Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Posts tagged ‘gay marriage’

Why Did Joey Biden Ignore His Dad’s Position On Gay Rights For Over 50 Years?

BY: DAVID HARSANYI | MARCH 14, 2023

Kal Penn & President Biden Talk Same-Sex Marriage

Democratic activist Kal Penn interviewed Joe Biden for The Daily Show this week. Penn begins one of his questions by pointing out that the president had “codified” both gay marriage and interracial marriage — as if either was in any danger whatsoever — and asks him what his philosophical evolution on “marriage equality” looks like. After all, Penn notes, now that trans kids are dealing with “regressive” state laws (banning surgical and pharmaceutical mutilation), it’s important to know.

“I can remember exactly when my epiphany was,” the president says. And though Biden admits he hadn’t thought much about gay marriage as a senior in high school in 1960, one time, “my dad was dropping me off, and I remember I am about to get out of the car and looked to my right and two well-dressed men in suits kissed each other.” Biden goes on to say: “And I’ll never forget it; I turned and looked at my dad. And he said: ‘Joey, it’s simple; they love each other.’”

This, of course, never happened. As I’ve noted before, Biden is a practitioner of the George Costanza school of “it’s not a lie if you believe it.” Other people’s lives are passing before his eyes. We’re probably about a year away from Biden telling media about the time he dated a drag queen named Hedda Hair in college because his dad had told him, “Joey, gender is just a social construct.”

The story of a gay couple kissing on the streets of 1960 Wilmington has become a Biden standard in recent years. He probably invented it sometime in 2015 and then used it regularly at gay rights speeches. Though in other iterations, it is a bit more cinematic and detailed. Here it is in 2020:

And I was being dropped off to get an application in the center of our city; Wilmington, Delaware, the corporate capital of the world at the time. And these two men, I’m getting out to get an application to be a lifeguard in the African American community because there was a big swimming pool complex.

And these two men, well dressed, leaned up and hugged one another and kissed one another. And I’m getting out of the car at the light and I turn to my dad. My dad looked at me and said, “Joey, it’s simple. They love each other.”

Even if he believed this story, it would only mean that Biden had spent over 50 years ignoring his dad’s progressive outlook. In 1973, more than a decade after his epiphany, Biden said that his gut reaction to allowing gays to work in the federal government was that they were “security risks” — though he hadn’t “given it much thought.” More than 30 years after his Catholic working-class dad told him that love was love, Joey voted for the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996.

Joseph R. Biden Sr. was probably devastated by this betrayal. In 2006, Biden was still defending the law, telling Tim Russert that “marriage is between a man and a woman and states must respect that.” Asked if he would support gay marriage during the 2008 vice presidential debate, Biden answered, “No. Barack Obama nor I support redefining from a civil side what constitutes marriage.” The Reuters piece detailing the debate is headlined: “Palin, Biden agree on gay rights at debate.”

In 2019, Biden alleged that, unlike Obama, he “didn’t have to evolve at all” on gay marriage. It is weird that the first time Biden is on the record publicly supporting gay marriage was on Meet the Press on May 4, 2012, two years after Barack Obama said his views on gay marriage were “evolving” and 52 years after his alleged epiphany. In truth, as with virtually every issue in his 50-year political life, Joey takes whatever position makes him popular in the Democratic Party.

David Harsanyi is a senior editor at The Federalist, a nationally syndicated columnist, a Happy Warrior columnist at National Review, and author of five books—the most recent, Eurotrash: Why America Must Reject the Failed Ideas of a Dying Continent. He has appeared on Fox News, C-SPAN, CNN, MSNBC, NPR, ABC World News Tonight, NBC Nightly News and radio talk shows across the country. Follow him on Twitter, @davidharsanyi.

Author David Harsanyi profile

DAVID HARSANYI

VISIT ON TWITTER@DAVIDHARSANYI

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

If Marriage Can Mean Anything, It Will Soon Mean Nothing

BY: STELLA MORABITO | NOVEMBER 29, 2022

Sen. Cynthia Lummis speaking on the Senatea floor prior to voting on the Respect for Marriage Act — **The Respect for Marriage Act lets the government establish a permanent presence in your personal life while redefining your relationships.**

Author Stella Morabito profile

STELLA MORABITO

VISIT ON TWITTER@STELLA_MORABITO

No matter how you define “marriage,” there is zero respect for it in the so-called Respect for Marriage Act. You may believe it serves to federally codify the Supreme Court’s Obergefell decision that rejected marriage as a male-female union. Maybe it would do so temporarily. But that’s not the endgame.

If you’re paying attention, you can see that the Senate’s recent 62-37 vote for cloture on HR 8404 puts us one step closer to abolishing state recognition of marriage entirely. That’s where this train is headed.

This will happen the same way such things always happen — through a demonization campaign that frames skeptics as bigots who are guilty of discrimination. That’s how you get Democrat-pliable Republicans such as Mitt Romney and craven Supreme Court justices like Anthony Kennedy to sign on. That’s how you manufacture a public opinion cascade, warning average Americans that they’ll be pummeled with lawsuits and ostracism if they dare think out loud.

And that’s how Democrats in Congress are likely in the not-too-distant future — via HR 8404 — to make the case that marriage actually comes with privileges that discriminate against the unmarried. Disagree? You’re a bigot who deserves to be socially ostracized! Self-censorship in the face of such accusations will pave the way, as always.

Collectivists Hope to Destroy Private Life and Regulate Relationships

Once they’ve gotten to that point via HR 8404 and Republicans who supported the measure, congressional Democrats will doubtless push us to agree that marriage is a discriminatory institution. We’ll start seeing more anti-marriage initiatives supported by singles, millennials, Julias, and gen Z, all well-groomed for the moment by teacher’s unions, academia, and media.

They’ll fall for the pitch that we can all just write up domestic partnership contracts instead. “Marriage” would then become nothing but a legal relationship (a contract) between two (or more) people for any purpose at all. Bureaucrats would broker those contracts. This proposal is all mapped out in Sunstein and Thaler’s 2008 book “Nudge.” It’s also been promoted for decades by internationally acclaimed feminist legal scholar Martha Fineman who writes that a system of contracts replacing marriage will help the state “regulate all social interactions.”

Under a system that abolishes state recognition of marriage, the family could no longer exist autonomously or unmolested by the state. How could it if the state no longer recognizes marriage as the foundation of the family unit? The government would have no requirement to recognize religious rites of marriage as valid. Thus, it would meddle more deeply in religion and religious communities that recognize bonds of kinship through blood ties.

We Become Atomized Individuals in the State’s Eyes

The atomization resulting from this will have repercussions that go beyond the bill’s guarantee to treat any difference of opinion as a federal crime. If we continue on this path, the government will no longer have to recognize any biological relationships. It need not recognize any legal right you might have as the parent of your biological child. Why should it? It would have already abolished its recognition of the union that produced the child.

Some of this process has already been completed through gender-neutral language in documents like passports, birth certificates, or the rules of the 117th Congress that do not recognize the words “mother,” “father,” “son,” or “daughter.”

Much groundwork has also been laid by surrogacy and abortion laws that treat children as chattel to buy, sell, and dispose of at will. And why would the state have to recognize any other relationships resulting from marriage if it no longer recognizes marriage? It could ignore your blood relationships to brother, sister, aunt, uncle, or any familial bond. In this scenario, you’d likely need a license to raise your own child, an old communist goal that the so-called Respect for Marriage Act conjures up.

When all there is are bureaucratized domestic partnership arrangements, the government would no longer need to recognize spousal privilege and thereby could legally coerce spouses to testify against one another in court. It could also abolish the default path of survivorship through which your inheritance goes to your spouse or next of kin. Instead, the state would be free to redistribute your nest egg at will in its great bureaucratic wisdom.

Indeed, there is no reason to doubt that the Respect for Marriage Act serves as a midwife to the radical left’s long-held goal of abolishing state recognition of marriage. It will allow the government to regulate our relationships, rendering each of us naked before its power.

We are each being set up for a pre-arranged marriage with Big Government operating as our abusive spouse.

Such Atomization Is a Totalitarian Necessity

The path to human atomization is the natural arc of all totalitarian systems in the making. They must always first isolate people in order to control them through terror, as Hannah Arendt noted in her work “The Origins of Totalitarianism.” Tyrants always mask their intentions by borrowing from tradition, using words like “respect for marriage,” “love,” or “equality” as they march us all into virtual solitary confinement.

There’s nothing new about this trajectory. It’s a long-standing vision of all totalitarian systems, which first came into the open with the Communist Manifesto’s proclamation, “Abolish the family!” Communists referred to traditional religion as “the opiate of the people” while setting up communism as a pseudo-religion that demanded unquestioning loyalty. The resulting dependency then truly becomes the fentanyl of the people.

Such deceptions are why Schumer and company talk about marriage as though the government has some sort of litmus test for “love.” But anyone with half a brain knows that love’s got nothing to do with a functioning state’s interest in marriage. Marriage is an institution that exists to allow for a structured society and for the protection of children.

Of course, we easily forget such facts while living in a nation that increasingly promotes infanticide, assisted suicide, recreational drug use, child pornography, and other ways to torture and kill our children. In fact, virtually all of their policy positions are tailor-made for family breakdown, community breakdown, and for hostility toward religious communities.

But maybe you like feeling lonely and alienated, like the idea of a childless and hopeless future, and are all for the state regulating your personal relationships and conversations. Well, then, you’ll like the “Respect” for Marriage Act.

But the destruction of bonds of affection and loyalty in the private spheres of life makes sense from the point of view of statists. Those loyalties get in the way of their ambitions for power and social engineering. They are invested in isolating us so that we become dependent upon them.

Stella Morabito is a senior contributor at The Federalist. She is author of “The Weaponization of Loneliness: How Tyrants Stoke Our Fear of Isolation to Silence, Divide, and Conquer.” Her essays have appeared in various publications, including the Washington Examiner, American Greatness, Townhall, Public Discourse, and The Human Life Review. In her previous work as an intelligence analyst, Morabito focused on various aspects of Russian and Soviet politics, including communist media and propaganda. Follow Stella on Twitter.

Category:

Political, Religion, Spiritual

Tagged with:

The ‘Respect for Marriage Act’ Is an Exercise in Tyranny, And Everyone Knows It

BY: JOHN DANIEL DAVIDSON | NOVEMBER 22, 2022

Obergefell rally in front of SCOTUS — **The 12 Republicans who voted to advance the bill last week are gaslighting the American public about its real purpose.**

It’s not hard to game out what happens if the misnamed Respect for Marriage Act passes, codifying Obergefell and enshrining gay marriage in federal law. Everyone, including the dozen Republican senators who voted to advance the legislation last week, knows exactly what will happen. It’s not some big mystery.

What will happen is this: Christians, Jews, Muslims, and anyone else who dares maintain that marriage is a lifelong conjugal union between one man and one woman — the definition of marriage for thousands of years until the U.S. Supreme Court descended from Mount Sinai with Obergefell v. Hodges inscribed on stone tablets — will be branded a bigot and driven from the public square and marketplace.

Anyone who owns a small business related to the wedding industry — photographers, bakers, website designers, venue owners, caterers, florists — will be sued into oblivion if they refuse services to same-sex couples. Religious colleges and universities will lose their tax-exempt status. Religious institutions of every kind, if they hold to their teachings and traditions about marriage, will face an onslaught from the Department of Justice and the federal bureaucracy.

To paraphrase George Orwell’s famous line, if you want a picture of the future under the Respect for Marriage Act, imagine a boot stamping on Jack Phillips’ face — forever.

The untrammeled exercise of power and the vigorous crushing of dissent is the entire purpose of the proposed law. There can be no other possible justification for it. Michael New, an assistant professor at the Busch School of Business at The Catholic University of America, recently told The Daily Signal that Catholic colleges and universities in particular might face ruinous lawsuits and loss of federal funding if the bill is signed into law.

“Suppose a Catholic college refused to allow a same-sex married couple to live in college owned graduate student housing for families, they might be subject to all kinds of litigation,” he said. “Such a college might lose its nonprofit status. Their students might lose eligibility for federal financial aid and their faculty might lose eligibility from research grants from government agencies.”

Well, yes. Of course all that would happen. Democrats and left-wing activists hear these kinds of concerns from people like New and think, “Good. Let them face ruinous litigation. Let them lose funding. Ghettoize them. Crush them. Grind their institutions into dust. They deserve it, the bigots.”

All the more appalling, then, that 12 Republican senators voted to advance the bill knowing full well what it will do. One wishes the explanation is just that these lawmakers are too stupid to understand what the purpose of the proposed law really is and what its effect will obviously be, but that’s wishful thinking. If they’re going to support this bill, though, do they have to pretend that we’re all too stupid to understand how it will work? Does Dan Sullivan, the second-worst U.S. senator from Alaska, who once supported a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage in the long-ago of 2014, really believe that the Respect for Marriage Act makes “important advances” in religious liberty? Does Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina, who 10 years ago as speaker of the statehouse supported a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage in his state, really think the anemic amendments he and other GOP senators offered to the bill will “advance religious freedom” and “age well”?

All the Republicans who voted to advance the bill last week issued some version of the nonsense Sullivan and Tillis spouted. None of them believe a word of it. They just hope you buy it.

But you don’t have to. Roger Severino of the Heritage Foundation helpfully walked through these specious claims one by one, explaining why they’re wrong. No, the bill won’t provide religious institutions with meaningful protections. Yes, the bill could certainly be used as a basis for the Internal Revenue Service to deny tax-exempt status to religious organizations that don’t toe the line on gay marriage. Yes, it could also be used to deny grants, licenses, or contracts. No, weak language about preserving the Religious Freedom Restoration Act is not enough to prevent harm to religious liberty. And so on.

The justification for the bill is just as outlandish and offensive as the argument that it presents no danger to religious Americans. In the wake of the Dobbs decision this summer, we were warned that some future Supreme Court opinion, following Justice Clarence Thomas’s logic, could overturn Obergefell and other substantive due process rulings such as Loving v. Virginia, which struck down state laws banning interracial marriage.

The purpose of this claim, in case it isn’t bone-crushingly obvious, is to lump opponents of gay marriage in with opponents of interracial marriage, to smear them as bigots who aren’t just on the wrong side of history, but who are about to be on the receiving end of a federal government empowered to go after them.

And if you think that can’t really be how proponents of the Respect for Marriage Act think about traditional-minded Americans, go ask Jack Phillips how he’s faring after winning his Supreme Court case in 2018.

John Daniel Davidson is a senior editor at The Federalist. His writing has appeared in the Wall Street Journal, the Claremont Review of Books, The New York Post, and elsewhere. Follow him on Twitter, @johnddavidson.

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

University unlawfully stops Christian students from debating gay marriage: lawsuit

Reported By Michael Gryboski, Mainline Church Editor | Thursday, April 28, 2022

The University of Idaho, located in Moscow, Idaho. | University of Idaho Photo Services

Three Christian college students have sued the University of Idaho for alleged wrongful punishment for expressing traditional views on marriage and sexual ethics on campus. Students Peter Perlot, Mark Miller and Ryan Alexander of the Christian Legal Society sued the university in the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho, Central Division on Monday.

The defendants named in the suit include University President C. Scott Green, Dean of Students Brian Eckles, Office of Civil Rights & Investigations Director Erin Agidius and OCRI Deputy Director Lindsay Ewan. According to the lawsuit, the three students went to an LGBT event on campus seeking to represent a biblical perspective on marriage and sexuality. When a student approached to ask their views, they offered their perspectives and gave the student a note expressing an interest in continuing the dialogue. Soon after, however, the Christian students were given “no-contact orders” from the OCRI, which prohibited them from communicating with the student.

“The CLS members did not receive notice that anyone had complained about them and were not given an opportunity to review the allegations against them or defend themselves,” according to the suit.
“Instead of allowing the students to disagree civilly and respectfully with one another and to discuss these important issues, the University chose instead to censor Plaintiffs.”
The students are being represented by Alliance Defending Freedom, a law firm that has argued religious liberty cases at the U.S. Supreme Court on numerous occasions. ADF Legal Counsel Michael Ross said in a statement released Tuesday that he believed students “must be free to discuss and debate the important issues of our day, especially law students who are preparing for a career that requires civil dialogue among differing viewpoints.”
“Yet the University of Idaho is shutting down Peter, Mark, and Ryan because of their religious beliefs. This is illegal behavior from any government official, and we urge the university officials to right their discriminatory actions immediately,” Ross stated.

Jodi Walker, the university’s senior communication’s director, told The Christian Post that the academic institution “cannot discuss pending litigation or specific student cases.”

Walker explained that the no-contact order was “a supportive measure available to a student under Title IX” and that “these supportive measures must be enacted” when a student requests them.

“When a complaint is made that qualifies under Title IX, the university must make the student aware of the supportive measures available,” noted Walker.

Walker directed CP to a July 2021 guidance document from the U.S. Department of Education titled “Questions and Answers on the Title IX Regulations on Sexual Harassment.”

Under the question on “supportive measures,” the guidance explained that schools have “discretion and flexibility to determine which supportive measures are appropriate.”
“The preamble states that a school must consider ‘each set of unique circumstances’ to determine what individualized services would be appropriate based on the ‘facts and circumstances of that situation,’” stated the guidance.

Follow Michael Gryboski on Twitter or Facebook

Category:

Education, Political

Tagged with:

Stop Arguing for Religious Liberty and Start Arguing Against Religious Discrimination

COMMENTARY BY: AUGUSTE MEYRAT | MARCH 28, 2022

For an increasingly secular populace, actions and policies must be defended on the basis of reason much more than faith.

Author Auguste Meyrat profile

AUGUSTE MEYRAT

VISIT ON TWITTER@MEYRATAUGUSTE

In a recent legal settlement, Catholic Charities West Michigan successfully challenged Michigan’s decision to bar state funds to adoption agencies that do not serve same-sex couples. The settlement forced Michigan to reimburse the charity for its legal fees and other costs. Using an argument that has now become familiar to most Americans, Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel, a lesbian mother of two and former gay rights activist, charged Catholic adoption agencies with discriminating against same-sex couples. In response, the Catholic adoption agencies used the same logic, accusing the Michigan state government of discriminating against Catholics and effectively denying them their religious freedom.

While Christians should celebrate this recent victory, it’s nonetheless sad this appeal had to be made. When gay marriage was legalized in Obergfell v. Hodges, Christians were assured that they could practice their faith and live out their values in peace, but this was almost immediately proven wrong. As the ink of Justice Anthony Kennedy’s majority opinion was drying, LGBT groups immediately went after Christian bakers, florists, photographers, popular chicken sandwich chains, and other Christian organizations for their religious beliefs.

Defense Based on Reason not Faith

This war will continue so long as Christians keep using the religious freedom defense. Even though this argument has the best chance of winning in legal courts, it is unconvincing in the court of public opinion. As more Americans drift away from Christianity, they increasingly view this defense for denying service to same-sex couples not as a valid objection, but as a childish copout: “The Christian God doesn’t like gay people.”

Rather, it’s important to establish that most Christian churches are established on natural law (that is, moral laws based on objective truth) as much as the Bible. To be sure, faith and reason both matter enormously, but for an increasingly secular populace, actions and policies must be defended on the basis of reason much more than faith.

This has been the case with abortion, with the pro-life position steadily gaining popular support as it has adopted more reason-based arguments. The pro-life movement has grown because it has argued that unborn babies are people, and therefore abortion is murder. Although the Bible acknowledges this argument, the argument itself isn’t strictly based on the Bible.

Reasons Against Same-Sex Couples Adopting

Similarly, in issues involving marriage and children, Christians need to appeal to reason more than their faith. In the case of same-sex couples adopting, two issues need to be addressed. First, do all couples have a right to adopt a child? Second, do children have a right to a father and mother?

Concerning whether all couples have a right to adopt, the answer is that they do not. As any couple who has gone through the process of adoption understands all too well, many screenings and conditions have to be met. Someone from the adoption agency will inspect their home, rifle through their personal information, interview them and others, and then, after so many legal hurdles, possibly allow a child to live with them. Even then, the biological parent may change his or her mind and take back the child.

As painful and expensive as this process is, it is necessary because children are human beings with rights of their own, not objects a couple acquires out of boredom or simply some charitable impulse. Consequently, adoption agencies must discriminate among couples wanting to adopt, only selecting those who meet the criteria of good caretakers.

A Right to a Mother and Father?

This leads to the second issue of whether a child’s rights include having a mother and father, as opposed to two fathers or two mothers. The science on this is mixed, both because it’s a politically charged issue and because it’s a difficult thing to measure. One may say that a loving committed couple is enough, but one may contend that a loving committed heterosexual couple is necessary.

Katy Faust persuasively argues this latter view in her excellent book “Them Before Us.” She explains that men and women represent two distinct and essential supports to a child growing up; fatherhood and motherhood are not interchangeable or dispensable. Furthermore, she argues that a child does best with his or her biological parents in nearly all cases. For Faust, adoption is an alternative that should only be considered in cases of serious abuse or neglect.

