Exxon-Mobil Drills down on Values
June 01, 2012 - Friday
It won't change how much we're paying for gas, but it might comfort you to know that at Exxon-Mobil your business isn't fueling the homosexual agenda. For the 13th straight year, shareholders voted to maintain their reputation as the only major oil company to uphold the values of a majority of Americans. At Exxon's annual meeting, the corporation voted down a resolution to add special protections for "sexual orientation" and "gender identity" to its employment opportunity policy. After so many years of resistance, the result may not have come as a surprise--but the measure of victory certainly did. A whopping 80% of shareholders voted against the amendment--the largest margin of defeat in recent memory. One homosexual activist lamented that "the percentage of shareholders voting for the policy had increased steadily over the years to about 40%." But this week's result--in the midst of a national debate over same-sex "marriage"--was a colossal blow to the homosexual community, which is desperate to prove that its agenda is resonating with Americans.
In a corporate environment dictated by wealthy, pro-homosexual activists, we applaud Exxon-Mobil for refusing to cede the moral high ground to the special interests of the Left. While other businesses drift away from their principles or capitulate under pressure, this company is putting its stock in something other than political correctness. And, as Exxon-Mobil representatives point out, any additions to the nondiscrimination policy are unnecessary. They view the company as a "meritocracy," where employees are rewarded on the basis of performance--not sexual preference. Their conviction is a refreshing change from companies like Starbucks and Target, who continue to alienate customers with radical political views. Join us in thanking Exxon-Mobil for refusing to be bullied. Click here to send the company a note of appreciation!
DOMA Nation
Despite all the good news on marriage, it did suffer a partial judicial setback yesterday when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit ruled, in a pair of Massachusetts cases, that part of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is unconstitutional. DOMA defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman for all purposes under federal law. This means that even in states like Massachusetts, which allows same-sex couples to legally "marry," spousal benefits granted by the federal government aren't available to such couples. Judge Michael Boudin, writing for a unanimous three-judge panel, said that "this denial of federal benefits... has not been adequately supported by any permissible federal interest." Boudin's ruling was somewhat bizarre, because he agreed that under the lenient "rational basis" standard, the "plaintiffs [the homosexual couples] cannot prevail." He also noted that "extending intermediate scrutiny [the next highest standard] to the sexual preference categories is not a step open to us."
What Judge Boudin did not say, however, may be as significant as what he did. The lower district court judge in the case had earlier ruled in 2010 that "it is only irrational prejudice that motivates" DOMA. Yesterday, Judge Boudin expressly disavowed that attack on traditional values, saying that "we do not rely upon the charge that DOMA's hidden but dominant purpose was hostility to homosexuality... Preserving this institution [of marriage as traditionally defined] is not the same as 'mere moral disapproval of an excluded group,' and that is singularly so in this case given the range of bipartisan support for [DOMA]." He also emphasized that his decision did "not presume or rest on a constitutional right to same-sex marriage," because binding Supreme Court precedent (in the form of a 1972 Supreme Court ruling dismissing a same-sex "marriage" claim) forbids such a finding.
The overall tone was similar to the Ninth Circuit decision earlier this year which struck down California's marriage amendment, Proposition 8--but on much narrower grounds than in the lower court's sweeping decision. Ironically, these increasingly narrow victories for the advocates of same-sex "marriage" may be taking them farther from their ultimate goal--a broad Roe-like Supreme Court ruling imposing homosexual "marriage" on all fifty states. The judges seem reluctant to ignore voters and twist law and reason to declare same-sex "marriage" a "civil right" as homosexual activists are urging. A nationwide redefinition of marriage is not inevitable. Let's not give up! Sign our Stand for Marriage petition so that your voice can be heard!
Don't Miss Washington Watch Weekly!
On this week's edition, I'll be joined by Franciscan University of Steubenville Vice President Mike Herndon, who will discuss what Franciscan and other Catholic organizations are doing in response to the President's contraception-abortion pill mandate. Also, Pastor Steven Khoury of First Baptist Church Bethlehem will be on the show to talk about his book, Diplomatic Christianity: One Israeli Arab Pastor's Perspective on Persecution and Ministry in the Holy Land, and the challenges of Christian ministries in the Middle East. For more information or to find a radio station near you, visit FRCRadio.org.