Chuck Darrell, who previously served as communications director of the Minnesota Family Council, will head the media efforts of Minnesota for Marriage, a coalition of conservative Christian groups that are working to convince voters to back a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.

“We are very fortunate to have a seasoned, skilled communications professional such as Chuck Darrell join our campaign,” John Helmberger, chairman of Minnesota for Marriage, said in a statement. Helmberger is also the CEO of the Minnesota Family Council. “Chuck is a dedicated pro-family media advocate who has worked for years in support of preserving marriage as the union of one man and one woman.”

Darrell said he was honored to join the campaign: “Marriage is the foundation of the family and the backbone of society itself. I look forward to working with reporters, columnists, bloggers and editorial writers, as well as with our many campaign supporters to communicate all the reasons why preserving marriage is in the public good.”

Minnesota for Marriage is a coalition of the Minnesota Catholic Conference, the Minnesota Family Council and the DC-based National Organization for Marriage.

During Darrell’s tenure with the Minnesota Family Council, the group has called for the amendment to ban same-sex marriage in order to prevent couples from getting domestic partner benefits.

The group also opposed anti-bullying measures meant to protect LGBT students.

“The recent effort to pass anti-bullying legislation is a trap designed to indoctrinate school children to accept same-sex marriage and unhealthy sexual behavior—all under the guise of anti-bullying,” Darrell wrote on the group’s blog. “The trap ingeniously creates the false impression that those who oppose anti-bullying legislation (namely Christians) are themselves homophobic bullies. Nonsense.”

Darrell added, “In fact, Christ provided us with the best example of handling bullies without condoning unhealthy sexual behavior—and Christian children should be demonstrating that example in their public schools.”

Darrell once wrote that children of same-sex couples are the victims of their parents.

“Supporters of same-sex marriage rhetorically to ask, “How will same-sex marriage threaten your marriage?” Darrell said. “It won’t. Duh. It’s an argument designed to confuse and hide the real victims of same-sex marriage—children.”

Darrell called efforts to allow same-sex couples to have hospital visitation “special emergency room privileges.”

Darrell has argued that being “born” a homosexual is no excuse for the legalization of gay marriage.

“I say this because when it comes to sex, most men agree being born any certain way doesn’t mean you should act as such,” Darrell wrote. “And God help us should the male sex drive be allowed to further stalk the definition of marriage.”

He’s also penned blog posts that oppose laws that prevent employers from firing LGBT people because of their sexual orientation.

DFL Rep. Ryan Winkler of Golden Valley sent a letter to Majority Leader Matt Dean on Thursday pressing for a hearing on an amendment that would direct the Minnesota House to pass a budget bill before it can deal with constitutional amendments such as one banning marriage rights for same-sex couples. Republicans had promised to put the deficit ahead of wedge social issues but religious conservatives have already begun a campaign to get them on the ballot.

“We should not spend our time debating divisive social issues and constitutional amendments,” wrote Winkler. “Putting social issues on the ballot will do nothing to get Minnesotans back to work, deliver the highest-quality education for our students or improve Minnesota’s quality of life.”

He added, “As Speaker [Kurt] Zellers himself has stated, job creation and the budget deficit must be the Legislature’s highest priorities.”

Rep. Ryan Winkler

The rules amendment, offered by DFL Rep. Paul Thissen of Minneapolis, would have forced the House to deal with the budget before proposing constitutional amendments. Majority Leader Matt Dean instead moved to have it referred to committee, and his motion passed along party lines. Winkler said that it should be heard in committee as soon as possible.

Already the issue of a constitutional amendment banning relationship rights for same-sex couples has popped up. Next Friday, the Minnesota Family Council is hosting its “Family and Marriage Summit,” which will focus on getting an amendment on the ballot in 2012. The group invited all Minnesota legislators to the event.

And on religious right radio last week, Republicans vowed to push the issue forward. Two newly elected legislators, Sens. Dan Hall and Pam Wolf, of Bloomington and Spring Lake Park respectively, discussed the upcoming session on Pastor Brad Brandon‘s radio program.

“On social issues, I would like to see something to move forward with the [Defense of Marriage Act],” Wolf said.

“DOMA we will get to, the marriage amendment for sure,” Hall said.

“I think we will see that on the ballot in 2012,” Wolf said, “but the top priority will be getting our economy going.”

