Google’s recent “doodle” announces to the world that Google is gaga over homosexuality-affirming propaganda for minors. Google’s doodle pokes a virtual rainbow-colored flag in the eye of Russian president Vladimir Putin for signing into law a bill that protects minors from homosexuality-affirming propaganda. A financial blockbuster of a company with roots in the country founded to “promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty” pro-actively endorses the propagandizing of children while a corrupt totalitarian cockalorum opposes it. Curiouser and curiouser.

The fanciful notion that having “two mommies” is ontologically and morally indistinguishable from having a mother and a father is not a fact. Presenting that non-fact to, for example, five-year-olds in government schools is propaganda. And presenting this non-fact to children is not a loving act even if it “feels” good to “educators” who don’t think about or discuss the issue deeply.

The motive of the imperious Putin for signing into law Russia’s anti-propagandizing-to-minors bill may be to exploit moral beliefs he actually disdains in order to divide various and sundry constituencies around the world for his pernicious purposes, but a law that prohibits propagandizing to minors is not in itself pernicious.

Two people or two groups of people may have very different motives for pursuing the same goal. The fact that one person or group is motivated by hate and/or error doesn’t render the goal inherently evil or wrong. Some politicians may oppose the legalization of same-sex “marriage” because of their sincere (and true) belief that marriage has a nature fundamental to which is sexual complementarity. Other politicians may be motivated to oppose same-sex “marriage” by self-serving political ambition. The selfish motives of the politician who cares only about getting elected have no bearing on the soundness of the goal of opposing same-sex “marriage.” Only chuckleheads and Machiavellian political tacticians confuse motives and goals.

A defense of a law that seeks to prevent the exposure of minors to homosexuality-affirming dogma is not a defense of Putin, the cagey and cunning political animal.

Physical assaults on homosexuals, like physical assaults on any human being, are reprehensible and should be punished in accordance with laws prohibiting assault. But there is no evidence—to my knowledge, at least—that the legal prohibition of propagandizing to minors causes violence.

And here in the United States, there is no evidence to substantiate the related “progressive” claim that orthodox Christian doctrine and those who love Christ cause violence. The fact that hateful people may quote and misapply Scripture in defense of violent physical assaults or ugly verbal assaults on homosexuals no more means they’re Christians than the fact that someone quotes and misapplies Scripture in defense of same-sex “marriage” means they’re Christians. Humans have for hundreds of years abused Scripture for their own sinful ends.

Exposing minors to homosexuality-affirming propaganda is nowhere more troubling than in our public schools where neither children nor teachers are encouraged to study in depth all sides of issues related to homosexuality. Quite the contrary. Curricula and supplementary resources and activities are controlled by “progressive” dogma, the kind of dogma promulgated by the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN). (Privately, “progressive” teachers actually scoff at the suggestion that there are sides other than theirs worthy of study.)

The propaganda begins in professional development opportunities for teachers in which teachers are never exposed to resources that dissent from the ideology of the “LGBTQ” community. GLSEN assumptions are treated as settled fact:

• There are no discussions of whether or in what ways homosexuality per se is analogous to race.
  
  
• There are no discussions of whether government employees (i.e., teachers) have the ethical right to introduce homosexuality in early elementary school when many children have never heard of homosexuality, their parents object to both the age-inappropriateness and bias of the presentations, and when they’re too young to understand the nature of objections to homosexual acts.
  
  
• There are no discussions of whether it is the right of educators to promote approval of homosexuality, which necessarily entails prior ontological and moral conclusions—conclusions that are shaped by subjects teachers were not hired to teach and for which they have no training.
  
  
• There are no discussions of whether homosexual acts are objectively moral, and if not, what right do government employees have to promote the approval of immoral or possibly immoral acts.
  
  
• There are no discussions of whether it’s the proper role of government employees to expose minors to every sexual phenomenon that can be found in the human community. For example, would it be proper for elementary school teachers to promote approval of polyamory since it exists and is on the rise? If not, why not?
  
  
• There are no discussions of whether disapproval of homosexual acts actually constitutes hatred of persons or causes violent acts.
  
  
• There are no discussions of whether disapproval of racism, promiscuity, over-eating, plagiarism, and drug use constitutes hatred of racists, promiscuous students, obese students, plagiarists, and “druggies,” or of whether such disapproval may lead to physical or verbal assaults against them.
  
  
• There are no discussions of resources written by conservative scholars that affirm the idea that marriage is at its immutable core sexually complementary, even as teachers expose students to pro-same-sex “marriage” resources.
  
  
• There are no discussions of how schools define “safety” (i.e., as “emotional comfort”) and whether safety has any inherent connection to objective reality. 

Ask any conservative public school teachers if their colleagues or administrators ever present resources that challenge “progressive” ideas about homosexuality in professional development meetings. And ask them if they feel as free to express their moral and political beliefs in faculty meetings (or in the classroom) as their “progressive” colleagues do.

“Agents of change,” secure in their tenured positions in public schools, share a certain esprit de corps with totalitarian regimes. They all hatch plans sub rosa to control the beliefs of others. Unfortunately, those victims—I mean, students—happen to be other people’s minor children.

Until our publicly subsidized educators relinquish their white-knuckled grip on curricula with their de facto enforcement of censorship, perhaps we need an anti-propagandizing-to-minors law.

Click HERE to support Illinois Family Institute (IFI). Contributions to IFI are tax-deductible and support our educational efforts.

Click HERE to support Illinois Family Action (IFA). Contributions to IFA are not tax-deductible but give us the most flexibility in engaging critical legislative and political issues.

Dear Father Jenkins,

I work for the Illinois Family Institute on the board of which sits a Notre Dame alumnus. In addition, we have a number of Notre Dame alumni subscribers.

I want to thank you for your efforts to obtain an exemption from the contraception mandate of the Affordable Care Act and urge you to pursue these efforts with vigor and tenacity. If institutions like yours do not oppose every effort that chips away at the religious liberty of faith-centered organizations, what possible hope do individuals have to preserve their First Amendment religious rights—rights that are daily under assault (particularly from those seeking to normalize homosexuality).

I also want to express my disappointment that Notre Dame has chosen to recognize a “student organization” initiated and shaped by those who affirm homosexual acts and acts related to gender confusion as normative and morally defensible. In permitting an organization that affirms subjective moral propositions that defy Catholic (as well as orthodox Protestant) doctrine, Notre Dame’s distinct Catholic identity has been weakened. Would Notre Dame recognize other “student organizations” initiated by those who affirm other sin predispositions (e.g. polyamory, consensual adult incest, or the “sexual orientation” recently designated “minor-attracted persons”)?

If the Notre Dame-recognized “LGBT” organization had been initiated by those who were committed to helping “LGBT” students live lives that embody Catholic beliefs on sexuality and gender, such an organization would be a service to Notre Dame students. Unfortunately, the central goals of students who affirm a homosexual or “transgender” identity are contrary to Catholic doctrine and as such can bring nothing but temporal and eternal harm—intellectual, emotional, physical, and/or spiritual harm—to “LGBT”-identifying students and the larger Notre Dame community.

On the profoundly significant dimensions of human nature that reflect the very foundations of God’s created order (i.e., sexuality and gender) the homosexuality-affirming community has little to say that reflects truth and much to say that violates Scripture, Catholic doctrine, and Notre Dame’s mission statement:

A Catholic university draws its basic inspiration from Jesus Christ as the source of wisdom and from the conviction that in him all things can be brought to their completion….There is…a special obligation and opportunity, specifically as a Catholic university, to pursue the religious dimensions of all human learning.

I would urge your administration to reconsider the wisdom and biblical justification for recognizing an “LGBT” organization, all such organizations of which are based on false, anti-biblical assumptions about the nature and morality of homosexuality.

