Muddling Toward Maturity Blog

CHRIS RUFO - "THE REAL STORY BEHIND DRAG QUEEN STORY HOUR"

Here's a 10 minute video full of insight and history.  Definitely worth your time.

https://twitter.com/realchrisrufo/status/1750177876778143972

TWITTER CEO JACK DORSEY APOLOGIZES TO THE GAY CROWD FOR EATING AT A CHICK-FIL-A

I don't tweet.  If I did, I would seriously consider stopping using this service.  It's way too P.C. and far "Left" for my tastes. 

From the Daily Caller -

Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey on Sunday expressed regret over eating at Chick-fil-A, because of the chicken company’s CEO’s personal views on gay marriage.

Dorsey tweeted a screenshot from his phone that showed a purchase he had made at Chick-fil-A using a mobile application. After a liberal backlash, however, Dorsey apologized for eating at the popular fast food restaurant.

At issue was Chick-fil-A CEO Dan Cathy’s 2012 support for defining marriage as between a man and a woman, which he described as “the biblical definition of a family.”

Me:  This is so tiresome.  The new LGTQ fundamentalist religion calls for sinners to repent and anyone tempted to waver musst toe the line scrupulously to avoid being shamed and treated as an outcast. Corporations show craven compliance in a most disgusting way. 

-- I remember reading a few weeks ago this article: "Twitter is banning conservatives for posting facts." "... these bans come after users post 'hate facts' -- statements that are factually true, but politically inconvenient for progressives.

The most high-profile individual to be banned on this basis was Islam critic Tommy Robinson, who received a permanent ban from Twitter after he posted statistics showing that Muslims are vastly overrepresented in child grooming gangs in the U.K. Robinson is now taking Twitter to court to prove that “facts are now treated as hate.”

-- From a 5/3/18 post on this blog     -- Jamie Glazov suspended from Twitter for quoting  Islamic religious texts

Keep your eyes on twitter!  I am sadly confident we will read many more stories of Twitter censoring conservative views.

QUICK TAKES

   ** Robert Epstein - Your brain is not a computer   The "information processing" metaphor (IP), now dominate, when it is finally abandoned ("the IP metaphor is not even slightly valid"), will be seen as silly.

   ** David French's speech to homeschool graduates  - How to Live a Life of Privilege    Truly valuable reflections, observations, and exhortations.

   ** Andrew Strattaford - War on Cash - Besides the privacy it affords, cash serves "as a vital element in the preservation of the rights of the individual against the presumption of the state."

   **  Rod Dreher - "Transgender McCarthyism"  - Useful coverage of an asserted "right" that has left many of us further questioning the sobriety/sanity of the contemporary culture mindset

   **  Tyler Streckert - What It's Like to Be Gay at Wheaton College  -  "During my student years at Wheaton, I became healthier mentally, intellectually, socially, emotionally, and spiritually. When I tried to keep my orientation secret, I isolated myself from the very people who would love and accept me."  Streckert has devoted himself to celibacy.

NC GOV SAYS LGBT GROUP 'MORE POWERFUL THAN NRA'...

From Breitbart:

The embattled governor of North Carolina says the anti-Christian Human Rights Campaign is more powerful than the National Rifle Association, which is arguably the most powerful issue group in the United States.

Republican Governor Pat McCrory tells NBC that the powerful gay group has “…millions of dollars, which makes me want overturn [Citizens] United, because I don’t know who their donors are, either. But they are putting on a lot of pressure, instead of having a good dialogue.”

McCrory said, “I don’t think the government should be telling the private sector what their restroom and shower law should be, to allow a man into a woman’s restroom or shower facility at a YMCA, for example.”

McCrory is under continued assault from a highly organized and very rich coterie of homosexual organizations and their friends in business and the entertainment world for his defense of women and girls who do not want biological men urinating and showering with them.  

PayPaL - HYPOCRITE OF THE YEAR?

From the Family Research Council:

After this week, PayPal may need a pal! After pulling the plug on a major expansion in Charlotte, the money transfer business is getting hammered over their political posturing that is clearly inconsistent with their corporate actions and policies. CEO Dan Schulman kicked off the controversy when he announced earlier this week that he was so outraged by North Carolina’s H.B. 2 that he was scrapping plans for their Charlotte office. Why? Because the state won’t force businesses to let men in the women’s restroom. Like most Americans, Governor Pat McCrory (R-N.C.) thinks that decision belongs in the hands of individual companies -- not imposed on them by the government’s heavy hand.

Unfortunately, Schulman must not have read the bill he’s blasting because he made the knee-jerk reaction to pull out of the state over a measure that actually empowers businesses to operate their way. Executives like Schulman now have the right to set their own bathroom policy (which PayPal apparently has -- and not in favor of the agenda they supposedly support). But that’s just the first of many duplicities reporters say. “Becoming an employer in North Carolina,” Schulman argued earlier this week, “where members of our teams will not have equal rights under the law, is simply untenable. The new law perpetuates discrimination, and it violates the values and principles that are at the core of PayPal’s mission and culture.”

That’s interesting, Congressman Robert Pittenger (R) points out, considering that PayPal has no trouble doing business with more than 25 countries where homosexual behavior is illegal “including five where the penalty is death. Yet, they object to the North Carolina legislature overturning a misguided ordinance about letting men into the women’s bathroom?” North Carolina hasn’t outlawed homosexuality or discriminated against anyone. It hasn’t even barred men from women’s restrooms. All it did was guarantee that businesses have the freedom to set those policies themselves!

Unfortunately, Big Business, like the cultural bullies it reports to, is too busy complaining about the phony speck in someone else’s eye to realize the plank in its own. While Apple, Google, Home Depot, Facebook, and others sink their companies’ time and money fighting laws they think are “anti-gay,” their own companies are partnering with countries that actually are! How is it that PayPal can take conservatives to task for protecting business’s autonomy, when they consistently turn a blind eye to international partners that stone or jail the very population they claim to support? No wonder Rev. Franklin Graham is calling PayPal the “hypocrite of the year.” “PayPal operates in countries including Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, and Yemen for pete’s sake. Just last month PayPal announced they would be expanding in Cuba, a country in which people who identify as homosexual and transgendered have been imprisoned, tortured, and executed. PayPal only agreed to come to Charlotte in the first place after holding out for millions in corporate incentives. And under the current law that they are so strongly protesting, PayPal could have chosen their own corporate bathroom policies.”

As if that weren’t embarrassing enough, Erick Erickson reminded readers that Schulman’s group is already in plenty of hot water for violating U.S. sanctions. According to the Wall Street Journal, PayPal was processing payments for blacklisted countries like Cuba, Sudan, and Iran -- as well as a man operating a nuclear weapons black market. “In all, nearly 500 PayPal transactions, worth almost $44,000, potentially violated U.S. sanctions, according to the Treasury Department.” Who is PayPal to lecture anyone on business ethics? While Schulman gets on his moral high horse, his own company is forking over more than $7.7 million in fines for helping to arm America’s enemies! So maybe, when it comes to common sense local laws, PayPal should do what North Carolina’s law suggests -- and mind its own business.

IMPORTANT DISCUSSIONS ON HOMOSEXUALITY, THE BIBLE, AND THE CHURCH

I've come across a number of recent discussions on the current pressing topic of homosexality, the Bible and the church.  

-- On July 1, 2015 Kevin DeYoung published 40 Questions for Christians Now Waving Rainbow Flags

 DeYoung - 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 . . 

--  Two days later Matthew Vines, the author of God and the Gay Christian: The Biblical Case in Support of Same-Sex Relationships, and a current leading spokesman for "Gay Christians," posted a response titled, "40 questions for Christians who oppose marriage equality."

 Vines - ... But there are many pressing questions that non-affirming Christians frequently do not address. - 

--  Dr. Michael Brown published an impressive comprehensive response (July 10, 2015)  to Vines' "40 Questions" titled  "Dr. Michael Brown has 40 Answers and 2 Questions for "Gay" Christian Matthew Vines." 

--  Dr. Brown peers into the future in this July 3, 2015 podcast interview 

--  Brown debated Matthew Vines a year ago  (6/28/14) via webcam on a program moderated by Julie Roys titled, "Can You Be Gay and Christian?  Dr. Michael Brown Debates Matthew Vines."

   

-- After the debate Brown published  a follow-up article answering Vines' charge that the ancient world (and the Apostle Paul) knew nothing of loving, committed gay relationships as we know today.  As Brown noted, the Greco-Roman world was indeed fully aware of such relationships.   (See here and here).   Brown is the author of Can You Be Gay and Christian:  Responding with Love and Truth to Questions about Homosexuality (which ironically was published the same day as Vines' God and the Gay Christian).

 --  A British writer offered a personal response to Vine's 40 questions. 

 --  Of additional interest might be the NRB Forum Discussion on Homosexuality and the Church

July 1, 2015 -Janet Parshall hosted the discussion with Dr. Brown, ex-gay Anne Paulk, and pro-gay Christian leaders Justin Lee and Brandan Robertson. 

  

-- The popular and influential New York pastor-theologian and author, Tim Keller, recently offered a major review of Matthew Vines' book God and the Gay Christian and also Ken Wilson's A Letter to My Congregation.   Keller's review of these two books constitutes must reading.  

 

 - -  Rosaria Butterfield has published a new book, Openness Unhindered: Further Thoughts of an Unlikely Convert on Sexual Identity and Union with Christ.  This is a sequel to her extremely popular The Secret Thoughts of an Unlikely Convert.  Her hour-long interview (Jan. 2013) with World Magazine's Marvin Olasky generated over 100,000 views.

 

  

 

World Magazine summarized Secret Thoughts, her first book, this way:  "Butterfield described how God took her from lesbianism and a tenured professorship in English and Women's Studies at Syracuse University to friendship with a Christian couple, then church, then marriage to a Reformed Presbyterian pastor, and life as a homeschooling mother, pastor's wife, author, and speaker."  

 

From the publisher's blurb on her new book, Openness Unhindered:

This book answers many of the questions people pose when she speaks at universities and churches, questions not only about her unlikely conversion to Christ but about personal struggles that the ques­tioners only dare to ask someone else who has traveled a long and painful journey. Dr. Butterfield not only goes to great lengths to clarify some of today's key controversies, she also traces their history and defines the terms that have become second nature today-even going back to God's original design for marriage and sexuality as found in the Bible. She cuts to the heart of the problems and points the way to the solution, which includes a challenge to the church to be all that God intended it to be, and for each person to find the true freedom that is found in Christ. Chapters include: Conversion: the Spark of a New Identity Identity: the Flame of Our Union in Christ Repentance: the Threshold to God and the Answer to Shame, Temptation, and Sin Sexual Orientation: Freud’s 19th Century Category Mistake Self-Representation: What Does It Mean to Be “gay”? Conflict: When Sisters Disagree Community: Representing Christ to the World   World Magazine offers a book excerpt, chapter 4, (behind a pay barrier) here.    - - A resource for church ministry to those struggling with same-sex attraction is W.P. Campbell's Turning Controversy into Church Ministry: A Christian Response to Homosexuality.     --  Some previous posts on homosexuality:

"I’M A FLORIST, BUT I REFUSED TO DO FLOWERS FOR MY GAY FRIEND'S WEDDING"

I'm familiar with this story, as are most of you.  But the fact that Barronelle Stutzman published this article in the Washington Post May 12th struck me as significant. In her article Stutzman spells out the vicious attack made against her and which continues.   A fair-minded person has to ask, " Is this America?" - And by the way, what does it say about the integrity and "friendship" of her alleged gay friend?  I don't think he comes off well at all.  Stutzman writes:

I’ve been a florist in Richmond, Wash., for more than 30 years. In that time, I’ve developed close relationships with many of my clients.

One of my favorites was Rob Ingersoll. Ingersoll came in often and we’d talk. Like me, he had an artistic eye. I’d try to create really special arrangements for him. I knew he was gay, but it didn’t matter — I enjoyed his company and his creativity.

Then he asked me to create the floral arrangements for his wedding. I love Rob, and I’d always been happy to design for his special days. But there’s something different about a wedding.

Every person in the creative professions regularly has to make decisions about where they lend their artistic talents and which events they will participate in.  For me, it’s never about the person who walks into the shop, but about the message I’m communicating when someone asks me to “say it with flowers.”

CHRISTIAN LEADERS THREATEN CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE IF GAY MARRIAGE MADE THE LAW OF THE LAND

 

Caitlin Burke of CBN News reports:

A group of prominent Christian leaders is issuing a warning to the U.S. Supreme Court. If it makes gay marriage the law of the land, they will not obey.

