Muddling Toward Maturity Blog

GAY RIGHTS ACTIVISTS BULLY TEBOW, CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY

Todd Starnes writes:

Gay rights activists are demanding Tim Tebow back out of a speaking engagement at Liberty University just two weeks after pressuring the New York Jets quarterback to cancel a speaking engagement at the First Baptist Church of Dallas.

Tebow is expected to speak this weekend at Wildfire – a men’s conference hosted by the conservative Christian university. His remarks will be closed to the general public.

The professional football player is well-known for sharing his faith in Christ – but in recent weeks he’s come under fire from the national media and gay rights activists for speaking in churches that follow biblical teaching.

Huffington Post called Liberty a “notoriously conservative private college with an anti-gay reputation.” And more than 10,000 people have signed a petition launched by Faithful America calling on the quarterback to cancel his speech.

“Liberty University isn’t just another conservative Christian college,” the group stated. “It’s ground-zero for a global assault on the legal rights of gays and lesbians – and a symbol of everything that’s wrong with the religious right.

A Liberty University spokesman refused to comment.

Faithful America said Tebow would give his “Christian faith a bad name” by speaking at the university founded by the late Jerry Falwell.  [more]

Does anybody besides me find this outrageous?  As one commentor questioned, where is the petition to counter the gay activists' petition?

GAY MAFIA IN THE ROMAN CATHOLIC HIERARCHY

If Michael Voris is correct, the Roman Catholic church is in deep crisis.  (HT: VirtueOnline)

 

 

THE SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW ASSOCIATION INSPIRED ATTEMPTED MURDER

But don't expect the mainstream media to report it.  They blacken and falsely accuse conservatives at every turn, but avert their eyes when a liberal activist attempts to kill conservatives.  Remember the story of the man who arrived at the Washington offices of the Famly Research Council intent on mass murder?  Read on. . .

It seems hard to believe, Jim Treacher wrote yesterday, "but once upon a time, there was a shooting the national news didn't want to talk about." That's because the shooting was at FRC. And although the gunman was a politically-motivated activist who stormed a building less than a mile from the White House, there's a reason most Americans have never heard of him. After years of insisting that conservatives were the hateful ones, the attack at FRC was an inconvenient storyline for a media bent on hiding where the real intolerance lies.

The day after Floyd Corkins walked into our headquarters and opened fire, I said that while Corkins was responsible for the shooting, he had been given a license to perpetrate this act of violence by groups like the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) which has recklessly labeled every organization with which they disagree a "hate group." The media insisted we were overreacting. But yesterday in federal court, prosecutors explained that FRC had it right all along. In the official filing, FBI evidence verifies the fact that Corkins was inspired by SPLC to target our office. "He was a political activist," the statement read, "and considered the FRC a lobbying group. He committed the shooting for political reasons. He had identified the FRC as an anti-gay organization on the Southern Poverty Law Center Website."

Federal prosecutors read the statement of offense and then described FRC and our mission. No other organization was mentioned by name, but it was noted that Corkins had other social conservative groups on his hit-list. Of the many charges leveled against him, Corkins pleaded guilty to three, including domestic terrorism. "On August 15, 2012, the defendant assaulted [Leo] Johnson and the FRC with the intent to... coerce a significant portion of the civilian population of the District of Columbia and/or the United States; namely, any and all individuals associated with or supporting FRC, like-minded organizations, or otherwise holding beliefs contrary to or advocating against gay marriage."

Corkins confessed to Judge Richard Roberts that he hoped to intimidate gay rights opponents--which is exactly what SPLC has tried to do with its reckless labeling. And unfortunately for our own Leo Johnson, who was wounded in the attack, SPLC doesn't draw the line at name-calling. It insists on pinpointing FRC's location on the SPLC "hate map" as an open invitation to extremists like Corkins, who admitted yesterday that he intended to "kill as many as possible and smear the Chick-fil-A sandwiches in victims' faces." It would be a statement, he told the court, "against the people who work in that building." Although Corkins pleaded guilty, SPLC has yet to admit its role in creating this hostile environment. Even after an attempted mass murder of the FRC staff, the "hate map" is still prominently featured on the SPLC website today--which shocks most conservative pundits.

"When Congresswoman Giffords and several others were shot in Arizonaby Jared Loughner, the Left went into overdrive blaming Sarah Palin for a map that had a list of political targets on it. After the fact, we learned that Loughner was apolitical and he clearly had not used Sarah Palin's map of political targets. That did not stop the Left from blaming the right," said RedState's Erick Erickson. "By the way, Palin took down her target map after the controversy. The Southern Poverty Law Center? Crickets..." The Daily Caller's Treacher shakes his head at the double standard. "Now we have another [shooter] and another map. Except this time, the [shooter] is pointing directly at that map and saying, 'That's why I picked those people.' But since the targets of his thwarted rampage don't hold the correct opinions, they don't count."

The bottom line is that the Southern Poverty Law Center (the same one embraced by President Obama's Justice Department), is dangerous and driven by an anti-Christian animus. Their leaders are inciting hatred, and in this case, a clear connection to violence. They need to be held accountable, and they need to stop before people are killed for supporting traditional values. Only by ending its hate labeling of Christians will SPLC send a message that it no longer wishes to be a source for those who would commit acts of violence against Americans whose only crime is thinking differently than the radical Left. But whether the SPLC continues to demonize Christians or not, I can guarantee one thing: the Family Research Council team will not be distracted from our mission--not by bullets and certainly not by bullies.

BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA ABOUT TO CAPITULATE TO HOMOSEXUAL ACTIVISTS?

The Family Research Council offers important comment:

For 103 years, the mission of the Boy Scouts has been "to prepare young people to make ethical choices." Unfortunately, the organization's leadership seems less inclined to make those same choices themselves, as rumors swirl that the Board is on the verge of reversing its longtime policy on homosexuality. To most parents, the news that the Scouts were even considering a change is a shock. After all, it was just seven months ago that the same spokesman told reporters that, after a two-year review, a special committee had unanimously recommended keeping the ban. "The vast majority of parents," Deron Smith had explained, "value their right to address issues of same-sex orientation within their family... at the appropriate time and right setting."

Now, suddenly, after decades of withstanding pressure, lost sponsors, and evictions, the Boy Scouts are a Board meeting away from destroying a century-old legacy of courage in exchange for weak-kneed compromise that pleases no one. According to the press release yesterday, the BSA would peel away the national prohibition on open homosexuality and pass the political hot potato of "sexual inclusion" to individual troops--most of whom won't have the financial means or the will to beat back the coming onslaught. A new policy would only shift the attention to local councils, who would be under unfathomable stress to fall in line with BSA headquarters. And as homosexual activists well know, it will be a lot easier to pick off one council at a time than to take down the entire Boy Scouts of America.

HOW AN UNBELIEVING LESBIAN ENGLISH PROFESSOR BECAME A REFORMED PASTOR'S WIFE

Justin Taylor writes:

"What a fascinating and instructive and encouraging interview, as Marvin Olasky talks with Rosaria Butterfield about her memoir, The Secret Thoughts of an Unlikely Convert: An English Professor’s Journey into Christian Faith."

This is, indeed, a fascinating interview.  I know it's long (about an hour), but it will be time well spent.

You can read a sample here.   Justin Taylor goes on to quote Carl Trueman:

"This autobiography is the launchpad for numerous sophisticated reflections on the nature of life, faith, sexuality, worship, education and other matters. As one would expect from a lover of nineteenth century literature, the book is also beautifully written with many a well-turned sentence; and as one would expect from someone schooled at the highest levels in critical theory, it eschews simplistic pieties for stimulating analyses of both Christian and non-Christian culture.

I cannot recommend this book highly enough. I do not agree with everything she says; but I did learn from everything she wrote. It deserves the widest possible readership."

About Justin Taylor

 

Follower of Christ. Husband of one, father of three. Elder at New Covenant Bible Church. VP of Editorial at Crossway. More…

 

 

• Subscribe via Feed
• Subscribe via Email

• Subscribe via Kindle
• Follow on Twitter

 

 

 

Sponsors

Advertise Here

Blogroll

 

• 9Marks Blog
• Albert Mohler
• Andy Naselli
• Cranach Blog
• Denny Burk
• Desiring God Blog
• Evangel
• First Thoughts
• Girl Talk
• In Light of the Gospel
• Jim Hamilton
• Joe Thorn
• Josh Harris
• Kevin DeYoung
• Kingdom People
• Ligonier
• Radical Womanhood
• Resurgence
• Russell Moore
• Scriptorium Daily
• Stand to Reason
• TGC Blog
• Thabiti Anyabwile
• The Sola Panel
• Tim Challies
• Tullian Tchividjian
• Vitamin Z
• What's Best Next?
• Worship Matters

 

Magazine & Journals

 

• Books & Culture
• Boundless
• Christianity Today
• First Things
• Journal of Biblical Counseling
• Modern Reformation
• Reformation21
• Tabletalk
• The Briefing
• Themelios
• Touchstone
• World Magazine

 

Ministries

 

• 9Marks
• Acts 29
• Biblical Spirituality
• CBMW
• CCEF
• Centre for Public Christianity
• Crossway
• Desiring God
• Founders Ministries
• Grace to You
• Ligonier
• Matthias Media
• Sovereign Grace Ministries
• Stand to Reason
• TGC Reviews
• The Gospel Coalition
• Truth for Life
• White Horse Inn

 

Archives

 

Jan

18

2013

Justin Taylor|12:00 pm CT

How an Unbelieving Lesbian English Professor Became a Reformed Pastor’s Wife

What a fascinating and instructive and encouraging interview, as Marvin Olasky talks with Rosaria Butterfield about her memoir, The Secret Thoughts of an Unlikely Convert: An English Professor’s Journey into Christian Faith.

You can read a sample here.

Carl Trueman writes:

This autobiography is the launchpad for numerous sophisticated reflections on the nature of life, faith, sexuality, worship, education and other matters. As one would expect from a lover of nineteenth century literature, the book is also beautifully written with many a well-turned sentence; and as one would expect from someone schooled at the highest levels in critical theory, it eschews simplistic pieties for stimulating analyses of both Christian and non-Christian culture.

I cannot recommend this book highly enough. I do not agree with everything she says; but I did learn from everything she wrote. It deserves the widest possible readership.

In particular Carl highlights her discussion of sexuality:

Her treatment of sexual sin and gender politics is fascinating and so much more sophisticated than the kind of simplistic drivel which passes for discussion in evangelical circles. Chapter Two, ‘Repentance and the Sin of Sodom’ along with her accounts in Chapter Three of talking to students at Geneva College about sexuality, are worth the price of the book. Every pastor should read these chapters and take her analysis to heart.

