Category archives: Government

An Active President: Obama on the March As the GOP Preps to Run Congress

by Rob Schwarzwalder

December 18, 2014

Since last month’s election, the President has been a busy fellow. He’s traveled to China, heralded what he called a “turning point” in American military affairs, “signed a Presidential Memorandum that prohibits future oil and gas drilling in Alaska’s Bristol Bay” and land areas near it and announced a new director for the White House Council for Strong Cities, Strong Communities, to boot.

FRC takes no formal position on these issues, or on those that follow (with one exception). Rather, they are listed to make the point that Mr. Obama is not going suddenly to become an inactive Chief Executive. He has an agenda the bulk of which is opposed by conservatives. Regardless, if conservatives think he will simply fold his hands and let the new Republican majorities in House and Senate do as they will, they kid themselves.

Following is a rundown of other significant post-November 4, 2014 actions by Mr. Obama; the last, on international religious liberty, is not explicitly presidential but relates to a key presidential appointment at the Department of State.

Environment: In addition to his largely unnoticed decision regarding Bristol Bay, “Obama’s most recent move is committing the U.S. to a $3 billion contribution to an international fund that seeks to help developing countries address climate change, which he will announce this weekend. It’s the president’s second major climate action in a week, following Wednesday’s announcement of a bilateral climate agreement with China. Under the agreement, the U.S. will cut its greenhouse gas emissions by 26 to 28 percent by 2025, while China will begin reducing its own emissions by 2030.”

Cuba: Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL), the son of Cuban immigrants, gave an eloquent and impassioned critique of the President’s announcement on normalizing relations with Cuba last evening; read his Wall Street Journal op-ed on the Obama decision, as well. The Washington Post also made a potent argument in an op-ed titled, “Obama gives the Castro regime in Cuba an undeserved bailout” (yes, that Washington Post; even a stopped clock is right twice a day): “The Vietnam outcome is what the Castros are counting on: a flood of U.S. tourists and business investment that will allow the regime to maintain its totalitarian system indefinitely. Mr. Obama may claim that he has dismantled a 50-year-old failed policy; what he has really done is give a 50-year-old failed regime a new lease on life.”

Immigration: With respect to his Executive Order on immigration, my personal take is not on the content of the orders but instead their basis in the U.S. Constitution: “Mr. Obama hasn’t gotten what he wants, so he is acting like a monarch unconstrained by legality. This is not constitutional, republican governance. It is something else altogether – something that should evoke in everyone who values his Constitution-based liberty apprehension about what might come next.”

Internet: “Net neutrality” demands a bit more explaining. Mr. Obama has asked “the Federal Communications Commission to regulate broadband Internet service as a public utility,” writes Michael Hendrix in National Review. “All Internet traffic would be treated equally, no matter the size or pace of demand. Net neutrality is a relatively young concept based on the much older notion of ‘common carriage,’ which required providers of basic infrastructure to offer common service to all.”

Yet as Nancy Scola notes in the Washington Post, At the center of the debate is a service known as IANA, or the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority. Operating almost entirely out of the public eye, IANA keeps tabs on the numerical directory that makes sure the global Internet runs smoothly.” And, Scola continues, though “Republicans in Congress managed to slip a provision into the massive $1.1 trillion spending bill passed by the Senate this (past) weekend that would prevent the Obama administration from giving up part of its oversight of how the Internet runs. Observers say, though, that there’s little chance that the GOP’s legislative language will actually slow the process at all.

Religious Liberty: FRC does take a position on international religious liberty: We’re absolutely, unequivocally for it. Earlier this month, the Senate confirmed Rabbi David Saperstein to be the State Department’s new U.S. Ambassador-at-Large for International Religious Freedom. In his comments at his Senate confirmation hearing in September, the Rabbi said, “Religious freedom faces daunting and alarming challenges worldwide,” Saperstein said at his confirmation hearing in September. “If confirmed, I will do everything within my abilities and influence to engage every sector of the State Department and the rest of the U.S. government to integrate religious freedom into our nation’s statecraft and foreign policies.”

Amen. Christians should be praying for the Rabbi and his team as they work to advance religious liberty around the world. It’s in the interest of our country, not to mention one of the great moral imperatives of our time.

This President means no less business today than he did on January 20, 2009. That means that conservatives will have to think carefully about how we advance our priorities on issues involving faith, family and freedom in the coming two years leading up to the next presidential election. We have to consider our larger strategy as well as issue-specific tactics and also decide what our priorities are and aren’t.

