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?

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.

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.

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

                                                         Newly Weds

This is one man’s opinion.

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.

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.

_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!

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.

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.”

Homosexual marriage is the unholy product of a union between "living Constitution" and "living Bible" propagandists.

John Hawkins, proprietor of Right Wing News, recently selected his favorite quotes from C. S. Lewis. One has a great deal of relevance with regard to President Obama’s recent embrace of homosexual marriage.

 “No man who says I’m as good as you believes it. He would not say it if he did…The claim to equality, outside the strictly political field, is made only by those who feel themselves to be in some way inferior. What it expresses is precisely the itching, smarting, writhing awareness of an inferiority that the patient refuses to accept. And therefore resents.”  

Coverage of Obama’s announcement stressed how his views evolved, but truth be told his view didn’t so much “evolve” as revolve. In 1996 when Obama first ran for the Illinois State Senate, he was a strong supporter of homosexual marriage. Now, like the earth around the sun, choose–your–own–plumbing marriage has done a complete orbit of The Obama and arrived where it began.

That a peripheral question like this could have any role, however large or small, in a presidential election is yet another indicator that we live in a decadent age. Homosexual marriage is the Rosemary’s Baby of political questions: The unholy product of a union between the “living Constitution” and the “living Bible” crowd.

“Living Constitution” advocates interpret the document to support whatever faculty lounge fad is currently making the rounds in intellectual circles. In the last 50 years the Constitution has gone from a document protecting individual liberty to a grimy little pamphlet protecting the sexual proclivities of the libertine set.

The Bible has not fared any better. It could not be more clear on homosexual practices, yet there are clergy who take it upon themselves to breathe a little life into that dusty scroll. The Post quotes the Rev. Clement Aapengnu of St. Charles Borromeo Catholic Church claiming, “Who has the authority to define what marriage is?”

For starters I would have said the church does, based on the Bible, but if one doesn’t regard the Bible as the inspired word of God, then the book becomes just an ancient collection of folktales. We don’t take child–rearing advice from Hansel & Gretel, so why consult the Bible for a definition of marriage?

In fact that’s pretty much the take of the Post’s “religion” columnist Lisa Miller who wrote last week, “On the specifics of what constitutes a “good” or “right” kind of family, the Scriptures offer no guidance at all.”

The interesting question is why make the change now? Obama was going to carry Hollywood and San Francisco anyway, why take a chance on alienating red state voters?

Each time homosexual marriage has been put before voters it has, without exception, lost. North Carolina, the most recent state to vote, ratified man–woman marriage by a landslide 61 percent.

In its top–down campaign of sexual enlightenment, the media drags out various polls that show when the choice is binary between regular marriage and imitation marriage 51 percent support imitation marriage. When offered “civil unions” as a third option, support for homosexual marriage plummets to 38 percent.

This, however, is not good news for social conservatives. There is essentially no difference between civil unions and marriage. Just as the marriage of male and female by a justice of the peace has all the rights and privileges of a wedding in a church, the civil union is essentially the same as heterosexual marriage.

Even worse, as we saw in California, once they get “civil unions” the homosexual lobby terms it  “second class” marriage and uses its existence to prove discrimination in the courts.

You don’t have to be a Wal–Mart shopper to fall prey incoherent thinking with regard to homosexuals and the family. Mitt Romney, to his credit, opposes both homosexual marriage and civil unions. But then Romney says he does not oppose two random homosexuals who decide it might be fun to play house and adopt a child without even the formality of marriage.

If your basis for defining marriage is the “feelings” and “love” of the interested parties, then no coherent intellectual argument can be made to define numbers of wives or husbands and, with a bit of evolving, their ages. It’s not a slippery slope, this change is a leap into the abyss.

Currently Obama reassures the religious that he supports a same–sex marriage law that is “respectful of religious liberty.” Which sounds a lot like what he said regarding forcing religious institutions to cover abortion and contraception before the passage of Obamacare and we know how that turned out.

obama’s position on same-sex marriage has changed several times during his hideously dishonest, radically motivated, meteoric career. In 1996, he was in favor of legalizing same-sex marriage. Then, in 2008 his view “magically” switched to “marriage is between a man and a woman”. More recently, up until Wednesday, his opinion was “evolving”.

What this reveals about obama is how coldly calculating is his timing. Each and every reversal of position coincidentally benefited obama’s political prospects enormously. It’s clearly not an accident that each shift in his position happened at exactly the right time…for him.

Back in 1996, while running in a Democratic primary to become an Illinois State Senator from Chicago, he took the position that suited the views of that electorate. He was an open supporter of same-sex marriage.

When obama announced in 2008 that he believed marriage should be between a man and a woman, he was running a nationwide campaign for president. He clearly understood that Electoral College votes might not fall his way if he openly supported gay marriage. Naturally, since the ends justify the means, a dishonest shift in his position seemed perfectly appropriate to him. As was his tactic in the 1996 State Senate campaign, he tailored his views to suit the electorate.

Now in 2012, when he’s struggling to raise funds for his re-election, obama suddenly supports same-sex marriage…again.

It’s no mystery that the gay community makes big donations to Democratic campaigns. Since obama needs donations from the deep-pocketed gay community, don’t expect him to change his position on same sex marriage again. That is, unless and until it becomes politically expedient.

Since he first took center stage within the national public eye, obama’s constantly preached about how he will have the most transparent administration in American history. In this instance, on this issue, that claim carries a semblance of truth.