THE DESTRUCTIVE SIDE EFFECTS OF LEGALIZING SAME-SEX MARRIAGE

Kathryn Jean Lopez's post "Religion and Same-Sex Marriage," helps clarify a lot that remains fuzzy or not totally grasped in the minds of many liberals regarding the consequences of same-sex marriage.  She writes:

The push in Illinois for gay marriage is instructive in the alarm bells it sounds on religious liberty (the Republican party chairman’s satisfaction on this front aside). As Bishop Thomas John Paprocki of Springfield explained it:

The pending bill is not only a dangerous social experiment about marriage. It is also a lethal attack upon religious liberty. This so-called “religious freedom” would not stop the state from obligating the Knights of Columbus to make their halls available for same-sex “weddings.” It would not stop the state from requiring Catholic grade schools to hire teachers who are legally “married” to someone of the same sex. This bill would not protect Catholic hospitals, charities, or colleges, which exclude those so “married” from senior leadership positions. Nor would it protect me, the Bishop of Springfield, if I refused to employ someone in a same-sex “marriage” who applied to the Diocese for a position meant to serve my ministry as your bishop. This “religious freedom” law does nothing at all to protect the consciences of people in business, or who work for the government. We saw the harmful consequences of deceptive titles all too painfully last year when the so-called “Religious Freedom Protection and Civil Union Act” forced Catholic Charities out of foster care and adoption services in Illinois.

These threats do not raise a question about drafting a better law, one with more extensive conscience protections. There is no possible way—none whatsoever—for those who believe that marriage is exclusively the union of husband and wife to avoid legal penalties and harsh discriminatory treatment if the bill becomes law. Why should we expect it be otherwise? After all, we would be people who, according to the thinking behind the bill, hold onto an “unfair” view of marriage. The state would have equated our view with bigotry—which it uses the law to marginalize in every way short of criminal punishment.

It’s an issue I’ve talked about with Tom Messner of Heritage and the aforementioned Robby George, among others. From an interview last year with Messner:

Same-sex marriage does not simply include more people in the definition of civil marriage; it labels the natural understanding of marriage as a form of irrational prejudice, ignorance, bigotry, and even hatred. In other words, same-sex-marriage laws teach the public that people who view marriage in the natural way are morally equivalent to racists.

Once this idea is embedded in the law, there will be enormous pressure to take it to its logical conclusion by marginalizing and penalizing people who continue to think marriage is one man and one woman. Some of this pressure will come from state sources and some will come from private sources, but in both cases it will find ways through whatever cracks might exist in protections for religious and moral conscience. As Princeton professor Robby George put it in your recent interview with him, “If you ask, ‘What can be done going forward around the country to protect religious liberty?’ the answer is this: Win the fight to preserve the legal definition of marriage as the conjugal union of husband and wife. Period.”

So many of the most contentious issues of the day come down to a fundamental misunderstanding about words like freedom and equality. As I’ve discussed in recent days with Eric Metaxas and Christopher West, license isn’t the rock of civilization, but throws rocks at it, especially as we institutionalize and mandate (see the HHS Mandate) our radical misunderstandings. 

See also her earlier column, "Is Gay marriage Inevitable?"

UNITED PARCEL SERVICE DEFUNDS BOY SCOUTS IN SUPPORT OF LGBT

The Family Research Council is taking it's business elsewhere.   Makes total sense.  FRC writes:

In this busy shipping season, UPS will have at least one less customer to worry about: FRC. After 11 years as our official carrier, FRC is suspending its contract with UPS for openly discriminating against the Boy Scouts of America (BSA). In November, company executives announced that they would no longer support organizations that refuse to bow to their politically correct view of homosexuality. Although Vice President Kristen Patrella insisted UPS's decision didn't specifically target the Scouts, theirs was the only group affected. UPS promised to end its charitable donations to the Scouts "until gay Scout leaders are welcome within the organization."

According to most reports, the shipping giant altered its policy after an online petition drive at the liberal website, change.org, encouraged companies to end their BSA partnerships. But in the end, the 83,000 signatures it collected is a drop in the ocean compared to the 1,074,775 Americans who volunteered with a troop last year -- or the 2.7 million boys who were actual members of the Boy Scouts. Yet they, the overwhelming majority, are the ones for whom UPS has shown the greatest contempt -- and whose valuable activities will suffer as a result.

FRC tried to resolve the matter behind the scenes, even contacting Chairman and CEO Scott Davis with a letter of protest -- to which UPS promptly replied. Unfortunately, the company only reiterated its position that until the BSA puts a greater priority on the political agenda of LGBT activists than the protection of Scouts, they are not entitled to the same equality UPS claims to endorse. Apparently, the company isn't interested in true diversity but in strong-arming anyone who disagrees with their extreme agenda -- including a century-old youth development program, whose only crime is instilling character into millions of American boys. As for their longstanding policy on homosexuality, the Boy Scouts are doing what every parent would want them to: putting children's safety first.

Meanwhile, it seems UPS is not only anti-freedom, but anti-religion as well. Last week, the federal government sued the company for firing a Jehovah's Witness driver over a scheduling request. The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) argues that the shipping giant violated America's anti-discrimination laws when it refused to modify the employee's hours so that he could attend a special church service. "When the employee refused to compromise his religious beliefs and attended instead of reporting for work, UPS fired him. UPS also assigned him a 'do not hire' status and refused to hire him when he applied for a different position at UPS's Staten Island facility," the EEOC press release explains .

If UPS wants to cater to the intolerant crowd, that's their business. But from now on, it won't be ours. FRC is taking its shipping needs elsewhere.

**  On the subject of speaking up in the culture wars, Bill O'Reilly yesterday interviewed Rev. Robert Jeffrees, the outspoken pastor of First Baptist Church, Dallas. 

 

DAYTON, OH: UPS SAYS NO TO BOY SCOUTS, YES TO GAY GROUPS

I found this post informative:

UPS recently announced it would stop funding the Boy Scouts of America because the Boy Scouts will not risk having its scouts led by scoutmasters who might have a sexual interest in the boys. The Boys Scouts of America faces millions of dollars in lawsuits because of past abuses by gay scoutmasters.

According to a report from the Biblically Responsible Investment Institute, UPS has given over $400,000 to nation's largest LGBT organization, the Human Rights Campaign. In addition, they have given thousands of dollars to other gay groups.

The Human Rights Campaign keeps track of gay-friendly companies and has consistently given UPS a score of 100%. UPS has even bragged about the score. The Human Rights Campaign frequently calls people "haters" and "bigots" if they believe marriage should only consist of one man and one woman.

Attacking organizations which support traditional sexual views may have unintended and possibly life-threatening consequences. For example, a day after the Human Rights Campaign repeated the charge that the Family Research Council was a "hate group," an employee of another LGBT organization walked in to the headquarters of the Family Research Council, armed with 50 rounds of ammunition and a bagful of Chick-fil-A sandwiches, and began shooting the "haters" who worked there.

According to Thomas Strobhar, President of the Corporate Morality Action Center, "UPS should be careful whom they support with money that belongs to all the shareholders. The Boys Scouts are a national treasure with legitimate interests regarding the safety of the scouts, while the Human Rights Campaign has contributed greatly to a lack of civility in public discourse."

A commenter links to this article - http://rethinkingtheology.com/2012/09/03/the-gay-agenda-what-in-the-world-is-going-on/

JOURNALISTIC LIES ABOUT THE FAMILY RESEARCH COUNCIL

The accusation: that FRC supports the death penalty for homosexuals in Uganda.  Totally false.  It doesn't.  But liberals spread their lies fervently.  And that produces hate.  And hate produces killers.  One man recently tried to kill all the members of the FRC office staff.

PLease read the following statement by the Family Research Council:  (The bolding is my own)

It used to be that the media reported the story. Now they are the story. With fewer journalists able to separate the news from their personal politics, groups like FRC are no longer fighting bias--but outright deception. If you read Monday's Update or follow me on Twitter, then you know that FRC was highly complimentary of Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni, who took the bold step of leading his country in a public prayer of confession for a multitude of sins Uganda committed over the last 50 years, including the genocide of Idi Amin. "We want Uganda to be known as a nation that fears God and as a nation whose foundations are firmly rooted in righteousness and justice..."

Not surprisingly, the U.S. media wasn't nearly as impressed by this gesture as FRC--a fact I alluded to in a tweet that same day. "American liberals are upset that Ugandan Pres is leading his nation in repentance--afraid of a modern example of a nation prospered by God?"

Well, as we learned two years ago, if you want to get the press's attention, just say the word "Uganda" and wait for the firestorm. For years, the African nation has been condemned for its severe laws criminalizing homosexuality. Despite allegations to the contrary, FRC has never supported that policy--or any policy that imposes the death penalty on homosexuals. What we do oppose is the suggestion that gay and lesbian acts are universal human rights. So when Congress introduced a resolution in 2010 denouncing Uganda's punishment for homosexuality, FRC fought--at the request of some Members--to strike the pro-homosexual "human rights" language from the final measure.

Several liberals, including David Weigel at the Washington Post, chose to misrepresent our involvement as an indication that we opposed the entire bill! "Family Research Council Lobbied against Resolution Condemning Uganda Anti-Homosexuality Law," Weigel's headline read. It was a convenient storyline for extremists like the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) who resort to demonizing FRC when they can't compete with us ideologically. Although Weigel later posted a retraction, the damage had already been done.

Now, more than two years later, the lies about FRC's position have resurfaced. After Monday's story, HRC had the audacity to post that by applauding President Museveni, FRC was "praising the 'kill the gays' bill." I challenge anyone with a half a brain to read my tweet or Update story and conclude that FRC is any way supporting the death penalty of homosexuals. But gay activists have their hooks so deeply in the mainstream media that reporters no longer bother to check their facts. Once the blogs start spreading the lies of organizations like HRC and SPLC, they percolate up to reporters like Carolyn Lochhead at the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, who regurgitate HRC's garbage without so much as a courtesy call to our office. And these aren't harmless little lies either. They're the same intentional misrepresentations that led to the controversy over FRC's alleged ties to Chick-fil-A--culminating, as you may remember, in the violent shooting of one of our own employees!

Americans need to understand that this cozy relationship between the liberal media and unreliable sources like HRC is fostering a culture of hatred and violence--that same culture that led to the attempted mass murder of the entire FRC office. While it's troubling that any organization would deliberately spread untruths, it's more disturbing that someone who claims the title of journalist would report these lies as fact. Is it any wonder that distrust of the media is at an all-time high?

