marriage initiative, for Dec. 6.

The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has asked attorneys on both sides to devote the first hour of the hearing to arguments on whether anyone has legal authority to appeal the August district court ruling that found the measure unconstitutional.

The second hour will be spent on questions of the measure’s constitutionality.

California voters resurrected the state’s ban on same-sex marriage in November 2008. The ruling against the measure by a federal judge in San Francisco is on hold pending the 9th Circuit’s decision.

 

“The View” Argues Over Gay Marriage

Written by ECWR Web
Saturday, 13 November 2010 14:56
No Comments

 

Judge keeps gay marriages in California on hold

Written by ECWR Web
Thursday, 12 August 2010 13:19
No Comments

By PAUL ELIAS (AP)
SAN FRANCISCO — A federal judge on Thursday put gay marriages on hold for at least another six days in California, raising hopes among same-sex couples that they soon will be able to tie the knot after years of agonizing delays.

Judge Vaughn Walker gave opponents of same-sex weddings until Aug. 18 at 5 p.m. to get a ruling from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on whether gay marriage should resume. Gay marriages could happen at that point or be put off indefinitely depending on how the court rules.

Walker struck down the state’s voter-approved gay marriage ban last week in a case many believe is destined for the Supreme Court.

Dozens of gay marriage supporters who had gathered outside San Francisco’s City Hall, a block from the federal courthouse, erupted in cheers when the decision came out. The crowd included a handful of same-sex couples who had arrived early Thursday morning to fill out marriage license applications in hopes that the judge would allow nuptials to commence immediately.

Teresa Rowe, 31, and her partner, Kristin Orbin, 31, said they were still happy with the decision even though the ceremony didn’t happen.

“It’s sad that we have to wait a little longer, but it’s been six years,” Rowe said.

In his original ruling, Walker moved to suspend gay weddings until he could consider arguments from both sides on whether the marriages should be allowed during an appeal of his ruling. He now says gay marriage should resume, but he gave conservatives the extra time to get the appeals court to weigh in.

Charles J. Cooper, lead counsel for the Proposition 8 supporters, said his legal team intends to ask the appeals court to immediately impose a stay of Walker’s ruling, a move that would halt gay marriages while the case is pending before the 9th Circuit.

California voters passed Proposition 8 as a state constitutional amendment in November 2008, five months after the California Supreme Court legalized same-sex unions and an estimated 18,000 same-sex couples already had tied the knot.

Three people protested among the crowd to oppose Walker’s ruling Thursday.

“It’s a really sad day for Californians, for families, for our future and for voters that a federal judge has trampled on the civil rights of voters,” said Luke Otterstad, 24, of Sacramento.
Lawyers for gay couples, California Gov. Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Jerry Brown filed legal motions Friday asking that same-sex marriages be allowed to resume immediately.
Walker said on Thursday that ban proponents didn’t convince him that anyone would be harmed by allowing same-sex marriages to resume.

“The evidence at trial showed, however, that Proposition 8 harms the state of California,” Walker said.

Walker also turned aside arguments that marriages performed now could be thrown into legal chaos if Proposition 8 is later upheld by an appeals court.

But Walker said such weddings would appear to be legal even if the ban is later reinstated. He pointed to the 18,000 same-sex couples who married legally in the five months that gay marriage was legal in California as proof.

Walker also said that no one can claim harm by allowing same-sex weddings to go forward, but banning them harms gays.

Finally, Walker said it also appears doubtful that the opponents of the ban have any right to appeal his decision striking down a state law that he said should have been defended by either Gov. Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Brown.

Schwarzenegger and Brown each last week urged Walker to allow same-sex marriages to resume immediately and its unlikely they will join the appeal of Proposition 8.
“I am pleased to see Judge Walker lift his stay and provide all Californians the liberties I believe everyone deserves,” Schwarzenegger said after the ruling.

The case now goes before a special “motions panel” of three judges at the appeals court, the largest and busiest federal appeals court in the nation with jurisdiction over nine western states.

