Multiple media sources are cheerfully reporting that supporters of marriage-redefinition may try to pass their same-sex “marriage” bill during the lame duck session of the General Assembly next month (January 3-9).

State Representative Greg Harris (D-Chicago), who identifies as homosexual and is the chief sponsor of this anti-family legislation, used the lame duck session in 2010 to ram through a same-sex “civil unions” bill.  It passed by razor-thin margins in part because many proponents of civil unions dishonestly promised lawmakers that the legalization of “civil unions” was all they wanted. 

The ethically-challenged ACLU lobbied heavily for civil unions in 2010, but then in 2012 filed a lawsuit in Cook County on behalf of homosexual activists, complaining that the very civil union law they lobbied to create is unconstitutional.

The liberal activists who pushed for civil unions, including Representative Harris and State Senator David Koehler (D-Peoria), also promised their colleagues that religious liberty and freedom of conscience would not be affected by the passage of “civil unions.”  We have seen how empty those promises were. 

One month after the act was signed into law, homosexual activists went after the Christian owner of a bed and breakfast in Paxton, Illinois.  The owner, Jim Walder, wanted to operate his business for the glory of the Lord.  Not wanting to violate his conscience, Mr. Walder refused to rent his bed and breakfast to a homosexual couple for their civil union ceremony and reception.  (Read more HERE.)

Then in July of 2011, because Catholic Charities would not violate its religious convictions by placing needy children in the homes of homosexual “civil union” partners, the state of Illinois forced Catholic Charities out of adoption and foster care work, thereby affecting the lives of 2,500 innocent children.

The promises of homosexual activists turned out to be utter deceits, as were the religious liberty “guarantees” that were built into the civil union bill, ironically titled “The Religious Freedom Protection and Civil Union Act.” 

Perhaps thinking Illinoisans can be duped again, Representative Harris has named his marriage-redefinition bill the “Religious Freedom and Marriage Act.”

Take ACTION: Click HERE to email your state lawmakers today, urging them to uphold natural marriage and to support a state constitutional amendment by allowing Illinois voters to permanently define this foundational societal institution.  Be assured, your calls and emails are important!  Legislators take very seriously the letters and the numbers of calls they receive — particularly letters that are written by their constituents (as opposed to pre-written form letters.)

We can stop this destructive policy from moving forward, but we must take up the fight again and be willing to make our voices heard.  And this time, we need every conservative in Illinois to make his and her voice heard. We need you to respond to every action alert we send out as the Left moves forward with this and other pernicious legislation.

Click HERE to support the work and ministry of IFI.

The public has likely heard that the ironically — or deceptively — named “Religious Freedom Protection and Civil Union Act” has resulted in the state of Illinois engaging in religious discrimination by refusing to renew its contract with Catholic Charities adoption agencies. The reason for this travesty is that Catholic Charities refuses to capitulate to homosexual tyrants who seek to compel them to contravene their religious beliefs by placing children in the homes of men and women who affirm homosexual “identities.”

What many do not yet know but should have expected is that the state is discriminating against another religious foster care agency, refusing to renew its contract with the Evangelical Child and Family Agency (ECFA), which has done commendable work for children since 1950, for the same reason.

Homosexuals and their ideological allies are feebly trying to assert that the central problem is that these agencies receive state funds. Somehow that wasn’t a problem in 1965 when the state first asked ECFA to partner with the Department of Children and Family Services to help place needy children in good homes.

Nor was it a problem every year thereafter — at least not until the civil union law was passed. This is the law that during the floor debate in Springfield, State Senator David Koehler (D-Peoria), the bill’s sponsor, stated would not affect child welfare agencies. Homosexual activists have made a liar out of him.

Like Catholic Charities, ECFA is steadfastly adhering to its religious commitments. Unlike Catholic Charities, however, ECFA has chosen not to oppose the outrageous DCFS decision, thus allowing the state to abrogate religious freedom.

ECFA’s decision not to oppose this assault on religious freedom may reflect their troublingly evasive approach to the entire imbroglio. During sixty minutes of discussion over the course of a two-day interview with ECFA director Ken Withrow, he carefully parsed his words in response to all direct questions regarding ECFA’s obvious position that they will not place children in the homes of homosexuals because ECFA believes homosexuality is sinful.

When asked if he thought the civil union law is connected to DCFS’s decision to sever relations with ECFS, he paused and then said “yes.” When asked specifically how it was connected, he said “DCFS needed to look at policies and practices to make sure all organizations that they partner with are in compliance.”

When asked, “In what specific way does ECFA fail to be in compliance with DCFS practices and policies?” Withrow said “ECFA’s policy is to recruit, license, and place with Evangelical families, and DCFS wants anyone who fulfills DCFS requirements to be considered.”

Multiple times in multiple ways I attempted to engage Withrow directly on the salient issue of homosexuality, but he studiously evaded any discussions of the rainbow-colored elephant in the room. In fact, it was clear that he became annoyed with the questions. When asked directly about placing children in the homes of homosexuals, Withrow responded repeatedly with the well-rehearsed talking point: “We recruit, license and place only with evangelical families.”