Update 11/30/12 - Current news is that Uganda's anti-homosexuality bill will not contain the death penalty.

DID PRO - GAY SITCOMS DETERMINE OUTCOME OF STATE VOTES ON SAME-SEX MARRIAGE?

Short answer: Yes.  I agree with John Stonestreet's viewpoint:      Listen Now | Download

[...]  Writes one commentator very bluntly at the Patheos.com blog “Bad Catholic”: “According to Hollywood, gay men are…just fabulous. You can hardly turn on a sitcom, read a novel, or watch a movie without seeing the Gay Man Abstraction. . . " a guy who’s “funny, cute, kooky, has great taste in clothes, and will always solve [the] straight female protagonist’s problems by the end of the episode.”

And a recent survey from the Hollywood Reporter confirms how this portrayal has changed the public’s attitude on homosexuality and same-sex “marriage.”

When asked whether favorable portrayals of gay characters on shows like “Glee,” “Modern Family” and “The New Normal”  had changed their views on gay “marriage,” twenty-seven percent of respondents—or over eighty percent of those whose views had changed—said that they were more in favor of gay “marriage.”

Says pollster John Penn, that’s due especially to the influx of young voters who grew up watching these shows.

“Views on gay marriage are totally defined by age,” says Penn. “Almost twice as many voters under 35 say these shows made them more in favor of gay marriage. . ."

Translation: The hearts and minds of Americans—especially our young people—are being changed when it comes to same-sex “marriage” and homosexual practice because of entertainment, not arguments.

But what popular media isn’t telling us about homosexuality and gay “marriage” is more manipulative still. In the well-adjusted, sex-savvy, healthy and loving portrayals we see of gay characters and their relationships, something important gets lost: the cost of living counter to God’s design: a higher risk of HIV, greater promiscuity, depression and substance abuse, and a lower life-expectancy—all well-documented consequences of an active homosexual lifestyle.

But in this election, entertainment-driven stereotypes which ignore these realities may have tipped the scales for the first time ever. Three states have just voted to allow same-sex marriage, and more importantly, polls now show that a majority of all Americans favor the change.

Scottish politician Andrew Fletcher once said, “Let me write the songs of a nation, and I don’t care who writes its laws.” If he were alive today, he might add, let me write the popular sitcoms of a nation.

Folks, we’ve spent years, money, talents, reputations and voices communicating the logical, moral and political reasons why marriage can only mean a man and a woman for life. But we’ve failed to do what the other side has succeeded at for so long: capturing the culture’s imagination.

Christian ideas have been very present in theology and politics, but not the arts.  And so now we face a political road ahead that’s rougher than we’ve faced in a long time. And so our real work lies in the culture. And rather than give up and accept the “new normal,” we’ve got to take a page from the other side’s playbook.

We’ve got to realize that the ideas that most effectively shape a culture are not necessarily those that are argued, but those that are embodied. They capture the heart and mind because they capture the imagination.

Further Reading and Information

THR Poll: 'Glee' and 'Modern Family' Drive Voters to Favor Gay Marriage--Even Many Romney Voter
Hollywoodreporter.com | November 3, 2012

AFTER GAY MARRIAGE SUCCESS, WHAT'S TO STOP POLYGAMY, POLYANDRY, POLYAMORY?

These are serious questions.  Ken Klukokoski writes:

Supporters of traditional marriage lost big on Election Day, with four states redefining marriage to include same-sex couples. Marriage defenders acknowledge they have serious work to do on several fronts going forward, even as the nation must now begin to consider the question of polygamy.  

Washington State and Maine redefined marriage in their states to include two-man and two-woman couples. In Maryland the legislature recently did so with a new statute that was signed into law by Governor Martin O’Malley, a Democrat weighing a presidential run in 2016, and a statewide ballot measure to overturn that law narrowly failed. And in Minnesota, a proposed state constitutional amendment to reaffirm marriage as one man and one woman narrowly failed to pass.  

Traditional marriage has previously enjoyed a success record of 33-0 in statewide contests, winning in every state the people were given a chance to vote. The record from this week was a batting average of 1000 for the other side, resulting in a 33-4 national tally.

Predictably, both liberals and social libertarians say this week’s results show that gay marriage is inevitable nationwide. And some in the Republican Party trying to redefine conservatism as a political movement solely focused on economic issues (with some also arguing for strong national security) say this is proof that the GOP should throw these issues overboard going forward.

But the facts from the election returns don’t support the contention that marriage is a losing issue. First, it appears that supporters of gay marriage had vast resources to promote these ballot measures that swamped social conservatives, easily outspending supporters of traditional marriage. The Left managed to heavily market this issue not only to their base but also developed ads targeting Republicans, young people, and minorities with customized messages as to why those specific audiences should support gay marriage. Traditional marriage supporters had insufficient funds to effectively respond.

SAME-SEX MARRIAGE TO BE VOTED ON IN FOUR STATES - MARYLAND, MAINE, MINNESOTA, WASHINGTON

Speaking of homosexuality, have you any idea the percentage of the U.S. population that claims to be gay?  The Family Research Council reports on the latest broad survey findings:

When Gallup asked people to estimate how many Americans were homosexual in 2011, most guessed 25%. Turns out, they were about 22% off. The actual number, Gallup reports today, is about 3.4%--a startling statistic for most people who just naturally assumed the media saturation was driven by a big population. Who can blame them? These numbers should be shocking to anyone who's lived through the deluge of gay and lesbian policy, entertainment, school curriculum, and corporate capitulation of the past 10 years.

According to Gallup, this survey is the largest single study of the U.S. LGBT population ever conducted. Over four months, Gallup canvassed the country by phone, interviewing more than 121,000 people. The results were based on answers to this question, "Do you, personally, identify as a lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender?" Although surveys like this one can be tricky--pollsters are never sure how many people are truly candid--the numbers are consistent with FRC's research and other experts'. Just last year, the Department of Health and Human Services released a similar figure of 3.8%. In this instance, the biggest concentrations of LGBT were young adults (6.4%), women (3.6%), and young women (8.3%).

Although the homosexual community may not be the largest in the U.S.--it's certainly the loudest. That might explain the major disconnect between the media's portrayal and reality. Just last month, liberals celebrated a record number of homosexual and cross-dressing characters on TV--which is somewhat ironic today, considering the sliver of the population they represent. For years, these 3.4% have seemed to enjoy 100% accommodation. As a community, they've gone out of their way to demand special treatment--even trampling the freedom and values of the other 97% to secure it.

This may be a tiny fraction of the population, but they are quite literally rewriting history. . . 

MAINE, MINNESOTA, MARYLAND & WASHINGTON VOTING TUESDAY ON REDEFINING MARRIAGE

"Stand for Marriage" is running these ads:  - [Note: Updates added below]

Maine:

 

  

 

Minnesota:

Consider whether you can make a sacrificial donation to the campaigns to help keep these ads on the air through the election.

Update: Big money is pushing gay marriage.  NOM reports:

Just this week , billionaire Bill Gates gave $500,000 for gay marriage to the referendum fight in the state of Washington. Manhattan billionaire and Mayor, Mike Bloomberg, chipped in with his $250,000 "match" gift. Proponents of gay marriage in Washington (R-74) have spent more than $9.5 million already—five times more than the whole war chest of the little band of faithful brothers and sisters at Protect Marriage Washington. They are the David in this fight against the Goliath of the gay marriage media-industrial complex—Big Business, Big Hollywood, and Big Media—who have been on the airwaves for literally months with ads.

The money advantage is only part of the story. Big media and big business are joining forces to push gay marriage like nothing I've ever seen before.

Major corporations in Washington have pooled their resources to take out a full-page ad announcing support for gay marriage. The Olympian reports:

Executives from leading Washington businesses—including iconic Northwest brands such as Costco, Nordstrom, Microsoft, REI, Amazon.com and many others—have signed onto a full page ad in this morning's Sunday Seattle Times [sic], endorsing Referendum 74's same-sex marriage law.

Nordstrom sent an email to all 58,000 employees announcing company policy supports gay marriage, and urging them to vote for R-74. (It may backfire: how many ordinary workers want our bosses instructing us how to vote in a moral matter like the definition of marriage?)

And the Seattle Times corporation upped the ante, announcing it would donate at least $90,000 in free full-page newspaper ads supporting gay marriage!

Traditional marriage ad running in Washington State:

 

SHOULD MARRIAGE BE CHANGED TO PROMOTE SAME-SEX COUPLES?

This video provides a good, true analysis of why marriage should be limited to one man and one woman.

See also Peter Sprigg - "Opposing homosexual 'marriage' could cost you your job."

Also, 10 Reasons why the government is wrong to redefine marriage

GALLAUDET UNIVERSITY ATTACKS FREE SPEECH

From the National Organization for Marriage (NOM):

Dr. Angela McCaskill.    You may not know her name but you should. She is the first black deaf woman to be granted a PhD by Gallaudet University, a national university for deaf people.

Until a few days ago, she was Gallaudet's chief diversity officer.

You can see her discussing her job here:

But then someone complained about Dr. McCaskill.

Was it about her job performance? Did she make a mistake? Fail in a key duty? Treat someone wrongly?

No. The complaint against Dr. Angela McCaskill consists of one fact and one fact alone: she exercised her core civil rights by signing a petition to put the question of marriage on the ballot for the voters of Maryland.

That's it. But that in itself was enough for Gallaudet to relieve Dr. McCaskill of her responsibilities and to place her on paid leave while they "investigate" her!

This is a very sad day in America. African-American Christians, it seems to me, are paying a disproportionate price for exercising these core civil rights to speak, to vote, to donate and to organize on behalf of marriage and traditional views on sexuality. Consider these examples:

Crystal Dixon, an administrator at the University of Toledo, was fired after writing a letter (as a private citizen) to the editor of the Toledo Free Press. The letter respectfully opposed the notion of gay rights and explained God's plan for human beings. Activists later tried to keep a city from hiring her.

In New Jersey, a special education teacher, Viki Knox, wrote a message on her personal Facebook page criticizing the school's promotion of a "Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender History Month." Activist groups and others have demanded that she be fired, and have planned protests targeting her. The lawyer who began the attack on Knox said: "Hateful public comments from a teacher cannot be tolerated. She has a right to say it. But she does not have a right to keep her job after saying it."

This week The Star-Ledger reports that, under ongoing pressure and threats not only to her job but to her pension, Viki Knox has chosen to resign!

