Tuesday, September 26: Read my latest column, Summit signals power of religion in public life.
Saturday, September 23:
—————————————————————————
I’m coming to you live from the 2006 Values Voter Summit, sponsored by the Family Research Council. Invited by FRC’s new communications guy, blogger Joe Carter at Evangelical Outpost, I’m here to take advantage of the opportunity to meet other conservatives and discuss issues important to Christian conservatives.
Here’s the program.
FYI, ten years ago yesterday, President William J. Clinton signed into law the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). I’ve argued against the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment for several reasons. DOMA is one of those reasons. The relevant text:
No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or
judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.
I think I’m the only blogger in the world who takes live-blogging seriously. I’m on blogger’s row, in the main room where the speakers are (as opposed to in the basement at CPAC), blogging. The other invited bloggers aren’t here. Just me. Blogging.
I’m sitting next to blogger Randy Thomas, however, who is not an official blogger. Pictured above are me, Joe, and Jared Bridges, another new FRC communications employee.
Right now I’m listening to The Preservation of Traditional Marriage panel with Maggie Gallagher [Update: Met her today. Great lady. She said I should make more TV appearances. If producers start calling, I wouldn't turn them down...], marriage researcher and columnist. I’m among people who believe Roe v. Wade should and will be overturned someday. Righteous.
I’ll post updates and photos throughout the day. Thanks again for reading LBC. 
Sources:
Update (2:35 p.m.): I’ve blogged about Randy Thomas’s (pictured) story before. Once caught up in the homosexual lifestyle, he is now a Christian, blogger, and “poster boy” for Exodus International, a ministry that helps people overcome homosexuality through a relationship with Jesus Christ.
Blogger Stacy Harp is here with her husband Randall, who’s also a blogger. The president’s new press guy Tony Snow, formerly of FOX News, is cracking everyone up with a funny, lively, and inspiring speech. I found out at CPAC, before Snow landed his new job, that he’d heard of me. Political stuff is what gets my attention. Hollywood has nothing on DC. 
OK, so Senator George Allen is talking about…something. He mentioned a parental notification bill he vetoed in 1994 because it was watered down. A different version was signed into law in 1997. Marriage is a union between one man and one women, etc. Allen sounds like the right kind of conservative, but I hate that he caved and apologized for a remark that wasn’t intended to be an insult. Then there’s the confederate flag thing. I don’t care, but some conservatives might.
4:49 p.m.: I’m going to try to stick around to live-blog Ann Coulter’s speech. She always – always – says something controversial at these events. At last year’s CPAC, she called Islamofascists “ragheads.” Some conservative bloggers (and libertarians) had “issues” with her remark.
8:26 p.m.: I’m such a chicken. I was a foot away from Ann Coulter, and I didn’t try to meet her. I’d stepped out of the ballroom to check my phone messages, and there she was. I’m not a groupie, but… 
Oh, well. There will be a next time. Gary Bauer is speaking now. Coulter’s up next, playing to a packed house, as usual.
Bauer says to the radical homosexual movement: “You will not defeat us. We will defend marriage!” Standing ovation. A man small in stature spoke BIG just now. His speech was a serious call to courage. Don’t be afraid of the ACLU or any other radical group. Stand up for decency.
8:44 p.m.: Coulter’s talking about the Roe v. Wade travesty. I’m counting the number of quotes the press will take out of context and print tomorrow. No matter what Coulter says, it’s golden. Like her, love her, or hate her…She’s talking about the left’s euphemisms for abortion: medical procedure, termination of pregnancy, partial birth abortion (infanticide, to you and me). Anything but “killing.” Lots of talk at this conference about overturning Roe. I’m in. How about you?
On the day of the last presidential election, states with a homosexual marriage referendum on the ballot rejected it, even in states that John Kerry carried. Interesting point to remember: When the people, rather than the courts, get to decide on the issue of homosexual “marriage,” they vote against it. That’s why liberals go through courts instead of “the people.”
Says Coulter to homosexuals: If you want to overturn a 3,000-year-old tradition, the burden is on you to make the argument. I don’t have to explain or prove to you how “gay marriage” will negatively affect my life.