Conservative leaders and activists are, of course, doing this. Let’s hope they coalesce around what issues are of highest importance and then move forward both boldly and wisely, aware that President Obama is a shrewd and determined political foe.

It’s not enough to be right. We also have to be smart.

 

Schwarzwalder previously was chief-of-staff for two Members of Congress and was a presidential appointee in the George W. Bush Administration.

Suicide Prevention? Try the “BFPF!”

by Robert Morrison

December 18, 2014

I was puzzled. The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) in Atlanta had sent me an entire briefing book on suicide rates. The thick 3-ring binder had statistics on suicide for every demographic group—from Aleuts and Ashkenazi Jews to Zuni Indians. But the figure for Black Females was less than 1 per 100,000. Could this be? I called a desk officer at CDC to learn if there was some mistake. “No mistake,” I was assured as the staffer on the other end of the line smoothly told me “we call it the ‘BFPF—Black Female Protection Factor—they’re very religious.”

The U.S. Government knows this to be true. Or at least it used to know this in the Reagan years when I was tasked with studying “Suicide among Youth” for the federal education department.

If the government cannot promote religion, one would think that at least the government would not try to impede religion. (And isn’t that what even the Supreme Court has said?) 

Especially, it would seem, the government should not try to impede religion in its efforts to prevent suicide. 

But, no! The atheizers and the pink panzers of  political correctness have so cowed our military that we actually have senior officers who want to punish chaplains for the grave offense of including spiritual and secular resources in a program for the troops seeking to prevent suicide.

Does the Army want more suicide? You have to wonder when you see the infamous actions of Col. David Fivecoat at Fort Benning, Georgia. Here’s a news report from FRC’s communications department. This is a verified report on the disciplining of a military Chaplain: 

Capt. Joseph Lawhorn, U.S. Army Chaplain at Fort Benning, participated in a mandatory suicide awareness and prevention briefing in which he gave a presentation describing resources – both spiritual and secular – that were available for handling such grave mental health situations. He went further and discussed his personal struggles with depression, describing the spiritual and religious steps that helped him during those dark times in his life.

As a result of the chaplain’s discussion of his faith, he was called into his brigade commander’s office on Thanksgiving Day. There Col. David G. Fivecoat issued Chaplain Lawhorn a Letter of Concern that is to remain in his personnel file for the duration of his stay at Fort Benning. This type of letter can be devastating for career military personnel and would likely prohibit further professional advancement of Chaplain Lawhorn.

We can contrast this Fort Benning colonel’s despicable action with the brave stance of Coast Guard Rear Admiral Dean Lee. The admiral spoke at the National Day of Prayer recently on this very question of spiritual resources shared with young volunteers in our military who are in danger of suicide. Admiral Lee spoke truth to power. He showed undaunted courage in the face of a rising storm.

Admiral Lee doubtless knows the toll of suicide—and not just on the young victim’s family and fellow service members. Those of us who served in the Coast Guard—like many first responders—have on occasion been called upon to deal with the tragic results of a suicide.

I will never forget having to pick up the body of a “floater” who had been in the water for weeks. I was a young enlisted Coast Guardsman more than thirty years ago. I can still remember the sight, the smell, the feel, and the sounds of that bloated and crab-eaten corpse.

As vivid and unforgettable as that experience was, I am not scarred by it. That is because it was also in the Coast Guard and in that same year that I came to faith in Jesus Christ. I thank God every day for that.

I hope those of you reading this column will sign FRC’s urgent petition calling for a reversal of this cruel and unjust discipline of a brave Army Chaplain. Be a lifesaver! 

DC Council votes in support of forcing abortion coverage

by Travis Weber

December 18, 2014

Yesterday, the DC Council passed a bill called the “Reproductive Health Non-Discrimination Act of 2014,” which could force employers in the District of Columbia (including the Family Research Council) to cover abortions.

The actual language of the bill would prevent employers from “discriminat[ing] against” an individual with respect to the “compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment” because of an individual’s “reproductive health decisions.” The definition of “reproductive health decisions” includes but is not limited to “a decision by an employee … related to the use or intended use of … contraception or fertility control or the planned or intended initiation or termination of a pregnancy.” In plain terms, no employer would be able to say they don’t want to cover an abortion.

There is no exemption in the bill for any employer who might object to such coverage. This would have drastic consequences for a number of employers and organizations in the District who not only might object to such coverage on conscience grounds, but whose actual purpose for existing is to stop abortion because they believe it is a moral evil. This is the essence of a Freedom of Association violation – disrupting the very purpose of autonomous, private groups through legislative bulldozing tactics, thus rendering the groups’ existence meaningless.