And this folks is one of the reasons we are in the cultural mess we’re in today. When leaders in distinctly Christian organizations and churches steadfastly refuse to courageously, unambiguously, and publicly affirm truth on the issue of homosexuality, they become part of the problem.

Withrow explained that ECFA offered to refer people in whose care ECFA would not place children (e.g. homosexuals) to other adoption agencies. But is this something that any Christian organization should do? If a group of polyamorists were to seek to adopt, would it be morally permissible for any Christian to direct them to an agency that would place children in such a household?

Or imagine a Christian crisis pregnancy center telling a woman who seeks an abortion, “We don’t perform abortions because they offend God, but we can tell you where you can get one.”

We either believe homosexuality is a grave moral offense against a righteous, holy God — or we don’t. And if it is, we have no business facilitating it in any way.

When I asked Mr. Withrow why ECFA is not fighting DCFS’s decision, he stated that “DCFS has the right to determine the practices and policies of the agencies with which they contract.” But, I asked, “Should the state be permitted to engage in religious discrimination?”

In a recent CNN debate among candidates running in the Republican primary, Princeton law professor, Robert George asked the following important and illuminating question and in so doing, told Illinois Congressmen and women what they should do:

In Illinois, after passing a civil union bill, the state government decided to exclude certain religiously affiliated foster care and adoption agencies, including Catholic and Protestant agencies, because the agencies, in line with the teachings of their faith, cannot in conscience place children with same-sex partners.

Now, at least half of Illinois’ foster and adoption funds come from the federal government. Should the federal government be subsidizing states that discriminate against Catholic and other religious adoption agencies? If a state legislature refuses to make funding available on equal terms to those providers who as a matter of conscience will not place children in same-sex homes, should federal legislation come in to protect the freedom of conscience of those religious providers?

Now, that didn’t seem so hard to say. Quite publicly and with apparent ease, Professor George managed to say exactly what Mr. Withrow refused to say: ECFA lost their contract with the state because they will not place children with homosexual couples.

IFI’s hope is that some courageous Illinois Congressman or Congresswoman will propose such federal legislation. Such legislation may help stop federal legislation proposed by far left U.S. Congressman, Pete Stark (D-CA) that calls for prohibiting “discrimination in adoption or foster care placements based on the sexual orientation, gender identity, or marital status of any prospective adoptive or foster parent.” Stark’s bill, the “Every Child Deserves a Family Act,” would prohibit federal funds from going to any states that allow adoption/foster care agencies — including religious agencies — to refuse to place children in the homes of homosexuals or cross-dressers.

It’s remarkable that homosexuals who constitute less than 3 percent of the population are capturing virtually all of our cultural institutions. They couldn’t do it without the complicity of conservatives who only rarely, awkwardly, and self-consciously defend their beliefs in the public square. If we would proclaim our beliefs with the conviction, boldness, and tenacity that homosexuals proclaim theirs, we could protect our religious liberty and help create a better culture for the next generation.

TAKE ACTION: Contact your U.S. Representative and ask him/her to sponsor legislation to prohibit federal funding to state agencies that engage in religious discrimination, like Illinois’ DCFS. Tell him/her that state sponsored discrimination against people of faith, or faith-based organizations should not be subsidized by federal tax dollars.

David E. Smith, Executive Director of the Illinois Family Institute, denounces the enactment of “civil unions” by a lame duck session of the Illinois General Assembly which is already affecting the civil rights of others, specifically people of faith opposed to homosexuality. 

For the first time in Illinois’ history, on June 1, 2011, 2 men or 2 women will be able to unite in a “civil union” and be officially recognized by the State of Illinois. “Civil Unions” are, in reality, same-sex marriages. Thirty or more homosexual couples will converge on Grant Park in celebration on June 2nd. 

“What is happening here in Illinois is a tragic attempt by radical forces to advance a political agenda by using the authority of the government to validate wrong and unhealthy relationships,” said Smith. “Unfortunately, this social experiment will have a ripple effect on our culture that will touch every American and, most tragically, our children:

• Homosexuality will be taught as normal behavior to children in schools; 
• Political lawsuits and administrative actions will be used to intimidate, silence, and coerce individuals and organizations that object to special legislation for those who self-identify as homosexuality; 
• Disrespect for real marriage will grow as politicians embrace the “civil unions” compromise, and straight couples will exploit these laws as a substitute for marriage.

At a time when our state government and nation should be upholding natural marriage as the ideal and healthiest environment for raising children, it is a travesty that our elected officials chose instead to create a marriage-like institution that legally redefines the very meanings of “spouse” and “family.” 

“The government has no reason to provide affirmation or benefits to relationships that do not serve the public good; and relationships based on same-sex attraction and volitional homosexual acts do not per se serve the public good. Lawmakers should be looking at ways to strengthen the natural family, not undermine it.

“The state of Illinois has a compelling interest to recognize, protect and promote the God-ordained institution of marriage through legal benefits, as it is the best environment to raise the next generation,” said Smith. “The state has no compelling interest in legally recognizing homosexual relationships.” 