Sincerely,

Laurie Higgins

One of the stars of the popular A & E show Duck Dynasty, Phil Robertson, has been indefinitely suspended from the program. His crime was making some politically incorrect statements about homosexuality in a condescension-dripping interview with GQ magazine that rendered the homosexual community apoplectic. Hell hath no fury like homosexual activists who encounter dissent.

Here are some of the offending comments, which he offered in response to GQ’s question, “What, in your mind, is sinful?”:

“Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men,” [The writer explained that that Robertson then paraphrased Corinthians]: “Don’t be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers—they won’t inherit the kingdom of God. Don’t deceive yourself. It’s not right.”

…

“We never, ever judge someone on who’s going to heaven, hell. That’s the Almighty’s job. We just love ’em, give ’em the good news about Jesus—whether they’re homosexuals, drunks, terrorists. We let God sort ’em out later.” 

Robertson may have answered in his own imitable voice, but much of what he said reflects the mind and will of God as revealed in the word of God.

And here’s how the contemporary founts of biblical exegesis, wisdom, truth, non-judgmentalism, non-condemnation, and tolerance, the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) and the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), responded:

GLAAD: some of the vilest and most extreme statements uttered against LGBT people in a mainstream publication,…his quote was littered with outdated stereotypes and blatant misinformation….Phil and his family claim to be Christian, but Phil’s lies about an entire community fly in the face of what true Christians believe….He clearly knows nothing about gay people or the majority of Louisianans—and Americans—who support legal recognition for loving and committed gay and lesbian couples. 

HRC: Phil Robertson’s remarks are not consistent with the values of our faith communities or the scientific findings of leading medical organizations….We know that being gay is not a choice someone makes, and that to suggest otherwise can be incredibly harmful. We also know that Americans of faith follow the Golden Rule—treating others with the respect and dignity you’d wish to be treated with. As a role model on a show that attracts millions of viewers, Phil Robertson has a responsibility to set a positive example for young America—not shame and ridicule them because of who they are.

A red-faced, stomping Rumplestiltskin’s got nothing on homosexual activists who unexpectedly hear truth when they expect obsequious silence.

Just a couple of brief responses to GLAAD’s and HRC’s statements:

1. What specifically were Robertson’s lies?
2. “True Christians” believe what Scripture—both Old and New Testaments—as well as most theologians in the history of the church teach.
3. Experiencing same-sex attraction is, like virtually all other sin inclinations, not chosen. How one responds to such inclinations, however, is a choice.
4. If homosexual acts are not moral, adults are not setting “a positive example” by affirming homosexuality as good.
5. We ought not “shame or ridicule” particular individuals, but all satire and joking involves making light of some aspect of the human condition, including our sins. Did the narrow-minded dogmatists at GLAAD and the HRC scold the television program Will and Grace, which made its bread and butter out of ridiculing and stereotyping homosexuals? Do they take umbrage at the satirical paper The Onion or at Saturday Night Live? What about the writing of Aristophanes, Juvenal, Chaucer, Jonathan Swift, George Orwell, H. L. Mencken, Dorothy Parker, Jack Paar, David Steinberg, Tom and Dick Smothers, P.J. O’Rourke, Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert, David Sedaris, Sarah Silverman, and Matt Stone and Trey Parker (South Park creators) who ridicule people mercilessly?

There are increasing numbers of Christians who believe our sole task as Christians is to love homosexuals—and by “love,” they mean, just be nice—and that we should never say anything to anger or offend them. These Christians fail to understand that this would certainly require that Christians refrain from ever saying publicly that homosexuality is an abomination in God’s eyes. But it’s not just Old Testament language that is too indelicate for the delicate sensibilities of “progressives” that must be silenced.

It’s any idea about homosexuality with which “progressives” disagree that must be silenced. We can’t say that same-sex attraction is disordered, or that homosexual acts are immoral, or that God did not create men and women to experience same-sex attraction, or that Jesus affirms marriage only as a union of one man and one woman, or that Paul teaches that homosexuals (among others) will not see the kingdom of Heaven. And we certainly can’t point out the indelicate truth that the primary sex act of homosexual men is a pathogenic nightmare that results in countless sexually transmitted infections (including shigellosis) and untold suffering.  

The Left is caterwauling about Phil Robertson’s “judging” and “condemning,” all the while, of course, judging and condemning Phil Robertson. Either out of their own ignorance or Macchiavellian political expedience, the Left fails to make the distinction—publicly, at least—between judging the eternal destination of individuals and “judging” which behaviors are right and which are wrong. Everyone judges in that sense. Everyone does it every day. Every time the Left becomes indignant about the beliefs or political actions of conservatives, they have judged. A society that refuses to make judgments about what constitutes moral conduct could not make laws and would not long exist. A society that refuses to “condemn” wrong actions as wrong will collapse in moral anarchy.

What “progressives” condemn is any condemnation directed at any behavior of which they approve. And this is what leads to the hypocrisy virtually everyone can see in their laughable claims to value “diversity,” “tolerance,” free speech, and the First Amendment (which protects the free exercise of religion and says nothing about the free exercise of homo sex).

Ah, but “progressives” cleverly contrive an out for themselves by saying there is no moral imperative to tolerate intolerance or any statements that “harm” others. But notice two things: First, that this statement itself reflects a moral “judgment.” And second, it presumes agreement with the Left’s definition of harm.

I thought the destruction of marriage would be the cultural event that awakened the slumbering Christian masses. Perhaps it will instead be a hoary, hairy, much beloved Louisianan duck call-maker who loves Jesus Christ and fears God more than man.

The halcyon days for Christians in America are over, my friends. Religious liberty is fast-diminishing—well, for orthodox Christians it is, not for fundamentalist Mormons who want multiple wives.

Prepare for persecution, and consider it joy to encounter trials for Christ who suffered the ultimate trial—the one that heaped scorn on him, cost him his life, and saved ours. 

Take ACTION:  Click HERE to send an email or fax to the executives at A&E Network, to let them know what you think of their intolerance, religious bigotry, and viewpoint discrimination.

Help us reach our goal of raising a total of $50,000 by the end of the month – Donate today! 

To make a credit card donation over the phone, call the IFI office at (708) 781-9328.  

You can also send a gift by mail to:

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

An interview can get you into big trouble. Remember General Stanley McChrystal? He was the commander of all U.S. forces in Afghanistan until he gave an interview to Rolling Stone magazine in 2010 and criticized his Commander in Chief. Soon thereafter, he was sacked. This time the interview controversy surrounds Phil Robertson, founder of the Duck Commander company and star of A&E’s Duck Dynasty. Robertson gave an interview to GQ (formerly known as Gentlemen’s Quarterly), and now he has been put on “indefinite suspension” from the program.

Why? Because of controversy over his comments on homosexuality.

Phil Robertson is the plainspoken patriarch of the Duck Dynasty clan. In the GQ interview, published in the January 2014 issue of the magazine, Robertson makes clear that his Christian faith is central to his identity and his life. He speaks of his life before Christ and actively seeks to convert the interviewer, Drew Magary, to faith in Christ. He tells Magary of the need for repentance from sin. Magary then asks Robertson to define sin. He responded:

“Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men,” he says. Then he paraphrases Corinthians: “Don’t be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers—they won’t inherit the kingdom of God. Don’t deceive yourself. It’s not right.”

Christians will recognize that Robertson was offering a rather accurate paraphrase of 1 Corinthians 6:9-10: “Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.”

To be fair, Robertson also offered some comments that were rather crude and graphically anatomical in making the same point. As Magary explained, “Out here in these woods, without any cameras around, Phil is free to say what he wants. Maybe a little too free. He’s got lots of thoughts on modern immorality, and there’s no stopping them from rushing out.”

