Tag archives: U.S. Supreme Court

3 Ways in Which Brett Kavanaugh Has Supported Religious Liberty

by Travis Weber

August 17, 2018

In light of Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh’s impending confirmation battle, Family Research Council conducted an overview of his record and explained how he would likely rule on the issues we are concerned about. From that review, here are three ways in which Judge Kavanaugh has defended religious liberty:

  1. Judge Kavanaugh Has Defended Religious Believers from the HHS Mandate

In Priests for Life v. HHS, he dissented from the D.C. Circuit’s denial of rehearing en banc, arguing that the HHS mandate substantially burdened the organization’s exercise of religion, pursuant to Burwell v. Hobby Lobby. This is a very important conclusion on an important issue and shows Judge Kavanaugh to have a right understanding of the religious freedom burdens that RFRA guards against in this context. While his assertion later in the same case that Hobby Lobby “strongly suggests” that the government has a compelling interest in ensuring broad access to contraceptives seems unnecessary, he did conclude that RFRA protected the claimants because the HHS mandate was not the least restrictive means of achieving any such interest.

  1. Judge Kavanaugh Has Defended Religious Expression in the Public Square

In Newdow v. Roberts, atheists had argued that “so help me God” in the presidential oath violated the Establishment Clause. The D.C. Circuit rejected their argument, and Judge Kavanaugh wrote a concurrence stating that such “longstanding practices do not violate the Establishment Clause as it has been interpreted by the Supreme Court.”

More recently, in Archdiocese of Washington v. WMATA, the Archdiocese of Washington attempted to purchase advertising space on the Washington Metro during the Christmas season, and the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority refused to sell what it deemed a “religious” message for a religious organization. During oral arguments in this case, Judge Kavanaugh told WMATA’s lawyer that this was “pure discrimination” and an “odious” First Amendment violation, showing a keen awareness of potential violations of free speech and free expression with a religious basis.

[In addition], [h]e helped set up a voucher program supporting religious schools in Florida, and also represented the Adat Shalom Jewish group in their legal battle against a Maryland county that was trying to stop construction of a synagogue.

  1. Judge Kavanaugh Has Defended Religious Expression in Schools

During his time in private practice, Judge Kavanaugh chaired the Religious Liberty Practice Group at the Federalist Society, and worked pro bono to write amicus briefs in support of religious expression in schools. He wrote briefs in Good News Club v. Milford Central School, and Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe, in which he argued that a public school must allow religious student clubs to use its facilities in a similar manner as other clubs, and that student-led prayer at football events did not violate the establishment clause, respectively.

For more, see: https://www.frc.org/issueanalysis/why-judge-kavanaugh-should-be-confirmed-to-the-supreme-court 

An Inescapable and Irrepressible Conflict

by Rob Schwarzwalder

October 6, 2014

The Supreme Court today has “turned away appeals from five states looking to prohibit gay marriage, effectively legalizing same-sex marriage in those states and likely others — but also leaving the issue unresolved nationally.” So now same-sex “marriage” is legal in 30 states plus D.C.

My boss Tony Perkins issued a thoughtful statement about the ruling earlier today. In part, he said, “As more states are forced to redefine marriage, contrary to nature and directly in conflict with the will of millions, more Americans will see and experience attacks on their religious freedom.” Sadly, he’s dead right.

There are a number of dimensions to this issue, one of which was articulated by Dr. Al Mohler of Southern Baptist Seminary in an article on September 24: Homosexuality is “now inescapable for every congregation, every denomination, every seminary, and every Christian organization. The question will be asked and some answer will be given. When the question is asked, any answer that is not completely consistent with the church’s historical understanding of sexual morality and the full affirmation of biblical authority will mean a full embrace of same-sex behaviors and same-sex relationships. There is no third way, and there never was.”

Two observations: First, Dr. Mohler is right with respect to the inevitability of division within the believing church over this issue. Christians will choose to be faithful to Scriptural teaching or they won’t. There is not, as he notes, nor will there ever be, any middle ground between obedience and submission to the revealed will of God and rebellion against it.

Second, I’m haunted by the memory of William Seward’s comment, immediately before the Civil War, that strife between North and South over slavery constituted “an irrepressible conflict.”

