Green Bay Bishop David Ricken

Another member of the Catholic hierarchy has used his godly decree to condemn liberal social values, calling them “intrinsically evil,” including homosexuality and abortion. Green Bay, Wisconsin Bishop David Ricken penned a letter to parishioners last week urging them to consider social values when they vote for president, though mentioning neither candidate by name, including five “non-negotiables” that they must consider lest they risk putting their “soul in jeopardy”:

I would like to review some of the principles to keep in mind as you approach the voting booth to complete your ballot. The first is the set of non-negotiables. These are areas that are “intrinsically evil” and cannot be supported by anyone who is a believer in God or the common good or the dignity of the human person.

They are:

1.  abortion
2.  euthanasia
3.  embryonic stem cell research
4.  human cloning
5.  homosexual “marriage”

These are intrinsically evil. “A well-formed Christian conscience does not permit one to vote for a political program that contradicts fundamental contents of faith and morals.” Intrinsically evil actions are those which have an evil object. In other words, an act is evil by its very nature and to choose an action of this type puts one in grave moral danger.

But what does this have to do with the election?  Some candidates and one party have even chosen some of these as their party’s or their personal political platform. To vote for someone in favor of these positions means that you could be morally “complicit” with these choices which are intrinsically evil. This could put your own soul in jeopardy.

These are clearly the words of a religious leader abusing the power of his position. Ricken may not mention Barack Obama or Mitt Romney by name, but that doesn’t mean he isn’t clearly threatening Church-goers with the fate of their souls in this election. One’s fear of Hell should not be a factor in making a thoughtful vote, and Ricken’s letter makes evident how little respect the Church has for the people impacted by these issues. (HT: Towleroad.)

The campaigns against marriage equality in Maryland, Maine, Minnesota, and Washington are all running some variation on an ad featuring David and Tonia Parker, a Massachusetts couple who in 2005 objected to their kids learning in school that same-sex marriages existed. Conservatives regularly highlight David Parker as a victim to scare voters, but his story is told in incredibly misleading ways.

There is a big difference between mentioning that some kids — including students in the class — have same-sex parents and teaching about same-sex sexuality. The former is what happened in schools, but the latter is what the Parkers claim they objected to. In fact, David Parker so objected to the use of materials including all families that he appeared at the school to protest and refused to leave, forcing an arrest for trespassing. Parker then sued and a federal judge dismissed his complaint, saying that schools are “entitled to teach anything that is reasonably related to the goals of preparing students to become engaged and productive citizens in our democracy.” Parker has since become an outspoken enemy of LGBT equality; Jeremy Hooper has a round-up of his various interviews, in which he calls homosexuality a disease, claims that gay people “use” and harm their children, and urges schools to promote harmful ex-gay therapy.

Parker responded to Hooper’s clips to make one clarification about whether homosexuality is a “disease,” choosing instead to describe it as an “addiction” that people are “drawn in” to:

PARKER: I could have been more clear about the “disease” correlation. If you really listen — I was led down this thought path unprepared — and went reluctantly and clumsily. Let me clarify — I believe that engaging in homosexual conduct becomes more addictive with practiced frequency until a person “feels” like that’s “who they are.” It shouldn’t be contriversial [sic] that a “sexual feeling” has a physiological addictiveness — when something “feels good” to a person — psychologically, they are compelled to do it more. I also believe that intense love for the same gender is NOT “homosexuality” — as is commonly understood. I also, VERY strongly believe that sexuality is fluid — especially when young. And, I do not look down on persons with same-sex attraction; my worldview informs me that ALL of humanity has urges and temptations  — and the more you “give in” the more you are “drawn in.” I hope you except [sic] the authenticity to genuinely put forth my clarification, though, I know this is not an explanation that you will embrace.

David Parker does not have any known psychological qualifications to inform his positions, which is likely why his understanding of homosexuality in no way aligns with what all professional social science organizations have been saying for decades. Given that many consider addictions like alcoholism to be a disease, his clarification here is a distinction without a difference. He clearly sees gays and lesbians as disordered and troubled and not worthy of respect in society, which is why he has no problem serving as a spokesperson against equality at every opportunity.