Phil Robertson would have served the cause of Christ more faithfully if some of those comments had not rushed out. This is not because what he said was wrong; he was making the argument that homosexual acts are against nature. The Apostle Paul makes the very same argument in Romans 1:26. The problem is the graphic nature of Robertson’s language and the context of his statements.

The Apostle Paul made the same arguments, but worshipers in the congregations of Rome and Corinth did not have to put hands over the ears of their children when Paul’s letter was read to their church.

The entire Duck Dynasty enterprise is a giant publicity operation, and a very lucrative enterprise at that. Entertainment and marketing machines run on publicity, and the Robertsons have used that publicity to offer winsome witness to their Christian faith. But GQ magazine? Seriously?

Not all publicity is good publicity, and Christians had better think long and hard about the publicity we seek or allow by our cooperation.

Just ask Gen. McChrystal. In the aftermath of his embarrassing debacle, the obvious question was this: why would a gifted and tested military commander allow a reporter for Rolling Stone such access and then speak so carelessly? Rolling Stone is a magazine of the cultural left. It was insanity for Gen. McChrystal to speak so carelessly to a reporter who should have been expected to present whatever the general said in the most unfavorable light.

Similarly, Phil Robertson would have served himself and his mission far better by declining to cooperate with GQ for a major interview. GQ is a “lifestyle” magazine for men, a rather sophisticated and worldly platform for the kind of writing Drew Magary produced in this interview. GQ is not looking for Sunday School material. Given the publicity the interview has now attracted, the magazine must be thrilled. Phil Robertson is likely less thrilled.

Another interesting parallel emerges with the timing of this controversy. The current issue of TIME magazine features Pope Francis I as “Person of the Year.” Within days of TIME’s declaration, Phil Robertson had been suspended from Duck Dynasty. Robertson’s suspension was caused by his statements that homosexual acts are sinful. But Pope Francis is riding a wave of glowing publicity, even as he has stated in public his agreement with all that the Roman Catholic Church teaches, including its teachings on homosexual acts.

Francis has declared himself to be a “son of the church,” and his church teaches that all homosexual acts are inherently sinful and must be seen as “acts of grave depravity” that are “intrinsically disordered.”

But Pope Francis is on the cover of TIME magazine and Phil Robertson is on indefinite suspension. Such are the inconsistencies, confusions, and hypocrisies of our cultural moment.

Writing for TIME, television critic James Poniewozik argued that Robertson’s error was to speak so explicitly and openly, “to make the subtext text.” He wrote:

Now, you’ve got an issue with those of us who maybe just want to watch a family comedy about people outside a major city, but please without supporting somebody thumping gay people with their Bible. Or a problem with people with gay friends, or family, or, you know, actual gay A&E viewers.

By speaking so openly, Robertson crossed the line, Poniewozik explains.

A&E was running for cover. The network released a statement that attempted to put as much distance as possible between what the network described as Robertson’s personal beliefs and their own advocacy for gay rights:

We are extremely disappointed to have read Phil Robertson’s comments in GQ, which are based on his own personal beliefs and are not reflected in the series Duck Dynasty. His personal views in no way reflect those of A&E Networks, who have always been strong supporters and champions of the LGBT community.

So, even as most evangelical Christians will likely have concerns about theway Phil Robertson expressed himself in some of his comments and wherehe made the comments, the fact remains that it is the moral judgment he asserted, not the manner of his assertion, that caused such an uproar. A quick look at the protests from gay activist groups like GLAAD will confirm that judgment. They have protested the words Robertson drew from the Bible and labeled them as “far outside of the mainstream understanding of LGBT people.”

So the controversy over Duck Dynasty sends a clear signal to anyone who has anything to risk in public life: Say nothing about the sinfulness of homosexual acts or risk sure and certain destruction by the revolutionaries of the new morality. You have been warned.

In a statement released before his suspension, Phil Robertson told of his own sinful past and of his experience of salvation in Christ and said:

My mission today is to go forth and tell people about why I follow Christ and also what the Bible teaches, and part of that teaching is that women and men are meant to be together. However, I would never treat anyone with disrespect just because they are different from me. We are all created by the Almighty and like Him, I love all of humanity. We would all be better off if we loved God and loved each other.

Those are fighting words, Phil. They are also the gospel truth.

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

An LGBT activist group called DOJ Pride would like for all DOJ employees to not just accept the homosexual lifestyle, but to affirm and support it in a vocal way. As they made clear, “silence will be interpreted as disapproval.” Sounds like a great place to work, right? Mat Staver, of Liberty Counsel recently commented on the unprecedented rate at which President Barack Obama and his administration are implementing the radical LGBT agenda:

“It is only the beginning under this administration. This administration has used the federal agencies including the U.S. Military to push the LGBT agenda. It is implementing the LGBT agenda in an unprecedented way, not just in the Department of Justice, but in the USDA, FBI, CIA, and in every agency that exists under the federal jurisdiction of the executive branch…If a private corporation sent out this email to its employees, it is likely that the employee would have a cause-of-action against the employer for forcing him or her to engage in these kinds of activities.”

Unfortunately, I agree. This is just the beginning of a push to not merely tolerate homosexuality but to force all people to accept and affirm the lifestyle regardless of religious convictions. The threat to pastors, churches, and religious schools and institutions is clear and present. Click HERE for original article.

In their efforts to redefine marriage, most homosexual activists become apoplectic at the suggestion that there is more to their efforts than just their  purported goal of achieving “marriage equality.” They dismiss the comments of homosexuals like lesbian journalist Masha Gessen who states that the institution of marriage “should not exist,” and that homosexual activists are “lying about what we are going to do with marriage when we get there,” as the extreme views of just a few radicals.

What cannot be dismissed, however, is that time and again homosexual activists have proven through their actions that the redefinition of marriage isn’t their only goal, but rather government enforced acceptance and celebration of the LGBT lifestyle. Here are just a few portents that shouldn’t be ignored:

• Washington State is suing a Christian florist who declined to provide floral arrangements for a homosexual “wedding” ceremony. The state is threatening thousands of dollars in fines and a requirement that the elderly florist provide floral arrangements to any homosexual couple that seeks her services.  (Read more HERE.)

• The Christian owners of an Oregon bakery were contacted by the Oregon Department of Justice and told that they are being investigated because of a discrimination complaint that followed their refusal to violate their beliefs by providing a wedding cake for a lesbian “wedding” ceremony.  (Read more HERE.)
   
• A Christian owner of a bed and breakfast in Hawaii has been ordered to provide a room to any same-sex couple that wants to stay there, thus violating her religious convictions. (Read more HERE.)

• And in Albuquerque, New Mexico, the owner of Elane Photography declined to provide her skills and services for a lesbian commitment, explaining that doing so would violate her conscience as a Christian. As a result of a complaint being filed with the New Mexico Human Rights Commission, a fine of $6,600 was issued against this small business for discrimination based on “sexual orientation.” This case is pending a hearing before the New Mexico Supreme Court.  (Read more HERE.)  

There are many more cases like these, and many more will be coming down the litigation pike. In each of these cases, homosexual activists prove that what they really want goes far beyond “marriage equality” or “tolerance.” And they clearly demonstrate their lack of tolerance for any dissenting opinions.

In each of these cases, the homosexuals involved could simply have sought the services of a vendor who held no moral objections to same-sex relationships. Instead, they chose to use the heavy hand of government to coerce and punish those who do not share their beliefs. 