The news comes as the high court is preparing to make a decision on same-sex marriage.

Two big questions are being considered: First, do same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry? Second, if they do not, must states with marriage bans recognize same-sex marriage licenses from other states?

"As of today, only 11 states have chosen to enact same-sex marriage. But if the Supreme Court says it's a constitutional right, we'll have it in all 50," Brad Jacob, associated professor at the Regent University School of Law, told CBN News.

"That means 39 states will have the will of the people overturned," he said. 

In a document titled, "Pledge in Solidarity to Defend Marriage," Christian leaders say they will continue to defend traditional marriage, even if it means civil disobedience. 

JUDICIAL MANDATING OF SAME-SEX MARRIAGE WOULD PUT THE U.S. AT ODDS WITH THE WESTERN WORLD

The Witherspoon Institute produces an online publication Public Discourse edited by Ryan T. Anderson.   An article published April 21st contains important information not well known:

Fewer than 9 percent of the countries belonging to the United Nations have redefined marriage to include same-sex relationships—and only one of those did so via its judiciary. A judicial redefinition of marriage would make the United States an extreme outlier on the global stage.

More - 

There is no “emerging global consensus” for same-sex marriage. In fact, same-sex marriage in any form has been adopted by only 17 of the 193 member states of the United Nations—a mere 8.8 percent. . . .  All of the rest—176 sovereign nations— retain the understanding of marriage as the union of a man and a woman. That is, taking the 193 member states of the United Nations as the reference point, over ten times as many countries disallow same-sex marriage as allow it. Additionally, more nations have constitutional provisions defining marriage as the union of a husband and a wife—47, as of last month—than have recognized any form of same-sex union. Many other countries have adopted legal protections of same-sex unions that stop short of changing the definition of marriage.

Still more - 

The list of the twelve tribunals in two foreign organizations and nine nations that have upheld male-female marriage against claims of discrimination reads like a Who’s Who of progressive, liberty-loving democracies: the European Court of Human Rights, the UN’s Human Rights Committee, and national courts in Germany, Austria, France, Spain, Finland, Italy (both the Constitutional Court and the Court of Cassation),Ireland, Chile, and Colombia. Even though these bodies and countries have strong and deep support for LGBT rights (and a few have legislatures that have gone on to legalize same-sex marriage), the courts have rejected claims that same-sex marriage should be judicially established as a fundamental or constitutional right. 

Read the whole article.

MILITARY HOMOSEXUAL ASSAULTS WAY UP

Unless I misunderstand what Defense Secretary Carter is reporting, homosexual assaults in the military are way up and basically out of control!  What utter foolishness to have opened our armed services to behavior that we now find destroying the confidence and cohesiveness of fighting units, a phenomena  widely and repeatedly predicted.  Political correctness won -- as usual.  We are reaping the results.  

 The Family Research Council summarizes:

In a talk to ROTC cadets Wednesday, Secretary Carter -- who inherited this mess after almost seven years of Obama's social engineering -- admitted that the military has a long way to go in cleaning up its act. Last year, he explained, thousands more men (10,400) were sexually assaulted than women (8,500) -- proving once again how misguided the crusade for open homosexuality was. "...[A]ltogether, that's 18,900 too many," Carter said. "No man or woman who serves in the United States military should ever be sexually assaulted."

A little over four years ago, Congress ignored the warnings of several leaders and charged ahead with its repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" against the military's advice. Under pressure from the White House, the Pentagon downplayed the effects of open homosexuality when it was implemented in 2011 -- something it's having a tough time doing now, with the rate of male-on-male abuse. And even Carter believes that's a low estimate -- in part because men are so reluctant to report abuse, especially from other men.

GROUPTHINK AND THE CROSS

Jay Nordlinger makes an acute observation:

Lately, as many of us often do, I’ve been writing about groupthink, mob hatred, the herd mentality, going with the flow, and the difficulty of being truly independent.  (Go here, for example.)  I’m not sure you’ll find a starker example than in Mark 15:

And they that passed by railed on him, wagging their heads, and saying, Ah, thou that destroyest the temple, and buildest it in three days, save thyself, and come down from the cross.

Likewise also the chief priests mocking said among themselves with the scribes, He saved others; himself he cannot save. Let Christ the King of Israel descend now from the cross, that we may see and believe.

And they that were crucified with him reviled him.

Even when you’re dying on the cross, as those two criminals were, you have to be with the in crowd?  You have to be cool?  Even then you can’t depart from the herd?  The pull to join in, to go with the flow, to hate who and what the mob hates, must be very, very strong. 

Me:  The pull to go with the flow is strong.  We all know that, and have experienced it, and most likely have been guilty.  I have.  Maybe going forward things will be different.   Maybe the present hysterical attack on Biblical morality will sort out "Christians" into those who choose to submit joyfully to the Lordship of Christ versus those who turn away to "fit in" and promote rebellious "freedoms."   It could be that the moral splendor of Christian faith will once again serve as a beacon and magnet for those tired of social and moral chaos, even as it did in the early church.  

QUESTIONS FOR INDIANA'S CRITICS: (OR, WHAT WILL THE FUTURE OF THE INGRAINING OF HOMOSEXUALITY IN AMERICA LOOK LIKE?)

Ross Douthat poses serious questions for "Progressives" to answer given their vision of ingraining homosexuality in America to the extent of legislating against any opposing views.  He asks:

1) Should religious colleges whose rules or honor codes or covenants explicitly ask students and/or teachers to refrain from sex outside of heterosexual wedlock eventually lose their accreditation unless they change the policy to accommodate gay relationships? At the very least, should they lose their tax-exempt status, as Bob Jones University did over its ban on interracial dating?

2) What about the status of religious colleges and schools or non-profits that don’t have such official rules about student or teacher conduct, but nonetheless somehow instantiate or at least nod to a traditional view of marriage at some level — in the content of their curricula, the design of their benefit package, the rules for their wedding venues, their denominational affiliation? Should their tax-exempt status be reconsidered? Absent a change in their respective faith’s stance on homosexuality, for instance, should Catholic high schools or Classical Christian academies or Orthodox Jewish schools be eligible for 501(c)3 status at all?

3) Have the various colleges and universities that have done so been correct to withdraw recognition from religious student groups that require their leaders to be chaste until (heterosexual) marriage? Should all of secular higher education take the same approach to religious conservatives? And then further, irrespective of leadership policies, do religious bodies that publicly endorse a traditional Judeo-Christian-Islamic view of sexual ethics deserve a place on secular campuses at all? Should the Harvard chaplaincy, for instance, admit ministers to its ranks whose churches or faiths do not allow them to perform same-sex marriages? Should the chaplaincy of a public university?

THE LIBERAL AGENDA IS BASED ON FAKE NEWS

A huge need exists to wise up to leftist lies and propaganda.  Rush Limbaugh correctly states:  "The Liberal Agenda is Based on Fake News."   

RUSH: "Hands up, don't shoot" did not happen. There were no rapes by frat houses and frat boys at the University of Virginia. Lena Dunham cannot prove that she was raped by a conservative at Oberlin College where she reputedly attended. The Duke lacrosse case was totally manufactured and made up. It did not happen. And on and on and on. Eric Garner in New York was not killed by a cop chokehold. He died of a heart attack on the way to the hospital. But never mind.

There is no discrimination against homosexuals in Indiana. All of this is drummed up and fake. Every one of these stories is fake. And when they are exposed as fake, such as the Rolling Stone University of Virginia rape story, when they are exposed as fake, how does the journalist responsible for the fakery and his or her accomplices in the rest of the Drive-By Media respond?

They say, "It may be, it may be fake. But it doesn't matter because we know it's happening elsewhere. We know rape is happening all over this country campus after campus after campus. It may not have happened there, it may not have happened in this case at the University of Virginia. But we know it's happening, and we have raised everybody's consciousness level about it, and so it was good."

And once again we're drawn back to the nature of the evidence when it comes to liberalism, irrelevant. The seriousness of the charge. In this case, the seriousness of the charge is that men are raping women on college campuses all the time, every day, and it's gotten out of hand. Another fake premise is that white cops are murdering and executing innocent black children every day in America. It's gotten out of hand. We gotta stop it. But it doesn't happen, and it hasn't happened.

And now we are off on another totally manufactured, made-up, fake story that there is rampant, wanton, Christian discrimination against loving homosexuals all over Indiana. It isn't true. You've heard about the story. The local TV affiliate, the ABC Eyewitness News affiliate walks into a pizza store 30 minutes south of Indianapolis. They just walk in. There's no reason. The store hasn't made any news. Nobody inside the store said anything. The media is going door-to-door. . . .  

They are shopping and hoping to find what they claim is discrimination and bigotry. So they walk into this pizza store after failing to find a business that meet their needs. They're just going door-to-door and they walk in, they finally find a naive woman who admits, "No, we wouldn't cater a gay wedding because of our Christian views." Never mind they never have, they've never been asked to, they've never said no, they've never refused to cater. It was totally made up, but that's not the story. The media's making it the story, but it's what happens after the Drive-By Media person goes into the business and concocts this fake story. It's what happens afterwards that is really fake.

Incidentally, regarding the pizza store that could not reopen and received numerous death threats (Memories Pizza), Dana Loesch conducted an interview and invited donations at GoFundMe.   As of 10:00 PM on April 2, 2015 over 13,000 people had contributed a total of over $395,000.  I am sure I will need to update that figure.

HUCKABEE ON INDIANA LAW: "THIS IS A MANUFACTURED CRISIS BY THE LEFT"

 

Huckabee:  "I'm watching these major corporations fold up like a cheap tent in a wind storm and it breaks my heart to see it. . .   I was in China last year, I was governor of Arkansas 10 and a half years; the people --  including the CEO of WalMart -- who said Arkansas shouldn't pass this law,  I'm wondering: I know Arkansas very well, and I know China a little bit.  WalMart does a lot of business in China and there is a lot more discrimination going on in Arkansas than there is in Arkansas."

**

Miscellaneous quotes:

Ed Whelan - H.L. Mencken famously defined puritanism as the “haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy.” Progressivism, it seems, should be defined as the “haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be making a decision you disapprove of—and the fervent use of government power to prevent and punish such a decision.”

Peter Steinfels - The whole point of freedom of religion is that it protects an extraordinary gamut of differing, frequently conflicting cosmologies, spiritual disciplines, and moral codes.  They may include refusing to fight in defense of the nation, rejecting certain foodstuffs or medical treatments, discouraging young people from secondary or higher education, honoring celibacy or condemning a variety of sexual practices, sacrificing animals, drinking alcohol, or ingesting hallucinogens for ritual purposes, prescribing certain head coverings or hairstyles despite school or occupational rules, insisting on distinct roles for men and women, withdrawing from friends and family for lives of silence and seclusion, marching in prayer through neighborhoods on holy days, preaching on street corners or otherwise trying to convert others to these persuasions. 

CUT HIS MIC OFF

Via Kathryn Jean Lopez who observes:  "A perfectly reasonable argument, shut down. This is where we are? This is where we want to be?"

 

Me:  Ryan Anderson isn't given a chance to complete his thought.  Since Anderson is the most articulate spokesperson who knows the law and knows the threat to religious freedom, I guess we shouldn't be surprised he would be cut off.   What's surprising is that MSNBC had him on in the first place.

- National Review Online offers an editorial:  "Liberals Against Religious Liberty in Indiana"  

- Andrew T. Walker - "Indiana's RFRA: Eight Theses"   Excellent overview and summation

Update: Ed Schultz brought Ryan Anderson back on his program, but Schultz still wouldn't allow Anderson to finish his thoughts and accused Anderson of not being capable of having a civil discussion.  Wow...   The truth is that Anderson is terrific.   Who is Ryan Anderson?  Click here or click "continue reading" below

 

- Good Q&A with Anderson on the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. - This is a MUST READ.  I may put it up on a separate blog post.  Click here.

- On the Daily Signal Ryan Anderson talks about getting cut off by Ed. Schultz:

 

GEORGE WILL'S OBSERVATIONS ON THE INDIANA RELIGIOUS FREEDOM BROUHAHA

 

Will offers sensible observations:

“There is nothing more tiresome in modern American life,” says columnist George Will, “than the indignation sweepstakes we get in all the time to see who can be most angry about this and that.” And the sweepstakes are on in Indiana. Responding to the outrage surrounding the Hoosier State’s new Religious Freedom Restoration Act, Will noted on Tuesday’s Special Report, “Tim Cook, CEO of Apple thinks Indiana is a horrible place. He opened marketing and retailing operations in Saudi Arabia two months before a man was sentenced to 450 lashes for being gay. The selective indignation is itself wonderful. “There are obviously two important principles at stake here,” Will continued. “One is, the government should rarely, and only with extreme difficulty, compel people to take actions contrary to their consciences. The other is that when you open your doors to commerce you open them to everybody. That’s a simple thing. It goes back to the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the public accommodations section, which is surely a great moment in American history. You can work this out, but the indignation isn’t helping.”

