Tag Archives: same sex marriage

Oral Arguments at SCOTUS on Same-Sex Marriage

The oral arguments before the Supreme Court this week stimulated vigorous legal discourse not just between the counsel for the represented parties, but amongst the justices themselves. The questions posed to counsel cannot reliably serve as tealeaves, prognosticating the court’s ultimate ruling, but they did indicate some of the struggles the court faces when they rule on same-sex marriage.

marriage_dictionaryAt issue is whether several state’s referenda or state statutes defining marriage as between one man and one woman shall stand. Based on public opinion trends on the issue, the ruling may be a moot point, but the legal arguments before the court clearly indicate why the rush toward a redefinition of marriage will have a significant impact on our society and the republic.

Justice Anthony Kennedy pointed out that thinking marriage is the union of a man and a woman “has been with us for millennia. And it—it’s very difficult for the Court to say, oh, well, we—we know better.” He went on to observe that even the concept of same-sex marriage has “only been around for 10 years,” and compared with human history, he conjectured, “I don’t even know how to count the decimals when we talk about millennia.”

Chief Justice John Roberts echoed that observation, by stating, “Every definition that I looked up, prior to about a dozen years ago, defined marriage as unity between a man and a woman as husband and wife.” He then correctly observed, “You’re not seeking to join the institution, you’re seeking to change what the institution is. The fundamental core of the institution is the opposite-sex relationship and you want to introduce into it a same-sex relationship.”

700Making the case that the definition of marriage really has nothing to do with “discrimination,” Justice Stephen Breyer observed that the male/female definition “has been the law everywhere for thousands of years among people who were not discriminating even against gay people, and suddenly you want nine people outside the ballot box to require states that don’t want to do it to change … what marriage is.”

Justice Samuel Alito made the same observation when he declared, “There have been cultures that did not frown on homosexuality. … Ancient Greece is an example. It was well accepted within certain bounds. People like Plato wrote in favor of that.”And yet, ancient Greece and people like Plato never thought a same-sex relationship was a marriage. Alito concluded: “So their limiting marriage to couples of the opposite sex was not based on prejudice against gay people, was it?”

Justice Roberts clarified another significant issue as well, when he alleged that what the petitioners are arguing for in this case is not freedom from government, but government affirmation. Roberts explained that in a previous Supreme Court case, “the whole argument is the State cannot intrude on that personal relationship. Now people are suing saying “the State must sanction. It must approve that relationship. They’re two different questions.”

supreme-court-gay-marriage_mtJohn Bursch, the lawyer defending the traditional marriage laws in Michigan, echoed this point. Based on precedence, he noted that while “the government cannot interfere in private, intimate conduct, the Court cannot as a constitutional matter … force the State into these relationships by forcing them to recognize and give benefits to anyone.”

Bursch made another critical point in his oral arguments. He said, “the marriage institution did not develop to deny dignity or to give second-class status to anyone. It developed to serve purposes that, by their nature, arise from biology.” He pointed out that the same-sex marriage argument is significantly different. “Now, the marriage view on the other side here is that marriage is all about love and commitment. And as a society, we can agree that that’s important, but the State doesn’t have any interest in that.”

He continued by illustrating that redefining marriage to say that it’s primarily about emotional commitment would have consequences. “When you change the definition of marriage to delink the idea that we’re binding children with their biological mom and dad, that has consequences. The consequences of redefining marriage won’t happen overnight, but the law will have an impact. We’re talking about something that’s going to change the meaning of the institution over generations.”

Chief Justice Roberts tendered perhaps the most significant indicator on how the court may rule. He noted that a court-imposed 50-state solution would not lead to civil peace, but to anger and resentment. “If the Court unilaterally redefined marriage, there will be no more debate. Closing of debate can close minds, and it will have a consequence on how this new institution is accepted. People feel very differently about something if they have a chance to vote on it than if it’s imposed on them by the courts.”

MW3_My_Parents_Divorce_and_Video_Games1The premise of the same-sex marriage argument is that adults have the “right” to marry whomever they choose to, regardless of gender. But there is no such premise inherent in the institution of marriage. It is, rather, based in natural law, lex naturalis, which is the system of law that is determined by nature and is thus universal. Same-sex marriage is therefore, logically, preternatural. It has no logical basis in nature, nor can a presumed right can be extrapolated constitutionally, based on equal protection.

Based on logic and strength of arguments, and the types of questions the justices posed during oral arguments, it would seem the court may be inclined to defer such matters to the states respectively. If they do so, given the Roberts Court’s tendency to enjoin the legislative branch, they’ll likely encourage making provision for universal recognition of same-sex couples rights by states which uphold traditional marriage. But that’s logic, which can merely be presumed from the Court, based on precedence.

Associated Press award winning columnist Richard Larsen is President of Larsen Financial, a brokerage and financial planning firm in Pocatello, Idaho and is a graduate of Idaho State University with degrees in Political Science and History and coursework completed toward a Master’s in Public Administration. He can be reached at [email protected].

Flavor Is a Human Right, Too.

Flavor is not a choice. What bigot would deny this man his rights?

Flavor is not a choice. What bigot would deny this man his rights?

The biggest problem Christians and conservatives have in making the case for marriage to the younger generation is we don’t speak the same language, and I’m not referring to the number of ‘likes’ inserted into each sentence that replace thought. Our frame of reference has only a tangential connection with that of the younger generation.

The default authority for Christians when explaining their opposition to homosexual marriage is the Bible. But it’s not for the generation born after 1980. The Washington Times reports, “More Americans are doubting the infallibility of the Bible, treating it as a guidebook rather than the actual words of God, according to a survey released Wednesday.”

This belief (no pun intended) puts that generation in agreement with Episcopalians, Methodists and Unitarians who also don’t understand what the big deal is when Rev. Adam and his wife, Steve shake hands with the faithful as they leave the sanctuary on Sunday.

This finding was part of a survey conducted on behalf of the American Bible Society. In the Times its president, Roy Peterson explained, “I think young people have always questioned their parents, questioned the church…Today the skeptics are saying, ‘It’s just like any other piece of literature, and it’s no different from that.”

It shouldn’t come as a surprise that when a Christian references the Bible, the youngster counters with, “You may like the Bible, but I’m partial to the Epic of Gilgamesh. However, if there was a modern language translation, the Egyptian Book of the Dead also has some value for those who want to increase their spirituality quotient.”

This declining interest is an indication there’s a real chance the Bible may lose it’s spot as the perennial number one best–seller, although this is not sufficient cause for Ellen to hope her bio will take its place.

The importance of the Bible for moral instruction has also declined. In 2013 almost a third of respondents “blamed a lack of Bible reading as the problem” behind a decline in American morals. This year it’s only 26 percent, but that decrease may be explained by the corresponding number of Americans who purchased 70” TVs in the intervening months.

So how does one explain opposition to homosexual marriage in terms the young can grasp? How does one put in context the aggressive demand that Christians conform to an unprecedented definition of marriage that didn’t exist even 25 years ago and flies in the face of all of human history?

How can they relate to our rejection of this absurd definition of marriage that completely upends an accepted way of life in the interest of pleasing an intolerant minority and its cheering section.

There are essentially no sexual taboos today, so approaching the problem from a Biblical angle is like expressing your opposition to the healing power of crystals by using the Physicians Desk Reference, when your audience hasn’t read either one.