Not only does Faust support her argument with a multitude of studies, but she has both a homosexual parent and an adopted child. Even though her situation would suggest that same-sex adoption should be treated the same as any other parental arrangement, her reasoning leads her to think otherwise.

Faust’s example is a good model for all Christians trying to serve their community in accordance with their values. Whatever charitable work they do — whether it is finding homes for orphans or allowing those orphans to be born in the first place — it is done for the person in need, first and foremost. This is not a political or religious issue, but a human one.

It is not a coincidence that this means they are doing God’s will in the process. Contrary to what opponents claim, Christian values are based on objective truth, not blind faith to various Bronze Age prejudices. As such, the goal is not about winning, but about making the world a better place.

Auguste Meyrat is an English teacher in the Dallas area. He holds an MA in humanities and an MEd in educational leadership. He is the senior editor of The Everyman and has written essays for The Federalist, The American Conservative, and The Imaginative Conservative, as well as the Dallas Institute of Humanities and Culture. Follow him on Twitter.

Category:

Political, Spiritual

Tagged with:

Christians Stand Trial in Finland Today for Affirming Men and Women Are Different

REPORTED BY: JOY PULLMANN | JANUARY 24, 2022

Paive Rasanen of Finland reading the Bible

Today in Finland, two Christians will stand trial for publicly stating the theological and scientific truth that men and women are different. Finnish Member of Parliament Paivi Rasanen and Lutheran Bishop Juhana Pohjola stand accused of “hate crimes” for affirming basic Christian theology and natural reality concerning the sexual differences between men and women. One of the three charges against Rasanen includes a count against her for tweeting a picture of a Bible verse in challenging the state church of Finland’s decision to sponsor an LGBT parade. Another charge attempts to criminalize her participation in a 2019 public debate.

If the court finds them guilty, Rasanen and Pohjola could face fines or up to two years in prison. It would also set the precedent of making quoting the Bible a criminal offense in Western countries.

In November, human rights lawyer Paul Coleman told The Federalist that these cases in Finland are a “canary in the coalmine” for freedom of speech in the Western world. Coleman works for Alliance Defending Freedom International, which is assisting the two Finns’ lawyers. “Part of the scary thing about what’s happening in Finland is that it could happen anywhere else,” Coleman said Jan. 23 on the British show GBNews. Many countries have similar hate speech laws, including states and cities in the United States.

While accused of hate crimes, Rasanen and Pohjola emphatically affirm their love for all people as beautifully created in God’s image and deeply loved by a God who sent his own Son to die an excruciating death to atone for every sin, including all sexual sins. Their aim is not hate but love, they say, another core teaching of Christianity, which also commands its adherents to “love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you.”

Both are also charged for a booklet Rasanen wrote and Pohjola published in 2004. Pohjola told The Federalist in an exclusive in-person interview in November 2021 that he asked Rasanen to write the booklet because she was qualified, as a medical doctor and the wife of a pastor. That booklet affirms the classic understanding of sex as reserved solely for marriage, and marriage as comprising one man committed to one woman for life. In spring 2019, the two were suddenly served with criminal charges for writing and publishing this booklet decades ago, well before Finland passed its hate crimes laws on behalf of powerful special interests who dispute the differences between the sexes and their role in procreation. Rasanen and Pohjola have been summoned several times by Finnish police to be interrogated separately for hours about intricate details of their theology.

In their interrogations, the police demanded that Rasanen and Pohjola recant their beliefs. Both refused. Both have also noted the contrast between their country’s claim to be a free and modern democracy that allows for full and open debate and the way they have been treated, as thought criminals.

“If I’m convicted, I think that the worst consequence would not be the fine against me, or even the prison sentence, it would be the censorship,” Rasanen said in a statement ahead of her trial. “I will continue to stand for what I believe and what I have written. And I will speak and write about these things, because they are a matter of conviction, not only an opinion. I trust that we still live in a democracy, and we have our constitution and international agreements that guarantee our freedom of speech and religion,”

Christians all over the world are praying for Pojhola and Rasanen, including corporately in their churches. On Jan. 23, free speech supporters rallied in front of the Finnish embassy in Oslo, Norway, to show support for Rasanen and Pohjola. Several of the protesters filling the street carried signs that said “Finland: Freedom of speech?”

Several members of the U.S. Congress led by Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas, said in a public letter that the Finnish government’s prosecutions of these Christians for their religious beliefs “raise serious questions regarding the extent of Finland’s commitment to protect religious freedom for its citizens.” Roy’s office is closely watching the trial, as are many other U.S. and international human rights organizations.

Pohjola was recently elected the bishop of the Lutheran non-state church in Finland. He was kicked out of the state church approximately a decade ago for upholding Christian teachings on the differences between the sexes. The small non-state church in Finland is growing, while the large state church is shrinking.

The Federalist is monitoring the trial today and will be covering its outcome.

Joy Pullmann is executive editor of The Federalist, a happy wife, and the mother of six children. Her bestselling ebook is “Classic Books for Young Children.” Sign up here to get early access to her next book, “How To Control The Internet So It Doesn’t Control You.” Mrs. Pullmann identifies as native American and gender natural. She is also the author of “The Education Invasion: How Common Core Fights Parents for Control of American Kids,” from Encounter Books. In 2013-14 she won a Robert Novak journalism fellowship for in-depth reporting on Common Core national education mandates. Joy is a grateful graduate of the Hillsdale College honors and journalism programs.

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Supreme Court to Review Case of a Baker Told He Must Bake Gay Wedding Cake

Reported by Ryan T. Anderson / @RyanTAnd / June 26, 2017 /

URL of the original posting site: http://dailysignal.com/2017/06/26/supreme-court-review-case-baker-fined-not-baking-gay-wedding-cake/

A lower court ruling had forced Jack Phillips to choose between obeying the government and following his religious beliefs. (Photo: iStock Photos)

Today was a good day for religious freedom at the Supreme Court. In a 7-2 decision, the court upheld religious liberty by saying that a state cannot exclude a church from a public program just because it’s a church. That was the big case at the court.

In a less-noted move, the court also agreed to review (“granted cert” in the legal jargon) a case about religious liberty, free speech, and government coercion to support gay marriage. The case involves Jack Phillips, owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop, and whether he must create wedding cakes for same-sex weddings, even if doing so violates his beliefs.

The case goes back to 2012, when a same-sex couple received a marriage license in Massachusetts and asked Phillips to bake a cake for a reception back home in Colorado, a state that in 2006 constitutionally defined marriage as the union of a man and a woman.

Phillips declined to create a wedding cake, citing his faith: “I don’t feel like I should participate in their wedding, and when I do a cake, I feel like I am participating in the ceremony or the event or the celebration that the cake is for,” he said.

The couple later obtained a wedding cake with rainbow-colored filling (illustrating the expressive nature of event cake-baking) from another bakery.

The American Civil Liberties Union filed a complaint against Masterpiece Cakeshop with the state, alleging violations of Colorado’s public accommodation law.

Administrative Law Judge Robert N. Spencer ruled against the bakery on Dec. 6, 2013, concluding that Phillips violated the law by declining service to the couple “because of their sexual orientation.”

Phillips objected to this characterization and responded that he would happily sell the couple his baked goods for any number of occasions, but creating a wedding cake would force him to express something that he does not believe, thereby violating his freedom to run his business in accordance with his faith.

Phillips is right. As Sherif Girgis and I explain in our new book from Oxford University Press, “Debating Religious Liberty and Discrimination,” acting on the belief that marriage is the union of husband and wife does not in itself entail “discriminating” on the basis of sexual orientation. Indeed, part of the problem is that liberals are simply calling anything they disagree with “discrimination.”

This overbroad definition of “discrimination” is part of what creates the problems for the free exercise of religion and free speech. And here a pattern holds: Legally coercing professionals serves no serious need, but works serious harms.

Conservative wedding providers are few and dwindling due to market pressures—and most important, they don’t refuse to serve LGBT patrons. In case after case, bakers have had no problem designing cakes for gay customers for every other occasion. It’s just that an exceedingly small number can’t in good conscience use their talents to help celebrate same-sex weddings by baking a cake topped with two grooms or two brides—or, as in this case, with rainbow filling.

Coercing these cultural dissidents has vanishingly small effects on the supply of products for any given couple, but it impinges seriously on particular vendors’ freedoms of speech, conscience, and religion. If any harm remains in leaving these wedding professionals free, it is only the tension we all face in living with people who disagree with us on the most personal matters.

As Girgis and I explain in our new book, America is in a time of transition. The Supreme Court has redefined marriage, and beliefs about human sexuality are changing. Now, the Supreme Court has the chance to protect the right to dissent and the civil liberties of those who speak and act in accord with what Americans had always previously believed about marriage—that it is the union of husband and wife.

Such a ruling would help achieve civil peace amid disagreement. It would protect pluralism and the rights of all Americans, regardless of what faith they may practice.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR: Ryan T. Anderson/ @RyanTAnd

Ryan T. Anderson, Ph.D., is the William E. Simon Senior Research Fellow in American Principles and Public Policy at The Heritage Foundation, where he researches and writes about marriage, bioethics, religious liberty and political philosophy. Anderson is the author of several books and his research has been cited by two U.S. Supreme Court justices in two separate cases. Read his Heritage research.

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

The United States of…Not America

Authored By: David Barton | Posted: Monday, February 20, 2017 1:40 PM

URL of the original posting site: http://www.afa.net/the-stand/government/2017/02/the-united-states-ofnot-america/

Here’s a simple question: “What is America’s first-protected, most-important, and longest-cherished politically-protected right?” The answer? The rights of religious conscience. But the Supreme Court of Washington State just became another in the line of recent courts who know nothing of, or don’t care about this inalienable right.

The early colonists arriving in America came largely seeking this right. In Europe, the governments consistently told them how to practice their faith, and punished them if they did not do what the government wanted; but the religious-minded colonists believed that no one but God could tell them how to practice their faith.

The Pilgrims journeyed to America in 1620 to escape the hounding government persecution in England, as did 20,000 Puritans in the 1630s. In 1632, government-persecuted Catholics fled to America; in 1654, persecuted Jews from Portugal; in 1680, persecuted Quakers arrived here, as did persecuted Anabaptists from Germany in 1683, 400,000 persecuted Protestants from France in 1685; and so forth. These settlers, having been punished for exercising their rights of religious conscience, promptly enshrined these rights in their own governing documents, including Rhode Island in 1640, Maryland in 1649, Jersey in 1664, Carolina in 1665, Pennsylvania in 1682, and so forth. As John Quincy Adams affirmed, “The transcendent and overruling principle of the first settlers of New England was conscience.”

In 1776 when America separated from Great Britain, the rights of religious conscience were once again promptly preserved in the new state constitutions and then in the federal Constitution. According to the Founding Fathers, this was one of the most important rights they protected:

“No provision in our Constitution ought to be dearer to man than that which protects the rights of conscience.” “[O]ur rulers can have no authority over such natural rights only as we have submitted to them. The rights of conscience we never submitted.” “It is inconsistent with the spirit of our laws and Constitution to force tender consciences.” Thomas Jefferson

“Government is instituted to protect property of every sort…Conscience is the most sacred of all property.” James Madison, Signer of the Constitution

“The rights of conscience and private judgment…are by nature subject to no control but that of Deity, and in that free situation they are now left.” John Jay, an Author of the Federalist Papers and original Chief Justice of the U. S. Supreme Court

“Consciences of men are not the objects of human legislation.” “The state [does not] have any concern in the matter. For in what manner doth it affect society . . . in what outward form we think it best to pay our adoration to God?” William Livingston, signer of the U. S. Constitution

Based on this long tradition, today . . .

Conscientious objectors are not forced to fight in wars;

Jehovah’s Witnesses are not required to say the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools;

The Amish are not required to complete the standard twelve years of education;

Christian Scientists are not forced to have their children vaccinated or undergo medical procedures often required by state laws;

Seventh-Day Adventists cannot be penalized for refusing to work on Saturday;

And there are many additional examples.

It was because the rights of religious conscience were so important that they were specifically protected in the constitutions of the individual states—such as that of Washington, which declares:

Absolute freedom of conscience in all matters of religious sentiment, belief, and worship shall be guaranteed to every individual; and no one shall be molested or disturbed in person or property on account of religion . . .

But despite the clarity of this clause, we now get word that the Washington Supreme Court has ruled that Baronelle Stutzman, a devout and pious Christian florist… was bound by state law to use her artistic talents to design floral arrangements to celebrate what she viewed as an immoral event: a gay wedding. The pretext for overriding the florist’s rights to free speech and religious liberty was Washington’s so-called “public accommodations law,” which required the owner, Barronelle Stutzman, to provide goods and services to customers “regardless” of their sexual orientation.

Several things are wrong with this decision.

First, Baronelle has been economically-fined and governmentally-coerced to use her talents and skills in a way that violates her sincerely-held religious beliefs.

Second, the explicit wording of the Washington State constitution has been completely ignored by the Washington State Supreme Court. In essence, a Washington state court has deemed the Washington state constitution to be unconstitutional, just because they don’t want to uphold its provisions.

Third, the court elevated a state law (their “public accommodations law”) above the state constitution; but constitutions always trump statutory laws—always.

Fourth, John Adams described us as “a government of laws and not of men,” but decisions like this make us just the opposite: the personal predilections of judges are now routinely placed above constitutional provisions duly enacted by the people.

Two centuries ago, Thomas Jefferson rejoiced that “the comparison of our government with those of Europe are like a comparison of heaven and hell,” but this happy distinction is now disappearing. Because of this ruling (and dozens more like it in recent years), America is becoming more and more like the tyrannical governments of Europe that millions of early colonists fled in order to be free from the government persecution of their inalienable rights of religious conscience.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

David Barton Author of numerous best selling books and Founder and President of WallBuilders More Articles

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Federal judge orders Kentucky clerk and her staff to court

By CLAIRE GALOFARO

URL of the original posting site: http://news.yahoo.com/clerk-issue-gay-marriage-licenses-court-ruling-083217111.html

MOREHEAD, Ky. (AP) — A county clerk who invoked “God’s authority” as she defied the U.S. Supreme Court yet again on gay marriage Tuesday refused to resign after a federal judge summoned her to explain why she should not held in contempt.

Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis turned away several gay and lesbian couples who sought marriage licenses — some for a fifth time — even though the Supreme Court turned away her last-ditch appeal the night before. “To issue a marriage license which conflicts with God’s definition of marriage, with my name affixed to the certificate, would violate my conscience. It is not a light issue for me. It is a Heaven or Hell decision,” she said through her lawyers. “I was elected by the people to serve as the County Clerk. I intend to continue to serve the people of Rowan County, but I cannot violate my conscience,” her statement said.

For David Moore and David Ermold, it was their third rejection at the courthouse. Davis, facing the couples and a packed crowd of reporters and activists, told them to leave. “We’re not leaving until we have a license,” Ermold responded. “Then you’re going to have a long day,” Davis replied.

Davis then retreated into her inner office, where closed blinds sheltered her from the cameras and rival demonstrations outside.

“Praise the Lord!” her supporters shouted. “Stand your ground!”

Other activists yelled “Do your job!” They called Davis a bigot and said the government is not a theocracy. The sheriff moved everyone to the courthouse lawn, where each side tried to out-do the other with chanting, hymn-singing and sign-waving.

Davis stopped issuing all marriage licenses in June after the Supreme Court legalized gay marriage across the nation.

Four couples — two gay, two straight — then sued to force her to fulfill her duties as an elected official despite her personal religious faith, or step aside. Other couples also sued. A federal order to issue the licenses was upheld in appellate court. Her lawyers with Liberty Counsel then asked the Supreme Court for what they called “asylum for her conscience.”

After the full court declined to intervene Monday night, removing any remaining legal ground for Davis’ position, the couples decided to try again, only to be turned away. For James Yates and Will Smith Jr., it was their fifth rejection. “It’s just too hard right now,” Yates said, choking back tears and holding hands with Smith as they rushed to their car.

Despite the delays, the couples’ lawyers asked the judge to punish her with fines, not jail.

Davis served as her mother’s deputy for 27 years before she was elected as a Democrat to succeed her in November. Davis’ own son is on the staff. As an elected official, Davis can’t be fired from her $80,000-a-year job. Impeachment would have to wait until the Legislature’s regular session next year, or a costly special session.

Davis refused to concede her religious freedom argument even after U.S. District Judge David Bunning ordered Davis and her six deputy clerks to appear at 11 a.m. on Thursday at the federal court in Ashland. Davis has said previously that four of her deputies share her beliefs, one was ambiguous and one did not have a problem with issuing licenses to same-sex couples.

Outside, activists lined up on either side of the courthouse entrance.

“At the end of the day, we have to stand before God, which has higher authority than the Supreme Court,” said Randy Smith, leading the group supporting Davis.

Ermold and Moore, together for 17 years, cried and swayed as they walked out to chants from the clerk’s supporters. “I feel sad, I feel devastated,” Ermold said. “I feel like I’ve been humiliated on such a national level, I can’t even comprehend it.”

The clerk’s husband, Joe Davis, came by to check on his wife. He said she has received death threats but remains committed to her faith and is “standing for God.” As for himself, he said he believes in the Second Amendment: “I’m an old redneck hillbilly, that’s all I’ve got to say. Don’t come knocking on my door.” He pointed to the gay rights protesters gathered on the courthouse lawn and said: “They want us to accept their beliefs and their ways. But they won’t accept our beliefs and our ways.”

___

Associated Press writer Adam Beam in Lexington, Kentucky, contributed.

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Rainbow-flag Christians quizzed by pastor

Posted By -NO AUTHOR- On 07/10/2015

Article reblogged from WND: http://www.wnd.com

URL to article: http://www.wnd.com/2015/07/rainbow-flag-christians-quizzed-by-pastor

In the aftermath of the U.S. Supreme Court’s creation of “same-sex marriage,” a pastor’s list of questions for Christians who support the decision is going viral. It’s been shared on Facebook nearly 400,000 times and tweeted more than 3,000. Pastor Kevin DeYoung’s list of questions for rainbow flag-waving Christians includes: “As you think about the long history of the church and the near universal disapproval of same-sex sexual activity, what do you think you understand about the Bible that Augustine, Aquinas, Calvin and Luther failed to grasp?”

DeYoung’s questions have been posted on the website for The Gospel Coalition, which describes itself as a “broadly Reformed network of churches.” It “encourages and educates” current and next-generation Christian leaders by “advocating gospel centered principles and practices that glorify the Savior and do good to those for whom he shed his life’s blood.”

DeYoung is senior pastor of University Reformed Church in East Lansing, Michigan.

He says the court’s ruling “hurts.”

Christian apologist Josh McDowell’s “Evidence for Christianity” addresses the need in society today for a solid body of persuasive evidence about Christianity. It answers the hard-to-answer questions.

“Making legal and theological decisions based on what makes people feel better is part of what got us into this mess in the first place,” he wrote. “There are many reasons for our lamentation, from fear that religious liberties will be taken away to worries about social ostracism and cultural marginalization.”

But he said the biggest hurt comes from Christians who give “their hearty ‘Amen’ to a practice we still think is a sin and a decision we think is bad for our country.”

Among the questions he asks: “How long have you believed that gay marriage is something to be celebrated?” and “What Bible verses led you to change your mind?”

He also wants to know how a positive case can be made from Scripture “that sexual activity between two persons of the same sex is a blessing.”

“What verses would you use to show that a marriage between two persons of the same sex can adequately depict Christ and the church?”

Why, he asks, did Jesus “reassert the Genesis definition of marriage as being one man and one woman?”

“Do you believe that passages like 1 Corinthians 6:9 and Revelation 21:8 teach that sexual immorality can keep you out of heaven?”

“What arguments would you use to explain to Christians in Africa, Asia and South America that their understanding of homosexuality is biblically incorrect and your new understanding of homosexuality is not culturally conditioned?”

Specific to the United States, he asks, “Do you think Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama were motivated by personal animus and bigotry when they, for almost all of their lives, defined marriage as a covenant relationship between one man and one woman?”

Once the biblical standard is abandoned, he asks, “Should marriage be limited to only two people?” and “On what basis, if any, would you prevent consenting adults of any relation and of any number from getting married?”

And addressing the responsibility of churches, he asks, “What open and affirming churches would you point to where people are being converted to orthodox Christianity, sinners are being warned of judgment and called to repentance and missionaries are being sent out to plant churches among unreached peoples?”

DeYoung said the questions “aren’t meant to be snarky or merely rhetorical.”

“They are sincere, if pointed, questions that I hope will cause my brothers and sisters with the new rainbow-themed avatars to slow down and think about the flag you’re flying.”

For evangelicals who lament last Friday’s Supreme Court decision, it’s been a hard few days. We aren’t asking for emotional pity, nor do I suspect many people are eager to give us any. Our pain is not sacred. Making legal and theological decisions based on what makes people feel better is part of what got us into this mess in the first place. Nevertheless, it still hurts.

