I hope anyone who listens to Sunday morning news program pundits does so with a critical ear.

As almost everyone knows, late last week U.S. Senator Rob Portman (R-Ohio) announced that he now favors the legalization of same-sex marriage. Portman is motivated to eliminate sexual complementarity from the legal definition of marriage because his son is homosexual.

Portman has received some criticism—justifiably in my view—from both the left and right for the self-serving and emotional justifications for his position reversal. (Read more HERE.)

This past Sunday on This Week with George Stephanopoulos, the Matthew Dowd had this to say about Portman’s embrace of “same-sex marriage”:

Rob Portman I know well….And the people that I think that have criticized him and said, “oh, by the way, he only did it was a personal thing that affected him personally, he wasn’t going to do it otherwise.” To me, why do we criticize people for that? The person that started MADD, it was a personal thing. The people that—many—people who have come out against gun control have been personally affected by it. If somebody’s path to the truth, or somebody’s path to a place where we actually think they’re open and compassionate is a personal decision, God be with them.

Dowd fails to make any distinctions among the different ways personal experience can shape political actions. The mother who started Mothers Against Drunk Driving did not switch her position from supporting drunk-driving to opposing drunk-driving because her daughter was killed by a drunk driver. Rather her daughter’s death made her acutely aware of a problem that required greater public awareness and public policy changes.  That’s a wholly different kind of shift than Portman’s.

It is entirely possible for a personal experience to lead one to analyze and evaluate prior positions in light of new information. One would hope such analysis would not lean heavily on subjective feelings, which are woefully inadequate arbiters of truth, but would rely instead on an objective analysis of reasons and presuppositions. Sometimes we have to set aside our feelings in order to think rightly on issues of great cultural import.

There is scant evidence that Portman has thought deeply about the following critical fundamental questions, and the public has no idea how he would answer them:

• Does marriage have an intrinsic nature that the government merely recognizes and regulates, or do we create it out of whole cloth?
• If marriage has an intrinsic nature what are its constituent features?
• Why is the government involved in marriage?
• Is there a public purpose for marriage that justifies government involvement? If so, what is the public purpose of the institution of marriage?
• If marriage is solely about love with no inherent connection to sexual complementarity or reproductive potential, why should it be limited to two people?
• Do children have any inherent right to know (and be known by) and be raised whenever possible by their biological parents?

Dowd stated that support for the legalization of same-sex marriage is the only compassionate response. Thankfully, Carly Fiorina, gracefully and with a humility Dowd lacks, challenged his presumptuous and self-righteous claim:

I think we have to be careful, because John Boehner’s views, which are different from Rob Portman’s views, are equally sincere. And I think we get into trouble on this debate when we assume that people who support gay marriage are open and compassion and people who don’t are not.

Dowd too claims that support for same-sex marriage is indicative of openness. Really? Are Dowd’s latitudinarians any more “open” to conservative assumptions about marriage than conservatives are to “progressive” assumptions about marriage? And why aren’t those like Portman “open and compassionate” about plural marriage?

Both Dowd and George Will rejoiced in the apparent inevitability of the jackbooted march toward gender-irrelevant faux-marriage. Will started the unilluminating discussion with this:

[Portman] will not be the last [Republican to support same-sex marriage], because the demographic tide here is large, powerful and inexorable. I have said on this program before, opposition to gay marriage is literally dying, it’s an older demographic. And if you raise the question among young people, they’re not interested. And I dare say this is one of the good things about CPAC. As you saw at CPAC, this was another division and again, a healthy one. It’s largely young people attend CPAC. And this is not at the top of their agenda. It’s not even on their agenda.

Cheerleader Dowd echoed Will’s pronunciamento:

I think that there’s been an amazing — and George is right, there has been amazing — in the last ten years, I think there’s been almost a 20-point change in people’s perception of gay marriage in this country. I think Rob Portman is another domino in this whole effect. I think Republicans, any Republicans that stand in the way of this, are standing in the way of march of history on this.

They may be right, but we’ve learned from the shifting battle over the rights of the unborn that what once seemed inevitable may not be permanent. Truth (in conjunction with tenacity) has miraculous resurrection powers.

What Dowd and Will fail to address is why our youth are so awash in ignorance. Is the issue of marriage off the agenda of our youth because some sort of organic evolution toward truth has captured not just their malleable hearts, but their minds as well?

Or are there more pernicious reasons for this strange embrace of marriage as an inherently sterile, gender-irrelevant institution?

• Is the issue of marriage off their agenda because society—liberals and conservatives alike—have demonstrated utter disregard for the institution of marriage?  
• Is it because the church has failed to teach the biblical meaning of marriage as the earthly representation of the union of Christ and his church: complementary, indissoluble, and oriented toward new life?
• Is it because the church has failed to teach what the secular purposes are for marriage, and which explain why marriage is binary.
• Is it because the church has failed to help Christians understand the specious arguments used to normalize homosexuality and in this failure facilitated confusion and deception in the body of Christ?
• Is it because our young people—like those at CPAC—have grown up immersed in positive and emotionally compelling images of homosexuality and malignant mockery of conservative views of homosexuality from Hollywood and Broadway?
• Is it because our public schools affirm, espouse, and promote the normalization of homosexuality while censoring all resources that challenge “progressive” ideas?

To paraphrase Richard Weaver, ideas and images have consequences.

I don’t feel quite as certain about the uniformity of views among young conservatives as Will and Dowd do. I know some very smart young men and women who understand what marriage is and will defend it. Unfortunately, the cowardice of those  who are “literally dying” will make it that much harder for our children when they step forward to defend truth. 

Help us continue the fight for pro-life, pro-marriage and pro-family values in Illinois by donating $15, $25, $50 or $100 or more today. With your support we can continue our vital work!  Click HERE to support the work and ministry of Illinois Family Institute.

Written by Jim Campbell

Disagreements and projections abound in the dialogue about marriage and its redefinition to include same-sex couples. But both sides agree on one issue: redefining marriage significantly jeopardizes religious freedom—the first liberty upon which our nation was founded.

The convergence of several factors creates this unavoidable clash between religious liberty and redefining marriage. First, the vast majority of religious adherents in America believe that marriage is the union of one man and one woman. And because marriage is a core component of religious convictions—indeed, many spiritual traditions treat it as a holy sacrament—people of faith are not likely to change or disregard their views on this central question of conscience.

Second, marriage permeates our law and culture. Thus countless situations will require all citizens, including those who are religious, to affirm or facilitate a fundamentally redefined understanding of marriage.

Third, if the government declares that same-sex unions and opposite-sex unions equally constitute marriages, the law punishes and stigmatizes as “discriminatory” and “irrational” those who publicly espouse a view or conduct themselves in a manner that adheres to the traditional understanding of marriage.

History illustrates the persecution of, and an absence of tolerance for, those who engage in what the law has proclaimed to be irrational discrimination. The freedom of the religious faithful—particularly their freedom to participate in the public square—will thus be sacrificed in a society whose laws embrace a redefined view of marriage.

Legal scholars who favor redefining marriage agree that this religious-liberty conflict is real. Chai R. Feldblum, a law professor at Georgetown University and current EEOC commissioner, believes that advocates for redefining marriage have incorrectly “downplayed the impact of such laws on some people’s religious beliefs.” Renowned religious-liberty professor Doug Laycock and many others agree that conflicts between same-sex marriage and religious freedom are inevitable.

This crisis of conscience is not just a matter of legal theory; it is confirmed by real-world examples.

Laws redefining marriage have forced religious organizations to shutter their foster and adoptive ministries because they are unable to place children with same-sex couples. Among other examples, this senseless religious intolerance occurred immediately following the redefinition of marriage in the District of Columbia, even though many other foster and adoption agencies were willing and able to place children with same-sex couples.

After a court redefined marriage in Massachusetts, public schools began teaching young elementary-school students that same-sex marriage is worthy of celebration. Parents who objected for religious reasons asked to excuse their children from these lessons. Yet a court denied parents even this modest religious protection, stating that because “Massachusetts has recognized gay marriage under its state constitution, it is entirely rational for its schools to educate their students regarding that recognition.”

