Written by Kevin DeYoung, The Gospel Coalition

On Wednesday afternoon, to no one’s surprise, President Obama revealed in an interview that after some “evolution” he has “concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same sex couples should be able to get married.” This after the Vice-President came out last Sunday strongly in favor of gay marriage. Not coincidentally, the New York Times ran an article on Tuesday (an election day with a marriage amendment on one ballot) about how popular and not controversial gay television characters have become. In other words, everyone else has grown up so why don’t you? It can seem like the whole world is having a gay old time, with conservative Christians the only ones refusing to party.

The temptation, then, is for Christians go silent and give up the marriage fight: “It’s no use staying in this battle,” we think to ourselves. “We don’t have to change our personal position. We’ll keep speaking the truth and upholding the Bible in our churches, but getting worked up over gay marriage in the public square is counter productive. It’s a waste of time. It makes us look bad. It ruins our witness. And we’ve already lost. Time to throw in the towel.” I understand that temptation. It is an easier way. But I do not think it is the right way, the God glorifying way, or the way of love.

Here are five reasons Christians should continue to publicly and winsomely oppose bestowing the term and institution of marriage upon same-sex couples:

1. Every time the issue of gay marriage has been put to a vote by the people, the people have voted to uphold traditional marriage. Even in California. In fact, the amendment passed in North Carolina on Tuesday by a wider margin (61-39) than a similar measure passed six years ago in Virginia (57-42). The amendment passed in North Carolina, a swing state Obama carried in 2008, by 22 percentage points. We should not think that gay marriage in all the land is a foregone conclusion. To date 30 states have constitutionally defined marriage as between a man and a woman.

2. The promotion and legal recognition of homosexual unions is not in the interest of the common good. That may sound benighted, if not bigoted. But we must say it in love: codifying the indistinguishability of gender will not make for the “peace of the city.” It rubs against the grain of the universe, and when you rub against the grain of divine design you’re bound to get splinters. Or worse. The society which says sex is up to your own definition and the family unit is utterly fungible is not a society that serves its children, its women, or its own long term well being.

3. Marriage is not simply the term we use to describe those relationships most precious to us. The word means something and has meant something throughout history. Marriage is more than a union of hearts and minds. It involves a union of bodies–and not bodies in any old way we please, as if giving your cousin a wet willy in the ear makes you married. Marriage, to quote one set of scholars, is a” comprehensive union of two sexually complementary persons who seal (consummate or complete) their relationship by the generative act—by the kind of activity that is by its nature fulfilled by the conception of a child. So marriage itself is oriented to and fulfilled by the bearing, rearing, and education of children.” This conjugal view of marriage states in complex language what would have been a truism until a couple generations ago. Marriage is what children (can) come from. Where that element is not present (at the level of sheer design and function, even if not always in fulfillment), marriage is not a reality. We should not concede that “gay marriage” is really marriage. What’s more, as Christians we understand that the great mystery of marriage can never be captured between a relationship of Christ and Christ or church and church.

4. Allowing for the legalization of gay marriage further normalizes what was until very recently, and still should be, considered deviant behavior. While it’s true that politics is downstream from culture, it’s also true that law is one of the tributaries contributing to culture. In our age of hyper-tolerance we try to avoid stigmas, but stigmas can be an expression of common grace. Who knows how many stupid sinful things I’ve been kept from doing because I knew my peers and my community would deem it shameful. Our cultural elites may never consider homosexuality shameful, but amendments that define marriage as one man and one woman serve a noble end by defining what is as what ought to be. We do not help each other in the fight for holiness when we allow for righteousness to look increasingly strange and sin to look increasingly normal.