The panel consists of two judges appointed by Democrats and a third by a Republican.
President Ronald Reagan appointed Judge Edward Leavy to the appeals court in 1987. Leavy, who is semi-retired, has served as judge in the state and federal courts in Oregon since 1957.
President Bill Clinton nominated Judge Michael Daly Hawkins to the court in 1994 and Judge Sidney Thomas in 1995.

Hawkins, based in Phoenix, served as Arizona’s U.S. Attorney under President Jimmy Carter and also worked as a special prosecutor for the Navajo Nation from 1985 to 1989.

Thomas, who keeps his chambers in Bozeman, Mont., made President Obama’s short list to fill the U.S. Supreme Court vacancy that was filled last week by Elena Kagan.

A new three-judge panel will be chosen sometime next year to decide the appeal. Lawyers for both sides have been ordered to file their legal arguments by the end of the year.

 

Poll finds Majority in California support gay marriage;

Written by ECWR Web
Sunday, 08 August 2010 01:19
No Comments

Los Angeles Times

April 6, 2010

Less than two years after Californians approved a ban on gay marriage, a new poll found that more residents support same-sex unions than oppose them.

A poll from the Public Policy Institute of California released in March found respondents backing gay marriage 50% to 45%. And a Times/USC poll last November found a 51%-to-43% division on the issue.
The poll shows Democrats and liberals supporting same-sex marriage by large margins and Republicans and conservatives opposing it by equally lopsided margins. There is also a huge variation by age, with registered voters younger than 30 supporting same-sex marriage by roughly 3 to 1, while a majority of those 64 and older were opposed.

The poll was conducted for The Times and the USC College of Letters, Arts and Sciences by two polling firms, the Democratic firm Greenberg Quinlan Rosner and the Republican firm American Viewpoint.

The People have voted twice on this issue in California to define marriage as between a man and a woman. In fact, We the People, have never voted to allow same sex marriage. The only states that allow it were either through Judicial orders or Legislative mandates. Put the issue to the vote and The Will of People is clear.

Angie wrote: Marriage is a not a “rights” issue…I’m so tired of gays thinking and convincing themselves that this is about rights!! Its not…and YES a MAJORITY of AMERICANS not just Californians do not support gay marriage…what you do is your business, you will be judged as we all will – but do not infringe on what the definition of Marriage is just because you want people to accept you for what you do!! Sorry….as long as you push we will continue to pull. But, polls like this are part of the liberal media machine…

Oh suuuuuure wrote: Riiiiiiight. Funny, first I heard about the ‘poll.’ I didn’t see it to put my two cents in. This is a liberal publication supporting a liberal cause. Anybody can make up a poll to ‘prove’ their point of view but this ‘issue’ has passed TWICE in this state by voting of the public to define marraige between a man and a woman. Now millions of dollars has been wasted for this issue. How long we gonna keep wasting money? Until the crying liberals get their way…

Alex wrote: I fully support gay marriage!!! and the tide is shifting, 50 years ago it was also the “will of the people” to ban inter racial marriage, but since then things have changed. Europe has already said all European countries will allow gay marriage within ten years, so far we have Spain, Sweden, Portugal, Norway that recognize gay marriage and scores more have civil unions like France, Germany, Brazil, UK etc. USA is next, they took long enough, but at least they recognize that marriage is a right and gays should therefore get it.

Gay marriage is coming to a town near you! Coming soon.

Nancy wrote: I guess I just don’t get it. I am in a happy, heterosexual relationship that is leading to marriage. I am religious – Babtist in my upbringing, in fact. Yet I simply cannot figure out how and why the marriage of a gay couple would threaten my partner and me in any way. I know of no divorces that were caused by some gay couple somewhere.

The arguments against gay marriage are arbitrary and completely irrational. It’s time to get on to far more important issues, like education, the economy and the environment. I believe the polls and seriously doubt that it’s some sort of liberal plot to convert everyone to gayness. Come on, folks, get a grip.