Redefined marriage laws have also compelled organizations with deeply held beliefs about marriage either to recognize the same-sex unions of their employees or to stop providing spousal benefits to all employees. In the District of Columbia, a Catholic organization terminated benefits to all of its employees’ spouses just so that it could continue to operate consistently with the dictates of its faith. And in New York, an employee of a Catholic hospital sued her employer demanding that it recognize her same-sex relationship and provide benefits to her partner.

Additionally, laws redefining marriage have also forced public servants with sincere religious convictions about marriage to resign from their positions. In New York, at least two municipal clerks suffered this fate. Similarly, in Saskatchewan, the courts refused to safeguard the conscience rights of marriage commissioners, despite the fact that the province had more than 370 marriage commissioners, most of whom did not object to presiding over a same-sex ceremony.

All of these examples, which are but a few of the many that could be cited, illustrate the bleak prospects for conscience rights and religious tolerance in a culture that embraces genderless marriage.

Sound logic, scholarly consensus, and recent experience all demonstrate that redefining marriage presents a significant threat to religious liberty. We as a society thus face a crossroads and must decide whether to change marriage to satisfy the demands of a few despite sacrificing the religious freedom of many. We should collectively choose to affirm marriage, decline to deviate our course, and continue along the road where religious liberty—a bedrock of our civilization—may flourish.

NOTE: This article was originally publish on Townhall.com, and is the fourth column in a series of columns related to National Marriage Week, Feb. 7-14, 2013. The third column is available HERE.

Last Tuesday I was in Springfield when the Illinois House Executive Committee narrowly approved State Representative Greg Harris‘ bill to redefine marriage and family. I will be in Springfield again today and tomorrow to speak with key lawmakers about this terrible bill, hoping to appeal to their better judgement. I ask for your prayers.

With just one more step in the legislative process, the homosexual lobby is pushing extremely hard to get the 60 votes they need to send it to the governor, who has already promised to sign it. While they do not yet have the votes, they are working tirelessly to make Illinois the 10th state in the nation to officially recognize same-sex “marriage.” In an all-out effort to get the votes they need, Lt. Gov. Shelia Simon and Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel are doing everything they can to generate a grass-roots response from their base. Last week, high-profile lobbyists from Washington D.C. were there trying to convince key lawmakers in the black caucus.

The stated goal from proponents is to try to get this anti-family legislation passed this week. Our stated goal is to make sure they never reach the 60 vote number and therefore, are not able to call it for a vote in the Illinois House at all this year.  

Please help us preserve the culture and families of Illinois from the devestating effects of marriage redefinition. Don’t wait. Your voice may be the ONE that makes the difference.

Take ACTION:  If you haven’t yet sent an email or a fax to your state representative — it is time to speak up now!  Click HERE to contact your Illinois Representative and tell him/her to oppose the effort to redefine marriage! You can also call him/her through the Capitol switchboard at (217) 782-2000.

Better still, schedule a meeting with your representative, bring as many constituents as you can, and ask him or her the questions available HERE.

Bulletin Insert:  Ask your pastor to share this new bulletin insert with the congregation.  The body of Christ and people of faith must speak out now.

More ACTION:  Contact your family and friends at church and let them know that they should speak out against this radical proposal — post your opinions on Facebook and Twitter.

You can also help us continue the fight for natural marriage by donating $15, $25, $50 or $100 or more today. With your support we can continue our vital work!  Click HERE to support the work and ministry of Illinois Family Institute.

Eliminating sexual complementarity from the legal definition of marriage necessarily means formally declaring that marriage has no inherent connection to reproductive potential. Those who seek to redefine marriage—marriage revisionists—claim that because many marriages don’t result in children, the issue of reproductive potential is irrelevant. 

But reproductive potential is the only reason the government is involved in marriage. The government is involved in the marriage business precisely because the union of one man and one woman is the type of relationship that naturally results in children. And the government has a vested interest in protecting the rights and needs of children upon whom the future health of any nation depends. 

Marriage revisionists who claim that marriage has no inherent connection to reproductive potential and is constituted solely by deep emotional bonds shift the focus from the needs and rights of children to the desires of adults. In so doing, marriage revisionists erode the only justification for government involvement in marriage. 

Further, marriage revisionists have no reason to prohibit plural marriage or incestuous homosexual marriage and no way to explain why marriage should be permanent and exclusive. 

If marriage is constituted by deep emotional bonds with no inherent connection to procreation and childrearing, then there’s no reason to desire it to be exclusive or permanent. After all the government  has no more vested interest in recognizing and regulating inherently sterile loving relationships between two homosexuals than it does in recognizing and regulating loving relationships between platonic friends. 

And the government has no more vested interest in supporting through marriage the permanence and exclusivity of inherently sterile, loving relationships between two homosexuals who have acquired a child to raise than it does in supporting through marriage the permanence and exclusivity of two friends (or siblings) who may be raising an orphaned child together. 

Just because the conjugal union of one man and one woman is the type of relationship (i.e., marital) that naturally results in children does not mean that the every type of relationship that involves the raising of children is a marriage.  

The traditional and true understanding of marriage is the only view of marriage that can justify and account for the cultural belief that marriage is necessarily binary, exclusive, and permanent. 

The inevitable consequences of such a radical revision of marital laws are profound. Some will be felt immediately; some will not be manifest for some years. But all will be destructive to children and the family. 

Here are just a few of the ways the legal recognition of homosexual unions as “marriages” will affect the family: 

• Once marriage is severed from any inherent connection to reproductive potential, once the revisionist view of marriage as a private relationship constituted solely by the deep feelings of those seeking to marry, it becomes meaningless as a public institution. Eventually even heterosexual investment in it will decrease.
• As fewer heterosexuals choose to marry and increased numbers of children are raised by single mothers or lesbians, greater numbers of children will grow up fatherless, which will increase the myriad and tragic harms that result from being deprived of fathers (click HERE  and HERE  for more information). 
• The law will support and propagate the radical, destructive, and fallacious idea that children have no inherent right to know and be raised by their biological parents. 
• The law will support and propagate the radical, destructive, and fallacious idea that mothers and fathers are interchangeable and that mothers or fathers are expendable. 
• Unethical ways of producing children (e.g., egg and sperm donation, surrogacy, and in vitro fertilization) will be further normalized and increase in frequency. 
• Increasing numbers of children will be deliberately deprived of either a mother or father, which will harm children in incalculable and numerous ways (click HERE , HERE  and HERE). 
• Children will be deprived of the right to be known by their biological parents.
• Public schools —including elementary schools—will expose children to non-objective homosexuality-affirming beliefs about homosexuality. 
• Public schools will censor all competing (i.e., conservative) views of homosexuality.
• Children will be taught that traditional beliefs about what marriage is are hateful, bigoted, and ignorant.
• Parents of children in public schools will lose the right to be the sole determiner of what their children learn about homosexuality and when they learn it. 
• Laws currently presume that the spouse of a woman who has given birth is the father. When homosexuals are allowed to marry that presumption becomes irrational. The government will become ever more entangled in issues related to legal parentage.

Abolishing sexual complementarity from the legal definition of marriage is not an “equality” issue. It’s not an issue of “fairness” or “justice.” And it’s certainly not an issue of compassion. Homosexual activists are not pursuing marriage for the benefits or privileges that accompany marriage. They already have those. 

They are pursuing the elimination of the central defining feature of marriage in the service of their unholy quest for compulsory cultural approval of homosexuality—approval that they seek too through access to the hearts and minds of our little ones. Legalized “same-sex marriage” wins them that access.

Take ACTION:  If you haven’t yet sent an email or a fax to your state representative — it is time to speak up now!  Click HERE to contact your Illinois Representative and tell him/her to oppose the effort to redefine marriage!.  You can also call him/her through the Capitol switchboard at (217) 782-2000.