{ 9 trackbacks }
{ 30 comments }
Well, I was just surfing and I came across this. So you’re sitting next to Randy? If you can, say hi for me! I haven’t been able to comment on his blog since he switched to Vox.
Oh, and by the way, I agree with you that DOMA is perfectly sufficient as far as protecting marriage is concerned. FMA seems like overkill to me, and is there really a possiblity of it passing? Seems like a waste of time to promote something that is likely to fail.
Anyway, hope you have a good time!
Being a states’ rights sorta guy I have difficulty with both the DOMA and the FMA. The DOMA is clearly unconstitutional in that it seems to violate the equal protection clause of the Constitution ( I like the intent but dislike the execution – once you go down that slippery slope with a law you loose all control)
La Shawn, it’s always nice to see your smile. I’m with you on overturning Roe v Wade. May it come true soon.
Thanks for the love, Doug.
Why do blacks (and jews) always vote democratic?
Cause the Dems have mastered drilling the victim mentality that needs to be rescued and helped.
I am quite something
Chavez Says U.S. Empire Will Soon Fall, Calls Bush ‘Devil’
LaShawn, help me out here. Executive orders and acts of Congress do not trump the Constitution. I would like DOMA to settle the issue of gay marriage, but it is the Supreme Court that “reads” the Constitution. (Think eminent domain and applying the Geneva Accords to terrorists.)
How do you square DOMA with the Ruth Bader Ginzburg “reading” of the following part of the Constitution?:
Article IV
Section 1. Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.
Section 2. The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.
La Shawn
Rosie O’Donnel is clueless.
Her recent attack on Christianity – saying it is equally violent to radical Islam – permanently condemns her crusade for acceptance of Gay Marriage.
With a less hostile approach from O’Donnell and her kind, there might have been some provisions for some arrangement for gay couples – sharing resources and pensions etc… – but now, they are fated to become a part of the dustbin of history.
^ Geez, Frank. I didn’t know one person could kill an entire movement. Disagree with gay marriage though I do, I hope Rosie’s comments aren’t going to destroy SOME kind of provision. That’s just mean.
Too bad you didn’t talk to Ann, Ms. Barber. Disagree with her though I do (you could fairly put me in the “hate her” category), I gotta admit she’s got style (much more than liberal pundits, at least).
To be honest, Bauer’s comment put me off. I’m a conservative evangelical and I believe homosexuality is a sin, but my status as a non-practicing gay man makes those words a little hard to hear. With all due respect, I didn’t really hear a call to courage in them. I’d have much rather heard “You will not defeat us. We will show you the love of Christ!” That’s courage. It should go without saying, but that’s not the world we live in and if conservatives don’t say it, who will?
I know, Exodus was there (and again, it’s so cool that you met Randy). But there’s a certain stigma tied to ex-gay ministries (even I’m a little critical of them sometimes). I think conservatives as a whole have a challenge (and a responsibility) in defeating the homosexual political agenda without alienating homosexuals from the church. Exodus has done fine work in trying to bridge the gap, but a lot of the burden rests on the shoulders of conservatives without ties to ex-gay ministries. Did any of the speakers mention the saving power of Christ in regards to gays and lesbians, or was it all about their defeat in the political arena? Not trying to be rude, since I know you’re a good Christian; just curious.
I personally think there is too much emphasis on gay marriage. It is not the biggest threat to marriage today as I once thought prior to the ‘04 election. Today, I only see the gay marriage issue as conservative bait.
As Lashawn has posted, the FDMA is more than enough.
Biggest threat today is the HETEROsexual disregard for the sanctity of marriage, always has been. That is what has practically destroyed marriage today.
On another note, have Ann Coulter and Rosie ever debated on TV? I’d LOVE to see that…in fact, I’d pay to see it.
Gay marriage is an oxymoron. If not, then marriage is a quaint social custom and it should be open to old maids and their cats.
Sweden has quite successfully pulverized the institution of marriage and reduced it to a quirky pagan curiosity. Of course, they can still work some benign construct of “god” into the party it if the celebrants want it.
The United States has civil marriages, civil unions, co-habitation, high divorce rates, and lots of problems between couples. All that said, there is no compelling reason to debase the institution of marriage further.
Perhaps gays, polygamists, and the carnal crowd should turn their efforts toward getting the government out of recognizing marriage as a special condition as it applies to taxation, inheritance, child legitimacy, spousal abuse and the rest.
Of course there is a Biblical view of marriage, but there is also a common sense view. If our “common sense” is so improved on the “common sense” of the centuries before us, then bring on the new version of marriage. I would just like to hear the common sense rationale that extends beyond making Phil and Bruce or Sally and Katrina happy.
“Sweden has quite successfully pulverized the institution of marriage and reduced it to a quirky pagan curiosity”
And yet, they seem to be doing just fine.
#17 Will seems to think that Sweden “seem(s) to be doing just fine.”
It is all relative isn’t it? You can be Godless, have a system of socialism that has failed miserably, a class of capable young who would rather leech off the system rather than contribute and Muslim sections of your capital where the national police are too afraid to enforce the nation’s laws and still be seen as doing just fine.
There are people in prison in the US who feel like they are “easy street” as well. But it is still all relative.
Beyond the ancient concept of the Volvo (now a product of Ford) and the Tempurpedic Mattress (no longer protected by patent) and some 60’s era design in fabrics and composite furniture, just what is it that Sweden offers the world? I guess being a scold and looking down ones “liberated” nose is a high and worthy goal.
“You can be Godless, have a system of socialism that has failed miserably, a class of capable young who would rather leech off the system rather than contribute and Muslim sections of your capital where the national police are too afraid to enforce the nation’s laws and still be seen as doing just fine.”
That happens with or without gay people getting married.
“just what is it that Sweden offers the world? I”
Cool music. I just downloaded some: http://www.tsool.net/
You ever met any swedes?
LaShawn, I guess I’m not a really devout Christian, because I just cannot believe that anybody would choose to be gay.
My youngest BIL lost his devoted life partner of 17 years suddenly on Friday night.
My husband is one of 7 children. It was a strong, stable household. Mom stayed home and baked cookies. Dad supported the family and devoted hours to his 6 sons and 1 daughter. He coached them in countless sports. He walked the walk for fathering. They are devout Catholics and the boys were raised in church.
5 boys and 1 girl all married and have (at least to an observer) strong and stable marriages themselves.
Youngest BIL says that he never dreamed about girls, it was always boys. He was with his partner for 17 years. I have no doubt that it would have lasted another 40 years if J had not dropped dead of a heart attack.
Hi La Shawn,
Yet another fine post, though I disagree with you on DOMA. I don’t think it’s enough with our current Supreme Court of the United States. I think they will overturn it sometime. Hopefully a constitutional amendment will be court proof.
You should have talked to Anne Coulter, she’s just a person like you.
I don’t welcome homosexual marriages!!! Men turn to be womenlike and it’s abominable!!!! When I visited the Emirates I met no one there, even in the Dubai hotel I stayed in, homosexual!!! I think it’s the first time in my life where I could have a rest from “the homosexual epidemic”!!!
#20 Will: I have traveled extensively and often in Sweden. I studied there and looked deeply into its problems. If you are looking for 80% taxation that gives you a fairly comfortable return in state welfare, it is the place for you. If you want to be free of people nagging you about God, responsibility and reliability, it is the place for you. If you want to live a sluggards life, it is the place for you. If you want to always be sensitive about other people’s “hang-ups” then you should move there pronto. If you are inclined to look down on others who engage in solving tough problems, you will find a home there.
However, if you have just a little sense of ambition and a concern for taking care of yourself and your own, you will not be a happy camper. That is a tough row to hoe on 80% taxation.
“Values voters?” Where is the outrage over the legality of divorce except where the Bible allows it? There is cognitive dissonance of the highest order from political social conservatives on this issue. You have two choices: you legislate marriage as the Bible defines it or you stop pretending that you’re advancing a vision of marriage that is compatible with the Bible. I haven’t see any social conservative that’s willing to recognize that in their own way, they’re just as heretical as those who want to call homosexual marriage compatible with the Bible.
The Christian response should be to end state licensing of marriage altogether. The state standards are pure sin as far as the standards of the Bible are concerned. It is blasphemy to say that we have preserved marriage as a godly institution when we allow things like “no fault divorce.” It is as ugly and profane as any that would allow gays to marry.
Sorry, but that’s just the way it is.
#25. So you travelled there. Thats what sweden offers the world: itself. I can’t believe anyone would want to feel superior to the Swedes. Talk about unassuming laid-back people.
#28 “Talk about unassuming laid-back people.”
One person’s ‘laid back’ is another persons’ ’sluggard’
One person’s ‘unassuming’ is another’s ’spineless moral relativist’
I’ve seen Republicans cite Islam (Death to gays) as proof that homosexuality is wrong. It’s all relative isn’t it?
Its not really ‘all relative.’ I don’t think swedes do much to deserve ‘being scolded’ or having someone look down their liberated noses at them. I just think they’re happy with what they have, and find with others choosing to have something else. Thus laid back and unassuming.
And frankly, its not all relative that anyone says ‘death to gays.’ Its wrong.
“And frankly, its not all relative that anyone says ‘death to gays.’ Its wrong.”
Sorry Will, you missed my point. And, I fear, Heliotropes. Heliotrope was saying that Swedes are looking down their ‘liberated noses’. He was saying that Sweden is a place for sluggards.
My point was that you state that you perceive Swedes as generally laid back and unassuming. Heliotrope states that Swedes are Ungodly sluggards, but it’s ok of you like that sort of thing
The above disagreement is of course *relative* to yours and Heliotrope’s individual viewpoints about what does and does not constitute being a sluggard or without moral compass, (one man’s meat is another’s poison) and not *simply* a matter of ‘right or wrong’. Where it becomes a matter of ‘right and wrong’ is the tough part. For instance, militant Muslims consider the US to be Satan because of it’s ‘liberalism’, such liberalism is of course relative to their Islamic beliefs. Likewise, fundamentalist Christians have blamed homosexuals, pagans, feminists for 9/11 etc. These people’s world view is relative to their beliefs.
I am not making a case for morals being relative, I am pointing out the fact that relative viewpoints affect one’s view on what is and isn’t acceptable. It may be acceptable to someone to kill gays because of their Religion. it is wholly wrong. it may be acceptable for someone to use the murder of gays as ‘proof’ that being gay is ‘wrong’ in the eyes of ‘God’. I claim that to be wrong. But of course that is the way I relate to the world. In that, my point is relative.
#27 Miked states: “The Christian response should be to end state licensing of marriage altogether.”
How wonderful it would be if marriage could be returned to the status of a sacrament. But it it can not happen in our pluralistic society. The Islamic method of “divorce” is anathema to Christians, for example. So, the Christian formula would hardly fly in 2006.
But I do question why the state should take any interest in marriage. It would seem that any minority that wishes to change the institution has been given a platform. Gays are truly foolish if they think that a state sanctioned marriage would command respect. But I do not see how gays differ from a group marriage or an arranged marriage between a toddler and an adult. I am not really certain why a person should not be able to marry his goat.
Either we are sensitive to the “institution” of marriage and consider it a valued pillar of society, or we call it old fashioned and quirky and let it go free form. Charles Manson’s family, except for the slaughtering, looks more and more acceptable to the US of today. It does not make me happy or proud, but I think that “family values” are looked upon by many with the same scorn they have heaped on “Leave it to Beaver” and the Cleaver family.
Although I am not married; I am a huge proponent of the institute of marriage and believe that adultery is – morally – on of the most despicable acts a person can commit. Ironically, I won’t even address gay marriage in this particular post, but I will speak of the Gay Heritage Month announcement that is being posted in the the Philadelphia High Schools’ calendars for October. I open to discussion on this one, someone please justify this for me, because I just can’t see why “gay heritage” should be pushed on high school kids.
#33″Charles Manson’s family, except for the slaughtering, looks more and more acceptable to the US of today”
Hmm, of late I’ve seen gay people equated with cats, dogs, horses, demons, goats, and now psychotic serial killers (minus the slaughter!)
Good effort. A+. I don’t think even Dr Paul Cameron discovered the Manson correlation.
A note to #35 JohnD: you have not seen gay people equated with psychotic serial killers in my comment. You seem Hell bent on twisting words and ideas.
The Manson family (emphasis on the word family; not an appellation of my invention) without the Tate murders was merely a sex den of with a weirdo and his harem.
I posit that the attack on the traditional institution of marriage makes it possible to accept such a clan. Nothing more.