5. We are naive if we think a laissez faire compromise would be enjoyed by all if only the conservative Christians would stop being so dogmatic. The next step after giving up the marriage fight is not a happy millennium of everyone everywhere doing marriage in his own way. The step after surrender is conquest. I’m not suggesting heterosexuals would no longer be able to get married. What I am suggesting is that the cultural pressure will not stop with allowing for some “marriages” to be homosexual. It will keep mounting until allaccept and finally celebrate that homosexuality is one of Diversity’s great gifts. The goal is not for different expressions of marriage, but for the elimination of definitions altogether. Capitulating on gay marriage may feel like giving up an inch in bad law to gain a mile in good will. But the reality will be far different. For as in all of the devil’s bargains, the good will doesn’t last nearly so long as the law.

WARNING: Not for younger readers

They used to arrest middle-aged perverts who get their jollies from talking dirty to children. Today, they get a television show, a nationally syndicated column, a lecture circuit and multiple visits to the Obama White House.

You know: “Forward.”

The irony is palpable. Dan Savage, sex columnist and founder of the LGBT anti-bullying “It Gets Better” campaign, has been outed. Not as a homosexual. He’s out and proud in that regard. In fact, Savage pushes his “anything goes” brand of sexual anarchy on kids worldwide. MTV has even given the sex-obsessed radical his own show, “Savage U” – a moral-relativist platform from which to corrupt the kiddos.

Creepy stuff.

No, Savage has finally managed to publicly discredit himself as the anti-Christian bigot and bully he’s always been. Never again will this guy be taken seriously as an anti-bullying crusader.

Savage lectures teens in high schools and colleges around the country on the benefits of “non-monogamy,” the occasional “three-way” tryst and any other disease-spreading sexual impulse that might cross their impressionable, hormone-charged young minds (and many they can’t yet imagine).

Well, recently, rather than just shocking his teenaged audience with vulgar, sophomoric psychobabble as usual, Savage apparently thought it’d be fun to bully the kids with whom he disagreed.

While addressing a crowd of hundreds of high schoolers at the National High School Journalism Convention, Savage launched into an unhinged anti-Christian diatribe. He advised the teens to “ignore the bulls*** in the Bible” about sexual morality. “We ignore bulls*** in the Bible about all sorts of things,” he barked.

He then walked through a list of the same tired left-wing talking points about the Bible – long ago discredited – covering shellfish, virginity, etc. “The Bible is a radically pro-slavery document,” he said (anti-Christian trash we’ve come to expect from the secular left).

But when a hundred or more kids got up and began to walk out on Savage’s anti-Christian rant, the 47-year-old tough guy turned his hostility toward them. “It’s funny to someone who is on the receiving end of beatings that are justified by the Bible how pansy***** people react when you push back,” he mocked. Some of the young girls were seen leaving in tears.

“It took a real dark, hostile turn, certainly, as I saw it,” teacher Rick Tuttle told CNN. “It became very hostile toward Christianity, to the point that many students did walk out, including some of my students.

“They felt that they were attacked … a very pointed, direct attack on one particular group of students. It’s amazing that we go to an anti-bullying speech and one group of students is picked on in particular, with harsh, profane language.”

But the only thing surprising is that anyone is surprised. Dan Savage is known in Christian circles at “the gay Fred Phelps.” Phelps, of course, is the similarly cartoonish Westboro Baptist “preacher” who gained notoriety by protesting military funerals with his incestuous brood of pseudo-Christian haters. Savage is Phelps’ photo negative. Whereas Phelps’ hateful mantra is “God hates fags,” Savage’s central message is “I hate God and anyone who loves Him.”

Savage’s primary claim to fame is that he formed the website “Santorum.com,” to create a “Google bomb” that would smear the good name of former senator and presidential candidate Rick Santorum. On the site he redefined the senator’s last name, Santorum, using language so vile and repulsive that I won’t repeat it. When Christian advocate and Americans for Truth founder Peter LaBarbera asked Savage to take down the website, Savage responded, “I’m asking Peter LaBarbera to go f*** himself.”

Savage also once bragged that he licked the doorknobs at former Republican presidential candidate Gary Bauer’s campaign office in hopes of giving Mr. Bauer the flu.