What are the odds?

http://mjfellright.wordpress.com/2012/05/11/how-obamas-gay-marriage-views-have-evolved/

“My religion has, compels me–and I love it for it–to be against discrimination of any kind in our country, and I consider this a form of discrimination. I think it’s unconstitutional on top of that,” Pelosi said during her press briefing.  Pelosi called President Obama’s statement on same sex marriage, “a great day for America.”  She had didn’t comment on the fact that he felt different on this same subject two years ago.  Nonetheless, she went on to say,  “I hope this will bring people together on the same issue.  It’s a matter of time, it’s all a matter of time.  On these issues, what is inevitable to some of us is inconceivable to others. What we want to do is shorten the difference between the inevitable and the inconceivable and I think the president went a long way in doing that yesterday.”

You can watch the video here from CNS News:  http://cnsnews.com/news/article/pelosi-her-catholic-faith-compels-her-support-same-sex-marriage

Is Pharaoh's rainbow about to fade...?

Marriage between a man and a women, once a joyous occasion with no cultural back-lash other then a few of your old buddies (man’s perspective) teasing you about being hen pecked may now be in danger of becoming a cultural litmus test before the “I do”. The politically charged debate is now in the cross-hairs of the ever-ready Obama war machine.

President Obama, has managed a War on Guns, a War on Women, a War on Big oil, a War on Wall St., and amazingly a War on Terror; tapping out the number one villain in the world Osama Bin Laden. Only Pharaoh could boast so much—until one day he met a man called Moses who took him on a humbling swimming lesson in the Red sea. This War on Marriage may just be the stretch run gambit the president regrets later in life.

We must ask ourselves, does President Obama, like his historical, and egotistical Egyptian predecessor, have the interests of the people at heart ? Does this president agree with the interests of those involved in the Gay and Lesbian persuasion as he “evolves” on the issue, or are they being used as political pawns to be discarded after the election is over ? Here is a preview of what I think the presidents War on Marriage playbook might look like based on what I have seen so far.

First off, our president is not without help. His Hollywood and Big Media troubadours continue to create a narrative that points to a Boogieman—that would be you an me. Mothers, fathers, parents who believe deeply in their conviction that marriage is a sacred vow since time immemorial between a man and a women–it’s never been any different.

However, the President’s chief henchmen, Eric Holder is smart enough to know that time does not make an argument, after-all slavery had gone on for a long time, and so the equivocation of slavery and same sex marriage is a fairly easy sell—but a flawed one. False comparisons with ethnicity and behavior will be their narrative.

Secondly, the administration could play the racist segregation theme as well; that mothers and fathers, parents that want to uphold traditional marriage are one and the same with those bigots who were against blacks and whites marrying one another long ago. We hear these straw man arguments already, and I find those kind of comments truly offensive.

Considering that both President Obama, and Attorney General Holder are both black men who have experienced racism in their lives, yet overcame such discrimination with grit and determination, I suspect their words may resonate particularly well with those who are still struggling in life be it financially or otherwise.

Thirdly, are the issues of benefits. It would seem unfair to deny health care and certain tax benefits to a couple in love. After-all, does it seem fair to deny a sick person health care ? Considering the Obama-Care is now in the hands of the Supreme Court, I expect the president to maneuver and associate the same sex marriage debate as part and parcel of the controversial health care legislation.

If he can successfully tie that narrative in, he will pressure the Supreme’s who are no different then you and me in their human desire to be loved and respected. The strategy is simple: obfuscate the issue of same-sex marriage with healthcare enough, ultimately so you can’t have one without the other.

Finally, so what are people who believe marriage is between a man and a women to do ? Considering the above strategies in some form or another will intensify, I think the following three steps should be on every conservatives mind in some form or another.

Number one, stay on subject—marriage. This is what the debate is about, nothing else. Not healthcare, not slavery, not racial intermarriage, not even people who claim their in love. Its about an institution that has the biological advantage of having a mom and a dad for children to learn from each parent with their unique gender advantages.

Gays and Lesbians have the right to do as they please, but they do not have the right to redefine marriage for all of us. Having no children is not an argument against traditional marriage any more then it is an argument for same sex marriage. It’s about upholding values that sustain civility for society.

Number two, marriage is a biological must for the human race to progress into a civil and technologically advanced society—it is more then just survival of the human race. Without it, I doubt seriously I would be here writing this piece, and frankly there would be few of you who would know how to even read it—let alone on a computer.

We need to be thankful to someone for this grand institution called marriage— I will leave that up to you who that is.

Number three, we need to concern ourselves with those who we disagree with on these major issues. I have had a similar conversation with some in the gay community. I care for their survival, their health, their prosperity—and as a Christian their ultimate welfare. I must admit I wasn’t always this way. Show you care, engage people you differ with in dialogue—have conversations that don’t burn bridges—the cause is worthwhile.

In the end, some may think I may be falsely mis-characterizing the president. I have thought about this, and I don’t think so. Reading both his books, (still not finished) watching him for almost four years now, seeing him instructing his Attorney General not to enforce DOMA ( Defense of Marriage Act), I believe he is making a pure political calculation no more no less.

Yet, as personable and likable as he comes off, I believe his vision for America is dangerous and most uniquely disguised as peaceful–a rare trait. For me and my family, I think the president is sailing in sacred waters which may well sink his hope and change chariot.

Special thanks to www.nationformarriage.org.