Better still, schedule a meeting with your representative, bring as many constituents as you can, and ask him or her the questions available HERE.

Click HERE for Talking Points.

More ACTION:  Contact your family and friends at church and let them know that they should speak out against this radical proposal — post your opinions on Facebook and Twitter.

You can also help us continue the fight for natural marriage by donating $10, $25, $50 or $100 or more today. With your support we can continue our vital work!  Click HERE to support the work and ministry of Illinois Family Institute.

The legal recognition of same-sex unions as marriages will have far-reaching, devastating and pernicious cultural consequences, including within our public schools. Here are some of the ineluctable changes in public education that Illinoisans can expect if “same-sex marriage” is legalized: 

1. If Illinois legalizes “same-sex marriage,” parents can expect elementary school teachers to include homosexuality in discussions of family and marriage. 
   
   
2. Elementary schools will not be able to keep picture books that portray homosexuality positively out of their libraries and classrooms. Those who still harbor the stereotype of librarians as conservative stuffed shirts will be surprised to learn that librarians and university programs in library science are, like teacher education programs, notoriously liberal.

   Ironically, the program one would most associate with diversity of thought and the free exploration of ideas has been actively promoting one set of ideas about homosexuality. The infamous American Library Association has been fervently soliciting homosexuality-affirming books from publishers while still making time to adopt formal positions on the legalization of same-sex marriage.
   
   Yes, picture books affirming homosexuality are already in many elementary school libraries, but there are libraries that have been able to keep them out. They just don’t purchase them. If Illinois changes marriage law to recognize homosexual unions as marriage, it will become more difficult for those communities that want to keep all images and ideas about homosexuality out of their schools to do so.
   
   Some make the absurd argument that since families led by homosexuals exist, schools must teach about them. The truth is, however, that schools have no obligation to teach about every phenomenon that exists, nor do they have to include resources that affirm every phenomenon that exists. Does anyone believe that if a student being raised by polyamorists were enrolled in a public elementary school, teachers or administrators would feel obligated to include books in their libraries that affirm polyamorous family structures? 

3. Public schools will be hiring teachers who are in legal “homosexual marriages.” These teachers will put photos of their homosexual spouses on their desks and talk about their homosexual spouses to their students. Such images and ideas coming from teachers whom children love and admire will powerfully shape the feelings and beliefs of young boys and girls, particularly when such images and ideas are reinforced countless times in other cultural contexts. Such images and ideas will undermine what is being taught at home.
   
   Some will argue that schools are already hiring teachers in homosexual relationships, so the legalization of same-sex marriage won’t change anything. They are only partly correct. Although schools are, unfortunately, already hiring teachers in homosexual relationships, once the government recognizes homosexual unions as marriages, administrators and school boards—particularly in elementary schools—will have the social stigma that makes them reluctant to hire teachers in homosexual unions knocked out from under them. And this, of course, is the chief motivation for homosexuals to pursue same-sex marriage when they already have all the benefits and privileges of marriage through Illinois’ civil union law. 
   
   
4. For years, activists within and without our public schools have been exploiting public education to advance their unproven, non-factual beliefs about the nature and morality of homosexuality. This will continue and intensify whether or not we change our marriage laws. But changing our marriage laws will inarguably make it more difficult to keep Leftist ideas about homosexuality in general and marriage and family in particular out of our schools. Our youngest, most impressionable children will be taught both implicitly and explicitly the following lies,  and all resources that challenge these lies will be censored as hate-filled bigotry: 

• Children will be taught that homosexuality is normative and good. 
  
  
• Children will be taught that homosexuality is morally equivalent to heterosexuality and equally able to contribute to human flourishing. 
  
  
• Children will be taught that marriage has no inherent connection to either sexual complementarity or reproductive potential. 
  
  
• Children will be taught that children do not have any inherent rights to know and be raised by a mother and a father. 
  
  
• Children will be taught that men and women are inherently indistinguishable (Ironically, this is at odds with what homosexuals in other contexts claim. When homosexual men and women say they are only attracted to persons of the same-sex, they are implicitly acknowledging the truth that men and women are inherently different and that those differences are not merely anatomical). 
  
  
• Children will be taught that either mothers or fathers are expendable. 
  
  
• Children will be taught that mothers and fathers contribute nothing unique to a child’s development. 
  
  
• Children will be taught that the government’s interest and involvement in marriage has nothing inherently to do with reproductive potential or the needs and rights of children. 
  
  
• Children will be taught in social studies classes that including sexual complementarity in the legal definition of marriage was a violation of the civil rights of those who wanted to marry someone of their same sex. 
  
  
• Children will be taught eventually that opposition to the legalization of “same-sex marriage” was equivalent to opposition to the legalization of interracial marriage. They will be taught that opposition to both was motivated by ignorance and hatred. 

Already liberal “educators” exploit bullying-prevention programs, sex education, and English, social studies, and theater classes to advance their personal beliefs about homosexuality. We have lost sight of the truth that no arm of the government has the right to propagate non-factual beliefs about the nature and morality of homosexuality—including public schools. 

One word about public school teachers who profess to be Christians: You are not exempt from the obligation to speak truth simply because it may cost you personally or professionally. You have an obligation to stand for truth and to protect children. Recently theologian and pastor Peter Leithart wrote about the moral obligation pastors have to stand for truth on the issue of homosexuality. He wrote that if they are not willing to endure persecution on this subject, they should get out of the business. I would argue that this moral imperative applies to Christian teachers in public schools as well. And yes, you will be hated. 

Far too many Christian teachers in public schools have stood by silently as lies and political activism have infiltrated public schools through plays, novels, essays, magazine articles, films, guest speakers, anti-bullying resources, sex education, discussions of “family diversity,” picture books, and professional development activities. Their silence ensures that in coming years the presence of homosexuality-affirming resources will be greater, the suppression of dissenting ideas greater, and the oppression of conservative teachers greater. They need to ask themselves if there’s anything they’re willing to sacrifice to protect children from lies? 

There are several obstacles that serve to prevent the public from recognizing the educational consequences of redefining marriage. First, we are an intellectually lazy culture that doesn’t want to spend any time imagining the logical outcomes of ideas, policies and laws. 

Second, we are a cowardly bunch, unwilling to express counter-cultural ideas unless we’re guaranteed that doing so will be cost-free. If we think that expressing our views to a teacher, administrator, school board, colleague, boss, friend, neighbor, member of our church, pastor, priest, lawmaker, or the local press will cost us anything, we choose self-censorship. Though the cost could be public excoriation, loss of employment, or a lawsuit, the cost we’re unwilling to pay is most often as trivial as having someone become angry with us. We should be ashamed of such cowardice. 

Anyone who proclaims that the redefinition of legal marriage will have no effect on the culture is either foolish or lying. Adopting what Robert George, Ryan Anderson and Sherif Girgis call the “revisionist view” of marriage will radically alter the cultural landscape in countless and profoundly harmful ways. 

Take ACTION:  If you haven’t yet sent an email or a fax to your state lawmakers — it is time to speak up now!  Click HERE to let them know what you think.

As a manipulative political stratagem, the Left propagates the notion that the normalization of homosexuality is a cultural inevitability. Belief in this inevitability dispirits conservatives and depletes whatever reservoir of motivation they may have to dissent, thus effectively surrendering the public square to sexual subversives.

It is not, however, inevitable that one day all of society will come to believe that homosexuality is morally equivalent to heterosexuality. God’s truth and wisdom spoken with unequivocal, unashamed forthrightness, courage, consistency, and persistence by flawed people who take seriously the duties of discipleship can make a difference.

Look no further than the decision of the National Executive Board of the Boy Scouts of America (BSA) to postpone the vote on its national policy on homosexuality. It’s fair to assume that vociferous public opposition to the proposal to abandon its national policy prohibiting homosexuals from membership in or leadership of the Boy Scouts was the catalyst for this postponement. We should use this victory to refill our depleting reservoirs.