Finally, consider the current bill to redefine marriage in Illinois (SB 10). This proposal has been labeled by law professors on both sides of the marriage issue the “worst in the nation” when it comes to protecting religious liberty and freedom of conscience. In a letter to state representatives, the Thomas More Society warns that if SB 10 passes, Illinois’ religiously affiliated hospitals, schools, and organizations like the Knights of Columbus as well as businessmen and women of faith will face costly lawsuits not dissimilar to the ones listed above.

If the concern of homosexual activists were simply about gaining “marriage equality” as they claim, why would proponents oppose legal protections for all people of faith? Why wouldn’t proponents add specific language to SB 10 to protect the free exercise of religious belief and an individual’s right of conscience, which would protect their right to decline to provide goods, services, and accommodations to those seeking government recognition of same-sex unions as “marriage”?

Because this isn’t merely about “marriage equality.” It’s about quashing every semblance of opposition to the LGBT political agenda through every governmental entity at their disposal: Congress, state legislatures, Presidential Executive Orders, or the judicial or quasi-judicial branches of government. It has nothing to do with marriage “rights” and everything to do with religious bigotry.

While it is important that we stand up to defend the institution of marriage, it is vital that we understand that the agenda is far more insidious and far-reaching than many realize. Once you understand how far they want to take this agenda, it is unconscionable to sit on the sidelines.

[Editor’s note:  If you would like to read more about how religious liberties are eroding in the wake of the LGBT political agenda, I encourage you to read this article from World Magazine about what is happening in Canada and how it may be a precursor for the United States.]

Help protect marriage & family now!
Click HERE to support IFI’s work in the public square. 

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).

Most people don’t know that men who sexually desire only male children are not homosexual. How can that be, a rational person may ask. The reason is that the “mental health” community, or the segment of it that controls the ever-shifting and highly politicized ground of mental health, has declared that if an adult sexually desires only children they don’t have a “sexual orientation” at all. That is to say, one has a sexual orientation if and only if one enjoys sex with adults. If a man desires sex with only female children, he is not a heterosexual pedophile. He is just a pedophile. If a man desires sex with either female or male children, he is not a “bisexual” pedophile. He is just a pedophile. And if a man desires sex with only male children, he is not homosexual at all. He’s just a pedophile (or pederast depending on how young he likes his prey).

This is why you continue to hear that the priest sex abuse scandal in the Catholic Church and the more recently revealed sex abuse scandal in the Boy Scouts had nothing whatsoever to do with homosexuality even when the sexual acts were between males and younger males. According to the evil powers that be, these scandals had nothing to do with homosexuality because homosexuality is one of the three “sexual orientations” (i.e., heterosexual, homosexual, and bisexual) which one does not have unless one enjoys sex with adults.

While this is a useful stratagem for the Left, those with common sense see it for what it is: a way to distance homosexuality from pedophilia and pederasty (sex between adult males and adolescent boys, which is the most common form of homosexual practice throughout history). It’s a way to retain the belief that pedophilia and pederasty are disorders—both psychological and moral disorders—while jettisoning the notion that homosexuality is either a psychological or moral disorder (Just wait a few years, the normalization of pederasty is just around the ever darkening corner).

And it’s a way of attempting to conceal the fact that these sex scandals were disproportionately homosexual—I mean, they were disproportionately abuses perpetrated by men on boys, which clearly has nothing to do with homosexuality.

This brings me to the Boy Scouts’ new plan for cultivating moral straightness and honor for God: allowing boys who publicly affirm homosexuality as central to their identity to join the Scouts. No, this new policy does not allow openly homosexual adult leaders—yet. But just wait another couple of years for that too.* The prohibition of openly homosexual scout leaders doesn’t stand a snowball’s chance in hell of remaining in place. What possible justification can there be for retaining a prohibition of homosexual leaders when the Scouts have necessarily declared homosexuality normative and good?

And that’s precisely what’s happened. This is not a neutral policy. Adopting a policy that permits boys who openly affirm a homosexual identity to become members means that the Boy Scouts Council had to have come to a prior conclusion that homosexual acts are inherently moral. They couldn’t rationally conclude that homosexual acts are immoral and then allow boys who publicly affirm a homosexual identity to become members.

Further, this non-neutral position contradicts the will of God. The Boy Scouts of America now violate their own oath to honor God and cultivate “moral straightness,” all in the service of currying favor with homosexual activists and corporate donors who follow the edicts of homosexual activists like loyal lapdogs.

For those of you who are absolutely certain that sexual encounters between boys will not increase once the Boy Scouts allow openly homosexual boys to share tents with boys to whom they may be sexually attracted, and for those of you who are absolutely certain that early homosexual experiences do not contribute to later same-sex attraction, remember this: The Boy Scouts are implicitly now (and soon likely explicitly) teaching your sons that homosexuality is morally equivalent to heterosexuality. And remember, this teaching is not an isolated cultural experience. It compounds and confirms what boys are hearing in the films and television shows they watch, in the “anti-bullying” and sex ed disinformation they receive at school, in the biased mainstream press reporting, and in the public statements of foolish politicians who never read or think deeply on subjects related to homosexuality.

Parents, speak with your words and your deeds. Remove your sons from the Boy Scouts. Send letters to your local chapter leaders and the Boy Scouts Board explaining the reasons for your decision. Actively support and participate in one of the various alternatives that currently exist (see below) or are in the planning stages. Former Scouts, stop contributing. Send your donations instead to one of the following organizations:

Southern Baptist Convention’s Royal Ambassadors 

Assembly of God’s Royal Rangers 

Calvinist Cadet Corps 

CSB Ministries

My father, my husband, and my son were Boy Scouts. My grandsons will not be. These are small sacrifices to make in order to truly honor God.

*Here’s what infamous homosexual activist Wayne Besen, Founding Executive Director of the ironically named Truth Wins Out (TWO), thinks about the new policy:

TWO Condemns Boy Scouts Decision As Cowardly, Incoherent, And Mean-Spirited

Today’s Boy Scout’s decision was insulting and pandered to ignorance and bigotry at the expense of gay people and their families. Allowing gay scouts but not adult scout leaders was a compromise – only in the sense that BSA compromised its integrity and decency. Let’s be clear – this was not a step forward, but a step backward, because it reinforced the most vile stereotypes and misconceptions deliberately peddled by anti-gay activists.

 Today’s decision was degrading, dehumanizing, and disgraceful. It stigmatized LGBT people and their families and sends the dangerous message that they are inferior and a threat to society.

The new policy continues to tarnish the organization’s image and TWO urges increased pressure on the BSA.

Homosexuality is not a moral issue, but a natural expression of who some people are. However, bigotry is a moral issue – one which places the BSA on the wrong side of history.

TWO does applaud those who fought and victoriously ended the cruel ban on gay scouts. Now is the time to begin the next phase of this fight and bring down the final wall of BSA discrimination.

I agree with Besen on two points: The new policy is cowardly and incoherent.

ESPN sports analyst and columnist Chris Broussard was asked for his “take” on the announcement by NBA player Jason Collins that he is homosexual. Broussard responded and has been pilloried for not having the culturally approved “take.”

Broussard, who is a Christian, shared his view that homosexual acts are sinful and that one cannot engage in homosexual acts—or any other biblically proscribed sexual acts—and still remain in a right relationship with God. Here is that short ESPN video: 

Two days later he appeared on a radio program and offered a remarkable defense of the Christian position on homosexuality. He answered the kinds of challenging questions only conservative Christians are asked by the mainstream press who lob softball questions at “progressive” Christians and secularists.

Please listen to the entirety of this outstanding radio interview and circulate it to friends by clicking HERE. One word of caution: due to an inappropriate question by one of the radio hosts, this may be unsuitable for younger listeners.

While Broussard is being attacked for answering honestly when asked for his opinion on the Collins story, FOX News Chicago anchors Bob Sirott and Robin Robinson catch no flak for offering their unsolicited views that conservative beliefs are tantamount to racism and ignorance.

