Do Dems Want to Revoke the Nonprofit Status of Your Child’s School?

Dear friend of marriage:

John McCormack buttonholed major Senate Democrats and asked them: after Obergefell, do you think Congress should revoke the tax-exempt status of religious schools that require teachers to live according to religious rules?

I was amazed at their answers. I think you want to read it for yourself, please go here:

And if you have a Facebook page, please share?



What I want GOP Candidates to Say About Marriage

Here is what I think the man or woman who wants to be president cannot say: any version of “the Court has ruled, it’s time to move on.”

Here is what I want to hear:

“Today the Supreme Court ruled against our history and traditions that marriage must change its timeless and time-honored meaning in response to the latest liberal pressures. The Supreme Court is not God, and it is not the final word in our American Constitutional system: The Court, like all human things, sometimes get things wrong. It was wrong about slavery with Dred Scott. It was wrong about racism and segregation with Plessy v. Ferguson. It was wrong about the value of every human life with Roe v. Wade. And today it has gotten marriage wrong.

“For a reason, marriage across time and history has been the union of husband and wife: These are the unions we all depend on to make new life, and to connect our babies with the love of their mom and dad. You can rewrite the law, but you cannot rewrite human nature, or the laws of nature and of nature’s God.

“This Court’s decision does not end the discussion of the dangers of radical judicial power.

“Today, I pledge that, if I am elected president, the move to redefine as discrimination Christianity and traditional beliefs on marriage — to redefine them as the equivalent of racism — ends. Gays and lesbians have a right to live as they choose, but this same tolerance and respect must be extended to those who disagree with gay marriage. My first day in office I will issue an executive order preventing government from discriminating on the basis of a person’s commitment to the classic understanding of marriage. And within the first 100 days, we will pass legislation codifying that commitment to prevent government power from being used to silence the debate. The First Amendment Defense Act is a commonsense codification of basic decency and mutual respect. I call on not only the Republicans but Hillary Clinton and every other Democrat to pledge to support this law.

“And if they refuse, you will understand how radical a power grab the Democrats imagine: the power to punish classic, mainstream religious belief and push it out of the public square. The American people believe in mutual respect, in live and let live. I have faith that our cause, so named, will not only survive. It will prevail.

“To this great cause I pledge my word. I will not fail you, friends.”

Let us watch, and wait, and see who speaks with courage and who runs for cover.

Hey, Frank Bruni, Lay Off Our Fathers!

Progressivism has now progressed to the point that it wants to be the pope — and not only of Catholics but of the whole world.First Hillary Clinton declares her job is to change “deep-seated” religious beliefs around the world that interfere with abortion rights.This week, Frank Bruni, fresh from asserting with approval that Mitchell Gold wants to make Christians take homosexuality off their sin list, decides to attack the Catholic Church for committing the primal sin of patriarchy. “Catholicism Undervalues Women.” The pope is always a man!

Likening Pope Francis’s call for equal pay for equal work to a Pringles vendor decrying obesity, Bruni wrote: “But the Church’s refusal to follow some other Christian denominations and ordain women undermines any progress towards equality that it trumpets or tries. Sexism is embedded in its structure, its flow chart. Men but not women get to preside at mass.”

I had two reactions to Frank Bruni, speaking as a Catholic woman. First: Hey, Frank, lay off our fathers! Some of us appreciate men who commit themselves sacrificially to the service of God and God’s people. The collapse of civilized masculinity is one of the unacknowledged crises of our time. Priests are not ministers or rabbis. They are not first and foremost knowledgeable teachers of religion, like clergymen in many other denominations; they are in themselves a sacrament, a making visible of God’s grace in the world, and the source (by the grace of God) of the sacrament of the Eucharist that unites us each Sunday. God did not just send a Holy Spirit to save us; He became a man, who died for our sins. Each Sunday, and in the confessional, the priest stands as an image of Jesus Christ for us.My second reaction: Frank Bruni, please stop insulting the free will of millions of American Catholic women. We were fortunate enough to be born free; we do not need the self-appointed clergy of the Holy Church of Secular Progressivism imposing its morality on us. (Frank would probably be surprised to learn that 37 percent of young Catholic women who attend Mass, and go to confession, support the Church’s teaching fully.)

Read the Full Article at the National Review Online

AP Poll Finds Religious Rights Trump Gay Marriage

A surprise Associated Press poll finds that the public doesn’t believe government can force business owners to violate their religious beliefs as it is on gay marriage.  Asked whether “wedding related businesses” should be required to service same sex couples, voters said no, 52-45.  Similarly, when there is a conflict (between gay rights and religious liberties), voters chose religious liberties by a 56-40 margin.

