Written by Bishop Harry R. Jackson, Jr.

Marriage is very important to me. Personally, it is a covenant that I made with my wife of over 35 years. It is a sacred trust between the two of us but it is more than that. Marriage plays a significant part in the health of our society and the future of our children. This is why I have fought so hard to preserve the traditional definition of marriage.

In November, Illinois became the sixteenth state (including the District of Columbia) to change its definition of marriage to include homosexual relationships. You probably didn’t hear too much about the fight in Illinois, which dragged on for several months longer than homosexual “marriage” activists had intended. Why did it take so long for an overwhelmingly Democratic state legislature to approve what homosexual activists promise us is an inevitable part of our future?

The answer is that, for quite a while, the efforts of key black clergy members preserved the traditional definition of marriage in Illinois. Their courageous stand—which included placing relentless pressure on black Democratic legislators—had the opposition gnashing its teeth in frustration. The Chicago Sun-Times reported on their activity in May, noting, “stubborn resistance within the House Black Caucus, a 20-member bloc of African-American lawmakers who have faced a withering lobbying blitz against the plan [to redefine marriage] from black ministers, has helped keep Harris’ legislation [to redefine marriage] in check, with several House members still undecided.”

In the end, however, the well-funded and aggressive campaign to redefine marriage succeeded. It is worth noting that the margin in the House was razor thin. The measure would not have passed without the three Republicans who supported it: Representatives Tom Cross, Ed Sullivan, and Ron Sandack.

As the Associated Press explained, after the bill failed in May, “Proponents then launched another aggressive campaign with help from labor, the former head of the Illinois Republican Party and the ACLU… [Illinois Governor] Quinn and House Speaker Michael Madigan also persuade[d] lawmakers in the final days.” Shortly after Illinois’ decision, New Mexico’s State Supreme Court ruled homosexual “marriage” a constitutional right.

Homosexual activists have been hailing these victories as an unstoppable tide of change sweeping the nation. They rarely mention the fact that 31 states have already passed amendments to their state constitutions clarifying that marriage is the union of one man and one woman. Even with the Supreme Court striking down key parts of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in June, the tide may in fact be turning.

From now on, advocates for homosexual “marriage” face a very different landscape. Only one of the remaining states (which have not redefined marriage) has a Democrat-controlled state legislature. That state is West Virginia, where recent polls suggest that less than 20 percent of the population supports redefining marriage to include homosexual couples.

Thus far, homosexual activists have relied on bullying and on two major deceptions. The first is that all they want out of the redefinition of marriage is rights for loving, committed couples. The second is that homosexual marriage is so incredibly popular that its universal acceptance is inevitable. To be on the “right side of history,” we are told we must get on board now.

The first lie is being exposed before our eyes. Illinois had already legalized civil unions. But as a brief “Civil Unions are not Enough: Six Key Reasons Why” from Lambda Legal explains, “Regardless of whether civil unions and marriage offer the same benefits and obligations on paper, when the government relegates same-sex couples to civil unions rather than marriage…those couples lose the respect and dignity that they deserve for their commitment…” What homosexual activists want, and have always wanted, is mandatory public approval of their lifestyle.

The widespread support for traditional marriage in the black community has been very difficult for radical homosexual activists to understand. After all, if we are to believe their narrative, blacks should be nothing but grateful for all our gains in civil liberties since slavery. They believe that our own experience with oppression should impel us to go along with whatever homosexual activists tell us to believe.

But those who feel this way completely misunderstand what the Civil Rights Movement was all about. It was not about radically restructuring society. We appealed to the rights given to us by our Creator, who created not only mankind, but placed us in families. The family was the one institution that held the black community together through slavery and segregation. And it is the black community that has suffered most acutely as marriage has been devalued and the family has begun to fall apart.

Homosexual activists would have us believe that the fight is nearly over and that their victory is inevitable. Yet barring action from United States Supreme Court, it seems most likely that the real fight is only beginning. The battle will be waged state by state, and it will test the patience and perseverance of all. Several of the black Democrats in Illinois who voted to redefine marriage are facing primary challengers, as are all three Republicans. Will they face consequences for their decisions? Only time will tell.

This article was originally posted at the Townhall.com blog.

While poorly decided U.S. Supreme Court cases are a dime a dozen, prior to Wednesday, two stood alone as the most wretched and constitutionally groundless in American History. First was the 1857 Dred Scott decision. Among other things, it robbed African-Americans of both their U.S. citizenship and their dignity.

Next came the 1973 ruling in Roe v. Wade. It has robbed over 55 million U.S. citizens of their very lives. For the first time in American history, the high court imagined a phantom constitutional right for women to dismember alive their own pre-born children.

Both of these cases are blights on American history. Fortunately, the first, Dred Scott, has been officially relegated to the dustbin of judicial disgrace, while the second, Roe v. Wade, continues to be used as justification for mass genocide. With each passing day, the bodies of the innocents pile-up like God’s chosen at Auschwitz.

Tragically, this past week we hit the unholy trifecta. A third precedential abomination was added to the mix. On Wednesday, the high court handed down two cases concerning the pagan left’s abjectly bizarre efforts to redefine the age-old and immutable institution of marriage (Hollingsworth v. Perry and U.S. v. Windsor). The more egregious of the two opinions, Windsor, presumes to invalidate Section 3 of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), granting limited federal recognition to sin-centric and sodomy-based same-sex “marriage.”

Not only did this 5-4 decision effectively deconstruct the institution of legitimate marriage, removing all ethical and legal justification for barring similar such perverse “marriage” amalgamations as “gay marriage” (i.e., multi-party or incestuous nuptials) – it also laid the groundwork to force the 37 “marriage reality” states to join the remaining 13 in a corporate “marriage equality” delusion. This is not just judicial activism; its judicial tyranny – a potentially fatal self-inflicted wound to the high court’s yet waning legitimacy.

Still, while much will be written about Windsor from a legal standpoint, for now, let’s focus on another of the decision’s inevitable outcomes: Anti-Christian persecution. If, through judicial fiat, “gay marriage” ultimately becomes the law of the land, tens-of-millions of Christians (as well as Jews and Muslims) will be forced to choose between obedience to God and obedience to Caesar – between fidelity to conscience and government oppression.

Millions of us have already made that choice.

As we’ve now seen in states that fancy mock “gay marriage,” for instance, the only way to force Christian individuals and business owners – such as bakers, photographers, innkeepers and florists – to lend their talents to sin-centered “gay weddings” is through the power of the police state. This amounts to a systemic, immoral and profoundly unconstitutional trampling of the First Amendment.

What follows will be a deviant-sexual-behavior-based “LGBT” suspect minority class with all the associated trimmings. In the eyes of government, Bible-believing Christians will be treated as modern-day racists. Any outward expression of the Judeo-Christian sexual ethic will be trumped by newfangled “gay rights” and deemed verboten. For all intents and purposes, Christianity will be criminalized. This is not mere speculation. It’s been the plan all along.

Case in point: Chai Feldblum, President Obama’s EEOC commissioner – a lesbian activist who supports “plural marriage” – has promised as much. She admits that progressives “want to revolutionize societal norms” and believes that “gay sex is a moral good.” She calls the clash between religious liberty and “sexual liberty” a “zero-sum game,” meaning someone wins and someone loses. Guess who loses? Feldblum has “a hard time coming up with any case in which religious liberty should win.”

Even so, Wednesday, after the offending high court opinions were announced, I was reminded by a close friend and fellow Christian attorney that, “God is in control, and that has to be more than a slogan at times like this.”

Since, no doubt, the Obama NSA has already read our entire email exchange, I thought I’d go ahead and share excerpts with you as well. My colleague’s insights are profound. I found them encouraging. I hope you do, too.

“Amen,” I replied. “At the risk of sounding a bit apocalyptic, I’m fully convinced that this is part of His divine plan – perhaps to begin separating the wheat from the chaff. We have arrived: ‘As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man.’ Matthew 24:37.”

“I agree with you,” he responded, “and that conviction makes all this much easier. What depresses me is the astonishing disconnect and irrationality that sin so easily produces, and how quickly it spreads; we are truly sheep and fully as stupid without a Good Shepherd.

“In my 35 years as a Christian, I never seriously believed we might end up in prison for our faith – except, perhaps, for something like a pro-life demonstration. This is the first time it seriously occurs to me that the trajectory of the nation is such that it is possible in five to 10 years. Oddly, this thought does not discourage or scare me; in fact, it’s almost a joyful thought that we might have the privilege to suffer for our faith. Rejoice greatly when men revile and persecute you for my name’s sake, for your reward is great in Heaven (a rough paraphrase of Matthew 5:12).

“It may be that the truly toughest tests we had were earlier in our lives,” he continued, “before we got fully engaged and in the movement. … Now we’re part of networks with support from like-minded people, and we’re largely insulated from what the opposition can do to us. The real heroes are our clients who speak up at the risk of losing their livelihood, getting thrown out of school, or getting death threats from the tolerance crowd. I feel now like my faith costs me less than when I was in private practice before hostile judges and antagonistic media hit-men.”

“You nailed it,” I replied. “What an honor that our Creator chose us before time began to be part of a Gideon’s army of truth-tellers and defenders of the faithful. It’s an amazing time to be alive. But, as you mentioned, although we’re on the front lines, we also have tremendous support. It’s quite liberating to be written-off by the world and, consequently, free to speak and behave in a way that reflects the reality that we couldn’t give a rat’s behind what the world thinks of us. Those we represent rarely have that luxury.

“Whether it’s one day or hundreds of years,” I continued, “I really believe we are living in the last days (in the total scheme of time and space). I just hope that when and if the time comes, the Holy Spirit gives me the strength of character to not only refuse to deny His Truth, but to be like our martyred brothers and sisters who walked up and kissed the stake before being burned alive on it.

“Anyway, that’s enough trying to cheer each other up for now,” I joked. “Keep on keepin’ on, my friend.”

Do I really believe American Christians will be burned at the stake over counterfeit “gay marriage”? No. Do I believe Christians will face real persecution, such as loss of livelihood, civil penalties, physical abuse or even jail? Absolutely.

Still, come what may, we Christ followers must always remember this admonition from Romans 12:12: “Be joyful in hope, patient in affliction, [and] faithful in prayer.”

In other words, mock “marriage” or not: Keep on keepin’ on, my friend.

(Go to MarriageSolidarity.com to pledge no surrender on marriage).

In a significant victory for pro-marriage forces, the California Supreme Court ruled this week that the sponsors of Proposition 8 have standing to defend the referendum in court when state officials refuse to do so.

Propositition 8 was a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage in California. Voters adopted it in November 2008 by a 52 percent majority in a referendum vote, in a direct response to the California Supreme Court’s ruling that homosexual partners had a right to same-sex “marriage.”

After further court challenges, a federal trial judge in San Francisco overturned Proposition 8 on August 4, 2010, saying the constitutional amendment was unconstitutional. When the measure was appealed higher, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which presides over California asked the California Supreme Court to clarify whether the groups defending Proposition 8 had standing, or legal authorization, to do so. On Thursday morning the answer came: yes.

Ordinarily the task of defending state laws falls to state officials: the California governor and attorney general would be responsible to defend laws passed in their state from legal challenges. But California’s officials refused to do so, and the groups that sponsored the amendment in the first place stepped in to pick up the slack. This decision was about whether they were allowed to do so.

In an era when the people in the states, who are overwhelmingly pro-marriage, are repeatedly ignored by courts eager to coerce progressive visions into law, this development from California is immensely encouraging. And not only so for proponents of marriage — it ought to come as welcome news for all who love our republican tradition of law, decency, and order. The activism displayed by today’s courts is a disgrace to democracy, and is only aided and abetted by the abdication of state officials who claim a personal exemption from defending laws and principles their states have adopted through the legislative process.

As this case proceeds through the court system, possibly ending up before the United States Supreme Court, the California ruling will have implications for other states across the country. It provides a way of access for the people to defend their values in court even if their state officials refuse to do so. This, and not the judicial activism we have seen over the past decades, is a true defense of equality and the rule of law.

Click HERE TO SUPPORT Illinois Family Institute.
We need your financial support!

Would you please consider making a generous donation
right now to help us as we work to defend and support
the families of Illinois?

House Attorneys Support Thomas More Society’s DOMA Case

This week, the Thomas More Society secured support from the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the U.S. House of Representatives in a same-sex marriage case that involves the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). The case asserts that the parents of attorney Sarah Farley, who died of cancer, should get her profit-sharing plan proceeds instead of Sarah’s “wife”, Jennifer Tobits.

The House’s Legal Advisory Group filed a motion to intervene in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Motion available here and Memorandum available here), supporting the position of the parents of Sarah Ellyn Farley, that they are entitled to her profit-sharing plan instead of her “wife” Jennifer Tobits, because DOMA is constitutional.

“We are very encouraged that the House of Representatives’ legal counsel is joining us in saying that DOMA is fully in accord with the U.S. Constitution,” said Peter Breen, executive director and legal counsel of the Thomas More Society.

Earlier this year, the Thomas More Society defended the Farleys (court filing available here) and argued that federal and state DOMAs forbid the recognition of Tobits as a “spouse.” They stated that the Cozen O’Connor law firm should disburse the profit-sharing plan proceeds to attorney Sarah Farley’s parents, as she requested them to be her beneficiaries before her death. Sarah Farley and Tobits obtained a same-sex marriage license in Toronto in 2006, which Tobits claims entitles her to the plan’s proceeds.

The Thomas More Society argued that the parents are entitled to the funds because their daughter executed a beneficiary designation form in their favor before her death, and because Farley and Tobits’ “marriage” was invalid under Federal and Pennsylvania law. Under the terms of the profit-sharing plan, the parents would be next in line when there is no spouse, even without a designated beneficiary form from the deceased. Therefore, they are legally entitled to the funds as Farley’s surviving parents on two accounts.

About the Thomas More Society

Formed in 1997, the Thomas More Society is a national public interest law firm based in Chicago. The Society defends religious liberty, marriage, and the sanctity of human life in courtrooms across the country. For more information, please visit www.thomasmoresociety.org.

Liberal lawmakers in cahoots with homosexual activists and the Obama Administration will not rest until they’ve perverted every significant cultural institution in ways that will hasten America’s decline.

Pro-homosexual “agents of change” masquerading as “educators” have usurped government schools through curricula and deceitful anti-bullying programs. Pro-homosexual activists have set in motion radical changes in the military through the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. And now pro-homosexual activists are going after marriage through the oxymoronically titled “Respect for Marriage Act” (ROMA), which, if passed, would overturn the “Defense of Marriage Act” (DOMA).

ROMA embodies absolute ignorance of and disrespect for marriage, and lawmakers who support it expose their own ignorance of and disrespect for marriage.

On November 10th, the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee voted along party lines to advance ROMA (S. 598) to the full Senate. Illinois’ senior U.S. Senator, Dick Durbin, is a co-sponsor of this anti-marriage legislation. In the U.S. Senate, however, Democrats are expected to have a more difficult task mustering the votes to overcome an expected Republican filibuster.  Illinois’ junior U.S. Senator, Mark Kirk, will be a critical vote in maintaining a filibuster. Serious questions about Kirk’s commitment to conservative values continue to abound. The ROMA vote will be a key opportunity for Kirk to reassure Illinois conservatives that he stands squarely for natural marriage.

The assault on marriage is virtually relentless. Currently, there are no fewer than 11 challenges to the federal marriage law in the U.S. court system, and now liberals in the U.S. Senate are seeking the repeal of DOMA in order to compel the federal government to recognize same-sex “marriage.”

Furthermore, if DOMA is repealed, all 50 states would have to recognize homosexual “marriages” from other states, essentially making this counterfeit form of marriage the law of the land.

Despite what homosexual activists and foolish legislators claim, marriage is not solely a private institution concerned with the subjective feelings of those seeking to marry. Marriage — as a government-recognized institution — is a public institution that affects the public good. Government does not create marriage. It merely recognizes a type of relationship that exists and serves the public good. That type of relationship is a sexually complementary relationship between one man and one woman that may result in children. It would be no more legitimate for the government to jettison the criterion of sexual complementarity than it would be for the government to jettison the criterion of numbers of partners by legalizing plural marriage.

The cowardice and ignorance of conservative Americans, including our lawmakers, on virtually every issue related to homosexuality have facilitated the usurpation of public education and the military for the pernicious purpose of normalizing homosexuality. And these successes have emboldened an already arrogant homosexual movement that has turned its anarchic efforts toward radically redefining marriage. With a Democrat-controlled U.S. Senate, their chances for success are better than they’ve ever been.

Let’s hope and pray that there are enough conservatives with wisdom and spines of steel to prevent homosexual activists and their ideological allies from winning another corrosive victory, this time in the U.S. Senate.

Take ACTION:  Contact Senator Kirk’s office to urge him to to support DOMA and oppose any effort to repeal it.  You can also call his D.C. office at:  (202) 224-2854.

In the past few months, we have seen the LGBTQ lobby working overtime. With the passage of the “civil unions” bill and the consequent assault on the religious liberties of child welfare organizations here in Illinois and the recent legalization of homosexual so-called “marriage” in New York, their agenda is quickly moving to the forefront of the political landscape nationwide.

Yesterday, President Barack Obama issued his support for The Respect for Marriage Act, which would repeal the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), the federal law that defines natural marriage as the union of one man and one woman. White House spokesman Jay Carney said President Obama “is proud” to support this federal legislation (S. 598 and H.R. 1116)

The bill is co-sponsored by Illinois U.S. Senator Dick Durbin and 26 other senators. In the U.S. House, it currently has 119 co-sponsors, including U.S. Representatives Danny Davis (D-Chicago), Louis Gutierrez(D-Chicago), Jesse Jackson Jr. (D-Chicago), Mike Quigley (D-Chicago) and openly gay U.S. Representatives Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), Barney Frank (D-MA) and Jared Polis (D-CO).

This is a monumental show of support for a radical anti-family political agenda by a sitting president that has far reaching consequences. IFI’sLaurie Higgins points out:

Homosexuals are fighting tenaciously to repeal DOMA because they do not want conservative Americans anywhere in the country to have a voice in what types of relationships are recognized by the government as marital relationships. Homosexuals and their ideological allies want to impose their non-factual ontological and moral assumptions on every state regardless of the will of the majority of citizens.

Sponsorship and support for the repeal of DOMA represents either profound ignorance about the nature and morality of homosexuality; the nature of marriage; and the public purposes of marriage, or indefensible cowardice.

Take ACTION: Contact President Obama and to Congress to urge them to defend DOMA, natural marriage and family from the attacks of the far left.

Background
This morning, the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee held the first congressional hearing on proposals to repeal DOMA. In response to this hearing, Family Research Council President Tony Perkins made the following comments:

The Defense of Marriage Act reflects recognition of the uniquely important role that marriage between a man and a woman plays for society, in encouraging the reproduction of the human race and the joint nurture of children by the mother and father who produce them.

DOMA has stood the test of time, being upheld as constitutional by several courts and successfully ensuring that federal law reflects our national consensus on marriage and that states will not have a radical redefinition of marriage forced upon them by other states.

In every one of the thirty-one states in which the definition of marriage has appeared on the ballot, voters have upheld the definition of marriage as the union of a man and a woman. A national survey released last May showed that 62 percent of Americans agree that ‘marriage should be defined only as a union between one man and one woman.’ All of these facts show that there remains a strong national consensus in favor of defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

For more information on the Defense of Marriage Act, read Family Research Council’s pamphlet on the law HERE.

As you may already know, President Barack Obama has directed the U.S. Department of Justice to no longer defend one of the most important laws of our nation — the federal Defense of Marriage Act (known as DOMA). This decision changes the legal climate significantly in the ongoing efforts to defend natural marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

More than 40 states, including Illinois, have passed their own state DOMAs! And a majority of voters in 31 states have voted to protect the definition of natural marriage at the ballot box. So why won’t the President and the Department of Justice uphold the law and the will of the people?

Take ACTION:  Contact your U.S. Representative. Encourage him/her to use the Congressional tools at their disposal to intervene in defending the longstanding Defense of Marriage Act.

Please also contact U.S. House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) directly, at 202-225-6205 to urge him to quickly appoint internal counsel to defend DOMA in these federal lawsuits.

Currently there are several lawsuits challenging DOMA. Three of those cases (in NY, CT, CA) have deadlines coming early next month. If there is no one from the government who will defend DOMA, it makes it much easier for those who want to redefine God’s institution of marriage to have free rein in those lawsuits.

Background

Passed in 1996 by an overwhelming bipartisan majority of Congress and signed into law by President Bill Clinton, DOMA defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman in federal law. The law also protects states — like Illinois — from being required to recognize same-sex marriages from other states.

While President Obama has the legal authority to make a decision to not defend laws he regards as unconstitutional, this decision is unconscionable and indefensible. Since President Obama took office, his Department of Justice has only halfheartedly offered a defense of DOMA and marriage in the courts, setting aside proven legal arguments for weaker, often nonsensical points.

Fortunately, the U.S. Congress can intervene in the federal DOMA cases. That means the ball is now in Speaker of the House John Boehner’s court. Speaker Boehner could instruct the House of Representative’s legal counsel to defend DOMA, or the members of the House can vote to defend it.

Now is the time for the newly elected Congress to reinforce their commitment to foundational principles like marriage. The 2010 election was all about having a more responsive and accountable government to the people. The great majority of American citizens do not want marriage redefined.

Take time now to let your U.S. Representative know you want Congress to defend DOMA, even if President Obama will not. They need to hear from you right away that protecting marriage matters.

Read more…

Obama Abandons DOMA (IFI PSA)

If marriage is lost, we lose everything (Don Feder in WorldNetDaily)

Senate Dem to Introduce Repeal of “Defense of Marriage Act” (Fox News Blog)

No more defense (World Magazine)

In another blatant example of a judge playing legislator — ignoring the separations of powers — a Boston-based federal judge has struck down the bipartisan Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) passed by Congress and signed by President Bill Clinton in 1996.

Radical homosexual marriage activists have tried time and time again to win public approval of their agenda, and they have failed each time. This is why their strategy is to force so-called same-sex “marriage” through the courts, as they did Iowa, Massachusetts and as they are still trying to do in California.

Americans overwhelmingly believe marriage to be the union of one man and one woman. Just two days ago the Governor of Hawaii vetoed a bill that would have redefined marriage through homosexual civil unions, upholding the will of the people of her state. Forty-five states have laws supporting traditional marriage, with thirty-one states allowing the people the right to vote directly on the issue, all choosing to uphold natural marriage.

DOMA has withstood prior challenges, and I ask you to join me in praying that upon appeal, or ultimately in the U.S. Supreme Court, our federal DOMA will be upheld, and in the decision, affirm the government’s right to recognize the institution of marriage as God designed it to be.

Once again, Barack Obama has affirmed his commitment to radical, subversive change; his sycophancy to the homosexual lobby; and, implicitly, his embrace of heresy. He has already signed into law the dangerously flawed “Hate Crimes” bill, declared his intent to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” and the Defense of Marriage Act, and committed to pass the Employment Non-Discrimination Act.

Then on May 28, 2010 Obama issued the following proclamation

LGBT Americans have enriched and strengthened the fabric of our national life. From business leaders and professors to athletes and first responders, LGBT individuals have achieved success and prominence in every discipline. They are our mothers and fathers, our sons and daughters, and our friends and neighbors. Across my Administration, openly LGBT employees are serving at every level….

I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim June 2010 as Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Pride Month.

Joe Carter writing on the First Things blog seeks further clarity from Obama:

Perhaps he could explain how bisexuals-because of their bisexuality-have enriched America and how transgendered-because or their transgendered orientation-have have strengthened the “fabric of our national life.” In other words, maybe he could explain why alternative forms of “gender identity or sexual orientation” are something we should celebrate at the national level.

Also, I’d really love to see a few names of the transgendered folks-people who may identify as heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, pansexual, polysexual, or asexual-who are “serving at every level” of his administration. By my count he has exactly one example.

Obama wants all Americans to “recognize the immeasurable contributions of LGBT Americans,” insisting that “LGBT Americans have enriched and strengthened the fabric of our national life.”

No sane person would ever argue that homosexuals have contributed nothing to society. That’s as absurd as claiming that adulterers, porn users, or gossips have contributed nothing to society.

But the sexual impulses and sexual behavior of homosexuals and cross-dressers are irrelevant to their contributions. Therefore, making irrelevant characteristics the central focus of “Pride” month as Obama did is absurd. More important, the particular irrelevant characteristics that Obama has chosen to highlight are, in the view of many, disordered and immoral.

Those who experience, for example, selfish, vain, greedy, gluttonous, deceitful, promiscuous, incestuous, sadistic, pederastic, gossipy, philandering, or polyamorous impulses and engage in behaviors impelled by such impulses have also contributed to society. How would Americans respond if the president were to proclaim June “Polyamory Pride Month”? Substituting another irrelevant and morally questionable characteristic for homosexuality brings into sharper relief the dubious nature of Obama’s proclamation.

Joe Carter emphasizes this point:

Presumably all of these Americans who have “enriched and strengthened the fabric of our national life” have other characteristics besides their sexual orientation. They are men and women, black and Asian, right-handed and left-handed, etc. So what is the purpose of using their sexual identification as a marker if it has no bearing on their accomplishments?

Imagine if we swapped out “LGBT” for “left-handed white people” in his proclamation: “Left-handed white Americans have enriched and strengthened the fabric of our national life. From business leaders and professors to athletes and first responders, left-handed white individuals have achieved success and prominence in every discipline. They are our mothers and fathers, our sons and daughters, and our friends and neighbors. Across my Administration, openly left-handed, white employees are serving at every level.”

Now if Obama has said this you’d probably say it was a bit silly, even a tad bit racist. Why in the world would we need to praise people for traits that have no bearing on either their achievements or their worth as individuals?

All mature people understand that fallen, sinful humans also do good acts and make positive contributions to society because fallen, sinful people are all that the world has. There exists nothing but fallen, sinful people who experience disordered impulses and engage in immoral behaviors. We don’t honor our fellow men and women for those impulses and behaviors; we honor them for their good deeds.

It is justifiable to single out for special attention the accomplishments of a group defined by characteristics that carry no behavioral implications open to moral assessment and whose contributions are overlooked because of society’s ignorance or bigotry, like African Americans or the disabled. But homosexuality is not ontologically equivalent to race or disability, and volitional homosexual conduct is a legitimate object of moral assessment.

Obama is using his power, his position, and this proclamation to make a fallacious association between good deeds and homosexuality. It is an exploitative stratagem to normalize homosexuality. Associate homosexuality with something positive like creativity, compassion, or self-sacrifice, and eventually the good feelings society has for creativity, compassion, or self- sacrifice will be (irrationally) transferred to homosexuality or cross-dressing.

It’s critical to understand the fallacious assumptions embedded in Obama’s declaration because these assumptions are promoted in many societal contexts, including public education. Homosexuals are not a category of humans in the same sense that racial minorities are a category of humans. Homosexuality is a sin disposition–not a morally neutral condition like skin color. When homosexuals have contributed something of value to society, those contributions should be noted. Their sexual predilections, however, are worthy of neither honor nor mention.

My sense and the sense of those who are similarly engaged in the cultural debate about homosexuality and Gender Identity Disorder is that far too many conservatives refuse to participate in this critical debate for a number of reasons, including an unbiblical and selfish unwillingness to experience persecution (aka cowardice); an unbiblical unwillingness to experience righteous anger; and a (perhaps willful) ignorance of the cultural implications of their indefensible passivity even as perversion is promoted as righteousness through our public schools, courts, legislatures, news media, entertainment industry–and even the highest elective office in the United States.