Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed

Family Research Council DVDs handed out at North Carolina event

Marriage equality Right-wing

By Scottie ThomastonGoal Thermometer

At an event in North Carolina at the Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, videos that were made by the Family Research Council were handed out to attendees while speakers railed against gay people in the state.

DVDs made by the Family Research council were distributed in the pews of Binkley Chapel, where the event was held, containing sermons, videos and church bulletin inserts for pastors looking to energize their flocks on the issue.

“North Carolina is not really the first state to move to protect marriage,” said Kenyn Cureton, vice president for church ministries at the research council. “In fact, North Carolina is the only Southern state not to, so don’t let us down, guys.”

Richard Land who heads up the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention said that a future Supreme Court decision might hinge on decisions of states like North Carolina:

Land said he believes the U.S. Supreme Court would be hesitant to allow couples of the same gender to marry if other states join the 29 already with amendments defining marriage as between a man and a woman. That could change if states like North Carolina reject such amendments, he said.

“If we lose, they will exercise their judicial imperialism,” he said. “That’s what’s at stake.”

Land went on to argue that this is not a question of “sexual freedom” – as if a loving couple expressing their feelings through a long-term commitment is somehow related to sexual freedom – but one of religious freedom. He worries that if gay couples are allowed to marry. Christians will be ostracized to the same extent that “the KKK” is.

Not to be outdone, other arguments were hurled at the visitors of the event:

“It would lead people who love dogs to marry dogs and people who love ice cream to marry ice cream.”

That’s what Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary professor of Christian ethics Daniel Heimbach — presumably at least a little tongue in cheek — had to say at a forum on the marriage amendment on the campus today. The event in the campus chapel attracted several hundred people.

Heimbach was making the point that same-sex marriage redefines and ultimately ruins the institution. And so, taken to its logical extreme, marriage could be anything anyone wants it to be, and that’s bad for society, he said.

This is the type of rhetoric North Carolinians are being subjected to right now. Somehow discussions of voting no on the amendment have turned into people wondering aloud if people will be able to marry ice cream. Hopefully, these arguments won’t win the day.


  • 1. Bruce  |  March 28, 2012 at 7:16 pm

    This is absurd. I don't see anything in this story that says anyone is DOING something to respond to this appalling violation. Where is "American's United"? Why aren't there complaints being filed with the IRS to remove this church's tax-exempt status? This cannot be allowed to stand!

  • 2. Reformed  |  March 28, 2012 at 8:04 pm

    What's to be done? Well, if Santorum's google problem were the model, a well presented copy of NOMs newly unsealed "confidential" strategy documents would be competing with NOMs public website for first place.

    Do people now realize that Maggie delibrately introduced "bigot" into the public discourse with her "relics of ancient bigotry" phrase? Reference the documents, how they wished to "provoke the oposition to call them bigots". People need exposure to this strategy. "fan the flames", "drive a wedge", raise "side issues", recruit "attractive blacks", "interrupt the assimilation" of latinos, "paint" the president as a radical."

    I think a coordinated strategy to give wide exposure to well presented excerpts from these documents is needed. As for North Carolina, convince the churces that they are waging a war on their own freedom of religion by playing along with NOM and company's attack on religion liberty invention (side issue).

  • 3. Sagesse  |  March 28, 2012 at 8:32 pm

    Surely something creative can come of

  • 4. MightyAcorn  |  March 28, 2012 at 8:36 pm

    LOL Sagesse, but am I missing something? "Non-cognitive" means what, exactly? I mean, I can't imagine how that term makes sense unless it's referring to a patient in a vegetative state….

  • 5. MightyAcorn  |  March 28, 2012 at 8:41 pm

    Oh wait, here we go…they must be kidding, right?:

  • 6. Ann_S  |  March 28, 2012 at 8:41 pm

    I had to google "non-cognitive elites", but it's funny once you do. It has to do with how NOM refers to high-profile but not-too-brainy celeb spokespeople. Or they did once, at least, in a memo that has now found its way to the light.

  • 7. MightyAcorn  |  March 28, 2012 at 9:19 pm

    I saw that they had used the term in their internal strategy documents, but I just couldn't parse it. I don't think "cognitive" means what they think it means. I think they meant "non-cogitative." It's an ironic mistake, huh?

  • 8. Ann_S  |  March 28, 2012 at 9:32 pm

    The whole thing is pretty funny and also makes me think of the pre-cogs in Minority Report.