Aside from this injustice, there are a number of legal problems with the bill. As pointed out by Alliance Defending Freedom, the bill would violate the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the Weldon Amendment, and the First Amendment protections of Free Speech, Free Exercise, and Freedom of Association.

Even the mayor’s office recognized the legal problems with the bill. Yet, more interested in ramming its policies down every District employer’s throat, the DC Council went ahead and passed the bill in defiance of the mayor’s concerns. One of the mayor’s concerns was a potential Equal Protection violation because the bill only addressed protections for women. In response, the Council reportedly added protections for men as well. That the Council would make this correction, and leave other groups who expressed religious and associational concerns hanging out to dry, only confirms the devious nature of the DC Council.

If following one’s conscience is to retain any meaning at all for those living and working in the District, the mayor absolutely must veto this bill!

Congressmen Defend Federal Role in Blocking D.C. Marijuana Legalization

by Nick Frase

December 17, 2014

Representative Andy Harris (R-MD) has been blacklisted from a local Washington D.C. bike shop, at least according to the sign in their window reading “Andy Harris Not Welcome.” For those planning to visit who want to avoid a similar fate, the cautionary tale here is don’t expect to uphold federal marijuana laws in the District if you want to get your derailleur adjusted.

Earlier this month, Rep. Harris successfully attached bipartisan language to the omnibus spending deal designed to block enactment of a marijuana legalization initiative that the District passed in November. Pot activists have decried the action as an example of an outsider meddling in local affairs. “You don’t serve us, we don’t serve you” is the tagline to their blacklist sign, a reference to the fact that Rep. Harris’ district is in Maryland and not in D.C.

What’s going on, aren’t Republican’s for self-government and local control?

It’s a fair question to ask and one that Rep. Harris along with Rep. Joe Pitts (R-PA) have addressed in a Washington Post op-ed. I won’t attempt to repeat it here but the thrust of the argument is: yes, Republicans are the party of self-government and local control, but they’re also the party of the Constitution and respect for the rule of law.

Federal law is explicit, under the Controlled Substances Act it is unlawful to manufacture, distribute or possess marijuana. Furthermore, Article I, § 8, cl. 17I of the Constitution grants Congress the power to “exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever” over the District of Columbia. The charge that Congress is somehow treating the District unfairly or in a way they would not treat another city ignores the fact that the District is unlike any other city.

Every year, the Appropriations Committee, on which Rep. Harris sits, provides federal payments to the tune of $500,000,000 to the District of Columbia for the cost of judges, court personnel and defendant representation. They provide payments for programs in areas like education and security. The Department of Justice provides payment for federal attorneys to prosecute local crimes and house prisoners. Federal taxpayers do not fund similar activities in any other city.

As Reps. Harris and Pitts rightly point out in their op-ed, if marijuana laws aren’t confusing enough, nearly a quarter of the District is federal park land and is policed by 26 different enforcement agencies—places and personnel that would still answer to federal law, not D.C. legalization.

Congress has a direct responsibility over the District of Columbia. One that apparently gets you kicked out of bike shops.

Think Progress implicitly endorses Texas RFRA

by Travis Weber

December 12, 2014

Think Progress reported yesterday on a decision by the city of Dallas to revise regulations on feeding the homeless. These revisions, which made it easier to feed and care for those living on Dallas streets, were motivated by a federal court ruling last year in favor of several religious ministries desiring to take food to the homeless and feed and care for them wherever they are found.

Years ago, Dallas had cracked down on feeding the homeless and placed restrictions on how it could be done, and several Dallas area ministries and individuals who were impacted by these changes sued. The Think Progress report discusses these events:

After Big Hart Ministries Association and Rip Parker Memorial Homeless Ministry sued the city, six years passed before a judge ruled that the law violated the charities’ religious liberties under a Texas statute. Wednesday’s City Council vote carries the judge’s logic further, softening the rules charities face and effectively ending Dallas’ effort to clamp down on on-the-street feeding programs for the indigent regardless of religious affiliation.” (emphasis added)

Big Hart Ministries Association, Rip Parker Memorial Homeless Ministry, and William Edwards had sued under the Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Act (“RFRA”). The Texas RFRA states that (1) sincere religious practices (2) cannot be substantially burdened by the government unless the government (3) has a compelling interest which it is (4) advancing by the least restrictive means possible. In their lawsuit, the plaintiffs had alleged that – in violation of the Texas RFRA – they had a sincere belief that their religion requires them to care for the homeless, and that the city was substantially burdening that belief by making it impossible to carry out with heavy regulations on feeding the homeless. Early in 2013, a federal judge ruled that the plaintiffs religious beliefs were indeed substantially burdened, and the city did not have a compelling interest in its regulations – thus, they violated the Texas RFRA. Finally, this past week, in response to this ruling, the Dallas City Council approved changes to regulations on feeding the homeless.