For more information, contact Illinois Family Institute at 708-781-9328

A week ago, the Chicago Tribune celebrated — again — the passage of the civil union bill as well as Obama’s decision to order the Justice Department to stop defending the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).

On Feb. 23, 2011, Attorney General Eric Holder announced that President Barack Obama has divined that the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is unconstitutional and has ordered the Justice Department (DOJ) to cease defending it. President Obama ordered the DOJ to stop defending DOMA in court even though the DOJ is specifically charged with the responsibility of defending federal laws.

However did DOMA’s unconstitutionality escape the notice of the 85 senators and 342 representatives who voted for it in 1996? And however did its unconstitutionality escape the notice of the man who signed it into law: President Bill Clinton, attorney and Rhodes Scholar?

The intellectual vacuity of the Tribune’s position is best illustrated in the claim that “the sky didn’t fall” following the passage of the civil union bill. What they mean is that Illinois has seen no cultural cataclysm since the bill was signed into law. The Tribune? wins this sophistical skirmish: I will concede that the bill that was signed into law six weeks ago and doesn’t take effect until June has not resulted in climatic catastrophe.

It has, however, darkened the sky for Jim Walder, a bed and breakfast owner in Paxton, Illinois who is being sued by a homosexual couple for not renting his facility to them for their civil union and reception. (Read more about this HERE.) And it seriously threatens the religious liberty of Christian organizations that seek to live out the tenets of their faith. (Read more about this HERE.)

But most of the cultural damage will not be seen for years to come. Any thinking person understands that cultural change rarely happens instantaneously. For example, Stanley Kurtz has documented the destructive impact same-sex “marriage” has had on heterosexual marriage in Scandinavia — changes that did not appear in a period of weeks or even months.

The Tribune editorial board continues its assault on marriage without ever feeling the need to address the fundamental and fundamentally flawed analogy upon which the entire homosexuality-affirming movement, including the effort to radically transform marriage and family, is built. The entire house of cards is built on a specious comparison of race to homosexuality, and yet, I cannot recall reading a single editorial defending with evidence the ways in which race and homosexuality are ontologically analogous or equivalent.

I also can’t recall the Tribune editorial board wrestling intellectually with the fundamental question that Princeton Law Professor Robert George recently debated with homosexual journalist Kenji Yoshino, which is: What is marriage?

Illinois Family Institute has written a number of columns over the years about the liberal bias of the news media — especially the media in Chicago. This left-wing, anti-Christian bias was never more apparent to me than on Monday as our well-publicized press conference was snubbed by all but one major news outlet. Any doubt about the Chicago media’s lack of journalistic integrity and fairness has been removed.

More than 40 African-American religious and political leaders gathered on Monday, January 17, 2010, Martin Luther King Day, to decry the misrepresentation of King’s legacy and the noble civil rights cause. With the recent passage of the “civil unions” bill in Springfield, one would think that this was a fairly big story. We do, and that is why IFI hired a videographer to record the entire event.

Click HERE to watch the video segment of Pastor Al Cleveland of Rehoboth Empowerment Christian Church in Bensenville. Pastor Al also serves on IFI’s Pastoral Advisory Council.

Sadly, the only major secular news outlet in Chicago that covered this important event was WBBM radio and television (CBS). While Univision and WGN News attended the press conference, apparently the producers decided it didn’t fit their messaging on the issue of so-called “gay rights.”

None of Chicagoland’s major newspapers covered the event:

Chicago Tribune, Chicago Sun-Times, Daily Herald, and the Southtown Star

Neither did the following local television news networks:

NBC, ABC and Fox Chicago

We should not be surprised by this mainstream media blackout, after all, most of these same corporations participate in Chicago’s annual “gay pride” parade — as debauched a public event as there is in the city — so it is no secret which side they are on in this contentious issue.

While their profession exhorts them to journalistic integrity, their political, social and emotional inclinations pull them in the opposite direction, and it is the people of Chicago and Illinois who have suffered from this media irresponsibility. The Chicago media have become part of the homosexual lobby through their servile pandering to this immoral and medically dangerous agenda.

We’ve known for years how dismissively the Chicago media covers conservatives — especially Christian conservatives — and the moral issues that concern and motivate us. Their bias when covering the issues of abortion, homosexuality, decency, and true Christian faith is painfully clear and consistent. Despite the fact that the state and nation are clearly divided on these controversial issues and that a large percentage of news consumers hold conservative opinions, the media smugly continue to operate as if there is only one credible side to report: the liberal side.

The lack of objectivity and fairness is oppressive, and we must not allow ourselves to become victims to the media’s leftist agenda. That’s why I’ll be asking for your help to disseminate this wonderful event and the message it proclaims to all corners of the state.

Even when the media do squeeze in a few seconds or a few sentences that present the conservative, pro-life or pro-family side of a debate, negative adjectives and descriptors are often used to describe our position. Words like “anti-abortion” and “anti-gay” negatively frame our side of the debate while those on the other side are regularly referred to as “pro-choice” and advocates of “gay rights.” A few weeks ago, political reporter Mike Flannery went so far as to call those of us who opposed SB 1716 “foes of civil unions.” (How about proponents of natural marriage, Mike.)