Millions of Americans simmer with resentment at the coerced redefinition of marriage the courts are imposing on them, despite referenda in dozens of states where they have affirmed the traditional definition of marriage quite explicitly. The Dred Scott decision did not decide the issue of human bondage. The Roe v. Wade decision has not decided the issue of abortion on demand. And the continued federal court confusion over same-sex unions only postpones a day of legal reckoning that could create a measure of civic sundering unwitnessed in our nation for decades.

Even if the Supreme Court has valid reasons for postponing their decision on this issue, postponement is not resolution. I fear that whatever decision the Supremes finally reach will not resolve it, either.

Supremes Dodge Most Important Issue Before Them — Marriage

by Peter Sprigg

October 6, 2014

The Supreme Court has declined to take up any of the pending same-sex “marriage” cases before them.

There is bad news and good news in this decision. The bad news is that these states have been denied the opportunity to defend their legitimate power to define marriage before the Supreme Court. The good news is that the Supreme Court does not seem to be as eager as many people assumed to issue a “Roe v. Wade“-type decision redefining marriage.

This decision reflects cowardice on the part of the Supreme Court. People on both sides of the marriage debate agree that the constitutional issues that have been raised should be addressed by the highest court in the land. The Court is right to fear a backlash if they impose a redefinition of marriage on all fifty states; but they are wrong to just let the lower courts do their dirty work for them.

The decision is baffling on several levels. It is hard to understand why the Court heard the case (Hollingsworth v. Perry) challenging California’s Proposition 8 in 2013 (then declined to rule on the merits because of standing issues), but is refusing much clearer cases now. Some say they are waiting for “circuit split” on the issue, but one already exists — the Eighth Circuit upheld Nebraska’s marriage amendment in 2006 (Citizens for Equal Protection v. Bruning). Furthermore, the Supreme Court’s own “dismissal for want of a substantial federal question” of a same-sex “marriage” case out of Minnesota in 1972 (Baker v. Nelson) remains binding precedent until the Supreme Court itself explicitly overrules it.

Everyone needs to be reminded that the question of whether redefining marriage is good public policy is separate from the question of whether the Constitution of the United States mandates such a redefinition. Even those who favor redefining marriage should understand that such a radical social change is more likely to be accepted if it is adopted through the democratic process, rather than imposed from on high by a court.

One thing is clear — anyone who claims to know what the Supreme Court is thinking is wrong.

Slandering the Supremes

by Travis Weber

July 3, 2014

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s dissenting opinion in the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby is, in my view, clearly erroneous. With my colleagues at Family Research Council, I applaud the majority opinion as fully consistent with the requirements of religious liberty and the needs of women.

So, how does one get away with treating Supreme Court justices in a manner which would get any child reprimanded in elementary school? You couch your insult with humor, and engage on a politically correct topic.

The biggest question surrounding the recent song by Song A Day’s Jonathan Mann putting Justice Ginsburg’s dissent in the Hobby Lobby case to music — and in which he refers to the justices in the majority as “slut-shaming geezers” — is why no one is bothered enough by such slandering and disrespecting of Supreme Court justices to say anything. But it is what it is: Shameful.

What’s the point of these antics? Who knows … . Perhaps it’s because the writer doesn’t care to read what the decision says. Perhaps he thinks it’s more fun to mock its authors. Perhaps he does understand the decision and realizes he can’t attack the reasoning so, in a cowardly move, he attacks the authors’ integrity. Perhaps he does understand the decision but realizes he won’t acquire fame with a reasoned response so he adds incendiary words to his song. Or, perhaps, he knows he will only get people to listen to him if he adds shock value — thus he mocks justices and a decision which actually has inherent meaning he’s not bothering to understand.