Fortunately in today’s brave new culture food taboos have replaced sex taboos and it is here Christians can make our case in a way that duplicates the situation we encountered with homosexual marriage and is simultaneously understandable by the younger generation.

My analogy works regardless of whether you’re locked in debate with a smug and superior homosexual marriage supporter or you’re simply answering a question from one of those ‘love and let love’ types unable to understand why we feel so strongly about the issue.

The demand that Christians completely redefine marriage and accept a radical new definition that institutionalizes and affirms a form sexual practice the Bible specifically forbids, is the exact equivalent of pork lovers demanding that vegan restaurants serve bacon.

If America’s homosexuals can demand “marriage equality” then bacon lovers can demand “flavor equality.”

A vegan’s unconstitutional exclusion of bacon is simply elevating personal preference over a fundamental human right to have food that tastes good. And even diners who aren’t eating bacon because of an irrational fear of being attacked by their heart, can still feel the pain and humiliation of being ostracized.

Just try wearing an Arkansas Razorbacks’ Hog Head hat into your nearest Busboys & Poets restaurant if you want to see how a real second–class citizen is treated by kale bigots.

And who says vegans get to define what qualifies to be labeled as “vegan?” Flavor is flavor, people. Just as we’ve been told “love is love.” You may like the slimy feel and hay–infusion aftertaste of tofu, but I like the crunch of crispy, fried bacon and how can that be so wrong?

One doesn’t choose to love bacon any more than one chooses whom to love. It’s fried into my DNA.

I should be able to go into Sweet & Natural bakery and ask them to whomp up a delicious quiche Lorraine and not get a bunch of sanctimonious static about beliefs, animal rights and cholesterol.

Who are these Pharisees to tell me I can’t eat pork?

And the same goes for the photographer who refused to document my family’s annual fall hog butchering reunion and hoe down. If she/he (I think the photographer was undergoing some sort of transformation) is open for business to the public, then the photographer should not be allowed to discriminate based on unscientific belief and superstition. Go down that path and the next stop is Montgomery and Bull Connor.

Separate but equal is inherently unequal. If Western Sizzlin’ can offer food for vegans then its only fair that Arugula ‘R We be forced to offer a BLT.

World Vision’s Secular Myopia

Even better than having 'Vision' in your name is having it in your brain.

Even better than having ‘Vision’ in your name is having it in your brain.

Maybe it was a Mexican divorce.

Last Monday World Vision President Richard Stearns walks hand–in–hand down the aisle pledging fealty to homosexual marriage until death do they part. This is big news, because World Vision is a Christian charity and the nation’s 10th largest.

Then, only 48 hours later, the happy couple is fighting over who gets to keep the china as Stearns backpedals furiously.

And through all the uproar Stearns has this slightly baffled aspect, as if he’d just spent the last two days selling flowers in Terminal A for the Moonies, and now his parents have whisked him back home where he decides joining the Jaycees isn’t that bad after all.

For those who missed the controversy, in Christianity Today World Vision announced it “will no longer require its more than 1,100 employees to restrict their sexual activity to marriage between one man and one woman” — an implied endorsement of homosexual marriage.

Stearns characterized this surrender as a “very narrow policy change.” Yet AP described it as “a dramatic policy change on one of the most divisive social issues facing religious groups.”

During an interview Stearns became defensive, “We’re not caving to some kind of pressure. We’re not on some slippery slope…This is not us compromising. It is us deferring to the authority of churches and denominations on theological issues.”

Which makes one grateful World Vision didn’t have any members of Westboro Baptist on the board.

Still you can’t help but wonder what version of the Bible Stearns and the board is consulting. “This is also not about compromising the authority of Scripture. People can say, ‘Scripture is very clear on this issue,’ and my answer is, ‘Well ask all the theologians and denominations that disagree with that statement.”

This is sophistry. Bart Ehrman is James A. Gray Distinguished Professor of Religious Studies at the UNC and a best–selling author, yet he denies the divinity of Christ, which at the time this is written World Vision still supports. Evidently Stearns and the board pick–and–choose among theologians as they pick–and–choose among Bible verses.

Then demonstrating his utter cluelessness regarding fundamental issues of church doctrine and how the secular world views the faithful, Stearns remarked, “I don’t want to predict the reaction we will get. I think we’ve got a very persuasive series of reasons for why we’re doing this, and it’s my hope that all of our donors and partners will understand it, and will agree with our exhortation to unite around what unites us.”

I suppose this type of reasoning makes sense when your reading matter is limited to The New York Times and Sojourners.

But in the Evangelical Christian world his “persuasive series of reasons” produced a stunning backlash. In the ensuing 48 hours World Vision lost money, support and credibility. Approximately 5,000 individual sponsors and contributors canceled, costing the organization upwards of $2.1 million. 60 church partners called the office to withdraw their support. And a number of employees at headquarters resigned. Some in protest, some because of the stress of dealing with the fallout from Stearns’ colossal stupidity.

Wednesday a chastened Stearns and board chairman Jim Beré signed a contrite letter that read, “We have listened to you and want to say thank you and to humbly ask for your forgiveness.”

Later in a conference call with reporters, Stearns elaborated, “We have listened to you and want to say thank you and to humbly ask for your forgiveness” and if he “could have a do-over on one thing, I would have done much more consultation with Christian leaders.”

But he just ran out of time, what will all the meetings with The New York Times editorial board, the Human Rights Campaign and the cast of The Laramie Project.

The rapid retraction is a good first step, but the fact remains World Vision’s current leadership is unfit to run the organization.

In a post–divorce interview with Religion News Service, Stearns is taken aback by the notion he bears any responsibility. “No, there have been no serious requests for my resignation. I would certainly under- stand if the board wanted to make a decision around that. Some of the board members have asked the question about their own resignation. Right now, our feeling is we were all in this together. We made certainly, in retrospect, a bad decision, but we did it with the right motivations.”

Here we agree. Stearns and the board are all in it together and they should all take the honorable path and resign.

Here’s just a brief rundown of the unnecessary havoc these morally blind people have caused:

  1. Seriously damaged a reputation in the Evangelical community it took 63 years to build.
  2. Proved themselves totally unfit to manage the reputation and public relations of a billion dollar organization by demonstrating a basic failure to understand the culture and media.
  3. Potentially endangered employees working in Africa where governments are passing laws criminalizing homosexual conduct.
  4. Cost the organization millions of dollars.
  5. Opened World Vision up to scrutiny and attack from militant homosexual organizations and a hostile Obama administration.
  6. Distracted the staff from the mission of serving the world’s poor.

Any one of these offenses is enough, but all are an indictment that only resignation, reflection and repentance will answer.

Naturally many Christian leaders are welcoming World Vision’s return to the fold and urging Christians to resume financial and prayer support.  But as for me, if I want to make a contribution to an organization run by leadership that is this slippery and disingenuous, I’ll send a check to Congress.

You No-Longer Have State’s Rights! You Have Government-Provided Allowances

chained 

 

Whether or not everyone agrees with or supports same-sex marriage is beside the point when individual state’s are being ripped from the people and states.

What is most important today is our government—federal, as well as state and local. It has overreached into our Fourth Amendment rights by invading our homes and lives to redefine us, now government has decided it has full rights to redefine all of our 10th Amendment states.    

Congratulations, you no longer have State’s Rights, you have government-provided allowances!