One of our post-press conference speakers was my good friend Peter LaBarbera, president of Americans For Truth About Homosexuality, who said:

Monday’s Martin Luther King day press conference — which was more of a pastor’s rally affirming God’s design for marriage and family — was one of the most uplifting and heartwarming events I have ever attended. To hear truth affirmed so passionately by so many pastors — who are sick and tired of politicians bending to the demands of homosexual activists — was good for the soul!

I heartily commend Dave Smith and Illinois Family Institute for putting together this wonderful event. And I hope and pray that it will bear fruit for years to come. To that end, I’m going to do all I can to make sure as many of my fellow Illinois citizens see the tape of this pastors’ event — because I’ve had it with the secular liberal media deciding for us what is news and what’s not!

I hope you will join Peter and me in circumventing the media by getting this information out far and wide.  Please stay tuned as we finalize the editing of the event.

I can’t say I was surprised by Rex Huppke’s Dec. 1, 2010 front-page Chicago Tribune story on the passage of the “civil union” bill, but I was certainly disappointed by its lack of objectivity. His sources were exclusively pro-homosexual, and there was nary a word about opposition to this bill. He evidently didn’t solicit so much as a comment from anyone who finds this bill troubling.

Not only was there no discussion of the controversial nature of the bill or its potentially harmful implications, but there was also no mention of any strong arm tactics that may have been responsible for conservative lawmakers reversing their commitments to oppose the bill.

Huppke more than once introduced the hospital visit red herring, without once mentioning President Obama’sApril 15 executive order mandating that any hospital that receives Medicaid or Medicare funds allow hospital visits for same-sex partners.

And there was a curious discussion at the end of this article regarding the economic impact of this bill. Huppke quotes Brad Sears who claims that any increase in health care costs will be negligible “because the LGBT population is small and the same-sex couple population is even smaller.” And yet, this very small population of same sex couples will potentially save “tens of millions” of state dollars because once same-sex partners are joined in a civil union, their combined income may make them ineligible for social services.

Doesn’t it seem odd that due to its teeny tiny size this segment of the population will not noticeably increase health care costs, but this same teeny tiny group may potentially save social services tens of millions of dollars? I guess if the entirety of this teeny tiny group of same sex couples is on Medicaid, it could account for this huge savings.

On Dec. 3, Huppke’s next advertisement for civil unions appeared in the Trib.

Advocate Huppke gave one paragraph to homosexual activist Rick Garcia, three paragraphs to attorneyCamilla Taylor who works for the homosexual advocacy law firm Lambda Legal, three paragraphs to pro-homosexual law professor Andrew Koppelman, and only one to Catholic Conference director Robert Gilligan.

It was especially troubling that Huppke chose to showcase these ignorant and smug words from Koppelman in the concluding paragraph:

The big picture is that the people that think homosexual conduct is intrinsically immoral have been spectacularly unsuccessful at passing on their views to their children….I got news for you. You’re already on the slippery slope.

It would have been both fair and illuminating to solicit a response from a conservative scholar on the issue of the apparent increasing support among the nation’s youth for all things homosexual. Koppelman (and perhaps Huppke) is either deceitful or spectacularly ignorant of the reasons for such apparent increasing support.

Might the exploitation of public education have something to do with the transmogrification of children’s moral and political views? There is absolute censorship of all writing by conservative scholars in public schools even as students are exposed to essays, articles, plays, novels, films, speakers, and “enumerated” anti-bullying resources that espouse unproven, non-factual “progressive” beliefs about the nature and morality of homosexuality. Public school libraries carry anywhere from 50-150 resources that affirm “progressive” assumptions about homosexuality and 0 that affirm conservative views. Why doesn’t Huppke do a story on that astonishing manifestation of censorship–censorship that should trouble all educators, civil libertarians, and defenders of diversity?

I am on occasion interviewed by high school and college students. I have learned that many are spectacularly ignorant:

• They believe without evidence that homosexuality is ontologically equivalent to race. They and anyone else who employs arguments based on the flawed analogy between homosexuality and race should be asked to provide justifications for this analogy. For example, all public educators who use such an analogy should be required to explain the ways they believe homosexuality is like race and that they explain to students the weaknesses of and challenges to this analogy.
• They believe that laws prohibiting same-sex “marriage” are analogous to laws prohibiting interracial marriage. This reveals that they don’t understand the difference between homosexuality and race/skin color. They don’t understand that anti-miscegenation laws were based on the erroneous belief that black men and white men are ontologically different, whereas laws prohibiting same-sex marriage are based on the true belief that men and women are ontologically different. These young people also don’t understand that when a black man seeks to marry a white woman, he is seeking to do the same thing that a white man is doing, so the discrimination inherent in anti-miscegenation laws is discrimination based on race or skin color. In the case of same sex “marriage,” however, the discrimination is based on behavior, which is legitimate. In the case of same sex “marriage,” a man is seeking to marry a man, which is an utterly different act that a man marrying a woman. Laws prohibiting same-sex marriage are not discriminating between people based on immutable, morally neutral conditions; these laws make rational distinctions between behaviors or acts.
• They believe that marriage is solely a private relationship.
• They have no understanding of the reasons why the government is involved with marriage.
• They believe that disapproval of homosexual acts constitutes hatred of persons, and yet curiously they don’t apply that principle consistently. They don’t assert that their moral disapproval of particular beliefs or volitional acts constitutes hatred of persons.
• They believe that to demonstrate love, one has to affirm all beliefs and all behavioral choices of others, and yet they don’t apply that principle consistently. They believe that it’s possible for them to love those whose moral beliefs and behavioral choices they do not affirm.
• They have no idea that until the late 20th Century, there were no Catholic or Protestant theologians who embraced “gay” theology.
• They believe that homosexuals constitute 10% of the population (a long-discredited figure).
• They believe that science has proved that homosexuality is 100% heritable even though they can’t produce even one study to support that claim.
• They have no idea that “Queer Theory” argues that homosexuality is mutable and fluid.
• They have no understanding of church-state relations. They would be stunned to read what Martin Luther King Jr. said about law in “Letter From Birmingham Jail.” I’m often asked if my opposition to legalized same-sex marriage violates the Constitution. Because students have such a lousy understanding of the First Amendment, they have trouble answering this question: If someone attends a church that affirms homosexuality, should they be prohibited from imposing their religious beliefs in law through support for legalized same-sex marriage?

Perhaps their ignorance is facilitated by the failure of public schools to have students study the work of the best scholars on both sides of the debates surrounding homosexuality. Perhaps their ignorance is facilitated by biased reporting like that of Huppke. And perhaps their ignorance contributes to their adoption of myopic, specious Leftist assumptions.

Now factor in the entertainment and advertising industries that promote through language and images the same unproven Leftist assumptions. Finally, throw into this toxic mix the use of invective to scorn and humiliate anyone who dares to publicly assert the belief that homosexual acts are immoral, and even Koppelman might be able to understand why the younger generation appears to be embracing the ontological and moral views of the Left.

I have been called “c**t,” “b**ch,” and “a****le”–multiple times. I have been told that I’m a “f***ing idiot” who should die–multiple times. I was recently threatened with “schoolyard” violence. And the Southern Poverty Law Center has added IFI to their “hate groups” list. Might this kind of vitriolic bullying contribute to the transformation of the moral views of young people or at least to their silence?

Neither I nor anyone affiliated with IFI has ever advocated hatred or violence. In fact, we have advocated against both. We neither express hatred nor feel hatred, but that’s irrelevant to the contemporary promoters of diversity and tolerance. If anyone dares to express his conservative moral claims with as much boldness and conviction as “progressives” do theirs, he will be on the receiving end of shocking hostility, lies, and invective.

It might have served both the cause of journalistic integrity and enlightened discourse if Huppke had bothered to explore the propagandistic tools that are shaping the public debate on homosexuality.

I have a question for the powers-that-be at the Chicago Tribune: Do you believe that Rex Huppke is covering the homosexual issue in general and the civil unions issue in particular fairly and objectively?

Perhaps Mr. Huppke could be reassigned to the editorial page and leave reporting to someone with the professional integrity to write objectively.

During the first half of the Illinois Veto Session in Springfield (Nov. 16-18), IFI’s two lobbyists and I spoke to dozens of lawmakers about the ramifications of passing same-sex “civil unions” legislation (SB 1716) in Illinois. Many lawmakers are unaware that section 10 of this bill states that any partner in a civil union shall be legally considered a “spouse” and “family.” It isn’t just conjecture to say that the proponents of this bill are trying to redefine the very meaning of marriage and family.

To make matters worse, too many lawmakers do not realize that if passed, this legislation will open the floodgates to discrimination and civil rights lawsuits. Religious liberty and freedom of conscience willdiminish for conservatives in Illinois.

Lawmakers will be in Springfield for the second half of the Veto Session Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday of this week (Nov. 29-Dec. 1). According to one pro-homosexual website, a vote on this bill may come as early as Tuesday, November 30th.

Take ACTION: Please call your State Representative during this time and ask him/her to vote “NO” on SB-1716 and to inform you of his/her decision before casting a vote. Simply call the Capitol switchboard at217-782-2000, tell the operator you need to find your state representative, and give the operator your zip code. You should be transferred to his/her Springfield office via the switchboard immediately.

The Left is engaged in a full court press. Governor Patrick Quinn, Comptroller-elect Judy Baar Topinka, House Speaker Mike Madigan, Attorney General Lisa Madigan, and Chicago Mayoral candidates Rahm Emmanuel and Carol Moseley Braun are all lobbying state legislators for this extreme anti-family bill. They need 60 votes to pass this bill in the Illinois House, and they are working hard to achieving that number.

That is why they must hear from us today! Grassroots Illinoisans must be heard on this issue. Voters in 31 states have rejected the redefinition of marriage and family at the ballot box. The people in Illinois are no different.