THOUSANDS PROTEST RELIGIOUS FREEDOM LAW IN INDIANA

Update 3/30/15  - Rush Limbaugh weighs in on Religious Freedom and the state of Indiana 

- The Family Research Council declares "Today We Are All Hoosiers" and asks people to sign a petition in support of Indiana Governor Mike Pence.

- David French at National Review Online offers an experienced perspective: 

After litigating religious liberty issues for more than 20 years, I’m used to utter hysteria erupting on the Left when Christians try to assert conventional and traditional religious liberty rights. . . 

So what’s really going on here? A toxic combination of anti-Christian bigotry and sexual revolution radicalism. It is simply uninformed and bigoted to believe that Christians are somehow lurking in the shadows, ready to deny food, shelter, and basic services to their gay fellow citizens — blocked from such vicious actions only by the strong arm of the state. In my entire life as an Evangelical, I’ve never met a fellow Christian who wouldn’t gladly serve a gay customer. If there are exceptions to that nearly-universal rule, they are so marginal (and marginalized) in the Christian community that they’re irrelevant not only to Christendom but also to the body politic.

But the Left, ever-vigilant against group-based slights on behalf of favored constituencies, is only too eager to label orthodox Christians as threats to the public. This bigotry has a purpose. It serves to demonize the last significant constituency standing in the way of sexual revolution radicalism. After all, unless you demonize your opposition, the general public will have little appetite for forcing Christians to pay for abortion pills, forcing Christian groups to open up to atheist leadership, or forcing Christian bakers or photographers to help celebrate events they find morally offensive. After all, there’s no clamor for requiring Kosher delis to stock pork or requiring gay lawyers to represent the Westboro Baptist Church. While RFRAs protect people of all faiths, from peyote-smoking Native Americans to Bible-toting florists, the Left’s outrage is narrowly targeted — against the Christian people whose livelihoods they seek to ruin, whose consciences they seek to appropriate, and whose organizations they seek to disrupt. #BoycottIndiana isn’t a cry for freedom. It’s nothing more than an online mob, seeking to bully those it hates.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/416176/want-evidence-hysterical-anti-christian-bigotry-look-no-further-boycottindiana-david

Update 3/29/15 - Indiana Governor Mike Pence appeared on ABC's "This Week" - 

NAVAL POLITICAL CORRECTNESS DESTROYING CHAPLAIN CAREERS

From Family Research Council:  (After reading FRCs report below, go over and look at a short video of Lt. Commander Wes Modder for yourself)

 . . . In the Navy, the message is clear: get on board with political correctness or lose your job. Like most Christians, Lt. Commander Wes Modder knew the military was changing. But he didn't know how much until the battle landed on his doorstep. For years, Modder had served some of the most elite fighting forces in the military: Navy SEALs.  [bolding mine throughout]

I say "had," because the 19-year veteran has been stripped of his duties for sharing the good news he was hired to share. In a stunning turn of events, the chaplain was sabotaged by one of his own men, who secretly gathered enough information on Modder's beliefs and private counseling sessions to file a formal complaint. Believe it or not, he was targeted by his own assistant -- who Modder didn't realize was gay. Looking back, the chaplain says the young officer asked a lot of questions about homosexuality, which Modder answered as most would expect: in accordance with the Bible's teachings.  

BARRONELLE STUTZMAN - WASHINGTON FLORIST FIGHTS FOR FREEDOM OF CONSCIENCE IN DECLINING A GAY WEDDING JOB

-- The Kelly file offers important and insightful coverage, including a personal interview with Barronelle Stutzman.  Video coverage (five minutes) here.

The Blaze offers the following:

 

Barronelle hires gay employees and serves gay customers but cannot in good conscience participate as a florist in a gay wedding.  So she is suffering the hate of the bigots and the might of the Washington State Attorney General who is going after her in a personal way.  Story here ..  

- - Andrew Walker published an article in First Things ("Stand with Barronelle Stutzman") and  writes:

   "In the ongoing cultural disputes that pit a person’s sexual “identity” against a person’s religious liberty, it’s not often that you see eye-popping courage and conviction. This is just what was on display last week when florist Barronelle Stutzman wrote a letter to Washington State’s Attorney General, stating her intent to not settle a discrimination lawsuit filed against her for refusing to lend her creative talents and services to a same-sex ceremony. Her brief letter is worthquoting in full:

Dear Mr. Ferguson,

Thank you for reaching out and making an offer to settle your case against me.

As you may imagine, it has been mentally and emotionally exhausting to be at the center of this controversy for nearly two years. I never imagined that using my God-given talents and abilities, and doing what I love to do for over three decades, would become illegal. Our state would be a better place if we respected each other’s differences, and our leaders protected the freedom to have those differences. Since 2012, same-sex couples all over the state have been free to act on their beliefs about marriage, but because I follow the Bible’s teaching that marriage is the union of one man and one woman, I am no longer free to act on my beliefs.

Your offer reveals that you don’t really understand me or what this conflict is all about. It’s about freedom, not money. I certainly don’t relish the idea of losing my business, my home, and everything else that your lawsuit threatens to take from my family, but my freedom to honor God in doing what I do best is more important. Washington’s constitution guarantees us “freedom of conscience in all matters of religious sentiment.” I cannot sell that precious freedom. You are asking me to walk in the way of a well-known betrayer, one who sold something of infinite worth for 30 pieces of silver. That is something I will not do.

I pray that you reconsider your position. I kindly served Rob for nearly a decade and would gladly continue to do so. I truly want the best for my friend. I’ve also employed and served many members of the LGBT community, and I will continue to do so regardless of what happens with this case. You chose to attack my faith and pursue this not simply as a matter of law, but to threaten my very means of working, eating, and having a home. If you are serious about clarifying the law, then I urge you to drop your claims against my home, business, and other assets and pursue the legal claims through the appeal process. Thanks again for writing and I hope you will consider my offer.

Sincerely,

Barronelle Stutzman

Ms. Stutzman isn’t complying. She’s refusing to settle. Not only is she not complying, she has responded in defiance, and rightfully so. She’s called their bluff. She’s said to the state: “Bring it on.” She has counted the cost and determined that the sacredness of her conscience cannot be exchanged for handouts from the state.

For her stand, she’s been vilified on social media and called a discriminatory bigot by institutions such as Think Progress, one of whose activists insisted that her failure to comply means she “didn’t learn her lesson.”

She is also threatened with the loss of her personal assets, not just her business. Here’s a seventy-year-old grandmother with less money, less cultural capital, than many who would be unwilling to take such a stand.

The gay rights lobby in America has had much success, but it is overreaching by insisting upon ideological conformity, by overturning the centrality of the natural family, by paving-over conscience, by instilling fear of reprisal, by elevating sexual orientation above competing considerations, by subjugating the Christian religion whose anthropology helped shape our constitutional order. They overreach by castigating fellow Americans whose belief—that marriage turns on the male–female difference—has been held since the beginning of recorded history.

Those who want to live in a free society—whether they oppose or support gay marriage—should condemn the push to turn innocent grandmothers like Barronelle Stutzman into lawbreakers. I stand with Barronelle Stutzman. Do you?

- Andrew Walker is Director of Policy Studies at The Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission and a PhD student in Christian Ethics at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. Image adapted from Alliance Defending Freedom. 

GROWING UP WITH LESBIAN TENDENCIES IN 1985 vs. 2015

I found Jean Loyd's article,"The Girl in the Tuxedo,"  important -- indeed, essential -- reading for anyone wanting to think clearly about same-sex attractions.   As Lloyd points out, there's a huge difference between growing up in 1985 vs. 2015.    Previously, Jean Lloyd wrote "Seven Things I Wish My Pastor Knew About my Homosexuality."  I suggest reading "The Girl in the Tuxedo" first.

COUNSELING MINORS WISHING TO BE FREE FROM GAY ORIENTATION BARRED IN WASHINGTON, D.C.

Family Research Council Opposes DC City Council Vote 
December 02, 2014   [Bolding is my own]

Washington, D.C. - Today, Family Research Council (FRC) voiced opposition to the District of Columbia City Council's vote to bar licensed mental health providers from participating in sexual orientation change efforts (SOCE) with minors in the nation's capital. Similar laws have previously been enacted in California and New Jersey, but stalled in the legislatures in more than twelve other states.

Peter Sprigg, Senior Fellow for Policy Studies at FRC, testified against the bill at a DC City Council committee hearing in June. Following passage of the bill today, he issued the following statement:

"The DC City Council disregarded powerful testimony by therapists who debunked misconceptions about sexual reorientation therapy and by clients who had benefited from it.

"This new law is an outrageous assault upon the freedom of speech of therapists, the freedom of religion of clients who seek help in living lives consistent with their faith, and the privacy of the therapist-client relationship.

"Laws like the ones in California, New Jersey, and now in DC are completely unprecedented. Never before has a state outlawed a form of mental health counseling based not upon the techniques used, but solely upon the goal which the client seeks to achieve. This is a shocking violation of the longstanding ethical principle of client autonomy.

"There is no scientific research demonstrating that sexual orientation change efforts cause harm to minors-none. States and jurisdictions should respect the privacy of the therapist-client relationship, not impose restrictions that prevent young people from getting the help that some so desperately want," Sprigg concluded.

U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT PRIORITIZES LGBT ISSUES OVER RELIGIOUS LIBERTY

The Family Research Council notes: 

. . . With 13.6 million people displaced in the Middle East, and men and women of faith on the run in Africa, the State Department decided to weigh in with its third “Conference to Advance the Human Rights of and Promote Inclusive Development for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Persons.”

Instead of tackling one of the most fundamental human rights crises of our time -- international religious hostility -- administration officials zeroed in on “the specific needs of transgender persons; how to best engage faith communities to support the human rights of LGBT persons; and the best ways to integrate these priorities into development programs.” This week, the State Department will be spending time on homosexuality while people are literally dying for the right to practice religious liberty. The State Department has been aggressively leaning on foreign governments to abide by their values -- which, as the last election proved -- are inconsistent with the vast majority of Americans.

As I’ve said before, persecution abroad is directly related to our religious intolerance here at home. And until Congress and the White House make this an issue, the spike in persecution will only climb higher. What America does publicly communicates our priorities to the world. And what we’re communicating now is that the United States is too consumed with the radical sexual agenda of 2.7% of the population to help millions of hurting Christian men, women and children.

This, by the way, is in total contradiction to duly-enacted federal policy. The Obama administration is ignoring the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998 which states: “it shall be the policy of the United States…to condemn violations of religious freedom, and to promote, and to assist other governments in the promotion of, the fundamental right to freedom of religion.”

In the congressional hearing over Mariam Ibraheem, Congressman Chris Smith (R-N.J.) was one of many leaders frustrated by the status quo. “We need to ratchet up, I think. And Mr. Perkins, your point about other issues becoming prioritized, frankly, I have been shocked and dismayed by how many Ambassadors and foreign leaders have told me to my face that the LGBT agenda is what trumps everything in the U.S. foreign policy. So religious freedom, in a way, is seen as an impediment to the advancement of that.” The new Congress must hold this Obama administration accountable to the law, which includes religious freedom.  [my bolding]

THOUSANDS STAND WITH PASTORS TARGETED BY HOUSTON MAYOR

 

Paul Strand of CBN News reports:

Thousands gathered in a Houston church Sunday evening and many more watched online to defend the right of pastors to be free of government intimidation.

The gathering came after Houston Mayor Annise Parker, a lesbian, and fellow officials subpoenaed the sermons of five pastors.

Host Tony Perkins, head of the Family Research Council, told the crowd at Houston's Grace Community Church that more than 700 churches and 3,000 home groups had signed up to take part in the "I Stand Sunday" event via the webcast.

"I stand here today with you that I may speak, preach and teach on the issues that deal with society, the issues that the Bible speaks about," Pastor Hernan Castano of Iglesia Rios de Aceite, one of the "Houston Five" -- as the pastors have become known -- said.

Mayor Parker became upset with church-organized opposition to a pro-gay, pro-transgender city ordinance. In a legal move, she had called for local pastors' sermons to be subpoenaed.

Erik Stanley, a senior legal counsel at Alliance Defending Freedom, has been representing the pastors.

