Twisting Bible stories for the gay agenda? Yup, that’s right up HuffPo’s alley.
The Huffington Post’s “Gay Voices” blog was all praise yesterday for gay artist Paul Richmond’s schlocky painting called “Noah’s Gay Wedding Cruise,” which depicts gay couples aboard the Ark. HuffPo lauded Richmond’s work as a “whimsical, gay twist on the biblical narrative.”
ACLU Action, a new initiative of the American Civil Liberties Union, has launched a campaign pressuring ABC and the producers of the sitcom "Modern Family" to make a gay-wedding episode for the characters Cam and Mitchell. They created a website at ModernFamilyWedding.com.
"The freedom to marry is being advanced in American living rooms as much as in court rooms," said ACLU Executive Director Anthony D. Romero. "As we wait for the Supreme Court to rule, we want to keep this issue on the minds and screens of Americans everywhere."
Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) recently proposed an amendment to the so-called Gang of Eight’s immigration bill that would allow homosexuals in the U.S. to sponsor their foreign-born partners for green cards. Naturally, MSNBC was elated at this potential fusion of gay rights and immigration reform, so to celebrate, Sunday's Weekends with Alex Witt brought on Jose Antonio Vargas, a former Washington Post reporter and liberal activist who happens to be both gay AND an undocumented immigrant.
Vargas eagerly played up his double-minority status, complaining:
During the highly publicized exchange between Bill O'Reilly and Laura Ingraham on gay marriage, O'Reilly made this statement: "There are Bible thumpers, and all they do is say, 'I object to gay marriage because God objects to it.' You don't win a policy debate in America with that."
Really?
"I never thought I would write these words, but I agree with Bill O’Reilly (in part)." That's how Center for American Progress senior fellow and liberal theologian Susan Brooks Thistlethwaite opened her latest column for the Washington Post "On Faith" section, "Thumping the Bible: O’Reilly, gay marriage, and theology."
Brooks Thistlethwaite was praising the Fox News anchor for "vigorously defending his statement that opponents of same-sex marriage needed to do more than 'thump the Bible' if they wanted to win the debate." "If you want to influence public policy from a faith perspective, thumping the Bible does not constitute a religious argument," the Chicago Theological Seminary professor pontificated. But as we at NewsBusters have documented repeatedly, Brooks Thistlethwaite repeatedly uses the Bible to justify her calls for liberal policy prescriptions on everything from gun control to tax hikes to gay marriage.
ABC political analyst Matt Dowd on Sunday continued his evolution to the left, complaining about how disconnected the Supreme Court is from public opinion on gay marriage. Dowd, who worked for the Bush administration, appeared on This Week and chided, "To me, it's actually surprising that the Supreme Court is that actually far out of tune where the country is."
He pushed, "So, the country is way ahead on this. So, that's what I don't understand why the Supreme Court seems reluctant to weigh in an issue where the country is already moved on." Dowd, who is often billed as a down-the-line analyst for ABC, mocked the concept of traditional marriage in the past: "...If you want to go to traditional marriage, it wasn't monogamous, races couldn't marry. Women were property and they couldn't give consent."
The PBS NewsHour went into everyone’s favorite subjects last Friday, gays and guns, and discussed the overwhelming cultural shift concerning gay marriage. New York Times columnist David Brooks and syndicated columnist Mark Shields both commented on how this shift could be irreversible, but noted that the Supreme Court could “Roe v. Wade” the decision. That is, the faux conservative and the liberal pundit both agreed that a court decision could just breath new life and fresh controversy into the same-sex marriage fight.
Yes, this is NOT an April Fools' joke. Brooks and Shields were actually saying that sweeping decisions, if not taken responsibly, could create more problems in the long run. It's a refreshing moment hearing shields, unlike others among his liberal colleagues, acknowledging how social change is best achieved through the political process rather than the courts. It is, however, a shame that Brooks failed to give a conservative constitutional case for why DOMA and Prop 8 should stand, aside from the deleterious effects of a court ruling:
You have to hand it to Washington Post editors. They're pretty slick. In hiring Jennifer Rubin as their token conservative blogger, they have a rightie who criticizes the Right enough to ensure they seldom have to actually put in the print edition excerpts of her posts critical of President Obama. In early March I noted how Post opinion editors excerpted a Rubin blog which bashed the conservative CPAC conference rather than say publish a blog post which attacked Obama and the media over sequester hype.
In the Monday, April 1 paper the Post was at it again, choosing to run a Rubin piece that sought to explain how socially conservative opponents of same-sex marriage "lost the fight" on the policy issue. But a review of Rubin's Right Turn blog archive shows a piece she wrote on Friday morning that would have been excellent to put in print and which attacked President Obama over his "gun histrionics." Here's an excerpt which includes many of her key points (emphasis mine):
Syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer made a statement on PBS's Inside Washington Friday that's guaranteed to raise eyebrows on both sides of the aisle.
"If the [Supreme] Court were to decide that to deny same-sex marriage is unconstitutional... this will become an assault on religion" (video follows with transcript and commentary):
While CNN claims to be non-partisan, anchors have been openly expressing their favor for same-sex marriage and advocating the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). Host Piers Morgan and anchor Don Lemon even descended into smearing opponents of same-sex marriage as "homophobic" and akin to segregationists.
On Wednesday, Morgan tweeted, "What politicians are beginning to realise - hardly anyone under 30 is homophobic. #RIPDOMA". He added "RIP #DOMA....you will not be missed, no flowers necessary."
After two days of same-sex marriage arguments at the Supreme Court, New York Times reporter Sheryl Gay Stolberg bestowed a blessing on the "serious and unassuming" Mary Bonauto, a lawyer for Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders (GLAD). Even the headline equated gay marriage with the civil rights fight, citing the legendary civil rights lawyer who became a Supreme Court Justice: "In Fight for Marriage Rights, 'She's Our Thurgood Marshall.'"
The Marshall reference comes from left-wing former Rep. Barney Frank, who is openly gay and married. We also learn "Ms. Bonauto is too busy juggling legal briefs, homework and piano lessons to see herself as a woman making history." But not too busy to be feted in the news pages of the Times.
So, Politico jumped the shark on gay marriage yesterday in reporting that Justice Elena Kagan that she had a ‘gotcha’ moment during yesterday’s hearings on the Defense of Marriage Act.
But a real ‘gotcha’ moment would have been if Politico did their homework and resurrected Kagan’s past comments about gay marriage from 2009, when she was awaiting confirmation to the post of solicitor general and she insisted in the answer to a questionnaire that “there is no federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage.”
In Elena Kagan's DOMA 'Gotcha' Moment, Jennifer Epstein and Josh Gerstein gushed that: