The membership alert they issued today simply encourages members to contact the food manufacturer and tell them to stop sponsoring the games, noting:

“The gay games are supported and endorsed by dozens of homosexual activist groups and organizations, including homosexual magazines and television outlets.”

Most of their alerts, while no less anti-gay, are usually better defined. Why is Kraft’s sponsorship of an event that is attended by gays on private property, not televised on public airwaves or even paid attention to by national media is unclear.

As much as they argue the contrary, this isn’t pro-family, it’s simply anti-gay for anti-gay’s sake.

Now, I have no problem with sensible arguments against anything. Although I might disagree with them, there are certainly sensible arguments to make against non-discrimination laws – they were made in the 60’s and they’re still rational (albeit wrong) today. Mr. Adams uses none of these.

He writes about the “Tragedy in Illinois,” the passage of a non-discrimination law that includes sexual orientation and gender identity. He blames the Democrats for the law (rightly so, although I think the other side calls it “thanks”) and suggests that if you’ve ever voted for one, you’ve likely been kept up at night by the cries of murdered babies.

Insomnia aside, he gets back on track (I use the term loosely) by noting:

“If company has fifteen or more employees, they will now be compelled by law to hire a representative percentage of gays, just like they must hire a representative percentage of minorities. This includes CHURCH employees. Wicked, truly wicked.”

I can only say that this is completely invalid. Yes, the law applies only to businesses with 15 employees or more. But no where in Illinois law are you required to hire minorities. Granted, you can’t NOT hire someone simply because they are black, handicapped or gay, but you’re not required to seek them out to fill out your stable.

Mr. Adams suggests that the law would include church employees. Another completely invalid claim; the Illinois law exempts churches, although those of the Christian variety should already practice non-discrimination, it’s an important facet of the faith.

Overall, it’s the same law that’s been passed by fourteen other states, and protects gay Illinoians from being fired for a personal trait over which they have no control.

In truth, the only Illinois protected class that exists based on a choice is the only one Mr. Adams would likely fight for: religion.

None of this is surprising. Not in the least. Nor is the parents’ desire to require not only that all students, but all parents follow the strict guidelines of the church. The problem, as with every “the Bible says so” argument, comes in the details. Enacting such a pledge would require the removal of any students whose parents have ever divorced, used contraception, engaged in oral sex… the list goes on.

Now, aside from the divorce issue, the others can’t be as readily proven as the simple fact that a kid has two dads. So basically we end up with a pledge that kicks out a few kids and requires a whole herd of parents to swear they don’t engage in un-Catholic behavior in the bedroom – because what parent really wants to tell their kids that they have to switch schools because daddy wears a rubber?

The decision by the SCOTUS not to interfere was far from a surprise, and neither is the religious right’s decision to cross their own picket lines to seek help from “activist judges.” While their communal rant against judges who they feel cross the line between judiciary and legislative continues, the Liberty Counsel is trying their opponent’s tactics on for size; the boys and girls at the Supreme Court aren’t biting, however.

This will certainly add fuel to the claim that “liberal activist judges” are to blame for the nation’s ills. With the outlook for a legislative ban on gay marriage in Massachusetts looking worse in the aftermath of election 2004, however, the religious right might need to start preparing some “liberal activist legislators” spin.

So it is with the folks at WorldviewWeekend.com, a partner ministry of American Family Online, an Internet service provider dedicated to serving Christian households with heretic-free web surfing. Worldview Weekend, which sponsors Christian seminars and boasts actor Kirk Cameron as one of its featured speakers, sent an e-mail missive to its members yesterday giving them a “no bones about it” view of today’s democratic (small d) activities.

Brannon Howse, the group’s President and Founder, penned the letter, in which he states rather unequivocally that his belief that “anyone that does not vote on Tuesday is sinning and anyone that votes for Kerry is committing an even greater sin!”

As if that didn’t do enough to seemingly run counter to the Christian ideal of love and understanding – not to mention the Internal Revenue Service’s code of conduct for religious entities – Mr. Howse goes further in his tirade:

This is no time to waste votes on third party candidates..A vote for a third party candidate is a vote for Kerry. If you disagree that is fine….don’t waste your time sending me an e-mail about it because I will not waste my time reading it.

Is this how Christians should approach this election? Hardly. Support for Bush by the majority of Christians is expected and understood, but this kind of nasty electioneering smacks of something that is decidedly un-Christian – and perhaps more directly important today – un-American.

Not to scare the fundies, however, the President made sure to reiterate his feeling that the Marriage Protection Amendment is the only way to protect marriage between a man and a woman, and once again threw his full support behind the proposal. Still, this marks a softening of the President’s rhetoric on this touchy issue, perhaps in an effort to assuage moderates’ fears that the Chief Executive is too deep in the pocket of the religious right-wing of the party.

We’ll find out in a week if these concessions will do anything for the President in the polls, but in the last seven days, every faction counts – as long as it can be done quietly enough so as not to eviscerate the hopes of the religious zealots he needs to win.

Related Posts:

The W stands alone?

Keyes response [transcript later today] was to deride Anchor Soledad O’Brien for quoting and/or fabricating “false polls,” adding that he knows the good people of the State of Illinois will not elect a left-wing liberal who will (among other things) threaten traditional marriage. Despite the fact that he’s polling at 18 percent.

Granted, there are lots of candidates hanging their hat on the public’s concern about “protecting” marriage this cycle, but in Illinois at least, Obama is right to hang his hat on the public’s concern about protecting themselves from crazy.