An ironic story – someone very close to me who is against gay marriage is in a mixed-race relationship. It wasn’t that long ago that her partner, a black man, would have been lynched for being with a white woman. The message: we who believe in equal rights shall overcome. And there’s a lot of hypocrisy in this whole issue.

Hang in there, my gay friends. We shall indeed overcome.
Our readers had a lot to say. We can’t include all the comments, but you can read more here. We want to hear from you. What are your thoughts on the poll? Do you believe it’s an accurate portrayal of how Californians feel about gay marriage now?

– Gerrick D. Kennedy (Follow me on Twitter @GerrickKennedy)

Photo: Joni Boettcher, left, kisses roommate Tika Shenghur during a protest march along Santa Monica Boulevard in West Hollywood in November 2008. Credit: Kevork Djansezian / Associated Press

 

Gay Rights Movement Becoming More Confrontational with Religious Right

Written by ECWR Web
Sunday, 08 August 2010 01:18
No Comments

Voice of OC
Sun Jun 20, 2010.
ADAM ELMAHREK


Monday, June 21, 2010 | As religious activists prepare a conference this week in Irvine aimed at praying away homosexuality, gay rights activists are confronting the gathering on several fronts, saying its message doesn’t lead to understanding and instead fuels hate.


Unlike past decades, gay rights activists say they increasingly are fighting back against misperceptions that fly in the face of science and the U.S. Constitution.


It’s an extension of the gay civil rights movement, they said, which is confronting religious teachings that tend to marginalize members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community.


Exodus International, the organization putting on the conference this week at Concordia University, promotes “freedom from homosexuality through the power of Jesus Christ,” according to its website.


Jeff Buchanan, director of the Exodus Church Association, says the annual conferences are to “promote a biblical worldview” and to offer an alternative for gays and lesbians struggling with their identities.


Over the weekend, gay rights activists held a counter-conference in Irvine, broadcasting a different message — you can’t pray away the gay.


In the biblical sense, “exodus” means a journey of escape by a large group from oppression or a hostile environment — as in the story of the Israelites’ Exodus from slavery in Egypt.
But critics — including an Exodus co-founder — say Exodus International’s ideology leads to the hostile environment that gay rights activists have been trying for decades to unweave from the social fabric. They also say attempts to treat homosexuals as having a disease is dangerous and could lead to self-harm or suicide.


“It morphed into something very different than what we intended,” said Exodus co-founder Michael Bussee. “I think something very dangerous.”


Bussee left Exodus in 1979 — three years after he started the organization — when he became disillusioned with the idea that anybody, much less himself, could become “ex-gay.”
Bussee also has personal experience with the consequences of promoting ideas that give way to a social stigma against gays and lesbians. While Bussee was in his hometown in Riverside in 2002, he and a gay friend, Jeffrey Owens, were attacked and stabbed by men shouting “faggot” at him. Bussee was beaten and stabbed in the back, but he survived.
Owens died on the operating table.


“I think the guys that attacked me and killed my friend were taught that gays are going to hell and need to repent,” Bussee said.


Although “it’s not cool to be homophobic anymore,” as Bussee put it, hatred against gays and lesbians lingers in the U.S. — one Bussee says that shouldn’t be encouraged.
“When you repeat the message that gays are sinful, diseased and broken,” Bussee said, “when you keep repeating that message to people who already feel marginalized … it fuels violence against them.”


There were 11 hate crimes against gays and lesbians reported in Orange County in 2008, according to an Orange County Human Relations Commission hate crime report.
Karen Ocamb, in a piece for the Huffington Post, noticed a stark uptick in Los Angeles and Santa Clara counties in the number of hate crimes against gays and lesbians in 2008, which was the year Proposition 8 was on the ballot.


Proponents of Proposition 8 argued, among other things, that traditional marriage is threatened by gay marriage and that sex education in schools would be perverted with descriptions of homosexual acts.