President Barack Obama in yet another proclamation that defies the God he claims to serve and hurts children, pontificated on the controversial issue:

My attitude is that gays and lesbians should have access and opportunity the same way everybody else does, in every institution and walk of life. The Scouts are a great institution that is promoting young people and exposing them to opportunities and leadership that will serve people for the rest of their lives, and I think that nobody should be barred from that.

That’s a mouthful of obfuscation. What he fails to address is whether organizations and associations have the right to make distinctions between moral and immoral acts. Homosexuality, unlike for example race, is centrally defined by volitional sexual acts that are open to moral assessment. When President Obama refers to “gays and lesbians,” he’s not referring only to people who experience same-sex attraction. He’s referring to people who experience same-sex attraction; affirm homosexual acts as moral and normative; and affirm same-sex attraction, acts, and relationships as central to their identity. If, according to President Obama, those who affirm same-sex attraction, acts, and relationships as moral “should have access” to “every institution and walk of life,” how, pray tell, do those who believe such acts and relationships are immoral exercise their freedom of religion and association?

Does President Obama really mean that “nobody” should be barred from the Boy Scouts? What about those who affirm polyamory or adult consensual incest as central to their identity? What about those who espouse theories of racial superiority? And how does an organization promote moral straightness or fidelity to God if it can’t make distinctions between moral and immoral conduct? (Let’s not forget that God has some rather uncompromising things to say about homosexuality.)

The BSA Executive Board has said that if it changes the national policy, local organizations will still be permitted to adopt whatever policy they want regarding homosexuality. Well, homosexual acts are either moral or immoral. There is no middle ground. If the board votes to change the national policy, it will necessarily have to have concluded that homosexual acts are moral acts.  Only if  homosexual acts are moral acts could the board permit local clubs to allow those who affirm homosexuality to serve in leadership positions. It would make no sense for the board to say that local clubs have the right to permit those who affirm immoral acts to serve in leadership positions. Conversely, it would make no sense for the board to say that local clubs have the right to prohibit those who affirm moral acts from serving in leadership positions. There can be no moral mugwumpery on this issue.

Thanks to the relentless, presumptuous quest of homosexuals to shape the moral views of other people’s children, this Boy Scout kerfuffle is not over. Despite specious claims to the contrary, this battle is not about “equality” or “fairness.” It’s about the desperate desire of homosexuals to eradicate conservative moral beliefs and every last vestige of moral disapproval from the global moral landscape. The proper response to this obnoxious pressure from homosexual activists and corporations—neither of which group is noted for their commitment to God or sexual rectitude—would be for the BSA leadership to honor God and act bravely by publicly affirming that there are objective moral truths from which our sexual lives are not exempt.

When considering the potential for harm to children, set aside for a moment the issue of homosexuals who may prey on the boys under their charge. There is another harm that will be done to all boys whose leaders are homosexual. Those boys will be taught by example the deceit that homosexual acts and relationships are moral. It is unconscionable that an organization committed to God and moral integrity would countenance such destructive role modeling.

Christians must take a stand on this issue. My father, my husband, and my son were Boy Scouts, so it pains me to say this, but if the National Executive Board decides to abandon its national policy on homosexuality, Christians should abandon the Boy Scouts.

Take ACTION:  Click HERE to send an email to the BSA urging its board members to retain its current policy on homosexuality. If the BSA hopes to retain the trust, loyalty, and affection of parents and supporters nationwide, it must unequivocally reaffirm its current God-honoring policy.

Written by Laurie Higgins and David E. Smith

The Senate Executive Committee decided to override Illinois history this afternoon by approving SB 10 which redefines marriage to include two individuals of the same sex. The bill passed out of committee by a 9-5 vote along party lines. 

The bill now moves to the full Illinois Senate for its consideration, with a possible vote coming on Valentine’s Day (February 14th).  If it were to pass the Illinois Senate, it would move to the Illinois House for a committee hearing.  This makes the February 20th Defend Marriage Lobby Day more important than ever.  This planned lobby day couldn’t come at a better time. We have a very good chance of stopping this bill in the Illinois House IF we show up and speak out!  (Read more HERE.) 

Take ACTION:  If you haven’t yet sent an email or a fax to your state lawmakers, please do it now!  Click HERE to let them know what you think.

In response to the Illinois Senate’s action, IFI Executive Director David Smith pointed out: 

The state does not have the moral authority to redefine what all societies have understood marriage to be: a comprehensive union of one man and one woman. The government merely recognizes and regulates marriage, and it does so because it has a compelling interest in the health, welfare, and inherent rights of children—the next generation. 

ADF Legal Counsel Joe La Rue (pictured above), who testified in the committee hearing, had this to say about today’s committee recommendation: 

The bill to redefine marriage provides inadequate safeguards for religious liberty. It leaves churches and religious organizations at the whim and mercy of the courts who will have to interpret the marriage redefinition law and how it interacts with Illinois’ public accommodation and employment non-discrimination laws.

Simply put, this bill does not protect churches and religious organizations from having to rent their facilities to same-sex couples for wedding ceremonies, even when doing so violates the church’s religious beliefs. Nor does the bill protect churches and religious organizations from being forced to hire employees from same-sex marriages. The bill also provides no protection for individuals, like wedding photographers, who object to same-sex marriages but may be asked because of their business to participate in same-sex ceremonies.

This law does not protect religious freedom as it claims. Rather, it promotes religious intolerance, bigotry and discrimination.

(Read the entire ADF legal memo on SB 10 HERE.) 

Marriage has an inherent nature that the government merely recognizes and regulates. The government does not create marriage. The sole reason that justifies government involvement in marriage is that conjugal unions are the type of unions that produce children. Some argue that homosexual couples are raising children, so they too should be permitted to marry. But it is not merely the presence of children that creates marriage. If it did, then two aunts who were raising children together should be permitted to marry.  

In his annual Mother’s Day and Father’s Day proclamations, President Barack Obama has affirmed the essential roles that both mothers and fathers have in the lives of their children. This political agenda necessarily denies that these roles are essential. 

Neither SB 10 nor its sponsors have addressed the question of whether children have any inherent rights to know and be raised by their biological parents. 

The revisionist view of marriage, which is reflected in this radical proposal, argues that the sole necessary feature of marriage is the presence of feelings of romantic love and that marriage has no inherent connection to sexual complementarity or reproductive potential. If that view is true, then there is no rational justification for prohibiting plural or incestuous same-sex unions. 

As Illinois Family Institute’s cultural analyst Laurie Higgins explains, “The state has no vested interest in recognizing the love two people have for each other. The state has no more interest in recognizing the love two men or two women in sexual relationships have for each other than it does in recognizing the love two platonic friends have for each other.” 

Further, the legalization of same-sex “marriage” will undermine religious liberty as even homosexual legal scholars have affirmed. We have already witnessed the loss of religious liberty that is the logical outcome of government recognition of same-sex unions. Immediately following the passage of the Religious Freedom Protection and Civil Union Act, Catholic Charities and the Evangelical Child and Family Agency lost their right to have their child placement policies reflect their religious beliefs, and a Christian business owner was sued for refusing to rent his bed and breakfast to a homosexual couple for their civil union ceremony. 

When the traditional views of marriage are deemed discriminatory, the religious liberty of those who hold them will be diminished. 

The effort to to redefine marriage and family is shifting into high gear. The Chicago Sun-Times is reporting that the proponents of same-sex “marriage” plan to attempt to pass their disastrous  legislation in the Illinois Senate on Valentine’s Day. One would hope that our state lawmakers wouldn’t be susceptible to this type of emotional manipulation, but I am not so sure. From the article:

Valentine’s Day might wind up being more than just a day of romance for Illinois’ gay and lesbian couples.

Senate President John Cullerton (D-Chicago) wants Feb. 14 to be the day his legislative chamber votes to legalize gay marriages in Illinois.

“I’d like to pass it out of committee next week and pass it on Valentine’s Day,” Cullerton told the Chicago Sun-Times in a meeting Thursday with the newspaper’s Editorial Board.