There are many reasons for our lamentation, from fear that religious liberties will be taken away to worries about social ostracism and cultural marginalization. But of all the things that grieve us, perhaps what’s been most difficult is seeing some of our friends, some of our family members, and some of the folks we’ve sat next to in church giving their hearty “Amen” to a practice we still think is a sin and a decision we think is bad for our country. It’s one thing for the whole nation to throw a party we can’t in good conscience attend. It’s quite another to look around for friendly faces to remind us we’re not alone and then find that they are out there jamming on the dance floor. We thought the rainbow was God’s sign (Gen. 9:8-17).

If you consider yourself a Bible-believing Christian, a follower of Jesus whose chief aim is to glorify God and enjoy him forever, there are important questions I hope you will consider before picking up your flag and cheering on the sexual revolution. These questions aren’t meant to be snarky or merely rhetorical. They are sincere, if pointed, questions that I hope will cause my brothers and sisters with the new rainbow themed avatars to slow down and think about the flag you’re flying.

1. How long have you believed that gay marriage is something to be celebrated?

2. What Bible verses led you to change your mind?

3. How would you make a positive case from Scripture that sexual activity between two persons of the same sex is a blessing to be celebrated?

4. What verses would you use to show that a marriage between two persons of the same sex can adequately depict Christ and the church?

5. Do you think Jesus would have been okay with homosexual behavior between consenting adults in a committed relationship?

6. If so, why did he reassert the Genesis definition of marriage as being one man and one woman?

7. When Jesus spoke against porneia what sins do you think he was forbidding?

8. If some homosexual behavior is acceptable, how do you understand the sinful “exchange” Paul highlights in Romans 1?

9. Do you believe that passages like 1 Corinthians 6:9 and Revelation 21:8 teach that sexual immorality can keep you out of heaven?

10. What sexual sins do you think they were referring to?

11. As you think about the long history of the church and the near universal disapproval of same-sex sexual activity, what do you think you understand about the Bible that Augustine, Aquinas, Calvin, and Luther failed to grasp?

12. What arguments would you use to explain to Christians in Africa, Asia, and South America that their understanding of homosexuality is biblically incorrect and your new understanding of homosexuality is not culturally conditioned?

13. Do you think Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama were motivated by personal animus and bigotry when they, for almost all of their lives, defined marriage as a covenant relationship between one man and one woman?

14. Do you think children do best with a mother and a father?

15. If not, what research would you point to in support of that conclusion?

16. If yes, does the church or the state have any role to play in promoting or privileging the arrangement that puts children with a mom and a dad?

17. Does the end and purpose of marriage point to something more than an adult’s emotional and sexual fulfillment?

18. How would you define marriage?

19. Do you think close family members should be allowed to get married?

20. Should marriage be limited to only two people?

21. On what basis, if any, would you prevent consenting adults of any relation and of any number from getting married?

22. Should there be an age requirement in this country for obtaining a marriage license?

23. Does equality entail that anyone wanting to be married should be able to have any meaningful relationship defined as marriage?

24. If not, why not?

25. Should your brothers and sisters in Christ who disagree with homosexual practice be allowed to exercise their religious beliefs without fear of punishment, retribution, or coercion?

26. Will you speak up for your fellow Christians when their jobs, their accreditation, their reputation, and their freedoms are threatened because of this issue?

27. Will you speak out against shaming and bullying of all kinds, whether against gays and lesbians or against Evangelicals and Catholics?

28. Since the evangelical church has often failed to take unbiblical divorces and other sexual sins seriously, what steps will you take to ensure that gay marriages are healthy and accord with Scriptural principles?

29. Should gay couples in open relationships be subject to church discipline?

30. Is it a sin for LGBT persons to engage in sexual activity outside of marriage?

31. What will open and affirming churches do to speak prophetically against divorce, fornication, pornography, and adultery wherever they are found?

32. If “love wins,” how would you define love?

33. What verses would you use to establish that definition?

34. How should obedience to God’s commands shape our understanding of love?

35. Do you believe it is possible to love someone and disagree with important decisions they make?

36. If supporting gay marriage is a change for you, has anything else changed in your understanding of faith?

37. As an evangelical, how has your support for gay marriage helped you become more passionate about traditional evangelical distinctives like a focus on being born again, the substitutionary sacrifice of Christ on the cross, the total trustworthiness of the Bible, and the urgent need to evangelize the lost?

38. What open and affirming churches would you point to where people are being converted to orthodox Christianity, sinners are being warned of judgment and called to repentance, and missionaries are being sent out to plant churches among unreached peoples?

39. Do you hope to be more committed to the church, more committed to Christ, and more committed to the Scriptures in the years ahead?

40. When Paul at the end of Romans 1 rebukes “those who practice such things” and those who “give approval to those who practice them,” what sins do you think he has in mind?

Food for thought, I hope. At the very least, something to chew on before swallowing everything the world and Facebook put on our plate.

Note: An earlier version of this post had the questions in paragraph format rather than enumerated. The content is still the same. Readers interested in studying what the Bible teaches about homosexuality may be interested in checking out my new book on that theme.

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

A detailed explanation of why Christians don’t accept gay marriage

Published by: Dan Calabrese on Monday June 29th, 2015

URL of the Original Posting Site: http://www.caintv.com/a-detailed-explanation-of-why

Image Credit: Keoni Cabral via Flickr

For those genuinely interested in understanding.

Given the nature of the discussion following the gay marriage ruling last week, one thing that’s clear to me as a Christian who opposes gay marriage is that very few secular people – and sadly, by no means all Christians – really understand why Christians take the position we do. That’s why there is so much being said that doesn’t really reflect what Christians think. Some say we hate or we judge. Others say we are against love. Some think we’re threatened by homosexuals. Some think we object too vociferously because we secretly want to join their ranks. Some even claim we don’t think God loves gay people.

None of that is true, but maybe it’s understandable that you jump to those conclusions if you’re not familiar with the Bible or with the details of Christian doctrine.

What I want to do here is lay out an explanation for the basis of Christian opposition to gay marriage. The intent here is not to convince you if you don’t agree, although I’d be glad if I did. If you come away from this feeling that you better understand the Christian position, but still disagreeing with it, then I’ve accomplished my goal.

First, a few caveats: This explanation is going to reflect my particular denominational bent, which is Pentecostal. I don’t think the substance of what I say will differ in a substantive way from any Bible-believing denomination, but I recognize, for instance, that Baptists or Lutherans may not put as much emphasis on the supernatural as I do. Noted. I still think they would mostly endorse the substance of how I’m going to explain this. Also, my target audience here is people with a genuine interest in understanding. The fire-breathing ideologue who is simply spoiling for a fight about anything and everything is going to do what he or she always does. That’s not my problem.

Finally, I understand that some of you don’t believe in God or in anything spiritual, and for you, all of this is absurd on its face. You’re still welcome to gain an understanding if you’d like, even though I recognize you will not accept the basic premise behind any of it.

With that said, let’s start by establishing a basic point about the Bible. The Christian (present company included) believes that the entire Bible is the inspired Word of God. The various writers wrote under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, so we don’t believe it was merely “written by men,” and we also believe that God has protected His Word over the course of centuries with new translations to reflect modern language – by choosing godly men and women to lead those translation processes. That’s why, when we cite the Bible, we treat it as authoritative.

Also, since every writer of the Bible was under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, it doesn’t matter when people argue that “Jesus never said anything” about this or that. Just because an issue isn’t specifically referenced in the red-letter words of Jesus (although the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman actually is, which we’ll get to shortly) doesn’t mean Scripture had nothing authoritative to say on the matter.

Now, let’s establish beyond any doubt what Scripture says about homosexual sex. I have five passages for you, starting with Romans 1:24-28:

24 Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, 25 who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. 26 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. 27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.

This passage clearly establishes that God intended a natural order for how we would receive and engage in the gift of sexual activity, and it likewise establishes that homosexual sex is outside that established order. It also establishes that there is a penalty for this. Loving Christian people want to see gay people spared of the pain of that penalty.

Next, let’s look at Mark 10:2-9:

2 The Pharisees came and asked Him, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?” testing Him.

3 And He answered and said to them, “What did Moses command you?”

4 They said, “Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce, and to dismiss her.”

5 And Jesus answered and said to them, “Because of the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept. 6 But from the beginning of the creation, God ‘made them male and female.’7 ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, 8 and the two shall become one flesh’; so then they are no longer two, but one flesh. 9 Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.”

Jesus is answering a question from the Pharisees about divorce – one of their typically pathetic attempts to trap him – and in the course of answering, Jesus lays out God’s clear plan for marriage, affirming that it is indeed between a man and a woman. There are people who argue implausibly that Jesus only phrased it this way because, in that day and age, He couldn’t have conceived of gay marriage. That’s transparent nonsense. As the Son of God, Jesus knew everything that would ever happen. And Jesus introduced lots of concepts into His teaching that were radical in His day. If He had been OK with gay marriage, this was the perfect opportunity to say so. Instead, he affirmed that marriage is between a man and a woman.

Next, let’s look at Leviticus 20:10-18:

10 ‘The man who commits adultery with another man’s wife, he who commits adultery with his neighbor’s wife, the adulterer and the adulteress, shall surely be put to death. 11 The man who lies with his father’s wife has uncovered his father’s nakedness; both of them shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them. 12 If a man lies with his daughter-in-law, both of them shall surely be put to death. They have committed perversion. Their blood shall beupon them. 13 If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their bloodshall be upon them. 14 If a man marries a woman and her mother, it iswickedness. They shall be burned with fire, both he and they, that there may be no wickedness among you. 15 If a man mates with an animal, he shall surely be put to death, and you shall kill the animal. 16 If a woman approaches any animal and mates with it, you shall kill the woman and the animal. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood is upon them. 17 ‘If a man takes his sister, his father’s daughter or his mother’s daughter, and sees her nakedness and she sees his nakedness, it is a wicked thing. And they shall be cut off in the sight of their people. He has uncovered his sister’s nakedness. He shall bear his guilt. 18 If a man lies with a woman during her sickness and uncovers her nakedness, he has exposed her flow, and she has uncovered the flow of her blood. Both of them shall be cut off from their people.

Now I realize many will focus on the “put to death” aspect of this, and that’s where you have to understand the difference between moral law and ceremonial law. A lot of people cite prohibitions against things like eating shellfish as evidence that Leviticus is just full of random nonsense. No. Those are laws specifically for the Israelites about remaining ceremonial clean for entering the Temple and offering sacrifices to God. Those are ceremonial laws.

The death penalty proscribed for these sins is likewise a penalty under ceremonial law, but make no mistake, God views the actions described as moral sins, and the reason I included so many other examples is to establish that there is such a thing as sexual morality, and there are limits to it. God intends sex to be enjoyed within marriage between a man and a woman who are not closely related to each other, and He is very stern with those who engage in sexual immorality – as defined in great detail in this passage. That’s because God establishes that when you unite with someone physically, you also unite with them spiritually – and He only wants you to unite spiritually with one person. Your spouse. Of the opposite sex. Taking on the spiritual iniquity of others with whom you were never intended to unite is a very dangerous game, and God is trying to warn you against doing so.

Next, 1 Timothy 1:8-11:

8 But we know that the law is good if one uses it lawfully, 9 knowing this: that the law is not made for a righteous person, but for the lawless and insubordinate, for the ungodly and for sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, 10 for fornicators, for sodomites, for kidnappers, for liars, for perjurers, and if there is any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine, 11 according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God which was committed to my trust.

Just to be clear, sodomites are those who engage in sodomy (referenced in other translations as those who practice homosexuality) and fornicators are those who engage in sex outside of marriage.

Finally, James 1:14-15:

14 But each one is tempted when he is drawn away by his own desires and enticed. 15 Then, when desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, brings forth death.

I included that last passage not just to show that desires of the flesh are sinful, but also to show that sin has ultimate spiritual consequence, which is torment in your life and ultimately death.

Now, I know that’s a lot of Scripture, so let me pull it together. Every one of us is born into sin. For the homosexual who says, “I was born this way,” I will not argue. We were all born with sinful urges of our flesh. Some struggle with anger. Some struggle with heterosexual lust. Some struggle with gluttony or addiction to alcohol. And some struggle with homosexual urges. These are our desires. They come from the flesh and they war against the spirit.

God’s desire for each person is that they will repent of those desires and surrender to Him so that He can deliver them from these urges by the power of Christ. The Christian who loves as God loves certainly does not a hate another human being for having sinful desires of the flesh. We have them too. We need the power of Christ to be delivered from them. But crucially, we recognize that these urges are sinful and we want to be delivered from them so we can be in a right relationship with God, and receive the fullness of His blessings in our lives.

I understand why some Christians struggle with this. They know a gay person, or maybe have a gay family member, and they want that person to be happy. It’s enticing to accept the “love is love” argument and to believe that surely God wants that gay person to be in a loving relationship. But that argument wrongly conflates love with sex. There are a lot of different kinds of love. Hopefully you love a lot of people, but you only have sex with one person – the one to whom you’re married. If you want a gay person to know love in a romantic/sexual relationship, good, so do I. So I will pray that this person is delivered from those urges through the blood of Jesus so that he or she can find the mate of the opposite sex that God always intended for them to come together with.

For a Christian to encourage a gay person in the consummation of a gay “marriage” is to encourage their permanent indulgence in a lust of the flesh that Scripture clearly tells us God finds detestable, and to suffer all the spiritual consequences that come with that. It would be like encouraging you to go hiking down a path where we know a deadly wild animal is waiting to devour you. Far from hating you, we’re loving you by warning you of the consequences and urging you to repent – which literally means to turn back and change directions.

That’s why the Christian baker doesn’t want to bake that wedding cake, and why the Christian adoption agency doesn’t want to process those papers, and why the Christian church won’t perform the ceremony. And that’s why so many people like me won’t be cloaking our Facebook profile pictures in the rainbow colors. What we want for you is something better than your flesh is leading you to, and we’re praying for you to receive it. We’re not going to encourage you to follow the desire of your flesh instead of the light God wants to put in your spirit.

I hope that by reading this, some of you gained a better understanding of the Christian position on gay marriage, and why a Bible-believing Christian can never accept it. If you did – even if you still disagree – I did my job.

Category:

Spiritual

Tagged with:

Gay Marriage Decision: A Communist Goal Realized

Posted On 29 Jun 2015; By :Instigator News Network

URL of the Original Posting Site: http://instigatornews.com/gay-marriage-decision-a-communist-goal-realized

By David Risselada

While I have written many articles on the topic of the 45 communist goals, it can’t be stressed enough that achieving “marriage equality” for homosexuals was definitely one of them. The Supreme Court’s decision on Friday, June 26 was no surprise to many of us, and in many ways it was used to continue the moral degradation of our society.

The Obama Administration, as surely we have all seen by now, took the pleasure of flaunting their victory by posting pictures of the White House lit up with the colors of the homosexual’s rainbow flag. This was a “stick in your face gesture” as they know that the vast majority of Americans disapprove of the homosexual agenda, and there is an agenda. This was also a symbolic gesture in the eyes of the left because they view this as the replacement of the old culture with a new one.

It was no coincidence, in my opinion, that this gay marriage decision happened at the same time there was all-out war declared on the Confederate flag. We are after all, dealing with communists whose entire agenda revolves around breaking down the moral standards by which many of us live our lives. Make no mistake America, this ruling pushes the United States one step further away from liberty, and one step closer to all-out communism. Many people have a difficult time understanding this concept; after all, granting protection to homosexuals to marry allegedly embodies the ideals of liberty and justice for all. This is a misguided worldview, what it actually does is open the floodgates to the deprivation of humanity, as I will explain in this article. From the 45 communist goals entered in to the congressional record in 1963 –

25) Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio and TV.26) Present homosexuality, degeneracy, and promiscuity as “normal, natural, and healthy.”

One of the main goals of communism has always been the destruction of the Judeo-Christian worldview. Man will not allow himself to become subservient to an all-powerful state as long as he believes in, and follows the laws of God. The Bible commands us to follow God’s law and not the ways of men, so in order to enslave the mind, belief in God must be discredited.

The communists themselves don’t care about marriage equality; the issue is used as a means of demoralizing society. In fact; it is not at all uncommon for communist regimes to brutally oppress homosexuals, if not outright murder them. Many people find themselves wondering why the left is silent as Islamonazis continue to throw gays from rooftops, and burn them alive. It would seem that any organization truly dedicated to gay rights would acknowledge these atrocities while pointing out the safety most homosexuals enjoy in the United States.

The goal, as mentioned previously, is not to give gay people equal rights, but to demoralize society in order to make us susceptible to an all out communist takeover. In order to do this, religion must be destroyed.

This was admitted by one of the leaders of the gay rights movement. Homosexual activist and journalist Masha Gessen admitted in a radio interview that the goal is to destroy the institution of marriage, not to become a part of it. She admits thatthe whole argument being made to push their agenda for equality is a lie, and what they truly seek to do is destroy traditional societal values.Here is what she recently said on a radio interview:

“It’s a no-brainer that (homosexual activists) should have the right to marry, but I also think equally that it’s a no-brainer that the institution of marriage should not exist. …(F)ighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we are going to do with marriage when we get there — because we lie that the institution of marriage is not going to change, and that is a lie.

The institution of marriage is going to change, and it should change. And again, I don’t think it should exist. And I don’t like taking part in creating fictions about my life. That’s sort of not what I had in mind when I came out thirty years ago.” – Illinois Family Institute

Again, this is a concept many people have a difficult time understanding. The goal is to completely remake society in the image of communism. Sadly, homosexual activists fail to realize that they are no more than “psychopolitical dupes,” or useful idiots being used to push an agenda that in the end will strip them of all humanity as well.

To understand this further we need to once again, refer to the Soviet Manual on Pyschopolitics. The whole communist agenda can be best summed up saying that they are attempting to label America as a sick society in need of mental healing. For centuries, men looked to the clergy in order to solve problems of the mind and spirit. Communists despise this because they want to rule over man, and as mentioned previously, men who follow Gods laws cannot be ruled by men.

Consider this quote from page 60 of the Soviet manual.

“You must work until religion is synonymous with insanity. You must work until the officials of the city, county and state governments will not think twice before they pounce upon religious groups as public enemies.”

The attack on Christianity is in full swing in almost all aspects of our culture. The homosexuals are being used in an effort to label Christians as being bigoted and homophobic while simultaneously tearing at the moral fabric of our society. Unfortunately, as many of us are well aware, the gay marriage issue is just the beginning and it is the symbolic “slippery slope” leading to the unimaginable.

In my book, “Not On My Watch: Exposing the Marxist Agenda in Education,” I included some text from a research paper I did while in the Masters of social work program at the University of Oklahoma. The social work agenda is big on gay rights, and in social work education the issue of heterosexual privilege is synonymous with white privilege.

Heterosexual privilege is defined as:

Benefits derived automatically by being (or being perceived as) heterosexual that are denied to gays, lesbians, bisexuals, queers and all other non-heterosexual sexual orientations.

To be against homosexuality is now viewed as a bigoted position. Those who enjoy the benefits of marriage are now considered the oppressors of those who are allegedly being denied these privileges. This spans well beyond the scope of just gay marriage as the issue of pedophilia is making its way into the main stream. If you remember, not too long ago Rutgers-Camden professor Margo Kaplan declared that pedophilia is not a crime, rather a condition one might be born with. This is how the argument was made that homosexuality might in fact be normal. She also declare that pedophilia should be considered a human right because people who identify as having sexual orientations towards young children are often marginalized because they have to keep these orientations to themselves.

Many people have warned that the issue of gay marriage would open a floodgate; well that floodgate is indeed open. The efforts are well underway to repeal the age of consent laws, as was the topic of my research paper, and to redefine the term pedophile with the term “minor attracted person.” The overall goal here is to normalize sex with children. In fact, in 1998 the American Psychological Association issued a report claiming that child sexual abuse was not as harmful to children as previously believed. Also, they went on to suggest that sexual relationships between men and young boys could actually develop into strong caring relationships.

Furthermore, they suggested that harmful effects from sexual abuse would only result if the child was forced into having sex with an adult, not if the child chose freely to do so. This is sick beyond comprehension; however it serves as further proof of a communist agenda.

Once again we need to refer to quote from the Soviet Manual, page 62.

“Technical papers should exist as to the tremendous number of cures effected by psychiatry and psychology, and whenever possible, percentages of cures, no matter how fictitious, should be worked into legislative papers, thus forming a back ground of evidence which would immediately rebut any effort to actually discover anyone who had ever been helped by psychiatry or psychology.”

What this quote is essentially admitting is that communists lie. They have subverted every aspect of our culture and submit false evidence that attempts to discredit the Judea Christian worldview and turn the minds of men towards communistic solutions, through the social sciences. Issues that can be disguised as human right struggles are being used to actually denigrate society in an effort to demoralize the nation, making us ripe for conquering.

Homosexual rights, the “black lives matter” campaign, racism, feminism and wealth inequality are all being used in this manner, and the activists pushing these issues are nothing but the proverbial “useful idiots” of our time. If we do not reverse course now, we will certainly follow the same path as other communist countries before us. Once men have become completely demoralized they no longer have a leg on which to stand to defend their nation.