Whether or not Americans—gay or straight—continue to have 10 Amendment Rights, or anything written and singed into the Bill of Rights, should be of great concern to all. Facts are facts: We Americans have handed over our lives to the government that tells us it is better capable of determining our lives, life-styles, religion, how we speak, act, think, talk, spend our money, whether or not we can conduct businesses without government regulation and control, and so forth.

We allow the government to convince us that the Supreme Court is a superlative entity so infallible; it is the second coming of Christ in nine black robes–Judicial Supremacy.

Don’t bother trying to find that phrase in the Constitution. The supreme Court invented it in 1958 with the Cooper v. Aaron case: “[T]he Supreme Court for the first time, made the sweeping assertion that ‘The federal judiciary is supreme in exposition of the law of the Constitution.'”  And there’s  “no mention of the power of judicial review in the Constitution,” because the Founders did not want the Supreme Court to be “supreme in the exposition of laws of the Constitution.” The court upholds the law, but they are not the lawmakers:

judicial power was to decide cases according to law. The judicial power was given to the federal courts. And that Article VI tells you when you want to find out what the law is, where to go. And the Constitution is there.

 

But Americans took the bait, allowing the Supreme Court and Federal Government to define our lives and how we should live.

For some bizarre reason, many Americans enjoy being shackled to a government ordered society that strips people of all free will.

Gov Screws You

The latest Supreme Court ruling striking down the Defense of Marriage Act was followed by the sending of Proposition 8 back to California, where it technically belongs.

You’ll have to excuse me, I foolishly assume that California voters, who voted against same sex marriage in their state, have rights to vote freely for laws and policies they want and do not want in their individual state, which has nothing to do with the other 49 individual states.  

Apparently I’ve been misinterpreting the 10th Amendment which states “The Powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

Notice “to the people,” who no longer have a say concerning their individual states and lives. Activists must decide, because the Federal Government has made activists the final arbiters of the Constitution’s laws.

Some individuals, gay and straight, do not agree with same sex marriage. Some of those individuals do not agree with heterosexual couples living together outside of marriage.  Many voters disagree with single motherhood. Whatever one’s social views, shouldn’t individuals have rights to express those beliefs and opinions without the Federal Government invading states and mandating government judgment upon the people?

Not according to the government. You see, if people think and act through self-determination, they understand every person is a God-created being with free thought and will. Free-thinking people will in fact determine the truth that lie within the Constitution and understand their rights. When that happens, as in 1776 signing of the Declaration of Independence, all hell breaks loose and government loses its grip of control, while people gain liberty.

That cannot be allowed in a country where government elites wish to rewrite liberty in the government’s image!

Look what former Michigan Supreme Court Justice Professor Steven Markham of Hillsdale College says concerning activists rewriting the Constitution and Amendments:

Proponents of a ‘21st century constitution’ or ‘living constitution’ aim to transform our nation’s supreme law beyond recognition—and with a minimum of public attention and debate. Indeed, if there is an overarching theme to what they wish to achieve, it is the diminishment of the democratic and representative processes of American government. It is the replacement of a system of republican government, in which the constitution is largely focused upon the architecture of government in order to minimize the likelihood of abuse of power, with a system of judicial government, in which substantive policy outcomes are increasingly determined by federal judges. Rather than merely defining broad rules of the game for the legislative and executive branches of government, the new constitution would compel specific outcomes.

 

This week’s Supreme Court rulings are not truly a gay-straight issue, rather a state-by-state’s rights issue being abused in order to rip liberty from every individual’s hands, making people subjects of Washington politicians seeking the gay vote to keep politicians in power in case the black and single female poverty vote ever fails to continue its magical spell of oppression for personal power.

If gays really think the Federal Government desiresautonomy for individual, they are kidding themselves. Gay Americans are the latest propaganda means used by greedy politicians and leftist activists seeking further erosion of the 10th Amendment for political self-gain.

Markham notes that

Since shortly after the Civil War, the privileges or immunities clause of the 14th Amendment has been understood as protecting a relatively limited array of rights that are a function of American federal citizenship, such as the right to be heard in courts of justice and the right to diplomatic protection. In defining the protections of the privileges or immunities clause in this manner, the Supreme Court in the Slaughterhouse Cases (1873) rejected the argument that the clause also protects rights that are a function of state citizenship, asserting that this would lead to federal courts serving as a ‘perpetual censor’ of state and local governments. This decision has served as a bulwark of American federalism. Although a considerable amount of federal judicial authority has since been achieved over the states through interpretations of the due process clause of the 14th Amendment, many proponents of a 21st century constitution seek additional federal oversight of state and local laws. Their strategy in this regard is to refashion the privileges or immunities clause as a new and essentially unlimited bill of rights within the 14th Amendment. The practical consequences of this would be to authorize federal judges to impose an ever broader and more stultifying uniformity upon the nation. Whatever modicum of federalism remains extant at the outset of this century, considerably less would remain tomorrow.

 

Unlimited rights not in the Constitution are already pushed for power.

The Federal government has poverty votes generating more black poverty via racism. Where’s the 10th Amendment right to not have government tell a particular race of human beings how and where to live because of race and skin color? It’s there, but government convinced black Americans that slavery incurred black poverty and teen pregnancy and government running black lives is the only way to become emancipated.  

Darn Abe Lincoln for not signing that Emancipation Bill!

Don’t forget the War On Women: Single women were convinced if they don’t vote Democrat, they will lose their breasts to cancer! Suddenly free birth control means you receive already performed mammograms in America where legalized abortion is not legal enough.

Quick Note: Even if Roe V Wade were overturned, abortion would still be legal in Democrat controlled states, especially Massachusetts where Democrat politicians do the over-crowded planet a favor by drowning the pregnant woman with the baby.

Then there’s the Amnesty Bill: Shock! Illegal aliens are forbidden to live in a country they illegally entered. That’s because white Republicans hate immigration and the only way immigrants can enter America is illegally.

But that’s not enough to abolish the 10th Amendment and your stat’s rights.

Progressive leftist activists have been clamoring to place gay Americans in the Emancipation Proclamation. Gays have been enslaved! Gays are forbidden same-sex marriage! The last time I checked marriage is not a Constitutional Amendment; marriage is not a federally mandated rule of law, rather state-by-state laws: Couples must go to their local town hall to obtain marriage licenses. But progressive activists are determined that marriage become a Federal Government law providing marriage rights.

Look out America! Don’t think the day can’t come when D.C. mandates marriage and Americans beg D.C. for marriage licenses. Imagine being told:  “Sorry, you can’t get married if the government does not have a marriage equality quota of gay, straight, black, white, Christian, Jewish, Muslim (which will no doubt demand Sharia Law be pushed into a Constitutional amendment) polygamy marriages (don’t assume polygamists are not plotting to get their marriages federally legalized), etc.

It could happen in America with a progressive government that signed off on the Constitution.

We are not looking ahead, but allowing government to mandate our lives, while destroying the Constitution and our rights.

Equality for Everyone? Not quite!

 

Ever read or hear about the book “Men Are From Mars, Woman Are From Venus”? I haven’t actually read it, but I have heard from enough people to have a basic grasp of the premise. It basically lays out the differences between the sexes and how they complement each other. The book explains how to work from within those differences to live a great life together. It talks about the differences in the way each feel value. Men need to feel respected in order to accept the love from his wife and women need to know they are loved to give themselves totally into the relationship. Equal needs expressed in different ways coming together to make for a great relationship.