The poll also showed a large enthusiasm gap between on the question of whether gay rights were “important.”  Only 27 percent labeled them “extremely” or “very” important while 47 percent labeled them “not very” or “not at all” important.  The gap was similar for religious liberty, with 50 percent labeling them “very important” while only 28 percent labeled them slightly or not at all.

You can read a full summary of the poll’s findings at The Pulse 2016.

A letter to Justice Anthony Kennedy

Dear Justice Kennedy:

The forces for gay marriage are powerful. You have been their hero in the past, when gay people were not so powerful. The tables are turned now, as I think is clear to everyone. The LGBT community has built a powerful cultural, legal, and political movement. They are not helpless or friendless. They do not need you to distort the Constitution to win the right to live as they choose. We who believe in the traditional understanding of marriage do need your help. We live at a time when our livelihoods are under new attack, when our standing as equal citizens is under attack, when the system of ideas and the deep human realities that gave rise to marriage for millennia are now being dismissed as mere bigotry, as irrational, incomprehensible hatred.

Let me offer you four reasons why you should reject the idea that marriage equality requires all states to treat gay unions as marriages.

1. It is not true that same-sex and opposite-sex couples are equal. Not all sexual relationships are equal, even if they are loving and committed. Same-sex couples have to deal with the preference that the majority has for opposite-sex relationships, ranging from mama’s slight mourning for the family her son will likely never have to Westboro Baptist’s awful, crude, ugly, and unchristian hatred. Opposite-sex couples have the task of managing the reality that from the about age 14 until the woman ages out around 45, every single act of sex could make new life. Nothing the Supreme Court says or does about marriage will change these realities, but importing gay marriage into our Constitution will unleash a cavalcade of consequences for traditional believers.

2. The equality line will require continual policing, because it is based on an untruth about human nature. Maintaining the idea that there is no significant difference between same-sex and opposite-sex couples will require actively suppressing the reality that the potential for new life in opposite-sex unions is both morally and socially significant, that it colors the meaning not only of marital unions but of most every sexual interaction between male and female. Of course we will notice that sex makes babies, but every time we do, we will have to twist our heads in a pretzel to think of the ways same-sex unions and opposite-sex unions are the same and to make those the significant features of marriage.

3. This policing of the equality line will fall the heaviest on those most committed to the older view of marriage, that it is deeply rooted in the reality that society must bring male and female together to make the future happen; that marriage is more than a relationship, it is a social institution with purposes larger than the intentions of the young couple in love, that it exists to channel erotic love in such a way that men and women can live together across the gender divide, and share the task of loving and raising their children. This means that sustaining marriage privately, without public or governmental approval, will become immeasurably harder, as the portions of society most committed to marriage, classically understood, become consumed with the task of figuring out how they survive the hatred and dhimmitude directed their way. When the solicitor general of the United States concedes that the argument he is making may lead to stripping Christian schools of their tax-exempt status, you know we are not making things up, or whining, or complaining for no reason. If we want to get to live and let live, we need your help to not constitutionalize the Human Rights Campaign’s sexual morality.

Read the Full Article Here

Who Besides Bobby Jindal Will Lead on Marriage

My friends,

Below is an essay I posted minutes ago on about Bobby Jindal’s courage in standing up to the corporations who’ve asked him to back away from new legislation to prevent the government from punishing people based on their marriage views.   Please go to and share it?

I do not say we should all endorse Bobby Jindal for his leadership and his courage: I do say if we won’t, will you personally ask your candidate if he would support a federal bill The Marriage and Religious Freedom Act? And let his or her answer matter to you.

The link is here is you want to share it:

Bobby Jindal: No Government Coercion Based on Marriage

After Indiana, the Will to Fight Emerges

Maggie GallagherBy  on April 23, 2015
Filed Under: Bobby JindalCandidateCommentary, Social Issues

Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal (photo credit: Gage Skidmore, CC BY-SA 2.0)

Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal (photo credit: Gage Skidmore, CC BY-SA 2.0)

Gov. Jindal has taken to the most prominent enemy territory he can find, the op-ed pages of the old grey lady herself, to say: “no retreat baby, no surrender”*:

In Indiana and Arkansas, large corporations recently joined left-wing activists to bully elected officials into backing away from strong protections for religious liberty. It was disappointing to see conservative leaders so hastily retreat on legislation that would simply allow for an individual or business to claim a right to free exercise of religion in a court of law.