And in Michigan, Julea Ward, a graduate student at Eastern Michigan University, was dismissed from that school's counseling program after asking for permission to refer a client to another counselor because she was uncomfortable affirming that client's same-sex relationship.

But there's something especially chilling in this most recent case regarding the treatment of Dr. McCaskill, who simply exercised her civil right to sign a petition in favor of putting a certain question before her state's voters.

It would be shocking to the conscience if this happened anywhere. But here's another thing you may not know about Gallaudet: it's not a private university! It's a Congressionally chartered corporation, with a legal obligation to report each year to the Secretary of Education, who must approve any transfer or sale of real property owned by the university. Traditionally, the diplomas at Gallaudet are even signed by the President of the United States.

I hope Gallaudet University does the right thing. If not, I hope the President of the United States will make it clear that this injustice must stop. As a final failsafe, I hope Congress recognizes its responsibility to affirm how this behavior is unacceptable in a government-affiliated institution.

Let me make it clear that there is a principle at stake here as important as marriage itself: No American, whether he or she is for or against gay marriage, should be afraid to vote, to sign petitions, to donate or to speak—with civility of course!—in support of that position.

Even Marylanders for Marriage Equality campaign manager, Josh Levin, says that Angela McCaskill "should be reinstated immediately."

I thank Mr. Levin for that, and I hope and pray that he's doing that out of conviction and not just because he knows that this story is a real problem for his goal of getting voters to approve gay marriage in Maryland—the record of gay rights activists is not very good in this regard.

Please join me in praying for Dr. McCaskill, and praying that justice be done in her case.

In addition (10/13/12), the Family Research Council makes the point:

As Americans wrestle over this debate in four states, Dr. McCaskill is the perfect illustration of what's at stake. It's not love. It's not commitment. It's not even equality. The battle for marriage is about our most basic civil rights--rights to worship, to speak freely, to cast our ballots, even, in Dr. McCaskill's case, to pursue a livelihood. As Derek McCoy, head of the Maryland Marriage Alliance, pointed out, "If these attacks can be made before same-sex 'marriage' is law, how can homosexual activists in good faith say that religious liberties will not be attacked it Question 6 passes?" If Gallaudet is willing to harass its own educational pioneers, there is no limit to the persecution everyday Marylanders will face if marriage is redefined.

BLACK PASTORS OPPOSE GAY MARRIAGE

From the Family Research Council:

On the issue of marriage, President Obama may speak for liberals, but he doesn't speak for the black community. That became painfully obvious in North Carolina when 61% of the state, including the majority of African Americans, turned out to protect what Obama had attacked: marriage as the union of a man and a woman. Months later, the President's miscalculation is still costing him, as 18% of African Americans say they are still undecided about which candidate to support.

Thousands of black church leaders continue to speak out against his position, including the Coalition of African American Pastors (CAAP), which is combating what it sees as a phony civil rights movement. Adding to their frustration, the NAACP has taken to bucking its base and launching its own campaign to support same-sex "marriage" in Maryland. Featuring Julian Bond, the organization's chairman emeritus, the ads insist that the state's "gay and lesbian families share the same values" as the NAACP "and they should share in the right to marry."

Rev. Bill Owens, who presides over CAAP, had plenty to say about the campaign. "Gay marriage is not a civil right it's a civil wrong, and the NAACP needs to change its name to the National Association for the Advancement of Gay People if it's now spending money not to advance the interest of black people but of the gay community."

Meanwhile, as the race over marriage tightens, the Maryland Marriage Alliance released its first television spot, encouraging voters to oppose Question 6. You can help support that effort by clicking here. Help remind Marylanders that while everyone is entitled to love and respect, no one--not even President Obama--is entitled to redefining marriage.

MAGGIE GALLAGHER - HOW COMMON ARE STABLE SAME-SEX COUPLES?

Gallagher reports:

The October issue of Journal of Marriage and Family published an analysis by Charles Lau of a British probability sample, “The Stability of Same-Sex Cohabitation, Different-Sex Cohabitation, and Marriage.”

Lau found that cohabiting same-sex couples in Great Britain are twice as likely to break up as cohabiting opposite sex couples — and married couples (all opposite-sex in Great Britain) are at least five times more stable than same-sex couples:

Compared to married couples, the dissolution rates for male and female same-sex cohabiters were seven and five times higher, respectively. Among cohabiters, the differences were smaller: The dissolution rate for male and female same-sex cohabiters was approximately double the rate for different-sex cohabiters.

He also reports no increase in stability of same-sex unions between the 1958 birth cohort and the 1970 birth cohort.

This of course cannot tell us how children fare on average when they are raised by stable same-sex couples, or whether gay marriage will significantly increase stability in same-sex couples. It can tell us why Professor Mark Regnerus’s study turned up so few: They are rare.

WEASEL ZIPPERS - BEST SITE FOR NEWS POSTS ALL DAY LONG

If I had the time, I would probably put up a dozen blog post links (out of 3 dozen or more!) that Weasel Zippers puts up throughout the day.  If you scan the Weasel Zippers headlines and short squibs you will know a thousand per cent more than you would relying on newspapers or TV (including Fox News).  Sample posts in the last few hours:

France’s Socialist Government To Ban Words “Mother” And “Father” From All Official Documents Thanks To Gay Marriage Law…

A glimpse into our “progressive” future should we choose to go down it.

Via Telegraph:

France is set to ban the words “mother” and “father” from all official documents under controversial plans to legalise gay marriage.

The move, which has outraged Catholics, means only the word “parents” would be used in identical marriage ceremonies for all heterosexual and same-sex couples.

The draft law states that “marriage is a union of two people, of different or the same gender”.

It says all references to “mothers and fathers” in the civil code – which enshrines French law – will be swapped for simply “parents”.

The law would also give equal adoption rights to homosexual and heterosexual couples.

Justice Minister Christiane Taubira told France’s Catholic newspaper La Croix: “Who is to say that a heterosexual couple will bring a child up better than a homosexual couple, that they will guarantee the best conditions for the child’s development?”

Keep reading…

Note: Legalizing gay marriage and adoption was one of the first laws France’s socialist government passed after they were elected in May.

 

OIC Demands West Enact Laws Outlawing “Islamophobia”…

Silence infidels!

(Reuters) – The world’s largest Islamic body called on Tuesday for expressions of “Islamophobia” to be curbed by law, just as some countries restrict anti-Semitic speech or Holocaust denial.

Pakistan, speaking on behalf of the 56 countries that form the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), condemned a video made in the United States that defamed Islam and the Prophet Mohammad, igniting Muslim protests around the world this month.

“Incidents like this clearly demonstrate the urgent need on the part of states to introduce adequate protection against acts of hate crimes, hate speech, discrimination, intimidation and coercion resulting from defamation and negative stereotyping of religions, and incitement to religious hatred, as well as denigration of venerated personalities,” Pakistan’s ambassador Zamir Akram said in a speech to the U.N. Human Rights Council.

The Obama administration has condemned the film entitled “Innocence of Muslims” as “disgusting”. But Western countries remain determined to resist restrictions on freedom of speech and have already voiced disquiet about the repressive effect of blasphemy laws in Muslim countries such as Pakistan.

Akram said the crudely made video, as well as the burning of the Koran and the publication of defamatory cartoons, amount to “deliberate attempts to discriminate, defame, denigrate and vilify Muslims and their beliefs”.

Such acts constitute “flagrant incitement to violence” and are not protected by freedom of expression, Akram said. Rather, he said, Islamophobia must be acknowledged as a contemporary form of racism and be dealt with as such.

“Not to do so would be a clear example of double standards. Islamophobia has to be treated in law and practice equal to the treatment given to anti-Semitism, especially in legislations.”

Other posts:

Breakdown Of Obama’s U.N. Speech: 5 Minutes Spent Talking About Mohammed Film, Only 1 1/2 Minutes On Iran…

Good News: 60% Of U.S. Firms To Kill Health Insurance Or Charge Employees More Under Obamacare…

Islamic Battle Flag Makes Its Way From Cairo To NYC Muslim Day Parade…

NY Democrat Attends Muslim Parade In Manhattan, Shocked To Hear Anti-Semitic Rhetoric From Speakers…

Afghan: 16-Year-Old Girl Whipped 100 Times On Orders Of Muslim Cleric…

Senior Jihadi Writer Calls For Beheading Westerners, Putting Their Decapitated Heads On Display To Silence Attempts To Mock Mohammed…

THE PROFESSOR WHO DARED ROCK THE BOAT

From Jim Daly at Focus on the Famly:

Mark Regnerus’ life was turned upside down this past June when he published a study in the journal, Social Science Research, with findings that contradicted popular homosexual activist talking points.

 The respected associate professor of sociology at the University of Texas at Austin became fodder in the blogosphere and was accused of committing “scientific misconduct” by several individuals and organizations.

 What was so controversial or egregious about Dr. Regnerus’ research?

 In short, the professor’s study found that children who are raised by parents who have had a same-sex relationship don’t do as well in life when compared to children of married heterosexual parents.

 In Professor Regnerus’ own words:

 On 25 of 40 different outcomes evaluated, the children of women who’ve had same-sex relationships fare quite differently than those in stable, biologically-intact mom-and-pop families, displaying numbers more comparable to those from heterosexual stepfamilies and single parents.

 Even after including controls for age, race, gender, and things like being bullied as a youth, or the gay-friendliness of the state in which they live, such respondents were more apt to report being unemployed, less healthy, more depressed, more likely to have cheated on a spouse or partner, smoke more pot, had trouble with the law, report more male and female sex partners, more sexual victimization, and were more likely to reflect negatively on their childhood family life, among other things.

One notable theme among the adult children of same-sex parents … is household instability, and plenty of it. The children of fathers who have had same-sex relationships fare a bit better, but they seldom reported living with their father for very long, and never with his partner for more than three years.

 The University of Texas took the accusations lodged against their faculty member seriously and launched an inquiry. Basically, the school was trying to find out whether Professor Regnerus had an agenda and was falsifying or playing loose with the data he collected. His computers were seized, as well as other forms of personal correspondence. Interviews were conducted.

 In the end, Professor Regnerus was cleared of all charges.

 “None of the allegations of scientific misconduct put forth,” a university official wrote in a memo, “were substantiated either by physical data, written materials, or by information provided during the interviews.”