David Risselada writes a blog called The Radical Conservative: Exposing the fallacy of liberalism/progressivism.

Article reposted from www.ForTruthsSake.com with permission.

Marxist Strategy & Communist Goals from “The Naked Communist”: Shocking!

Posted by Scott Osborn — June 7, 2015

URL of the Original Posting Site: http://joeforamerica.com/2015/06/communist-goals-naked-communist

Communist Goals from “The Naked Communist” was read on the floor of the House of Representatives on January 10th, 1963 by U.S. Congressman Albert S. Herlong, Jr. of Florida.

The Naked Communist was written by ex-FBI agent Cleon Skousen in 1953. He describes the Marxist strategy during the Cold War.

Maybe we need someone to read these communist goals again. Send this article to your Senators and Congressmen and ask them to read this on the floor of both houses.

Communist Goals from “The Naked Communist,” by Cleon Skousen

U.S. acceptance of coexistence as the only alternative to atomic war.
U.S. willingness to capitulate in preference to engaging in atomic war.
Develop the illusion that total disarmament [by] the United States would be a demonstration of moral strength.
Permit free trade between all nations regardless of Communist affiliation and regardless of whether or not items could be used for war.
Extension of long-term loans to Russia and Soviet satellites.
Provide American aid to all nations regardless of Communist domination.
Grant recognition of Red China. Admission of Red China to the U.N.
Set up East and West Germany as separate states in spite of Khrushchev’s promise in 1955 to settle the German question by free elections under supervision of the U.N.
Prolong the conferences to ban atomic tests because the United States has agreed to suspend tests as long as negotiations are in progress.
Allow all Soviet satellites individual representation in the U.N.
Promote the U.N. as the only hope for mankind. If its charter is rewritten, demand that it be set up as a one-world government with its own independent armed forces. (Some Communist leaders believe the world can be taken over as easily by the U.N. as by Moscow. Sometimes these two centers compete with each other as they are now doing in the Congo.)
Resist any attempt to outlaw the Communist Party.
Do away with all loyalty oaths.
Continue giving Russia access to the U.S. Patent Office.
Capture one or both of the political parties in the United States.
Use technical decisions of the courts to weaken basic American institutions by claiming their activities violate civil rights.
Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for socialism and current Communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers’ associations. Put the party line in textbooks.
Gain control of all student newspapers.
Use student riots to foment public protests against programs or organizations which are under Communist attack.
Infiltrate the press. Get control of book-review assignments, editorial writing, policy-making positions.
Gain control of key positions in radio, TV, and motion pictures.
Continue discrediting American culture by degrading all forms of artistic expression. An American Communist cell was told to “eliminate all good sculpture from parks and buildings, substitute shapeless, awkward and meaningless forms.”
Control art critics and directors of art museums. “Our plan is to promote ugliness, repulsive, meaningless art.”
Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them “censorship” and a violation of free speech and free press.
Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV. 26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as “normal, natural, healthy.”
Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with “social” religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity, which does not need a “religious crutch.”
Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the ground that it violates the principle of “separation of church and state.”
Discredit the American Constitution by calling it inadequate, old-fashioned, out of step with modern needs, a hindrance to cooperation between nations on a worldwide basis.
Discredit the American Founding Fathers. Present them as selfish aristocrats who had no concern for the “common man.”
Belittle all forms of American culture and discourage the teaching of American history on the ground that it was only a minor part of the “big picture.” Give more emphasis to Russian history since the Communists took over.
Support any socialist movement to give centralized control over any part of the culture–education, social agencies, welfare programs, mental health clinics, etc.
Eliminate all laws or procedures which interfere with the operation of the Communist apparatus.
Eliminate the House Committee on Un-American Activities.
Discredit and eventually dismantle the FBI.
Infiltrate and gain control of more unions.
Infiltrate and gain control of big business.
Transfer some of the powers of arrest from the police to social agencies. Treat all behavioral problems as psychiatric disorders which no one but psychiatrists can understand [or treat].
Dominate the psychiatric profession and use mental health laws as a means of gaining coercive control over those who oppose Communist goals.
Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce.
Emphasize the need to raise children away from the negative influence of parents. Attribute prejudices, mental blocks and retarding of children to suppressive influence of parents.
Create the impression that violence and insurrection are legitimate aspects of the American tradition; that students and special-interest groups should rise up and use [“]united force[“] to solve economic, political or social problems.
Overthrow all colonial governments before native populations are ready for self-government.
Internationalize the Panama Canal.
Repeal the Connally reservation so the United States cannot prevent the World Court from seizing jurisdiction [over domestic problems. Give the World Court jurisdiction] over nations and individuals alike.

The Naked Communist was written by ex-FBI agent Cleon Skousen in 1953. He describes the Marxist strategy during the Cold War.

President Ronald Reagan said of the book: “No one is better qualified to discuss the threat to this nation from communism. You will be alarmed, you will be informed and you’ll be glad you heard him.”

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

THAT’S SO GAY: White House Lights Up in Rainbow Colors, Satan Does a High-Five

Posted on June 27, 2015

URL of the Original Posting Site: http://clashdaily.com/2015/06/thats-so-gay-white-house-lights-up-in-rainbow-colors-satan-does-a-high-five

Screen Shot 2015-06-27 at 8.13.12 AM

The Obama administration is having a gay ‘ole time with the gay marriage ruling. Check out some of their Tweets and video from last night after the SCOTUS ruling on gay marriage:

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

The Left’s Moral Relativism Has Eaten Our Culture Alive — and Conservatives Have No Political Strategy to Stop It

June 26, 2015

URL of the Original Posting Site: http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2015/06/26/the_left_s_moral_relativism_has_eaten_our_culture_alive_and_conservatives_have_no_political_strategy_to_stop_it

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Look, I know everybody is trying to understand this, and everybody’s trying to explain it to each other. Everybody’s looking to everybody else for a deep meaning, an explanation that makes sense. Because none of what’s happening makes sense to people. So what’s going on? Well, hang in there. I’m going to give my shot at this today, folks.

The EIB Network and Rush Limbaugh, get ready. Oh, yeah, that too. Open Line Friday, which could be juicy today. This is where we try to emphasize callers a little more than we do Monday through Thursday. Never know how it’s actually going to play out. But the rule is on Friday whatever you want to talk about, have at it. Telephone number is 1-800-282-2882. And the e-mail address elrushbo@eibnet.com.

Ladies and gentlemen, not to be — I don’t even know what the word is — dismissive, the outcome of this case today has never been in question. The fact that the Supreme Court was going to find gay marriage as they did should not be a surprise. It doesn’t mitigate the result. I mean, just like yesterday we could all predict what was going to happen with Obamacare, but being alive and seeing it happen and living through it, the reality of it, it’s crushing. Same thing here.

The only question on this one was going to be the vote, was it going to be 5-4 or 6-3. It turned out to be 5-4. Now, everybody’s looking for an explanation. Everybody’s reading dissent opinions. Everybody’s consulting. A lot of people calling each other, emailing each other, “Gee, what?” I can’t tell you the number of people who have sent me e-mails with a simple theme, the same theme. “How do you persevere? How can you go on the radio today? What in the world, how do you even know anybody’s going to be listening? Do you realize, all seems lost, what in the world is there to say?”

Well, I’m here, and I’m going to do my best to put this into some sort of perspective. One thing I’m not is in a state of denial. I think there’s a lot going on, and to try to put them in any kind of priority, “Okay, this is the worst and then this is the next worst.” That’s a futile exercise and ultimately meaningless. But I think, folks, you can almost include Obamacare in this. In this decision today, the court legalizing gay marriage, this is in a way Roe v. Wade all over again. The country was involved.

As Scalia pointed out in a dissent, there was a pretty robust debate going on, state by state, over gay marriage. It’s now been shut down. So once again, five justices have forced a way of life on people, and many of them disapprove of it, do not support it, and have not had a chance to vote on it. So I think we’re faced with a future where a culture will continue to be roiled much as it has been since Roe v. Wade.

I’ve heard commentators today on all the cable networks, and they run the gamut. One of the seemingly common themes among some quasi, so-called conservative commentators or analysts is, “Hey, these are just people and they just want what’s been denied them,” and it goes on and on. “They just want dignity and respect. It’s not asking for much, they just want –” and it’s not about that in all cases. The rule for gay marriage is not about joining anything, it’s about redefining.

I mean, if the move for gay marriage was about joining, then a couple that walks into a bakery and wants a cake baked for their wedding and proprietors say, “No, it’s against our religious beliefs to support gay marriage,” then the gay couple would leave and go find some other bakery to bake their cake. But that’s not what happens. They go to court and they try to get that bakery shut down, or that photography studio shut down. So it makes me dubious of this idea that there’s just an effort here to join the majority. There’s clearly an effort underway to up-end and redefine and punish.

Take a look at what happened in Charleston, South Carolina — by the way, all this comes under an umbrella, which I’ll explain. There’s a singular theme for all of this that’s happening. And maybe even pretty much a — though you may not agree with it — singular explanation for it. But after the shooting in Charleston, look at how quickly that became a Republican event. And look at how quickly people moved to banish the Confederate flag.

The Confederate flag had nothing to do with anything involved with the Charleston situation. It had nothing to do with it. It was totally unrelated. An opportunity was made, seen and acted upon by the Democrat Party to move their agenda forward. The Republican Party was totally unprepared for it. The conservative movement was totally unprepared for it, was left to either join it or be humiliated and held up for ridicule.

Now, I think in the case of this gay marriage decision today, the answer to this sadly is not going to be found in politics or policy, because the problems and the truth go way beyond that. I think we’re dealing with a culture that is under assault and is deteriorating rapidly. The truth is that all this transcends the Constitution. I think there is a spiritual war going on where truth is no longer truth. There is no objective truth. Everything is relative now, particularly morally. Words have no meaning. Words can be whatever the most forceful group of people want them to mean. Whatever the most intimidating group of people wants a word to mean is what it will mean.

So the door’s open for liberals and oligarchs to do whatever they want to do. And I don’t know that politics or legal solutions alone are the remedy for what is happening. To me, a bigger casualty than the healthcare debacle and the socialism aspects of Obamacare is the assault on the Constitution and an even bigger casualty still was on the truth itself. Words no longer mean anything. They’re just tools for liberals to accomplish whatever ends they want to accomplish.

Now, I’m going to get into some of the words from dissenting justices on the case today, the gay marriage case, because they’re poignant, and they get to a point, make a great point. But I’ll tell you, folks, everybody’s trying to understand the difference in John Roberts, his decision today, his opposition to gay marriage compared to what he wrote yesterday for Obamacare, is incoherent. The two don’t make any sense side by side. I have a theory.

I think I know or have a good idea of why Obamacare survives, amnesty survives and will survive, and I think it’s basically fear. Fear of being the one, anyone in history, who dared oppose or repeal anything accomplished by the first African-American president. I think that has created a paralysis in the Republican Party and in the conservative movement and at the Supreme Court and at Congress and at the Senate. I think it’s pervasive and I think it’s going to be forever. I think that fear is going to survive long after Obama has served his terms of office.

In other words, the effort to repeal Obamacare in, say, 2017, 2018, I don’t know who is going to have the guts to actually do it. Somewhere along the line somebody is not going to want their name attached to it because the historical notation that X was a leader in the movement that repealed the act of Obamacare brought to us by the first African-American president. My point is, I think there is more fear than we have ever understood. I think there is a paralysis-type fear brought about and brought on by the election of the first African-American president.

It is made even more intense by the fact that people can see what the media does to you if you dare stand up in opposition to Obama. And Obama has made it clear that after his terms in office are over he’s not going anywhere. He’s going to have a residence in Washington and one of the reasons for that is to protect his legacy. If anybody makes a move to repeal anything, whatever it is, and we’ve still got a year and a half. I told you in January of this year, folks, buckle up, these next two years will be unlike anything you’ve ever seen. They’re starting out that way. We’re now six months in. And it is the case.

But here’s the thing, folks. When you get right down to it, everywhere I look today — yesterday, the day before, last year, the year before that, the last decade, the decade before that. Everywhere there’s conservative anger — everywhere — over everything that’s happened. Today the anger is at the Supreme Court. Yesterday the anger was at the Supreme Court. And that’s all there is, is anger. There’s never anything done beyond expressing the anger. There aren’t any policy reactions.

There aren’t any efforts whatsoever to deal with the assaults and the attacks that are relentless and daily from the left. I mentioned Charleston. I mean, here you have a horrible, sad event in Charleston, South Carolina. And within minutes it became the fault of the Republican Party! It became the fault of the conservative movement. The media, as per usual, began looking for any evidence that Dylann Roof had any tie whatsoever to the Republican Party.

They focused on the Confederate flag. It became yet another daily march of the Democrat leftist agenda, which has — as its number one objective — to eliminate political opposition in this country. I’ve said it for the past two days and I’m going to say it again. The biggest threat that Obama and the Democrats have is us. They fear us more than they do ISIS or the Iranians or whatever, because they view us as able to take away from them their power via elections.

They’re not worried about ISIS taking their power away; they’re not worried about the Iranians doing that. So we must be destroyed. We must be attacked and annihilated and rendered irrelevant. The Dukes of Hazzard, for crying out loud! A television show, because the Confederate flag was on the roof of the car, comes under assault. There never is any strategy to deal with this. We know what’s coming — at least I do! I’ve made a career here out of warning everybody what’s coming, and there never is…

There doesn’t ever appear to be any awareness of what’s coming and there certainly isn’t any strategy to deal with it. And that is one of the reasons why I know you’re frustrated and maybe despondent. You have invested in everything you think you can do. You’ve donated. You’ve purchased. You’ve voted. You’ve gotten out the vote. You’ve done everything you can. You have called. You have emailed. You have faxed.

You have let your opinions be known, and you hear everything you want to hear during campaigns — and that’s the last time you hear it. The fact of the matter is a Republican Congress is helping Obama build his power base by not stopping any of it, by not opposing any of it. I continue to see no opposition strategy. Gay marriage, Obamacare. Both of these, particularly Obamacare, the best I can tell the Republican strategy has been, “We’re not going to fight Obama because he’s the first black president.

“We’re just not going to do it. Say what you want, conservative voters, but we’re not going to do it. There’s no future in it. The media will kill us. They will call us racist. We’ll let the Supreme Court deal with it.” For military base closings back in the late ’80s, Congress would go out and hire Blue Ribbon commission members — former Congressmen, retired people — to do this and that, to do the heavy lifting of closing military bases rather than get their fingerprints on it.

Campaign finance reform?

Same thing.

Everybody you talked to in the Republican Party said, “It’s unconstitutional. We can’t support that!” President Bush signed it. They said, “Let the court fix it.” The court didn’t fix it. They found it constitutional. “We’ll let the court deal with Obamacare. The Supreme Court will fix it. We’ll go to the court. We’ll sue. That’s what will happen.” And we keep losing every time we go to the Supreme Court because we do not have a political strategy. Nor is there a political will to even devise a strategy.

Everything is, “Wait until the next election. We’ll get them in the next election! We’ll get them in 2017.” We have a year and a half to go until 2017! Who knows what kind of destruction will take place between now and then? But yet, folks, there’s a conservative apparatus all over Washington, DC. There are conservatives everywhere. There’s an entire TV network made up of ’em. Conservative talk radio is made up of conservatives. There’s no shortage of conservatives. They’re everywhere.

We’ve got conservative think tanks here, think tanks over there. We’ve got conservative analysts; we’ve got conservative advisors. They’re everywhere!

Raising money…

Fundraising…

Writing books…

Promising…

Nothing changes.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: It’s Open Line Friday. I’m going to go to the phones, and the only way to do this is to be disciplined about it. I say provocative things all the time, and I’ve just gotten started today, folks. Hang in there. Be tough. That was just the open monologue. That was just warming up. I’m going to go to the phones, though. Ovi in Orlando. Great to have you on the program, Ovi. Hi.

CALLER: Actually, it’s O-z-z-i-e, like Ozzie and Harriet. (chuckles)

RUSH: All right.

CALLER: But in any case, I was going to disagree with you a little bit. I don’t think Republicans are so much afraid of challenging what Obama does because he’s the first black president. I think the real issue for Republicans is they don’t know what to do with those 30 million Americans that — if they change Obamacare — would be uninsured.

RUSH: Ozzie, they’re not insured now. Ozzie, they’re not insured now.

CALLER: Mmm?

RUSH: Obamacare is an absolute disaster. Obamacare deserves to have been thrown overboard years ago. Obamacare is destructive. Obamacare is going to destroy people’s ability to end up with disposable income in their lives and get ahead. Obamacare is an absolute disaster like much of everything this administration has brought us. It has not insured any significant millions of uninsured. Now, I understand the theory.

The theory is, “The Republicans don’t want to throw Obamacare overboard because that means they’ll have to fix it.” That’s exactly my point! I made the point yesterday that the conservative movement has become not a party of opposition, not a movement of opposition, but a movement of fine tuning. And what does it fine tune? Democrat proposals! Democrat ideas! Instead of rejecting them, instead of throwing them overboard and proposing to the American people — who are smart enough to understand — alternative ideas, we fine tune socialism and call it conservatism.

Sorry, that’s not the answer.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: By the way, here we are right on schedule. Right on schedule. Here is a headline from the Washington Examiner: “Poll: 72% Fear Economic Crash, Concern ‘Highest Ever’.” What the story is about, if you read it, the GOP pollsters are telling Republicans, “You’ve got to let go of those social issues, they’re killing you. It’s the economy, stupid people, you’ve got to drop the social issues.”

It is my contention that Republicans aren’t doing a damn thing on social issues. The Democrats are the ones forcing social issues on everybody. Today, the latest example, it’s the Democrats forcing these things and average, ordinary Americans are trying to defend what they believe in. There is no aggressive behavior on the part of Republicans or conservatives. Everybody is in a defensive posture. Everybody is just standing by trying to hold on to what they believe in and what they have left.

Every bit of the aggressiveness, every bit of the offense, every bit of whatever is being undertaken is from the Democrat Party. And yet, here we go, the Republican candidates for president are being told, “Get rid of social issues, let them go. It’s the economy, the economy is the way to win.” And letting go of the social issues is how our culture is being corrupted. It’s another one of these things that’s 180 degrees out of phase. And the social issues, I know what it is, folks, I know, I know. It’s a bunch of moderate Republicans who think they’re losing on abortion.

They’re losing on everything. And they just don’t know it. They’re losing on everything. You think they’re winning on the economy? We live in the most disastrous economy since Jimmy Carter, and the Republicans may be winning elections. Is there any pushback on any of this? There’s a lot of talk. There’s a lot of requests for donations. There’s a lot of fundraising going on. A lot of people promising you that they’re enacting policies or thinking about policies and they’re going to do this and they’re going to do that. The moment of truth comes and they don’t do it, and they kick the can down the road because it’s not the right time.

It’s never the right time. There isn’t any opposition. Those of you that are feeling lost today, those of you who feel like it’s over, you’re at your wit’s end, we’re winning nothing, we’re losing everything, you’re still the majority. That’s what’s got you so bedraggled. That’s what’s got you so ticked off. You’re still the majority. You know it. Less than two percent of the population is bullying its way through the country and nobody is doing anything to stop it because of fear or what have you. And that’s what’s got you upset.

What good is winning elections? That’s the big truth. The big, final, ultimate act is going and voting and you succeed in winning landslide victories in 2010 and 2014, what have you got to show for it, nothing. That’s why you’re mad. Tired of feeling like losers? Tired of feeling like there’s no recourse. The way the game is being played right now there isn’t. The Supreme Court, throw them in the mix, depending on the issue, and they’ll pretend they are the federal government, lock, stock and barrel. The other two branches don’t even count and don’t even matter.

A story from yesterday: “Christian Farmers Fined $13,000 for Refusing to Host Same-Sex Wedding Fight Back — The owners of a small family farm in upstate New York fined $13,000 for discriminating against a same-sex couple for refusing to host a wedding on their property are fighting back.”

Too bad they’ll lose, especially with the court’s decision today. All resistance to the militant gay agenda now is just officially just a rear guard action. It’s a lost cause, like the Confederacy. Pretty soon, like the Confederacy, all this is gonna be a hate crime to even remember.

“In an appeal filed today before an appellate division of the New York Supreme Court, a lawyer for Cynthia and Robert Gifford, owners of Liberty Ridge Farm near Albany, N.Y., argued that when finding them guilty, the court did not consider their constitutional freedoms and religious beliefs. ‘[The decision] violates the Giffords’ free exercise of religion, freedom of expressive association, and freedom of expression protected under the United States and New York Constitutions,'” according to their lawyer. Plus it was their property.

There isn’t a freedom of religion in the US anymore. Not for Christians. That’s the point. “The Giffords were found guilty of ‘sexual orientation discrimination’ by an administrative law judge,” and have been told that they must attend sensitivity training classes.