There are two primaries going on simultaneously: the money primary and the voter primary.  Jindal knows which side he is on:

I plan in this legislative session to fight for passage of the Marriage and Conscience Act.

The legislation would prohibit the state from denying a person, company or nonprofit group a license, accreditation, employment or contract — or taking other “adverse action” — based on the person or entity’s religious views on the institution of marriage.

Some corporations have already contacted me and asked me to oppose this law. I am certain that other companies, under pressure from radical liberals, will do the same. They are free to voice their opinions, but they will not deter me.

The Marriage and Conscience Act prevents the government from punishing anyone because they refuse to participate in a marriage against their conscience. It is viewpoint neutral; that fab gay caterer doesn’t have to help faithful Catholics get married either.

Kudos, kudos, kudos to Jindal. Who else will step up to the plate? It is only the question of whether the Judeo-Christian ethic in America will be tolerated or whether government will be used to punish and strip the livelihoods of people who cannot in conscience serve a particular marriage.

Nationally, the pledge would be to fight for the Marriage and Religious Freedom Act.

Who, besides me, will follow where Jindal leads?  Please share this post with as many people as you can.

Maggie Gallagher is a senior fellow at American Principles in Action.

*Bruce Springsteen is for gay marriage yes he is I know.

Why I, Unlike Senator Rubio, Would Not Attend a Gay Wedding

Senator Marco Rubio, one of our most attractive and charismatic leaders in the rising generation, just announced he’s running for president. So naturally he’s being peppered with the one question uppermost in the minds of American voters: What do you think of gay marriage?

Rubio is getting this hit, in part, because he’s trying to negotiate a Third Way: He’s for traditional marriage but will “respect” the rights of states to disagree. He thinks states should have the right to decide the definition of marriage, but (unlike Ted Cruz) he refused to sign onto an amicus brief asking the Supreme Court to leave the definition of marriage to the states, and he says he will “respect” whatever the Supreme Court decides.

Sensing weakness, the mainstream media like nothing more than to swarm around his third-wayness. So now Fusion asks Rubio that question that is always so urgent for a president of the United States: Would you attend a gay wedding?

I kind of wish he had pulled a Senator Rand Paul on this reporter. Do you really think people shouldn’t have the right to keep their jobs if they oppose gay marriage? Do you believe in live and let live, or do you believe in using gay marriage as a club to hurt ordinary Americans who happen to disagree?

But he chose to answer the question with great dignity and kindness. The video is here.

“If there’s somebody that I love that’s in my life, I don’t necessarily have to agree with their decisions or the decisions they’ve made to continue to love them and participate in important events,” he told the interviewer, Jorge Ramos. “Ultimately, if someone that you care for and is part of your family has decided to move in one direction or another or feels that way because of who they love, you respect that because you love them,” he said.

Rubio compared it to attending “second marriages” after divorce, which the Catholic Church teaches are attempts to consecrate adultery. “If someone gets divorced, I’m not going to stop loving them or having them a part of our lives,” he said.

Read the Full Article At the National Review Online

Will GOP Defend Religious Liberty?

What’s happening right now in Indiana is a key inflection point: will the Left succeed in silencing GOP leaders on religious liberty like they have on gay marriage?

Please read the short essay below from I wrote, and then join me in whatever venue you have – your Facebook page, your radio show, a candidate forum, a letter to the editor, an Op Ed – to ask Republican candidates for president this key question: Why is Mike Pence the only Republican defending Indiana’s new religious liberty bill?

God’s blessing on you and our country,


Will Any GOP Candidates Step Up to the Plate for Religious Liberty?
Mike Pence is the only Republican defending Indiana law

Something very important is happening right now in Indiana. Pay attention: The Democrats are attempting to use their power in the mainstream media to get Republicans to retreat and mute the GOP on religious liberty or face being labelled anti-gay.

Last year, the Left succeeded so well with this tactic on a similar RFRA bill in Arizona, they even got Mitt Romney and John McCain to denounce the bill.

How much of the fabric of classic American civilization will GOP politicians be willing to let go without a fight?  This tactic will not only be used on what the Left decides is a gay rights issue. Emboldened by their success in getting Republicans to retreat, the Democrats are now applying the same tactic to the Hyde Amendment language (see the human trafficking bill as the first of a series of attempts to get Republicans to retreat on opposition to taxpayer-financed abortion) and to scuttle the 20-week ban on abortion, which was supposed to have been voted on and passed by the Jan. 22 March for Life. Mere fear of being called “pro-rape,” an absurd charge, led Renee Ellmers and 7 other GOP women to demand a vote be postponed, apparently indefinitely.