With that kind of opinion prevalent on the airwaves, hate crimes against gays and lesbians in Los Angeles County rose by 33 incidents, according to the county’s Commission on Human Relations.


And in Santa Clara County, half of the violent crimes reported in 2008 were hate crimes against gays and lesbians — up from 15 percent the year before.


Gay rights activists say they’re winning the battle against homophobia in the U.S., but groups like Exodus International undermine that struggle. They say Exodus doesn’t understand the social harm its approach unleashes.


A history of anti-gay sentiment in Orange County offers one example. A 1978 California ballot initiative that would have banned gays and lesbians from working in public schools was proposed by John Briggs, who was a Republican state senator from Orange County.
A majority of statewide voters rejected it.


One worst-case scenario has recently manifested in Uganda, an African nation that not only criminalizes homosexual acts, but might also see a law passed that would impose the death penalty on people convicted of them.


The month before the introduction of the bill in early 2009, speakers at a workshop in the Ugandan capital, Kampala, made sweeping accusations against gays, saying that gay men had tendencies to molest children and that there was a gay agenda to destroy the marriage-based society.


That workshop featured, among other American evangelicals, Exodus board member Don Schmierer.


Exodus President Alan Chambers has since released a public apology for Schmierer’s involvement with the conference:
Criticism is easy to come by at Exodus. We are a large and diverse organization made up of many members. Our growth over the years has caused us to not always know what the hand or foot are doing, which sometimes causes us to look like we are “all butt.” That’s humanity for you, even Christian humanity.


Mainstream psychology shuns treatment of homosexuality as an illness, and the American Psychological Association says guideline No. 1 when giving psychotherapy to gays and lesbians is that “psychologists understand that homosexuality and bisexuality are not indicative of mental illness.”


Psychology professor Daniel Helminiak, who spoke at the counter-conference, says that engaging in behavior control to suppress homosexual feelings is psychologically damaging.
“Sexuality is a central part of what a person is,” Helminiak said. “Unless somebody makes peace with it — all other personal growth dead ends.”


And Chris Prevatt, an activist who has been involved with gay rights and HIV awareness causes since the mid-1980s, says the Exodus ideology gives gays and lesbians a hopeless view of life.
“They give these people they supposedly want to help two choices — change or be damned,” Prevatt said.
But Buchanan says there are no adverse psychological effects as a result of Exodus’ message or its methods. He says suppressing homosexual feelings is “no different than anyone that is trying to live up to biblical standards” and that the idea that sexual identity defines a person with that kind of totality is overblown.
“I am more than just my sexual identity, and I don’t see this as a strictly sexual identity issue,” Buchanan said.
Critics say that because the approach doesn’t work, leaders of groups like Exodus often turn out to be hypocrites.
Wayne Besen, a gay rights activist, caught John Paulk — former chairman of the board of Exodus International in North America — at a gay bar flirting with men. Besen snapped a photo of Paulk at the bar, and Exodus ended up firing Paulk.
Then there’s George Rekers — who sat on the board of the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality. Rekers was caught at an airport with a male prostitute he allegedly found on a male escort website.
Rekers’ excuse? He hired the man to help him with his luggage.
“George Rekers was an industrial-sized nail in their coffin,” Besen said.
Buchanan dismissed the actions of Rekers and Paulk, saying they were irrelevant to the cause.
“It does not discredit the experience of hundreds of thousands of men and women regarding our message,” Buchanan said.
Not all Christian denominations view gays through the Exodus International lens. Episcopalians, for example, have elected two openly gay bishops in the past seven years,
Bussee is a Christian, and so is Helminiak.
Reverend Paul Tellstrom of the Irvine United Congregational Church, which hosted the counter-conference, said Exodus’ conference mirrors prejudices still ingrained in American culture and has nothing to do with Scripture.
Tellstrom said his church has come a long way since its members hanged women during the Salem Witch Trials. He said a Congregational church was the first to ordain an African-American, Lemuel Haynes, as minister in 1785, and the first to ordain a woman as minister, Antoinette Brown, in 1853.
Tellstrom points to his church’s progressive interpretation of the Bible as proof that churches can change their positions on issues over time.
“When you look in retrospect, I think we’ve been right on the main issues of justice,” Tellstrom said.
Please contact Adam Elmahrek directly at aelmahrek@voiceofoc.org and follow him on Twitter: twitter.com/adamelmahrek. And add your voice with a letter to the editor.