So much for tolerance and diversity.

Chris Broussard is inarguably the courageous man in this larger cultural story.

Click HERE to make a donation to the Illinois Family Institute.

As most of the nation now knows, NBA player Jason Collins recently announced in a splashy Sports Illustrated article that he is homosexual, an announcement characterized by White House Spokesman Jay Carney as courageous.

After President Barack Obama had concluded a press conference and left the lectern, a reporter asked a question about Jason Collins. Obama uncharacteristically returned to the lectern to say that he “ couldn’t be prouder” of Jason Collins for announcing he is homosexual. What a dispiriting time and place this is that the president of this great but declining nation can’t think of any action that a professional athlete could do to make him “prouder” than having him announce he’s sexually attracted to men. And what a terrible message both men have sent to our nation’s children.

The First Lady of our declining nation then announced that she’s “got Collins’ back,” which raises the question, from what might she need to protect Collins? From the gushing mainstream press? From the rhapsodic Hollywood elite who suffer from an astonishing dearth of philosophical diversity (and depth) on homosexuality?

Oh, wait, it must be those intimidating pastors, priests, theologians, philosophers, and other conservative scholars writing erudite papers on the nature and morality of homosexuality and marriage that no one reads who pose a threat to Collins. Collins can breathe easier knowing that fit-as-a-fiddle Michelle Obama will defend him against those brainiac bullies with her uber-buff arms.

Like so many other words manipulated by the Left, “courage” has taken on a whole new meaning. In fact, it now means the opposite of what it used to mean. Courage is now demonstrated by publicly affirming the fallacious values, beliefs, ideas, and behaviors that our Leftist-dominated culture celebrates. Courage is demonstrated by publicly affirming those values, beliefs, ideas, and behaviors when doing so not only costs nothing but elicits encomia galore. 

In my state of utter unhipness, I think Barronelle Stutzman, the 70 year-old florist in Washington State, is heroic. Because of her faith in Christ, Ms. Stutzman steadfastly refuses to use her gifts, time, and labor to profit from a same-sex “wedding” and consequently is being sued by the State of Washington. I wonder what the Obamas, who claim to be followers of Christ, think of Ms. Stutzman. I wonder if President Obama is proud of her. I wonder if Mrs. Obama has got her back. I wonder if the mainstream press will ask the Obamas if they think Stutzman is courageous.

Click HERE to make a donation to the Illinois Family Institute.

Rev. Wallis, you told us in 2008 that “the sacrament of marriage” should not be changed and that “marriage is all through the Bible, and it’s not gender-neutral.” Now, in 2013, you want to redefine marriage and make it gender-neutral. In doing so, you have betrayed the Word of God and the people of God.

To be candid, sir, I’m not surprised by your theological flip-flop—just pained and distressed by it, since your name is still associated with evangelical Christianity in America and you are a prominent church leader.

In the past, you raised some valid criticisms about the “religious right” and its deep solidarity with the Republican Party, but then you joined yourself to the religious left and the Democratic Party, even campaigning for Democratic candidates. So much for taking a kingdom-of-God position that transcends partisan politics and challenges the political establishment.

To be sure, you have rightly challenged us to consider the poor and the oppressed, pointing to the hundreds of Scriptures that call us to “social justice.” But then you have turned around and applauded Communist dictatorships that championed oppression and tyranny.

When it comes to Christian integrity, you disappointed us when you received funding from pro-abortion, pro-atheism billionaire George Soros and when you allowed the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), the world’s largest gay activist organization, to take out paid advertising in your Sojourners magazine, even though the HRC would love to silence all religious opposition to homosexual practice.

It is true that in 2008, you expressed having “mixed feelings” about the HRC ads, stating that you “probably wouldn’t do it again.” But today, the HRC celebrates your defection from biblical values, announcing in headline news, “Leading Evangelical Christian Voice Announces Support For Marriage Equality.”

Rev. Wallis, you have brought reproach to the name of Jesus, to the Word of God and to evangelical Christianity.

You raised concerns for many of us when you argued in 2008 that justice requires Christians to support (and even bless) same-sex unions, but you also stated clearly in 2008, “I don’t think the sacrament of marriage should be changed. Some people say that Jesus didn’t talk about homosexuality, and that’s technically true. But marriage is all through the Bible, and it’s not gender-neutral.”

Now you have declared your support for the radical redefinition of marriage, explaining, “I think we have to talk about, now, how to include same-sex couples in that deeper understanding of marriage. I want a deeper commitment to marriage that is more and more inclusive, and that’s where I think the country is going.”

How can you say this as a student of the Word and a professing disciple of Jesus?

I’m sure you have met devoted gay couples that love each other and love the kids they are raising. I’m sure you have also met devoted “gay Christians” who have told you about the rejection and pain they have experienced at the hands of the church. And I’m sure you are concerned about the institution of marriage.

But you don’t strengthen marriage by making it genderless, by replacing bride and groom with “Partner A and Partner B” (or, worse still, by adding formulas like, “I now pronounce you husband and husband or bride and bride”).

However sincere you might be, you are calling for changes that will ultimately result in removing the categories of mother and father from birth certificates, to be replaced instead with “Progenitor A and Progenitor B” (as is the case in Spain, where same-sex “marriage” is accepted under the law of the land).

Rev. Wallis, you don’t strengthen marriage by removing its foundational components—as emphasized by Jesus Himself in Matthew 19—namely, one man and one woman coming together in sacred, lifelong union. Instead, by advocating for the radical redefinition of marriage, you align yourself with the many groups in America who want to marginalize, ostracize and even criminalize religious opposition to same-sex “marriage.” What has become of your Christian conscience?

You even state that you want to make marriage “more and more inclusive,” which by extension means the support of polygamous marriage and polyamorous marriage and more, as the MarriageEquality blog states, “Advocating for the right of consenting adults to share and enjoy love, sex, residence and marriage without limits on the gender, number or relation of participants.” Have you really considered the implications of your words?

Worst of all, you have reversed your earlier position on what the Bible clearly says about marriage based largely on where “the country is going.”

What? Jim Wallis, the critic of the religious establishment; Jim Wallis, the counter-cultural revolutionary; Jim Wallis, the advocate of a Jesus who changes the world rather than conforms to it. You, sir, are now willing to redefine one of the most foundational and sacred human institutions, the institution of marriage, based on where the country is going? Isn’t that the path to spiritual and moral suicide?

You of all people should know that as followers of Jesus, we are called to swim against the conformist, worldly tide of the age, calling society back to the timeless ways of God, especially when society forsakes the Word of God and the God of the Word. Yet you have now joined in the apostasy, choosing to go with the populist flow—one that is becoming more anti-faith by the day—rather than having the courage and integrity to stand your ground.

Rev. Wallis, your best years of ministry could still be ahead, but you will need to humble yourself and repent. I am praying that you do.

Originally posted at:  http://www.charismanews.com/opinion/39106-jim-wallis-you-have-betrayed-the-word-of-god-and-the-people-of-god 

This Friday, April 19, 2013 is the National Day of Silence which is sponsored by the homosexuality-affirming advocacy group, the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN). GLSEN’s raison dêtre is to transform the moral and political views of our nation’s children through our publicly subsidized government schools. The Day of Silence is GLSEN’s central socio-political tool for achieving that purpose.

GLSEN urges students in high schools and middle schools to refuse to speak for an entire day—including during class—in order to draw attention to the plight of those students who are purportedly silenced and bullied because of their homosexuality or cross-dressing.

IFI is again partnering with a broad coalition of conservative pro-family groups to encourage parents and guardians to express their opposition to the exploitation of instructional time for this Leftwing political cause. We are urging parents to ask their school principals if students and/or teachers are permitted to refuse to speak in class on the Day of Silence. If your principal says they are not permitted to refuse to speak, ask how that is communicated to parents, students, and faculty.