There is nothing wrong with putting Justice Ginsburg’s dissent to music. The interaction of the Court with the public, although generally that of a more formal nature, can bear the casual manifestation of a song. In fact, some have shown the ability to tastefully depict the clash of ideas at work in Supreme Court rulings in formats including even opera. But what is harmful to the Court is a cultural attitude that dismisses the Court’s work by mere insults — without any basis in truth or basic comprehension of the legal principles at issue. Jonathan Mann makes his living as an entertainer, an entertainer who touts his ability to take “large amounts of complicated ideas and very quickly [transform] them into a hilarious, hummable and memorable song.” Here, he’s not bothered to even acknowledge the “complicated ideas” under question — he’s simply resorted to name calling. The Court and our country can bear lighthearted whimsy. What they can’t bear are baseless insults like this — insults, moreover, which aren’t even true.

Need we call to mind that the only thing the families behind Hobby Lobby and Conestoga ever objected to was 4 out of 20 methods of birth control they were being forced to provide, on the belief these 4 killed little babies in the womb? Yet according to Jonathan Mann, many “sluts” have been “shamed” when the justices ruled that women still must receive these 4 types of birth control. Wait, what? Yes, the justices ruled women still are to receive all their contraceptives — the government just has to provide them in a way that does not force employers with religious objections to violate their consciences by playing a part in what they view to be evil. Yes, of course, it is very obvious to see that many “sluts” were “shamed” with this ruling … .

Maybe one day if a justice (it would have to be one of the older male justices) was caught outside of the court rebuking a young woman for sleeping around too much — maybe then, he could accurately be called a “slut shaming geezer.” Even then, I’m not sure such antics would be called for. But they are hardly called for when any reading of the opinion does not justify such antagonism.

There are plenty of high court opinions I disagree with, but none over which I would attack the justices’ character. I can’t remember the last time someone mocked a liberal Supreme Court justice in this way. Yet if they did, it would be equally uncalled-for.

In the end, the name-calling (inaccurate at that) is symptomatic of a larger issue — the inability of many Americans to accurately engage on public issues and play a role in our experiment in democracy. As public engagement and living side by side in toleration of different views gives way to name-calling aimed at conformity to what is politically correct, the gears of our nation will grind to a halt. And we will all suffer for it.

Attacks and slander like that of Jonathan Mann may or may not be legal. But it is certainly shameful. People of integrity on all sides of these issues need to call this out when they see it.

We would call upon all, including those opposed to the Court’s ruling in Hobby Lobby, to denounce such baseless attacks. It would be appropriate for Justice Ginsburg to make clear she does not support such sentiments. All Americans, though they reasonably disagree on issues such as the Court faced here, should be united in opposition to Jonathan Mann’s slanderous words.

FRC in the News Regarding Yesterday’s Supreme Court Marriage Decision

by Karah Kruger

June 27, 2013

Yesterday, the Supreme Court ruled on two very big cases: U.S. v. Windsor and Hollingsworth v. Perry.

Tony Perkins, President of Family Research Council, offered remarks about the SCOTUS ruling on marriage which were picked up by various news networks. They include the following:

USA Today—”The reality is that society needs children, and children need a mom and a dad. We will continue to work to restore and promote a healthy marriage culture, which will maximize the chances of a child being raised by a married mother and father.”

Washington Times—“The Court’s decision allows the executive branch to effectively veto any duly enacted law, simply by refusing to defend it against a constitutional challenge. Ironically, by refusing to defend the law,California’s executive branch has also denied the nation any definitive ruling on the constitutionality of defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

Associated Press—”While we are disappointed in the Supreme Court’s decision to strike down part of the federal Defense of Marriage Act, the court today did not impose the sweeping nationwide redefinition of natural marriage that was sought. Time is not on the side of those seeking to create same-sex ‘marriage.’ As the American people are given time to experience the actual consequences of redefining marriage, the public debate and opposition to the redefinition of natural marriage will undoubtedly intensify.”

CNN—”Their refusal to redefine marriage for all states is a major setback for those seeking to redefine natural marriage. Time is not on the side of those seeking to create same-sex ‘marriage.’”

New York Times—“The lines are being drawn between states that stand with natural, traditional marriage and states that redefined it.”

Tony Perkins also wrote an article stressing the inevitable consequences this ruling will bring on society. The article is found in CNSNews. Many questions now arise regarding future litigation. Tony Perkins asks those questions:

The Defense of Marriage Act imposes no uniform definition of marriage upon the individual states. However, the states should not be able to impose varying definitions of marriage upon the federal government. The ruling that the federal government must recognize same-sex “marriages” in states that recognize them raises as many questions as it answers.”