END TRANSCRIPT

Category:

Opinion

Tagged with:

Coalition of African-American Pastors Threaten Civil Disobedience If Supreme Court Passes Gay Marriage Law

By Vincent Funaro , Christian Post Reporter, June 25, 2015|2:20 pm

URL of the Original Posting Site: http://www.christianpost.com/news/coalition-of-african-american-pastors-threatens-civil-disobedience-if-supreme-court-passes-gay-marriage-law-140842/#KdHwXPVmQZtlRQkZ.99

: Rev. Bill Owens, the president and founder of the Coalition of African American Pastors. (Photo: Facebook/Bill Owens)

A coalition of African-American pastors vowed this week that there will be massive civil disobedience if the U.S. Supreme Court legalizes same-sex marriage in a ruling on the matter expected this month. At a press conference in Memphis, Tennessee, members of the Coalition of African-American Pastors joined Christian ministers at the Church of God in Christ’s historic Mason Temple to warn the Obama administration to prepare for massive civil disobedience among pastors and clergy if state bans on gay marriage are deemed unconstitutional.

“If they rule for same-sex marriage, then we’re going to do the same thing we did for the civil rights movement,” said Rev. Bill Owens, president and founder of CAAP. “We will not obey an unjust law.”

“The politicians and courts have tried to take God out of this country,” continued Owens. “This country was founded on Godly principles. We will not stand back.”

Rev. David Welch, president of the Pastor’s Council in Houston, Texas, spoke out at the conference explaining the lengths people of faith might go to resist gay marriage.

“God created marriage between a man and woman and no Supreme Court jurisdiction can define this,” said Welch. “We stand clearly saying we will acknowledge God’s law no matter what the cost, no matter what the price. If they want to fill jails with pastors across the nation of every color, denomination and every size who will stand for the laws of God and His truths.”

Welch also compared Christians resisting gay marriage to the civil rights movement of the 1960s and encouraged pastors to fight for their right to worship freely.

“If it comes down to declining to perform same-sex weddings, that we will be charged with a civil or criminal penalty, then we will accept the penalty,” said Welch. “But this isn’t just about the wedding ceremony itself. This is a core, fundamental issue of our First Amendment freedom that the court is toying with right now. Either we have the right of freedom of conscience and religion and the freedom to practice it, or we don’t.”

Opponents of gay marriage around the U.S. are going to different lengths to resist it. Texas Republican lawmakers proposed a bill that would seek to enforce a ban on gay marriage even if the U.S. Supreme Court decides to declare such bans unconstitutional, While it was co-signed by 87 Republican members of the House, HB 4105 wasn’t brought to the floor for debate before the midnight May 15 deadline, which rendered it dead. Democratic lawmaker and businesses such as Dell, Celanese and Dow Chemical lobbied against the bill.

Lawmakers in the state Senate, however, managed to pass a bill known as the “Pastor Protection Act,” which goes into effect Sept. 1, and allows clergy to refuse to conduct marriage ceremonies that violate their religious beliefs.

“Freedom of religion is the most sacred of our rights and our freedom to worship is secured by the Constitution,” Abbott said at a June 11 signing ceremony, according to the Texas Tribune. “Religious leaders in the state of Texas must be absolutely secure in the knowledge that religious freedom is beyond the reach of government or coercion by the courts.”

On April 28, the Supreme Court heard arguments on an appeal from the Sixth Circuit of Appeals regarding four state-level gay marriage bans. Many experts have said the Supreme Court will narrowly rule this month that all states must allow same-sex couples to obtain a state marriage license.

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Pastors say ‘We Don’t have to Obey the Supreme Court on Gay Marriage’

Posted on June 11, 2015 by Onan Coca

A Supreme Court decision legalizing gay marriage could be announced any day now, and pastors across the country are already saying they intend to break the law. The Supreme Court is expected to announce a ruling on state gay marriage bans this month that could, depending on the ruling’s wording, legalize same sex marriage nationwide. Anticipating the decision, religious leaders fear they’ll lose their tax exempt status and be forced to wed gay couples or face fines and even jail time.

A coalition of those religious leaders purchased an ad in the Washington Post Wednesday in the form of an open letter to the Supreme Court Justices urging them to uphold traditional marriage.

“We are Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox Christian pastors, clergy, lay leaders and Jewish leaders, who collectively represent millions of people in our specific churches, parishes, denominations, synagogues and media ministry outreaches,” the letter reads.

So far, more than 43,000 people have signed a petition supporting traditional marriage, many of them church leaders fearful that if gay marriage becomes constitutional, their refusal to participate will jeopardize their tax exempt status and even land them in legal trouble. Pastor Robert Jeffress, who signed the letter and leads a 12,000 member congregation at First Dallas Baptist Church, compared himself to Martin Luther King for his civil disobedience. “That may mean we experience jail time, loss of tax exempt status, but as the scripture says, we ought to obey God rather than man, and that’s our choice,” Jeffress told The Daily Caller News Foundation. Jeffress said when he announced to his congregation his decision to take a stand on the issue, they gave him a standing ovation.

Cases of legal punishment for bakers and florists who refused to serve gay weddings have fueled this fear. In Washington state, an elderly florist named Barronelle Stutzman was sued by a gay couple for discrimination after she refused to arrange flowers for their wedding. She lost the legal battle and could lose everything to pay the fines. Religious leaders have warily watched Stutzman and others like her and want to preemptively protect themselves. “We implore this court to not step outside of its legitimate authority and unleash religious persecution and discrimination against people of faith,” the letter reads. “We will be forced to choose between the state and our conscience, which is informed by clear biblical and church doctrine and the natural created order.”

During oral arguments in April, Justice Antonin Scalia raised similar concerns asking if exemptions that protected religious leaders from prosecution for discrimination would still hold if gay marriage became a constitutional right. “But once it’s — it’s made a matter of constitutional law, those exceptions — for example, is it — is it conceivable that a minister who is authorized by the State to conduct marriage can decline to marry two men if indeed this Court holds that they have a constitutional right to marry? Is it conceivable that that would be allowed?” Scalia asked Bonauto. Scalia also questioned whether the state would give clergymen the authority to marry if they would refuse to marry gay couples. “If you let the States do it, you can make an exception,” Scalia said. “The state can say, yes, two men can marry, but — but ministers who do not believe in same-sex marriage will still be authorized to conduct marriages on behalf of the state. You can’t do that once it is a constitutional proscription.”These questions are the ones haunting religious leaders and driving them to have their voice heard before the ruling which is expected to come down this month. “The Supreme Court, regardless of what they may think, is not the highest authority in the land,” Jeffress told The DCNF.

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Major Gay Marriage Study Was Fabricated, Author Admits

Reported by Blake Neff, Reporter, 05/20/2015

URL of the Original Posting Site: http://dailycaller.com/2015/05/20/major-gay-marriage-study-was-fabricated-author-admits/

: People line up outside the Supreme Court in Washington April 26, 2015, ahead of Tuesday’s arguments focusing on gay marriage. REUTERS/Yuri Gripas

A study purporting to show that people’s views on gay marriage could change simply by meeting gay people has been retracted following revelations that its data was fabricated. The study was published last December in Science, and prior to publication drew a great deal of attention from the American media. Vox, for instance, described the findings in the study as “kind of miraculous.” As it turns out, that’s exactly what they were, because they were apparently made up.

According to the study, people from communities hostile to gay marriage could have their opinions shift dramatically after spending just a few minutes speaking with a gay person who canvassed their neighborhood promoting gay marriage. Not only that, but this could have a spillover effect, making not just the people themselves more pro-gay but also other people who lived in the same household.

The study, among other things, lent support to the notion that those opposed to gay marriage simply don’t know or interact with open homosexuals. More broadly, it was seen as an important development in the science of how people can be convinced to change their minds on ideologically-charged issues.

The study began to fall apart when students at the University of California at Berkeley sought to conduct additional research building off of it, only to find major irregularities in how its research was apparently conducted. For example, thermometers used to measure participants’ attitudes produced consistent, reliable information, even though they are known for producing relatively unreliable numbers. Also, the data recovered had an exceptionally consistent distribution, with not a single one of the 12,000 supposed participants providing anomalous or unusual results. In other words, the study’s data was too perfect to be believable.

Donald Green, a professor at Columbia University and a co-author of the paper, made the decision to retract it after having a confrontation with co-author Michael LaCour, a graduate student at UCLA. While LaCour maintained that he hadn’t fabricated the data, he was also unable to produce the original source files supposedly used to produce it. When he failed to write-up a retraction, Green took the initiative and did so himself. “I am deeply embarrassed by this turn of events and apologize to the editors, reviewers, and readers of Science,” Green told Retraction Watch, a science watchdog website.

LaCour, the graduate student accused of fabricating at least some of the data, made a Twitter post Wednesday afternoon saying he was “gathering evidence” about what had occurred:

Follow Blake on Twitter

Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy says definition of marriage has stood for ‘millennia’

By Khalil AlHajal MLive.com on April 28, 2015, updated April 28, 2015

URL of the Original Posting Site: http://www.mlive.com/news/detroit/index.ssf/2015/04/supreme_court_justice_anthony.html

Plaintiffs from Michigan April Deboer, left, and Jayne Rowse wave to the crowd as they leave the Supreme Court in Washington, Tuesday, April 28, 2015. The Supreme Court is set to hear historic arguments in cases that could make same-sex marriage the law of the land. The justices are meeting Tuesday to offer the first public indication of where they stand in the dispute over whether states can continue defining marriage as

Update: Supreme Court justices press gay rights lawyer early in highly anticipated marriage arguments

Plaintiffs and attorneys celebrate in front of the Supreme Court in Washington, Tuesday, April 28, 2015, as they exit the court following arguments. The Supreme Court heard historic arguments in cases that could make same-sex marriage the law of the land. The justices met Tuesday to offer the first public indication of where they stand in the dispute over whether states can continue defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman

DETROIT, MI — The Supreme Court justice seen by many as the deciding vote in the nation’s same-sex marriage debate made early comments during highly anticipated oral arguments Tuesday could cause worry among gay rights activists.

Justice Anthony Kennedy said that marriage has been understood as the union of one man and one woman for “millennia-plus time,” according to an Associated Press reporter in the courtroom.

“It’s very difficult for the court to say ‘We know better,'” Kennedy said during gay rights lawyer Mary Bonauto’s presentation of arguments.

The hearing was interrupted at one point by a protester.

Crowd cheers as plaintiffs leave the Supreme Court, in Washington, Tuesday, April 28, 2015. The Supreme Court heard historic arguments in cases that could make same-sex marriage the law of the land.

Five lawyers are expected to spend more than two hours presenting arguments.

Full audio from the session is expected to be released later this afternoon.

The court is considering two specific questions.

The first in relation to cases out of Michigan and Kentucky: “Does the 14th Amendment (equal protection) require a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex?”

And the second on gay marriage cases out of Tennessee and Ohio: “Does the 14th Amendment require a state to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out of state?”

Michigan’s case stems from a 2012 lawsuit filed by a Hazel Park lesbian couple who can’t jointly adopt their four children without a legal marriage. April DeBoer and Jayne Rowse were in Washington for the arguments Tuesday. U.S. Rep. Debbie Dingell (D-Dearborn) planned to host a reception for the couple after the hearings. Legal experts supporting the coupled planned to speak to reporters at 4 p.m.

Many will be listening for clues from Kennedy and Chief Justice John Roberts to gauge the direction of a ruling expected in June or July.

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

What Will Happen To Churches That Don’t Believe In Gay Marriage?

W. James Antle III, Managing Editor, 04/08/2015

URL of the Original Posting Site: http://dailycaller.com/2015/04/08/what-will-happen-to-churches-that-dont-believe-in-gay-marriage/

: Pope Francis kisses a child as he leads a special audience for members of UCIIM, Italian catholic association of teachers, school managers, educators and trainers, in Paul VI’s hall at the Vatican March 14, 2015. REUTERS/Max Rossi

Will churches that do not recognize same-sex marriage eventually lose their tax-exempt status? The idea has been floated before. There are many reasons to suspect that this won’t happen. Fifty years of anti-discrimination laws on the basis of sex haven’t had much impact on the Catholic Church’s all-male priesthood.

In various countries and states where gay marriage exists, churches have generally not been forced to recognize them. Churches in the United States refuse to celebrate weddings for people whose marriages would be legal under civil law all the time. Plenty of heterosexuals who can legally marry cannot get married in the Catholic Church, or can only do so with special permission. The government has never treated this as discrimination.

But the two minutes of hate against Indiana revealed that a fairly narrow conception of religious freedom has gone mainstream, while some people seem to have a fairly narrow conception of freedom, period.

New York Times columnist Ross Douthat is likely correct when he says that if conservatives had offered legal same-sex marriage throughout the country in exchange for Christian wedding vendors being allowed to use the Religious Freedom Restoration Act process to possibly (not definitely) decline to participate, as late as Barack Obama’s first term, most liberals would have taken that deal. As what’s politically possible has changed, so has what liberals have demanded on this issue. There’s nothing inherently wrong with that. No political movement is required to either accomplish all its long-term goals at once or accomplish none of them.

On this issue, however, there has been a teensy bit of duplicity involved. In a relatively short period of time, the president went from saying;

No gay marriage, God is in the mix to
Gay marriage is something I’m in favor of personally, but the policy should be set at the state level and
The Supreme Court must discover a constitutional right to gay marriage in all 50 states.

When Republicans proposed a constitutional amendment on gay marriage, many Democratic senators, including Harry Reid and Hillary Clinton, said they opposed gay marriage too but we didn’t need the amendment because the federal Defense of Marriage Act was so great. It took less than a decade for their position to morph from “the Defense of Marriage Act is great” to “the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional and unjust.” Again, there’s nothing wrong with changing one’s mind. But this looks a bit more calculated.

Prior to 2010, nobody thought the country was a theocracy because Little Sisters of the Poor didn’t have to pay for IUD coverage.

For the moment, taking away the tax-exempt status of most churches and other houses of worship in America would probably trigger a political backlash too large for any sane politician to contemplate. But if political conditions change? It’s easy for gay marriage and religious freedom to coexist if you believe gay marriage is simply a good and fair policy. But if you sincerely believe that traditional religious teachings on marriage and sex are totally indistinguishable from racism, it becomes untenable to treat those teachings differently than you would treat racism. At that point, it’s even possible houses of worship will run afoul of public accommodations laws. After all, religion was often invoked in defense of racism, right? (Religion was often invoked against racism too and the church was actually ahead of the curve on abolishing slavery.)

Politically, yanking the tax-exempt status of an outlier like Bob Jones University (the school didn’t admit blacks until the 1970s and prohibited interracial dating until 2000) is one thing. The largest denominations in America do not recognize same-sex marriage. The churches that do perform such marriages are much smaller than the ones that don’t. But while there is safety in numbers, the size of these denominations might also make challenging their practices more appealing. The Catholic Church and the United Methodist Church, for example, have both lay members and clergy who dissent from their teachings on marriage. Smaller, more marginal faiths might be easier to push around. They also are likely to have fewer members who will want to revise their denominations’ position on marriage.

Bottom line? Expect no change in how the government deals with churches that don’t do gay marriage for the foreseeable future. But should there be a change, what the journalist Rod Dreher calls the law of merited impossibility will apply: “It will never happen, and when it does, you bigots will deserve it.”

W. James Antle III is managing editor of The Daily Caller and author of the book Devouring Freedom: Can Big Government Ever Be Stopped? Follow him on Twitter.

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Why Are LGBT People So Hacked With Christians?

http://clashdaily.com/2013/12/lgbt-people-hacked-christians/#7qgp4DhWrSsGxbbi.99

By Allan Erickson / 30 December 2013

[From the book, The Cross & the Constitution in the Age of Incoherence, 2012, Tate Publishing]

Perhaps secular ears will hear …

Not long ago a gay couple in West Hollywood hung Sarah Palin in effigy. That image will loom large in the minds of the Palin children for many years, perhaps for a lifetime. In recent days at demonstrations in Palm Springs we’ve seen gay protestors knock a cross out of the hands of a grandmother, stomp all over it, and scream in her face. She is filing charges.

We’ve seen homosexual protestors invade church services Sunday morning and rail against people, shouting threats. We’ve seen what appears to be Anthrax mailed to LDS churches. We have seen protests throughout southern California and threats of more violence and demonstrations. And we have heard LGBT leaders call blacks ignorant bigots for voting in favor of Proposition Eight in California.

All this is no way to build consensus, invite understanding, or forward the cause of mutual respect.

It appears we are incapable of engaging a rational discussion when it comes to the topic of homosexuality.

Many of us in the traditional faith community want to challenge those in the LGBT community to consider: perhaps Christians are not hate-filled homophobes but instead rational people with a legitimate point of view. Why are you so intolerant of our point of view? Why do you give yourselves permission to do violence against us?

Maybe gay marriage is unhealthy for everyone? Regardless, don’t people have a right to an opinion? Do they not have the right to vote their conscience on issues central to the organization of society?

The answer is no if we listen to contemporary gay activists.

For those more moderate in approach and sensibility, please try to understand where Christians are coming from. Quell the emotion for a time and try to come at this with hardcore objectivity and rational inquiry.

Our belief is God is very clear in his Word.

People have the freedom to accept his Word or not. Neither God nor man is forcing anyone to do, or not do, something or other. Is that plausible to you? We are simply following the dictates of our conscience. Do we have the freedom to do so? Do we have the right to do so? What does God’s Word say about homosexual behaviors and gay marriage?

Here are the most often cited passages from both Old and New Testaments. Please read carefully.

Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable. – Leviticus 18:22

If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads. – Leviticus 20:13

Keep in mind laws in Leviticus were laid down for the Jews at a specific time for specific reasons. Obviously as Christians we do not believe people should be put to death today. We live under an entirely new covenant and dispensation, one governed by grace and mercy and love, not the law. However, God does not change his mind about the nature of sin or move from calling something detestable to calling it blessed or sanctioned. This should be obvious.

Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. – Romans 1:26–27

Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. – 1 Corinthians 6:9–10

… knowing this: that the law is not made for a righteous person, but for the lawless and insubordinate, for the ungodly and for sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, for fornicators, for sodomites, for kidnappers, for liars, for perjurers, and if there is any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine – 1 Timothy 1:9–10

[The Word is convicting on purpose. The Gospel is an offense. It is supposed to be, for only by conviction of sin are we led to repentance and salvation.]

Let’s remember the Word says all have fallen short of the Glory of God, all are sinners, and no one does good, not one. As Christians, we simply believe Christ and his Word, and the Word is obviously very clear. Demanding we act in ways contrary to what we believe is to attempt to force us to deny our Lord and deny conscience. Is that so hard to understand? Does our devotion make us homophobes by default? Of course not. Nor is it appropriate for members of the LGBT community to attack us, as we’ve seen in recent days in the wake of the passage of Proposition Eight in California.

No doubt gays will come back, saying, “You are asking us to deny our conscience telling us homosexuality is sin.” Well, somebody is wrong, and somebody is right. Logic alone disallows both parties claiming truth. Perhaps the following will help explain our point of view further.

I’ve had gay friends as far back as 1972. One old friend, who is long gone, once told me gay activism was entirely misguided. He said there was no point declaring war on the larger society. (Gays comprise 3–4 percent of the population.) He said it would only cause endless turmoil for no good reason. I think he was right. It is understood that flying under the radar is anathema to many people in the homosexual world, but this is where my friend concluded the matter for himself. The fact he was a college professor may carry weight with some people.

It pains me to think homosexual friends are headed for judgment.

What is the most loving thing I can do? Accommodate their sin as they stumble into hell or try to dissuade them from following a destructive and unhealthy lifestyle that ultimately leads to eternal separation from God? The answer is obvious. If I ignore the sin of a brother and let him fall, die, and go to hell, one of two things must be true: either I do not love that brother, or I do not believe sin will visit these consequences.

If my brother’s house is on fire, do I stand on the sidewalk and wish him well and walk away, or do I rush in to save him?

It is not an act of love to silently standby and pat people on the back while they destroy themselves.

And it is not discrimination to speak the truth in love.

We have always held to the idea of community standards of morality as defined by the majority. Several states voted against gay marriage this last go around. Is there any respect for voters out there?

So far, all states have voted against gay marriage except one. If the people in that state want to codify gay marriage, so be it.

Why must the LGBT community insist the majority submit to their vision of marriage? There is a distinct tyrannical flavor to it.

Otherwise, it is astounding to hear so-called pastors ignore God’s Word, accommodate sin—which is killing people—and bow to tyrants. Lord, help us.

As always, the Lord of love shows the way.

When the religious hypocrites threw the adulterous woman at Jesus’ feet, challenging him to give the order to stone her to death, the Master waited for a teachable moment, challenged the sinners to cast the first stone, loved the woman, and told her to “sin no more.” He restored her, not by accommodating her sin, not by looking the other way, but by protecting her and leading her into the light, by his grace.

With Christ as our example we must “go and do likewise.” We should neither condemn sinners nor codify sin into law, all the while recognizing we too are all sinners, saved only by grace, and that, “not of ourselves, lest anyone should boast” (Eph. 2:9).

Pastors who prefer accommodation to salvation lean to their own understanding, lead people to destruction, and dishonor the Lord, all in the same breath.

Trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding; in all your ways acknowledge him, and he will make your paths straight. – Proverbs 3: 5,6

We can no sooner force gay people to be straight than we can force Christians to be atheists. God never forces anyone to do anything. He simply invites people to enter his rest and enjoy a loving relationship with him, thereby allowing the Holy Spirit to conform us to Christ, the personification of Truth. Entering this loving relationship allows a person to enjoy the essence of true freedom.

Christians should be able to take a stand for our beliefs, and we should be able to do so in this country without being assaulted. Any objective examination of the record shows Christians do not assault members of the LGBT community.

Hopefully members of the LGBT community will try to understand Christian beliefs and confront this ludicrous idea Christians are somehow filled with hate and out to get them. It’s a lie from the pit of hell, and, somehow people know this, but they let the lie goad them to violence nonetheless.

We continue to pray for peaceful resolution, asking for an end to hostilities and an embrace of understanding, even an understanding unto salvation. Most Christians I know are willing to live and let live but cannot, as a matter of conscience, sanction gay marriage. It appears more and more LGBT people are not willing to live and let live but are pleased to fight and fight some more.

If that is the case, we are in for a long fight.

Image: Courtesy of: http://benry.deviantart.com/art/Angry-Eyes-285299531

About the author: Allan Erickson

Allan Erickson enjoyed an 11-year career in radio, television and print journalism as a reporter, talk show host, and operations manager. He then turned to sales and marketing for a decade. Ten years ago he started his own training and recruitment company in the Pacific Northwest. Allan & wife Jodi have four children and live in California. He is also the author of “The Cross & the Constitution in the Age of Incoherence,” Tate Publishing, 2012. He is available to speak in churches addressing the topics of faith and freedom. To contact him, email: allanlerickson@gmail.com

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Pastor Rick Warren Makes Piers Morgan Look Foolish

http://eaglerising.com/3619/pastor-rick-warren-makes-piers-morgan-look-foolish/#jruZqbzb0gOW1e0y.99

By Onan Coca / 17 December 2013

Pastor Rick Warren of Saddleback Church in California is a frequent guest on the Piers Morgan show. While some conservative evangelicals may fear being cornered on a shoe like Piers Morgan Live, Pastor Warren seems to relish the opportunities, as the conversation often turns to Spiritual things. In their most recent conversation, the liberal Brit tries to corner Pastor Warren on gay marriage, only to hear Pastor Warren patiently refute his every argument.

Bravo, Pastor Warren! Continue to speak the truth in love and you’ll definitely reap the rewards.

MORGAN: You and I, we’ve debated this before about gay rights, gay marriage. Clearly, it’s a movement in America as it is around the world…

WARREN: Right.

MORGAN: … towards to a much more tolerant attitude to this. Have you in the last two years since I last I think debated this particular point with you — have you moved at all now? Are you recognizing that there is this seemingly unstoppable movement?

WARREN: Well, I don’t get to change what God says is right and what God says is wrong. And I think God is real clear that all sex outside of marriage is wrong. But the issue here is the issue of respect. While I may disagree with you on your views on sexuality, it does not give me a right to demean you, to demoralize you, to defame you, to turn you into a demon.

See tolerance, Piers, it used to mean we treat each other with mutual respect even if we have major disagreements. Today, tolerance has been changed to mean, all ideas are equally valid. Well, that’s none sense. OK? All ideas are not equally valid.

I mean, you could say the moon is made of cheese or I could say the moon is made of beans and so many ask me it mean wrong.

MORGAN: But do you believe in equality for all as your heart right? This is where I think I took issue with you before and I will again — how can you really as a Christian man…

WARREN: Yes.

MORGAN: … a great man — how can you espouse genuine equality…

WARREN: Yes.

MORGAN: … if you don’t allow gay people the same rights to get married…

WARREN: Yes.

MORGAN: … as straight people? That’s a question that many I think would love to hear the answer.

WARREN: I’d like to reposition it this way. I’m more against the redefinition of the term marriage than anything else. I don’t think other groups get an opportunity to redefine a term. For instance, if a Muslim says this is a term we use and also I’ll take that term and mean it for me. What? That’s not right.

And I think, historically around the world, the vast majority of people would say, “Marriage means one man and one woman in a commitment.” Don’t take a term and make it something different.

Well, we’ll talk about double speak where words mean the exact opposite of what they use to mean. I’m going — OK. In first place, it’s not against the law for you to love anybody, a man or a woman OK? It’s not criminal — at least shouldn’t be but when you start taking a term, then why are taking that term?

MORGAN: Do you think you’ll change? I mean, can you see — you’re a man on a — he has this incredible library, Rick Warren — literally, one of the great libraries I’ve ever seen in my life, kept beautifully. You have all these books by all these great scholars. Many, many of them would have evolved their thought processes over things depending on how they see if the — can you see a time, when not just you but other Christian preachers… … and indeed the Catholic church and others say, “You know, what actually real equality means everyone has the same right to get married — gay or right.”

WARREN: I cannot see that happening in my life. I fear the disapproval of God more than I fear your disapproval or the disapproval of society. And so, I can’t change what I think God has said. Now, I believe in the infallibility of Scripture. I do not believe in the infallibility of my interpretations. So, interpretations can be wrong — we know that that as true but I believe that what Scripture says is that sex is for a man and a woman in marriage.

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

On Gay Marriage: I’m Right, and You’re Wrong

by Carly Hill http://patriotupdate.com/articles/on-gay-marriage-im-right-and-youre-wrong/#ixzz2Xvc5m9YA

People who leave comments on the internet are generally the worst. Most comments I get on articles are downright mean and internet people are middle-school-popular-girl-level mean (top of the mean-scale). I hate conflict and I especially hate people being mad at me. So, its unfortunate that the political views I’ve adopted anger people – across the board.

My political views are conservative but with a more libertarian slant; however, I cannot completely separate my faith from my politics. Most cookie-cutter conservatives are irked by libertarian arguments. Similarly, libertarians mostly hate when you make a political issue into a religious issue. The thing is, being a Christian shapes every aspect of my worldview, so while I favor limited government in all areas, my relationship with Christ will always seep into my political commentary. I can’t help it.

If I had to verbalize my opinions and defend them, I would (naturally) be thinking, “I’m right…and you’re wrong.” Anyone with solid beliefs of any kind feels that way. It doesn’t mean you’re an “intolerant bigot” because you believe that something is true. It means that you have a belief-system. Gay people who fight for the legalization of gay marriage are essentially saying the same thing in their heads… “I’m right, and you’re wrong.” There are no victims in this argument. There are simply two groups who believe that their beliefs are correct.

Despite my liberty-focused leanings, I believe that our country’s great success can be attributed to the fact that we were founded with Christian values and led by men who followed Christ. There are those who say the founding fathers were theists, not Christians. To those people, I say, watch Kirk Cameron’s movie, “Monumental.” He literally travels to England and goes the same route the Pilgrims did – talking to expert historians along the way and seeing the first American statues and monuments – all of which placed Jesus Christ as the centerpiece. We may not be a “Christian” nation, but we were absolutely founded on Christianity.

Check out this prayer, prayed by Thomas Jefferson in D.C. – March 4, 1801

“Almighty God, who has given us this good land for our heritage; we humbly beseech Thee that we may always prove ourselves a people mindful of Thy favor and glad to do Thy will. Bless our land with honorable ministry, sound learning, and pure manners. Save us from violence, discord, and confusion, from pride and arrogance, and from every evil way. Defend our liberties, and fashion into one united people, the multitude brought hither out of many kindreds and tongues. Endow with Thy spirit of wisdom those whom in Thy name we entrust the authority of government, that there may be justice and peace at home, and that through obedience to Thy law, we may show forth Thy praise among the nations of the earth. In time of prosperity, fill our hearts with thankfulness, and in the day of trouble, suffer not our trust in Thee to fail; all of which we ask through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.”

So, Christianity used to be the American way, and now, we live in a culture that is just a hair away from literally persecuting Christians. We are despised for believing that sin is sin. We are shunned for saying we stand for traditional marriage. We are hated because of the Savior we love. Man, oh, man. It is so much easier to form political opinions and arguments without bringing God into it, because once you utter his name, your opposition automatically starts picturing you in an alien costume.

My Christianity-infused Libertarian View on Gay Marriage

I’ve voiced my opinion on gay marriage before – and how I wish the government would get out of the business of marriage altogether. The founding fathers never planned for people to pay the government and get permission to marry each other. I don’t believe in Christians trying to force non-Christians to subscribe to a Bible that they don’t believe is true. In my own life, God Himself is the one who saved me and healed me and who continues to point me in the right direction. If someone had tried to force Christianity on me, I would have been instantly turned off.

So, my view on “letting gay people be gay” doesn’t have anything to do with whether or not I think its wrong. Just like I’m not going to make it my mission to find every unmarried couple living together and split them up, I’m not on a war against gays. As a Christian, I’m in a spiritual war – one in which my main weapon should be love and my battle cry should be “Jesus saves.”

It feels as though people in this country shuffle into one of two sides of the spectrum – and both of them are wrong. One group exalts “love” above God to a level that makes Him an afterthought (or nonexistent). The other group becomes so fixated on the holiness of God, and on His key command to love Him, that they fail to obey the second half of that command – that being to love others.

America was founded as one nation, under God. The values we were born into are Biblical – not in a shove-it-down-your-throat way, as many non-Christians perceive. Religious liberty is what the Pilgrims came here for – not a religious take-over. So, where does that leave me? In my personal life, I want to love every person that God puts in my path – regardless of where they are in life.

I was a mess when God saved me, and I still find myself failing and making new messes day after day. Not one of us, if we’re honest, can say that we’ve got it all together. Conservative Christians are not called to be the judges of the nation. However, we are called to uphold the word of God. We should be actively pursuing a lifestyle in which we are firm on our beliefs, but loving to all.

Dan Cathy, Chick-Fil-A’s founder, befriended Shane Windmeyer, executive director of Campus Pride. Check out the op-ed that Windmeyer published on Huffington Post about Dan Cathy. I want to be a Dan Cathy. I don’t want to ever judge another person for what they do, but I do want to remain a person whose beliefs are strong enough to warrant a “this is right, and that is wrong” attitude. Our culture wants us to be a society of wishy-washy secular humanists – a nation of “anything goes as long as it makes you happy.”

I stand for limited government. Politically, in almost all cases, I say “the less government, the better,” so along with that belief, I want the same respect shown toward me and my Christian faith. I want the government to stop punishing businesses for conducting themselves in ways that align with their faith. I don’t want to see Christian schools having to abandon their morality-standards to include all belief-systems. I want the freedom to voice what I think is right and wrong. I want preacher’s to preach what God says about sin – and not fear legal consequences.

That same “tolerance” that liberals are demanding should apply to all groups – including Christians who stand for traditional marriage. Tolerance should mean “Respect” and we should all show respect to our fellow Americans, no matter what their belief system. The sad reality is that actually having a belief system is what’s bad, these days.

What is your belief system and how does it merge with your politics – specifically, your view of gay marriage in America?

Let God Be True and Gays Be Gays

Category:

Political, Spiritual

Tagged with:

REALLY SMART, AREN’T WE! BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU ASK FOR!!!

“Good morning. We want to apply for a marriage license.”

“Names?”

“Tim and Jim Jones.”

“Jones?? Are you related?? I see a resemblance.”

“Yes, we’re brothers.”

“Brothers?? You can’t get married.”

“Why not?? Aren’t you giving marriage licenses to same gender couples?”

“Yes, thousands. But we haven’t had any siblings. That’s incest!”

“Incest?” No, we are not gay.”

“Not gay?? Then why do you want to get married?”

“For the financial benefits, of course. And we do love each other. Besides, we don’t have any other prospects.”

“But we’re issuing marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples who’ve been denied equal protection under the law. If you are not gay, you can get married to a woman.”

“Wait a minute. A gay man has the same right to marry a woman as I have. But just because I’m straight doesn’t mean I want to marry a woman. I want to marry Jim.”

“And I want to marry Tim! Are you going to discriminate against us just because we are not gay?”

“All right, all right. I’ll give you your license. Next.”

“Hi. We are here to get married.”

“Names?”

“John Stark, Jane James, Robert Green, and June Johnson.”

“Who wants to marry whom?”

“We all want to marry each other.”

“But there are four of you!”

“That’s right. You see, we’re all bisexual. I love Jane and Robert, Jane loves me and June, June loves Robert and Jane, and Robert loves June and me. All of us getting married together is the only way that we can express our sexual preferences in a marital relationship.”

“But we’ve only been granting licenses to gay and lesbian couples.”

“So you’re discriminating against bisexuals!”

“No, it’s just that, well, the traditional idea of marriage is that
it’s just for couples.”

“Since when are you standing on tradition?”

“Well, I mean, you have to draw the line somewhere.”

“Who says?? There’s no logical reason to limit marriage to couples. The more the better. Besides, we demand our rights! The mayor says the constitution guarantees equal protection under the law. Give us a marriage license!”

“All right, all right. Next.”

“Hello, I’d like a marriage license.”

“In what names?”

“David Deets.”

“And the other man?”

“That’s all. I want to marry myself.”

“Marry yourself?? What do you mean?”

“Well, my psychiatrist says I have a dual personality, so I want to marry the two together. Maybe I can file a joint income-tax return.”

“That does it!? I quit!!? You people are making a mockery of marriage!!”

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Low Life Gay Radicals Send Profanity Laced Screeds to Two Girls

By Clash Daily / http://clashdaily.com/2013/04/low-life-gay-radicals-send-profanity-laced-screeds-to-two-girls/

Screen Shot 2013-04-08 at 9.01.50 AM William Bigelow of Breitbart.com is reporting that there have been two targeted attacks of young girls in the past two months by homosexual activists who were upset by the girls’ stance in favor of traditional marriage. The first victim, 11 year-old Grace Evans, received some “rather colorful comments” from activists upset with her bold testimony before the Minnesota House Committee on Civil Law in February.

“Since every child needs a mom and a dad to be born, I don’t think we can change that children need a mom and a dad. I believe God made it that way,” Evans said during her testimony. “I know some disagree, but I want to ask you this question: Which parent do I not need – my mom or my dad?”

She paused, waiting for one of the members of the Committee to answer. When no one did, she asked the question again.

Evans then said, “I’ll ask again, which parent do I not need – my mom or my dad?” She paused again, only to be met by silent stares from the lawmakers.

Evans concluded, saying, “I hope that you can see that every child needs a mom and a dad. Please don’t change your law on marriage to say otherwise.”

Unfortunately, the House eventually voted for the same-sex marriage law they were deliberating at the time and allowed it to move to the full House.

The attacks came almost at once, with people referring to her as an “11 year-old bigot.”

“We haven’t had any physical threats, but we’ve had some rather colorful comments about my 11-year-old,” said Grace’s father, Jeff Evans. “I’ve been monitoring it to keep my family safe and have a heads up on it. It’s really shameful the things that people will say, hiding behind an Internet alias. We see it as more representative of where political discourse is in our country, where you can’t take a position without receiving a great deal of flak, which is unfortunate.”

Sarah Crank, 14, had it even worse. She actually received death threats after testifying before the Maryland state senate during their contentious deliberations over a same-sex marriage bill in January.

“I really feel bad for the kids who have two parents of the same gender. Even though some kids think it’s fine, they have no idea what kind of wonderful experiences they miss out on. . . . People have the choice to be gay, but I don’t want to be affected by their choice. People say that they were born that way, but I’ve met really nice adults who did change. So please vote ‘no’ on gay marriage. Thank you.”

A YouTube video of Sarah’s speech went viral on homosexual websites where she received threats such as “If I ever see this girl, I will kill her. That’s a promise.” Another said her parents “should be exterminated” while someone else said that to “kill this child and his [sic] parent, for my 11 birthday would be a wonderful gift, thanks.”

The Marriage Covenant

Gen 2:18-24; 18 The LORD God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.”

19 Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. 20 So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds of the air and all the beasts of the field.

But for Adam no suitable helper was found. 21 So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man’s ribs and closed up the place with flesh. 22 Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.

23 The man said, “This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called ‘woman,’ for she was taken out of man.”

24 For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh. (NIV)

After creation, the Triune God made a human man after their own image (that image is explained by Jesus in John 4). In order to prove to that man that there was no animal in all of creation suitable for fellowship, and procreation, God made “woman”, the female form of the human man. Thus, the Marriage Covenant was established; One man, one woman, one flesh.

“One flesh” means more than the marriage-bed sexual relationship between the united couple. Its meaning is a joining of two entities formed into one new being. That is why in Genesis 5:1 God called THEM “man”. One united couple commanded to populate the earth. The purpose for this deliberate designed union is explained in Malachi 2:15;

“Has not [the LORD] made them one? In flesh and spirit they are his. And why one? Because he was seeking godly offspring. So guard yourself in your spirit, and do not break faith with the wife of your youth.” (NIV)

Repeatedly we have witnesses of scripture of God’s condemnation of same sex sexual acts, both in the Old Testament, as well as the New Testament. God is absolutely consistent. Likewise is His judgment on a man and woman having sexual relations outside of marriage is sin. God’s deliberate design was, and remains; one man with one woman in covenant union to raise Godly children for the glory of the Kingdom of God.

When I was in high school there was a saying going around from part of my generation who ultimately became the hippies (who are in legislatures today). That saying was, “don’t shove your morals down my throat”. Those same people are doing just that to the American people with their war on the marriage covenant. The homosexual activist are so desperate to sooth their conscious with their activism to force the “straight” citizens of America to accept their chosen lifestyle as normal, and force the State to give them the same protection of heterosexual marriage. They want to force you and I to change our scriptural position that homosexuality is wrong. They have gone so far as to invade our public schools with materials designed to teach children that their chosen lifestyle is normal and should be explored. Nothing forced upon a people can be a good thing for that society.

No, it is not right to persecute homosexuals for their chosen lifestyle. All “bullying” efforts are wrong as well as any condemnation. I have had the privilege of knowing and working with several different people who practiced the homosexual lifestyle. One of them was one of my closest friends, and I miss him very much. He was a great mentor and I learned volumes from his experience and wisdom. I knew about his lifestyle choices and he knew mine. We never made it an issue, and I never condemned him or made him feel uncomfortable. He passed away several years ago. With all the others I have known and worked with, the issue was never discussed, nor did it affect our relationship. Respect demands acceptance of anyone’s chosen lifestyle that has no negative affect on humanity.

All this uproar over same sex marriage has produced division and discord in our society. Nothing good can really come out of all this, nor will the issue be settled on both sides. Any compromise will not be accepted, nor will it render any respect for anyone. The strife established can only bring about a bad result. Let us discuss several issues that pertain to this argument;

The Federal government has no business even discussing this subject of same sex marriage. The First Amendment to the Constitution restricts them from forcing this definition upon the Church. Each religious institution has the First Amendment right to determine what is acceptable marriage unions. The States have establish laws that recognize, as lawful, marriage unions, including those from other States, or Countries. The Federal Government is not included in any of those decisions.
What good is it for voters to vote on propositions/referendums if groups that don’t like the outcome of the vote and use their co-conspirators (the Federal Courts) to overturn the will of the people, nullifying those votes? Has it not it been the cry of the Left concerning “voter nullification”? Yet they demonstrate their Socialist ideology by using the courts to get their way and ignore the true will of the people.
1. I have heard many people say, “Why should I vote when the other side will just get their way through the courts”?
2. b. Why do we have a Representative Republic if in fact our votes do not count?
3. c. Are we already living in a Marxist/Socialist society with the voting is just a sham to make us think our voice still means anything?
4. Multiple politicians have rushed to the microphones of their media partners proclaiming their support of same sex marriage. Using the insidiousness of emotional blackmail, they pull at the heartstrings of middle-of-the-road ignorant voters hoping to get them to keep them in power. These tactics tell you everything about their true intentions.
5. The Church (Catholic and Evangelical) is being demeaned and persecuted for taking God at His Word and trying to live out that Word;
  1. Because I do not agree with someone else’s perspective does not make me a hater, nor have I ceased to love people. A Biblical foundation is the ability to love people while hating what they do. For example;

i. Can you love the alcoholic and hate their alcoholism? Yes.

ii. Can you love the addict and hate their addiction? Yes.

iii. Can you love the grumpy while hating their grumpy attitude? Yes.

iv. Can you love a homosexual while hating their choice of the homosexual lifestyle? YES!

Loving people never means having to agree with all they stand for and believe. Neither does your disagreement make you a homophobe, hater, racist or any other kind of hateful label hung on such people who disagree. A healthy society allows for differing points of view, and does not support anyone forcing others to believe their way.
Christian witnessing has never been by force, as did Mohammad. Any groups of people claiming to be Christian and apply undue force on the populace to believe their way are misrepresentatives of God, and unacceptable by any healthy society.

I have been a student of the Word of God for over 40 years. I do not now, nor have I ever claimed to be some kind of expert. I am still learning. I do know what God’s Word says, and according to 2nd Peter 1, the Word of God is not subject to any private interpretation. In fact, I have learned that the Word of God explains itself and does not need any human to explain. Here are some facts from scripture;

God has condemned the practice of homosexuality PERIOD.
- Lev 18:22; “‘Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.” (NIV )
- Lev 20:13; “‘If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.” (NIV)
- Rom 1:18-32; 18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities-his eternal power and divine nature-have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.

