Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed

Tag: Focus on the Family

Focus on the Family vs. Focus on the Family

(Cross-posted at Good As You. Also check out Jeremy’s post yesterday and the voluminous comment thread here on P8TT obliterating Focus on the Family and Edwin Meese’s arguments about Judge Walker’s decision. Priceless. — Eden)

By Jeremy Hooper

Here’s Focus on the Family, from a piece posted today:

California gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman is making news because she said that, if elected governor, she will uphold the law. This is a headline in California.

I wonder if it’s also shocking that she will uphold the law even if it means that she will not have the support of major Hollywood stars. Shocking.

Weirdly, upholding the law is a crazy tangent from the what California voters have come to expect of current Governor Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Brown—at least as it concerns Prop. 8.

Even if a person disagrees with a law, there’s something amiss in America when elected leaders refuse to uphold the law and the will of the people. This should concern every American, not just those who support Proposition 8.

Candidate makes news with promise to uphold the law [FOtF Citizenlink]

Okay. So now let’s look back at Focus on the Family, from a piece that was, in the freakiest of coincidences, posted a year ago to the date:

A decision not to defend a bad law is good news for marriage supporters in Wisconsin.

Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen — who ordinarily would defend a duly-enacted law — announced Friday he will not defend the state’s domestic-partner law from a legal challenge brought by a pro-family group.

Under that law, which passed the Legislature and was signed by Gov. Jim Doyle earlier this year, same-sex couples began applying for domestic-partnership recognition this month. Wisconsin Family Action has asked that the registry be declared unconstitutional under the 2006 amendment that defined marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

Jim Campbell, legal counsel for ADF, said he hopes the Wisconsin Supreme Court takes note of Van Hollen’s position.

“We believe that it’s very clear here. The people of Wisconsin said that they do not want the government creating anything that is substantially similar to marriage, and that is exactly what they’ve done here,” he said.

Campbell would like to see the state’s high court strike down the law.

“It would set good precedent for other states,” he said.

Wisconsin Attorney General Will Not Defend Domestic Partnerships [FOtF Citizenlink]

Right, so on August 24, 2009, it’s totally awesome when an elected official decides to not defend a law that he finds out of line. But on August 24, 2010, there’s apparently “something amiss in America when elected leaders refuse to uphold the law and the will of the people”? Interesting how that works.

Now, FOtF would surely argue that the “will of the people” only rests with a direct vote (as in Prop 8), and that WI voters are the ones being undermined because the legislatively-enacted DP system supposedly trumps the marriage ban they enacted at the polls. But this is of course hogwash. “The people” elect their representatives and their governor. This is how it works in America. And both that state’s legislature and that state’s governor put Wisconsin DPs into law, knowing that domestic partnerships are a separate system from marriage that do not, in any way, fool anyone into believing the two institutions are one and the same. AG Van Hollen is failing to defend the DP system because he personally thinks it’s unconstitutional, just like Jerry Brown and Gov. Schwarzenegger think Prop 8 fails the legal smell test.

Regardless of where anyone stands on the principles and facts behind the individual refusals, it’s completely errant to condemn one elected official’s right as unconscionable, while calling the other “good news” and “good precedent.” And it’s equally disingenuous to act like Meg Whitman is the calm, cool head because she sees her responsibility to defend a law as dependent more on the bare majority number of the voting public that put it into place than on the merits of the law itself.

178 Comments August 25, 2010

CPAC and the Gays

By Julia Rosen

The far right is holding their annual conference called CPAC. They are perhaps best known for their straw poll of presidential contenders to get a sense of how the conservative base feels at the moment. The event is packed with speeches and vendors. And yes, the homos have been a topic of conversation.

HRC managed to grab this video of a press conference about Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.

It’s hard to pick the most ourageous moment of that press conference. Is it Elaine Donnelly saying Admiral Mullen let down the troops? No, though I do love that she is wearing a rainbow pin. What about Tom Minnery from Focus on the Family calling the potential repeal of DADT a “social engineering debacle” and claiming that it will result in a bunch of “severely disappointed gay men”. To which I say: what about the lesbians? Or Tony Perkins from the Family Research Council who said this was not an issue of “two men or two women holding hands in camouflage”. Huh?

An even bigger head-scratcher was David Keene from the American Conservative Union to tried to draw analogy to health care reform and wall street reform, claiming that people who don’t know anything about the military are “telling us how it ought to be run.” This comes of course from a guy who has absolutely no military experience himself and has been a political hack nearly his whole life. Penny Nance of the Concerned Women of American thinks that repealing DADT means Obama is not serious about the War on Terror!!!

Last but not least is Admiral James “Ace” Lyons (ret.) who incredibly starts talking about 19th century history, claiming that there were so many gays in the military that mothers tried to keep their sons out of the service “rampant” he says, just “rampant”. That’s not something I ever learned in history class. My favorite part is when he starts comparing gays to “drug pushers”. Yes, really.

But this video is not all of the fun to be had at CPAC, when it comes to the gays. A new group GOProud (get it, they are Republicans who haven’t let their fellow party members make them hate themselves) signed up for a table, causing the Liberty Council (Jerry Falwell’s group) to throw a hissy fit and threaten to pull out. CPAC called their bluff. GOProud came and so did the Liberty Council. Mother Jones has the full story, but this was my favorite bit.

GOProud already sports 2,000 members and is apparently growing. Its CPAC booth, separated by a single table from the National Organization for Marriage, the anti-gay marriage group, drew some curious looks from conference attendees, but LaSalvia says people had been friendly.

I wonder if Maggie Gallagher and Brian Brown’s heads exploded, when they saw their neighbors.

215 Comments February 18, 2010