For example, what is the status of such couples under federal law if they move to another state that does not recognize their “marriage?” This decision throws open the doors for whole new rounds of litigation.”

Peter Sprigg, Family Research Council’s Senior Fellow for Policy Studies, was mentioned in the Washington Post. He said:

Advocates of redefining marriage did not get what they wanted today — a declaration that all 50 states must treat same-sex unions as “marriages.” That means that this debate will continue across the country. This is an issue which should be resolved through the democratic process, not the courts.”

In an Associated Press article, he echoed what Tony Perkins said about the court ruling of federal recognition: ‘‘it raises as many questions as it answers.’’

‘Will recognition be based on the law in the state where the marriage was celebrated or the state in which the couple resides?’’ he said. ‘‘The doors may now be wide open for whole new rounds of litigation.’’

Ken Klukowski, Family Research Council’s Director, Center for Religious Liberty, wrote an article that appeared on Breitbart.com. Klukowski defends the fact that Proposition 8 is still California law and explains the outcome of the Court’s decision to dismiss ruling on California’s Proposition 8:

As of today, there is no appellate opinion (meaning an opinion issued by a court of appeals) against Prop 8. The Supreme Court refused to issue one, and threw out the only other one (the Ninth Circuit’s). There is only a trial court opinion. So every agency inCaliforniais legally bound to regard Prop 8 as binding law.”

Since no one who wants to defend Prop 8 has standing to appeal rulings on it to the Ninth Circuit, there will never be such an opinion in the federal court system. So the only way to get an appellate opinion would be in the California state court system. So someone would have to file a lawsuit regarding Prop 8, and then appeal it to a California court of appeals and then maybe to the California Supreme Court. Only when one of those courts hold Prop 8 unconstitutional can the public officials in that state regard it as stricken from the books.”

That litigation could take years. And in the meantime, supporters of traditional marriage can continue making the case for marriage.”

Supreme Court’s Refusal to Redefine Marriage Nationwide Allows American People to Consider Consequences of Redefinition

by FRC Media Office

June 26, 2013

WASHINGTON, D.C.- Family Research Council President Tony Perkins released the following statement in response to today’s U.S. Supreme Court rulings on marriage:

While we are disappointed in the Supreme Court’s decision to strike down part of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), the court today did not impose the sweeping nationwide redefinition of natural marriage that was sought. Time is not on the side of those seeking to create same-sex ‘marriage.’ As the American people are given time to experience the actual consequences of redefining marriage, the public debate and opposition to the redefinition of natural marriage will undoubtedly intensify.

We are encouraged that the court learned from the disaster of Roe v. Wade and refrained from redefining marriage for the entire country. However, by striking down the federal definition of marriage in DOMA, the Court is asserting that Congress does not have the power to define the meaning of words in statutes Congress itself has enacted. This is absurd. The Defense of Marriage Act imposes no uniform definition of marriage upon the individual states. However, the states should not be able to impose varying definitions of marriage upon the federal government. The ruling that the federal government must recognize same-sex ‘marriages’ in states that recognize them raises as many questions as it answers. For example, what is the status of such couples under federal law if they move to another state that does not recognize their ‘marriage?’ This decision throws open the doors for whole new rounds of litigation.

We are disturbed that the court refused to acknowledge that the proponents of Proposition 8 have standing to defend Proposition 8. This distorts the balance of powers between the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of government. The Court’s decision allows the executive branch to effectively veto any duly enacted law, simply by refusing to defend it against a constitutional challenge. Ironically, by refusing to defend the law, California’s executive branch has also denied the nation any definitive ruling on the constitutionality of defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

What is inevitable is that the male and female relationship will continue to be uniquely important to the future of society. The reality is that society needs children, and children need a mom and a dad. We will continue to work to restore and promote a healthy marriage culture, which will maximize the chances of a child being raised by a married mother and father,” Perkins concluded.

Perkins will discuss the Court’s decision today on his daily radio show, Washington Watch, heard daily from 5-6 p.m. Eastern on the American Family Radio network and online at www.TonyPerkins.com.