Savage told the Daily Pennsylvanian in 2006 that Carl Romanelli, a U.S. senate candidate he didn’t like, “should be dragged behind a pickup truck until there’s nothing left but the rope.” In the same interview, he opined: “Mr. Romanelli should go f*** himself.” He also once said on HBO that he “wished all Republicans were f***ing dead.”

Yep, this deviant troglodyte is the face of the left’s anti-bullying efforts. I’ve often said that those wonderfully “tolerant” liberals – the self-styled opponents of “hate” and “bigotry” – are the most intolerant, hateful bigots among us.

Thanks for proving my point, Dan.

WARNING: Not for younger readers

With Bill Clinton-esque rhetorical slipperiness, Dan Savage responds to my criticism of his anti-Christian hate speech by citing a video from which I did not quote and to which I did not provide a link in either of my two articles this week. About that video, he asks the following:

[S]ee if you can detect hate speech, ‘virulent anti-Christian bigotry,’ or ‘language so hateful’ that I make ‘Reverend Fred Phelps look like a choir boy’ in my advice to gay kids with evangelical Christian parents.

Dan Savage claims that the video I was referring to when providing evidence that he exhibits virulent anti-Christian bigotry using hateful language was the video about homosexuals coming out to their Evangelical families. Of course, that is an offensive video, but it isn’t the one from which I quoted this week.

The video  (now removed) from which I quoted and to which I provided a link was a video from a speaking engagement of Savage’s at Rhodes College.

By directing attention to a video that I did not quote from or link to in either of this week’s articles, Savage maladroitly attempts to divert attention away from the adjectives he used to describe orthodox Christians and which I quoted several times in this week’s articles.

The question Savage needs to answer is: Did he describe orthodox Christians (i.e., those who hold traditional, historical biblical views on the nature and morality of homosexuality) as “bat sh*t, a**h*le, dou**ebags” while speaking at Rhodes College?

One final note: Savage reports that the video production service he uses, Hypomania Content, removed six of his videos purportedly due to their “poor quality” rather than their “content.” It’s completely understandable that Hypomania Content would want only “high quality” obscene and perverse videos from Dan Savage gamboling about the Internet. 

On April 20th, in thousands of schools across America, your hard-earned tax dollars will help underwrite the homosexual indoctrination of your kids. Yes, April 20th will mark the annual Day of Silence, described on its website as “a student-led national event that brings attention to anti-LGBT name-calling, bullying and harassment in schools.” As for those who do not support a special school day devoted to gay indoctrination, they are the ones who can expect to be silenced.

Originally the brainchild of some college students in 1996, the Day of Silence has been aggressively promoted for the last 12 years by GLSEN, the Gay, Lesbian & Straight Education Network. (Based on its activities, GLSEN would better be described as the Gay & Lesbian Sexual Education Network.) GLSEN calls on students to remain silent during non-instructional school times on the Day of Silence, thereby standing in solidarity with LGBT youth who are silenced through bullying and harassment.

But don’t some schools already have generic, anti-bullying programs in place along with special, daylong events to highlight the destructive effects of bullying, a subject that should concern all of us? Of course they do, but that’s not enough. GLSEN insists that a special focus must be put on LGBT kids, as if bullying a gay kid was worse than bullying a fat kid.

But there’s more that takes place on the Day of Silence: A pro-homosexuality message is often sent to the students, with teachers and administrators frequently promoting homosexuality, bisexuality, and transgenderism over the course of the day. That’s why thousands of schools (and not just students) officially participate in the event, with the explicit backing of GLSEN. What about other messages being introduced during the day to balance the discussion? Perish the thought.

Just ask PFOX (Parents and Friends of ExGays and Gays), which announced its intention to hand out literature on the Day of Silence. According to PFOX president Greg Quinlan, “PFOX is calling on students to distribute flyers promoting acceptance of ex-gays. Former homosexuals and their supporters are ridiculed and forced to live in silence. Our nation’s schools deny students with unwanted same-sex attractions any support or fact-based information that feelings can and do change.”