If your principal says students and/or teachers are permitted to refuse to speak, keep your child at home, which costs schools money. We also encourage you to send an email to your superintendent, principal, department chairs, school board members, and your student’s teachers explaining why you are keeping your child home. Click here  for a sample “call out” letter.

It is critical for parents, school administrators, students, and school board members to know that the ACLU has stated that students “have a right to participate in Day of Silence and other expressions of your opinion at a public school during non-instructional time: the breaks between classes, before and after the school day, lunchtime, and any other free times during your day. You do NOT have a right to remain silent during class time if a teacher asks you to speak” (emphasis added).

Despite what the Day of Silence advocates claim, this political event does, indeed, create disruption, distraction, divisiveness, and discomfort. Imagine if students were allowed to refuse to speak in class on other days for other socio-political causes. What if one group were allowed to refuse to speak in class to draw attention to the silenced voices of women in Afghanistan, or Christians in China, or political prisoners in Cuba, or suspected terrorists held at Gitmo, or animals used in scientific research, or dolphins caught in tuna nets? We have opened a Pandora’s box of pedagogical problems by allowing this form of political activism in the classroom. Many teachers and students on both the Left and Right dislike the Day of Silence, but no one hears about that. Teachers and administrators are afraid to admit publicly that they wish the Day of Silence would end.

What GLSEN does not admit is that their central goal is not the eradication of bullying—which is a goal every decent person shares. GLSEN’s “anti-bullying” emphasis is merely a strategic tool for effecting their central goals, which are the eradication of conservative moral beliefs and the creation of a social, political, and legal environment in which it’s impossible to express them. GLSEN believes that the existence of conservative moral beliefs creates an environment ripe for bullying and violence. Therefore, their goal is to transform the moral beliefs of other people’s children using public resources (i.e., public schools).

Homosexuality, like polyamory and hypersexuality, is a condition constituted by subjective feelings and volitional sexual acts. Our public schools would never permit a day of silence for students who are bullied for their polyamory or hypersexuality. Clearly, no administrator or teacher wants students to be bullied for these conditions, so what’s the difference? Educators fully understand that such a “day” would do far more than signal opposition to bullying. Such a day would implicitly teach that polyamory and hypersexuality are morally acceptable—which is not the right of educators to do. Allowing students to refuse to speak in class on the Day of Silence necessarily means that school administrators and teachers believe homosexual acts are inherently moral and are comfortable promoting that moral conviction—which is not the right of government employees to do.

GLSEN, correctly assuming that conservatives are cowardly, understands the efficacy of promoting homosexuality through bullying prevention activities. They know we’re too afraid to be accused of endorsing bullying to oppose their efforts. The truth is, however, that it’s entirely possible to oppose both bullying and the dishonoraable efforts of GLSEN to undermine the conservative moral beliefs of other people’s children using public funds.

It is entirely possible to work toward preventing bullying without specifically mentioning every condition for which students are bullied. The Day of Silence privileges two conditions for which students are bullied—homosexuality and gender-confusion—over all others. Broader, more general, more inclusive non-enumerated activities and events are fairer, more compassionate, more respectful of “diversity,” and less politically divisive.

If we don’t start opposing the use of public schools to undermine the moral and political beliefs of our children, it will not only continue, it will increase.

Call your school now.

 Click HERE to make a donation to the Illinois Family Institute.

The foolish and false rationalizations State Representative Ed Sullivan (R-Mundelein) is providing to his constituents for his betrayal — I mean “evolution” — on marriage bear closer examination.

Here are the relevant portions of his letter:

After personal reflection and discussions with members of our community, I have decided to support civil marriage because it goes to the core of what I believe our State’s—and indeed our Nation’s—Constitution intends: a limited government whose citizens are free to make personal choices with equal protection under the law.

The role of a limited government is to fairly hold all people as equals, regardless of race, creed, or orientation, not to devise rules that make moral judgments of any particular class. Furthermore, each citizen should be left to himself or herself to make deeply personal decisions regarding life and the pursuit of happiness. Constrained by these principles, government should not stand in the way of consenting adults who wish to commit to each other through civil marriage, regardless of their sexual orientation.

Just as I believe that gay and lesbian couples should be able to make their own choices, I believe that religious institutions and their adherents should be free to make their own choices about this issue without the government’s intrusion. The Religious Freedom and Fairness Act explicitly states within its purpose that “nothing in this Act is intended to abrogate, limit, or expand the ability of a religious denomination to exercise First Amendment rights protected by the United States Constitution or the Illinois Constitution.” I could not have supported the bill without the guarantee of these strong religious protections.

Sincerely,

Ed Sullivan 

Here are some thoughts about and questions for Rep. Sullivan (questions that Sullivan and all other lawmakers who support the legalization of same-sex “marriage” should be compelled to answer): 

• Sullivan refers to supporting “civil marriage” but fails to address the more fundamental question “What is marriage?” Is marriage something we create out of whole cloth or does it have a nature that we merely recognize? Is it solely about who loves whom or is it connected to sexual complementarity? If it’s solely about who loves whom, then why the binary requirement and why is the government involved at all? 

• Legalizing same-sex “marriage” will lead to more government  involvement in marriage—not less. A revolutionary governmental conclusion that marriage has no inherent connection to gender would be neither reflective of smaller government nor resultant in less government involvement. How does Sullivan arrive at the peculiar notion that the decision by lawmakers to jettison one of the central defining features of marriage constitutes more limited government?

• Sullivan refers to the freedom to “make personal choices with equal protection under the law” while never addressing the role of government in protecting the superordinate rights of children to know and be raised whenever possible by their biological mother and father (or alternatively by a mother and father). Did his “personal reflection” extend beyond the “personal choices” of homosexual adults to the more fundament issue of the personal rights of children? 

• Rights are afforded to individuals not couples. Homosexuals are not demanding a right they don’t have. They are demanding the right to eliminate one criterion from the legal definition of marriage to suit their desires and which will transform not merely the government’s definition of marriage but also the public’s understanding of what marriage is. 

• Sullivan, either in an astonishing display of ignorance or dishonesty, claims that he believes religious “adherents should be free to make their own choices about this issue without government intrusion,” pointing to the bill’s purported religious protections which he claims constitute “strong religious protections.” Oh, really. 

  Someone should ask Sullivan if Christian owners of wedding-related businesses will be permitted to refuse to use their time, labor, gifts, products, and services for same-sex “weddings.” Will Christian photographers, videographers, bakers, florists, caterers, calligraphers, graphic designers,  wedding venue owners, restaurant owners, and bed & breakfast owners be permitted to exercise their religious liberty by refusing to use their gifts in the service of same-sex “weddings”? And will Catholic and Protestant schools be permitted to refuse to hire custodians or secretaries who are in homosexual “marriages”? 

• Did Sullivan’s “personal reflection” include studying deeply the subjects of equality, marriage, and “orientation” Has he read the book What is Marriage? Man and Woman: A Defense or the essay “Cats and Dogs and Marriage Laws”? Has he read the essay “The Red Herring of ‘Marriage Equality” ? Has he read these essays on limited government and marriage (including three by libertarian economist Jennifer-Roback Morse), all of which argue that the legalization of same-sex “marriage” not only reflects government involvement but actually increases government involvement in non-neutral ways: “Big Government Should Not Redefine Marriage,”  “Privatizing Marriage is Impossible,”  “Privatizing Marriage will Expand the Role of the State,”  and “Privatizing Marriage is Unjust to Children.” 