Cullerton said he believes the legislation, Senate Bill 10, has the necessary 30 votes to pass and move to the House, clearing a major hurdle in making Illinois the 10th state to legalize same-sex marriages.

IFI Cultural Analyst Laurie Higgins notes the appropriateness of Cullerton’s proposal: “Cullerton’s statement epitomizes the Left’s approach to serious moral and legislative issues which is to divert the public’s attention from reason, logic and evidence by appealing to emotion. Yank on the heartstrings of an intellectually lazy public and voilà another victory for sexual anarchists and marriage nihilists.”

Now is the time to make your voice heard!

With the beginning of a new General Assembly — which includes 27 new state representatives, 16 new state senators and many new district boundaries — it is imperative that each of us again reaches out to our state lawmakers on this issue. There is a good chance that  your lawmakers have changed. We need you to contact your legislators today. Tell them that it is unconscionable to be complicit in the destruction of marriage and family in Illinois. They must hear from us! 

Take ACTION: 1. Click HERE to email your state lawmakers today, urging them to uphold natural marriage and not to cave to the culturally destructive groups that are intent on altering society’s definition and understanding of marriage. Tell them you do not support the legalization of gay “marriage,” and that studies show same-sex marriage is bad for children, families and society. Let them know that with all of the problems we face as a state and nation, the General Assembly should not be harming the institution most essential to the social and economic well-being of society.

2. Join us on February 20th in Springfield for a “Defend Marriage Lobby Day.” (Read more HERE.) Plan to bring your family and friends AND organize your church to support this lobbying day to defend marriage.

3. Pray that God would give wisdom to our state lawmakers. Pray that God would convict the hearts of our lawmakers. Pray that God would give courage to our lawmakers to do the right thing in the face of tremendous pressure to do otherwise. Pray that God would have mercy on the families of Illinois.

4. Ask your pastor to share this bulletin insert with the congregation. 

5. Share this message with family, friends and on social media. Forward this email to like-minded contacts. Ask them also to send emails and make calls.

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

Help expand our reach by forwarding this email
to like-minded family and friends.

No, the title of this piece is not referring to President Barack Obama’s “say what?” comparison of individual action to muskets and militia:

For the American people can no more meet the demands of today’s world by acting alone than American soldiers could have met the forces of fascism or communism with muskets and militias. 

Yes, it should trouble Americans of every political stripe to hear that Obama apparently views individualism and bootstrap independence as outmoded, ineffectual means of “meeting the demands of today’s world,” but the analogy to which the title refers is Obama’s audacious (as in demonstating a lack of respect) and fallacious comparison of homosexuality to race and sex:

We, the people, declare today that the most evident of truths – that all of us are created equal – is the star that guides us still; just as it guided our forebears through Seneca Falls, and Selma, and Stonewall; just as it guided all those men and women, sung and unsung, who left footprints along this great Mall, to hear a preacher say that we cannot walk alone; to hear a King proclaim that our individual freedom is inextricably bound to the freedom of every soul on Earth.

“Seneca Falls” refers to the historic women’s rights convention in Seneca Falls, New York. “Selma” refers to the signal event of the civil rights movement when blacks attempted to march to the capitol of Alabama to protest voter registration abuses and state-sanctioned violence against blacks.

And then there’s Stonewall…

The Stonewall Riots are considered by many to mark the beginning of the “gay liberation” movement. The Stonewall Inn was a mafia-owned bar in New York City patronized primarily by homosexuals and cross-dressers and which was regularly raided by police. Over the course of several nights in the summer of 1969, homosexuals rioted in protest of one such police raid.

It is wearying to have to address the comparison of homosexuality to sex or race yet again. But like the emperor’s non-existent clothes, Obama and his court continue to trot it out in public, knowing that the masses still deceive themselves into finding it utterly bedazzling.

Race and sex are 100 percent heritable conditions that are in all cases immutable and have no relation to volitional acts that are legitimate objects of moral assessment.

Homosexuality, on the other hand, is not 100 percent heritable, is not in all cases immutable, and is constituted by volitional acts that are legitimate objects of moral assessment.  A more sound analogy would compare homosexuality to polyamory or pedophilia (or for those who put finer distinctions on the condition currently being renamed “minor-attracted persons,” there is pedophilia, hebephilia, and ephebophilia).

Obama goes on to say that “Our journey is not complete until our gay brothers and sisters are treated like anyone else under the law – for if we are truly created equal, then surely the love we commit to one another must be equal as well.” (Translated, this means that “same-sex marriage” should be legalized.) Such foolishness from our president should be embarrassing, but we seemed to be losing our capacity to recognize foolishness or be embarrassed.

First, those who choose to place their same-sex attraction at the center of their identity are “treated like anyone else under the law.” They are perfectly free to participate in the sexually complementary institution of marriage. They choose not to. They are not asking to be treated equally. They are demanding to be treated specially. They want the unilateral right to jettison the central defining feature of marriage (i.e., sexual complementarity)—something, by the way, that polygamists, polyamorists, “minor-attracted persons,” and sibling-lovers are not permitted to do.

Second, does our president actually believe the idea he clunkily articulated in his speech, that “surely the love we commit to one another must be equal as well”? Does he believe the love polygamists “commit” to their wives “must be equal as well”? Does he believe the love a high school teacher commits to his student “must be equal as well”? Does he believe the love five polyamorists of assorted genders “commit” to one another “must be equal” as well? Does he believe the love a brother and sister “commit” to each other “must be equal as well”?

Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practise to deceive.

Obama audaciously exploits the legacy and faith of Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. by linking King’s righteous battle for the civil rights of black Americans to the unrighteous battle to normalize homosexuality and legalize homosexual faux-marriage. While arrogating for his ignoble purposes the name of Martin Luther King, Obama conveniently omits the fact that King said, “How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God.”

While Obama claims to be a follower of Christ (a fact that doesn’t seem to upset the Left nearly as much as George Bush’s Christianity did), he flouts the teachings of Christ. It’s unclear whether Obama’s heretical views of marriage reflect Jeremiah Wright’s teaching, Obama’s spiritual and intellectual laziness, or his political opportunism. What is clear is that his views are destructive.

But while both the Old and New Testaments affirm marriage as a sexually complementary institution, defending marriage as such need not derive from religious belief. Even atheists and agnostics are able to recognize and defend marriage as a sexually complementary institution, which explains why in France recently, there were atheists (as well as homosexuals) joining people of faith to defend the traditional and true understanding of marriage. 

Some will claim in high dudgeon that criticisms of Obama demonstrate a lack of respect for the Office of President. Americans, however, have no ethical obligation to refrain from criticizing ideas that are ignorant, offensive, and destructive—even if those ideas are expressed by the president. In fact, the office Obama occupies provides him with an exceptional degree of influence that requires the pernicious ideas he promotes to be challenged. And the de facto destruction of marriage—which is the idea he was promoting in his inaugural speech—is, indeed, pernicious.

Poll Support for ‘Gay Marriage’ Plummets

Who would have thought that an anti-”gay marriage” rally in France would draw at least 340,000 people and possibly much more — and that support for homosexual “marriage” would drop precipitously in the polls? (French support for same-sex “marriage” reportedly fell from 65 percent to 52 percent — though I don’t trust polls and suspect that most surveys overstate support for the pro-homosexual agenda.)

Beneath the YouTube video (after the jump) there is an excerpt from an AP report on the rally, which includes a police estimate of 340,000 people attending the massive rally (organizers claimed 800,000 marchers).

Note too that the organizers of the rally folded a message of opposing “homophobia” into their pro-natural-message campaign (e.g, see the marcher holding the “Friend of Marriage Not Homophobia” sign at 1:09 of this 3-minute video). This viewpoint is far from one that AFTAH would put forward, but nevertheless the rally shows how unpopular the dominant LGBT goal of homosexual “marriage” is even in highly secularized countries like France.

PS. The huge rally in socialist-run France and the plummeting “gay marriage” poll numbers speak volumes about the “gay” activist propaganda line that LGBT victories are “inevitable.” They are not.