How was this announcement welcomed? According to one gay journalist, “the fact that they are attempting to sneak in their harmful message on the Day of Silence, a day which is supposed to show support for those who are forced into silence by outside pressures, shows just how deceptive their message truly is.”

How dare they introduce their message on the Day of Silence! As expressed in 2004 by gay activist Kevin Jennings, founder of GLSEN and most recently President Obama’s Safe School Czar, “Ex-gay messages have no place in our nation’s public schools. A line has been drawn. There is no ‘other side’ when you’re talking about lesbian, gay and bisexual students.” Ah yes, the voice of tolerance speaks once again.

What about the Day of Dialogue, sponsored by the evangelical Christian organization Focus on the Family, and scheduled this year for April 19th, the day before the Day of Silence? This event encourages “student-initiated conversations about the fact that God cares about our lives, our relationships and our sexuality. . . . [Jesus’] example calls us to stand up for those being harmed or bullied while offering the light of what God’s word says.”

Surely this event will be welcomed, right? Not a chance. As expressed by a professing Christian woman with a self-described “hair-trigger sensitivity for the protection of LGBT youth,” the Day of Dialogue has something “very rotten” at its core. She writes (on LGBTQNATION.com), “Allowing Focus on the Family to export their historical and counter-productive sacred discrimination of the LGBT community to Christian youth is a mistake.” To repeat the words of Kevin Jennings, “There is no ‘other side’ when you’re talking about lesbian, gay and bisexual students.”

Last week an elementary school teacher from Florida called into my radio program, identifying himself as a black male but not wanting to give any specifics about the grade he taught at school. He was concerned that his job could be in jeopardy if he dared speak out against the Day of Silence. (Other elementary school teachers have told me privately that they dare not speak out against the overt homosexual activism they see on a regular basis in their schools – remember, we’re talking about elementary schools – for fear of losing their jobs.)

Although the Day of Silence had not yet been introduced to this gentleman’s school in Florida, the faculty members were discussing strategies for its future implementation, with explicit instructions to present this as a civil rights issue. (Needless to say, this black American also did not approve of equating gay activism with the civil rights movement.) And what should the teacher do if a student raised a religious or moral objection to homosexuality? The conversation, he was told, should immediately be turned back to gay civil rights, and no religious or moral objections should be entertained.

Yes, the Day of Silence has become the Day of Silencing – unless parents and educators and students determine to let their voices be heard. Now would be a good time to start.

From Liberty Counsel

On Friday, April 20, the Gay, Lesbian, Straight Education Network (GLSEN) will encourage students to remain silent for an entire school day in solidarity with the radical lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender (LGBT) agenda. 

While “peaceful” in name, schools face harsh pressure from the radical LGBT movement to support and promote the Day of Silence. Despite the huge push on schools and teachers from GLSEN to advance the LGBT agenda through this event, no one can be legally forced to participate or condone the Day of Silence. 

Last year, some parents chose to withdraw their children from school on that day. Parents are encouraged to call the schools and tell them the reason their children will not be attending. School administrators usually listen, because the school loses money for each absence. 

School teachers should be aware that students do not have the right to remain silent when they are called upon by teachers. Conduct on the part of a student that causes a substantial disruption or material interference with school activities is not protected under the First Amendment. Students cannot learn if they refuse to participate in class, and they harm other students’ experience by not contributing to a dialogue of learning. 

School administrators do not have to promote the Day of Silence. In those states that require abstinence instruction, schools do not have to recognize clubs that promote sexual activities. 

Mathew Staver, Founder and Chairman of Liberty Counsel, said, “The Day of Silence is not about tolerance or bullying. It is about pushing a sexual agenda. Students and staff who disagree with a radical sexualized agenda are demonized and made to feel like outsiders. Children should be afforded a rigorous education opportunity and not be forced to accept a radical sexualized agenda subsidized with tax dollars. Parents and lawmakers should take the time to learn about the extreme views of GLSEN and the intolerance promoted by the Day of Silence.”

How did they vote?