24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator-who is forever praised. Amen.

26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

28 Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. 29 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31 they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32 Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them. (NIV)

We have two historical accounts of societies that allowed homosexuality to become the norm. The shame was gone, no laws to restrict their practice and society in general let them practice their lifestyle choice openly. Both societies ended up the same; destroyed.

The first is found in Genesis Chapter 19 and the second is detailed in Judges Chapters 19 & 20. In both cities, Sodom and Gibeah, the men of the city attacked the door of the houses because they wanted to have sex with the male visitors that arrived and was going to spend the night under the private roof of the host. In Sodom, the Angels had to pull Lot back in the house and blind the men so they could escape. In Gibeah, the Levite visitor gave them his concubine who gang raped her all night, causing her death. God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah with brimstone and fire. In Gibaeh God caused all of Israel to attack Gibeah because they refused to give up the homosexuals that murdered the woman by gang rape.

This has been the fate of any society that has allowed objectionable conduct to go unchecked, where God has been removed from their lives and the liberal thinking has created an environment that caused the people to say that good (righteousness) was evil, and that evil was good.

The entire subject of marriage does not belong with the Federal Government, and really, it does not belong under any State Government. History tells us about the uproar and objections produced when States decided to get into the marriage business by requiring marriage licenses. The debate was whether or not the State had any business in regulating the sacred bonds of marriage by raising revenue through marriage license. Debating what constitutes marriage and who should be allowed to engage is a subject our founding Fathers never imagined would ever occur. This national debate, and taking up the Supreme Courts time has been the results of the homosexual lobby forcing their chosen lifestyle down the throats of every American. It is not about equality. It is about their determination to force our society to accept their lifestyle as normal and not objectionable. It is a fight for the freedom of Christians, and others, to believe what we know to be acceptable behavior, and to reject what we believe to be abhorrent behavior. Notice that they have not made any attempts to get any of the Islam nations to make the same, forced, acceptance?

Those that scream the most about separation of Church and State are the ones that are determined to remove our free speech, and create laws that they define as hate speech. Such gagging of Christian Americans voices is in itself an abomination, and constitutionally wrong.

California and other States have caved in to provide same sex union contracts that offer most of the same privileges as married couples. That is not good enough for the homosexual lobby. They want to force us (socialism tactics) to accept what we know to be wrong, against God’s perfect will, against His creation and by all historical records, abhorrent to all societies. Furthermore, they hang demeaning labels on anyone who disagree with them and their allies (the entire political Left).

Stop the madness. Leave the sacred institution of marriage alone. You choose to be a homosexual, fine, but stop shoving it down my throat and stop teaching our children that your chooses are normal. I have never condoned prejudice, nor will I. I work hard at loving people and showing respect. In a quality society, such respect should be the norm, and any disagreement accepted.

As a nation we are in desperate need of revival;

Spiritual,
Constitutional,
Common respect for everyone, especially those that disagree with us,
and a revival of setting aside our differences so we can focus as a nation on ridding ourselves of our national debt,
reducing and eliminating entitlements,
and getting Americans back to work.

“Heavenly Father, in the mighty Name of Jesus our Lord and Savior, by the power of Your Holy Spirit, we join in prayer seeking Your Face, admitting we are sinners in need of our Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ. We repent of our sins, and make the deliberate choice to turn from our wicked ways. We choose to serve You by Your Word and live lives acceptable to You. Please heal our land. Please restore the nation you created for Yourself for the spreading of the Gospel around the world. Thank You for hearing our prayer and healing our land. In Jesus Name, Amen.”

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Another Result of a Lightless, Unsalty, Lukewarm Church in America

byDave Jolly published on https://www.lastresistance.com

Obama Seeking to Criminalize Biblical Concept of Marriage

In 1996, the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was overwhelming passed by both the US House and Senate. President Bill Clinton signed the bill into law and the biblical definition of marriage being between one man and one woman was protected by federal law.

In 2011, President Barack Obama violated his oath of office and the US Constitution by instructing US Attorney General Eric Holder to stop enforcing the Defense of Marriage Act. Holder, Obama’s little puppet who is supposed to be the top cop of the country, was more than happy to carry out his handler’s instructions.

Since that time, Obama has worked long and hard at trying to destroy the biblical concept of marriage as being a holy union between one man and one woman. He has opened the military to gays and lesbians, he has order military chaplains to perform same-sex marriage and union ceremonies and he has pushed for benefits to be given to the unmarried same-sex partners of gay military personnel even though they aren’t married. The same benefits are to be denied to the unmarried partners of heterosexual military personnel.

Now, the Obama administration has filed a brief with the United States Supreme Court, asking them to strike down Section 3 of DOMA. The White House claims the section is unconstitutional because it denies the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages which prevents them from extending benefits to those same-sex partners. The benefits include health, Social Security survivors’ benefits and income taxes.

The brief filed by the Obama administration reads in part:

“Gay and lesbian people are a minority group with limited political power. Although some of the harshest and most overt forms of discrimination against gay and lesbian people have receded, that progress has hardly been uniform (either temporarily or geographically), and has in significant respects been the result of judicial enforcement of the Constitution, not political action.”

This demonstrates just how far the administration has gone to redefine the Constitution along with the Christian values our nation was founded upon. Matt Barber, Vice President of Liberty Counsel Action says that the brief is wrong on two counts:

“Not only did the president abdicate his duty to defend a law that was passed with overwhelming bipartisan support, this president has taken it a step further and he is now engaging in radical homosexual activism.”

“If people are given special, suspect minority status based on aberrant sexual feelings and behaviors, then the Christian view that says homosexual behavior is both self-destructive and immoral … essentially becomes criminalized.”

Barber also says that once Obama was re-elected, that the real man emerged from behind his political mask. If Obama succeeds in overturning DOMA, he believes that will open the doors to mass attacks on Christianity and Christian values. Before long, living the Christian faith will be a crime. It has happened in Canada and the UK where people have been charged with crimes, especially hate crimes for preaching what the Bible says about homosexuality.

The wolf has emerged from the sheep’s clothing and he is ready to devour Christians and Jews alike. Before Obama’s second term expires, I would not be surprised to see Christians and Jews being arrested and jailed on a daily basis for anything they say or do that involves defending their religion. We will end up like the Christians in China who ended up going underground and worshiping in secret.

But not me! I refuse to denounce my Christian faith or my Christian values. If I’m not willing to go to jail or even be tortured for Christ sake, then I am not worthy to be called a Christian and deserve the worst possible treatment there is. We either die with Christ or we die separated from Christ. I know which I choose. Where will you stand?

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Interview: Obama Had Marxist Vision For US At Occidental College

I have shared with you some research into words and phrases the Left throws out there hoping no one will look them up to understand the Marxist/Socialist foundational belief system. This is Part One of an article I believe everyone should read. It validates what I sent you about “Social Justice” and Collectivism”. It will take a while to read. Pleas do so with patience and understanding. What you do with it afterward is between you and your conscious.

Jerry Broussard

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

September 3, 2012 by Leon Puissegur FREEDOM OUTPOST

Interview: Obama Had Marxist Vision For US At Occidental College

Has anyone ever been interested in President Obama’s ideological past? What were Obama’s beliefs while he was at Occidental? Several interviews by Dr. John Drew during the 2008 campaign cycle gave some insight, but few were interested at that time in what Obama really believed when he attended Occidental College. (See “Meeting Young Obama” and “Even Republicans Rejected Info About Obama’s Past” at www.americanthinker.com/john_drew/). Dr. Drew wrote, “Meeting Obama”, about Obama and his ideology about taking the United States over and making it fail so the, “revolution” could in his article “Meeting Young Obama” on February 24, 2011. He clearly remembers what Obama stated, in his own words, “Like it was yesterday”. Obama espoused without hesitation, “There’s going to be a revolution,” saying, “we need to be organized and grow the movement.” This is disturbing due to the fact what our nation is going through right now drives it to the edge of failure; just what the young Obama stated he wanted to accomplish in 1980: the end of capitalism in the United States.

Obama has in the last three years been declaring, the people with money are the problem with the United States. This reflects back to his Marxist/Socialist training while he was at Occidental College. Obama discussed this ideology with young John Drew during a Christmas break when Drew visited his then girlfriend, Caroline Boss. It was during his visit that he met Obama face to Face. Dr. Drew stated the man Obama had shown up with was an individual by the name of; Mohammed Hasan Chandoo, a 21-year-old Pakistani student Obama hung around with along with Chandoo’s girl friend, Margot Mifflin. All of them were fervent with their ideas of Marxist and Socialist ideology. Dr. Drew gave context to his recollections with the observation he had also read other stories about how Obama had dreamed of working to bring the downfall of Capitalism. Today it looks like Obama is working very hard to obtain those 1980 dreams.

In the below interview, Dr. Drew will, of course, refer to Dr. John Drew and LP will refer to the author of this piece, Louis Puissegur.

Dr. Drew began; “I know Stanley Kurtz’s book, Radical in Chief , that Obama has ties with the Midwest Acadamy, kind of like the Socialist training ground for America. I think that most Americans don’t understand that Obama
has a longstanding tie to Marxism, that is even longer then his ties to Reverend Right.”

LP; “That’s right, he(Obama), didn’t go to Reverend Wright until after he was married.”

Dr. Drew; “Right, I mean, the way I look at it, Barack Obama was probably at least a Communist sympathizer when he came out of high school, he was definitely a Marxist revolutionary when I met him in 1980. It doesn’t look like he
changed a bit, he started hanging out with Bill Ayers.”

LP; “You saw him just before Obama went to Pakistan.”

Dr.Drew; “Exactly, the last time I saw Obama was June 1981, we had a graduation party for Occidental College. I guess he left from there and went on this tour in Indonesia, and somehow got into Pakistan, I guess you were not allowed to do that on a United States passport at that time.”

LP; “How long did you have an association with Obama?”

Dr. Drew; “It is kind of complex, the actual time I spent with Obama was sort of brief and limited, but he was part of my social sphere in the sense I knew his roommate at the time, Chandoo, and Obama was a member of the Democratic Socialist Alliance at Occidental and my girlfriend, Caroline Boss was the co-president of that organization.”

LP; “Democratic Socialist Alliance?”

Dr. Drew; “Yes, that was the Marxist student association on campus, Caroline hung up a huge banner of Karl Marx where the students met at the Occidental College Quad. She and I were pretty intense Marxists we had been involved in about a two-year relationship and she was the one who introduced me to Barack Obama, she knew him better then I did. I wouldn’t be saying he was a Marxist/Socialist revolutionary if it was just based with my face to face talk with him, my comments are based on knowing Chandoo, having known Caroline and the Marxist Professors and that whole culture.”

LP; “Another words, the people he was associated with were deep into the Marxist/Socialist ideology?”

Dr. Drew; “Oh yes, I had considered myself as the enemy of the American government at that time.”

LP: “At that particular time? And what made you change?”

Dr. Drew; “Well, the first thing that happened was kind of spiritual change, I just started having the religious experience, I realized that there was something out there which I now call a higher power. That was very inconsistent with Marxist ideology. Because Marxist taught that stuff like that was just the opium of the people, but to me it was very real, so very real. Then my Doctoral research ended up just confirming a lot of Marxist theory which comes to explain how welfare programs and how Capitalism deals with child labor and things like that. My research pulled me out of Marxism fundamentally but what started it was the spiritual change.”

LP; “How many actual face to face meetings did you have with Obama?”

Dr. Drew; “I never had face to face after Christmas and in Partolo Valley California which is near Stanford. I basically spent the day with him, Chandoo, and Caroline Boss, I was visiting Boss from Cornell where I was studying. I graduated ahead of them but I had come back for the trip to be with Caroline. We hung out with Obama and Chandoo for that day and went out to lunch then we ended up arguing pretty late in the evening about Marxist and politics. Whether or not there would be a revolution, a Communist style revolution in the United States. The key takeaway there is that I may have been one of the first people in the world to confront Barack Obama’s kind of silly belief, Marxist idea that there was going to be an inevitable Communist revolution coming to the United States. I feel in my heart that I had persuaded him that that wasn’t in the cards and it wasn’t going to happen and at the end of that time he believed me. I think a bunch of us, Marxist Communist style people were turned off by a Communist style revolution I think that Obama would have heard that from someone else eventually, but from his reaction, I think I was the first person that he could identify as an ally, and a friend and supporter who sincerely believes that there would never be a Communist style revolution. That debate I think helped Obama intellectually, but it helped seal the end of my romantic relationship with Marxist.”

LP; “Obama was a student there the whole time?”

Dr. Drew; “Yes he was a student at Occidental College and he was taking classes from Roger Boesche, who was a political theorist on campus. Roger was definitely a Socialist. Most of the students followed him as a Marxist revolutionary, but he was kind of precise with that and did not see himself as a Marxist. I would say that 100% of the students considered him to be a Marxist/Socialist.”

LP; “Obama had to have some sort of girlfriends, or was he kind of all alone.”

Dr. Drew; “I think this is very unusual but I can say that I saw Barack Obama about 3 or 4 other times on campus and off campus at parties. As God as my witness, I can say that I never saw Barack Obama with a young woman. I never saw any romantic connections with a young woman or even any socializing with a young woman that had a romantic nature.”

LP; “So he was pretty much by himself all the time?”

Dr. Drew; “I am just a small piece of the puzzle, but if I had ever seen him with a girl, I would be happy to say that, but I did not notice that. If anything I thought that the young Obama was kind of the feminine and he seemed to have a very strong emotional tie to Hasan Chandoo.”

LP; “Now did Chandoo have a girlfriend?”

Dr. Drew; “Yes, Chandoo did have a girlfriend, her name was Margot Mifflin. It was kind of interesting that Chandoo had a girlfriend, Margot Mifflin, who is still in the news today, she is a professor at I think NYU. Caroline Boss had a boyfriend, me, and I am in the news about Barack Obama, but there is not a single girl out there that says she was Obama’s girlfriend.”

LP; “I seem to recall an article you wrote about Obama riding in a big fancy car with Chandoo.”

Dr. Drew; “Yes, Chandoo was very wealthy and he drove a very expensive, very nice luxury car. It was ten times better then the normal Occidental student would drive. One of my theories is that Barack Obama had a good time at Occidental College because of the financial generosity of Chandoo. That was one of the places that Obama learned that rich people would give him money just because he was a nice handsome ideologically consistent person.”

LP: “Do you know or did any one say he had a Visa when he was going to Occidental?”

Dr. Drew; “That I don’t have any knowledge of I don’t I called him Barry, but I don’t remember if he was introduced as Barry Soetoro or Barry Obama. I just remember I called him Barry and I don’t know anything about his citizen
status.”

LP; “How long did he hang around with Chandoo?”

Dr. Drew; “Chandoo is a life long friend of Barack Obama. Chandoo attended Obama’s marriage to Michelle, I think that was 1992 or 1993 or something like that. Chandoo was at their marriage and he was also at a recent Ramadan Dinner at the White House. He is one of those $600,000 bundlers for Obama. Chandoo has been a part of Obama’s life at least since 1980.”

LP; “So Chandoo is a bundler for Obama too?”

Dr. Drew; “Yes, Chandoo would go out and raise contributions from people then put all those checks in a bundle, then deliver it over to the campaign headquarters.”

LP:” Is Chandoo a US Citizen or is he a Pakistani?”

Dr. Drew; “He is living in New York, in America.”

LP: “About how many hours had you spent with Obama?”

Dr. Drew; “I would say that altogether it was about 10 to 12 hours.”

LP; “During that time did Obama display the Marxist ideology?”

Dr. Drew; “We were confiding in each other the way people fight with each other people with major historical struggles in communicating, very down to earth, very honest. Like I said, I am ashamed of my Socialist/Marxist past, I have a conversion story which explains how I became a Christian, Constitutional Conservative. Barack Obama has no conversion story. There is a story about how he stopped being a Marxist, if anything his career, life shows an alarming consistency in his ideological extremism.”

LP; “Do you see the same Marxist ideology now with Barack Obama?”

Dr. Drew; “Yes, especially when he talks about the people holding on to their guns and religion because of economic stress. That is a Marxist idea. Everything he says about it being a good idea to spread the wealth around; that is Marxist/Socialist concepts. Some of the statements Obama makes about things inevitably get better, I think that is a Marxist ideological remnants.”

LP; “I noticed in one of your articles you said it would never happen but Obama said yes it will.”

Dr. Drew; “Yes, I remember that very clearly, even some 20 years later because he thought I was nuts. He thought that I was going against everything he had been taught at Occidental College. I persuaded him, I told Obama there has never been a revolution in Italy, France, Germany, why would you expect one here in America? I said revolutions only occur in backwards raring economies, like China, Vietnam or Russia, not in America.”

LP; “How did he accept your idea?”

Dr. Drew; “I think he believed that the economic stresses would pile up worse and worse and after the stresses built up they would just build up to a breaking point where a new group would take over the country. That would be a large group of workers, students, young people, those who were enlightened by Marxist/Socialist ideology would end up running things.”

LP: “Did Obama ever mention Cloward/Pivens?”

Dr. Drew; “No never did, but he might have bumped into her when he was at Columbia because she taught at Columbia. Part of my research disconcerns the Piven and Cloward teachings that welfare programs rise in reaction to violence and rioting from the lower class. I was able to show that that was not true in America. I perceive Obama as being an out and out liar; hiding his real views from the American people. I think those views are deeply objectionable to most people and I am shocked that more media attention hasn’t been focused on vetting Obama and getting down to brass tacks about how he really is.” (see additional information at end.(1))

LP: “Did Obama ever throw money around when he was with Chandoo?”

Dr. Drew; “He hung with Chandoo, but the impression I had with Obama was that they were both very wealthy. I thought that Barack Obama was a descendent from royalty from the way he carries himself. It did turn out that he did spend his summers on the grounds of the palace of the sultan of Jakarta in Indonesia. According to David Remnick,(“The Bridge, Alfred A. Knopf, 2010, page 104”), that is where Obama would spend his summers. So he actually did grow up on the grounds of an Indonesian Palace. Through his step-father, Lolo Soertoro, he actually had ties to the royal family.” (See addition below(2).)

Now with all this stated by Dr. Drew, one has to ask, has Barack Obama moved away from his Marxist, Radical, Socialist Ideology? Has Barack Obama, the man holding the highest office in the United States “hidden” his true agenda, the one he so proudly proclaimed while at Occidental College? One must now consider: just what are the President’s motives behind producing continued debt upon the United States? Is this meant to further what Dr. Drew so clearly remembers: End Capitalism?

These questions should have been asked in 2008. They must be answered in truth today as the American people continue daily to struggle with the Marxist/Socialist ideals foist upon them by Barack Hussein Obama dedicated to them, ideals which have yet to succeed in all of human history. Some pundits state this is a propaganda used historically by Marxist and Socialist regimes, using the single word “forward” as their base. Has Obama finally given America a true reflection of his days as a revolutionary radical Marxist/Socialist?

(1.) My take on Piven and Cloward is included in my published doctoral dissertation in this book, The American Welfare System: Origins, Structure, and Effects. I demonstrated that there was no relationship between street violence or riots and the later rise of the Progressive Era Mothers’ Pensions movement.”

(2.) Information about how Obama’s mother lived on the grounds of the palace of the Sultan of Yogakarta is available in David Remnick’s book, The Bridge, on pages 84-88.

Editor’s Note: This is part one in a series.

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Should Christians Support President Obama?

Dr. David Barton is more of a historian than a Biblical speaker, but very famous for his knowledge of historical facts as well as Biblical truths.

Dr. David Barton – on Obama. “Respect the Office? Yes. Respect the Man in the Office? No, I am sorry to say.

I have noted that many elected officials, both Democrats and Republicans, called upon America to unite behind Obama. Well, I want to make it clear to all who will listen that I AM NOT uniting behind Obama! I will respect the Office which he holds, and I will acknowledge his abilities as an orator and wordsmith and pray for him, BUT that is it.

I have begun today to see what I can do to make sure that he is a one-term President!

Why am I doing this? It is because:

I do not share Obama’s vision or value system for America;
I do not share his Abortion beliefs;
I do not share his radical Marxist’s concept of re-distributing wealth;
I do not share his stated views on raising taxes on those who make$150,000+ (the ceiling has been changed three times since August);
I do not share his view that America is Arrogant;
I do not share his view that America is not a Christian Nation;
I do not share his view that the military should be reduced by 25%;
I do not share his view of amnesty and giving more to illegals than our American Citizens who need help;
I do not share his views on homosexuality and his definition of marriage;
I do not share his views that Radical Islam is our friend and Israel is our enemy who should give up any land;
I do not share his spiritual beliefs (at least the ones he has made public);
I do not share his beliefs on how to re-work the healthcare system in America;
I do not share his Strategic views of the Middle East; and
I certainly do not share his plan to sit down with terrorist regimes such as Iran.