YouTube URL: http://www.youtube.com/embed/LUeFZcCdpGE

Gay Marriage Protest Converges on Eiffel Tower

PARIS (AP) [Jan. 13, 2013] — Holding aloft ancient flags and young children, hundreds of thousands of people converged Sunday on the Eiffel Tower to protest the French president’s plan to legalize gay marriage and thus allow same-sex couples to adopt and conceive children.

The opposition to President Francois Hollande’s plan has underscored divisions among the secular-but-Catholic French, especially more traditional rural areas versus urban enclaves. But while polls show the majority of French still support legalizing gay marriage, that backing gets more lukewarm when children come into play.

The protest march started at three points across Paris, filling boulevards throughout the city as demonstrators walked six kilometers (3 miles) to the grounds of France’s most recognizable monument. Paris police estimated the crowd at 340,000, making it one of the largest demonstrations in Paris since an education protest in 1984.

“This law is going to lead to a change of civilization that we don’t want,” said Philippe Javaloyes, a literature teacher who bused in with 300 people from Franche Comte in the far east. “We have nothing against different ways of living, but we think that a child must grow up with a mother and a father.”

Public opposition spearheaded by religious leaders has chipped away at the popularity of Hollande’s plan in recent months. About 52 percent of French favor legalizing gay marriage, according to a survey released Sunday, down from as high as 65 percent in August.

French civil unions, allowed since 1999, are at least as popular among heterosexuals as among gay and lesbian couples. But that law has no provisions for adoption or assisted reproduction, which are at the heart of the latest debate.

Hollande’s Socialist Party has sidestepped the debate on assisted reproduction, promising to examine it in March after party members split on including it in the latest proposal. That hasn’t assuaged the concerns of many in Sunday’s protest, however, who fear it’s only a matter of time.

“They’re talking about putting into national identity cards Parent 1, Parent 2, Parent 3, Parent 4. Mom, dad and the kids are going to be wiped off the map, and that’s going to be bad for any country, any civilization,” said Melissa Michel, a Franco-American mother of five who was among a group from the south of France on a train reserved specifically for the protest…. [click HERE to continue reading full AP article]

More background on French opposition to ‘gay marriage’

The growing coalition against “gay marriage” in France is made up of traditional religious and irreligious (including pro-”gay”) forces. See THIS LifeSiteNews story describing previous rallies in Paris in November 2012 — one secular, the other religious.

Photos: Facebook page of “La Manif Pour Tous”: http://www.facebook.com/LaManifPourTous

Yesterday, I discussed the dishonesty of the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN) when reporting on the ill-conceived “transgender” policy at East Aurora High School in Aurora, Illinois and the school board’s dissolution of the ad hoc committee that included five deviant sexuality activists from outside the community. Anyone who naively believes the dissolution of this unelected committee due to community opposition is the definitive end to this story should read the email below that was sent by one of the activists to the other ad hoc committee members. It reveals the  presumptuousness, self-righteousness, and tenacity of “LGBT”-affirming activists: 

Dear Members of the Ad Hoc Committee: 

For myself and the hundreds of supporters of transgender students and their families in the East Aurora Schools, I was extremely disappointed to learn that the District 131 school board dissolved the Ad Hoc Committee.  I learned this, not as a courtesy from anyone at the district, but from the news media.  Learning secondhand about the decision sends a clear message that the district does not value the many exhausting hours members have volunteered and that the work we have done has been for nothing.  Notwithstanding recent events, we know that we have been a part of a critical conversation that must continue for the health and safety of East Aurora youth and families. 

Dissolving the Ad Hoc Committee fails the community and the district.  The dialogue beginning to develop presented an important opportunity for education and agreement on the best approach for the district to support a population of its students.  The difficult nature of the dialogue reveals just how critical it is that we have it.  The fact is that there are transgender students in East Aurora Schools (and all schools) and it is the district’s obligation to support and protect them.  Quitting the work now leaves unaddressed the damage done and a community divided.  Not to mention the liability incurred in recognizing the need for the work and then walking away. 

The work we’ve started is simply too important to abandon and the young people to whom we and the district are beholden deserve our thoughtful attention.  Thus, I propose that we continue the discussion with or without the official stamp of the school board. 

Please let me know whether you are available to meet on Wednesday, January 9 at 6p or Wednesday, January 16 at 6p to discuss how to move forward.  Location will be determined. 

You may reach me at sarah@illinoissafeschools.org or at 312-368-9070 ex. 323.

A few points in response:

• Since it is the mission of the Illinois Safe Schools Alliance to foist their beliefs about the nature and morality of homosexuality and gender confusion on public schools, why does Sarah Schriber claim that her “exhausting hours” were volunteer hours? And if she so deeply resents the rejection by the school board and community of her “volunteer” contributions, why is she initiating the continuation of her “volunteer” work?
• Schriber’s implicit claim about wanting to “dialogue” is laughable. Neither her organization nor any other “LGBT” advocacy organization seeks to “dialogue” with conservatives on how to think about issues related to same-sex attraction or gender-confusion. They will tolerate no other conceptualizations of homosexuality and gender-confusion than their own. Anyone who disagrees with their non-factual, subjective, unproven assumptions about the nature and morality of homosexual acts, cross-dressing, elective amputations of healthy body parts, “same-sex marriage,” or “same-sex adoption” are deemed ignorant hateful bigots. For evidence of that, just read the email sent by another member of the former ad hoc committee, the gender-confused Mr. Joanie Wimmer.
• Schriber’s declaration that she intends to continue to meet even “without the official stamp of the school board” reveals not merely how presumptuous she is, but how tenacious. Aurora community members need to be even more tenacious.

And Illinoisans in other communities need to be prepared to be equally tenacious because advocates like Schriber are coming to your schools–including your elementary schools. Unfortunately, many are employed in your schools even now, working behind the scenes to create policy and exploit curricula in their efforts to transform the beliefs and values of your children.

Anyone who’s concerned about the increasing involvement of deviant sexuality activists in our public schools should pay close attention to recent events in Aurora, Illinois—events that may unfold further. Those who believe the issue is over do not understand the obsessive fervor with which these activists pursue their dystopian vision, including corrupting the hearts and minds of our children. 

To review, an administrator (Christine Aird) in East Aurora School District 131 worked behind the scenes last summer with an activist from the “LGBT”-affirming organization, ironically named the Illinois Safe Schools Alliance, to come up with an unnecessary school policy that would have permitted gender-confused students to use the restrooms and locker rooms of opposite sex students. This administrator then misled the school board into thinking that such policy was required by state law. Public opposition to the policy resulted in the school board rescinding the policy four days later. 

Subsequently, the board formed an unelected, ad hoc committee to revisit policy for gender-confused students. On this committee sat two homosexual activists from outside Aurora, an activist from the Illinois Safe Schools Alliance who does not live in Aurora, and two cross-dressing men who do not live in Aurora. 

Well over 100 Aurora community members, most of whom were Hispanic, showed up at ad hoc committee and school board meetings to express their strong opposition to any policy that would allow students to use restrooms and locker rooms of opposite sex students. They also expressed opposition to non-community members serving on any committee that was creating policy for the district. As a result primarily of community involvement, the school board disbanded the ad hoc committee after just two meetings. 

In reporting on this story, Nathan Smith, public policy associate for the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN) managed to accomplish what I thought was impossible: diminish my view of GLSEN. His GLSEN blog post about this entire debacle was dishonest in two significant ways. 

First and most important, Smith attributed the decision of the East Aurora High School Board of Education to dissolve the ad hoc committee solely to the Illinois Family Institute. Although IFI appreciates Smith’s assessment of our influence, his assertion is untrue, likely deliberately deceitful, and unfair to the scores of Aurora citizens who were most responsible for the decision of their school board to dissolve the ad hoc committee. 

His assertion that IFI was responsible reflects either journalistic incompetence or deliberate dishonesty or both. The article I wrote in which I urged Illinoisans, particularly Aurora community members, to contact the board of education was published before the ad hoc committee had even formed. 