IFI strongly opposes the bill proposed by lesbian activist State Representative Kelly Cassidy (D-Chicago).  Sixty votes were needed to pass this bill in the Illinois House, and it passed by a vote of 61-49-2. It will now be considered in the Illinois Senate. Look at the official roll call below to see how your state representative voted on HB 5290, or click HERE to download it.

Lest anyone be deceived about the central goal of Illinois’ anti-bullying laws, remember that homosexual activists created the original anti-bullying law, served on the task force charged with making recommendations for implementing the anti-bullying law, and sponsored the anti-bullying bill that just passed in the House. 

Here are a few of the problems with the bill: 

1. In order to prevent the kind of ideological indoctrination to which homosexual activists want to expose students, we requested that this language be added to the bill:

This course shall not include any instruction, resources, or activities that implicitly or explicitly contradict or undermine students’ or parents’ beliefs, including religious, moral, political, and philosophical beliefs, or that might be construed as criticisms or indictments of students’ or parents’ beliefs.”

Our request was ignored.

Some may argue that the following language in the existing anti-bullying law is sufficient protection against indoctrination:

Nothing in this Section or in the prevention course is intended to infringe upon any right to exercise free expression or the free exercise of religion or religiously based views protected under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution or under Section 3 or 4 of Article 1 of the Illinois Constitution. 

This is not sufficient. We know from experience with the civil union bill that proclaimed “intentions” are meaningless in the face of committed homosexual activists.

It’s interesting to note how much stronger the language in Sections 3 and 4 of Article 1 of the Illinois Constitution is than that in the anti-bullying law:

The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination, shall forever be guaranteed, and no person shall be denied any civil or political right, privilege or capacity, on account of his religious opinions….

All persons may speak, write and publish freely….

Moreover, even a course that teaches wildly liberal views of homosexuality and gender confusion could be construed as not infringing on right to exercise free expression and as not infringing on the right to freely “exercise one’s religion or religiously based views.” Even if students are forced to listen to Leftist propaganda in a “youth programming” context, schools could argue that listening to such ideas does not infringe upon students’ rights to exercise free expression or freely exercise their religion or religiously based views. IFI is trying to prevent the government from forcing kids to be exposed to ideas that contradict their personal or religious beliefs.

This bill should say something stronger like “no student will be required to participate in any course, program, or activity that infringes upon free expression or contradicts personal beliefs or religious beliefs.”

2. This bill calls for a range of “restorative measures” to be implemented by schools in order to reduce the incidence of suspensions and expulsions, but one of the recommended restorative measures is the use of “peer juries, peer circles, and peer mediation.” IFI asked that language be included to ensure that participation in potentially emotionally manipulative peer juries, circles, and mediation be voluntary only. Our request was ignored.

3. We are deeply troubled by both the enumerated protected groups in existing law as well as the addition of yet more enumerated protected groups in Cassidy’s bill. Since it is impermissible to bully any student for any reason, enumerated categories are unnecessary.

Retaining and expanding enumerated categories opens the door to other special interest groups demanding the inclusion of yet more categories in this ever-expanding enumerated list. In addition, it will increase resentment among those groups who are bullied for reasons not enumerated.

In addition, since “sexual orientation,” and “gender identity” (conditions enumerated in existing law) are conditions constituted by behaviors that many consider immoral, their inclusion raises the possibility that those who affirm other conditions constituted by volitional acts that many consider immoral (e.g., polyamory) will demand inclusion of their conditions.

Cassidy “promised” that the categories she added to the bill would be deleted from the Senate bill, but as Representative Jerry Mitchell (R-Sterling) pointed out, this is a promise that Cassidy can’t guarantee will be kept.

Even if her promise is kept, however, all the enumerated protected groups from the original law will remain. What is the rationale for eliminating the newest protected groups while retaining the ones included in the disastrous original 2010 law?

Before the Senate version is passed, all enumerated protected groups should be eliminated.