Bottom line: my America is vastly different from Obama’s, and I have a higher obligation to my Country and my GOD to do what is Right!

For eight (8) years, the Liberals in our Society, led by numerous entertainers who would have no platform and no real credibility but for their celebrity status, have attacked President Bush, his family, and his spiritual beliefs!

They have not moved toward the center in their beliefs and their philosophies, and they never came together nor compromised their personal beliefs for the betterment of our Country!
They have portrayed my America as a land where everything is tolerated except being intolerant!
They have been a vocal and irreverent minority for years!
They have mocked and attacked the very core values so important to the founding and growth of our Country!
They have made every effort to remove the name of GOD or Jesus Christ from our Society!
They have challenged capital punishment, the right to bear firearms, and the most basic principles of our criminal code!
They have attacked one of the most fundamental of all Freedoms, the right of free speech!
Unite behind Obama? Never!

I am sure many of you who read this think that I am going overboard, but I refuse to retreat one more inch in favor of those whom I believe are the embodiment of Evil!

PRESIDENT BUSH made many mistakes during his Presidency, and I am not sure how history will judge him. However, I believe that he weighed his decisions in light of the long established Judeo-Christian principles of our Founding Fathers!!!

Majority rules in America, and I will honor the concept; however, I will fight with all of my power to be a voice in opposition to Obama and his “goals for America …” I am going to be a thorn in the side of those who, if left unchecked, will destroy our Country! Any more compromise is more defeat!

I pray that the results of this election will wake up many who have sat on the sidelines and allowed the Socialist-Marxist anti-GOD crowd to slowly change so much of what has been good in America!

GOD bless you and GOD bless our Country!”

Category:

Personal, Political

Tagged with:

Why liberals behave the way they do by Ann Coulter

By: Ann Coulter
8/15/2012 05:11 PM

My smash best seller “Demonic: How the Liberal Mob Is Endangering America” has just come out in paperback — and not a moment too soon! Democrats always become especially mob-like during presidential election campaigns.

The “root cause” of the Democrats’ wild allegations against Republicans, their fear of change, their slogans and insane metaphors, are all explained by mass psychology, diagnosed more than a century ago by the French psychologist Gustave Le Bon, on whose work much of my own book is based.

Le Bon’s 1896 book, “The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind,” was carefully read by Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini in order to learn how to incite mobs. Our liberals could have been Le Bon’s study subjects.

With the country drowning in debt and Medicare and Social Security on high-speed bullet trains to bankruptcy, the entire Democratic Party refuses to acknowledge mathematical facts. Instead, they incite the Democratic mob to hate Republicans by accusing them of wanting to kill old people.

According to a 2009 report — before Obama added another $5 trillion to the national debt — Obama’s own treasury secretary, Tim Geithner, stated that in less than 10 years, spending on major entitlement programs, plus interest payments on the national debt, would consume 92 cents of every dollar in federal revenue.

That means no money for an army, a navy, rockets, national parks, food inspectors, air traffic controllers, highways, and so on. Basically, the entire federal budget will be required just to pay for Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security — and the cost of borrowing money to pay for these programs.

When Social Security was enacted in 1935, the average lifespan was 61.7 years. Today, it’s almost 79 and rising. But liberals believe the age at which people can begin collecting Social Security must never, ever be changed, even to save Social Security itself.

Mobs, according to Le Bon, have a “fetish-like respect” for tradition, except moral traditions because crowds are too impulsive to be moral. That’s why liberals say our Constitution is a “living, breathing” document that sprouts rights to gay marriage and abortion, but the age at which Social Security and Medicare benefits kick in is written in stone.

Le Bon says that it is lucky “for the progress of civilization that the power of crowds only began to exist when the great discoveries of science and industry had already been effected.” If “democracies possessed the power they wield today at the time of the invention of mechanical looms or of the introduction of steam-power and of railways, the realization of these inventions would have been impossible.”

Liberals exhibit this exact groupthink fear of science not only toward light bulbs and nuclear power, but also toward medical inventions. Thus, when a majority of the country objected to Obamacare on the grounds that — among many other reasons — a government takeover of health care would destroy medical innovation, liberals stared in blank incomprehension.

They believe every drug, every diagnosis, every therapy, every cure that will ever be invented, has already been invented. Their job is to spread all the existing cures, while demonizing and stymieing pharmaceutical companies that make money by inventing new drugs.

Democrats haven’t the slightest concern about who will formulate new remedies because they are enraged at profit making and suspicious of scientific advancement.

Apart from cures that will never be invented, liberal elites will be mostly untouched by the rotten medical care to which they are consigning the rest of us. Note how Democrats’ friends, such as government unions, immediately received waivers from Obamacare. Rich or connected liberals, such as George Soros, Warren Buffett, Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama, will always have access to the best doctors, just as Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez do.

It is similar to the way that Democrats, who refuse to pass school choice, always seem to bypass the disastrous public schools for their own children, who end up at Sidwell Friends or St. Albans.

Democrats don’t worry about how bankrupting Social Security and destroying the job market hurts black people, bitter divorcees and young people, because they can always demagogue these one-party Democratic voters simply by repeating that Republicans are racist, hate women and aren’t cool like Obama.

The truth is irrelevant; only slogans and fear mongering delight mobs.

The rest of us are forced to live in a lawless universe of no new pharmaceuticals, foreign doctors, gay marriage, girl soldiers, a health care system run by the post office, and bankrupt Social Security and Medicare systems, because liberals can’t enjoy their wealth unless other people are living in squalor.

The country will have the economy of Uganda, but Democrats will be in total control.

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

I Told You So

This morning a homosexual activist walked into a Christian Lobbyist office and began shooting. If not for the security man, the gunman would have killed or injured untold others. As it is, only the security man ~~gave his life to save the others by~~ was shot in the arm and then disarmed the gunman. The gunman is quoted as asking the security man not to kill him because the reason for his being there and shooting up the place was not “about you. It’s about what these people stand for.”

I told you that the Professional Pot Stirrers were keeping the pot of hate so stirred that this kind of thing would happen. It is only the beginning. It will happen much more as the hateful rhetoric of the Political Left gets more shrill, more hateful, more distorted and more demonized. They want this kind of violence so they can blame it on the Right, especially those that disagree with their stands. The Political Party that proclaims it is the “Tolerant Party”, practices INTOLERANCE with anyone that does not share their point of view. Chick-fil-A anyone?

How sad that we have allowed our Society to fall so far that we have these circumstances. Express your God endowed, Constitutional Right, opinion in a public setting and you are labeled a HATER or some other label the Left has determined fits anyone expressing differing convictions. Hate breeds hate. Add to that dynamic the Professional Pot Stirrers efforts at bring the pot to boiling over, and riots and violence is the result.

Let us work harder that ever in history to get the truth out there and get every America Loving Patriot the get off their apathy and vote to rid ourselves of these Collectivist, Socialist, Extreme Left Wing cancers.

Help Eliminate Self Appointed Pot Stirrers

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Are You on The New America’s Hate List? (You probably are-Check and see)

Written on Tuesday, August 7, 2012 by Ralph Barker

You are on the current Hate List if you are:

White Male

Prolife

Heterosexual

Christian

Chick-fil-A customer (New on the list)

Patriot

Conservative

Tea Party Member (God forbid!)

Republican

Love the founding fathers

Believe in free enterprise

Believe in guns

Believe in freedom of speech (non liberal, of course)

(If you said yes to any of the above, you are in danger of being singled out as an enemy of modern American society. You are at risk. If you checked two or more update your passport. If you checked three or more you don’t want to know)

This is a new America. It is not the country I was born in. It is not the country it was four years ago. Almost none of the currently accepted principles of life, mores, or ethics, are the ones that built the country. This is tragic.

This once great nation that had its roots firmly embedded in a biblical worldview is now rejecting the same at all levels. In order to enjoy the full benefits and respect of being an American, people must now, not tolerate, but embrace evil. They must openly accept homosexuality, abortion, pornography, and blasphemy. It’s “un-American” to do otherwise. You will suffer in some form if you don’t raise your PC quotient. From God’s point of view to succumb to this cultural pressure is sin[i].

Not only does our society think we should embrace the bad (pronounced “evil”) things, we must also not verbalize support for anything traditional. This includes marriage between a man and a woman, heterosexual lifestyle, not killing our babies, and holding off on sex until married (Now that’s a prehistoric idea).

It’s pretty scary to think that Dan Cathy, COO of Chick-fil-A fell under vicious attack simply because he believes the Bible and God’s definition of marriage. He basically stated that he feared for America, that we deserved God’s judgment, and that he supported traditional marriage.

This apparently is a crime against humanity according to many. Mr. Cathy’s sentiments were enough to start a war of the words and the worldviews. We are still engaged over the furor that these remarks brought out from the far left. It also launched an overwhelming response from the right, especially Christians.

The Chick-fil-a battle may turn out to be one of those “shots heard around the world.” It is already leading to other battle lines being drawn and the intensification of the rhetoric. It is unbelievable that mayors of some major cities, like San Francisco, would condemn a private company because its COO holds traditional beliefs.

Wednesday, August 1^st was Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day. Governor Mike Huckabee had proposed a special day to support Chick-fil-A and it quickly mushroomed into a national effort. Over 200,000 had signed the pledge on Facebook to participate on the 1st. The number of people who signed on was quite large in spite of the fact that the signup page mysteriously disappeared for twelve hours. Then, suddenly, “Poof” it reappeared.

When August 1^st arrived the nation wide support of Chick-fil-A was no less than incredible. Preliminary reports are that the company broke all sales records that day. Here in Ellijay, Georgia, where I live, the cars were lined up around the block and you could barely get in the door. This continued all day. It is noteworthy that some other fast food franchises, such as some of the individually owned Wendy’s, joined in support of Chick-fil-A at least until corporate told them to stop.

Dan Cathy has stirred the pot even though I don’t think that was on his mind at all when he made his comments. People on all sides of the issues are now heavily engaged in this war of the worldviews and this is a good thing. At least people are getting involved, but it can explode into violence or chaos. This would not be good for anyone.

We, I truly believe, are in danger of God’s judgment. Why shouldn’t He judge us? As a culture can we really claim that we are good? Do we honor Him or His Word? No.

I agree with Dan Cathy when he said, “…that we are a prideful and arrogant nation for having the audacity to think we can redefine marriage from something other than that between a man and a woman, and may God have mercy on us all.

[i] Sin, n. Webster’s 1828 Dictionary. 1. The voluntary departure of a moral agent from a known rule of rectitude or duty, prescribed by God; any voluntary transgression of the divine law, or violation of a divine command; a wicked act; iniquity. Sin is either a positive act in which a known divine law is violated, or it is the voluntary neglect to obey a positive divine command, or a rule of duty clearly implied in such command. Sin comprehends not action only, but neglect of known duty, all evil thoughts purposes, words and desires, whatever is contrary to God’s commands or law. 1 John 3. Matt. 15. James 4. Sinner neither enjoy the pleasures of nor the peace of piety. Among divines, sin is original or actual. Actual sin, above defined, is the act of a moral agent in violating a known rule of duty. Original sin, as generally understood, is native depravity of heart to the divine will, that corruption of nature of deterioration of the moral character of man, which is supposed to be the effect of Adam’s apostasy; and which manifests itself in moral agents by positive act of disobedience to the divine will, or by the voluntary neglect to comply with the express commands of God, which require that we should love God with all the heart and soul and strength and mind, and our neighbor as ourselves. This native depravity or alienation of affections from God and his law, is supposed to be what the apostle calls the carnal mind or mindedness, which is enmity against God, and is therefore denominated sin or sinfulness. Unpardonable sin, or blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, is supposed to be a malicious and obstinate rejection of Christ and the gospel plan of salvation, or a contemptuous resistance made to the influences and convictions of the Holy Spirit. Matt.12.

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

CAN WE HAVE AN HONEST DISCUSSION WITHOUT POLITICAL CORRECTNESS?

I graduated high school in 1965. I was in the Marine Corps Oct 1, 1966. Viet Nam March of ’67 to April ’68. I missed much of the demonstrations going on as we were being shot at. Yet I still heard much of the rhetoric of the time and one phrase stands out from all the rest, “I’m tired of Christians shoving their religion down my throat”. Sometimes they would use the word “morals”. Have you ever heard anyone use a phrase like that?

Apparently those times have been lost on a certain group of people. Over the years they have grown bolder and bolder with their demonstrations, political activism and parades. They are a people who chose and lifestyle that all cultures have rejected as unwholesome and wrong. Some cultures have gone so far as to execute anyone who chooses this lifestyle and practices the same. As a result they have used every platform imaginable to “shove” their message, and lifestyle down all our throats, and shamed governments into giving them special rights, even those that will label this writing as “hate speech.” According to them, anything you say against them is “hate speech.”

In more recent years this group of people (about 1% of the population) have cried, screamed and hollered to force everyone else to accept their relationships as the same as one man and one woman marriage. Now the political Left is using this as another divisive weapon to further set citizens against each other. They are promoting discord, not peace.

Lets strip away the façade and have an honest discussion. First of all the chosen lifestyle is homosexual not “gay”. It is still a term in dictionaries, encyclopedias and medical books. It is unacceptable to allow any group of people to hijack acceptable English words and transforming them into a definition of their own just because they hate the word that describes them. “Gay” means happy; light-hearted. That describes most people I know. Non of the have chosen the homosexual lifestyle. Misusing the English language is one of the reasons our nations literacy is declining in record forces. If you have to change the English language in order to get others to accept you, then you have a serious problem with that chosen lifestyle. There are too many groups of people who have worked so hard at rewriting our language in an attempt to make people accept them, or to create their own version of the English language (i.e., “Street Language”).

Second, forcing their chosen lifestyle down the throats of the rest of the people is the exact act they have always complained about. Someone will label this article as hate speech, only because I have used the word homosexual. This word is in every dictionary, encyclopedias and medical books. This small group of people has used multiple forces to eradicate this word from society. As a result, other groups have started using this same “playbook” to get their group of people the same acceptance. Have you ever heard of Muslims and their Sharia Law?

I am one citizen who is tired and being forced to be tolerant. Throughout my business experience, as well as many other venues of my life, I worked with many people who I knew to be homosexual. I fact, one of those people was one of my best friends. He never made it an issue, and neither did I. When he was very sick and dying, he asked me to pray for him and I was honored to oblige. To this day I miss him.

I don’t hate people. I learned a long time ago to separate people from what they do. I can love any person while hating what they do. Anyone can change what they do without changing who they are. I learned this primarily through God’s Word, the Bible and my relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ. I have many times loved addicts of all description, while hating their addictions. People are to be loved and respected. Just because I hate their life choices does not mean I hate them.

If you’re honest enough, you will agree that you practice the same conduct. Your children can do things you do not like, or might even hate, but you still love them. Love doesn’t change (or shouldn’t), conduct can, and does. This myopic view of judging people by their conduct is not of God, but has its roots in cultural origins. It has to be taught, because no one is born with such attitudes.

Stop forcing me to accept something I know to be wrong. You chose a lifestyle, and then you have chosen the results of that lifestyle. I agree that any form of prejudice is wrong. So, stop your prejudice toward me because I do not choose to accept your choices. Stop labeling me with your pseudo political correctness. Stop making me accept your relationships as equal to what I know to be God’s perfect will for marriage. One man, one woman.

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Posts tagged ‘gay marriage’

BY: DAVID HARSANYI | MARCH 14, 2023

Share this:

Like this:

BY: STELLA MORABITO | NOVEMBER 29, 2022

Collectivists Hope to Destroy Private Life and Regulate Relationships

We Become Atomized Individuals in the State’s Eyes

Such Atomization Is a Totalitarian Necessity

Share this:

Like this:

BY: JOHN DANIEL DAVIDSON | NOVEMBER 22, 2022

John Daniel Davidson is a senior editor at The Federalist. His writing has appeared in the Wall Street Journal, the Claremont Review of Books, The New York Post, and elsewhere. Follow him on Twitter, @johnddavidson.

Share this:

Like this:

Reported By Michael Gryboski, Mainline Church Editor | Thursday, April 28, 2022

Follow Michael Gryboski on Twitter or Facebook

Share this:

Like this:

COMMENTARY BY: AUGUSTE MEYRAT | MARCH 28, 2022

Defense Based on Reason not Faith

Reasons Against Same-Sex Couples Adopting

A Right to a Mother and Father?

Share this:

Like this:

REPORTED BY: JOY PULLMANN | JANUARY 24, 2022

Share this:

Like this:

Reported by Ryan T. Anderson / @RyanTAnd / June 26, 2017 /

Today was a good day for religious freedom at the Supreme Court. In a 7-2 decision, the court upheld religious liberty by saying that a state cannot exclude a church from a public program just because it’s a church. That was the big case at the court.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR: Ryan T. Anderson/ @RyanTAnd

Share this:

Like this:

Authored By: David Barton | Posted: Monday, February 20, 2017 1:40 PM

“Government is instituted to protect property of every sort…Conscience is the most sacred of all property.” James Madison, Signer of the Constitution

“The rights of conscience and private judgment…are by nature subject to no control but that of Deity, and in that free situation they are now left.” John Jay, an Author of the Federalist Papers and original Chief Justice of the U. S. Supreme Court

“Consciences of men are not the objects of human legislation.” “The state [does not] have any concern in the matter. For in what manner doth it affect society . . . in what outward form we think it best to pay our adoration to God?” William Livingston, signer of the U. S. Constitution

Conscientious objectors are not forced to fight in wars;

Jehovah’s Witnesses are not required to say the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools;

The Amish are not required to complete the standard twelve years of education;

Christian Scientists are not forced to have their children vaccinated or undergo medical procedures often required by state laws;

Seventh-Day Adventists cannot be penalized for refusing to work on Saturday;

And there are many additional examples.

Absolute freedom of conscience in all matters of religious sentiment, belief, and worship shall be guaranteed to every individual; and no one shall be molested or disturbed in person or property on account of religion . . .

Several things are wrong with this decision.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Share this:

Like this:

By CLAIRE GALOFARO

“At the end of the day, we have to stand before God, which has higher authority than the Supreme Court,” said Randy Smith, leading the group supporting Davis.

Share this:

Like this:

Posted By -NO AUTHOR- On 07/10/2015

Among the questions he asks: “How long have you believed that gay marriage is something to be celebrated?” and “What Bible verses led you to change your mind?”

He also wants to know how a positive case can be made from Scripture “that sexual activity between two persons of the same sex is a blessing.”

“What verses would you use to show that a marriage between two persons of the same sex can adequately depict Christ and the church?”

Why, he asks, did Jesus “reassert the Genesis definition of marriage as being one man and one woman?”

“Do you believe that passages like 1 Corinthians 6:9 and Revelation 21:8 teach that sexual immorality can keep you out of heaven?”

“What arguments would you use to explain to Christians in Africa, Asia and South America that their understanding of homosexuality is biblically incorrect and your new understanding of homosexuality is not culturally conditioned?”

Specific to the United States, he asks, “Do you think Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama were motivated by personal animus and bigotry when they, for almost all of their lives, defined marriage as a covenant relationship between one man and one woman?”

Once the biblical standard is abandoned, he asks, “Should marriage be limited to only two people?” and “On what basis, if any, would you prevent consenting adults of any relation and of any number from getting married?”

40 Questions for Christians Now Waving Rainbow Flags

July 1, 2015 by Kevin DeYoung

1. How long have you believed that gay marriage is something to be celebrated?

2. What Bible verses led you to change your mind?

3. How would you make a positive case from Scripture that sexual activity between two persons of the same sex is a blessing to be celebrated?

4. What verses would you use to show that a marriage between two persons of the same sex can adequately depict Christ and the church?

5. Do you think Jesus would have been okay with homosexual behavior between consenting adults in a committed relationship?

6. If so, why did he reassert the Genesis definition of marriage as being one man and one woman?

7. When Jesus spoke against porneia what sins do you think he was forbidding?

8. If some homosexual behavior is acceptable, how do you understand the sinful “exchange” Paul highlights in Romans 1?

9. Do you believe that passages like 1 Corinthians 6:9 and Revelation 21:8 teach that sexual immorality can keep you out of heaven?

10. What sexual sins do you think they were referring to?

11. As you think about the long history of the church and the near universal disapproval of same-sex sexual activity, what do you think you understand about the Bible that Augustine, Aquinas, Calvin, and Luther failed to grasp?

12. What arguments would you use to explain to Christians in Africa, Asia, and South America that their understanding of homosexuality is biblically incorrect and your new understanding of homosexuality is not culturally conditioned?

13. Do you think Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama were motivated by personal animus and bigotry when they, for almost all of their lives, defined marriage as a covenant relationship between one man and one woman?

14. Do you think children do best with a mother and a father?

15. If not, what research would you point to in support of that conclusion?

16. If yes, does the church or the state have any role to play in promoting or privileging the arrangement that puts children with a mom and a dad?

17. Does the end and purpose of marriage point to something more than an adult’s emotional and sexual fulfillment?

**7. When Jesus spoke against porneia what sins do you think he was forbidding?**