Pretty simple, equality. So let’s add some sand to this well-oiled machine. The book was written 21 years ago. How times have changed. In order for real equality to be served, we need an updated, “Men Are From Mars and Other Men Are From Mars, Women Are From Venus and, Well, Other Woman Are From Venus”.

The original booked was hailed as a great work that helped millions of couples, but according to today’s “equalists” the book is useless. The premise of the book is how to get the opposite sexes to relate to one another the way nature intended. How not to see the differences as impediments but as catalysts to make the relationship more solid and how you have to have the differences for the relationship to flourish. How does this work in a same sex relationship? The original book falls apart and becomes useless. Is nature confused? Are we confused? I say we are!

Recently, a man was charged with murder for giving his girlfriend a drug that caused her to have an abortion. She didn’t want to have one and told him she would raise the child alone, he didn’t need to be involved financially or physically. He didn’t want a child, nor did he want her to have it. If the tables were turned and she didn’t want it but he did and she had the abortion against his will, no murder charges would have been filed there.
Just to summarize, it’s a life if he objects to it and chooses to abort, but it’s a blob of cells if she objects and chooses to abort. Equality? And the, “it’s her body” argument doesn’t hold up because it’s the baby’s body to! You can’t have it both ways.

Recently, a young man was told he could not pray at the end of the commencement ceremony because one parent complained citing that they were at a public ceremony paid for by tax dollars. He agreed not to pray. However, a few sentences into the speech he started to recite the Lord’s Prayer and, to the surprise of that one parent, an overwhelming majority of the students joined in and recited with him!
The prayer ended to thunderous applause and 99% percent were quite happy. When the voice of one person outweighs the desire of the community as a whole is that Equality? I think not.

A New Hampshire high school graduate and recent boot camp graduate was barred from wearing his Marine Corps uniform in lieu of the traditional cap and gown. The young man had worked hard to make sure he had his credits done in time to leave early to go to boot camp, pass boot camp and get back for graduation. The school board, in my opinion, made a terrible mistake not allowing him to do so. No reward for his hard work. However, if he was a transvestite, would they have allowed him to dress as a woman, wear the female gown, wig, high heels, and so on? I have seen some graduations where the rainbow colors were worn as a scarf or the gown itself. And this is Equality? How?

Finally, based on a report by Britain’s Department for Education and Skills some schools are no longer teaching about the Holocaust in history lessons so as not to offend Muslim students. The report, titled “Teaching Emotive and Controversial History”, also notes that teachers don’t lessons covering The Crusades because it contradicts what is taught in local mosques.

Truth is truth. Why are they altering history? History is not always comfortable. In fact, it’s often ugly.
But it’s also important not to forget it.

The Muslims (like the Christians) went around in The Crusades and massacred people who would not convert. It’s true! It really happened. Millions of Jews were killed in the Holocaust. It’s true, and the fact that you’re offended doesn’t make it any less true. In this case, they don’t want to offend Muslims, but accommodating Muslims, they offend the Jews. Equality? I think not.

It seems that equality is what some people (usually those on the political left) deem it to be
and everyone else can, well, go pound sand!

And so I say, equality for everyone, not quite!

Media Cancel AZ Rep’s Gay Son’s Interviews

Last week during the same sex marriage debate Arizona Congresman Matt Salmon (R-AZ) spoke out against the issue while noting he has a gay son. Tossed into the media limelight, the younger Matt R Salmon, a third year medical student, accepted invitations to appear on several news programs. Unfortunately, once the left leaning media discovered that Salmon was tolerant of his father’s stance and would not criticize it, the interviews were cancelled.

In an interview with a Phoenix news channel the younger Salmon explained his experience.

Where is the tolerance, the acceptance, of diverse ideas? Must one completely follow the line of the far left to be accepted for a news interview?

How “Marriage Equality” Could Destroy Everyone’s Liberty

chained

Whenever the phrase “equality” is used to make anything legal, look out, it’s not about fairness or liberty; it’s about having whatever one personally wants no matter the consequences to society and life in general.

The phrase “equality” is a very compelling argument. After all, here in the United States where liberty reigns and the Constitution upholds our natural rights to God-given liberty, we don’t want to take away anyone’s liberty.

Everything beyond our natural rights is a privilege individuals must work for—unless it is marriage. In that case, we are talking about something that has never been equal, because religions and societies are not equal.

Marriage is not listed in the Constitution, and for good reason: Marriage is a religious liberty instituted by God before governments ever existed. Government did not create marriage, government should never be allowed to dictate marriage or people will indeed lose private life. That’s why marriage is state-by-state.

But don’t think for one moment government would not like to get its expansive paws on marriage and dictate the rules of marriage and divorce.

Think about it: Do citizens apply for marriage licenses in Washington, D.C. or local town and city halls? If Americans sought D.C.’s permission to obtain marriage licenses, leaders would have the power to control how and when individuals marry, and heaven forbid, control marital life.

So, whenever Americans hear talk of “marriage equality,” look out, it’s an open door for government to finally become completely involved in private life, and when that happens, don’t think marriage affirmative action won’t be next on the list.

And therein lay the problem and questions no one’s asking both sides of the marriage argument.

What would the government do if marriage is taken from individual state’s and those rights are handed over to federal power?

There goes another Fourth Amendment liberty right down the tubes!

We must ask serious questions rather than assuming “that will never happen in America,” because too much of what we thought would “never happen here” already has and we are on the verge of all-out socialism.

Do readers really want marriage socialized and determined by the Federal Government? Could the Federal Government actually take control of marriage if given power to define marriage? If so, what are the possible repercussions?

If the Federal Government is given power over marriage, it would no longer be a state-by-state issue; a state’s right.

If the Federal Government has the power to define marriage, Washington could hold all Christian churches in contempt of the law if they refuse to perform same sex marriages.

Suppose the Federal Government were to twist Biblical scriptures “Judge  not lest you be judged,” and “whoever casts the first stone,”  falsely claiming scriptures demand no church can say no to same sex marriage or churches are violating scripture. Just imagine the Federal Government holding churches in contempt of the scriptures.

Never put anything past those who want to control the lives of citizens and use the Bible as a weapon against Christianity.

There goes more religious freedom.

Americans aren’t taking into account religious freedom; not having government impose its will upon our lives, which includes marriage. If we completely lose religious freedom, and we’ve lost much to the Left, Americans will in fact lose all liberty, because religious freedom is the foundation of this country.

Open the doors and let government into marriage and we wind up saying “I do” to the government.

As if we aren’t already.

Again, marriage has never been government instituted, but many determined to have rights to marry in all 50 states by-way-of  federal government mandate are not considering facts: They too will lose all rights to private life if the Federal Government is allowed to define and mandate marriage.

If given power to define marriage and give it “equality,” government could have power to define and determine who gets married and when.

How does Marriage Affirmative Action sound to readers?

Suppose the Federal Government said Christians can’t be married this year because the Federal Government does not have an equal quota on all marriages Christian, Jewish, gay, Hindu, Atheist, Muslim, black, white, Asian, etc.?

What if  race-card panderers, who claim America is too white, place a quota on white marriages to lesson American’s birthing more whiteness?

Never assume power-hungry, vote-grabbing politicians, those with race-card platforms, and those who hate Christians and traditionalists, would never do any of the above to Americans.

Here’s another question: If the Federal Government has control over marriage, couldn’t it have the say over who can and cannot divorce?