Think Progress does not refer to the Texas RFRA by name – but that’s the law which has benefitted the homeless in this situation. This is exactly what RFRAs – whether in Texas or elsewhere – are meant to accomplish: protect the exercise of sincere religious faith, in recognition of the valuable role it plays in society and benefits it brings to people around us. Furthermore, and contrary to many popular claims, RFRAs do protect religious exercise “regardless of religious affiliation.” A quick search of how the laws have been used in court will reveal that they have protected religious exercise for a variety of faiths.

It would be nice (and intellectually consistent) for Think Progress to extend this logic to other situations implicating RFRA. Indeed, the beauty of law is that it is blind to political preferences. This is why having RFRAs passed into law is so important to protecting religious freedom today. When religious freedom is diminished and made part of a political game, everyone suffers.

At Family Research Council, we fully support RFRA and what it stands for – protecting the exercise of faith for all in the face of often overreaching and too powerful governments.

Pro-Life: Right Policy, Good - and Imperative - Politics

by Rob Schwarzwalder

December 2, 2014

In a post-election article in Politico, James Hohman describes what he terms “fault lines” as the 2016 Republican presidential field emerges. Among the issues he mentions are Common Core, NSA eavesdropping, immigration, Medicaid expansion and gay marriage. Noticeably absent: abortion.

Why? One reason is that advocates of protecting unborn children and their mothers from a predatory abortion industry are winning. According to the Guttmacher Institute (ironically, once the research arm of the country’s largest abortion provider, Planned Parenthood), “In 2013 alone, 22 states enacted 70 antiabortion measures, including pre-viability abortion bans, unwarranted doctor and clinic regulations, limits on the provision of medication abortion and bans on insurance coverage of abortion. However, 2013 was not even the year with the greatest number of new state-level abortion restrictions, as 2011 saw 92 enacted; 43 abortion restrictions were enacted by states in 2012.” Guttmacher also notes that by mid-2014, “13 states (had) adopted 21 new restrictions that could limit access to abortion.”

The implications of these new laws and regulations are profound: As noted by Catholic Family Association president Austin Ruse, “How effective have some of these state legislative efforts been? A few years ago, Texas had 40 abortion clinics. Now, it has less than ten and counting.” Put another way, thousands of unborn children in the Lone Star state will be welcomed into life and their mothers defended against the abortion industry’s exploitation.

Although Barack Obama’s commitment to unrestricted access to abortion-on-demand is almost legendary (infamous, more accurately and sadly), the new Republican House and Senate can still pass pro-life bills that not only will set the stage for victories in a future pro-life Administration but which will remind the GOP rank-and-file that they can rely on those for whom they voted to keep their word. A promise to defend life is especially worth keeping in an era when cynicism about politics and politicians is too well-deserved.

A second reason is that the potential contenders for the GOP presidential nomination two years from now are smart politicians: In the Republican Party, abortion is as settled as a difficult issue ever can be, and those vying for the party’s top electoral slot realize they must commit to defending life or fail in their effort to win the nomination. Last month’s election verified this: Brad Tupi of Human Events observes that “Of those voters who said abortion should be illegal, 73 percent were Republicans and 25 percent were Democrats. These results conform to the stated platform positions of the two major parties.” Tupi rightly comments that “voter turnout was abysmal, about 36 percent. This is the lowest turnout since World War II.” However, it’s also noteworthy that those who turned-out last month compose the core of the GOP’s voters, the men and women who will also vote in the 2016 primaries and whose votes will determine the next Republican presidential ticket.

Overwhelmingly and nationwide, Republican office holders are pro-life. All but a handful of the Republican Members of Congress, both House and Senate, are advocates (actively or at least passively) of the sanctity of life from conception until natural death. And as Dave Andrusko writes in National Right to Life News, last month a “diverse field of Republicans (won) in state legislative races; almost all are pro-life.” That’s why, in a lengthy analysis piece, Politico reporter Paige Winfield Cunningham argues that “the GOP victories in the statehouses and governor’s mansions … are priming the ground for another round of legal restrictions on abortion.” Cunningham predicts “a wave of anti-abortion laws” in the states.

We at the Family Research Council will welcome that wave. For those of us committed to protecting lives within the womb and helping their mothers with their little ones, born and unborn, that wave will be more like a cleansing flood. Let it come.