"These subpoenas are just one front in a rapidly developing conflict. And the philosophy underlying this conflict is that sexual liberty trumps everything, including religious liberty," Stanley said.

N.Y. Farm Owners Must Pay $13K Fine for Declining Lesbian Wedding

This story is both amazing and disgusting.  Andrew Johnson of National Review Online writes:

A New York State Division of Human Rights fined Cynthia and Robert Giffords $13,000 earlier this month for refusing to let a lesbian couple use their farm for their same-sex wedding.

In 2012, fiancées​ Melisa Erwin and Jennie McCarthy expressed interest about using the Giffords’s Liberty Ridge Farm in Schaghticoke, N.Y., for their upcoming ceremony, which hosts various events. According to McCarthy’s own account, it appears the Giffords politely declined the request and apologized for the inconvenience.

“When we asked why it was just, ‘That’s what my husband and I decided. We’ve been married a long time and it’s great you’re getting married and all, but you can’t do it here,’” McCarthy told WNYT at the time. The Daily Signal notes that the Giffords, who are heavily involved in the planning, live on the second and third floor of the barn used for events, and use the second floor as a bridal suite on wedding days.

But a New York State administrative-law judge ruled that even though the Giffords live at the farm, it is also a place of public accommodation and must abide by the state’s anti-discrimination laws, according to the Washington Times. ​“The fact that the Giffords also reside at Gifford Barn does not render it private,” the decision reads.​

As a result, the Giffords must pay $13,000 in fines: $10,000 in civil damage penalties to the state and a $1,500 mental-anguish fine to each of the women.​

The couple’s attorney said they are considering taking further legal action or appealing the ruling.

The Gifford are just the latest individuals to face penalties for refusing to violate their faith and take part in a same-sex wedding — others include a Colorado baker and a New Mexico photographer.

 This ruling is totally unjust!  

PRESIDENT OBAMA THE COERCIVE BULLY IN CHIEF

[Edited post]  With President Obama, you either agree with his LGBT agenda or you lose business, contracts from the government, and/or your job.   (Or if you are a country in Africa, you lose American AID money).  Today Obama issued another of his "executive orders" (yet another pontifical edict limiting freedom of thought) mandationg  that all federal contractors and subcontractors grant special treatment to the politically-charged categories of "sexual orientation" and "gender identity" in the workplace.  The Family Research Council responded:   

With the world in deep turmoil, and a struggling economy, Americans are looking for leadership to confront these many challenges. What kind of leadership do we see coming from the White House? Last month's "gay pride month" consumed much of the Obama administration's attention and this month isn't any different. This morning President Obama gathered a group of LGBT activists at the White House to sign an executive order mandating that all federal contractors and subcontractors -- regardless of their religious and moral convictions -- give special treatment to homosexuals, transgenders, and cross-dressers in the workplace. This action is wrong on the merits, because it accepts the premise that distinctions based on actual conduct -- such as homosexual behavior and cross-dressing -- should be treated the same way as distinctions based on immutable and innocuous characteristics like race. This order gives activists a license to challenge their employers and, expose those contracted employers to threats of costly legal proceedings and the potential of jeopardizing future contracts. The order further burdens contractors by stripping away their right to set dress and grooming standards. All this amounts to viewpoint blackmail and bullies into silence those contractors and subcontractors who have moral objections to homosexual behavior. This morning President Obama told the assembled group of activists, "We're on the right side of history." Mr. President, being on the wrong side of the natural law is never being on the right side of history.

The President is placing at risk not only faith-driven employers but religious groups such as relief organizations which sometimes put government dollars to work in uniquely effective ways. The President's refusal to completely exempt religious businesses from this executive order betrays his true agenda -- forcing his own conformist views upon everyone else, and making America less free in the process. Now Americans are left to sort out the costs to religious and constitutional liberties. The President's priorities aren't drawing much enthusiasm from the American public. AHuffington Post poll finds only 50% of Americans support an ENDA-type law, which gives preference to homosexuals and transgenders in the workplace. As President Obama continues to drive America over the cultural cliff, don't be surprised when more and more Americans refuse to follow. 

** Updates:

-- Andrew Walker of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission concludes a response saying:  "The sexual revolution marches on; and it doesn’t allow for dissenters."

-- Rayan T. Anderson notes that "Today’s executive order undermines our nation’s commitment to pluralism and religious liberty."  He states further:

Today’s order is problematic for four reasons, but there is at least one thing that can be done in response.

1. Today’s order undermines our nation’s commitment to reasonable pluralism and reasonable diversity, as it disregards the consciences and liberties of people of goodwill who happen not to share the government’s opinions about issues of sexuality. All Americans should be free to contract with the government without penalty because of their reasonable beliefs about morally contentious issues. The federal government should not use the tax code and government contracting to reshape civil society about controversial moral issues that have nothing to do with the federal contract at stake.

2. Today’s order treats conscientious judgments about behavior as if they were insidious acts of discrimination akin to racism or sexism. But sexual orientation and gender identity are not like race. Indeed, sexual orientation and gender identity are unclear, ambiguous terms. They can refer to voluntary behaviors as well as thoughts and inclinations, and it is reasonable for employers to make distinctions based on actions. By contrast, “race” and “sex” clearly refer to traits, and in the overwhelming majority of cases, these traits (unlike voluntary behaviors) do not affect fitness for any job.

3. Today’s executive order also does not contain a Bona Fide Occupational Qualification (BFOQ) exemption. BFOQs allow employers to make employment decisions so long as those decisions are honestly related to job qualifications. For example, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act contains a BFOQ that allows employers to take sex into account: hiring a female camp counselor at an all-girls sleep-away summer camp, for example, which might otherwise seem to be “sex discrimination.”

4. Today’s executive order is unnecessary. Voluntary market forces are already eliminating true discrimination, as making employment decisions based on non-relevant factors hurts one’s ability to compete. But the federal government should not penalize those contractors that do conscientiously judge sexual orientation or gender identity to be relevant to their mission and purpose.

5. In response to this executive order, Congress has an opportunity to protect religious liberty and the rights of conscience. Policy should prohibit the government from discriminating against any individual or group, whether nonprofit or for-profit, based on their beliefs that marriage is the union of a man and woman or that sexual relations are reserved for marriage. The government should be prohibited from discriminating against such groups or individuals in tax policy, employment, licensing, accreditation, or contracting. This is the policy approach proposed by the Marriage and Religious Freedom Act (H.R. 3133, S. 1808). 

Protecting religious liberty and the rights of conscience fosters a more diverse civil sphere. Indeed, tolerance is essential to promoting peaceful coexistence even amid disagreement.

MERIAM IBRAHIM, THE CHRISTIAN MOTHER IMPRISONED IN SUDAN AND SENTENCED TO DIE FOR APOSTASY, HAS BEEN FREED

Update 6/24/14   10:30 PM - Meriam cannot leave the country!!  The British Daily Mail reports in an exclusive story that she is being charged with fraud.  Reporter Dan Bates writes:

. . . Meriam Ibrahim has been accused of falsifying travel documents as she tried to leave the African country hours after the death penalty was dropped against her.

It is understood that the authorities told her she should have used the Muslim name she had when she was born, not the Christian name she uses after choosing to worship that faith.

It is not clear if her husband Daniel Wani, who is from Manchester in New Hampshire, has also been charged with any offenses.

The new allegations are a huge setback to Meriam's hopes of leaving Sudan and a further sign that the Sudanese government is playing twisted games over her release.

Meriam, a doctor, is on bail which was put up by a friend. She cannot leave Sudan until this matter is resolved as part of her bail conditions.

It came as campaigners working to free the mother-of-two attacked the U.S. Department of State for its ‘shameful’ response to helping her.

Tina Ramirez, founder of religious freedom organization Hardwired, called for Congress to investigate the 'incredibly negligent' handling of Meriam Ibrahim’s case.

Meriam and her husband were detained at the airport of the Sudanese capital Khartoum when they tried to leave the country with their son Martin, 21 months, and daughter Maya, one month.

Meriam was only freed on Monday after nine months in jail, during which she was shackled to the floor while she gave birth to Maya.

As noted, Tina Ramiraz of Hardwired, accuses the State Department of incredible negligence.  Read the whole news report to understand why.  Note also the reporter's chilling observation:

In a worrying twist, Meriam and Daniel were taken into custody by the feared National Intelligence and Security Services, MailOnline has confirmed.

NISS does not operate through the courts if it claims to be working on a matter of national security and can detain people indefinitely, Hardwired said.

The organisation was described as ‘Agents of Fear’ in a damning report by human rights campaigners Amnesty which outlined a catalogue of abuses they had carried out.

NISS is also notorious for taking prisoners to secret 'ghost houses' where they are tortured. . . 

We need to pray this family safely released and out of Sudan!  

(Original Post) - The following CBN News video interview offers  lots of insights into the freeing of Meriam Ibrahim.  Noteworthy is that Ibrahim was represented by Muslim lawyers who demonstrated tremendous courage in so doing.   Also noteworthy has been the negligence of the U.S. Embassy in Khartoum.   As Tony Perkins points out, "where the Obama administration has fallen short, House and Senate conservatives have not. Congressmen from Mark Meadows (R-N.C.), Chris Smith (R-N.J.), and Trent Franks (R-Ariz.) to Senators Cruz, Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), and Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.) were doing the heavy lifting -- while not a single White House official met with the Sudanese ambassador."  

 

Perkins also notes that,

If the State Department isn't busy bringing Meriam home or dealing with the imploding Middle East, what exactly is it doing? According to Secretary Kerry, he's "working hard to… have lesbian, bisexual, and transgender ambassadors." Like his boss, Kerry foreign policy seems to be a foreign concept for this administration, whose only real overseas "progress" is bullying other nations into accepting this President's twisted sexual agenda.

During last week's LGBT pep rally at the State Department, Kerry's rah-rah moment was saying that if confirmed, Ted Osius would be the sixth openly homosexual ambassador. "… We now have hundreds of LGBT individuals in our bureaus at State, USAID, and at posts all around the world." Of course, what Kerry neglected to mention is that many of those posts are in complete and utter turmoil -- in large part because the Obama administration is too obsessed with its homosexual agenda to focus on the real priority of protecting America's national interests. It all confirms what former Defense Secretary Robert Gates wrote in his book -- the only time he sensed passion from the President about any issue involving the military was overturning "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."

Last week I read of the disturbing fanatical gay foreign policy of the Obama Administration when it cut U.S. aid to Uganda because it refuses to bow down to imperialist U.S. government pressures to remove restrictions on homosexual practice in the country.  I read:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States on Thursday cut aid to Uganda, imposed visa restrictions and canceled a regional military exercise in response to a Ugandan law that imposes harsh penalties on homosexuality.

The White House said in a statement the measures were intended to "reinforce our support for human rights of all Ugandans regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity."

Homosexuality is taboo in most African countries and illegal in 37, including in Uganda where it has been a crime since British rule.  [more . . .]

Which leads one to ask why the Obama administration doesn't cut aid to countries that persecute Christians?  Why doesn't it, at the very least, advocate for freedom of religion and speak up on behalf of imprisoned Christians?  Why the Johnny one-note imperialist commitment to homosexual acceptance worldwide and failure to address human rights more broadly?

The news of Ibrahim's release has brought to my attention the good work of Hardwired, an organization I had not heard of before. 

MARCH FOR MARRIAGE IN WASHINGTON, D.C.

Update from the March:

 

Original post:  Watch live today via internet here  [Update note: The speeches may still be viewed at this link).

The Washington Times newspaper has produced a special edition - 

 

• 

  Traditional marriage proponents fight on

  By Cheryl Wetzstein - The Washington Times

  With stunning swiftness, the legal landscape for same-sex marriage has been reshaped in less than a year after the Supreme Court struck down part of the federal Defense of Marriage Act. Published June 18, 2014

   
• 

  Polling on marriage: The american people continue to support preserving marriage as the union of one

  By Frank Schubert

  It's become an article of faith in media reporting that there has been a massive shift in public opinion in favor of same-sex 'marriage.' Published June 18, 2014

• 

  Biblical marriage is beautiful

  By Dr. Mark A. Smith and OCU President

  Current society finds many citizens deciding critical issues based on polls or humanistic thinking- which views humans as the decision makers or as "gods" of their own lives. I, in turn, take a biblical view of allowing my belief system to be shaped by biblical foundation principles. Published June 18, 2014

   

DR. MICHAEL BROWN: "CAN YOU BE GAY AND CHRISTIAN?"