4. We’re also troubled by the following squishy, ambiguous language regarding restorative measures, which opens the door to all sorts of problematic and mandatory ideological training:

Restorative measures means a continuum of school-based alternatives that contribute to maintaining school safety; protect the integrity of a positive and productive learning climate; teach students the personal and interpersonal skills they will need to be successful in school and society; [and] serve to build and restore relationships among students, families, schools, and communities.

Who will determine the nature of the “personal and interpersonal skills” needed for “success in school and society”? Who will decide what constitutes “the integrity of a positive and productive learning climate?” Homosexual activists believe that expressing conservative beliefs about homosexuality or having students study resources that express conservative moral beliefs creates a negative learning environment and will undermine chances for social success.

Who will decide how “safety” is defined? Homosexual activists have redefined the term “safety.” For them, it means absence of the expression of any ideas that dissent from theirs on the nature and morality of homosexuality. Homosexual activists believe that if students who identify as homosexual hear the idea that homosexual acts are immoral or that children deserve a mother and a father, they feel bad; and if they feel bad, they’re “unsafe.” That’s precisely how liberals defend censorship in public schools.

5. The existing Illinois anti-bullying law states that “‘Bullying’” means any severe or pervasive physical or verbal act or conduct.” It is critical to change the language from “severe or pervasive” to “severe and pervasive.” The Supreme Court decision in Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education, which was a case dealing with sexual harassment in schools, illuminates the potential problems with the language “severe or pervasive”:

Courts…must bear in mind that schools are unlike the adult workplace and that children may regularly interact in a manner that would be unacceptable among adults. See, e.g., Brief for National School Boards Association et al. as Amici Curiae  (describing “dizzying array of immature . . . behaviors by students”). Indeed, at least early on, students are still learning how to interact appropriately with their peers. It is thus understandable that, in the school setting, students often engage in insults, banter, teasing, shoving, pushing, and gender-specific conduct that is upsetting to the students subjected to it. Damages are not available for simple acts of teasing and name-calling among school children….Rather, in the context of student-on-student harassment, damages are available only where the behavior is so severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive that it denies its victims the equal access to education

The Davis decision was clear that if the language of the law is “severe or pervasive,” it opens the door to onerous litigation for school districts:

Although [i]n theory, a single instance of sufficiently severe one-on-one peer harassment could be said to [deny victims the equal access to education], we think it unlikely that Congress would have thought such behavior sufficient to rise to this level in light of the inevitability of student misconduct and the amount of litigation that would be invited by entertaining claims of official indifference to a single instance of one-on-one peer harassment.

 While this bill is being debated in the Illinois Senate, an amendment should be proposed that changes “severe or pervasive” to “severe and pervasive” in order to protect schools from potentially costly lawsuits.

Time permitting, we will shortly expose some of the embarrassingly weak reasoning–if it can even be considered “reasoning”–offered by Cassidy during floor debates just prior to the vote.

Please contact your senators and urge them to vote “No” on this bill unless the reasonable changes discussed above are implemented.

Take ACTION:  Click HERE to contact your senator and urge him/her to oppose HB 5290.

Perhaps some remember the loathsome and vulgar campaign that has young children using the F-word in a video series to promote affirmation of homosexuality. Well, they have a new campaign and the creator, Luke Montgomery, sent IFI an email about it, saying, “Hello, I thought you might find this of interest…” 

Below is the press release he thought would interest us and which provides another reason to call your kids out of school on the Day of Silence. The more cowardly we are, the more brazen homosexual activists become in their efforts to promote acceptance — not tolerance — but acceptance of homosexuality via government-subsidized public schools: 

Gay Activists Recruit Kids to Fight Homophobia in Schools by Giving Away Thousands of Free “OK4U2BGAY” T-Shirts to Teens 

Activists Launch H8SUX.com, Use Slick “Glee-Inspired” Viral Video to Promote Acceptance of Homosexuality and Fight Bullying and Suicide 

San Francisco – March 14, 2012 – H8SUX.com, a gay activist and T-shirt website, launched today and released its first viral video campaign targeting school kids with an offer of a free “OK4U2BGAY” T-shirt. The free pro-gay shirt will be shipped to any teen who simply makes a special YouTube video pledge to speak out against homophobia at school and support gay marriage. Inspired by the hit show “Glee,” the organization released a slickly-produced musical commercial showcasing a same-sex teen kiss and kids dancing in front of hot-pink school lockers while singing a catchy pro-gay song.