It was the Aurora community members who showed up at the second meeting of the ad hoc committee and a subsequent school board meeting who were responsible for the school board’s decision to dissolve the committee, and yet Smith never said a word about their attendance at these meetings and their vocal opposition to the controversial policy.  It’s mind-boggling that anyone reporting on this event would fail to mention that over 100 community members attended the meeting and opposed both the policy and the composition of the ad hoc committee.

It’s obvious why Smith would omit these inconvenient truths from his blog post. It serves GLSEN’s strategic purposes to conceal community opposition to the perverse goals of deviant sexuality advocates—goals that GLSEN relentlessly promotes. It also serves GLSEN not only to distract the public’s attention from the effectiveness of community involvement but to drum up hatred against IFI. Although, I understand Smith’s strategic reasons for his startling omissions, I would hope that a commitment to truth and accuracy would supersede GLSEN’s strategic interests. 

Second, Smith erroneously claims that the East Aurora School Board disbanded “efforts to protect” gender-confused students. What the school board did was disband the committee on which multiple activists who were not Aurora community members were serving and which the community opposed. Smith assumes that the only way to protect students who suffer from gender confusion is to maintain a committee composed of unelected, non-community members; to accept his ontological and moral presuppositions about gender confusion; and to enact policy with which he agrees. In a diverse world, however, there are multiple, competing visions of how best to respond to and protect those who experience gender confusion. 

One final point, unlike the “progressive” activists who actually served on the ad hoc committee while not living in Aurora, I only wrote about the story, as did homosexual and gender-confused activists all over the country. No IFI employee even attended a meeting of the school board or ad hoc committee.

The Public Inauguration of a New Moral McCarthyism

A new chapter in America’s moral revolution came today as Atlanta pastor Louie Giglio withdrew from giving the benediction at President Obama’s second inaugural ceremony. In a statement released to the White House and the Presidential Inaugural Committee, Giglio said that he withdrew because of the furor that emerged yesterday after a liberal watchdog group revealed that almost twenty years ago he had preached a sermon in which he had stated that homosexuality is a sin and that the “only way out of a homosexual lifestyle … is through the healing power of Jesus.”

In other words, a Christian pastor has been effectively dis-invited from delivering an inaugural prayer because he believes and teaches Christian truth.

The fact that Giglio was actually dis-invited was made clear in a statement from Addie Whisenant of the Presidential Inaugural Committee:

“We were not aware of Pastor Giglio’s past comments at the time of his selection, and they don’t reflect our desire to celebrate the strength and diversity of our country at this inaugural. Pastor Giglio was asked to deliver the benediction in large part because of his leadership in combating human trafficking around the world. As we now work to select someone to deliver the benediction, we will ensure their beliefs reflect this administration’s vision of inclusion and acceptance for all Americans.”

That statement is, in effect, an embarrassed apology for having invited Louie Giglio in the first place. Whisenant’s statement apologizes for the Presidential Inaugural Committee’s failure to make certain that their selection had never, at any time, for any reason, believed that homosexuality is less than a perfectly acceptable lifestyle. The committee then promised to repent and learn from their failure, committing to select a replacement who would “reflect this administration’s vision of inclusion and acceptance.”

The imbroglio over Louie Giglio is the clearest evidence of the new Moral McCarthyism of our sexually “tolerant” age. During the infamous McCarthy hearings, witnesses would be asked, “Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party?”

In the version now to be employed by the Presidential Inaugural Committee, the question will be: “Are you now or have you ever been one who believes that homosexuality (or bisexuality, or transsexualism, etc.) is anything less than morally acceptable and worthy of celebration?”

Louie Giglio, pastor of Atlanta’s Passion City Church, is also founder of the Passion movement that brings tens of thousands of Christian young people together to hear Giglio, along with speakers such as John Piper. They urge a rising generation of young Christians to make a passionate commitment to Christ. In recent years, the movement has also sought to raise awareness and activism among young Christians on the issue of sex trafficking. It was that activism that caught the attention of both President Obama and the Presidential Inaugural Committee.

Note carefully that both the White House and the committee were ready to celebrate Giglio’s activism on sex trafficking, but all that was swept away by the Moral McCarthyism on the question of homosexuality.

Two other dimensions of this story also demand attention. First, we should note that Louie Giglio has not been known lately for taking any stand on the issue of homosexuality. To the contrary, Giglio’s own statement withdrawing from the invitation made this clear:

“Due to a message of mine that has surfaced from 15-20 years ago, it is likely that my participation, and the prayer I would offer, will be dwarfed by those seeking to make their agenda the focal point of the inauguration. Clearly, speaking on this issue has not been in the range of my priorities in the past fifteen years. Instead, my aim has been to call people to ultimate significance as we make much of Jesus Christ.”

A fair-minded reading of that statement indicates that Pastor Giglio has strategically avoided any confrontation with the issue of homosexuality for at least fifteen years. The issue “has not been in the range of my priorities,” he said. Given the Bible’s insistance that sexual morality is inseparable from our “ultimate significance as we make much of Jesus Christ,” this must have been a difficult strategy. It is also a strategy that is very attractive to those who want to avoid being castigated as intolerant or homophobic. As this controversy makes abundantly clear, it is a failed strategy. Louie Giglio was cast out of the circle of the acceptable simply because a liberal watchdog group found one sermon he preached almost twenty years ago. If a preacher has ever taken a stand on biblical conviction, he risks being exposed decades after the fact. Anyone who teaches at any time, to any degree, that homosexual behavior is a sin is now to be cast out.

Second, we should note that Pastor Giglio’s sermon was, as we would expect and hope, filled with grace and the promise of the Gospel. Giglio did not just state that homosexuals are sinners — he made clear that every single human being is a sinner, in need of the redemption that is found only in Jesus Christ. “We’ve got to say to the homosexuals, the same thing that I say to you and that you would say to me … It’s not easy to change, but it’s possible to change,” he preached. He pointed his congregation, gay and straight, to “the healing power of Jesus.” He called his entire congregation to repent and come to Christ by faith.

That is the quintessential Christian Gospel. That is undiluted biblical truth. Those words are the consensus of the Church for over 2,000 years, and the firm belief held by the vast majority of Christians around the world today.

The Presidential Inaugural Committee and the White House have now declared historic, biblical Christianity to be out of bounds, casting it off the inaugural program as an embarrassment. By its newly articulated standard, any preacher who holds to the faith of the church for the last 2,000 years is persona non grata. By this standard, no Roman Catholic prelate or priest can participate in the ceremony. No Evangelical who holds to biblical orthodoxy is welcome. The vast majority of Christians around the world have been disinvited. Mormons, and the rabbis of Orthodox Judaism are out. Any Muslim imam who could walk freely in Cairo would be denied a place on the inaugural program. Billy Graham, who participated in at least ten presidential inaugurations is welcome no more. Rick Warren, who incited a similar controversy when he prayed at President Obama’s first inauguration, is way out of bounds. In the span of just four years, the rules are fully changed.

The gauntlet was thrown down yesterday, and the axe fell today. Wayne Besen, founder of the activist group Truth Wins Out, told The New York Times yesterday: “It is imperative that Giglio clarify his remarks and explain whether he has evolved on gay rights, like so many other faith and political leaders. It would be a shame to select a preacher with backward views on LBGT people at a moment when the nation is rapidly moving forward on our issues.”

And there you have it — anyone who has ever believed that homosexuality is morally problematic in any way must now offer public repentance and evidence of having “evolved” on the question. This is the language that President Obama used of his own “evolving” position on same-sex marriage. This is what is now openly demanded of Christians today. If you want to avoid being thrown off the program, you had better learn to evolve fast, and repent in public.

This is precisely what biblical Christians cannot do. While seeking to be gentle in spirit and ruthlessly Gospel-centered in speaking of any sin, we cannot cease to speak of sin as sin. To do so is not only to deny the authority of Scripture, not only to reject the moral consensus of the saints, but it undermines the Gospel itself. The Gospel makes no sense, and is robbed of its saving power, if sin is denied as sin.