FRC’s Ken Klukowski, J.D. attended oral arguments. He co-authored a legal brief in the marriage litigation. FRC’s Chris Gacek, J.D., Ph.D., worked with Paul B. Linton, J.D. of the Thomas More Society on FRC’s amicus briefs in the DOMA and Prop 8 cases.

FRC’s Defense of Marriage Act amicus brief: http://www.frc.org/legalbrief/amicus-brief-us-v-windsor

FRC’s Proposition 8 amicus brief: http://www.frc.org/legalbrief/amicus-brief-hollingsworth-v-perry

Supreme Court arguments suggest the end is not near in marriage debate

by Peter Sprigg

April 16, 2013

The mainstream media would have you believe that the decision to redefine marriage for the benefit of homosexual couples has already been made.

Time magazine ran a cover story under the title, “How Gay Marriage Won”—featuring cover photos of a male couple kissing or a female couple kissing—your choice. Pollsters claim that a majority of Americans now support legalizing same-sex “marriage,” and that among young people, that majority is overwhelming. Democratic senators (and a couple of Republicans) who previously opposed redefining marriage have begun falling like dominoes. Same-sex “marriage” is “inevitable,” we are told—it is only a matter of time.

Do not believe it.

In a country where 41 out of 50 states still define marriage as the union of a man and a woman, and voters in a majority, 30 have placed that definition in their state constitutions; it can only be wishful thinking for the advocates of marriage redefinition to claim that it is imminent or inevitable. I suspect that some in the mainstream media are hoping that their prophecy will be a self-fulfilling one.

It’s particularly ironic that the theme of the “inevitability” of same-sex “marriage” seemed to gain ground in the mainstream media the week of the Supreme Court’s oral arguments in the case challenging Proposition 8, the California state constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman. Unlike the case challenging the Defense of Marriage Act, which presents somewhat narrower issues, the plaintiffs in the Prop 8 case, and their lead attorney Ted Olson, assert that the U.S. Constitution guarantees the right of same-sex couples to “marry.” If accepted, this argument would mean that marriage would be redefined to include same-sex couples not just in California, but in all fifty states. Such an outcome would be comparable to Roe v. Wade—the 1973 decision that forced legalized abortion on all fifty states.

However, the tone of the argument in the case (known as Hollingsworth v. Perry) actually did not seem to point in the direction of such a sweeping decision. The justices’ gave very little indication that they are prepared to redefine marriage for all fifty states.

Following are some quotes from the justices. We in the pro-family movement have sometimes made a slippery slope argument—if we redefine marriage to eliminate gender restrictions on one’s choice of marriage partner, it would be hard to maintain other restrictions—ones which prevent anyone from marrying a child, a close blood relative, or a person who is already married.

When conservatives raise this logical question, we are routinely vilified for “comparing” homosexuality to polygamy, incest, or pedophilia. Yet one of the justices raised the exact same point, putting it this way (this is slightly edited for clarity):

If you say that marriage is a fundamental right, what State restrictions could ever exist? Meaning, what State restrictions with respect to the number of people … that could get married, [with respect to] the incest laws, the mother and child [getting married], assuming that they are [both] the age [to marry]? I can accept that the State has probably an overbearing interest [in] protecting a child until they’re of age to marry, but what’s left?”

What’s interesting is that the justice who raised this was—Sonia Sotomayor, an Obama appointee.

We have also raised concern about the impact of marriage redefinition on the institution of marriage and on children.

One of the justices warned:

[T]here’s substance to the point that [the] sociological information is new. We have five years of information to weigh against 2,000 years of history or more.”

That same justice later elaborated,

The problem with the case is that you’re really asking, particularly because of the sociological evidence you cite, for us to go into uncharted waters; and you can play with that metaphor—‘there’s a wonderful destination,’ [or] ‘it is a cliff.’

When Ted Olson, the attorney for the homosexual couples in the case, claimed that there was an analogy between banning same-sex “marriages” and banning interracial marriages, the same justice cut him off and said,

[T]hat’s not accurate.”

The justice who made all those remarks was—Anthony Kennedy, universally viewed as the swing vote between the conservative and liberal factions on the court.