. . .  Two days ago Dr. Michael Brown gave an outstanding talk about his book, Can you Be Gay and Christian?:  Responding with Love and Truth to Questions about Homosexuality.   He arrived late at the FRC venue because of airline difficulties.  Consequently the video begins at 13:45 .  Highly recommended.

 

Michael Brown is the author of 25 books.  He hosts the nationally syndicated talk radio show, the Line of Fire.   He holds a Ph.D. in Near Eastern Languages and Literatures from New York University and serves as a visiting or adjunct professor at a number of seminaries.  AskDrBrown.org is his website.  His latest article notes the necessary divide on homosexuality between those holding to Scriptural authority and those who don't.   This is an excellent article.  An excerpt follows:

QUIN HILYER - "ENOUGH WITH GAY MANIA"

Quin Hilyer published a fantastic column for National Review today.  His piece carries the subtitle, "How about a little old-Fashioned privacy for all stripes?"  It's MUST READING! 

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/371799/enough-gay-mania-quin-hillyer

QUICK TAKES

Christian Athletes to Watch at the Olympics

A Leftist Lesbian Professor becomes a Follower of Christ

Through Dreams, Investigations, and Visions a Muslim Doctor becomes a follower of Jesus

Muslims becoming Jesus followers in unprecedented numbers

ANDREW E. HARROD - LGBT AND SHARIA AGENDAS DISPLAY SURPRISINGLY SIMILAR TOTALITARIAN TENDENCIES

Andrew E. Harrod has penned a column that brilliantly and compellingly spells out the similarities between the two aggressive movements - Islamic sharia and Gay Rights.  Both censor and silence opposition.  Harrod:  (HT: VirtueOnline)

. . .  Parallels between these two movements had occurred to me before while reporting on the Family Research Council’s (FRC) Values Voter Summit (VVS).  As discussed here, Christians along with others face violence from sharia-supporting Muslims and legal demands to support phenomena such as same-sex “marriage” (SSM) or abortion.  While some Muslims destroy churches abroad, LGBT advocates along with others destroy businesses at home in a two-front war against Christian faith and morals.

A similar duality exists in the world’s democracies with respect to campaigns against “homophobia” and “Islamophobia.”  As used by their various proponents, these terms define as a phobia or irrational fear any reservation to any beliefs and behaviors of LGBT and Muslim individuals respectively.  For these ideologues only public approval, not just private autonomy, will suffice.

This demand for public approval is perhaps most manifest in the censorship of criticism.  Americans, for example, recently received a graphic display of LGBT wrath in failed attempts to pressure the firing of Duck Dynasty star Phil Robertson.  Analyzing this latest of similar homosexual power plays, various conservatives spoke of “Homosexual jihadists” and a “‘Duck Dynasty’ jihad.”

Abroad, however, individuals have also faced legal repercussions for opposition to LGBT behavior.  Canada, for example, has witnessed a host of legal actions against opposition, sometimes merely spoken, to SSM since this became law in 2005.  Letters against homosexuality in the United Kingdom, meanwhile, have brought police visits and hate speech law warnings.  Swedish Pastor Åke Green also endured a 2004 hate speech conviction due to his pulpit denouncement of homosexuality before the Swedish Supreme Court overturned his sentence in 2005.

QUICK TAKES

--  New Egyptian constitution gives greater freedom to Christians  (Ht: Mere Comments)

New Egyptian constitution gives greater freedom to Christians - See more at: http://touchstonemag.com/merecomments/#sthash.TAMyecCs.dpuf

New Egyptian constitution gives greater freedom to Christians - See more at: http://touchstonemag.com/merecomments/#sthash.TAMyecCs.dpuf

--  Biblical Archaeology's Top Ten Discoveries of 2013

--  Iran Steps Up Its Campaign Against Christians (Current!)

-- Interesting statistics of Bible verses shared over the internet  (You'll find this infographic interesting!)

--  Israeli soldiers warned against contact with Messianic Jews  (Appeasing the ultra-Orthodox)

-- China's navy and air power rapidly rising to  eventually control Western Pacific  (Very sobering analysis of U.S. decline)

- - World Magazine's Top 25 articles for 2013 (Articles that generated the most reader traffic on World's website - really interesting!)

ASSESSING THE DUCK DYNASTY CONTROVERSY

Bill Muehlenberg doesn't mince words in his column, "A Culture of Bullying and Intolerance."

We now know without the slightest doubt that the homosexual militants are a pack of bullies who thrive on intimidation, stand-over tactics, and thuggery. And they are clearly one of the most intolerant groups on the planet. They have declared war on every single person on earth who refuses to bow down before their agenda.

They have perfected the art of bullying, belligerency and brow-beating, and all opposition will face the wrath of the pink mafia. The examples of these are of course legion, with the most recent battle fought over a few guys who make duck calls for a living and happen to be forthright about their Christian faith.

For having the audacity to actually proclaim in public what the Bible says about the issue of homosexuality, all hell has broken loose, with the A&E network suspending Phil Robertson from his own show a few weeks ago. A storm of protest rightly erupted over this nasty bit of intolerance, and the network was forced to back down.

It all serves as yet another clear illustration of the culture of intolerance and bullying which has sprung up all over the West, primarily at the hands of the militant homosexual lobby. They think they own the world, and can push their agenda with impunity, and smash all dissent along the way.

But the public outrage at the homonazis in general, and the activist groups like GLAAD in particular (which launched this assault on Duck Dynasty), shows that for every action there is a reaction, and most folks in America at least have had a gutful of these bullies trying to coerce everyone else to embrace their perverted agenda.

MAGGIE GALLAGHER'S THOUGHTS ON PUTIN

I found Gallagher's thoughts on Putin's Russia novel and arresting.  Is she way off the beam or could she be correct?  On other matters (such as traditional marriage) she is spot on.  Is Putin really fighting the relativism of the West?   Gallagher writes:

Friends are sending me copies of Putin’s speech. It is extremely clear to me that Putin is trying to create a Russian resistance to Western decadence, melding a revived Russian Christianity with Islamic moral values to create an alternative to the emerging non-pluralism of the West.

The West’s new pluralism was in evidence recently at a public university in Ireland when it kicked out the venerable Legion of Mary for distributing “anti-gay” pamphlets suggesting that Catholics should dedicate themselves to a life of interior chastity and which included the line “I’m a child of God, don’t call me gay.”

The university explained: “NUIG has a pluralist ethos and will not condone the production and dissemination of any material by students which discriminates against other students.  Discrimination or implied or direct harassment, on the basis of sexual orientation and/or religion, is contrary to Irish and European law.”

But you don’t have to look any further than the Center for American Progress for the American version, in which panelists agree that religious-liberty exemptions constitute “slavery.” . . .

Me: That Western elite thought has caved in to accepting, and even celebrating, homosexual behavior is widely recognized.  Is Russia self-c0nsciously resisting Western decadence as Gallagher suggests?  If true, is that not remarkable?

DENNIS PRAGER - THE LEFT'S HATRED FOR THE RIGHT IS VENOMOUS

Dennis Prager, in an article about Liz Cheney and her lesbian sister Mary, puts it this way:  {my emphases]

There are individual haters on the right and individual haters on the left. But there is no large-scale hatred in the United States of America today that compares with the hatred of the Left for the Right. Whereas the Right regards the Left as wrong — even destructively wrong — the Left regards all those on the right as evil: “Sexist,” “intolerant,” “xenophobic,” “homophobic,” “Islamophobic,” “racist,” “bigoted” are typical descriptions of the Right made by the most respected names on the left. This hatred is what enabled MSNBC’s Martin Bashir to broadcast — reading from a teleprompter, meaning that it was not spontaneous — that Sarah Palin deserves to have someone defecate and urinate into her mouth. (He later offered an apology; he has not been fired.)

But among all of the Left’s hatreds, none compares with its hatred of anyone who believes that marriage should remain defined as the union of a man and a woman. The Left believes anyone, or any business, that supports the only gender-based definition of marriage that has ever existed should be politically, personally, and economically destroyed. Recall, for example, the Left’s attempt to drive out of business a restaurant in Los Angeles because one of its employees donated $100 to California’s Proposition 8, the Left’s boycott of Chick-fil-A, and the Left’s vicious attacks on the Mormon Church.  [more . . .]

Me: The Left's hatred is born of a deep blindness difficult for those on the right to conceive, but a totalitarian, passion-driven revolt against right order and beauty.   See Prager's article above for elaboration.  See also Quin Hilyer's commentary on Prager's points and the leftist hatred.

SOCIETY SLOWLY BECOMING AWARE OF EX-GAYS

Joseph Nicolosi, Ph.D., writes:

. . . Despite the intimidating influence of gay activism, society is beginning to recognize the ex-gay person's existence, as ex-gay men and women are telling us about their lives. Further, there is an impressive group of ex-gay websites, such as peoplecanchange.com, restoredhopenetwork.com, and voices-of-change.org, where ex-gay men and women tell their stories.

People Can Change continues to offer its JIM (Journey Into Manhood) Weekends, scheduled in 2013 for several locations in the U.S., as well as one in Israel. The ex-gay person was also recently legally acknowledged by Washington D.C. as a distinct sexual minority.

The new support group Restored Hope Network has also emerged, vibrant and powerfully committed, to replace Exodus Ministries (which recently closed down). Further, the Executive Director of HA (Homosexuals Anonymous), Dr. Douglas McIntyre, launched a 10-day tour this summer to lobby for freedom of choice for youth to pursue counseling for unwanted homosexuality.  [more . . .]

CONTRARY TO WHAT YOU MAY HAVE BEEN TOLD, THERE IS NO "STAMPEDE" TO SUPPORT SAME SEX MARRIAGE

Family Research Council sets the record straight:

The media can spin the news, but it can't rewrite the facts on same-sex "marriage." Social scientist Mark Regnerus made that quite clear in his analysis of public opinion on the topic. Leaning on new Rice University research, the University of Texas professor debunks the convenient storyline of most of reporters -- which is that there's an avalanche of support for homosexual "marriage" that puts conservatives squarely on the "wrong side of history." Rice's Michael Emerson and Laura Essenburg studied the attitudes of 1,300 adults in 2006 and 2012 and found less support for same-sex "marriage" than polls like Gallup and CNN typically find. In fact, Regnerus writes, "in 2012 53% of those surveyed agreed that the only legal marriage should be between a man and a woman, while 13% sat on the fence, and 33% disagreed with the statement.

Second, they detected no statistical significant change in overall sentiment on same-sex marriage over those six years. Third, some things did change -- minds -- and not all of them toward favoring same-sex marriage." In a separate poll, George Barna found that the resistance to counterfeit marriage was actually increasing among evangelical Christians (from 95% to 98%). Like FRC, Regnerus credits most of the inflated support for counterfeit marriage to the line of questioning used in the surveys. Gallup, Regnerus points out, insists on "priming" its respondents with leading questions about the legality of homosexuality, which helps produce a more desired outcome on later queries about marriage. . .

QUICK TAKES

- -  McCain:  Shouting 'Allahu Akhbar!'  Same as Christians Shouting 'Thank God!'   -  It's scary to behold an influential U.S. Senator so clueless!  Update: Robert Spencer explains:

Allahu akbar does not mean “thank God,” as McCain seems to have affirmed when he said, “That’s what they’re saying.” Allahu akbar means “Allah is greater” – not, as it is often translated, “God is great.” The significance of this is enormous, as it is essentially a proclamation of superiority and supremacism. Allah is greater – than any of the gods of the infidels, and Islam is superior to all other religions. . . .   

Islamic jihadists always shout “Allahu akbar” when attacking infidels. It is a declaration of the superiority of their god and their way of life over those of their victims. 9/11 hijacker Mohamed Atta also stated that it was meant to make the infidels afraid. He wrote instructions to jihadists that were found in his baggage: “Shout, ‘Allahu Akbar,’ because this strikes fear in the hearts of the non-believers.” [more. . .]

Daniel Greenfield also weighs in.   Update 2:  And definitely not to be missed is Andrew C. McCarthy's explanation and commentary on "Allahu Akhbar!"

 

 - -  Todd Starnes:  Christian bakery closes after LGBT threats, protests  - The LGBT crowd displays its vicious, ruthless DNA.  Starnes is correct when he writes:

The plight of the Klein family exposes the true nature of the left. Those who preach tolerance and diversity are the least tolerant and the least diverse of all.

 - -  Germany:  Police storm home-school family, take children by force   

WND reports:

Four children, ages 7 to 14, have been forcibly taken from their Darmstadt, Germany, home by police armed with a battering ram, and their parents have been told they won’t see them again soon, all over the issue of homeschooling, according to a stunning new report from the Home School Legal Defense Association.