 So, he is innocent. But here is the sad irony:

 Professor Regnerus wasn’t being attacked because his research lacked academic rigor – in fact, his peer-reviewed study was by far the largest, most statistically valid study on the topic to be done. He was being attacked because his scientific findings didn’t square with the liberal perspective. When it comes to this topic of homosexual parenting, numerous other studies have been published that utilized all kinds of sloppy techniques, all intended to generate a desired outcome – that children do just fine in homosexual households. None of the professors who have conducted those studies have been subjected to similar investigations, even though their bias is obvious and their work deeply flawed.

The indignity that befell Professor Regnerus notwithstanding, the findings of his study should embolden and hearten those who believe in the biblical definition of marriage.

Here’s why:

Reality is not going to contradict God’s law and humans have the best chance to flourish when they follow it.

Horrible… Gay Activists Abuse a Praying Priest Outside of Chick-fil-A (Video)

From Gateway Pundit. 

From the video: Father Gerald O’Reilly is shouted down by a group of protesters from the Gay Liberation Network as he prays outside of Chick-fil-A, (Watertower) in Chicago Illinois on the 8th of August, 2012.

Me: Tolerance on display.  What do you think of the protestors?

BLOWOUT CROWDS FOR CHICK-FIL-A APPRECIATION DAY

Wow.  Talk about crowds!  I went this evening to a local Chick-fil-A and waited in line for an hour and a half for my Chargrilled Chicken Sandwich.   Talk about lines!  In addition to the long lines at the 3 walk-up windows,  I marvelled at the line of cars coming from two different directions.  People waited hours.  What patience!  It amazes me that people didn't take one look at the lines, and say, "They don't need my vote!  I'll just move on."  But people chose to stay! They chose to sit in their cars or stand in line.  And the atmosphere was festive.

It's hard to convey just how long the automobile lines were.  If you look closely you will see there are two lines visible here, coming from opposite directions:

How significant was today's turnout in support of free speech and traditional marriage?  I think it huge.  Ordinary people seized the opportunity given them to demonstrate their convictions, and they did it with huge exclamation marks.  The media attempts to condition people to fall in line with elite opinion, but when the plebeians were given a chance to make known what they really think, they seized it.  I think the same-sex juggernaut may have run into a serious roadblock.   The tide in this nation may be turning. It was an altogether heartening day.

JOIN MILLIONS EATING AT CHICK-FIL-A TODAY!

From National Organization for Marriage -

It's going to be huge. Perhaps the busiest day in Chick-fil-A history.

If you haven't done so already, find a local Chick-fil-A restaurant so you can get out there today and participate in this historic event!

Today's "Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day" has become a national sensation since Governor Mike Huckabee began the grassroots campaign on his radio program two weeks ago. The efforts of politicians to intimidate Chick-fil-A restaurants in Boston, Philadelphia, Chicago, San Francisco and Washington, DC have only provoked more of a response from the people, with now more than half-a-million Americans pledging to pay their thanks to the Cathys today (in exchange for some great food)!

As the Rev. Billy Graham said last week: "I want to express my support for my good friends Truett Cathy and his son Dan Cathy, and for their strong stand for the Christian faith. . . . As the son of a dairy farmer who milked many a cow, I plan to 'Eat Mor Chikin' and show my support by visiting Chick-fil-A next Wednesday."

Join Rev. Billy Graham, Sarah Palin, Rick Santorum, Tim Pawlenty, Bob McDonnell and millions of your fellow Americans in supporting the Cathy family today!

As I told Governor Mike Huckabee on his radio show last week, we are thrilled to help spread the word about this terrific event. But there are two more things I am asking you to do:

1. 

   The media will probably ignore today's event—so help us by being our team of reporters across the nation. Send your pictures and stories to [email protected] and we'll get the word out.

2. 

   Visit www.ThankChickfilA.com to send a note of thanks to the Cathy family for their courage in standing for the true meaning of marriage, for religious freedom and free speech.

Get out there and show your support today, and make sure the Cathys know how much you honor their heroism—while at the same time making clear to the gay marriage bullies that those who believe in God's truth about marriage are strong and united.

THE PERPETUALLY IRRITATED REP. BARNEY FRANK

Has anyone ever viewed an interview with Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) in which he hasn't come across as peevish and irritated?   Does his aggressive crankiness evidence an interior maelstrom? 

In this inteview, kudos to Mario Barteromo who doesn't roll over and play dead.  HT: Weasel Zippers

Note:  I slightly edited the original post.

IF YOU LIVE IN BOSTON, AND ARE PRO-TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE, PREPARE TO BE DISCRIMINATED AGAINST

The Boston Mayor, Tom Menino, detests traditional marriage advocates.  The Family Research Council reports:

Boston may be where America fought for its freedoms--but now, it's a city where businesses can't even exercise them! That's all thanks to city Mayor Tom Menino, who is making it known that private companies aren't welcome inside the city limits unless they share his politically narrow views. Last week, after Chick-Fil-A's CEO Dan Cathy affirmed his belief in man-woman marriage, Menino promised to single-handedly block the chain from Boston.

Despite the fact that Cathy's views are his own--and ignoring the company's pledge to "treat every person with honor, dignity, and respect"--the Mayor insists, "You can't have a business in the city of Boston that discriminates against a population." (Apparently, you can have a mayor that does). "We're an open city," Menino told the Boston Herald, "We're a city that's at the forefront of inclusion." (Until, of course, that "inclusion" applies to people who support traditional marriage.) Surprising even the Herald staff, Mayor Menino threatened to use his political power for his personal vendetta against the Cathys, vowing to play hardball with Chick-Fil-A's permits if it ever decided to open a restaurant in the area. "If they need licenses in the city, it will be very difficult--unless they open up their policies."

For the government to engage in viewpoint discrimination is not only bad politics--it's unconstitutional. Chick-fil-A may be a private company, but that doesn't mean it has to surrender its beliefs at the dining room door. Under the First Amendment, executives at Chick-Fil-A are just as entitled as any American to speak publicly about their views. The editors at the Boston Herald agree. In a joint column, they write that the condemnation of "such an abuse of government power" should be "swift" and "overwhelming." "In Menino's city, the punishment for failing to toe the progressive line is banishment." Ironically, that's exactly the kind of despotism that Boston 's patriots were fighting more than 230 years ago. Increasingly, though, it is becoming apparent that this kind of ideological totalitarianism is the train that follows same-sex "marriage."

CHICK-FIL-A PRESIDENT SUPPORTS TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE

Yahoo News employs the heading, "Chick-fil-A president slams gay marriage," and covered the story this way: (Article by Dylan Stableford)

The president of Chick-fil-A, the fast food chain with more than 1,600 restaurants and $4 billion in revenue, has come out against same-sex marriage.

"I think we are inviting God's judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at him and say, 'We know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage,'" Dan Cathy, the company's president and chief operating officer, said in a recent radio interview. "I pray God's mercy on our generation that has such a prideful, arrogant attitude to think that we have the audacity to define what marriage is about."

In an interview with the Baptist Press published this week, Cathy doubled down on his stance against same-sex unions.

"Guilty as charged," Cathy said. "We are very much supportive of the family—the biblical definition of the family unit. We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that."

WASHINGTON UPDATE FROM THE FAMILY RESEARCH COUNCIL

Todays update:

A Time to Spend ANDA Time to Cut

July 18, 2012 - Wednesday

It may be the last appropriations bill released this year, but it's by no means the least! Congressman Denny Rehberg (R-Mont.) made sure of that. As Chairman of the House subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Rep. Rehberg gave Planned Parenthood and NARAL plenty to complain about when he unveiled his Committee's spending plan for the next fiscal year. Apart from shaving off billions from the Labor, HHS, and Education Department budgets, the measure also takes direct aim at ObamaCare, its mandates, and abortion. Even the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, home to the Left's pet media outlets NPR and PBS, would lose the crutch of millions of taxpayer dollars.

To the delight of most taxpayers, Planned Parenthood would be the bill's biggest casualty. With the blessing of Appropriations Chairman Hal Rogers (R-Ky.), conservatives took an axe to the organization's federal gravy train--zeroing out every last penny to America's largest abortion business. Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) tried to reinstate the funds in today's mark-up, but failed 9-5. In fact, under the leadership of Rep. Rehberg, the Committee went the other direction adding a bundle of other pro-life policies. The Chairman also took the opportunity to attach the Abortion Non-Discrimination Act (ANDA) to the broader bill, which would help end discrimination against pro-lifers in the health care industry. If it survives, ANDA would give medical workers legal recourse if they're sidelined for their pro-life views.

And speaking of conscience rights, employers might have a fighting chance at protecting theirs after today's debate. Despite enormous pressure to pull the language, Rep. Rehberg stuck to his guns and included a section that exempts employers who have moral objections to contraception or abortion pills from covering them. Rep. Nita Lowey (D-N.Y.) did her best to strike the policy, but Republicans doubled up the opposition and voted her amendment down 9-5. And they didn't stop there! The good news spilled over into two other provisions: one blocking the funds for ObamaCare's implementation and another restoring $20 million for abstinence education grants, which had been all but destroyed when President Obama took office.

Of course, the media is counting out the bill before it even reaches the floor. Help prove them wrong! Contact Republican leaders Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) and House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) and encourage them to schedule the legislation--and its pro-life, pro-freedom gains--for a vote.

Boy Scouts' Courage Merits Support

Despite relentless pressure to make its message more politically correct, the Boy Scouts of America (BSA) has never wavered from instilling character into generations of America's sons. And according to national spokesman Deron Smith, that won't change any time soon. After an extensive two-year review, which involved everyone from executives to adult volunteers, the organization reaffirmed its commitment to keeping the Scouts "morally straight" yesterday by upholding its ban on homosexuality. "The vast majority of the parents of youth we serve value their right to address issues of same-sex orientation within their family, with spiritual advisers, and at the appropriate time and in the right setting," Smith said. "[We] came to the conclusion that this policy is absolutely the best policy for the Boy Scouts."

For years, the Scouts have taken a public beating from the Left--all because they stayed focused on what benefits the boys they serve rather than turning the organization on its head to meet the needs of a handful of homosexuals who want to be scout masters. The BSA tried to create membership criteria in the best interest of kids' safety and parents' rights.

In 2010, when the group made dozens of cases of child sexual abuse from the 1960s-1980s public, it was obvious that the organization wasn't arbitrarily opposed to homosexual scout leaders when it banned them from serving in the late 1990s (a decision that the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed in 2000). Far from being intolerant, the Scouts took the necessary steps to cut down on the episodes of men sexually abusing boys that had been plaguing the BSA since the middle of the last century. Allowing the Scouts to appoint leaders who represent their values protects other organizations' rights of association and preserves the peace of mind of parents who want to make sure their children are mentored in healthy ways.