Just imagine the Federal Government telling abused women they cannot divorce dangerous husbands who beat them.  Or denying Muslim women rights to divorce Muslim husbands threatening to behead wives, because Islam says women are second class citizens. Islam would no doubt demand Sharia Law marriage equality in America since it does in Europe. Abused women, Muslim and non-Muslim, already face difficulty when trying to free themselves from abusive situations; if government gets involved, government could say America has too much divorce, and then watch the real war on women begin.

Imagine the Federal Government not letting women divorce pedophile husbands on the grounds some claim pedophilia is a life-style choice, or, because some psychiatrists consider pedophilia a mental disorder that needs understanding and not condemnation.

Why would that be far-fetched when courts free pedophiles all the time on grounds of mental health disabilities rather than declaring them violent criminals and imprisoning them for life.

And let’s not forget divorce attorneys! They must rubbing their hands with glee over the fact they might become twice as wealthy if gay marriage is legalized in all 50 states.

Never assume this could not happen in a country where the Federal Government long-ago overreached it’s 17 Enumerated Powers into the states.

And let’s not forget polygamists; they consider their marriages religious liberty.

If Americans seriously think polygamists are not hoping the Supreme Court sides with gay marriage and the Federal Government makes marriage legal for everyone, America is wearing rose colored-glasses. Polygamists want equal rights to marriage,  they’ve already jumped on the bandwagon for “marriage equality” and are demanding federal rights to marry multiple wives, including young girls forced into polygamist marriages in Colorado City, Utah.

Hey, give one group rights to marry, you must then provide full liberty and equality to all, right?

No one realizes how much power “marriage equality” holds for government to overreach state’s further and completely intrude on and order everyone’s fourth Amendment rights if marriage is government controlled.

Don’t ever think the Federal Government would never do that.

In Deep with Michelle Ray – Let’s Talk About Sex, Baby!

When: Thursday, March 28th, 10pm Eastern/7pm Pacific

Where: In Deep with Michelle Ray on Blog Talk Radio

What: Join Social Media Director of ConservativeDailyNews.com, Michelle Ray (@GaltsGirl) as she discusses the issues that impact America.

Tonight: Let’s talk about sex. And marriage. And civil unions. And sex.

Listen to internet radio with CDNews Radio on Blog Talk Radio

I Think I Will Marry My Horse

It seems that the big topic is same sex marriage, with the economy still a disaster, our enemies threatening to attack us; Obama-Care turning out to be a disaster, the hot topic is same sex marriage.  With only 2% of Americans said to be homosexual but 15% true unemployment in this country, this is what we are concerned about?

Let me be upfront, I am pro traditional marriage, I think same sex marriage is un-natural, God or nature, which ever you prefer to believe in, made two different sexes for a reason. If people want to live that way, knock yourself out, but I resent it being shoved in my face all the time, why homosexuality is even being taught in some schools across our nation, what kind of country are we becoming, I am glad my kids are grown and out of school.

Marriage equality; has anyone considered the consequences if a law like that passes? Opening up marriage equality means not only two men or two women, but what about four men getting married or four women? A law like that will have to allow a man to have a harem, why if a man wants ten wives, he must be allowed to have them because that is marriage equality. How about group marriages, a group of twenty people want to get married and live under one roof, which would falls under marriage equality as well.

Don’t you think that there are wackos out there that would love to marry their pets? You wait and see, if this marriage equality thing comes to pass, it won’t be long before some people line up to get married to their dogs or horses, marriage equality right? What about mother and son or father and daughter, brother and sister, marriage equality means just that. Something like this can open up a whole can of worms, there are plenty of wackos at there.

Let’s face it, there are many, not all, but many who are just activists who don’t really care about the sanctity of marriage, but just want to eliminate marriage altogether. For instance,  Masha Gessen, a lesbian and a journalist, spoke frankly about this at a conference in Sydney, Australia, she wrote. “‘It’s a no-brainer that we should have the right to marry, she said. But I also think equally that it’s a no-brainer that the institution of marriage should not exist. … “Marriage equality becomes marriage elasticity, with the ultimate goal of “marriage extinction.” There are many like her who don’t give a hoot about marriage of any kind, their only goal is to eliminate any form of tradition, religion or anything that bind us as a society.

A brief filed by 18 state attorneys general voiced similar concerns: “Once the natural limits that inhere in the relationship between a man and a woman can no longer sustain the definition of marriage, the conclusion that follows is that any grouping of adults would have an equal claim to marriage,” they wrote. The left’s fierce push for “gay marriage” has nothing to do with “marriage equality” and everything to do with “marriage extinction.” There has to be a definition of marriage, or anything has to be allowed.

Of course, the left is coming out and calling those that are against same sex marriage bigots and haters like they do for all arguments. If you disagree with anyone on the left you are automatically a bigot, racist, sexist, homophobes, hater, you know the story, they have been using that same tactic for years, that is their answer for all arguments.

We live in a country that has changed so much over the years, not for the better I might add. A society that dismisses God, but celebrates homosexuality is a society on the way down, there is no doubt about it.

My new book is now available “What Kind Of Society Are We Leaving Our Kids”  Click Here

hossie

                                                         Newly Weds

 

This is one man’s opinion.

More Troubles At Gallaudet

The campus of Gallaudet University has been rocked by yet another scandal. As has been widely reported, Gallaudet, a Federally Chartered University for the deaf in Washington D.C., placed Dr. Angela McCaskill on paid leave October 11th pending investigation into whether or not signing a petition has compromised her ability to perform her duties as the school’s Chief Diversity Officer.

McCaskill has a long history at Gallaudet. The first Black female to receive a PhD from the school, McCaskill has been employed by Gallaudet for 24 years. Earlier this summer McCaskill signed a petition in favor of Maryland’s Question 6 which calls for a referendum on same sex marriage. McCaskill was confronted earlier this month by faculty members she later identified as M.j. Beinvenu and Kendra Smith. Unsatisfied with McCaskill’s response, Beinvenu reportedly filed a formal complaint with the University.

In a statement given Tuesday by McCaskill, she claims she met with Hurwitz and suggested a campus wide dialogue be opened. According to McCaskill, Beinvenu was unhappy with this proposal and demanded that McCaskill publicly apologize for signing the petition. Other reports say Beinvenu also demanded McCaskill’s termination. Unable to reach an agreement, Hurwitz placed McCaskill on administrative leave. On Tuesday Hurwitz released a statement to “indicate forcefully” that the school would like to work with McCaskill to enable her to return from administrative leave and continue as Chief Diversity Officer. McCaskill however is still considering her options and according to her attorney, J. Wyndal Gordon, she has not ruled out legal action.

McCaskill has stated that she feels she was bullied by the faculty members and should be compensated for the emotional trauma this has caused. Legal scholars have suggested that the bullying could possibly rise to the level criminal intimidation.

Past troubles at Gallaudet

This isn’t the first incident of bullying or intimidation at Gallaudet. In 1988 the university faced a campus wide protest after Elizabeth Zinser (a hearing person) was selected as the President of The university. Students demanded that the University hire a deaf person as the new university president instead. Despite the fact that Gallaudet prides itself on diversity, students barricaded the campus entrances and burned trustees in effigy in what a former student described as “an attempt to force the university to hire someone ‘like them.'” The movement known as “Deaf President Now” eventually resulted in the hiring of I. King Jordan.