HSLDA, the world’s premiere advocate for homeschoolers, said the family of Dirk and Petra Wunderlich has battled for several years Germany’s World War II-era requirement that all children submit to the indoctrination programs in the nation’s public schools.

The shocking raid was made solely because the parents were providing their children’s education, HSLDA said. The organization noted the paperwork that authorized police officers and social workers to use force on the children contained no claims of mistreatment.  [more. . .]

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2013/09/mccain-defends-syrian-jihadistss-shouting-allahu-akbar-assures-the-world-that-theyre-moderates.html

New Jersey Governor Chris Christie Undermines Freedom By Banning Sexual Orientation Therapy

When I heard the news, my first reaction was "Christie doesn't know the facts and is a victim of homosexual activist propaganda."  The Family Research Council comments:

Family Research Council (FRC) today voiced disappointment with New Jersey Governor Chris Christie's decision to sign into law Assembly Bill 3371, which forbids licensed professional counselors in the state to "engage in sexual orientation change efforts with a person under 18 years of age."

A similar bill in California has been put on hold by the federal courts after its constitutionality was challenged in two lawsuits (now pending on appeal in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals). U. S. District Court Judge William B. Shubb, in the case of Welch v. Brown, declared that "because it appears that [California's] SB 1172 is content-and viewpoint-based and unlikely to withstand strict scrutiny, plaintiffs have established that they are likely to prevail on the merits of their claim that SB 1172 violates their rights to freedom of speech under the First Amendment."

Family Research Council's Senior Fellow for Policy Studies Peter Sprigg made the following remarks:

"The New Jersey bill strips away a core ethical principle of the counseling profession-the right of the client to set his or her own goals for therapy. Under this bill, even if a young person, the person's parents, and the therapist all agree on the goal of seeking a change in sexual orientation, the iron hand of the state will forbid it. This law tramples on the rights of minors, parents, and therapists alike.

"Gov. Christie has accepted a distorted view of what the research shows. There is abundant evidence that therapy can be effective in helping some people to achieve a personal goal of changing their sexual orientation from homosexual to heterosexual. The claims of harm resulting from such therapy are, on the other hand, almost entirely anecdotal. And any weighing of risks and rewards must include consideration of the risks associated with homosexual conduct itself, such as high rates of depression and anxiety; high rates of tobacco, alcohol and substance use; a higher prevalence of certain cancers; and among men, high rates of sexually transmitted diseases."

Connie Mackey, President of FRCAction PAC, made the following comments on the political implications of the governor's decision:

"Governor Christie's poorly informed decision not only undermines the rights of minors, parents and therapists but I predict that it will also ultimately undermine any of his national political ambitions.   

"Values voters are looking for candidates who will lead the way to preserve the right to live out one's faith.  Unfortunately, Governor Christie has decided to join with those seeking to restrict the free speech rights of those deemed to hold politically incorrect views. His endorsement of this shocking invasion into the privacy of the relationship between therapist and client should cost him the support of libertarians as well," concluded Mackey.

USA TODAY COLUMN - SEXUAL ORIENTIATION THERAPY NOT UNETHICAL

Nicholas Cummings, past president of the American Psychological Association, writes:

The Southern Poverty Law Center has done amazing service for our nation in fighting prejudice. But it has gone astray in its recent New Jersey lawsuit charging JONAH, formerly Jews Offering New Alternatives for Healing, a group that offers to help gay people change their orientation, with committing consumer fraud. The sweeping allegation that such treatment must be a fraud because homosexual orientation can't be changed is damaging. The lawsuit is the opening salvo of a wave of activism intended to discredit therapy offered in 70 clinics across 20 states, according to the SPLC.

When I was chief psychologist for Kaiser Permanente from 1959 to 1979, San Francisco's gay and lesbian population burgeoned. I personally saw more than 2,000 patients with same-sex attraction, and my staff saw thousands more. We worked hard to develop approaches to meeting the needs of these patients.

Individual's goals

They generally sought therapy for one of three reasons: to come to grips with their gay identity, to resolve relationship issues or to change their sexual orientation. We would always inform patients in the third group that change was not easily accomplished. With clinical experience, my staff and I learned to assess the probability of change in those who wished to become heterosexual.

Of the roughly 18,000 gay and lesbian patients whom we treated over 25 years through Kaiser, I believe that most had satisfactory outcomes. The majority were able to attain a happier and more stable homosexual lifestyle. Of the patients I oversaw who sought to change their orientation, hundreds were successful.

MEDIA AND POLITICAL ELITE WILL SOON CALL ANY OPPOSITON TO SAME-SEX MARRIAGE "HATE SPEECH"

I find it scary and a portent of a very dark future when a formerly fairly civil, level-headed Democrat  characterizes anyone employing Biblical arguments against same-sex marriage in public as "shameful" and "obscene."  At least that's how I interpret Erick Mataxes' report of Lanny Davis' views.  Read on:

Listen Now | Download A few years ago, Lanny Davis, former strategist for Bill Clinton, called on members of Congress to sign a civility pledge. “I will be civil in my public discourse and behavior,” the pledge read. “I will be respectful of others whether or not I agree with them. I will stand against incivility when I see it.” Well, I have to wonder whether Davis signed the pledge himself, because just a few days ago he wrote some deeply uncivil things in his column, titled “Purple Nation,” about people who don't share his opinion about same-sex “marriage.” Davis was responding to a letter by N. Michael Nunn, a member of the Sinai Temple in Los Angeles. Nunn wrote that for the Temple to officiate over unions of homosexual couples and call such relationships “sanctified” “is unacceptable to a sound mind.” “Homosexuality,” Nunn added, “is explicitly condemned in Scripture.” It “has been categorically and passionately rejected by all classical Jewish legal and ethical thinkers as a cardinal vice in the same category as incest, murder and idolatry.” Nunn addressed this letter to fellow Jews who oppose allowing same-sex “marriage” ceremonies to take place in their Temple. Well, in his column, Davis called these comments “shameful” and “obscene.” He even compared Nunn's words to the writings of the fanatic Iranian Ayatollah Khomeini! That in itself is out of bounds, because Nunn and many of his fellow congregants are Persian Jews, some of whom may have been persecuted by the Khomeini regime. It's worth noting Davis did not respond to Nunn's assertion that Scripture condemns homosexuality—because the Bible, both Old and New Testaments, DOES condemn homosexual behavior, along with a host of other sexual behaviors. And Davis surely knows this.

CLARIFYING THE SUPREME COURT GAY MARRIAGE DECISION

From Breakpoint:

The Supremes and Marriage

The Battle Goes On  - Eric Metaxas

LISTEN NOW | DOWNLOAD

 

Yesterday, by a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court, as expected, overturned part of the Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA.

At the same time the Court declined to rule on California’s Proposition 8, citing what lawyers call a “lack of standing.”

Here's the bottom line: Same-sex marriage is not the law of the land. The Supreme Court did not issue a Roe v. Wade type of decision for gay marriage. Yes, DOMA is gone. But same-sex marriage in California is still up in the air, and everywhere else the battle goes on.

The DOMA decision, U.S. v. Windsor, involved the estate of a woman who left everything to her same-sex spouse, a marriage recognized by the state of New York. The surviving spouse was barred from claiming the federal estate tax exemption by Section 3 of DOMA, which defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman for federal purposes.

On Wednesday, the Supreme Court upheld the District and Appeals Court’s rulings that DOMA was unconstitutional.

Writing for the majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy said that the “history of DOMA’s enactment and its own text demonstrate that interference with the equal dignity of same-sex marriages, a dignity conferred by the States in the exercise of their sovereign power,” was “the essence” of DOMA.

Its “avowed purpose,” he said, was to “impose” a “disadvantage,” “separate status” and “stigma” on those who enter into “lawful” marriages recognized by the states they live in.

For long-time BreakPoint listeners, Kennedy’s reasoning may bring to mind his opinions in Romer v. Evans. There, he opined that Colorado’s exclusion of sexual orientation from civil rights protection was the product of “animus.” To which I recall Chuck Colson retorting, in essence, “hogwash.” I would use a stronger word--cover your ears--balderdash. There. I've said it.

At any rate, Kennedy cited his opinion in Romer in singling out what he deemed DOMA’s “discrimination of an unusual character.” Thus, for Kennedy, Section 3 of DOMA serves no “legitimate purpose” that compensates for the way it “disparages” the plaintiff’s “personhood and dignity,” and is, according to him, unconstitutional.

Now this is important: Section 2 of DOMA was not addressed in this decision. Section 2 states that “No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect” to same-sex marriages performed outside of their jurisdiction. That means that states may still refuse to recognize same-sex marriages from other states.

However, as of today, “more than 1,100 federal benefits, rights and burdens linked to marriage status” become equally applicable to same-sex married couples.

That much is clear. What is far from clear is the fate of Proposition 8. The Supreme Court, in Hollingsworth v. Perry, held that the people defending Proposition 8 lacked “standing” to appeal the District Court ruling. Justice Roberts wrote that, unlike the plaintiffs or the state of California, they weren’t seeking “a remedy for a personal and tangible harm.”

Thus, in essence, the District Court’s pro-gay marriage ruling stands. But it's quite possible that it only applies to the original parties in the case. So, when it comes to Proposition 8, there is a lot of litigation and a lot of politicking yet to come.

As I said the Supreme Court’s rulings mean the battle for marriage goes on. And what that means for the Church will be the subject of tomorrow’s BreakPoint broadcast with John Stonestreet.

Resources:

AT THE COLSON CENTER:

Issues - The Supreme Court Rules on Marriage Cases
The Chuck Colson Center for Christian Worldview | Issues | June 26, 2013 

The Supreme Court, Marriage, and Us
John Stonestreet | The Point Radio | June 26, 2013

Don't Try the Same Marriage Debate Again 
Nathan Hitchin | Worldviewchurch.org | June 26, 2013

Worldview Church Marriage Debate Issue (especially for pastors)

The Marriage Debate, "Two-Minute" Warning
Interview with Ryan Anderson | ColsonCenter.org | May 2, 2013

ARTICLES AND POSTS

Supreme Court's Refusal to Redefine Marriage Nationwide Allows American People to Consider Consequences of Redefinition
Anthony Perkins | Family Research Council | June 26, 2013

Eric Teetsel (Manhattan Declaration) and Ryan Anderson at the New York Times 
Anderson and Teetsel | NYT Live-Dashboard | June 26, 2013

How Should Same-Sex Marriage Change the Church’s Witness?
Russell Moore | Christianity.com | June 26, 2013

'Waiting for the Other Shoe': The Supreme Court Rules on Same-Sex Marriage
Albert Mohler | Religion Today | June 26, 2013 

Summit Ministries Response: The Supreme Court’s Decisions on Marriage

BOOKS:

What is Marriage?: Man and Woman: A Defense
Sherif Girgis, Ryan Anderson, Robert George | Encounter Books | December 2012

June 27, 2013

The Supremes and Marriage

The Battle Goes On

Eric Metaxas

COMMENTARIES  Time to Reverse a Trend By Eric Metaxas The False Narrative of Gay Marriage By Eric Metaxas Lemonade and Lit By John Stonestreet  Beware Bible McNuggets By John Stonestreet Okay, you’ve seen the news, you’ve listened to the talking heads: But what exactly did the Supreme Court’s rulings mean for marriage? Stay tuned to BreakPoint. Yesterday, by a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court, as expected, overturned part of the Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA. At the same time the Court declined to rule on California’s Proposition 8, citing what lawyers call a “lack of standing.” Here's the bottom line: Same-sex marriage is not the law of the land. The Supreme Court did not issue a Roe v. Wade type of decision for gay marriage. Yes, DOMA is gone. But same-sex marriage in California is still up in the air, and everywhere else the battle goes on. The DOMA decision, U.S. v. Windsor, involved the estate of a woman who left everything to her same-sex spouse, a marriage recognized by the state of New York. The surviving spouse was barred from claiming the federal estate tax exemption by Section 3 of DOMA, which defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman for federal purposes. On Wednesday, the Supreme Court upheld the District and Appeals Court’s rulings that DOMA was unconstitutional. Writing for the majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy said that the “history of DOMA’s enactment and its own text demonstrate that interference with the equal dignity of same-sex marriages, a dignity conferred by the States in the exercise of their sovereign power,” was “the essence” of DOMA. Its “avowed purpose,” he said, was to “impose” a “disadvantage,” “separate status” and “stigma” on those who enter into “lawful” marriages recognized by the states they live in. For long-time BreakPoint listeners, Kennedy’s reasoning may bring to mind his opinions in Romer v. Evans. There, he opined that Colorado’s exclusion of sexual orientation from civil rights protection was the product of “animus.” To which I recall Chuck Colson retorting, in essence, “hogwash.” I would use a stronger word--cover your ears--balderdash. There, I've said it. At any rate, Kennedy cited his opinion in Romer in singling out what he deemed DOMA’s “discrimination of an unusual character.” Thus, for Kennedy, Section 3 of DOMA serves no “legitimate purpose” that compensates for the way it “disparages” the plaintiff’s “personhood and dignity,” and is, according to him, unconstitutional. Now this is important: Section 2 of DOMA was not addressed in this decision. Section 2 states that “No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect” to same-sex marriages performed outside of their jurisdiction. That means that states may still refuse to recognize same-sex marriages from other states. However, as of today, “more than 1,100 federal benefits, rights and burdens linked to marriage status” become equally applicable to same-sex married couples. That much is clear. What is far from clear is the fate of Proposition 8. The Supreme Court, in Hollingsworth v. Perry, held that the people defending Proposition 8 lacked “standing” to appeal the District Court ruling. Justice Roberts wrote that, unlike the plaintiffs or the state of California, they weren’t seeking “a remedy for a personal and tangible harm.” Thus, in essence, the District Court’s pro-gay marriage ruling stands. But it's quite possible that it only applies to the original parties in the case. So, when it comes to Proposition 8, there is a lot of litigation and a lot of politicking yet to come. As I said, the Supreme Court’s rulings mean the battle for marriage goes on. And what that means for the Church will be the subject of tomorrow’s BreakPoint broadcast with John Stonestreet. Please come to BreakPoint.org for all kinds of great resources and articles on yesterday’s decisions.