 

The Gay Marriage Ruling: What Now?

Written by ECWR Web
Sunday, 11 July 2010 21:58
No Comments

Posted by Brian Montopoli
CBS/AP

Yesterday, a federal district judge in Boston declared that the federal ban on recognizing same-sex marriage – as articulated in the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA – is unconstitutional.

The judge, Joseph Tauro, based his decision on the notion that states, not the federal government, have jurisdiction over the definition of marriage. If his decision holds up through appeals – and that’s a big if – it would mean that the federal government would likely have to recognize those same-sex marriages already recognized by states, and thus provide benefits like Medicaid to same-sex partners.

To be clear: The decision would not mean that both federal and state governments would have to recognize same-sex marriage nationwide. Instead, it would mandate that the federal government would have to recognize same-sex marriages already recognized by Massachusetts and other states that recognize gay marriage. (The case actually dealt with a specific group of people looking for specific benefits, but the broader implication is that the relevant section of DOMA would fall.)

The case now could move from the district court to the U.S. court of appeals for the first circuit, which includes three other New England states; it could then go to the Supreme Court. Ironically, an appeal to the decision would come from the Justice Department of the Obama administration, which wants to repeal DOMA but must defend it so long as it remains law.

This is not the only high-profile same-sex marriage case now before the courts: in California, both sides are now awaiting a decision in a major lawsuit to overturn the Proposition 8 same-sex marriage ban. That case (Perry v. Schwarzenegger) is predicated on the argument that the state’s voter-backed ban of same-sex marriage violates the Constitution’s due process and equal protection provisions.

If the plaintiffs are successful and the decision is sufficiently broad, that case would go further than the Massachusetts decision – it would essentially bring down both state and federal limits on same-sex marriage (and effectively make America a nation where all gay couples could get married). Like the Massachusetts decision, there is a decent chance that the California case will end up before the Supreme Court.

Robert George, a professor of jurisprudence at Princeton University as well as the chairman of the National Organization for Marriage, which works against same-sex marriage efforts, said in an interview with Hotsheet that he believes the Massachusetts decision was wrong. He cites examples in which the federal government recognizes marriage for various purposes, such as the filing of tax returns.

“I believe that the federal government does have the power to define marriage for purposes of federal law,” he said – even if it doesn’t have the power to define it for the purposes of state law.

George, founder of the American Principles Project, also suggests that the arguments in the two gay marriage cases essentially contradict each other. That’s because, he argues, while the Massachusetts case is predicated on states’ rights over federal rights, the California case is predicated on the reverse.

“It seems to, if you take the logic of the [Massachusetts] opinion, lead to the proposition that the Supreme Court or the federal judiciary would not have the power to, for example, overturn Proposition 8 in California, because that would constitute the federal government intervening on behalf of the state to define marriage,” he said.

“So while there is lots of applauding of this decision by the advocates of same-sex marriage, the logic seems to undermine their position,” he added.

But Jennifer Pizer, marriage project director of gay rights group Lambda Legal, says George has it wrong.

“Equal protection rules [in the Constitution] apply to both states and the federal government,” she said in an interview. “The Boston litigation addresses Congress mistreating a group and Congress interfering with a state. The federal government statute has both of those problems. And Prop. 8 is about a state violating the rights of a group – one of those problems.”

She added: “The basic idea here is that all government in the United States is required by the Constitution to treat people equally. And anti-gay marriage rules are not equal treatment. So if a state violates that principle, the state violates the Constitution. And if Congress violates that principle, Congress violates the Constitution.”