In September 2000 Eric Plunkett was murdered in Cogswell Hall, one of the Gallaudet dorms. Plunkett, a freshman from Minnesota, was a member of the Lambda Society, a gay and lesbian group on campus. According to one former student, panic spread across campus as students worried this murder was a hate crime caused by Plunkett’s association with Lambda. “The administration acted quickly by mandating GLBT awareness and sensitivity training for all students” said the former student. Eventually, Thomas Minch was arrested for the murder. Minch had a close relationship with Plunkett, but police were unable to make a case against Minch and he was subsequently released. Gallaudet did not allow Minch to return to campus despite the protest of many students and faculty who felt he should be welcomed back.In February 2001 a second murder occurred in Cogswell Hall.

Ben Varner a freshman from Texas was stabbed 17 times and left for dead in his dorm room. According to another former student a large portion of the faculty again believed this to be a hate crime. The student claims this caused quite a controversy on campus because Ben was not known to be gay. Days later, Joseph Mesa, a student from Guam was arrested for murder. Police were tipped to Mesa when he forged and attempted to cash a check on Varner’s bank account. Mesa would later admit to murdering Eric Plunkett as well. Mesa told police there was a “devil on his shoulder telling him to kill” and others testified that Mesa was known to fly into unpredictable fits of rage. Despite the admission and testimony, some on the Gallaudet faculty remained certain that the motive was a hate crime. In “Open Your Eyes: Deaf Studies Talking” a collaboration of deaf scholars, M.J. Beinvenu wrote with dismay that police dismissed the possibility of the murders being hate crimes. Beinvenu wrote “Later after Mesa was arrested and tried, he admitted that he chose his two victims because they seemed weak to him. Through L/G (Lesbian/Gay) eyes it was evident that Mesa could have thought Ben was weak because he presumed him gay, or vice versa. But no one (including the police) would recognize these atrocities as hate crimes because Ben wasn’t gay”

In the same book, Beinvenu, an “out” lesbian and her partner Kendra Smith (the second person McCaskill claims is involved in the complaint) provided a handout that they first distributed in 1999 comparing similarities between being gay and being deaf. They listed parental,educational and societal similarities among others. A campus divide between gay and straight cultures was becoming more apparent. That division becomes even clearer with comments on ratemyprofessor.com Comments on Beinvenu included:

“Um, what can I say abt her? She is great professor, however, she apparently know her content only in “GLBT” issues, not other issues in oppression. Most of her class discussion tend focus based on her experience as “Lesbian” which I have nothing against it. Come on, there are other issues involved, blahhies on her issue is losing our focuses in her”

“She is anti-intellectual. She does not acknowledge any views other than her own. You can get an A by agreeing with her — even if she is wrong. That’s really tragic for a university professor.”

as well as positive comments like..

“Great legendary professor!”

Kendra Smith received similar comments (although much lower ratings)…

“Kendra is a new professor. She is not sensitive to diversity. She claims to be an expert, but she oppresses people. I was an Asian student and I tried to talk to her when she was my supervisor. From what I heard from others, she took jobs from deaf people.”

“She does not know how to teach. She depends on her partner, MJ Bienvenu a lot. She used her all the time for her role play activities.”

“Don’t take the course under her unless you are hearing.”

These comments reflect the type of division that has taken place on campus since 1988. Gay vs Straight issues have becoming increasingly problematic at Gallaudet but the division between those who consider themselves culturally Deaf vs. those who became deaf postlingually has become equally troubling.

In 2003 a student was reportedly denied graduation due to a conflict in one class. The student claims he lacked one senior level English course before graduating. According to the student, during the course Dr. Pia Seagrave gave a lecture on homosexuality (again this was an English course). The student says a catholic classmate raised an objection to the subject for which she was berated in front of classmates. Part of the course required students to keep a “reactionary journal” for their thoughts on class discussions. The first student noted in his journal that he was not happy with how the professor had berated his classmate. He claims Dr. Seagrave demanded an apology for this entry and even threatened a lawsuit. This month, 9 years later, the issue has been settled and he says he will finally be receiving his degree.

In 2006 the Deaf President Now movement became active for a second time. I. King Jordan resigned and Jane K. Fernandes was selected as the new president. The selection of Fernandes did not sit well with some faculty members and students. Although deaf, Fernandes did not learn sign language until later in life. As deaf blogger Mike McConnell (aka Kokonut Pundit) writes, Fernandes was seen as “not deaf enough” This led to a second major student protest but unlike 1988, students and faculty now had a larger voice….the Internet. Deaf forums were filled with threats of violence including bombings and death. Dr McCaskill reflected on the 2006 event in her press conference Tuesday…

“I quickly looked back to the protest of 2006 Several radical people pushed the students to the front to debate student’s agenda. It was not the student’s agenda. It was not student’s agenda back then and it is not student’s agenda now.”

One of the outspoken faculty members behind the students of this second movement, now called “Unity for Gallaudet” was Dr. Beinvenu. The movement became so volatile that trustee Celia May Baldwin resigned. McConnell provided her statement.

“May 9, 2006

MEMORANDUM

TO: Bill Graham, Board Secretary

FROM: Celia May Baldwin

SUBJECT: Tenure on the Board of Trustees

After many sleepless nights and much reflection these past several days, I regret to tell you that on Sunday night I came to the decision to resign from the Gallaudet Board of Trustees. The presidential search and the controversy that has ensued have put enormous strain and stress on me. I simply could not ignore the numerous aggressive threats I have received over the past weeks.

I cannot express how disappointed I am that it has to come to this point. However, I trust that you will give me your full support and understanding in my decision.

It is my sincerest hope that you feel I have served Gallaudet University to the fullest in the years that I have been on the Board. I admire and respect each of my colleagues on the Board and am glad that I had the opportunity of working closely with several of them in the recent months as the Interim Chair. I also appreciate all the assistance I received from the President’s Office. I am truly saddened by recent events.

I am confident that we all share the same goal of working towards the best possible future for Gallaudet University. Thank you for allowing me to serve this fine institution.”

It is apparent that Ms. Baldwin feels she suffered the same type of bullying that McCaskill and others have claimed to have suffered

In 2007 Gallaudet had it’s accreditation put on probation by The Mid States Commission of Higher Education for not meeting academic goals. The Washington Post reported “criteria used to admit students, the rigor of the academics and low graduation rates” were to blame. The University was later reaffirmed. Around the same time The Office of Management and Budget also became concerned that Gallaudet was not meeting educational expectations.

Why This Is Important

As mentioned earlier, Gallaudet is a federally chartered university. This means the university is funded by federal tax dollars, they report annually to the Dept. of Education and three seats on the Board of Trustees are reserved for members of Congress. Currently those seats are filled by Senator Sherrod Brown of Ohio, Rep. Lynn Woolsey of California and Rep. Kevin Yoder of Kansas.

Gallaudet’s budget for 2012 is $171 million. Although the 2012 number is unavailable, the amount provided by the Federal Government in 2011 was in excess of $123 million. In addition, students pay over $12,000 a semester for tuition. However, with many of those dollars coming through federal financial aid and state funded vocational rehabilitation, taxpayers pay most of this bill as well. And the burden does not end there. Because deaf students are considered disabled, many receive SSI,SSDI (disability),Medicaid and food stamps. All of this to educate 1,611 students 428 of which are graduate students. And not all of these students are deaf, Gallaudet accepts a few hearing graduate and undergraduate students as well.