In fact, in the 9th Circuit ruling on Prop 8 (which found the measure unconstitutional, but on narrow grounds that would apply only to California) it was almost comically obvious that the opinion was written to appeal to Justice Kennedy, based on the supposed precedent of his opinion in a 1996 case called Romer v. Evans.

Yet one justice referred to that 9th Circuit opinion and said,

That’s a very odd rationale.”

The justice who said that was—Anthony Kennedy!

It is dangerous to make assumptions about the outcome of a case based on oral arguments—we learned that in the Obamacare case. But few observers now expect a Roe v. Wade of marriage.

That means this debate is probably not near an end. It is likely to continue for years to come.

Guest Post: Media Distort Coverage In Favor Of Gay Marriage

by Katie Yoder

March 29, 2013

Below is a guest post from Newsbusters that provides a brief overview of the past week’s media coverage on marriage.


Media Distort Coverage In Favor Of Gay Marriage

From networks to news sites, reporters set liberal agenda.

By Katie Yoder

As thousands trekked across the country this week to protest at the Supreme Court while justices heard arguments on Proposition 8 and the Defense of Marriage Act (DoMA), the media did the same by voicing their own opinions. From the networks to online news sites, so-called neutral journalists twisted coverage in support of gay marriage.

CBS led the network pack and focused a one-sided light on Tuesday evening reports, the night of the first Supreme Court arguments. CBS went personal March 26 as reporter John Blackstone, during “Evening News,” highlighted a story of lesbian couple Torri and Sunnie. The program showed at least 12 different video or photo clips of gay weddings and quoted two gay marriage advocates – with one traditional marriage supporter.

Tuesday morning wasn’t much better, with four voices advocating for gay marriage, and one counter. Wednesday’s “This Morning” devoted over three minutes to David Boies, an attorney who argued at the Supreme Court against Proposition 8 with no one to offer a counter argument during the segment.

ABC followed suit in the Tuesday evening reports without any counter argument as anchor Terry Moran quoted two separate people whose family members sued for gay marriage. As Moran put it, ““For the two gay couples at the heart of the case … this was their family’s moment.”

NBC reporter Kristen Dahlgren flooded her report with TV gay icons, from Ellen DeGeneres to “Modern Family.” She acknowledged the media’s power on the issue though: “Over the years, television has changed the conversation about American sexuality.” She continued to say, “what happens in Hollywood doesn’t stay there.” What she left out of her report was her own network’s pro-gay advocacy with the show “The New Normal.”

The one-sided coverage attracted even the attention of the liberal Huffington Post, which published a headline reading, “The Supreme Court May Be Divided On Gay Marriage, But The Media Isn’t.” In it, HuffPo media editor Jack Mirkinson noted major news outlets’ support of gay marriage and said, “Gay marriage is different. It is no longer all that controversial for many in the media.”

It wasn’t like another side to the story didn’t exist. Traditional marriage supporters made themselves hard to ignore March 26 by attending the National Organization for Marriage (NOM’s) March for Marriage. According to NOM’s Thomas Peters, 15,000 marchers attended as the networks stood silent even during the next day’s morning shows. The Washington Post decided to cover the event though – even if they did shrink 15,000 attendees into a ‘few dozen.’

When the media decided to cover traditional marriage supporters, reporters didn’t play nice. ABC’s Wednesday “Good Morning America” illustrated the tug-of-war on marriage’s definition as the “21st century social movement” of gay marriage versus the elderly “downright perplexed” justices.

CNN contributor and GOP strategist Ana Navarro sang a similar tune and proclaimed gay marriage opponents must “get into the 21st century.” While urging Republicans to push the hot issue into the background, she lectured opponents that “folks who are in denial about this that have to get out of the closet. They have to wave goodbye to the GEICO caveman and step out gingerly and carefully into the brave new world.”

But then, according to the media, gay marriage already won the hearts of Americans. Just look at the upcoming TIME magazine showcasing two different covers – one of a lesbian couple kissing, one of a gay couple kissing – while advertising an article by David von Drehle titled, “Gay Marriage Already Won: The Supreme Court hasn’t made up its mind – but America has.” TIME magazine’s Joe Klein, on March 26’s “Morning Joe,” commented on how rapidly the issue of gay marriage changed: “My God, I haven’t seen anything like it … To my kids, it’s just mystifying that anyone would be opposed to it.”