Most people don't realize that nearly 70 percent of all Scout troops were chartered and are supported by faith-based organizations. If homosexuals were allowed to serve in the BSA, thousands of churches would be forced to disenfranchise their troops, effectively killing the organization. So today, while so many continue to pile on the Scouts, FRC salutes them. Whether it's learning how to sharpen a knife, cook a meal, or help a neighbor, the BSA has invested billions of hours into creating generations of responsible citizens. But more importantly, the Scouts are teaching boys something our culture doesn't: how to become men worthy of respect.

** For more on the Boy Scouts, don't miss my interview on today's "Mike Huckabee Show." Click here for the audio.

HOW DO CHILDREN FARE RAISED IN SAME-SEX "FAMILIES"?

John Stonestreet writing for "Breakpoint" reports:

Over the last decade or so, scholars have been saying that households headed by homosexual or lesbian parents are not only as good as those of traditional, heterosexual parents, but that in some cases they are even better, in terms of outcomes for the children.

One researcher noted that “non-heterosexual” parents experience significantly better relationships with their children than do heterosexual ones on average, and that the kids in homosexual-headed families exhibited no differences in cognitive development, psychological adjustment, or gender identity.

The prestigious American Psychological Association asserted, “Not a single study has found children of lesbian or gay parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents.” Case closed then, right?

Hardly. Mark Regnerus is associate professor of sociology at the University of Texas at Austin. He thought the accepted data were suspect, partly because there were so few families actually studied and partly because the research subjects were usually self-selected, leading to bias.

So Regnerus and his colleagues set up the New Family Structures Study, in which they randomly screened over 15,000 Americans aged 18-39, asking them if their biological mother or father ever had a romantic relationship with a member of the same sex.

The study appears in the July issue of the Social Science Research journal. From this huge grouping the researchers came up with 248 young adults who fit the profile. And the study shows clearly that kids raised by parents involved in same-sex relationships do not fare as well as children from traditional homes.

TIM KELLER ON BIBLE INTERPRETATION: "OLD TESTAMENT LAW AND THE CHARGE OF INCONSISTENCY"

Tim Keller pastors  Redeemer Presbyterian Church in New York City and is the well-received author of many books, including The Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism,  The Meaning of Marriage, and Counterfeit Gods, among others.  He frequently speaks at Veritas Forums on university campuses and has twice been invited to speak at  Google headquarters in California (here and here).   His sermons are available here.

In this "Redeemer Report" for June,  Keller addresses an issue that Christians confront time and time again: namely, ignorance about the structure of the Bible as universally understood by Christians.  Here is what Keller has to say about Bible interpretation:  (HT: Justin Taylor)

I find it frustrating when I read or hear columnists, pundits, or journalists dismiss Christians as inconsistent because “they pick and choose which of the rules in the Bible to obey.” What I hear most often is “Christians ignore lots of Old Testament texts—about not eating raw meat or pork or shellfish, not executing people for breaking the Sabbath, not wearing garments woven with two kinds of material and so on. Then they condemn homosexuality. Aren’t you just picking and choosing what they want to believe from the Bible?”

 

It is not that I expect everyone to have the capability of understanding that the whole Bible is about Jesus and God’s plan to redeem his people, but I vainly hope that one day someone will access their common sense (or at least talk to an informed theological advisor) before leveling the charge of inconsistency.

 

First of all, let’s be clear that it’s not only the Old Testament that has proscriptions about homosexuality. The New Testament has plenty to say about it, as well. Even Jesus says, in his discussion of divorce in Matthew 19:3-12 that the original design of God was for one man and one woman to be united as one flesh, and failing that, (v. 12) persons should abstain from marriage and from sex. 

 

However, let’s get back to considering the larger issue of inconsistency regarding things mentioned in the OT that are no longer practiced by the New Testament people of God. Most Christians don’t know what to say when confronted about this. Here’s a short course on the relationship of the Old Testament to the New Testament:

I DON'T SHOP AT 'TARGET' IF I CAN HELP IT

Why should I?  Their ideology is contra mine, and contra the traditional family.  An email letter from Tony Perkins of the Family Research Coucil explains:

June 8m, 2012

Mnneapolis based mega-retailer, Target Corp. has announced that throughout the month of June (which President Obama has officially declared "Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Pride Month") it will be selling "gay pride" t-shirts with 100 percent of the proceeds to benefit the Family Equality Council, a national pro-homosexual organization bent on eliminating faith-based adoption agencies and redefining marriage throughout the nation.

The Family Equality Council's clear objective is to pass legislation on the local and national level that would effectively shut down Christian based adoption agencies. We have seen this happen in Illinois, Massachusetts and Washington, D.C.

The legislation orders all adoption agencies to no longer put a priority in placing a child in a home with a mom and dad, despite the overwhelming evidence that such households are by far the best environment for a child.

By making itself a clearinghouse for donations to a pro-homosexual group, Target has sent the message that they are 100 percent behind efforts to deny you the right to vote on marriage at the ballot box, and to shutter adoption agencies that prioritize placing children with mothers and fathers.

This not-so-fashionable fundraiser shows that Target has its sights set on social engineering. Please sign our petition letting Target know that you want them to take a position of neutrality on the redefinition of marriage and the right of Christian adoption agencies to operate as they have done throughout history. Tell Target that you want to see them focused on growing their business instead of providing free advertising and funding for groups that thwart your values, and then alert your local store managers by giving them a free flyer to let them know what their corporate office is doing.

Urge Target Corporation to halt fundraising for anti-Christian adoption group

Tony Perkins
President

P.S. Please forward this alert to friends, family and fellow church members, and post to your favorite social networks.

FORMER PRESIDENT OF AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION (APA) SAYS ORGANIZATION CONTROLLED BY 'GAY RIGHTS' MOVEMENT

Matthew Cullinan Hoffman writes:  [the highlighting is my own]

A former president of the American Psychological Association (APA), who also introduced the motion to declassify homosexuality as a mental illness in 1975, says that the APA has been taken over by "ultraliberals" beholden to the "gay rights movement," who refuse to allow an open debate on reparative therapy for homosexuality.

Dr. Nicholas Cummings was President of the APA from 1979 to 1980, and also served as a member of the organization's Council of Representatives. He served for years as Chief of Mental Health with the Kaiser-Permanente Health Maintenance Organization, and is the author of the book "Destructive Trends in Mental Health: The Well-Intentioned Path to Harm."

In an interview with representatives of the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) in late April, Cummings said that the organization's problems began with the rejection of the Leona Tyler Principle, which required that all public positions of the APA be supported by scientific evidence.

ALBERT MOHLER ANSWERS THE QUESTION: "THE BIBLE CONDEMNS A LOT, WHY FOCUS ON HOMOSEXUALITY?"

The accusation is "Christians take certain biblical condemnations seriously while ignoring others."  R. Albert Mohler, Jr., the President of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, responds:

Are conservative Christians hypocritical and selective when it comes to the Bible's condemnation of homosexuality? With all that the Bible condemns, why the focus on gay sex and same-sex marriage?

Given the heated nature of our current debates, it's a question conservative Christians have learned to expect. "Look," we are told, "the Bible condemns eating shellfish, wearing mixed fabrics and any number of other things. Why do you ignore those things and insist that the Bible must be obeyed when it comes to sex?"

On its face, it's a fair question. But it can be posed in two very different ways.

First, the question can be asked to suggest that the Bible's clear condemnation of sexual sins can simply be set aside. The other way of posing the question represents a genuine attempt to understand how the Bible is to be rightly applied to life today.

AMERICANS HAVE NO IDEA HOW FEW GAY PEOPLE THERE ARE

I was doing the dishes when I heard Rush Limbaugh refer to this Atlantic article by Garance Franke-Ruta.  It's a startling "tribute" to the power of the media that so many people think 25% of the population is gay when the actual number is around 2%.  Franke-Ruta opens her article stating the same:

Surveys show a shockingly high fraction think a quarter of the country is gay or lesbian, when the reality is that it's probably less than 2 percent.

She writes:

In surveys conducted in 2002 and 2011, pollsters at Gallup found that members of the American public massively overestimated how many people are gay or lesbian. In 2002, a quarter of those surveyed guessed upwards of a quarter of Americans were gay or lesbian (or "homosexual," the third option given). By 2011, that misperception had only grown, with more than a third of those surveyed now guessing that more than 25 percent of Americans are gay or lesbian. Women and young adults were most likely to provide high estimates, approximating that 30 percent of the population is gay. Overall, "U.S. adults, on average, estimate that 25 percent of Americans are gay or lesbian," Gallup found. Only 4 percent of all those surveyed in 2011 and about 8 percent of those surveyed in 2002 correctly guessed that fewer than 5 percent of Americans identify as gay or lesbian.

Here's a chart from Gallup:
Franke-Ruta points out rightly,

..."the extraordinary confusion over the percentage of gay people may reflect a triumph of the gay and lesbian movement's decades-long fight against invisibility and the closet.  "My first reaction to that, aside from a little chuckle, is that it's actually a sign of the success of the movement for LGBT rights," said Stuart Gaffney, a spokesman for the group Marriage Equality USA."

I can only agree.  Americans have been deluged with pro-homosexual propaganda which has had a powerful effect, as the poll numbers above indicate. 

Read the whole article...

Quote of the Day

From a Wall Street Journal letter to the editor:

"What you are not hearing [and should] is that every child deserves and wants a married mother and father."

I like that: simple, direct, and totally true.   A child's welfare should trump all other considerations.

NEW REBELS FOR MARRIAGE! - AN UPDATE LETTER FROM THE PRESIDENT OF THE NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR MARRIAGE

I found Brian S. Brown's email letter sufficiently informative and interesting to make it available for readers of my blog.

Thursday, May 24, 2012

Dear Marriage Supporter,

I flew to Europe this week to spread the good news: marriage is a winning issue!

I was in London.

The Law Society had banned the conference. So the organizers switched the venue to the Queen Elizabeth II Center, which is actually owned by the government.

The managers of the QE2 Center waited until the night before the event to ban the conference against gay marriage—again.

We assembled at a London hotel instead.

Here's what I told the crowd:

"I'm an American—so I'm a bit of a rebel. You guys have accomplished something amazing here. Six months ago you gave yourselves only a ten percent shot of derailing David Cameron's gay marriage bandwagon. Now it's a fifty-fifty battle, a result of a genuine rebellion of the people against the elites who looked at polls and were going to throw in the towel."

And I told them, that's exactly what has happened in the U.S., over and over again. Political elites try to shut down the debate, they tell us it's impossible to win. Then we win, over and over again.