NEXT STEPS
	More on This Topic Gather more information on today's Daily BreakPoint by visitingwww.breakpoint.org.

Next Steps

The Supreme Court’s decisions are disappointing, but, as Eric says, there is a way forward. In fact this might be the best time to make a strong case on the state level for God’s definition of marriage, especially in your church. Here are some things you can do: - Take Heart. Explain to others that the marriage debate is alive and well, especially at the state level. - Talk to your pastor, and link him to pastoral resources we’ve provided below. He'll probably be saying something about the decisions this Sunday. - Glance over all the links; see what Christian leaders are saying so that you can be ready to answer your friends and neighborswhen they question you about these issues. - And finally, remember that as Christians we know that the victory is already ours in Christ, and while the everyday battles may not go our way, the war has already been won. Tune in Friday morning to another BreakPoint Commentary by John Stonestreet on the Supreme Court decisions.

Related Topics         At the Colson Center: Issues - The Supreme Court Rules on Marriage Cases The Chuck Colson Center for Christian Worldview | Issues | June 26, 2013  The Supreme Court, Marriage, and Us John Stonestreet | The Point Radio | June 26, 2013 Don't Try the Same Marriage Debate Again  Nathan Hitchin | Worldviewchurch.org | June 26, 2013 Worldview Church Marriage Debate Issue (especially for pastors) The Marriage Debate, "Two-Minute" Warning Interview with Ryan Anderson | ColsonCenter.org | May 2, 2013 Articles and Posts Supreme Court's Refusal to Redefine Marriage Nationwide Allows American People to Consider Consequences of Redefinition Anthony Perkins | Family Research Council | June 26, 2013 Eric Teetsel (Manhattan Declaration) and Ryan Anderson at the New York Times  Anderson and Teetsel | NYT Live-Dashboard | June 26, 2013 How Should Same-Sex Marriage Change the Church’s Witness? Russell Moore | Christianity.com | June 26, 2013 'Waiting for the Other Shoe': The Supreme Court Rules on Same-Sex Marriage Albert Mohler | Religion Today | June 26, 2013 Summit Ministries Response: The Supreme Court’s Decisions on Marriage   Books: What is Marriage?: Man and Woman: A Defense Sherif Girgis, Ryan Anderson, Robert George | Encounter Books | December 2012

June 27, 2013

The Supremes and Marriage

The Battle Goes On

Eric Metaxas

COMMENTARIES  Time to Reverse a Trend By Eric Metaxas The False Narrative of Gay Marriage By Eric Metaxas Lemonade and Lit By John Stonestreet  Beware Bible McNuggets By John Stonestreet Okay, you’ve seen the news, you’ve listened to the talking heads: But what exactly did the Supreme Court’s rulings mean for marriage? Stay tuned to BreakPoint. Yesterday, by a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court, as expected, overturned part of the Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA. At the same time the Court declined to rule on California’s Proposition 8, citing what lawyers call a “lack of standing.” Here's the bottom line: Same-sex marriage is not the law of the land. The Supreme Court did not issue a Roe v. Wade type of decision for gay marriage. Yes, DOMA is gone. But same-sex marriage in California is still up in the air, and everywhere else the battle goes on. The DOMA decision, U.S. v. Windsor, involved the estate of a woman who left everything to her same-sex spouse, a marriage recognized by the state of New York. The surviving spouse was barred from claiming the federal estate tax exemption by Section 3 of DOMA, which defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman for federal purposes. On Wednesday, the Supreme Court upheld the District and Appeals Court’s rulings that DOMA was unconstitutional. Writing for the majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy said that the “history of DOMA’s enactment and its own text demonstrate that interference with the equal dignity of same-sex marriages, a dignity conferred by the States in the exercise of their sovereign power,” was “the essence” of DOMA. Its “avowed purpose,” he said, was to “impose” a “disadvantage,” “separate status” and “stigma” on those who enter into “lawful” marriages recognized by the states they live in. For long-time BreakPoint listeners, Kennedy’s reasoning may bring to mind his opinions in Romer v. Evans. There, he opined that Colorado’s exclusion of sexual orientation from civil rights protection was the product of “animus.” To which I recall Chuck Colson retorting, in essence, “hogwash.” I would use a stronger word--cover your ears--balderdash. There, I've said it. At any rate, Kennedy cited his opinion in Romer in singling out what he deemed DOMA’s “discrimination of an unusual character.” Thus, for Kennedy, Section 3 of DOMA serves no “legitimate purpose” that compensates for the way it “disparages” the plaintiff’s “personhood and dignity,” and is, according to him, unconstitutional. Now this is important: Section 2 of DOMA was not addressed in this decision. Section 2 states that “No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect” to same-sex marriages performed outside of their jurisdiction. That means that states may still refuse to recognize same-sex marriages from other states. However, as of today, “more than 1,100 federal benefits, rights and burdens linked to marriage status” become equally applicable to same-sex married couples. That much is clear. What is far from clear is the fate of Proposition 8. The Supreme Court, in Hollingsworth v. Perry, held that the people defending Proposition 8 lacked “standing” to appeal the District Court ruling. Justice Roberts wrote that, unlike the plaintiffs or the state of California, they weren’t seeking “a remedy for a personal and tangible harm.” Thus, in essence, the District Court’s pro-gay marriage ruling stands. But it's quite possible that it only applies to the original parties in the case. So, when it comes to Proposition 8, there is a lot of litigation and a lot of politicking yet to come. As I said, the Supreme Court’s rulings mean the battle for marriage goes on. And what that means for the Church will be the subject of tomorrow’s BreakPoint broadcast with John Stonestreet. Please come to BreakPoint.org for all kinds of great resources and articles on yesterday’s decisions.

NEXT STEPS
	More on This Topic Gather more information on today's Daily BreakPoint by visitingwww.breakpoint.org.

Next Steps

The Supreme Court’s decisions are disappointing, but, as Eric says, there is a way forward. In fact this might be the best time to make a strong case on the state level for God’s definition of marriage, especially in your church. Here are some things you can do: - Take Heart. Explain to others that the marriage debate is alive and well, especially at the state level. - Talk to your pastor, and link him to pastoral resources we’ve provided below. He'll probably be saying something about the decisions this Sunday. - Glance over all the links; see what Christian leaders are saying so that you can be ready to answer your friends and neighborswhen they question you about these issues. - And finally, remember that as Christians we know that the victory is already ours in Christ, and while the everyday battles may not go our way, the war has already been won. Tune in Friday morning to another BreakPoint Commentary by John Stonestreet on the Supreme Court decisions.

Related Topics         At the Colson Center: Issues - The Supreme Court Rules on Marriage Cases The Chuck Colson Center for Christian Worldview | Issues | June 26, 2013  The Supreme Court, Marriage, and Us John Stonestreet | The Point Radio | June 26, 2013 Don't Try the Same Marriage Debate Again  Nathan Hitchin | Worldviewchurch.org | June 26, 2013 Worldview Church Marriage Debate Issue (especially for pastors) The Marriage Debate, "Two-Minute" Warning Interview with Ryan Anderson | ColsonCenter.org | May 2, 2013 Articles and Posts Supreme Court's Refusal to Redefine Marriage Nationwide Allows American People to Consider Consequences of Redefinition Anthony Perkins | Family Research Council | June 26, 2013 Eric Teetsel (Manhattan Declaration) and Ryan Anderson at the New York Times  Anderson and Teetsel | NYT Live-Dashboard | June 26, 2013 How Should Same-Sex Marriage Change the Church’s Witness? Russell Moore | Christianity.com | June 26, 2013 'Waiting for the Other Shoe': The Supreme Court Rules on Same-Sex Marriage Albert Mohler | Religion Today | June 26, 2013 Summit Ministries Response: The Supreme Court’s Decisions on Marriage   Books: What is Marriage?: Man and Woman: A Defense Sherif Girgis, Ryan Anderson, Robert George | Encounter Books | December 2012

JUSTICE SCALIA'S DISSENT MAKES IMPORTANT READING IN THE DOMA RULING

Tim Grieve reports in the National Journal:  (HT: Drudge)

"Dissenting from this morning's opinion on the Defense of Marriage Act, Justice Antonin Scalia – as expected – holds nothing back.

In a ripping dissent, Scalia says that Justice Anthony Kennedy and his colleagues in the majority have resorted to calling opponents of gay marriage "enemies of the human race."

But to defend traditional marriage is not to condemn, demean, or humiliate those who would prefer other arrangements, any more than to defend the Constitution of the United States is to con- demn, demean, or humiliate other constitutions. To hurl such accusations so casually demeans this institution. In the majority's judgment, any resistance to its holding is beyond the pale of reasoned disagreement. To question its high-handed invalidation of a presumptively valid statute is to act (the majority is sure) with the purpose to "dis- parage," "injure," "degrade," "demean," and "humiliate" our fellow human beings, our fellow citizens, who are homo- sexual. All that, simply for supporting an Act that did no more than codify an aspect of marriage that had been unquestioned in our society for most of its existence— indeed, had been unquestioned in virtually all societies for virtually all of human history. It is one thing for a society to elect change; it is another for a court of law to impose change by adjudging those who oppose it hostes humani generis, enemies of the human race.

Scalia says that the court's holding – while limited to the Defense of Marriage Act – is a sure sign that the majority is willing to declare gay marriage a constitutional right.

It takes real cheek for today's majority to assure us, as it is going out the door, that a constitutional requirement to give formal recognition to same-sex marriage is not at issue here—when what has preceded that assurance is a lecture on how superior the majority's moral judgment in favor of same-sex marriage is to the Congress's hateful moral judgment against it. I promise you this: The only thing that will "confine" the Court's holding is its sense of what it can get away with.

And, he says, the holding will short circuit the debate over gay marriage that should have been carried out in the states.

In the majority's telling, this story is black-and-white: Hate your neighbor or come along with us. The truth is more complicated. It is hard to admit that one's political opponents are not monsters, especially in a struggle like this one, and the challenge in the end proves more than today's Court can handle. Too bad. A reminder that disagreement over something so fundamental as marriage can still be politically legitimate would have been a fit task for what in earlier times was called the judicial temperament. We might have covered ourselves with honor today, by promising all sides of this debate that it was theirs to settle and that we would respect their resolution. We might have let the People decide.

But that the majority will not do. Some will rejoice in today's decision, and some will despair at it; that is the nature of a controversy that matters so much to so many. But the Court has cheated both sides, robbing the winners of an honest victory, and the losers of the peace that comes from a fair defeat. We owed both of them better. I dissent.

EXODUS INTERNATIONAL IS CLOSING

I first learned this news from Alan Shlemon's blog post at Stand to Reason.  Shlemon wrote:

I was saddened and surprised to hear that Exodus International is closing down. For over a decade, I’ve benefited from their conferences, teachers, and insight. I’ve also referred many people with unwanted same-sex attractions to them. Since Exodus boasted the largest network of agencies providing therapy, they were one of my first go-to organizations when I needed to connect people to a trustworthy ministry.