An imbroglio is a painful and embarrassing conflict. The imbroglio surrounding Louie Giglio is not only painful, it is revealing. We now see the new Moral McCarthyism in its undisguised and unvarnished reality. If you are a Christian, get ready for the question you will now undoubtedly face: “Do you now or have you ever believed that homosexuality is a sin?” There is nowhere to hide.

Written by David E. Smith and Laurie Higgins

Our state lawmakers are returning to Springfield this week and are expected to debate the controversial proposal to redefine marriage, a change that would prove destructive to children, family, society, and religious liberty in Illinois.

Proponents of marriage re-definition are pulling out all the stops to get what they want during the lame duck session of the General Assembly (January 2-9). Despite the national budget crisis and the looming “fiscal cliff,” they have even pulled President Barack Obama into the debate hoping that his recent statements in favor of same-sex “marriage” will sway a few votes in Springfield.  You may remember that Obama’s views on marriage “evolved” just seven months ago. It is worth noting that President Obama has also issued multiple Mother’s Day and Father’s Day proclamations in which he extolled the critical value of both mothers and fathers in the lives of children, something denied by the legalization of same-sex “marriage.”

It is vital that your voices be heard by your state senators and representatives even if you believe they already support the historical definition of natural marriage. They are hearing from our opponents. They need to hear from you.

The silence and complacency demonstrated by far too many Illinoisans on issues related to homosexuality and children, including marriage, should be shocking. The tragedy is that it’s not. While the Left pushes their unholy agenda with tenacity and religious fervor, conservatives say and do virtually nothing out of fear and a woefully misguided notion of compassion. It’s long past time for conservatives to be as bold and tenacious in defense of marriage as the other side is in destroying it. Please take a few minutes today or tomorrow to send a message to Springfield:

Take ACTION:  1. Click HERE to email your state lawmakers today, urging them to uphold natural marriage and not to cave to the politically correct and culturally destructive groups that are intent on altering society’s definition and understanding of marriage. 

2. Pray that God would give wisdom to our state lawmakers.  Pray that God would convict the hearts of our lawmakers.  Pray that God would give courage to our lawmakers to do the right thing in the face of tremendous pressure to do otherwise. Pray that God would have mercy on the families of Illinois.

3. Write a Letter to the Editor of your local daily and weekly paper and their websites. These need to be written and submitted without delay from all corners of Illinois. Messages should be concise, no more than 150-250 words, but shorter is better. For help locating the contact information for a publication in your area, click HERE.

4. Ask your pastor to share this bulletin insert with the congregation. 

5. Share this message with family, friends and on social media.  Forward this email to like-minded contacts.  Ask them to also send emails and make calls.

Here are some talking points that may be helpful in crafting letters or talking to friends:

• Make the letter personal about you, your family, your children or someone important in your life who have been negatively affected by homosexuality.
• Those who identify as homosexual have the freedom to make lifetime commitments to whomever they wish. They have no right to redefine the institution of marriage for everyone else.
• Governments recognize the sexually complementary institution of marriage in order to protect the inherent rights and needs of children, which assures the continued health and stability of the country.
• Children have an inherent, inviolate right to know and be raised whenever possible by their biological parents, a right that is further undermined by homosexual marriage.
• If the government severs marriage from gender, sexual complementarity and procreative potential, there is no rational reason to prohibit plural marriage or incestuous marriage.
• Although subjective feelings of love are important to those choosing to marry, they are irrelevant to the government’s reasons for being involved in recognizing, regulating and promoting marriage.  The government is involved in marriage centrally to protect the rights and needs of children by securing the connection of children to their biological parents.
• Despite assurances of religious protections, people of faith will lose religious rights if same-sex “marriage” is legalized.
• The freedom to decide what our children and grandchildren are taught in schools will come under attack. Proponents of the normalization of homosexuality will vigorously push for even elementary school children to be taught about homosexuality via the topic of “diverse family structures” and “family diversity.”
• Despite what “progressives” say, legal prohibitions of same-sex “marriage” are not equivalent to bans on interracial marriage. First, homosexuality is not analogous to race.  Second, bans on interracial marriage introduced a criteria that was not essential to marriage: race. One’s race has nothing to do with the central defining feature of marriage: procreative potential. 
• Society does not create marriage; society merely recognizes a type of relationship that exists and predates the state.

Please don’t be deceived by the Left’s lie that homosexuals have the right to unilaterally jettison the central defining feature of marriage (i.e. sexual complementarity), or their lie that jettisoning sexual complementarity will not affect heterosexual marriage, or that redefining marriage will not harm children, or that being allowed to marry will make homosexual relationships more stable or sexually faithful.

There is no more significant legislative battle than the one over marriage. We must send a message to our legislators that some societal conventions and institutions embody timeless, immutable, objective truths. Sexually complementary marriage is one such institution, and it is the essential building block of every healthy society. We must  do everything within our power to protect and preserve it. Thank you!

Please forward this article to your family and friends in Illinois.

Over the Christmas weekend, you may have seen or heard the reports from the media  extolling the news that 260 clergy — mostly from the Chicago area — signed a petition in support of redefining marriage.  In response to this story, IFI’s Laurie Higgins had some very good quotes in a New York Times article, while I had a short quote in the WGN-TV report that aired four days ago.

It is important that we keep this “news” in perspective.  In the state of Illinois, there are over a thousand Roman Catholic churches, over a thousand Southern Baptist churches, more than 500 Missouri Synod Lutheran churches, and there are thousands of other churches of various denominations — including Reformed, EV Free, Nazarene, Assemblies of God, COGIC, Charismatic, Baptist, Eastern Orthodox, Greek Orthodox, Seven Day Adventists, Pentecostal, Mennonite, Independent — all of whom officially and publicly acknowledge that God ordained marriage as the union of one man and one woman, and that sexual activity outside the bonds of natural marriage is sinful.

It is no surprise to learn that a tiny fraction of religious leaders would compromise, distort, and misuse the Word of God for the praise of man and/or to achieve a political goal.  Kara Wagner Sherer of St. John’s Episcopal Church in Chicago was quoted in the New York Times article saying, “It doesn’t have to be a faith issue… We understand our Scripture in a different way.”  That statement really says it all.  She is correct, their stand is not a faith issue.  Divorcing God from the equation and dismissing thousands of years of Christian teaching, thought and understanding reveals their motives as distinctly humanistic and political.

Despite the holiday season, our state lawmakers need to hear from us — in person, by phone or by email.  Proponents of marriage redefinition are engaged in a full-court press right now, and they are planning to use the upcoming lame duck session (January 2-8) to accomplish their goal.

This past Saturday morning, I spoke to a state lawmaker — a Democrat — who expressed to me his concern.  He has been receiving more calls and emails in favor of same-sex marriage than he has been receiving against it.  I explained to him that the vast majority of Illinoisans were busy with family, church, shopping, cooking and traveling.  I assured him that after the Christmas weekend, that opposition to redefining marriage would certainly ramp up.  

Please prove me right!

Take ACTION: Click HERE to email your state lawmakers today, urging them to uphold natural marriage and not to cave to the politically correct and culturally destructive groups who are intent on altering society’s understanding of marriage.  Be assured, your calls and emails are important!  Legislators take very seriously the letters and the numbers of calls they receive – particularly letters that are written by their constituents (as opposed to pre-written form letters.) 

THANK YOU!

P.S.  Would you consider helping meet our $20,000 end-of-year matching challenge? It is vital that we raise these critical funds so that we are able to go into next year to fight marriage redefinition and many other anti-family proposals. 

Any donation given or mailed by December 31st will go toward this matching challenge and will be fully tax-deductible, lowering your 2012 tax burden.

Click HERE to support IFI and have your donation doubled!

 To make a credit card donation over the phone, call the IFI office at (708) 781-9328.  You can also send a gift to P.O. Box 88848, Carol Stream, IL  60188.