“The decisions yesterday in the Boston cases reinforce the arguments made in the Prop. 8 litigation because defenders of these anti-gay rules in California and in the Boston litigation relied on some similar arguments,” argued Pizer. “And so the conclusions in the Boston cases explain why those anti-gay arguments fail to justify marriage discrimination.”

There is no clear timeline for when all this will be resolved – the Supreme Court has discretion over whether and when to take up either same-sex marriage case, and both cases could go away if Proposition 8 or DOMA are overturned by voters or Congress. One thing we do know: If the cases do reach the high court, they will likely yield landmark rulings that won’t be forgotten anytime soon.

 

Mormons throw support behind gay-rights cause

Written by ECWR Web
Thursday, 12 November 2009 02:12
No Comments

By ERIC GORSKI (AP) – 2 hours ago

It looked like a stunning reversal: the same church that helped defeat gay marriage in California standing with gay-rights activists on an anti-discrimination law in its own backyard.

On Tuesday night, after a series of clandestine meetings between local gay-rights backers and Mormons in Salt Lake City, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints announced it would support proposed city laws that would prohibit discrimination against gays in housing and employment.

The ordinances passed and history was made: It marked the first time the Salt Lake City-based church had supported gay-rights legislation.

The Mormon church — which continues to suffer a backlash over its support last year of Proposition 8, the measure banning gay marriage in California — emphasized that its latest position in no way contradicts its teachings on homosexuality.

But the action is one of the strongest signs yet that even conservative religious groups that oppose same-sex marriage might be willing to support legal protections for gays that fall short of that.

At the same time, the church’s position has angered some of its conservative allies on social issues, prompted questions about whether public relations is its real motivation, and put the church on the spot over how far it will go on similar legislation on the state and federal level.

“This is a very good public relations response that has the additional benefit of actually representing the way the current church leadership thinks,” said Armand Mauss, a retired professor at Washington State University and scholar of Mormonism.

Some of the church’s conservative allies in the gay marriage battles, however, call it a setback. The two new ordinances make it illegal to fire or evict someone for being gay, bisexual or transgender.

Such legislation robs employers and landlords of their rights and gives legal ammunition to judges sympathetic to gay marriage, said Peter Sprigg, senior fellow for policy studies at the conservative Family Research Council.

“It’s disappointing and I’m fearful that it reflects in part a reaction to the attacks they came under after Proposition 8 — an effort to bend over backwards to exhibit tolerance toward homosexuals in some way,” Sprigg said.

Michael Otterson, director of public affairs for the Mormon church, said Wednesday that church leaders were able to support the ordinance because it doesn’t carve out special rights for gays.

Supporting “basic civil values,” Otterson said, does not compromise the church’s religious belief that homosexuality is a sin and that same-sex marriage poses a threat to traditional marriage.

“There are going to be gay advocates who don’t think we’ve gone nearly far enough, and people very conservative who think we’ve gone too far,” Otterson said. “The vast majority of people are between those polar extremes and we think that’s going to resonate with people on the basis of fair-mindedness.”

The position is not a reversal, Otterson said. In August 2008 the church issued a statement saying it supports gay rights related to hospitalization, medical care, employment, housing or probate as long as they “do not infringe on the integrity of the traditional family or the constitutional rights of churches.”

Church officials say the city ordinances were not discussed in the recent meetings between church staff and gay rights leaders, and that it was the mayor who put the proposals on the table.

Harry Knox, director of the religion and faith program at the gay-rights group Human Rights Campaign, said the Mormon church’s stand on the Salt Lake City ordinances could help alter the debate over gay rights.

“The church deserves credit, but that credit really comes because people have been pushing for it,” Knox said. “It’s not something thing they arrived at on their own and out of the goodness of their hearts.”

The church’s action is the latest sign of a softening among some conservative Christians toward offering some legal protections to gays.