The Constitution and Executive Orders

by Rob Schwarzwalder

November 20, 2014

Family Research Council does not take a position on immigration reform. We’ve got enough on our plate, from protecting unborn children and their mothers from a predatory abortion industry and sustaining traditional marriage as the foundation of our culture to protecting religious liberty as the “first freedom” of our republic.

However, we take a strong position on the Constitution: We believe in it. We agree with the Founders that a written text contains objective meanings and that, to borrow a phrase from Jefferson, neither an activist judiciary nor an impatient president has a right to turn the Constitution into a “thing of wax.”

That’s why conservatives have every right to be concerned, even alarmed, by the President’s pending announcement of an Executive Order on U.S. immigration policy.

The Constitution invests the President with the authority to enact policies to ensure the faithful execution of laws passed by Congress and signed into law by the Executive (Section 3, Article II), and the “executive power” (or “vesting” power) granted the President (Article II, Section I) universally is recognized by constitutional scholars as involving only execution of federal laws, removing from the Executive Branch those officers who serve at the President’s discretion, and the formation and execution of foreign policy.

Then-Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v Sawyer (1952) offered a three-fold test for whether an Executive Order is valid:

  • When the President acts pursuant to an express or implied authorization of Congress, his authority is at its maximum, for it includes all that he possesses in his own right plus all that Congress can delegate.”
  • When the President acts in absence of either a congressional grant or denial of authority, he can only rely upon his own independent powers, but there is a zone of twilight in which he and Congress may have concurrent authority, or in which its distribution is uncertain. Therefore, congressional inertia, indifference or quiescence may sometimes, at least as a practical matter, enable, if not invite, measures on independent presidential responsibility.”
  • When the President takes measures incompatible with the expressed or implied will of Congress, his power is at its lowest ebb, for then he can rely only upon his own constitutional powers minus any constitutional powers of Congress over the matter … Presidential claim to a power at once so conclusive and preclusive must be scrutinized with caution, for what is at stake is the equilibrium established by our constitutional system.”

The operative phrase in the above bullets is in the third paragraph: “measures incompatible with the expressed or implied will of Congress.” Clearly, as National Affairs’ Andrew Evans writes, “President Obama’s executive order is intended as a substitute for a law that Congress has not passed.

Finally, federal Courts have ruled that Executive Orders that surpass the express intent of Congress can only be executed in times of national emergency. Even then, according to the

U.S. Code, “When the President declares a national emergency, no powers or authorities made available by statute for use in the event of an emergency shall be exercised unless and until the President specifies the provisions of law under which he proposes that he, or other officers will act. Such specification may be made either in the declaration of a national emergency, or by one or more contemporaneous or subsequent Executive orders published in the Federal Register and transmitted to the Congress.

In other words, even in the extreme event of a national emergency, the President has to justify by what authority he is declaring such emergency. And clearly, while both legal and illegal immigration policy involve a host of difficult issues, the Administration has not demonstrated, nor can it demonstrate, that any such emergency exists. If it did, why did the President – as he himself put it – wait a full year for Congress to act?

Legal scholar William J. Olson and Rutgers University historian Alan Woll have rightly noted that “Powers were separated not to make government more efficient but to restrain the natural bent of men, even presidents, to act as tyrants.” Mr. Obama hasn’t gotten what he wants, so he is acting like a monarch unconstrained by legality. This is not constitutional, republican governance. It is something else altogether – something that should evoke in everyone who values his Constitution-based liberty apprehension about what might come next.

Meddling Freedom From Religion Foundation Gets Tossed Out of Court

by Travis Weber

November 14, 2014

Thankfully, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit, in Freedom from Religion Foundation v. Lew, refused to let stand a decision which had declared the clergy housing tax allowance unconstitutional.

This case began when the Freedom from Religion Foundation (FFRF) sued the U.S. government alleging that the government grants tax benefits based on religion. In a quite ill-advised lower court ruling, U.S. District Judge Barbara Crabb held that the FFRF could properly bring the lawsuit and that the tax allowance violated the Constitution. The case was then appealed to the 7th Circuit.

To understand how ridiculous the FFRF’s claim is, we must understand a little bit about the doctrine of “standing” to bring a lawsuit in federal court.

As the 7th Circuit explained, to bring a lawsuit, a party must show:

(1) they were injured in a concrete and personal way,

(2) that the injury can be fairly traced to the defendant’s action, and

(3) that the injury is likely to be remedied by a favorable judicial decision.