During the last year, however, I’ve been hesitant to recommend Exodus to others. I read Exodus blogs and heard their staff say things that I wasn’t comfortable with, theologically. I noticed that people who I respected were leaving or distancing themselves from the organization. The closer I paid attention to what was going on, the more I sensed things were amiss.

I’m not privy to all the details surrounding Exodus and its leadership. I’m not writing to point out their mistakes. I’m more interested in looking to the future with Restored Hope Network (RHN). This is an organization that sprung up last year that I believe will serve to meet similar needs that Exodus once did. In fact, several of the board and staff that left Exodus years ago started RHN. They all seem to be theologically sound.

Their mission statement reads: “Restored Hope is a membership governed network dedicated to restoring hope to those broken by sexual and relational sin, especially those impacted by homosexuality. We proclaim that Jesus Christ has life-changing power for all who submit to Christ as Lord; we also seek to equip His church to impart that transformation.”

Be sure to also read their press release responding to the closure of Exodus.

-- After reading the above, I read Christianity Today's original coverage and a collection of brief comments from evangelical leaders.  One commenter referred to a particularly thoughtful response by Christopher Yuan, author of Our of a Far Country: A Gay Son's Journey to God.  A Broken Mother's Search for Hope.     Yuan's is by far the most substantial and valuable response I have read so far.  Click here - https://www.facebook.com/notes/christopher-yuan/my-response-to-the-closing-%20of-exodus-international-full/557204404323303 

- - Update: 6/23/13 - Agate UK and Springhead Ministries offer insight into the fact that "under the leadership of its President, Alan Chambers, Exodus International had abandoned the message of hope, wholeness and holiness that had been there since it was founded in the 1970s."  Further,

"Over the past few years Alan Chambers, with the support of the Exodus International vice-president Randy Clark and the chairman of trustees Clark Whitten, has been proclaiming a message at odds not only with the founding principles of Exodus International but also of its member ministries. While much of this was done out of the public eye a number of statements made by Chambers in the US media as well at a pro-gay conference and in Exodus International's newsletters brought things to a head. After spending time in prayer many leaders of Exodus International member ministries left Exodus International and started Restored Hope Network, leaders that included past presidents, staff workers and founders of Exodus International.   [more . . .] 

PEW RESEARCH: GLOBAL ATTITUDES TOWARDS HOMOSEXUALITY

Pew Research offers interesting analysis of attitudes towards homosexuality worldwide.  

 Changes in opinion since 2007 - 

I was particularly surprised by the low tolerance for homosexuality in Russia.  Most of us think of Russia as atheistic and somewhat amoral.  And yet we learn from the polling data that it is traditionalist and resistant to Western sexual decadence in regards to homosexuality.  From the Associated Press today:

MOSCOW (AP) — A bill that stigmatizes gay people and bans giving children any information about homosexuality won overwhelming approval Tuesday in Russia's lower house of parliament.

Hours before the State Duma passed the Kremlin-backed law in a 436-0 vote with one abstention, more than two dozen protesterswere attacked by hundreds of anti-gay activists and then detained by police.

The bill banning the "propaganda of nontraditional sexual relations" still needs to be passed by the appointed upper house and signed into law by President Vladimir Putin, but neither step is in doubt.

The measure is part of an effort to promote traditional Russian values instead of Western liberalism, which the Kremlin and theRussian Orthodox Church see as corrupting Russian youth and contributing to the protests against Putin's rule. . . .

The legislation will impose hefty fines for providing information about the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) community to minors or holding gay pride rallies. Those breaking the law will be fined up to 5,000 rubles ($156) for an individual and up to 1 million rubles ($31,000) for a company, including media organizations.

Foreign citizens arrested under the new law can be deported or jailed for up to 15 days and then deported. European gay rights activists have joined Russians in trying to hold gay pride rallies in Moscow in recent years.  [more . . .]

HOLLYWOOD JUDGES "BEHIND THE CANDELABRA" TOO GAY

What? you ask.  How can gay-friendly Hollywood judge a movie as "too gay?"  Michael Voris says gay propagandists want the populace to concentrate on abstractions ("rights," "equality," "fairness") but avoid at all costs showing what gay people actually do.  Voris writes:

Hollywood producer Steven Soderbergh has made a movie about flamboyant homosexual showman Liberace and his very much younger gay partner.

The name of the movie is "Behind the Candelabra" and it stars Michael Douglas as Liberace and Matt Damon as much much younger live-in male sex partner Scott Thornson.

But you won't be seeing this movie - not that you would want to - but you wont be seeing in US theaters anytime soon. The reason?

According to Soderbergh - he had the door slammed in his face by every major studio in Hollywood because they all said the movie was - his words now, quoting them - the movie was "too gay".

According to those who have seen the movie - it is VERY gay. Kind of no holds-barred, practically nothing left to the imagination .. including a couple of very explicit raunchy sex scenes between Douglas and Damon.

But what does Hollywood say - NOPE. Too Gay.

But why? Why should the Puritans who run Hollywood all of a sudden take exception to extraordinarily explicit sex scenes .. especially ones involving Michael Douglas?

OBAMA ADMINISTRATION PUSHES PRO-HOMOSEXUAL PROPAGANDA WORLDWIDE

I find the following news truly offensive and a governmental activity that needs to be stopped.  It's "cultural imperialism" at its worst.  The Obama Administration, in the name of U.S. tax-paying citizens, is pushing the homosexual agenda on countries that until now have resisted such immoral sexual conduct.   The Family Research Council reports:

If the President doesn't respect America's views on marriage, what makes us think he would respect other countries'? Certainly not his latest USAID project. In April, to relatively little fanfare, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) embarked on one of the most shocking abuses of taxpayer dollars in the last five years. With help from the Levi Strauss Foundation and millionaire liberal Tim Gill, the U.S. government is spending $11 million to train homosexual activists in other countries.

The Washington Blade, D.C.'s gay newspaper, praised the Obama administration for creating an army of international lobbyists for same-sex "marriage," anti-discrimination laws, and homosexual "rights" around the world. According to USAID, the first phase of the program is focused on countries with a strong Catholic influence: Ecuador, Honduras, Guatemala, and other developing nations that oppose homosexuality.

This week, the first in a series of USAID "gay trainings" took place in Colombia, a nation specifically targeted for its rejection of same-sex "marriage." The goal, an agency spokesman says, is to teach people how to infiltrate the political process and advocate for laws that a majority of Americans, who are paying for the program, object to. "It can be a real game-changer in the advancement of LGBT human rights," she insisted. In essence, U.S. taxpayers are being forced to groom the next generation of the world's Human Rights Campaigns -- a stunning exploitation of Americans' money, and more importantly, their trust.

For the Obama administration, this is just another part of its strong-arm strategy to bully other nations into compliance. Whether it's through the United Nations, U.S. embassies, or the State Department, President Obama is leading the effort to bribe and coerce poor countries into accepting his pro-homosexual agenda. Our friends at Family Watch International are urging people to get involved. They've released a shocking new documentary highlighting the President's dark world of "Cultural Imperialism." Click over to their website to see a five-minute clip [posted below] or the full feature. Be prepared to be outraged.

 

WHAT HAPPENED TO SCOUTING IN CANADA WHEN HOMOSEXUALITY WAS INTRODUCED

In the U.S., Scout delegates vote this Thursday in Grapevine, Texas on whether to change the Boy Scout standards or not.  The Family Research Council reports:

Before the Boy Scouts' National Council descends on Dallas for its most defining moment, local communities gave delegates plenty to think about on the trip there. Americans in 40 cities held large rallies in support of the BSA's longtime membership policy on Friday. The biggest event is scheduled for this Wednesday, May 22, as a coalition of groups--including FRC--hosts National Support Scouting Day. Together with OnMyHonor.net and Texas Values, FRC will be on hand in Texas, distributing materials and meeting with council members before the final decision on Thursday.

With the vote imminent, the most important thing anyone can do is pray. Please join us in asking God's hand of protection on the Scouts and His intervention on the councils still undecided.

Here's a report on what's happened in Canada after the introduction of homosexuality in scouting:

 

MIKE McMANUS - BOYS SCOUTS VS. GAYS

McManus provides a useful historical overview of the Boy Scouts' standards with side glances at Canada and the Girl Scouts.   One of the corporations pushing the Boy Scouts in a gay-inclusive direction is Chase Manhattan Bank.  I'm wondering if it is time to drop my Chase credit card, plus I don't feel all that enthusiastic patronising CVS and UPS either.  McManus writes:

Boy Scouts vs. Gays

by Mike McManus 
May 9, 2013

Boy Scouts take this oath: "On my honor I will do my best to do my duty to God and my country and to obey Scout Law, to help other people at all times, to keep myself physically strong, mentally awake, and morally straight." 

In 1991 Boy Scouts of America (BSA) stated , "We believe that homosexual conduct is inconsistent with the requirement in the Scout Oath that a Scout be morally straight and in the Scout Law that a Scout be 'clean in word and deed, and that homosexuals do not provide a desirable role model for Scouts.'"

Behind that stand was a nationwide investigation of child molestation in the Boy Scouts from 1971 to 1991 which revealed that more than 2,000 boys reported molestation by adult Scout leaders. 

Yet BSA was sued over that position, and the issue went to the Supreme Court in 2000 which upheld the Boy Scouts' right to teach that "homosexual conduct is not morally straight." 

With nine states allowing same-sex marriage, BSA made another two-year review which concluded last year that "this policy is absolutely the best policy for the Boy Scouts." 

However, after that decision was announced, two prominent board members - CEOs of AT&T and Ernst & Young openly called for reconsideration. About 50 United Ways including those in Cleveland, Miami, Philadelphia and Seattle withdrew funding. 

BSA lost all funding from Fleet Bank, CVS Pharmacy, Chase Manhattan Bank, Levi Strauss, UPS and Intel, its largest donor, saying it could not support Scouts who discriminate on the basis of creed or sexual orientation.

NEW YORK TIMES: "YOUNG OPPONENTS OF GAY MARRIAGE UNDAUNTED BY BATTLE AHEAD"

I think this NYT article by Ashley Parker both insightful and fair though some of the statistics allegedly favoring gay marriage need substantial updating.   Reuter's latest poll shows only 41% support for gay marriage.  (See my comments below).   Excerpts from the NYT article:

They identify themselves as part of the “pro-marriage movement” and see themselves at the beginning of a long political struggle, much like the battle over abortion. If they can begin shifting the terms of the debate away from gay rights and toward the meaning of marriage, they say, they have a chance to survive short-term defeats. . .

“Proponents of same-sex marriage have done a fantastic job of telling the story of same-sex marriage through music and television and film,” said Eric Teetsel, 29, the executive director of the Manhattan Declaration, which describes itself as a movement of Christians for life, marriage and religious freedom. “I think it’s really a case where once they hear the other side of the issue, and really think about it deeply, we’re going to win a lot of those folks back.” . . .

Last week, the Heritage Foundation released a report by Ryan T. Anderson, 31, in defense of traditional marriage, “Marriage: What It Is, Why It Matters, and the Consequences of Redefining It.” Mr. Anderson, a Heritage Foundation fellow, has also held briefings for members of Congress, their staff members and others to explain his arguments against same-sex marriage, and he and two co-authors released a book last year laying out their case in depth. . .

“When you de-link marriage from childbearing, you then have to increase the complexity of that relationship,” said Caitlin Seery, 25, the director of programs for the Love and Fidelity Network, which works with college groups to advocate traditional marriage. 

Opponents of same-sex marriage say they realize they may lose the current fight, but they optimistically take the long view, pointing to Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court case that legalized abortion. At the time, they say, opponents of abortion were told their cause was lost, but the fight continues 40 years later. . .

“If you take the longer view of history — I’m not talking just 15 years, I’m talking 40 years or even 100 years — I can’t help but think that the uniqueness of man-woman marriage will be adjudicated over time,” said Andrew T. Walker, 27, a policy analyst at the Heritage Foundation.

 Either way, they are not planning on giving up any time soon.

 “Even if we are doomed, and I’m totally naïve, I think it’s important that I do this work anyway,” said Mr. Teetsel, of the Manhattan Declaration. “If what I believe is true is true, then I’ve got a responsibility to be on its side for as long as I can be.”

Me: Read the whole article.  You'll be surprised at the number of young people in their 20s who are involved in the pro-marriage movement.  One problem with statistics in the article is that they are now inaccurate.  The Family Research Council cited yesterday an "astonishing large survey sample" conducted by the Reuters Corporation that showed only 41% of Americans support same-sex marriage.  Keep reading for FRC's summary of Reuter's latest poll.