  Studying these resources will be infinitely more helpful than navel-gazing or talking to homosexual relatives. I suspect, however, that Sullivan is little invested in deep study of this crucial social institution and the relevant public policy. I also doubt the capacity of many lawmakers, including Sullivan, to be persuaded by reason. Emotion carries the day in contemporary America. 

• Sullivan recoils from “rules that make moral judgments.” To learn that a lawmaker has an aversion to moral judgment-making is unfortunate because all laws “make moral judgments.” Why do we prohibit Jim Crow laws? Why do we prohibit marriage between minors and adults? Why do we prohibit two brothers from marrying? Why do we prohibit plural marriages? In fact, Sullivan himself has determined that it’s not moral to withhold marriage licenses from homosexual couples. 

• Sullivan claims that the “government should not stand in the way of consenting adults who wish to commit to each other through civil marriage.” Well, the government prohibits consenting adults who are closely related by blood from marrying, and the government prohibits consenting adults who wish to marry more than one person from marrying. Will further “personal reflection” lead Sullivan to evolve on the issues of plural marriage and incestuous marriage? Will he soon argue that polyamorous citizens “should be left to make deeply personal decisions regarding life and the pursuit of happiness”? If not, why not? Inquiring minds want to know precisely what Sullivan’s reasons are for jettisoning the gender requirement while retaining the binary requirement. 

We should expect and demand more thoughtful lawmakers and more substantive reasons for their positions on the essential issue of marriage—an issue far more important than tax rates or pension-fund reform.

Rep. Sullivan’s email address is ILhouse51@sbcglobal.net and his district phone number is (847) 566-5115.

 Click HERE to make a donation to the Illinois Family Institute.

The week before the Illinois Senate was scheduled to vote on a bill to legalize same-sex “marriage,” student members of the Straight and Gay Alliance (SAGA) at Deerfield High School sent this email to every staff and faculty member:

Dear Faculty and Staff,

This Valentines Day, the United States [sic] Senate will be voting on whether or not to pass legislation that would make same-sex marriage legal in Illinois. No matter which way the vote ends up going, it is safe to say that this will be a historic day in the LGBT movement. Your students in DHS’s Straight and Gay Alliance would like to invite you to a school-wide event in which all supporters of marriage and civil equality for LGBT people wear purple apparel; a color that symbolizes allies and togetherness in the movement. It doesn’t matter if it’s a purple bowtie, necklace, skirt, or SAGA t-shirt (we will be selling more if you’re interested in purchasing one). For those of you who are either required to wear a certain color or you don’t have any purple clothes then please feel free to come up to a SAGA student in either entrance of the school tomorrow to get a purple ribbon you can wear as a bracelet. Any of your support is greatly appreciated.

The members of SAGA are excited to see the future changes in our own community due to this legislation. We can honestly say that there is no one who we trust more to support and guide the ensuing generations through this exhilerating (sic) and challenging time than the Deerfield High School faculty and staff. Thank you for all of your generosity and support.

Happy Valentines Day,

Your students in SAGA (emphasis added)

Many teachers did wear purple in support of this controversial and divisive legislative proposal.  I suspect the school did not notify parents and other taxpayers of this organized political event involving district employees during school.

What should deeply trouble taxpayers is that District 113’s School Board policy permits district employees to participate in political activity “relating to the support or opposition of any executive, legislative, or administrative action.” And why is that troubling? Besides the obvious truth that only “progressive” teachers will promote their political beliefs at school, this policy appears to be inconsistent with case law regarding the rights of teachers to engage in speech—including symbolic speech—while on the job.

When I first learned of this employee political action, I spoke with an attorney who told me the following: 

School officials who wear something purple on Thursday would be engaging in expressive conduct while performing official duty. The school club email to the entire faculty has identified what wearing purple expresses. 

A 2006 SC case, Garcetti v. Ceballos, held that “when public employees speak while performing their official duties, (i.e., “job duty speech”), this speech is not protected by the First Amendment and can be the basis for discipline or discharge.”

http://www.psea.org/general.aspx?id=3868

This position is confirmed in a 2008 article by Dr. Martha McCarthy, the Chancellor’s Professor and Chair of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies at Indiana University:

The general legal principle is that public school personnel cannot proselytize the captive student audience.

In…Weingarten v. Board of Education, a federal district court upheld the school district’s ban on employees wearing political buttons at school….The New York court ruled that students might view the political buttons as representing the school if worn by employees. This ruling is consistent with other decisions in which state and federal courts recently have upheld bans on teachers wearing buttons to promote political candidates or to criticize the United States and its involvement in Iraq and Panama.…

Controversies over political expression extend beyond distributing materials and wearing buttons. The Seventh Circuit in 2007 held that a probationary teacher’s expression of her opposition to the war in Iraq during a current events discussion with her students was not constitutionally protected. Also, a New York federal district court held that in an election year, a school district could require a teacher to remove the incumbent president’s picture from her classroom or to post the opposing candidate’s picture to ensure balance.

…While public educators have an absolute right to their political, religious, and other beliefs, they do not have a right to impose those beliefs on students. Thus, restrictions on public employees’ political activities in the classroom will likely be upheld if legally challenged. (emphasis added)

Prior to the day of the SAGA-sponsored political event, I asked Superintendent George Fornero if teachers would be permitted to wear purple on the day of the controversial legislative vote. He didn’t respond, so I sent this email to Fornero and the District 113 Board of Education:

Am I correct that staff and faculty may express their political views on legislative issues? Do teachers have permission to wear, for example, arm bands, bracelets, t-shirts, spats, or purple as part of an organized effort to express support for (or against) proposed legislation?

Since school board policy expressly permits district employees to participate in political activity “relating to the support or opposition of any executive, legislative, or administrative action,” and since district employees were permitted to wear purple in a public and organized political effort to express support for the legalization of same-sex marriage, would district employees be permitted to wear another color in a public and organized political effort to express support for the legalization of recreational drug use or gambling?

I would also like to know how the school board policy cited above squares with case law which consistently holds that teachers do not have a constitutionally protected right to engage in political activity while on the job.

As of this writing, I have received no response from any school board member and this response from Fornero:

I am writing to follow up on your inquiry with regard to the color of clothing worn by staff and faculty. Clothing color is a matter of personal choice, and may or may not be a reflection of person’s support for any particular public policy issue. I have no idea whether staff wore purple two weeks ago and, if they did, why they did so….The School District does not restrict the color of clothing that staff may wear on any particular day, although there are days when staff may be encouraged to wear school colors. There were no restrictions, no directives and no administrative communication to staff with regard to the color of clothing they could choose to wear on Valentine’s Day.…

The issues relating to the first amendment rights of public employees, and the rights of governmental entities to place limits on that speech in the workplace are complex and, as the article you quoted makes clear, regularly being interpreted and reinterpreted by the courts. The policy that is posted on the website is the Board’s current policy, which would govern these matters in our District. We would evaluate any actual situation based on the facts that related to that particular situation…

I have no further information to share.

Fornero’s obfuscatory response is the kind of response that gives politicians and bureaucrats a bad name. He had no idea whether employees wore purple on the day of the same-sex “marriage” vote? Really?

And why would he even mention Valentine’s Day? I didn’t ask whether the administration issued any directives regarding what to wear on Valentine’s Day. My question was whether the administration issued any directives regarding faculty engaging in expressive acts–including wearing particular colors–in support of a political cause.

Further, Fornero apparently expected me to believe that dozens of district employees just happened to wear purple on the day that SAGA members requested they wear purple in support of a controversial public policy issue. If I didn’t already know that he struggles with honesty, I might feel insulted by his apparent presumption that I am either stupid or gullible.

And is Fornero suggesting that the administration will “evaluate” each situation to determine which political issues teachers can express support for or opposition to?