In addition, the court explained, merely being offended at the government’s action does not give one grounds to sue. Obviously, the fact that an atheist group is upset at other religious entities getting some tax relief for their ministers does not “injure” the atheist group at all. There is simply no personal injury present.

The 7th Circuit agreed, noting that the FFRF could not be injured by being denied any such tax exemption because the group never even asked for it.

The court also noted the FFRF’s own difficulty in arguing for liberal standing rules – almost anyone would have standing to sue for virtually any reason! This would result in over-clogged and over-worked federal courts, which, as they sift through heaps of frivolous suits, would have to take time away from truly meritorious suits where parties have been actually injured. To say this would be an injustice is an understatement.

The 7th Circuit concluded as follows:

To summarize, plaintiffs do not have standing to challenge the constitutionality of the parsonage exemption. A person suffers no judicially cognizable injury merely because others receive a tax benefit that is conditioned on allegedly unconstitutional criteria, even if that person is otherwise “similarly situated” to those who do receive the benefit. Only a person that has been denied such a benefit can be deemed to have suffered a cognizable injury. The plaintiffs here have never been denied the parsonage exemption be-cause they have never requested it; therefore, they have suffered no injury.”

Nevertheless, it’s troubling to think the FFRF’s claims could even be considered more seriously had it asked for and been denied the exemption. Such a possibly should serve to highlight the way the suppressors of any religious expression in public life manipulate our legal system in wasteful and unproductive ways.

The FFRF has hardly been “injured” here by any reasonable understanding of that term. Courts should take note of this when the FFRF is back before another judge claiming some other mental or psychological “injury.”

Sketchy Judicial Assignments in Ninth Circuit Marriage Cases

by Chris Gacek

November 14, 2014

The American people are justified in wondering if they are ruled by interlocking ruling bodies that operate in secret, govern with unbridled duplicity, and are immune to correction by the People acting through their representatives or acting directly in referenda. There have been many prominent examples in the last two months. Two involve our imperious judicial oligarchy.

But, first we have the recent reports of repeated statements by Obamacare insider and MIT economist, Jonathan Gruber, calling the American people “stupid” and boasting that Obamacare was foisted on the public through a determined campaign of lying and deviousness. Lies on top of lies on top of lies.

Second, in early October the U.S. Supreme Court appeared to act with stunning cynicism when it dismissed requests for review of marriage-definition cases arising out of several federal appellate courts. The Court had heard an identical case when it reviewed the constitutionality of California’s Proposition 8 less than two years ago. However, the Prop 8 case was dismissed because the plaintiffs, the proponents of Prop 8, were deemed to lack “standing” to sue. This conclusion was reached because California’s Attorney General took a dive in the litigation and refused to defend a ballot-approved amendment to the California constitution. (Prop 8 was supported by a 52% majority in November 2008.)

The October 2014 cases petitions to the Supreme Court checked all the boxes for standing, but the cases were still turned away allowing lower court rulings that struck down male-female marriage to stay in place. It appeared the that Supreme Court was taking the coward’s way out by allowing lower courts to redefine marriage in America without publicly putting forward a majority opinion explaining how the male-female definition of marriage could violate any constitutional principle. This Court, it appeared, didn’t even have the integrity to write its own Roe v. Wade for marriage. On November 6th the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit supported the traditional marriage definition. Now that there is a split among the circuit courts, the Supreme Court’s stealth imposition strategy won’t work – if that is what they were doing. Now the nation is left with an incoherent stew of constitutional slop consisting of incongruent reasoning and standards. The reputation of the Supreme Court is being badly damaged each day this continues.

Well, if you were to think that the reputation of our black robed masterminds couldn’t get much worse, think again. In October 2014 a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued a decision striking down the male-female marriage regime established be the voters of Nevada and Idaho. (The court reversed an excellent Nevada opinion that had supported traditional marriage.) In mid-October, a private group in Nevada, the Coalition for Protection of Marriage, filed a petition and a supporting affidavit with supporting statistical analysis with the full Ninth Circuit purporting to demonstrate that the panels in cases on homosexual-related issues were not being assigned randomly. In fact, they claimed that two of the court’s most liberal members (Stephen Reinhardt and Marsha S. Berzon) were greatly overrepresented in such cases. Here is how the Coalition for Protection of Marriage summarized its claim of bias in panel selection:

The attached statistical analysis … explains that since January 1, 2010, Judge Berzon has been on the merits panel in five and Judge Reinhardt has been on the merits panel in four of the eleven Ninth Circuit cases involving the federal constitutional rights of gay men and lesbians (“Relevant Cases”), far more than any other judge and far more than can reasonably be accounted for by a neutral assignment process. Indeed, statistical analysis demonstrates that the improbability of such occurring randomly is not just significant but overwhelming. Thus, the odds are 441-to-1 against what we observe with the Relevant Cases—the two most assigned judges receiving under a neutral assignment process five and four assignments respectively (and anything more extreme). (Petition, 3-4.)