Thankfully, Cardinal Francis George and the Catholic Conference of Illinois issued a strong statement in a press release last week saying that “the public understanding of marriage will be negatively affected by passage of a bill that ignores the natural fact that sexual complementarity is at the core of marriage.”

Background

A recent e-mail from Penny Pullen, a former state lawmaker and current state president of Eagle Forum of Illinois, warned that the passage of a civil unions bill would result in the following:

• Civil union legislation would force employers to grant registered same-sex cohabiters the benefits currently provided for spouses of married employees.
• Such legislation undermines the unique position which marriage holds in our society as the foundation of the family.
• It also will cost taxpayers to add unrelated persons to health insurance coverage for public employees and as dependents under workers compensation benefits.
• And it will force employee benefit costs to rise in the private sector.
• Additionally, based on experience with the impact of such legislation in other states, this corruption of Illinois’s official treatment of marriage will likely lead to mandates on schools to teach quasi-spousal relationships as equivalent to marriage.SB-1716 is a jobs killer and an added burden for taxpayers. It will negatively affect our state’s moral climate and our children’s understanding of the family.

Equality Illinois, the state’s full-time pro-homosexual lobby and political group, lists the following organizations and unions as supporters of SB 1716:

• Access Living
• ACLU of Illinois
• Anti-Defamation League
• Advocacy Council for Human Rights, Bloomington
• Chicago Bar Association
• Chicago Coalition of Welcoming Churches
• Citizen Action Illinois
• Chicago Teachers Union
• Heartland Alliance for Human Needs and Human Rights
• Illinois Department of Human Rights
• Illinois Federation of Teachers
• Illinois Network of Centers for Independent Living
• Illinois Planned Parenthood Council
• Illinois State Bar Association
• National Association of Social Workers of Illinois
• Northwest Suburban Now
• People for the American Way
• Protestants for the Common Good
• Quad Cities for Diversity
• Service Employees International Union
• Unite Here, Local 1

Prayer Request

Finally, I am urgently seeking your prayer covering this week as we work to educate our lawmakers on the perils of this bill. I ask you to pray that we are able to connect with the key lawmakers that we’ve identified as “on the fence” and that the Lord would give us favor in their eyes. I ask you to pray that the Lord would give these lawmakers wisdom and understanding of how the passage of “civil unions” will lead to the weakening of the family and God’s institution of marriage.

Please pray that these lawmakers would recognize how this will undermine the foundation of our Judeo-Christian culture and harden the hearts of people to the Gospel message through the promotion of sexual behavior and a humanistic ideology that the Bible clearly identifies as sin. And pray that God would give them the courage to stand for truth.

Contact Your State Rep. Today!!

Late last week, the Chicago Tribune and other media outlets reported that in a sit-down with the editorial board of the Daily Herald, Gov. Pat Quinn (D) was asked if civil unions could be a reality in the state by Christmas.

Quinn’s answer as reported by the Herald:

“The votes are there, I believe,” Quinn said. “In the Senate for sure, and definitely I think we can do it in the House.”

He called himself a “strong advocate of civil unions…”

“I think we can pass it this year. I would like to see it voted on earlier,” Quinn said.

Take ACTION: Contact your state representative to preserve natural marriage in Illinois!  Call the Capitol switchboard at 217-782-2000 and ask your representative to please vote ‘NO’ on SB 1716 and, instead, pass a constitutional amendment to preserve marriage and its unique benefits for one man and one woman. (Be assured, legislators take very seriously the calls, letters and emails they receive.)

The only difference between marriage and “civil unions” is in name. The rights and privileges would be the same.

Background

We must point out that victories by pro-family candidates on November 2, 2010 do not take effect until January 2011, which means that defeated and retired lawmakers (aka lame ducks) will return to the legislature in mid-November and again in early January to wrap up unfinished business. This is when things can get very interesting. Lame duck lawmakers have nothing to lose politically, and may surprise constituents in how they cast their votes.

Current state lawmakers are scheduled to return to Springfield November 16-18 and November 29 – December 1.

SB 1716 would create homosexual “civil unions” in our state. This anti-family legislation passed the House Youth and Family Committee on March 5, 2009 and is now on 3rd Reading — the last step before a vote.

IT IS VITAL THAT WE MAKE OUR WILL KNOWN TO STATE LEGISLATORS. If our legislators give all the rights and benefits of marriage to homosexual partners (through civil unions), the next step will be to allow gay “marriage.”

Civil unions, same-sex “marriages,” and domestic partnerships will destroy marriage as we know it. When governments offer sex-partner benefits, they are essentially endorsing the behavior. These government-sanctioned sex-partner benefits will take us one short step away from legalizing “marriage” between two people of the same sex. Marriage by any other name is still marriage.

Those who want to redefine marriage often insist that the only necessary qualification for marriage is “love.” Under that rationale, there can logically be no boundaries as to what constitutes marriage. Any combination or number of consenting individuals must ultimately gain the same legal and societal sanction as traditional marriage. While love is vital, it is not the definitive element of marriage, and love is certainly not the concern of government. We love many people we do not marry.

Natural marriage and family must not be undermined. The data are clear and irrefutable — children do best in stable, healthy homes with both a mom and dad. Illinois’ children deserve the ideal environment and must have healthy examples. Today, with millions of fatherless children, it is callous and irresponsible to make matters worse by redefining the most basic institution of marriage to suit the desires of a few selfish adults.

We have an opportunity to stop this bill that would establish counterfeit marriage. We must preserve one-man, one-woman marriage as the highest social good for society and for our children by urging our legislature to vote against SB 1716 and to support the passage of HJRCA 2 — an amendment preserving marriage and banning all counterfeits — introduced by State Representative David Reis (R-Olney).

Please call your state representative now. We cannot afford to let this bill get to Governor Patrick Quinn’s desk, as he is on record in support of it.

Bottom line: People should not be granted special legal protection and benefits based on their sexual preferences and voluntary behaviors. Moreover, homosexual “marriage” is not a civil right.

In a recent article, Chicago Sun-Times’ columnist Neil Steinberg criticizes the Illinois Family Institute’s website for not “addressing what an individual could do to improve his own family.”

While Mr. Steinberg would love to see our organization relegated to self-improvement, family entertainment and leisure activities, IFI is a public policy organization that addresses policy issues that are substantial and consequential to the families of Illinois. If Steinberg bothered to look past the home page of our website to the “About Us” section, he may have understood our mission and purpose.

The Illinois Family Institute is a nonprofit research and education organization committed to protecting and defending the family by influencing policy and promoting timeless values consistent with Judeo-Christian teachings and traditions.

Disagreeing with our mission and our positions on these issues is fair. Mr. Steinberg obviously disagrees with our position on homosexual behavior and specifically our statement that “volitional homosexual acts are immoral,” calling them “superficial, silly, ad hominem non-arguments.” He is right: that statement is not an argument. It is a moral claim for which there are both religious and secular justifications. Similarly, the view that homosexual acts are moral is not an argument. It is a moral claim that requires justifications.

Unfortunately, Mr. Steinberg offers nothing to substantiate his criticisms other than name-calling. While he waxes poetic about tolerance, Mr. Steinberg describes opposition to so-called same-sex marriages and civil unions as “sick,” “twisted sexual” obsessions, “creepy, fixated” fundamentalism, “religious prejudice,” “intolerant,” and “inhuman.”

He compares opposition to the radical, subversive, a-historical effort to jettison the central defining feature of marriage — sexual complementarity — to teeth flossing and clean underwear checks.

In his anti-IFI article, Mr. Steinberg points out that he doesn’t want to impose his values on other people or “write an amendment into the Illinois constitution” to impose his beliefs. Since he feels so strongly about the immorality of imposing values on others, will Mr. Steinberg write a column critical of the efforts of homosexuality-affirming organizations to impose through public education and legislation their unproven ontological claim that homosexuality is equivalent to race and their unproven moral claim that gender is irrelevant to marriage?

And in his self-righteous advocacy of absolute moral neutrality in the public square, will he defend polyamorists’ right to marry?

Mr. Steinberg ends his tirade with an emotional appeal saying that our country “is a vast, varied place where people from all sorts of races, religions, creeds and, yes, differing sexuality, dwell together in harmony…” I guess this sentiment applies to everyone except religious conservatives.

If the superficial, silly, ad hominem non-arguments that constitute the sum total of Chicago Sun-Times columnist Neil Steinberg‘s indictment of conservative positions on homosexuality were not so dangerous, they would be laughable.

In a rant in the Sunday Feb. 14 Sun-Times, Mr. Steinberg describes opposition to faux same-sex marriages and civil unions as “sick,” “twisted sexual” obsessions, “creepy, fixated” fundamentalism, “religious prejudice,” “intolerant,” and “inhuman.”

He compares opposition to the radical, subversive, a-historical effort to jettison the central defining feature of marriage–sexual complementarity–to teeth flossing and clean underwear checks.

Ah, yes, I can hear the mellifluous tones of tolerance wafting through his rhetoric.

One wonders if Mr. Steinberg applies these same epithets and feckless analogies to opposition to jettisoning any of the other defining features of marriage, like the binary requirement, or the blood kinship requirement. Are those who oppose adult consensual incest or polygamy sick, twisted sexual obsessives, and creepy, fixated fundamentalists?

Mr. Steinberg’s cliche non-arguments lead me to wonder if he has ever engaged with the substantive arguments of real intellectuals, either in person or through a thorough study of the best writing of conservative scholars. I think not because nary a substantive counter- argument can be found in his thicket of epithets.

Here are some questions for the moral philosopher, Mr. Steinberg:

• Is homosexuality ontologically equivalent to race or skin color? If so, what is your evidence for that claim?
• Is homosexuality morally equivalent to heterosexuality? If so, what are your justifications for that belief?
• What is the basis of the government’s involvement in marriage?
• Is the government in the business of simply affirming affection and sexual desire?
• If so, why not affirm through legal mechanisms like marriage or civil unions the affection and sexual attraction some siblings feel for each other, or the affection and sexual attraction polyamorists feel for multiple people?
• Is marriage an utterly private institution, or does it impact the public good?
• If marriage is an utterly private institution with no impact on the public good, then why is the government involved at all?
• If the government’s involvement in the marriage business is wholly severed from supporting the type of relationship into which children may be born, why limit it to two biologically unrelated people. (After all, in Mr. Steinberg’s moral universe, no one should be permitted to impose his intolerant, inhuman moral views on others. How very sick and prejudiced it is for anyone to prohibit those who love and want to express that love sexually to their siblings or multiple people. Moreover, how could a marriage between two siblings or five people hurt anyone else’s marriage?)

Islam, Orthodox Judaism, The Roman Catholic Church, and many Protestant denominations believe that volitional homosexual acts are immoral, and that marriage is by nature a heterosexual union. Before writing another anti-religious screed devoid of intellectual substance, it would behoove Mr. Steinberg to spend some time studying the work of the following scholars:

Hadley Arkes, Francis Beckwith, Henri Blocher, Joseph Bottum, Michael L. Brown, Don Browning, D.A. Carson, Charles Chaput, Mark Dever, Anthony Esolen, Douglas Farrow, John S. Feinberg, David F. Forte, John Frame, Robert Gagnon, Robert George, Arthur Goldberg, Wayne Grudem, John Finnis, Harold James, Stanton Jones, Walter Kaiser, Meredith Kline, Peter Kreeft, Daniel Lapin, Al Mohler, Douglas Moo, Russell Moore, Jennifer Roback Morse, Mark Noll, David Novak, J.I. Packer, John Piper, Patrick Henry Reardon, Leland Ryken, Thomas Schreiner, Roger Scruton, Janet E. Smith, Katherine Shaw Spaht, John Stott, Seanna Sugrue, Bruce Ware, Thomas Weinandy, W. Bradford Wilcox, Christopher Wolfe, N.T. Wright, and Ravi Zacharias.

Homosexual activists abandonded their push for gay so-called “marriage” to focus on the less offensive name of “civil unions.”

Illinois State Representative Greg Harris (D-Chicago), has again introduced a “compromise” bill (HB 2234) to legalize homosexual “civil unions” in our state.

ACTION: This bill will be heard in the House Youth and Family Committte this Thursday. Please call the following members of this committee and ask them to VOTE ‘NO’ on HB 2234. (We need 4 ‘NO’ votes to stop this bill.) Springfield needs to hear from you right away:

Rep. Greg Harris (D-Chicago)
Chairperson
217-782-3835

Rep. LaShawn K. Ford (D-Chicago)
Vice-Chairperson
217-782-5962

Rep. Mike Fortner (R-West Chicago)
Republican Spokesperson
217-782-1653

Rep. William D. Burns (D-Chicago)
217-782-2023

Rep. Michael P. McAuliffe (R-Chicago)
217-782-8182

Rep. Al Riley (D-Matteson)
217-558-1007

Rep. Dave Winters (R-Rockford)
217-782-0455

Click HERE to download IFI’s White Paper (fact sheet) on the dangers of civil unions.

MORE ACTION: If you believe in keeping marriage from being radically redefined and devolving into something it is not, please send your most generous contribution to Illinois Family Institute today by clicking HERE.

Background – The “M” Word
On February 4th, openly gay State Representative Greg Harris (D-Chicago) introduced a bill to legalize same-sex “marriage” (HB 178). On February 18th — recognizing that gay “marriage” has very little support in the Illinois General Assembly — Rep. Harris introduced a compromise “civil unions” bill (HB 2234).

While the momentum nationwide to protect marriage from homosexual pressure groups is encouraging, homosexual activists decided that the word “marriage” may be too much to ask for at this time. So they have pushing this “compromise” bill that is only different in name.

Make no mistake: government-sanctioned “civil unions” or “domestic partnerships” would undermine our culture, faith, values and traditions just as quickly as legalizing homosexual “marriage.” We must not settle for any counterfeit that would legitimize immoral homosexual relationships, no matter what it is called.

Your secure online donation today will enable us to dig our heels in and protect marriage in the State of Illinois. We will not back down. We will not rest. But we need your contribution to work against this attack on the family.

If liberal lawmakers and homosexual activists have their way in Illinois, the consequences to families and religious liberties as we know it will be devastating. We will not back down now… we cannot.

Is Illinois Going to Be the Last State to Fully Protect Marriage?
Help IFI Stand Up to Homosexual Agenda’s Push for Homosexual “Civil Unions” in Illinois

If you believe in keeping marriage from being radically redefined by homosexual activists, please send your most generous contribution to Illinois Family Institute today. We are supported by voluntary donations from individuals like you across the state of Illinois. Donations to IFI are tax deductible.

Illinois Family Institute
P.O. Box 88848
Carol Stream, Illinois 60188

You may also call in a credit-card gift to IFI at 708-781-9328, or give online by clicking HERE.