Activists are trying to garner support from evangelicals for a federal employment anti-discrimination law that would cover gays. However, religious reaction was largely negative to a federal hate crimes act protecting homosexuals that President Barack Obama recently signed into law. Several conservative Christian groups argued that preaching against homosexuality could be deemed a hate crime under the legislation.

The Mormon church has not taken a stance on either piece of federal legislation.

Otterson, the church spokesman, said that in the case of the Salt Lake City ordinances, Mormon leaders weighed in because they were responding to a request for feedback on specific legislation.

Asked whether the church would take a stand on similar state or federal legislation, Otterson said: “The church leadership is not inclined to offer free advice where it’s not being requested.”

 

Conservative group links gay-rights movement to Islamic terrorism

Written by ECWR Web
Tuesday, 10 November 2009 09:17
1 Comment
A prominent social-conservative activist group is using comments made by readers on a gay-rights Web site as “evidence” that the LGBT movement is mulling using “organized terrorism” against Christians.
The Liberty Counsel released a statement on Monday linking Nidal Malik Hasan, the alleged shooter in last week’s Fort Hood massacre, to the gay-rights movement.
“In the wake of the horrific act of Islamic domestic terrorism at Fort Hood Texas, it has been learned that militant homosexual activists recently made similar online postings to those of Nidal Malik Hasan, threatening additional acts of terrorism against Christians,” stated an email from Matt Barber, Liberty Counsel’s director of cultural affairs, as well as an associate dean at Liberty University Law School.
Liberty University is an evangelical school founded in 1971 by televangelist Jerry Falwell. Barber’s email came from a Liberty University account.
In response to Maine’s natural marriage victory last Tuesday, “gay” activists have directly threatened to retaliate with “terrorism” and the “killing” of Christians on the popular homosexual activist JoeMyGod weblog. Liberty Counsel notified the FBI which is investigating the matter. As of this morning, the offending blog entry had been removed.
Matt Barber commented: “All potential threats of terrorism and murder are very serious business. As we learned just last week, there are ideologically driven terrorists who walk among us. After passage of Proposition 8 in California we saw that many homosexual activists are capable of threats, vandalism and even violence. Those who either threaten or attempt to incite terrorism must be immediately brought to justice. Churches and Christian leaders around the country need to be on high alert. These threats of homosexual activist terrorism must be taken very seriously.”
Barber’s statement did not address the question of whether Christians and heterosexuals are also “capable of threats, vandalism and even violence,” or whether he believes that to be the domain of Islamists and homosexuals.
The statement listed off a long series of reader comments on the JoeMyGod blog by people evidently upset at the loss of a gay-marriage initiative in Maine in last week’s elections.
According to the Liberty Counsel letter, a commenter calling himself “ColdCountry” wrote: “Will someone please give me a gun?” Another commenter, dubbed “Fritz,” warned: “What I fear is that once gay and lesbian people give up hope of achieving equality through nonviolent means, there will be radicals who will begin to hunt down haters. … All it will take is a small group of radical zealots who are willing to kill for their cause.”
The Liberty Counsel statement said commenter “tex” replied: “Fritz….you say this like it’s a bad thing? Maybe a bit of well organized terrorism is just what we need. … This happens in all cases where people are oppressed and lack representation. We will have gay and lesbian people strapping bombs to their chests and blowing up churches. All it will take is one or two more losses like this.”
As the Liberty Counsel email noted, the comments have since been taken down from the site. The group did not provide evidence that the people writing the comments were “homosexual activists,” as the email claimed.
But it does appear that Barber may have been motivated by a personal element: The story on which the comments were purportedly made quoted his hailing of last week’s loss for gay-marriage rights in Maine. In the wake of that outcome, the Justice Counsel referred to same-sex marriage as “oxymoronic” and “counterfeit.”
The Liberty Counsel has been a prominent promoter of conservative social values for two decades. This week the group announced its seventh annual “Friend or Foe Christmas Campaign,” which argues for the use of the word “Christmas” instead of “holidays” and seeks to suss out who is a “friend” of Christmas and who is a “foe.”