If assessed accurately, this assignment pattern was not random. The case assignment was rigged to help assure the politically desired outcome.

It goes without saying that this is an extremely serious accusation that needs investigation not just by some handpicked Ninth Circuit lackey but by the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court and by the new Senate Judiciary Committee to be chaired by Senator Grassley.

Elections Deal Another Setback to the “Rainbow Revolution”

by Peter Sprigg

November 14, 2014

On October 30, just five days before the mid-term elections, the McClatchy newspaper chain ran a breathless article under the headline, “Rainbow Revolution: U.S. welcoming gay marriage, changing politics.”

Much of the focus of the article was on changes in attitudes toward homosexuality in the Republican Party. It began with an account of something that it said “would have been unimaginable even a couple years ago.” It told how “[t]he most powerful Republican in Washington,” House Speaker John Boehner, “flew to San Diego … to help raise money for an openly gay candidate for the House of Representatives” (Carl DeMaio). It reported that DeMaio, along with Richard Tisei of Massachusetts, were “[a] pair of openly gay Republicans … running in competitive House races.” According to the article, Boehner’s “decision to campaign for gay candidates was met with surprisingly nominal opposition, which he was able to brush aside quickly.”

The McClatchy article, penned by Anita Kumar, also highlighted Monica Wehby, the (heterosexual) Republican candidate for the Senate in Oregon, who ran a TV ad highlighting her support for redefining marriage, “featuring a gay man who successfully fought the state’s same-sex marriage ban.”

Democrats were not completely ignored, however. The article also cited Maine “where Democrat Mike Michaud could become the first openly gay governor in the nation.” Meanwhile, “In Colorado, Democratic Sen. Mark Udall launched a social media campaign against his Republican opponent for voting against a bill that would protect gays from discrimination.”

Apart from specific candidates, this “first story in an occasional series on the changes in American attitudes about gays and gay marriage” declared, “After decades of solid opposition, a majority of Americans now support marriage between those of the same sex.”

That was the media spin on October 30, 2014.

What a difference five days make.

DeMaio and Tisei, the two homosexual Republican Congressional candidates? Both lost.

Monica Wehby, the Republican Senate candidate who considers someone a hero for helping to overturn a popular vote defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman? She lost.

Democrats Michaud and Udall? They both lost, too.

And that “majority” that supposedly supports same-sex “marriage?” According to nationwide exit polls on Election Day, it was only 48%—exactly the same proportion who continue to oppose such a redefinition (and a decline from the 49-46% plurality which supporters of marriage redefinition had in the 2012 exit polls). This was based on a poll question asking, “Should your state legally recognize same-sex marriage?” Note that polls which correctly frame the issue by asking about the definition of marriage have consistently shown that most American continue to believe that marriage should be defined as the union of one man and one woman. For example, in this 2013 poll, when asked, ““Would you approve or disapprove of changing the definition of the word marriage to also include same-sex couples?” only 39% approved while 56% disapproved.

While the media may view the world through rainbow-colored glasses, and there may be a “rainbow revolution” underway on the subject of marriage in the courts (which, under our constitutional system, are supposed to be the least revolutionary branch of government), it is clear that actual voters—you know, “We, the People,” who are the sovereign rulers of this country—are not so eager to join this “revolution.”

As FRC President Tony Perkins pointed out after the election, the concern about candidates like DeMaio, Tisei, and Wehby “was not these candidates’ sexual orientation, but their policy orientation.” The threat to the family posed by redefining marriage, and the threat to religious liberty posed by the aggressive agenda for the forced affirmation and celebration of homosexuality, are becoming ever clearer, and a candidate’s support for these radical policies is not something that will motivate the Republican base to turn out and support them.

In fact, exit polls showed that opposition to redefining marriage remains widespread—and even dominant in several of the key battleground states which were crucial to the Republican takeover of the Senate. The most complete set of exit poll results that I was able to find in the days after the election was posted online by NBC News, and included data on the marriage question for 24 states.