I know you would like to kneecap my logic, but twisting the premise is never successful.
“I posit that the attack on the traditional institution of marriage makes it possible to accept such a clan. Nothing more.”
Regardless of whether or not the Manson Family jibe was a sidewards slur against gay partnerships, I argue that what you say you are ‘positing’ is essentially without logic. In claiming that gay people being ‘allowed’ to marry is proof of society’s readiness to accept a ‘clan’ of ‘weirdos’, or marrying a ‘goat’ as you put it. Whatever, it certainly seems like you are putting a pejorative spin on homosexuality.
How many heterosexual serial killers have been married? How many heterosexual wife-beaters have been married? How many heterosexual rapists, paedophiles or violent bigots have been married?
Is this proof that society ‘accepts’ such people?
Is society’s acceptance of heterosexuals making vows to each other in the eyes of a God or the state, proof that society approves of rapists or serial killers?
I posit that it doesn’t. However, no-one tends to make general comparisons of heterosexuals to animals or weirdos.
I’m sorry but I just don’t buy this ’slippery slope’ nonsense. Too many times I’ve seen people say things like: “Gays, marry?” What next? A man raping a harem of under-age domestic animals on the steps of the Whitehouse?”
Look, if Churches don’t want to bless gays, fine, let that be. If the State doesn’t want to recognise gay marriage, let it be. But let it be on a more reasonable context than equating gay marriage with the projected (hypothetical) societal acceptance of ‘weirdos’ and bestiality.
Polygamy is another thing entirely – it is described at it’s simplest as ‘not’ monogamy, and hence no more causally related to ‘gays’ as is flying a rocket to the moon for tea and cake.
Religious polyandry or polygamy is another question. And if America accepts other religions and traditions than monogomous heterosexual Christians, so be it.
Otherwise, surely it’s time to push for a Christian theocracy and be done with it?
Respectfully,
John
JohnD: Last attempt. I will try it in as simple terms as I can muster. The institution of marriage is between one man and one woman in the Christian West. A few extra flourishes have been added. No incestuous marriages. Little children can not marry. A child and an adult can not marry.
The new fad is to bend the tradition to accept marriage between people of the same sex. For some, that is an idea whose time has come.
Other cultures permit child marriages. Other cultures permit polygamy. Other cultures permit adults to marry children.
You continually thrust sarcasm into the debate when there is a suggestion that opening the traditional institution to gays also opens the door for other traditionally prohibited combinations.
Hop on this as specious and “illogical” thinking, but JohnD has absolutely nothing to do with controlling the course of action after the one man/one woman barrier has been breached.
For someone who counts bruises personally and continually clamors for respect, you certainly are free with the sarcasm and barbs.
This has gone on beyond any reasonable point of philosophy or cultural understanding.
I am always interested how moral relativists arrive at their list of do’s and don’ts. Agnostics and atheists are particularly interesting in this respect.
Pitch out the Bible, the Koran, the Vedas and all the other religious founding works. What, then do we turn to for our moral authority? Shall we just have a floating code that is popularly amended over the the internet? A Wikipedia of ethics?
The best description of moral relativism is an appropriation of an axiom of Gertrude Stein: When you get there, you discover there isn’t any there there.
As to: “Otherwise, surely it’s time to push for a Christian theocracy and be done with it?”…….Your regular resort to the “fallacy of black and white” is at play here big time. Western culture is steeped in Christian tradition and philosophy. A Christian theocracy sounds threatening, but it totally ignores the history of Western civilization. That straw-man won’t stand, hunt or scare crows. I can not think of a single Christian theocracy, but there may have been one for 20 minutes or so somewhere in history.
You have, however unwittingly, stumbled into the cultural conflict in which we are now engaged. Sharia law is what you might want to think more about. Perhaps you really don’t care what cultural traditions direct your daily life and you would be as happy being kafir as you are being a subject of English Common Law, which is 100% steeped and guided by the Christian tradition. That is your decision, not mine. Although I doubt you will be happy with the Sharia approach to gays.
Heliotrope states:
“For someone who counts bruises personally and continually clamors for respect,”
It is at that point that the discussion descended into baseless personal smears. Please keep on topic.
Regards,
JohnD
Comments on this entry are closed.