Right now, Gov. Mike Pence is the only Republican politician defending this bill.  He is looking for a new law to clarify the bill’s intent, as Indiana faces a wave of hostility from powerful corporations that is sick to see, based as it is on a lie. The NCAA weighed in with “concern” about how it affects student athletes and employees. Angie’s List CEO is putting Indianapolis expansion plans on hold to punish the citizens of Indiana.

But on the core message, Pence is speaking truth to a gathering storm of powerful forces. Gov. Pence said, “This is not about legalizing discrimination, it is about restricting the government’s ability to intrude on the religious liberty of our citizens.”

I haven’t weighed in on this bill, in part because I don’t believe its supporters are right that it will help the little baker who doesn’t want to bake a gay wedding cake keep his or her family’s livelihood intact.  America’s most distinguished pro-religious liberty scholar, Prof. Doug Laycock, explains why he hopes it might, but doesn’t really think it will, because it hasn’t been interpreted that way in the other 19 states that have RFRAs.  Molly Hemingway of The Federalist explains the people it will help.

Meanwhile Pres. Obama and other Democrats must continue to be pushed to explain why they now oppose the same kind of bill they supported and voted for in the past.  What about religious liberty don’t they like any more?  Hillary Clinton, what happened to the “maximum feasible accommodation” of free expression of religion your husband and you supported?

But this is a seminal moment for GOP presidential candidates: Will they have the courage to speak truth to power and support protections for religious people from government punishment?  Or will they bow to the mainstream media narrative and commit the cardinal sin of declaring unilateral truce?

Speak now, Bush, Walker, Paul, Rubio, Carson, Huckabee, Jindal, etc., because the future of religious liberty in America will depend in part on whether there is at least one political party willing to defend it.
Courage is not optional.

Thanks, Human Rights Campaign – National Review Online

The Utah compromise contains way too much legalese for me to comprehensively evaluate it today. But reading the bill, and the response to it from the gay-rights establishment, leads me to say, sincerely and from the bottom of my heart, something I never expected to say: Thanks, Human Rights Campaign.

As readers of this column know, I have become increasingly concerned by the threats to the livelihoods of people known to hold to classical Christian views on sex and marriage.

In a recent column, I pointed to almost a dozen such recent incidents, ranging from Kelvin Cochran to Angela McCaskill, and I also noted: “This is not an exhaustive list by any means, but it points to where I think the greatest threats lie: closing down educational and work opportunities to traditionalists who dare to speak.”

This week you could add to that list baseball player Daniel Murphy, who announced he isn’t going to mention his religious beliefs opposing sex outside of Christian marriage any more, after a publicity storm in response to being asked about baseball’s new ambassador for “inclusion,” Billy Bean. (Hat tip: Rod Dreher.)

Celebrities are one thing, but I also didn’t mention in that column Eric Moutsos, the Salt Lake City cop who was disciplined merely for requesting a religious accommodation to a job assignment to ride at the front of a gay-pride parade. Anyway, the list of livelihoods endangered mounts. At an emotional hearing (on both sides) Moutsos just testified this week in favor of the Utah compromise, SB296.

With good reason: because this historic piece of legislation would likely help people like him, and it would especially help people whose jobs are being attacked because they respectfully seek to exercise — off the job — core constitutional rights: to speak, to sign petitions, to write religious books.

Here are the relevant clauses in this bill that looks as if like it will become the law of the land in Utah:

(1) An employee may express the employee’s religious or moral beliefs and commitments in the workplace in a reasonable, non-disruptive, and non-harassing way on equal terms with similar types of expression of beliefs or commitments allowed by the employer in the workplace, unless the expression is in direct conflict with the essential business-related interests of the employer.

(2) An employer may not discharge, demote, terminate, or refuse to hire any person, or retaliate against, harass, or discriminate in matters of compensation or in terms, privileges, and conditions of employment against any person otherwise qualified, for lawful expression or expressive activity outside of the workplace regarding the person’s religious, political, or personal convictions, including convictions about marriage, family, or sexuality, unless the expression or expressive activity is in direct conflict with the essential business-related interests of the employer.

The LDS Church was negotiating from a position of strength: Nothing was going to pass the Utah legislature that members felt would hurt Mormon institutions. But it responded generously, not only protecting employment and housing rights for LGBT individuals, but protecting institutions more typical of other religious communities, not just their own.

Read the Full Article Here