In Arkansas, Republican Tom Cotton unseated Democratic incumbent Mark Pryor in a state where voters said “No” to same-sex “marriage” by a whopping margin of 69% to 27%. In North Carolina—the most recent state to adopt a marriage amendment, in 2012—Republican Thom Tillis beat Democratic incumbent Kay Hagan in a state which still opposes a revisionist view of marriage by 57% to 39%. In Louisiana, incumbent Democrat Mary Landrieu in probably in trouble in a December runoff against Republican challenger Bill Cassidy (Louisiana is the most pro-marriage state in the NBC exit polls, opposing a redefinition of marriage by 73% to 25%). In West Virginia, Republican Shelley Moore Capito will replace retiring Democratic incumbent Jay Rockefeller (the state’s voters oppose same-sex “marriage” by a 67% to 31% margin).

Meanwhile, Republican incumbents Mitch McConnell, Tim Scott, and Pat Roberts held off Democratic challengers in Kentucky (against same-sex “marriage” 64%-33%); South Carolina (62%-34%); and Kansas (51%-45%). In Georgia, Republican David Perdue held the seat of retiring incumbent Republican Saxby Chambliss (Georgia voters oppose same-sex “marriage” by 62%-34%).

Only one Democratic Senate candidate was victorious in a state where a majority of voters oppose same-sex “marriage”—incumbent Sen. Mark Warner of Virginia, who narrowly edged out establishment Republican Ed Gillespie (the state says “no” to recognizing same-sex “marriage” by 53% to 45%).

So Democrats fared extremely poorly in states that oppose same-sex “marriage.” Yet it is undeniable that the country is sharply divided on this issue. The 24 states with exit poll results on this issue reported on the NBC website included ten with majorities (and two more with pluralities) against recognizing same-sex “marriage,” eleven with majorities in favor of it, and one (Florida) perfectly mirroring the 48% to 48% tie nationwide.

Some have argued that as public opinion gradually shifts toward more people making peace with same-sex “marriage,” the Republican Party will have to abandon its staunch opposition in order to keep up with the times. Did Republicans who oppose same-sex “marriage” struggle at the polls in the states where majorities of voters reportedly support it?

The answer is no. Joni Ernst of Iowa, Dan Sullivan of Alaska, and Cory Gardner of Colorado are all Republicans who were victorious in key battleground states without endorsing same-sex “marriage,” even though its recognition is reportedly supported by voters in Iowa (50% to 42%), Alaska (55% to 41%) and Colorado (62% to 32%). Scott Brown, on the other hand, lost in New Hampshire (where voters support recognition of same-sex “marriage” by the largest margin reported, 70% to 28%)—despite being endorsed by the pro-homosexual Log Cabin Republicans.

Although not tested by the exit polls, my theory is that even as polls seem to show significant support for the redefinition of marriage, that support is very thin, whereas the opposition is much more deep-seated. In other words, far more of those who express opposition to the redefinition of marriage do so out of deep conviction, and are likely to oppose a candidate based on this issue alone. Many of the 40% of Americans who (according to the exit polls) attend religious services at least once a week probably fall into this category.

On the other hand, much of the expressed support for changing the definition of marriage is just a matter of going along with the perceived cultural tide, rather than a deep conviction. (Indeed, with the recent spate of court rulings in favor of redefining marriage across the country, answering “yes” to the question, “Should your state legally recognize same-sex marriage?” may amount to little more than a declaration that their state should obey rulings of the courts—not that such a definition is the ideal public policy).

The percentage of voters who will oppose a candidate only because he or she refuses to endorse marriage redefinition is probably relatively small—mostly, just the 1.6% of American adults who (according to a recent federal survey) self-identify as gay or lesbian.

In summary, the historic 2014 elections for the Senate demonstrate that supporting the redefinition of marriage and the rest of the pro-homosexual agenda is a loser, and opposing it is a winner, across the country—especially for Republican candidates.

So much for the “rainbow revolution.”

[Below are the exit poll results on marriage for all 24 states where they were reported by NBC News, in order of the most to least opposition to redefining marriage:]

Question: “Should your state legally recognize same-sex marriage?”

State Yes No

Louisiana 25% 73%

Arkansas 27 69

West Virginia 31 67

Kentucky 31 67

Georgia 34 62

South Carolina 34 62

North Carolina 39 57

Ohio 41 54

Virginia 44 53

Kansas 45 51

Michigan 45 49

Pennsylvania 47 49

Florida 48 48

[Total U.S. 48 48]

Wisconsin 52 45

Iowa 50 42

Alaska 55 41

Minnesota 58 39

Illinois 58 38

New York 59 36

California 61 35

Colorado 62 32

Oregon 64 32

Maine 66 32

New Hampshire 70 28

Archives