Not to be lost in this is the timing of McCaskill’s leave which happened to coincide not only with the October Board of Trustee meeting October 10-12th but also “National Coming Out Day” on October 11th. Messages were sent to all three members of congress that sit on Gallaudet’s board but they have not responded. According to Facebook posts, it appears Sherrod,Woolsey and Yoder were all in their home states during the October Board of Trustee meeting. Gallaudet has not yet posted the minutes of the most recent meeting on the university website. If indeed the congress members were not in attendance, one of the safeguards provided by the federal charter failed to protect taxpayers, leaving trustees and faculty members to do as they see fit. One has to wonder if congress members are merely “rubber stamping” policies set by people with an alleged history of bullying. Also of note, Beinvenu and Smith are not just faculty members, they also sit on the 22 member Faculty Senate.

Much like Howard University, a federally chartered black university formed with the intent of helping freed blacks assimilate into society after the Civil War, Gallaudet was formed with the hope of providing a path for the deaf individuals to fit into society. However, what has resulted is an ineffective blend of political correctness and what Dr. I. King Jordan viewed as “identity politics.” Rather than joining society, a cruel culture of isolation has developed at Gallaudet in which a person trying to achieve success is held back or punished for not fitting into “deaf culture.” It’s telling that very few were willing to identify themselves for this article for fear of being ostracized by the deaf community. As McConnell often blogs, the “all or nothing mentality” is an oppressive and constant fact of life in the deaf community and at Gallaudet.

Ultimately, taxpayers must decide whether or not Gallaudet University is worth funding. $171 million for 1611 students comes to over $100,000 per year per student and that does not include disability benefits. Despite this large federal grant, the Gallaudet Administration seems to have lost control. Continued infighting and bullying among the faculty could potentially cost taxpayers more money in legal fees and settlements. Given that Gallaudet has failed to meet it’s goals or serve it’s purpose it is hard to see the value in continuing funding.

Chick–fil–A: Fast food, faster hate

Did you have a filet on chicken day?

My sympathy goes out to the president of the Chamber of Commerce where I live. Here Rob Clapper was simply trying to line up an interesting speaker and suddenly he’s in the midst of a controversy.

Who would have thought when he scheduled Ku Klux Klan Grand Wizard Nathan Bedford Forrest as the November speaker that Forrest’s views on white supremacy would become the focal point of the event?

“We had begun to coordinate it long before his remarks, but his remarks are irrelevant because this chamber does not engage in or have a part in social issues, “ Clapper said.

“Regardless of what his personal beliefs are and what he’s stated about social issues, that doesn’t play a part in what he’s coming here to speak about. Many of our members…have expressed a strong desire to hear the business practices and strategies that the KKK deploys in building a nationwide organization with over one million members,” Clapper concluded.

Oh, wait — inviting a genuine bigot who promoted violence and intimidation would have been a genuine controversy. Instead what we have here is a faux controversy ginned up by the same fanatics supporting faux marriage.

When Clapper invited Chick–fil–A President Dan Cathy to speak to the chamber it should have been an interesting event with an excellent speaker. Instead Clapper is now fielding questions from hysterical grievance–mongers who make it a point to attack any public figure that does not support their unprecedented redefinition of marriage.

Well, you may say, that’s what Cathy gets for spewing his “hate” during a news conference at the National Press Club. Except that’s not what happened. Cathy was interviewed by the Baptist Press. So a Baptist news service was interviewing a prominent Baptist about his faith. Homosexual extremists had to conduct an extensive search to find something that would offend them.

What’s more, during the interview Cathy didn’t “attack homosexuals” and he didn’t “oppose homosexual marriage.” Here’s what he said after being asked if he and the company support the traditional family, “We are very much supportive of the family — the biblical definition of the family unit…We intend to stay the course, we know that it might not be popular with everyone, but thank the Lord, we live in a country where we can share our values and operate on biblical principles.”

In an earlier interview with the Biblical Recorder, a weekly newspaper published by the Baptist State Convention of North Carolina, Cathy said, “We are very much supportive of the family – the Biblical definition of the family unit…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,’ and I pray God’s mercy on our generation that has such a prideful, arrogant attitude to think that we have the audacity to try to redefine what marriage is about.”

It’s not like Cathy was asked to cater a homosexual wedding, although I’m sure there will soon be an avalanche of carefully documented requests by wedding parties eager to exchange their free–range, living–will crab cake tapas for a wheelbarrow full of Chick–fil–A nuggets.

Cathy was simply making a positive statement regarding what he believed. It was hardly a declaration of war on homosexual “matrimony” and I doubt many would consider the Biblical Recorder a national platform rivaling the Washington Post.

Still, Cathy does not appear to have read the part of the Constitution stipulating the separation of God and mammon. In today’s Brave Liberal World you are grudgingly allowed to practice Christianity in the privacy of your own home, as long as everyone is a willing participant and you practice “safe religion.” Of course there is zero tolerance for Christians if they start proselytizing at rest stops and in public parks.

On the other hand, if Chick–fil–A wanted to sponsor a float in a homosexual “pride” parade — where participants often dress as sexual organs and the behavior by some participants is so vile you would cover the eyes of children — Cathy might land a profile in the New York Times.

Social conservatives are in a culture war with an opponent that will accept no compromise. By the time you read this “Chick–fil–A Appreciation Day” will be over. I hope millions of Americans supported a company that is not cowed by the liberal media and homosexual extremists.

Even more, I hope that at the next chamber board meeting they not only reaffirm their invitation to Dan Cathy, but they do it between bites of a Chick–fil–A deluxe spicy chicken sandwich.

Chick-fil-A Support Day Part Deux

It’s Friday! So, where are you having lunch or dinner today? Now, you might have managed to go to Chick-fil-A, and been a part of the smashing success for people that believe government needs to stop strangling businesses over the beliefs of the business owners. Of course, the whining leftists have come up with their own idea for today, albeit not as smart. They’re planning on going to Chick-fil-A today, and engage in same-sex kissing in protest against the restaurant chain.

_rockinfree (CC)

Now, my first thought is that these people had better not decide to set foot inside the restaurants, if for no other reason, because they will probably keep local law enforcement hopping. I’m making a basic assumption that they are not aware of the law, and the fact that in theory, restaurant managers would be well within their rights to call authorities to remove them from inside the restaurant, if they were kissing there. Arguably, they could do the same if they’re outside, if they pose a public safety risk, by blocking the entrances, or getting in the way of auto traffic in the lots.

While that would be amusing to watch, a second thought occurred to me. Wouldn’t it be lovely if these protesters were met with yet another round of Chick-fil-A supporters waiting to eat there? Now, I am saying simply go there and eat again, nothing more. If there happen to be same-sex couples around, ignore them. Let them yell if they like. See my first thought above. If the same-sex protesters get too rowdy, as long as Chick-fil-A customers are just there to eat, they can sit and watch in amusement as the police come and take those folks away. But, given that there’s a chance that you’ll end up seeing those couples kissing at your local Chick-fil-A, it might not be a good idea to bring along the kids, unless you’re prepared to or have already had “that” conversation with them. I know, should be obvious, but it is worth saying.

So, if you’re willing, please do – Eat Mor Chikin!

While Obama Pushes Same-Sex Marriage, Pro-Family Movement Educates and Affirms the Natural Family as the Future of Society

MADRID, Spain, May 21, 2012 /Christian Newswire/ — In less than a week, World Congress of Families VI will open in Madrid’s Palacio de Congresos to affirm the natural family as the fundamental unit of society while President Barack Obama so-called same-sex marriage, including the endorsement by U.S. President Barack Obama.