Phillip Blond is an important public intellectual in Great Britain. He's behind David Cameron's emphasis on localism and the true diversity it encourages. He's not behind the Prime Minister's absurdly counterproductive embrace of gay marriage.

He's actually taken the position that gay marriage is "homophobic" for forcing gay people out of authentic diversity into an institution designed by and for opposite sex couples. Domestic partnerships, he says, offer homosexual people a chance to develop their own diverse cultural norms.

Philip Blond showed up at the conference, and sat there tweeting a response to all those who claimed he was hanging out with bigots, saying more or less 'I haven't heard anything homophobic, and the way to get me to show up at something is to try to ban it.'

(For some of his actual tweets, the liberal press in the U.K. reports them here.)

We got a chance to hang out together afterwards.

For the flavor of Phillip Blond, take a look at this video from the nomblog:

Philip Blond is not the only rebel for marriage!

Brendan O'Neil used to publish a Marxist magazine. He now edits his own progressive online journal Spiked.

After the amazing victory for marriage in North Carolina, he published an essay in The Telegraph chronicling the open hatred and insults directed at an entire state by elites:

SEMINARS ON HOMOSEXUALITY, CHANGE, AND THE GOSPEL

Justin Taylor has collected some additional resources - audio, video, and print.  He includes preliminary summaries of audio/video content which proves helpful in choosing what to watch or listen to.

The audio/visual lecture by Professor Sam Williams (Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary) linked above is available in manuscript form here.

Justin Taylor says "If you’re looking for a good resource on thinking about the arguments for homosexuality—especially exegetical ones—the best authority to consult is Professor Robert Gagnon. His book The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics is the standard in the field."

A commenter on Taylor's blog post, recommended these additional talks.  

Another commenter noted that Regent College Audio has an entire course (“The Bible, Homosexuality, and Sexual Ethics”) taught by RobertGagnon for sale.  He says, "It is not cheap but it was well worth it. It is basically his “The Bible and Homosexual Practice” text in lecture form. 20 hours worth."

 Additional note: On the subject of same-sex marriage, see previous posts here and here.

MORE RESOURCES RELATED TO THE SAME-SEX MARRIAGE DEBATE

Earlier today I posted resources from the Manhattan Declaration offering arguments in support of the traditional position that marriage should be defined as the union of one man and one woman.  The Family Research Council today also weighed in with resources of its own supporting the traditional understanding of marriage.  FRC has produced the video (below), “The Problem with Same-sex Marriage:  How It Will Affect You and Your Children.” 

 

Additionally, FRC has a variety of resources on the dangers of same-sex “marriage.”

• Why Marriage Matters
• Protect Marriage as the Union of One Man and One Woman
• Keep the Definition of Marriage as the Union of One Man and One Woman
• The Defense of Marriage Act: What It Does and Why It Is Vital for Traditional Marriage in America
• Is the Defense of Marriage Act Constitutional? Yes
• Basic Facts About The Defense of Marriage Act
• DOMA Won’t Do It: Why the Constitution Must Be Amended to Save Marriage
• Debating Homosexuality: Understanding Two Views
• The Top Ten Harms of Same-sex Marriage
• The Top Ten Myths of Homosexuality
• Homosexuality in your Child’s School
• The Bible, the Church, and Homosexuality

RESOURCES FOR ENTERING THE SAME-SEX MARRIAGE DEBATE

Eric Teetsel of The Manhattan Declaration has responded to President Obama's endorsement of same-sex marriage by writing the following:

The Manhattan Declaration is a coalition of the historic Christian faiths united in support of the sanctity of every human life, marriage as the conjugal union of a man to a woman as the bedrock of society, and religious liberty as the cornerstone of freedom. We promote a culture of life, love, and liberty in many ways. One is to equip you, our advocates, with the best resources on these issues.

 

Below is a list of ten articles and videos on the subject of marriage. Take an hour to skim them. Don’t try to memorize the data or recite the arguments verbatim; rather, reflect on them. Allow your mind to absorb the broad principles. As the national conversation on this topic reaches a fever pitch in the next few days, you will be primed as a witness to the truth.

 

One final thought: this is not a war to be won in the blogosphere or on Facebook. We are teachers, co-workers, family members, and friends in relationship with those who have yet to see. Be gracious, be patient, and be kind.

Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven. (Matthew 5:11)

 

What is Marriage?

by Sherif Girgis, Robert George, and Ryan T. Anderson

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1722155

 

Why I'm Optimistic About Natural Marriage

by Andrew Walker

http://www.mereorthodoxy.com/why-im-optimistic-about-natural-marriage/

 

Why Is Marriage Important? (video)

by John Piper

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nd3AmKexugM

 

Who Needs Marriage?

by Chuck Colson

http://www.breakpoint.org/the-center/columns/colson-files/17606-who-needs-marriage

 

Marriage in Society: The Generation Clash (pps. 47-57)

by Matthew Lee Anderson

http://issuu.com/thecity/docs/thecitywinter2009/47?mode=embed&layout=http://skin.issuu.com/v/light/layout.xml&showFlipBtn=true

 

What Would Bonhoeffer Do?

by Eric Metaxas

http://www.breakpoint.org/the-center/columns/call-response/15129-metaxas-what-would-bonhoeffer-do

 

Dennis Prager Debates Perez Hilton on Same-Sex Marriage (Warning: YouTube contains objectionable content)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vTE9zWaQc_Y

 

Religion, Reason, and Same-Sex Marriage

by Matthew J. Franck

http://www.firstthings.com/article/2011/05/religion-reason-and-same-sex-marriage

 

A Marriage in Full

by Gary A. Anderson

http://www.firstthings.com/article/2008/04/003-a-marriage-in-full-3

 

On Marriage and the Moral Limits of Human Sexuality

by Metropolitan Jonah

http://orthocath.wordpress.com/2011/08/01/metropolitan-jonah-on-marriage-and-the-moral-limits-of-human-sexuality/

 

There is a lot of great stuff I have failed to include in my list. Share your favorite articles, blogs, and videos with us on our Facebook page.

 

Warmly,

 

Eric Teetsel

KEN HUTCHERSON ON GAY MARRIAGE - AND ON RECLAIMING THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE

I hadn't heard of Ken Hutcherson until tonight.  He's the pastor of Antioch Baptist Church in Redmond, Washington.  He's also a former linebacker for the Dallas Cowboys and the Seattle Seahawks.  I like the responses he gives in this interview.

 

And here he is reclaiming the original meaning of "gay" and "rainbow."

FREE SPEECH FOR EX-GAYS IN LONDON DENIED

Juliann Mann writes:

The Conservative Mayor Boris Johnson has just banned this statement from London buses: "Not gay. Post-gay, ex-gay and proud. Get over it."

Such censorship of these advertisements, responding to the earlier "Some people are gay. Get over it." campaign by the highly politically influential homosexualist lobby group Stonewall, is disturbing enough. But the reasons Mr Johnson has given for the ban in the UK capital city are even more alarming.

His latest rationale frighteningly exposes the dry-rot in the edifice of democratic freedom.

UP-TO-DATE INFO FROM THE NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR MARRIAGE

Brian S. Brown, President of the National Organization for Marriage (NOM), sent the following e-mail to traditional marriage supporters today.  I'm impressed with the effectiveness of this organization as it continues to fight battles on many fronts.  Click through to the "Continue reading..." or read the whole thing conveniently here.  I do urge you to read the entire letter as it is very informative. 

 

 

Thursday, April 19, 2012

Dear Marriage Supporter,

Scandal is building over the release of one of NOM's confidential tax documents. The release of this document is due to either an IRS employee leak, someone hacking into IRS systems, or someone illegally impersonating a NOM official to obtain this confidential information—information then retailed to the public by the Human Rights Campaign and the Huffington Post.

Let me reiterate the main point: The organization headed by President Obama's campaign co-chair knowingly retailed illegally-obtained information from the IRS—that's a felony. They did so in order to try to punish a political opponent. That's an outrage.

As I write, the Huffington Post has yet to acknowledge their potential civil and criminal liability in retailing illegally-obtained and federally-protected IRS information.

HRC acknowledged the seriousness of the situation by scrubbing every mention of the illegally-obtained 990 from its website, after NOM's lawyers demanded it do so. It's now claiming another source for the non-story it released about Gov. Romney's 2008 donation to NOM, which had already been reported in the press at the time.

But we have the evidence of what they actually said and did.

ERIC METAXES: "SPEAKING ABOUT HUMAN SEXUALITY: NO STONE THROWING"

I was sad to read this morning that Chuck Colson's family has been called to his bedside as he has taken a turn for the worse.  What a valiant, dedicated, inspiring life Colson has lived.  While Chuck has been in ICU after an operation to remove a pool of clotted blood on the surface of his brain, Eric Metaxas and John Stonestreet have been filling in producing Breakpoint radio spots.  Eric Metaxes speaks well today on how easy it is to fall into a Pharisaical trap regarding opposition to same-sex behaviors.  You can listen here- Download

Or click through to read the transcript.

GAY REPARATIVE THERAPY DEBATED ONCE AGAIN IN BRITAIN

Debates across the pond (UK) regarding homosexuality and the testimonies (and literature) of those leaving the lifestyle are reviewed by Aflame.  He brings us up to date on the use and misuse, and ignoring, of studies related to therapy for those not wanting to be gay and wanting to change.  Clearly political and ideological commitments overrule any dispassionate reading of the evidence.

DUMP STARBUCKS

Boycott Starbucks!  Click "Continue reading Dump Starbucks" at the bottom of the post and sign the petition!

News report: (my bolding).  AP

The National Organization for Marriage Announces International "Dump Starbucks" Protest Campaign

"Corporations should not take sides in a culture war that pits a company against the majority of the American people, and nearly all its consumers in some international markets."—Brian Brown, president—

March 21, 2012

Seattle, Washington — The National Organization for Marriage (NOM), America's largest group dedicated to preserving traditional marriage and the faith communities that sustain it, today announced it will lead an international "Dump Starbucks" protest of Starbucks Coffee Company to give voice to consumers around the world who support preserving marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Customers are invited to visit www.DumpStarbucks.com immediately to take action.

"Unlike our opponents, we do not target whole companies for the actions of an individual business executive in that company," said Brian Brown, NOM's president. "But Starbucks has taken a corporate position in support of redefining marriage for all of society. We will not tolerate an international company attempting to force its misguided values on citizens. The majority of Americans and virtually every consumer in some countries in which Starbucks operates believe that marriage is between one man and one woman. They will not be pleased to learn that their money is being used to advance gay marriage in society."  The new protest campaign was announced after the annual Starbucks shareholders meeting today in Seattle, where NOM spokesmen queried the board on its new policies promoting gay marriage and demanded protection against discrimination for employees, vendors and customers who disagree.