The Minnesota Family Council is already pushing back on the amendment to make fixing the budget deficit the top priority. Chuck Darrell, communications director for the group, tweeted on Thursday, “Same crowd that boasted they’d legalize [same-sex marriage] in 2011 offers phony rules amendment to scare GOP away from ‘divisive’ marriage amendment.’”

But despite noise from the Minnesota Family Council and some Republican legislators, the Minnesota Log Cabin Republicans said they trust GOP leadership will stick to their promise to focus on the budget.

“The incoming Majority Leader [of the state Senate] and Speaker [of the state House of Representatives] have made it crystal clear they’re not going to be focusing on social issues,” Mark Kneif, chair of the Minnesota Log Cabins, told reporter James Sanna. “The Minnesota Family Council is pushing that…but I don’t think they’ll get much traction.”

Read Winkler’s letter:

rw.letter.to.rep.dean.1.6.11 –

Washington state is ground zero for this year’s war after the government allowed a nativity scene on the Capitol grounds. The overtly Christian display led some atheists to request that their own sign be permitted, and the government relented. Then a Festivus fan wanted the traditional pole placed at the Capitol. But when Fred Phelps wanted to install a sign saying that Santa is a child molester who sends people to hell, Gov. Chris Gregoire said enough is enough and declared a moratorium on new religious (and areligious) displays until the matter could be reviewed.

When Chuck Norris heard of the flap, the actor planted his roundhouse kick firmly on the atheists he blames for starting the mess in the first place.

“Atheists from England to the West Coast of America are stepping up their efforts this year to make a bigger antagonistic splash on the Christmas scene,” said Chuck. “I am a patriot, and I believe that atheists are free to believe, speak and post whatever they want. This is America, and that’s their First Amendment right. But to do so with harassment and hatred under the guise of free speech is despicable. An anti-religious poster filled with spite is in no way equal to a religious symbol, such as a Nativity scene. Where are the political correctness police when religious followers are the victims?”

And while Chuck might believe in free speech, Gretchen Carlson, former Minnesota beauty queen and current Fox News “War on Christmas” correspondent, says not so much: “I’m all for free speech and free rights, just not on December 25th.”

Perpetually outraged William Donahue of the Catholic League weighed in: It’s the gay marriage supporters who are to blame.

“The root cause of the war on Christmas, which is conducted almost exclusively by well-educated white people in the U.S., Canada, Europe and Australia — the very same people who like gay marriage — has almost nothing to do with fidelity to law (the First Amendment in the U.S.): it has to do with ideology. The ideology is plainly an expression of left-wing secularism, and it is nothing if not anti-Western and anti-Christian. At its worst, it is driven by hatred; at its best, it is driven by a defensive posture, a deep sense of embarrassment over the legacy of Western civilization. There is no historical or moral justification for either. Moreover, those who are pushing this agenda generally lie about their work.”

Despite fingering white, educated seculars, Donahue in his next breath plays the Muslim card. “[T]his hatred of Christmas is not exclusive to the U.S. In England, Muslim preacher Anjem Choudary called Christmas ‘evil’ in a recent sermon.”

Choudary did warn Muslims not to celebrate Christmas. “Every Muslim has a responsibility to protect his family from the misguidance of Christmas, because its observance will lead to hellfire. Protect your Paradise from being taken away – protect yourself and your family from Christmas,” he said.

While Donahue and Norris impart the wisdom of the founding fathers on Christmas, they missed an important part of history. The religious folk who began the American dream said roughly the same thing as the Muslim professor: Celebrating Christmas is the road to hell.

“The generality of Christmas-keepers observe that festival after such a manner as is highly dishonourable to the name of Christ,” said the Rev. Increase Mather in 1687. “How few are there comparatively that spend those holidays (as they are called) after an holy manner. But they are consumed in Compotations, in Interludes, in playing at Cards, in Revellings, in excess of Wine, in mad Mirth…”

In fact, conservative Christians banned Christmas in Massachusetts — the state that gave us gay marriage — until 1855.

Who will win the “War on Christmas”? If playing the Nazi card is an indication of having lost the debate, then the Minnesota Family Council may have put it out of play for the religious right.

“Some insist that singing a Christmas carol in a public school is a state endorsement of religion,” writes Family Council Communications Director Chuck Darrell. “Would the same people insist that reading Mien Kampf in social studies is a state endorsement of National Socialism (Nazis) as well? So tell me, what’s the difference?”