The Washington Post boasted a similar headline to TIME magazine that read “Political debate on same-sex marriage is over.” Writer Chris Cillizza explained, “[N]o matter how the high court rules later this year on California’s Proposition 8 and the Defense of Marriage Act, one thing is already clear: The political debate over gay marriage is over.”

Those who thought the gay marriage debate still exists were in for a brutal media bash. After citing GOP strategist Karl Rove on the possibility of a 2016 Republican presidential candidate who supports same-sex marriage, CNN’s Carol Costello asked Alliance Defense Fund’s Austin Nimocks, “Austin, you heard what Karl Rove just said. Are you on the wrong side of history?” CNN zeroed in on traditional marriage supporters as host Piers Morgan and openly gay anchor Don Lemon smashed opponents as “homophobic” and likened them to segregationists.

When asked about fair coverage by social conservative Peter LaBarbera, MSNBC’s Contessa Brewer pulled race into the argument and bluntly replied, “You know what’s so funny about this? When we’re talking about racism, nobody ever says, ‘Do you think there’s fair coverage for racists?’ That’s my feeling about the matter.”

MSNBC personality Luke Russert unleashed his opinion on FRC’s Tony Perkins during Wednesday’s “Andrea Mitchell Reports,” and asked, “What do you fear so much” about gay marriage? When Perkins replied that he didn’t fear anything, Russert challenged, “Then why are you opposed?” He later charged Perkins with equating homosexuality with polygamy, after Perkins stated that the basis of marriage requires more than merely loving someone.

Those who did rally for gay marriage became heroes. New York Times reporter Sheryl Gay Stolberg showered favor upon Mary Bonauto, a lawyer for Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders (GLAAD), and gushed, “Ms. Bonauto is too busy juggling legal briefs, homework and piano lessons to see herself as a woman making history.” During March 27 “World News,” Diane Sawyer praised an 83-year-old lesbian involved in the case against DoMA and explained, “Edith Windsor received a hero’s welcome when she emerged from the Supreme Court, saying it’s time to take a stand for marriage equality.”

That left one to ponder how DoMA ever passed the first place – but the media held the answer to that too. Former President Bill Clinton signed it due to sleep deprivation and pressure from his 1996 opponent Bob Dole, according to The New York Times’ Peter Baker.

On the bright side, gay marriage reportedly benefits the economy. ABC’s George Stephanopoulos cited an 8-year-old study Thursday and stated that legalizing gay marriage “could bring in up to $1 billion a year – so, a net benefit for the Treasury from gay marriage.” He explained, “if gay or lesbian couples are married and they have about equal income, they would actually pay more in taxes than if they were single.” CBS anchor Charlie Rose agreed, saying on Thursday’s “This Morning” that “if it’s [DOMA is] struck down, it may not be a financial windfall for same-sex couples. The case has centered on federal benefits. If they become eligible for the benefits, they would also have to pay higher taxes.”

It was scary enough when NBC’s Reporter Kristen Dahlgren admitted “what happens in Hollywood doesn’t stay there.” But a more frightening thought is to realize that what happens in the networks – on the news sites – doesn’t tend stay there either.

Join FRC for the Marriage March

by FRC Media Office

February 26, 2013

On March 23, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court will be hearing arguments in the Hollingsworth v. Perry case, which will determine if California’s Proposition 8 measure is constitutional. This will determine whether “same-sex marriage” will become recognized and whether Americans will have the right to protect marriage.

With the legal arguments being heard, FRC has various resources available on marriage from religious, legal, and cultural perspectives. Visit our Why Marriage Matters site to learn more and to find out how you can educate others about the importance of traditional marriage.

Additionally, FRC will be joining other organizations to promote traditional marriage through participating in the Marriage March on March 26th. Marriage March 2013 will feature various speakers that will empower and motivate you to promote the values of traditional marriage within your community. Click here to learn more about the Marriage March and to find out how you can get involved.

Archives