Watch a mash-up of the Parkers’ ad as it’s running in all four state campaigns, with comparisons to fear-mongering ads of the past:

Pastor Robert Anderson

At a recent panel hosted by the Maryland Marriage Alliance, Pastor Robert Anderson claimed that according to the Bible, both gay people and their allies are “deserving of death,” calling on voters to oppose marriage equality so as not to “approve these things that are worthy of death.” The group’s executive director, Derek McCoy, was seated next to Anderson and laughed approvingly when Anderson condemned gays and lesbians to the “wrong side of eternity.”

Media backlash was swift, but McCoy called any implication that this was a “call to harm gays and lesbians” as a false “distraction from the real issues of this campaign.” Anderson was quiet on the matter until this weekend, when he issued an “apology” that his comments were misunderstood, essentially doubling down on his biblical condemnations of death and an eternity of Hell:

I regret that many have misunderstood my comments regarding homosexuality and same-sex marriage to mean that I endorse or support physical violence in any shape or form against anyone. The statements in Leviticus 18:22 and Romans 1:32 (KJV) can stand for themselves. The Bible is very clear on the subject of homosexuality, and I do not need to apologize for God’s word, but I do want to be perfectly clear that I am not promoting violence, bullying, or hatred toward homosexuals and neither is God.

Either the Bible verses he cited do call for gays to be put to death, or they do not, and if they “can stand for themselves,” then they very much do. McCoy could not have been more wrong about what the “real issues of this campaign” are. It’s quite clear that his group’s blatant animus against gays and lesbians and their families is at the very root of this challenge to marriage equality.

Former Gov. Linda Lingle (R-HI)

In a Hawaii Senate debate last week, former Gov. Linda Lingle (R-HI) came under fire for a 2010 move described by LGBT-rights activists as “unwarranted cruelty.” Rep. Mazie Hirono, her Democratic opponent and a supporter of marriage equality, noted that Lingle invited supporters of civil unions to attend what they thought would be a bill-signing ceremony, only to veto the bill.

Lingle, asked about marriage equality, said that she continues to believe marriage should only be between one man and one woman and that she would support putting the question up for a popular vote in the Aloha State. When Hirono reminded viewers of Lingle’s civil unions veto, the former governor said she thought the move was “respectful”:

HIRONO: We all remember when as governor she vetoed the civil unions bill and, in doing so, before she vetoed it, she invited members of the [LGBT] leadership to join her. And they thought that she was going to sign that bill into law. And instead, right in front of them, the very group that had worked so hard to pass this legislation, she vetoed that bill. I thought that was extremely insensitive and disrespectful of their position. Her position, my opponent’s position on marriage equality, is very much in line with national Republicans and is certainly not what the Democrats stand for.

LINGLE: … she gave the impression that I only invited one side in and then went against their point of view… in fact, I had invited both sides in. The passions were running so high, I didn’t feel it was something I should do in my office, or away from the public. And because both sides had spoken extensively on this very important topic, I invited both sides to be with me as I read my statement that day. It was a very difficult decision to make, but one I tried to do in the most respectful way possible.

HIRONO: Well, clearly, to invite the very group that had hoped she was inviting them to sign the bill into law, and instead vetoed it, I think is a very insensitive thing to do. I certainly wouldn’t have done it.

Watch the video:

Donald L. Bentz, executive director of Equality Hawaii, told ThinkProgress in August that Lingle made “an inhumane spectacle.” Activists were told on arrival “you’ll be seated with the media, you are not allowed to react, there will be no questions. If you react in any way, shape or form, you’ll be escorted out of the conference.” Supporters were not even permitted to cry from the disappointment. Lingle made the ThinkProgress Anti-LGBT Senate Candidates Dirty Dozen based on her opposition to hate crimes protections, employment protections, and marriage equality for LGBT Hawaiians.