The theme for WCF VI in Madrid, Spain (May 25-27) is “Marriage and Family, Future of Society.” This theme reflects that there is no greater social indicator for the future success of our civilization than the strength of natural marriage and natural families in society. For example, decades of research indicates that natural marriage can reduce rates of poverty by over 80%.

“We had no idea when we began planning our sixth Congress over a year ago that it would come on the heels of an announcement by a U.S. president that he supports homosexual ‘marriage,’ based on spurious claims of equality and ignoring the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the rights of children to be raised by their biological mothers and fathers.” said Larry Jacobs, World Congress of Families Managing Director.

In many ways, the timing is providential, Jacobs observed: “The Congress will open almost two weeks to the day after President Obama announced his repudiation of the Natural Family in Spain, a country, still recovering from 8 years of a socialist leader, Zapatero, who forced the legalization of same-sex marriage and abortion on the Spanish people who are overwhelmingly opposed. Just as our opponents have, advocates for the Natural Family must continue to organize internationally.”

Speakers at the three-day Congress will include Cardinal Ennio Antonelli (President of the Pontifical Council on the Family) on “The Natural Family and the Revolution Against the Family,” Rabbi Moshe Bendahan (Chief Rabbi of Spain) on “Family, the Future of Society,” Erich W. Kopischke (Elder of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints) on “The Value of the Natural Family,” Fr. Philaret Bulekov (delivering a message from Metropolitan Hilarion Alfeyev of the Russian Orthodox Church) and Dr. Paige Patterson (President of the Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary).

Speeches by social scientists, authors, physicians and officeholders will touch on such varied topics as: the worldwide decline in fertility, how government policies impact on the family, the family and international law, contraception vs. natural family planning, the health effects of promiscuity and infidelity, family economics and social capital, rediscovering the role of homemaker, the culture of life versus the culture of death, fighting for freedom to educate, the social cost of pornography and sexual slavery, and family-friendly entertainment.

A plenary session on The Homosexual Lobby will include addresses on: “Solutions to Homosexual Behavior,” “Violation of Rights of Conscience Today,” “Effects of Social Experimentation and Same-Sex Adoption,” and “Hate Speech Laws and Anti-Discrimination Measures to Marginalize Believers.”

Jacobs noted that Christian Concern – a World Congress of Families Partner in the United Kingdom – has so far helped to collect over 516,000 signatures on its “Don’t Play Politics with Marriage” petition to stop Prime Minister David Cameron’s move to legalize homosexual “marriage” in Britain.

Christian Concern’s “One Man and One Woman: Making The Case for Marriage Conference” was scheduled to take place at the Law Society in London on May 23. The Law Society is attempting to ban the conference, claiming that a discussion of the need to preserve marriage violates its “diversity policy.”

“Just as the movement to de-construct marriage and the natural family are international in scope, so too must be our response,” Jacobs declared. “World Congress of Families is uniting individuals across diverse faiths and cultures in support of institutions which serve as the bedrock of civilization. Article 16 (3) of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UNDHR ratified by all nations in 1948) states that, “The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.”

Pro-family leaders, scholars and activists from over 60 nations are expected to attend the Madrid Congress. Previous World Congresses of Families have been held in Prague (1997), Geneva (1999), Mexico City (2004), Warsaw (2007) and Amsterdam (2009). World Congress of Families VII is scheduled for Sydney, Australia in 2013.

Those interested in attending World Congress of Families VI in Madrid (May 25-27) can register online at www.worldcongress.es.

African American Pastor’s Response to President Obama on Same Sex Marriage

OPINION, May 19, 2012 /Christian Newswire/ — The following is submitted by Bishop Darryl Husband:

I must admit that I was reluctant to publicly share my perspective on President Obama’s recent statement regarding same sex marriage because too often his presidency has caused separation within the ranks of African American leadership. And yet, what does an African American pastor do when his Africa American president makes a decision that eventually will destroy the foundation of not only the African American community, but the nation as a whole? Does that pastor take a risk that he will be misunderstood and labeled as an “Uncle Tom,” a Republican Party pawn, or someone “the white man has bought out?” If I do not take the risk, knowing that mentality in itself is as discriminatory as it gets, I become a co-conspirator in keeping us in bondage to our culture; suggesting that none of us is free to think or speak outside of what we are told.

I am neither a Republican, an “Uncle Tom” or bought out by anyone. I am simply accepting my responsibility as a citizen and a prophetic voice crying out in the wilderness of this generation. I decided that the risk is worth it. It is my responsibility as a pastor to speak to issues both popular and unpopular which affect the moral fiber of our society. I cannot be silent whether it comes from a Bush led, or an Obama led White House. My response must be the same. Tis true, the moral fiber of every generation is always challenged. However, challenges to our moral core must not be ignored. They must be met with bold correction or their seeds will suffocate us into chaos and extinction. If we begin to grow up a society that condones sexual behavior that cannot reproduce life, what other result can we expect? Our President is proof that politicians cannot set our moral agenda. Too often they are co-opted by the polls of an ever changing culture or influenced by the latest voting bloc that could get them over the edge in an election.

Decisions that affect our moral fiber should not ever be made based upon voting blocs. While we are indeed a democracy, we are like a family that’s supposed to have trained, skilled leadership, which makes decisions based upon what the outcomes of those decisions will be in our future. Ideally, families have parents that are given to lead them to a morally, ethically, fiscally healthy or responsible end. Every choice and intention should be based upon some foundational principles or truths for those expected results to come to manifestation. An attempt to satisfy “one” child at the expense of the rest, for the purpose of popularity, is parental immaturity and has destructive implications attached. It speaks strongly to that parent’s capability or incapability to lead.

While many of us have persons in our families whom we love dearly, that practice homosexuality, it is irresponsible for us to sanction it as a “norm” for family life. To make it a norm will eventually change the thinking of every new generation to fight the principles of the bible, the core beliefs that keep us from being totally unrestrained as a people. Standards of living are important. They give us balance. President Obama set a dangerous precedent from the highest office in the land with no spiritual counsel or future insight to the full ramification of his statement. Or did he? If he did, then we must deduce several things: 1) He has little to no regard for the church and many of its leaders; 2) He denies the foundational truth or at best misinterprets scriptures on what the Word of God says how a family is structured; 3) He seeks to weaken the voice of the once only, free voice in our society (The African American pastor). Down the road, not to marry same sex couples will eventual spell the end of funding that so many depend upon to do ministry and eventually may end in jail time for violation of rights or discrimination accusations. At the very least we will be spending unnecessary and needed monies in court to fight for principles we preach.

I am saddened as I write this, knowing many of our African American leaders will not take a bold stance, because we are still clouded in political and cultural power struggles, unable to see the future of our communities losing its one SURE foundation. The one place that has always been free to fight for everything the African American people have had was the church. If the church does not speak now, that voice will lose what is left of its waning authority.

No, I will not be silent and I challenge other leaders as well to let their voices be raised without thinking this attack is a personal, political party, homophobic or color issue. By NO means is it. This is a moral issue, period. We must sound the alarm, “Mr. President, rescind your remarks, revisit your views and hear the voice of the Lord. We need you to stand for what is right, not what appears to be popular.”

« Older Entries