The Family Research Council has been in the crosshairs of the culture-change advocates who insist on promoting homosexuality, transgenderism and such in the past.
Literally, the crosshairs. Or at least gun sights.
It happened a few years ago when a homosexual activist, Floyd Corkins, got information from the Southern Poverty Law Center about those groups that don’t support homosexuality – the FRC qualifies on that count – and he took a gun and went to the operation’s Washington headquarters.
He explained later, when he was arrested and ultimately convicted in a case that linked the SPLC to domestic terror, that he intended to go and shoot and kill as many people in the FRC offices as he could. He was stopped by a heroic security guard who, though wounded, tackled him and took him down.
Now the organization is in a figurative crosshairs.
But the attack is coming from the same social agenda.
Chief Tony Perkins explained in a statement to supporters Tuesday.
“I wanted to make you aware of this developing situation and ask for your prayers,” he wrote.
“You’ll recall that last July, President Trump kept his pledge to end the Obama era of social experimentation in our nation’s armed forces. Moving away from political correctness and putting the focus on the military’s mission of preparing to fight and win wars, he announced that the military would return to the status quo policy of not allowing individuals to serve who identify as transgender.”
Perkins continued, “Despite fierce push back from LGBT activist groups, the Department of Defense released their report last month reinforcing the administration’s commitment to implementing policies that are essential to keeping our military strong and our country safe. Upset by these actions, groups like the National Center for Lesbian Rights and GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders have resorted to one of their favorite avenues to impose their fringe agenda: the court system.”
They sued, and now they are demanding that the FRC “produce all communications on the topic between senior leaders at Family Research Council and the administration,” he said.
“We’ve had to hire a law firm to represent us in the case, and our lawyers have objected to this demand, asserting our First Amendment religious freedom and speech rights. The LGBT activist groups have now filed a motion seeking a court order compelling us to turn over the privileged documents,” he continued.
The bottom line is that the subpoenas cannot resolve any constitutional questions, but instead are intended to intimidate and cause hardship, he said.
“Their intent is clear — to intimidate FRC and our supporters from standing up for our military service members. They also know that it takes significant time and resources to respond to subpoenas, scarce time and resources that we should be focusing on advancing faith, family, and freedom.”
He said Americans’ support for FRC is needed now like never before.
The fight over social experiments regarding sex in the military apparently is a major battle for those who support leftist causes.
When the president issued his order, refocusing the military on “readiness and unit cohesion,” Mat Staver, founder and chairman of Liberty Counsel, noted that a Defense Department report commissioned by President Trump concludes there are substantial risks to military effectiveness and readiness regarding people who have gender dysphoria.
“The military is not a social club but rather a fine-tuned fighting machine of men and women who defend our freedom,” said Staver. “It is not a right but a privilege to serve.”
The change by Trump is actually a change back, since Barack Obama arbitrarily modified long-standing military rules against transgenders in the military as part of his closing campaign for alternative sexual lifestyles.
Activists on the benches of federal courts already have come out against the president’s plan, declaring that Obama had the right to issue the original order, but President Trump doesn’t have the right to reverse it.
That fight continues.
In a memo to the president, Defense Secretary Jim Mattis concluded there are “substantial risks” related to military personnel who seek to change or who question their gender identity. Individuals with a history or diagnosis of gender dysphoria “could undermine readiness, disrupt unit cohesion, and impose an unreasonable burden on the military that is not conducive to military effectiveness and lethality.”
One expert on the military, Elaine Donnelly of the Center for Military Readiness, pointed out that under the U.S. Constitution, federal judges have no power to run the military.
“Nevertheless, four U.S. district judges have ordered the Department of Defense (DoD) to ignore official instructions from President Donald J. Trump, and to fully implement unprecedented mandates to recruit transgenders into the military,” she wrote.
She said if transgenders are allowed in the military, those driven by the social agenda “will focus only on the satisfaction of persons who are being allowed to serve despite a psychological condition that – until the Obama administration came along ˗˗ used to be among many physical or psychological problems that disqualified individuals for military service.”
Her organization said the issue is not civil rights, it is “combat lethality and the armed forces’ readiness to defend America.”