Lingle’s explanation for this heartless gesture is that because she also invited the anti-LGBT people to see her veto the bill, it was “respectful.” Her successor, Gov. Neil Abercrombie (D), signed a similar civil unions bill into law in 2011.

Last week, news surfaced that as governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney refused to issue birth certificate forms inclusive of same-sex couples after marriage equality became law. Instead, his lawyers reviewed every single case and then ordered questionably legal hand-written edits to the formal documents. Now, Michelangelo Signorile found video of Romney speaking to conservative voters in South Carolina in 2005 defending that decision:

ROMNEY: Today, same-sex couples are marrying, under the law, in Massachusetts. Some gays are actually having children born to them. We’ve been asked to change their birth certificates to remove the phrase “mother” and “father” and replace it with “parent A” and “parent B.” It’s not right on paper. It’s not right in fact. Every child has the right to have a mother and father.

Watch it:

As noted last week, the birth certificate forms did not officially change to become inclusive of same-sex families until after Romney left office.

John McTernan

A Christian religious leader has already claimed that Hurricane Sandy is further proof that “God is systematically destroying America” as political judgment for the “homosexual agenda.” John McTernan previously made similar allusions about Hurricanes Katrina (2005) and Isaac (2012), which he reiterated in his urgent call to prayer posted Sunday evening (via Gay Star News):

Just last August, Hurricane Isaac hit New Orleans seven years later, on the exact day of Hurricane Katrina. Both hit during the week of the homosexual event called Southern Decadence in New Orleans!

McTernan believes that it is noteworthy that Hurricane Sandy is hitting 21 years after the “Perfect Storm,” because 3 is a “significant number with God”:

Twenty-one years breaks down to 7 x 3, which is a significant number with God. Three is perfection as the Godhead is three in one while seven is perfection.

It appears that God gave America 21 years to repent of interfering with His prophetic plan for Israel; however, it has gotten worse under all the presidents and especially Obama. Obama is 100 percent behind the Muslim Brotherhood which has vowed to destroy Israel and take Jerusalem. Both candidates are pro-homosexual and are behind the homosexual agenda. America is under political judgment and the church does not know it!

Religious spokespeople have frequently tried to draw bizarre connections between natural disasters and the LGBT community. Last year, the American Family Association’s Buster Wilson similarly claimed that Hurricane Isaac was punishment for the Southern Decadence LGBT festival. Rick Joyner had the same to say about Hurricane Katrina, claiming that “[God]‘s not gonna put up with perversion anymore.” Pat Robertson has long believed that acceptance of homosexuality could result in hurricanes, earthquakes, tornadoes, terrorist bombs, and “possibly a meteor.”

It’s likely that McTernan will not be the only religious figure to draw such allusions from this devastating storm.

In an interview with MTV last week, President Obama was asked about the issue of same-sex marriage. In part of his response, Obama said, “For us to try to legislate federally into this area is probably the wrong way to go,” which led many media outlets, including ABC News, to speculate that he had reversed his position on repealing the Defense of Marriage Act. As BuzzFeed correctly pointed out, though, the President was clarifying that the federal government should not impose same-sex marriage through law, but allow individual states to still make that decision. In his answer, he actually reiterated his opposition to DOMA:

OBAMA: I have been very clear about my belief that same-sex couples have to be treated before the eyes of the law in the same way as heterosexual couples. I think that’s the right thing to do. It’s based on my personal experience seeing loving couples who are committed to each other, raising kids, and are just outstanding people. [...]

[H]istorically, marriages have been defined at the state level. There’s a conversation going on. New York has moved forward with one set of ideas. There are some other states that are still having that debate. I think that, for us to try to legislate federally into this area is probably the wrong way to go. The courts are going to be examining these issues.

I’ve stood up and said I’m opposed to the so-called Defense Against Marriage Act, because what that does is it says that the federal government won’t even recognize a marriage for a state that has decided that they’re going to recognize same-sex couples. [...] I’ve said that’s wrong. There are a couple of cases that are working their way through the courts, and my expectation is that the Defense of Marriage Act will be overturned.

Watch it: