Lesbian actress Ellen Page just posted an Instagram photo of her and her “wife” topless and kissing in honor of LGBTQ “pride” month, providing symbolic evidence that the cultural movement to normalize homoeroticism is chiefly about sex—not love—at least not love in its true and complete sense.

Page is the young actress who in early February delivered an anti-Christian screed on The Late Show with arrogant Catholic heretic Stephen Colbert in which she attacked Vice President Mike Pence over his theologically orthodox views on marriage. In her diatribe, Page demonstrated—again—that cultural regressives can’t distinguish between moral disapproval of acts and hatred of persons.

With a sycophantic Colbert hanging on her every word, the over-emoting Page declared that Mike Pence’s views on homosexuality and marriage were the cause of the allegedly homophobic attack on homosexual actor Jussie Smollett:

The vice president of America wishes I didn’t have the love with my wife…. Connect the dots! If you were in a position of power, and you hate people, and you want to cause suffering to them… you spend your career trying to cause suffering, what do you think is going to happen? Kids are going to be abused and they’re going to kill themselves. And people are going to be beaten on the street…. This needs to f**king stop. 

So many questions about her unhinged lecture.

Pence spent his “career trying to cause suffering”? Really? His entire career?

Do efforts to retain sexual complementarity in the legal definition of marriage constitute “trying to cause suffering”? If so, do efforts to retain the criterion regarding number of partners in the legal definition of marriage constitute “trying to cause” polygamists and polyamorists to suffer? Does the desire to prohibit close relatives from marrying constitute “trying to cause” those who experience Genetic Sexual Attraction to suffer?

What exactly “needs to stop”? Does Page think Christians should stop believing Scripture? Stop reading it? Stop preaching it? Stop expressing biblical truths in the public square, where Page remains free to express her anti-biblical beliefs? If so, which biblical truths should Christians stop expressing in the public square? All biblical truths or just the ones Page doesn’t like?

What is Page’s conclusive, research-based evidence that it is the faith of theologically orthodox Christians who express their views in a biblically defensible manner that causes child abuse, childhood suicide, or “hate” crimes?

Word to Page: No one objects to her “loving” another woman. Christians are commanded to love their neighbors and even their enemies. No, theologically orthodox Christians never begrudge people love. What Christ-followers disapprove of are homoerotic acts.

And they believe that marriage has a nature—an ontology—central to which is sexual differentiation, and without which a union is intrinsically non-marital.

If Page is befuddled by the origin of such beliefs, she should ask Catholic heretic Colbert who surely knows their origins even as he rejects them. Colbert surely knows what the Old Testament teaches about homosexual acts, what St. Paul teaches about homosexual acts, and what Jesus teaches about marriage.

Colbert and Page would be well-served by spending some time with Carl Trueman, biblical studies professor at Grove City College, who recently wrote an essay for First Things titled “Love Is Not a Feeling” in which he said,

in contemporary Christian approaches to political issues, “love” –a code word for whatever the political piety du jour may be—is set in opposition to “dogma” or “doctrine”—code words for whatever piece of traditional Christian teaching is deemed to be inconsistent with said political piety….

Trueman exposes the thinness, instability, and error in contemporary conceptions of “love” by summarizing the ways three different scholars characterize post-modern man’s conception of love, which in turn shapes post-modern man’s understanding of man:

To approach the matter from Philip Rieff’s perspective, we might characterize modern men and women as psychological selves for whom the good and the true is identical with whatever happens to make them psychologically happy at any particular moment. Or we could use Charles Taylor’s notion of expressive individualism, that the modern self is the person who expresses outwardly that which they feel inwardly…. Or we could adopt Alasdair MacIntyre’s notion of emotivism, and see modern ethics as manifestations of emotional preferences. Bringing all three to bear upon the sexual revolution, it becomes clear that the LGBTQ moment is not merely a revolution in what sex means; it is a revolution in what it means to be human. (emphasis added)

Trueman further argues that,

For many, gay marriage is a dead issue…. And therein lies the danger: We need to remember that for a Christian to recognize gay marriage as Christian… is not simply to recognize a shift or expansion in the definition of marriage. It is far more significant for the Faith…. it is to abandon Christian teaching about the self—as made in the image of God, and as resting upon an order which transcends individuals and their contexts—in favor of one constituted by whatever the moral structure of society happens to be at any given moment in time.

Gay marriage emerged from the sexual revolution; and the sexual revolution is the latest iteration of a revolution in the self, which has been taking place for hundreds of years and which stands opposed to the essentialism regarding human beings at the heart of orthodox Christianity. The moral structure of contemporary society stresses the foundational importance of individual psychological conviction with a marked preference for prioritizing polymorphous sexual desire as definitive of a sense of self. In legitimating gay marriage, a symptom of this underlying structure, Christians therefore effectively affirm the legitimacy of this deeper revolution of the self.

It’s important to note that the conception of marriage as the union of one man and one woman as articulated by Jesus is intellectually accessible even to those who reject Christ.

It’s important to note also that to reject Page’s and Colbert’s re-conception of marriage is not a manifestation of hatred but, rather, of true love—the kind that children deserve and society desperately needs. Homosexual faux-marriage will no more be a dead issue for committed Christ-followers than will be the slaughter of the unborn.

“The grass withers, the flower fades,
but the word of our God will stand forever.”
(Isaiah 40:8)

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Ellen-Page.mp3

A bold voice for pro-family values in Illinois!

Last week ten lawmakers from the Jewish Caucus in Springfield sponsored a resolution condemning Illinois Family Action (IFA) and Illinois Family Institute (IFI) for engaging in what they call “hate speech,” because IFA compared the abortion holocaust to the Jewish Holocaust. Titled “Illinois Family Action-Hate Speech” (HJR 55), the resolution uses subjective hyperbole, disreputable sources and unreasonable inferences that make the alleged offense seem overtly sinister.

If you want an exhaustive, well-argued refutation of the resolution, read “Left-Wing Partisans File Stunning Resolution Against Illinois Family.” HJR 55 is stunning for all the reasons that author Laurie Higgins identifies but also because of its glaring omission: any mention of abortion, the topic of the article that started it all.

There are always hazards when invoking the Holocaust, not least of which is overstating the parallel to a current situation. But that’s not the case here. It is indisputable that the Nazis dehumanized an entire class of human beings defined solely by their ethnoreligious heritage, then rounded them up and shipped them off to be exterminated with lethal efficiency in death camps across Europe.

It’s also indisputable that abortion providers—most notably Planned Parenthood—are also in the extermination business. They and their enablers—most notably regressive Democrats, who increasingly champion infanticide—have dehumanized an entire class of human beings defined solely by their stage of development in situ.

One significant difference between the Jewish Holocaust and our modern holocaust is that abortion clinics don’t have to round up babies and send them to a centralized abortion mill. Instead, Planned Parenthood has conveniently dotted the country with more than 600 of their own little death camps for easy access. It’s the children’s own mothers who—whether they gleefully “shout their abortion” or enter a clinic in desperation—play the role of Hitler’s Schutzstaffel.

The parallels between the two holocausts, made so often as to be in danger of becoming cliché, are strong and obvious—except to the willfully blind.

So why the extraordinary step of a resolution in the Illinois House condemning the comparison? Just this: by making the comparison, Illinois Family conferred personhood on the pro-choicers’ blob of tissue. IFI re-humanized them. The resolution’s assertion that IFI is “recklessly comparing those who disagree with their extreme agenda to Nazis” can only be true if babies aren’t human.

The resolution is a naked halogen bulb blinding observers to their real objective, which is to intimidate and shame IFI into submission. Accusations of unspecified threats, anti-Semitism, “hate speech,” “bigotry,” “homophobia” and “extreme rhetoric” are followed by a call for “a formal investigation” into such speech and asking the Secretary of State to suspend IFI’s lobbying credentials.

One of the resolution’s co-sponsors, State Representative Jonathan Carroll (D-Northbrook), took to Twitter to express his outrage. “This is hate speech and I demand a retraction. Comparing Democrats to Nazis to to [sic] promote your agenda is disgraceful.” He was later quoted as saying, “We call on the Illinois State Police to do a full investigation of these incidents.”

To summarize: the all-Democrat Jewish Caucus of the Illinois House of Representatives has circled the wagons and called for reinforcements because they don’t like a commonly-used analogy comparing the killing of 61,000,000 babies (and counting) to the killing of 6,000,000 Jews—and allegedly fear that they will now be the victims of violence. To address the threat, they are summoning the power of the state to crush IFI.

How very Hitler-esque.

Meanwhile, the State of Illinois is circling the drain. We are the least fiscally solvent state, but pay the highest state and local taxes in the country; we are the third most corrupt state in the nation and boast the worst-in-nation pension crisis; we’re unlikely to successfully weather a recession, we have one of the worst home foreclosure rates in the nation, and we lead the country in number of residents fleeing the state.

If regressives get their way, they’ll also bestow on Illinois the distinction of having the most radical abortion laws in the land. (We’re number one! We’re number one!)

Instead of wasting their time and taxpayer money weaponizing the state to kick around a tiny pro-family organization that enjoys First Amendment protections, how about getting busy fixing the national embarrassment that the land of Lincoln has become?

Instead of indoctrinating five freshman legislators on the finer points of virtue signaling (“Hate has no home here,” right, Rep. Sara Feigenholtz?), how about challenging Jonathan Carroll, Daniel Didech, Jennifer Gong-Gershowitz, Yehiel Kalish, Karina Villa, Anna Moeller and Bob Morgan to balance a budget by reining in spending? Instead of demonstrating knee jerk outrage, how about demanding an investigation into how the most corrupt big city in the nation let Jussie “O.J.” Smollett skate after slandering half the country’s citizens and lying about it?

Regressives and their junior commies in the Illinois House have more pressing issues to deal with than some petty disagreement about whether legal abortion is like the Jewish Holocaust or not. Judging by the March 20 turnout to protest the proposed abortion legislation that “overtaxed Capitol security,” there are a lot of people who agree that it is.

The Hebrew prophet Isaiah wrote, “Woe to those who call good evil and evil good, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter” (Isaiah 5:20). Jewish legislators should understand better than anyone the evil of taking innocent life. Rescind the resolution and do what you were elected to do: rescue Illinois.

Take ACTION: Click HERE to contact your state senator and representative to ask them to reject this dangerous resolution. Ask them to vote down HJR 55 and the unprecedented and tyrannical action being taken by extreme partisans in the Illinois General Assembly.

Read more:

Left-Wing Partisans File Stunning Resolution Against Illinois Family (Laurie Higgins)

Truth and Love or Hate? (Rev. Calvin Lindstrom)

SPOTLIGHT: Illinois’ Abortion Holocaust (Podcast)

A bold voice for pro-family values in Illinois!

Click HERE to learn about supporting IFI on a monthly basis.