  • 9. Lesbians Love Boies  |  March 28, 2012 at 10:20 pm


    We know why NOM is so hard pressed to keep its members a secret. It's not because they don't want these people to be known – it is because these people are writing off their donations to NOM as tax deductible. And that is a huge NO NO. NOM has a 501 (c) (4) which is not tax deductible. Now they do have an itty bitty 501(c)(3) [see below: NOM Education Fund] but that money cannot be used in the political arena…and as we all know very little money goes into that education fund… so:

    1. NOM hasn't been filing their taxes on time
    2. NOM hasn't been disclosing who is donating to their organization – hiding it in every state they are politically motivated in

    If the IRS were to investigate (which I think is highly probable to happen in the near future) NOM will lose both non-profit statuses…and those that donated big numbers will eventually be audited too. This is a failure in astronomical proportions to NOM.

  • 10. Lesbians Love Boies  |  March 28, 2012 at 10:21 pm


    501 (c) (4)

    501(c)(4) organizations are generally civic leagues and other corporations operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare, or local associations of employees with membership limited to a designated company or people in a particular municipality or neighborhood, and with net earnings devoted exclusively to charitable, educational, or recreational purposes.501(c)(4) organizations may lobby for legislation, and unlike 501(c)(3) organizations they may also participate in political campaigns and elections, as long as its primary activity is the promotion of social welfare. The tax exemption for 501(c)(4) organizations applies to most of their operations, but contributions may be subject to gift tax, and income spent on political activities – generally the advocacy of a particular candidate in an election – is taxable.

    Contributions to 501(c)(4) organizations are not deductible as charitable contributions for the U.S. income tax. 501(c)(4) organizations are not required to disclose their donors publicly. This aspect of the law has led to extensive use of the 501(c)(4) provisions for organizations that are actively involved in lobbying, and has become controversial. In 2010, a bill (the DISCLOSE Act) was passed by the U.S. House of Representatives that addressed identification of donors to organizations involved in political advocacy, but the Senate Republicans filibustered and prevented a vote on the bill.

    In summer 2011, comedian Stephen Colbert brought attention to the issue of Super PACs by forming his own and a 501(c)(4). As of August 2011, 165,000 of his viewers had joined it.

  • 11. Lesbians Love Boies  |  March 28, 2012 at 10:22 pm


    501 (c) (3)</stong>

    To be tax-exempt under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, an organization must be organized and operated exclusively for exempt purposes set forth in section 501(c)(3), and none of its earnings may inure to any private shareholder or individual. In addition, it may not be an action organization, i.e., it may not attempt to influence legislation as a substantial part of its activities and it may not participate in any campaign activity for or against political candidates.

    Organizations described in section 501(c)(3) are commonly referred to as charitable organizations. Organizations described in section 501(c)(3), other than testing for public safety organizations, are eligible to receive tax-deductible contributions in accordance with Code section 170.

    The organization must not be organized or operated for the benefit of private interests, and no part of a section 501(c)(3) organization's net earnings may inure to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual. If the organization engages in an excess benefit transaction with a person having substantial influence over the organization, an excise tax may be imposed on the person and any organization managers agreeing to the transaction.

    Section 501(c)(3) organizations are restricted in how much political and legislative (lobbying) activities they may conduct.

  • 12. Sagesse  |  March 29, 2012 at 4:47 am

    Try also cognitive elites. Term coined by Charles Murray in The Bell Curve. Then go to Google News and check the media and blog reaction to the term. I sort of read it that 'an intellectual approach to the Latino community would not be effective'.

  • 13. Steve  |  March 29, 2012 at 6:30 am

    Unless you're a church. Then you can do all those things, pay yourself a huge salary from the money you scam from your flock and not pay any taxes

  • 14. MightyAcorn  |  March 29, 2012 at 8:47 am

    Ah, got it. Basically someone who's been to school….like our President.

    And as I recall, the book " The Bell Curve" took a lot of flak for being pseudosociology….more radical right propaganda, in other words. No wonder Maggie likes it.

  • 15. Sagesse  |  March 29, 2012 at 8:56 am

    Yes. Whoever wrote that bit (for some reason, I hear BB when I read it) was being a pseudo-intellectual anti-intellectual… Or something.

  • 16. grod  |  March 29, 2012 at 9:13 am

    Reformed above suggests that the Churches need to be reminded that "they are waging a war on their own freedom of religion by playing along with NOM" . With respect to the Catholic Church, there are only two dioceses in North Carolina, thus two heads of these churches. Why not remind them about 501 C) 4 status that NON has with IRS.

  • 17. Martin Pal  |  March 29, 2012 at 10:08 am

    Getting back to the article, re: this last part “This is the type of rhetoric North Carolinians are being subjected to right now. Somehow discussions of voting no on the amendment have turned into people wondering aloud if people will be able to marry ice cream. Hopefully, these arguments won’t win the day.”

    As I mentioned in another post, these arguments DO win the day because they adhere to people’s prejudices. How you get them to forget a prejudice to vote differently in two months has to be something immediately apparent. It cannot be an appeal to fairness. Fairness and logic do not trump emotion.

Having technical problems? Visit our support page to report an issue!