As a District 113 community member, I am entitled to straightforward answers to the straightforward questions I asked.

Is this what we want in our public schools? Do we want teachers to promote their political views while on the government dime? Do we want teachers to exploit their access to our children to try to shape their moral and political beliefs? How do conservative students feel when the teachers who assign their grades have announced their political views on this, perhaps the most controversial topic in the country? And what would administrations and school boards think if an equal number of teachers wore paraphernalia in support of retaining sexual complementarity in the legal definition of marriage? Dueling t-shirts, what a great pedagogical concept.

Every taxpayer in every community should ask their administrators and/or members of their school boards if teachers are permitted to express their views on political issues while on the job,  including through symbolic speech like wearing buttons, armbands, bracelets, t-shirts—or the color purple.

Take ACTION:  Click HERE to send an email to to Superintendent Fornero, Principal Audris Griffith and the seven members of the District 113’s Board of Education.

The mainstream media, including it seems virtually every political pundit on the Left and the Right, are dancing a jig over the “inevitability” of the widespread cultural embrace of a queer (pun intended) revision of marriage. These pundits, who jigged their way all over the Sunday morning news programs, pointed to the support among a troubling number of Republican “leaders” (aka followers) and youth—always known for their wisdom, maturity, and sexual restraint—as justification for their confident prognostications.

I watched four of these programs and was struck that on the issue of marriage, our whip-smart pundits are wholly ignorant.  Not one interviewer asked these esteemed pundits what marriage is, or why the government is involved with marriage, or if children have any inherent rights regarding their biological parents, or why marriage should be limited to two people if it has no inherent connection to sexual complementarity or reproductive potential. When the comparison of bans on interracial marriage to bans on the legal recognition of same-sex unions as “marriage” were alluded to, no pundit asked “In what specific ways is homosexuality analogous to race?”

Their “reasons” for their joyous jigging over the “inevitable” radical transmogrification of civil marriage are that Republicans like Senator Rob Portman (R-OH) and young people support it. What the pundits didn’t discuss is either the recent and huge Reuters poll (24, 455 people polled) that was conducted between Jan. 1 – Mar.14 that showed that only 41 percent of Americans support same-sex “marriage.“  That’s remarkable considering the fact that the mainstream press, Hollywood, Broadway, and our public schools—which is to say, our culture-making institutions—are in the tank for all things homosexual, including same-sex “marriage.”

What the pundits also didn’t discuss, however, is that not all of our young people support the legal recognition of same-sex unions as marriage. This was a glaring omission in that the bible of many pundits, the New York Times, even discussed  it last week.

The New York Times interviewed the following young scholars:

• Ryan T. Anderson, 31, a Heritage Foundation fellow and co-author of What is Marriage? Man and Woman; A Defense
• Joseph Backholm, 34, the executive director of the Family Policy Institute of Washington
• Will Haun, 26, a lawyer and member of the Federalist Society
• Thomas Peters, 27, the communications director for the National Organization for Marriage 
• Ashley Pratte, 23, the executive director of Cornerstone Policy Research and Cornerstone Action
• Caitlin Seery, 25, the director of programs for the Love and Fidelity Network
• Eric Teetsel, 29, the executive director of the Manhattan Declaration
• Andrew T. Walker, 27, a policy analyst at the Heritage Foundation.

Eight young intellectual defenders of true marriage, interviewed in the New York Times, but nary a mention of them on the four Sunday morning news programs I watched.

I have some perhaps surprising news for our cultural elites (or elitists) like Matthew Dowd, Jake Tapper, George Will, Peggy Noonan, Anna Navarro, and Margaret Hoover. All over America there exist smart, wise, kind, and courageous young men and women like those interviewed by the New York Times. I’m blessed to know some of them.

I received the following email from one* of them in response to my question about how to recapture the hearts and minds of young people:

I wish I had the solution. I don’t know if I do. 

My thoughts are that the work must start in the church. What has intrigued me about the progress of gay “marriage” in this country is that states have only now begun approving of it, but entire Protestant denominations have approved of same-sex relationships for years now. Progressive denominations have run out ahead of the culture on this issue. Faithful Christians need to combat the work of progressives in their own denominations. 

Pastors must also be willing to preach the whole counsel of God (Acts 20:27). What is crazy to me is how many of the churches I have been to don’t even seem to preach a text. Not any text. It isn’t that they’re just misinterpreting it. They’re simply not preaching it. I think that Christians need to be taught to expect the pastor to preach the Bible, and I think that they should be expecting him not just to read a text and speak on whatever he wants but actually exposit the Scriptures for them. 

As a part of the preaching of the whole counsel of God, pastors need to preach not only the things that people don’t mind hearing, but also the things that rub us the wrong way. There are uncomfortable parts of the Scriptures, and we should realize that the parts that make us the most uncomfortable are probably the parts we need to hear the most. 

This brings up another point. People simply need to read their Bibles. If we’re spending more time every day watching TV than we are being in Scripture and prayer, our priorities are seriously messed up. Most Christians I know would claim to love Jesus more than their episodes of the Big Bang Theory or Modern Family, but my guess is that most Christians my age will spend more time watching those shows this week than they will praying or studying the Scriptures. This is a serious problem. No wonder so many people who claim to have some sort of Christian faith also don’t have a problem claiming homosexuality is okay. They probably couldn’t even tell you if or where the Bible speaks to the issue, but they could tell you how cute it is that the gay couple they love on their favorite TV show is raising an Asian daughter.

And this reminds me that Christians need to stop watching so much TV. What a waste of a life. In Psalm 90 Moses asks that God will teach us to number our days aright that we may gain a heart of wisdom. In the face of a life that is incredibly brief, Moses asks God for help in living wisely. There is no possible way that a life spent in front of the television is a life lived wisely. 

Christians need to give up on the talk of relevance. Many churches are willing to bleed for relevance. That needs to stop. Churches and Christians must heed the words of 1 Corinthians 4 and must be willing to be called the scum of the world, the refuse of all things. Christians need to give up this desire to be liked by everyone, give up the unwillingness to offend, get off the niceness which isn’t undergirded by goodness. None of this serves the church. None serves the cause of Christ. Christians need to come to Christ to die, not come to him to be entertained. 

None of these things are innovative or new or anything like that. None of them have to do specifically with the issue of homosexuality, but I think that the problem is far broader and deeper. The problem is we’ve become frighteningly biblically illiterate. It is that we care more for our reputations than we do for truth. It is that we have churches which have set up to entertain the goats rather than feed the sheep. It is that we offer a, nicer, cheesier, blander version of secular culture and then wonder why our churches shrink. It is that we’ve become spineless in all things. It’s no wonder that we can’t stand up to a cultural redefinition of marriage. We haven’t stood up to anything else. 

I wonder how differently the culture would view marriage if every time a homosexuality-affirming play, novel, essay, film, speaker, picture book, or lecture were presented to children and teens in our schools or elsewhere, the ideas of these young people were presented at the same time. 

What is so remarkable in the jawboning of the press is their claim that Republicans who oppose the jettisoning of sexual complementarity from the legal definition of marriage have “moved too far to the Right.” Since when does not moving become moving? 

There are times and reasons for cultural movement. When policies and laws are objectively wrong and logically indefensible, the culture should move as it did in opposition to slavery, Jim Crow laws, and interracial marriage. And there are times and reasons for steadfast immobility as with the protection of the unborn, the preservation of sexually complementarity marriage (i.e., true marriage), and the refusal to subordinate the inherent rights of children to the selfish desires of adults.

*This friend is 28 years old, has his BA in Philosophy with Theology from Wheaton College, his MA in Historical and Systematic Theology from Wheaton College, and his M. Div. from Westminster Theological Seminary (CA).