LIBERAL STARBUCKS THROWS ITS WEIGHT BEHIND SAME-SEX MARRIAGE

From the Family Research Council:

This week, the coffeehouse jumped into a fierce battle over marriage in Washington State, home to the Seattle-based company. While the state is still sharply divided over same-sex "marriage," Starbucks has decided to sweeten the pot for homosexual activists and join the attack on local families. According to Starbucks Executive Vice President Kalen Holmes, the bill to legalize counterfeit marriage "is core to who we are and what we value as a company." A preview of the endorsement came last November, when Starbucks signed on to a legal brief that argues traditional marriage is "bad for business." For customers, who were already having a hard time swallowing the company's partnership with Planned Parenthood, this may be the final straw.

Despite the coffeehouse's meddling, families in Washington State are doing their best to keep the legislation at bay. Local groups say the bill has enough support to pass, but as we witnessed in Maryland last year, the outcome could hinge on a single vote. Don't let Starbucks do all the talking. Speak up and contact your leaders.

Excerpt from Starbuck's statement to "U.S. Partners":

It [same-sex marriage legislation] is core to who we are and what we value as a company. We are proud of our Pride Alliance Partner Network group, which is one of the largest Employer Resource Groups for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) employees in the U.S., helping to raise awareness about issues in the communities where we live and work.

If you're a dyed-in-the wool Starbucks coffee drinker, you may want to rethink your patronage, even as many of us prefer Lowes over Home Depot because of Home Depot's vigorous homosexual activism.

STANTON L. JONES - "SAME-SEX SCIENCE"

Stanton L. Jones, provost and professor of psychology at Wheaton College, has for years been a student of the latest research on homosexuality.  His most recent article, "Same-Sex Science: The social sciences cannot settle the moral status of homosexuality," was published in the February 2012 issue of First Things magazine (http://www.firstthings.com/article/2012/01/same-sex-science) and is a condensed version of his longer paper with citations, "Sexual Orientation and Reason: On the implications of False Beliefs about Homosexuality" (http://www.wheaton.edu/CACE/Hot-Topic)

Stanton offers authoritative analysis of current research.  He sets the record straight and corrects popular misimpressions.  I am posting the links in anticipation of giving these two articles a careful reading at my earliest opportunity.  Stanton previously published (with Mark A. Yarhouse) in 2000, "Homosexuality: the Use of Scientific Research in the Church's Moral Debate."

CHUCK COLSON - "GAY RIGHTS AND FREEDOM OF RELIGION"

Under the Obama Administration gay "rights" is on a collision course with freedom of religion.  Colson explains:

Listen Now | Download

It started as a drip, drip, drip. Then the flow increased, and now it’s a gusher: The Obama Administration has decided to promote and emphasize lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered rights—and it is doing so at the expense of everyone’s God-given freedom of religion.

Those are tough words, but regrettably, true words.

In December 9, 2009 in a major address entitled, “Human Rights Agenda for the 21^st Century,” Secretary of State Clinton said people “must be free to worship, associate, and to love in the way that they choose.”

Did you catch that? In one sentence, little noticed at the time, Mrs. Clinton showed the Administration’s true priorities. In one fell swoop, she changed our God-given right to freedom of religion, a public act, to a much more restricted “freedom of worship,” a private act, which any Chinese official could go along with. And at the same time, Mrs. Clinton, speaking for the administration, elevated the quote “right to love in the way they choose” as a fundamental human right.

Lest you think I’m overreacting to an isolated statement, the intervening years have amply borne out my concerns.

Freedom of worship has been substituted for freedom of religion in speech after speech by administration officials. Just last month, the Secretary told a gathering of diplomats that “gay rights are human rights, and human rights are gay rights.” She also said the “most challenging issue arises when people cite religious or cultural values as a reason to violate or not to protect the human rights of LGBT citizens.” As I mentioned before on BreakPoint, this is a disastrous foreign policy. African nations are already up in arms, and it certainly isn’t going to help us with Muslim nations, who view U.S. advocacy for homosexuality as proof of Western decadence.

Not to be outdone, President Obama told a pro-gay-rights group, “Every single American—gay, straight, lesbian, bisexual, transgender—every single American deserves to be treated equally before the law.”

Does that include marriage? Well, the President’s secretary for Housing and Urban Development, Shaun Donovan, has just said that he “absolutely” supports same-sex marriage. The Administration has already refused to defend the Defense of Marriage Act. And before the EEOC, officials have said in a contest “between religious liberty and sexual liberty,” sexual liberty triumphs

Can you see where all this is headed?

But how, you might ask, does elevating so-called LGBT rights actually threaten religious rights? Well, as Archbishop Timothy Dolan of New York has said, framing homosexual marriage as a civil right equates those who oppose it with those who practice either “intentional or willfully ignorant racial discrimination.”

Dolan is predicting “a national conflict between church and state of enormous proportions and to the detriment of both institutions.” Friends, no one wants to oppress gays, but what happens to Christians’ right to practice our religion, which does not allow us to accept “gay marriage”?

That’s why I am urging you, and everyone you know, to sign the Manhattan Declaration, which takes a bold stand for religious freedom and traditional marriage. Do it today, ManhattanDeclaration.org.

Further Reading and Information

Obama's EEOC Nominee Draws Fire for Gay Rights Activism
Shannon Bream | Fox News | December 10, 2011

So Now It's Freedom of Religion?
Chuck Colson | BreakPoint.org | September 1, 2010

The Wrong Kind of Export
Chuck Colson | BreakPoint.org | December 20, 2011/p>

Human Rights Agenda for the 21st Century
Hilary Clinton | Department of State | December 14, 2009

Catholics warn of 'national conflict' over gay marriage
David Gibson | USA Today | September 23, 2011

Manhattan Declaration
ManhattanDeclaration.org

 

MEDIA BIAS CALLED OUT BY REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES

Tim Wildmon of the American Family Association writes:

During last Saturday's Republican Presidential Debate on the ABC television network, hosts Diane Sawyer and George Stephanopoulos directed a lot of attention to the issues of contraception and homosexual marriage.

In rebutting an obvious attempt by the debate panel to spin the issues, some candidates took the liberal media to task by correctly identifying their bias against people of faith.

 

RICK SANTORUM ON THE LOGIC OF MARRIAGE

The mystifying aspect of this video is the inability of a great many college students to think rationally.

 

OBAMA PUSHES "HOMOSEXUAL RIGHTS" AROUND THE WORLD

On December 1st, I reported that the Obama administration is imperialistically pushing its views on homosexuality on other countries.  Now the Family Research Council reports that on December 6th,

. . . the Obama administration put a bow on its efforts to radicalize other countries on the issue of homosexuality. In their observance of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton made it clear where their "human rights" priorities lie. In keeping with the anniversary, the White House issued a "Presidential Memorandum" directing "all agencies engaged abroad" to promote the homosexual and transgender agenda. While the President was throwing his full weight (and America's reputation) behind gay rights, Mrs. Clinton was delivering an egregious speech to the U.N. On a day devoted to the defense of real human rights (like the sanctity of life and religious liberty), Clinton dedicated her remarks to shaming countries that opposed homosexuality. What makes her speech even more presumptuous is that the United Nations--much like the United States--is still sharply divided on the issue of sexual orientation.

Unfortunately, that didn't stop the former First Lady. Her comments about the "invisible minority" did more than decry violence (which we too strongly oppose) against people who engage in homosexual or transgender behavior. She made it clear there is no level of disapproval, no matter how peaceful, that would be acceptable. In fact, Clinton went so far as to directly compare the religious teachings against homosexuality to "honor killings, widow burning, female genital mutilation" and support for slavery. For other countries, many of whom rely on America for foreign aid, this represents a major clash of worldviews. And it comes, as we have witnessed since 2009, at the expense of religious freedom. The President is elevating homosexuality at the same time he is deemphasizing religious liberty (another legitimate human right). Now, rather than improving relations with our global neighbors, Obama is imposing an alien agenda on other nations.

While the rhetoric has been elevated, the policy isn't new. Our friend Austin Ruse of C-FAM has already reported on threats to withhold aid from the poor African country of Malawi unless they changed their laws on homosexuality, and the U.S. ambassador to El Salvador offended her hosts with a "Gay Pride Month" message back in June. If the President did the same on other issues, his own liberal allies would accuse him of "cultural imperialism." Unfortunately, the administration's bullying approach to diplomacy doesn't serve America's interests and runs the risk of making enemies of our friends.  [my emphases]

Me:  The Administration's hard-nosed, imperialistic, ham-fisted strategy to force countries around the world to treat homosexuality as "good and right sexuality" must be stopped and reversed.  Congress should make its objection known to the President and the State Department. 

AMERICA'S "NEW IMPERIALISM" - PUSHING HOMOSEXUAL "RIGHTS" ON OTHER COUNTRIES

From FRC:

The Obama State Department has an interesting interpretation of "diplomacy." From Kenya to El Salvador, ambassadors are tasked--not with advancing America's interests--but the interests of the President's radical social agenda. In most cases, this aggressive strategy has made more enemies of nations than friends.

Mari Carmen Aponte is Exhibit A. As the U.S. Ambassador to El Salvador, Aponte has taken it upon herself to school an overwhelmingly Christian nation about the "virtues" of homosexuality. In a controversial op-ed, she lectured the Salvadorians about the need to embrace homosexuality. She also implied that the country's disapproval of the aberrant behavior was somehow rooted in ignorance. The column sparked such outrage that leaders of the country have called for her removal "as soon as possible so that El Salvador may enjoy the benefits of having a better person as a government representative..." "Ms. Aponte," they write, "in clear violation of the rules of diplomacy and international law... intend[s] to impose on Salvadorians... a new vision of foreign and bizarre values, completely alien to our moral fiber, intending to disguise this as 'human rights.'"

Whether Mari keeps her post will be up to the U.S. Senate. Because her nomination was so controversial (see Sen. Jim DeMint's column on her ties to Cuban spies), the President hired her by recess appointment. At the end of the year, Senators will decide if she's fit to continue serving a nation whose values she so openly scorns. Unfortunately, the State Department may be heightening tensions in more countries than one. According to reports, Aponte was just following orders. Back in June, Secretary Hillary Clinton ordered all embassies "to publish op-eds in support of LGBT awareness month."  [my emphasis]