Organizers say the teen-targeted campaign is in response to who they call, “ballot box bullies” – politicians who directly inspire a climate for schoolyard bullies to torment LGBT kids. They cite initiatives to ban gay marriage in North Carolina and Minnesota, “Don’t Say Gay” Bills in Utah and Tennessee, and Rick Santorum’s promise to “force-divorce” thousands of legally married gay and lesbian couples as motivation for their pro-gay message to kids.

“We are recruiting kids to the cause of promoting the acceptance of homosexuality in schools,” said Luke Montgomery, director of the H8SUX.com video. “In a world full of bullies, suicide and hate, thousands of school kids wearing a pro-gay message in classrooms can be lifesaving and great. Kids are born gay, lesbian, bi and trans – and when I came out at 15, I was brutally beaten and left unconscious and bloody in a ditch. In 2012, kids should not be bullied and attacked just for being who they are. This free T-shirt will be a pro-gay billboard plastered on the chests of thousands of kids in classrooms across the nation. Our agenda is simple: to tell kids that it’s “OK4U2BGAY.” H8SUX.com is all about giving kids, gay and straight, the power to speak out against hate – and get a cool free T-shirt while doing it. Everyone says ‘it gets better’ – this makes it better.”

Featuring T-shirts with slogans such as “Legalize Love” and “Bullies Suck,” the H8SUX.com website is also making an appeal to adults using a model like the successful “One for One” charitable efforts of the TOMS shoe company. For every hoodie, tank to or tee sold on H8SUX.com, the organization will give a teen an “OK4U2BGAY” tee for free.

Video Sound Byte: “It’s OK to be gay. It’s great if you’re straight. But I ain’t down with this homo-hate!”

The H8SUX.com campaign also plans a national “Pink School Bus Tour” of T-shirt & wristband giveaways at schools in “homophobia hot-spots.” Using funds received through branded product sales, including T-shirts, bumper stickers, and wristbands, the company will continue to produce creative video campaigns targeting kids designed to be spread by teens and adults alike on YouTube, Facebook, Tumblr and Twitter.

The company will be holding frequent T-shirt and wristband giveaways via Facebook and Twitter to grow the online           movement of teens and to promote acceptance of homosexuality in classrooms across the nation. (emphasis added)

I will shortly post my email response to Mr. Montgomery.

Make sure your Illinois friends & neighbors see the IFI Voter Guide 
before they go to the polls on Tuesday!

With all due respect to Cardinal Francis George, I think his apology is misguided and his reasoning troubling:

During a recent TV interview, speaking about this year’s Gay Pride Parade, I used an analogy that is inflammatory.

I am personally distressed that what I said has been taken to mean that I believe all gays and lesbians*are like members of the Klan. I do not believe that; it is obviously not true. Many people have friends and family members who are gay or lesbian, as have I. We love them; they are part of our lives, part of who we are. I am deeply sorry for the hurt that my remarks have brought to the hearts of gays and lesbians and their families.

I can only say that my remarks were motivated by fear for the Church’s liberty. This is a larger topic that cannot be explored in this expression of personal sorrow and sympathy for those who were wounded by what I said.

Francis Cardinal George, OMI

His primary justification or at least his public justification was that his analogy was hurtful. I wonder if he would publicly state that homosexual acts are “abominable.” Surely, that would be “hurtful” to those who identify as homosexual, and yet that’s how Scripture characterizes them.

The notion that the presence of hurt feelings means that Cardinal George has done something wrong suggests that the ethical legitimacy of public speech is determined by the subjective response of hearers. But consistently applied, that principle would prohibit all expressions of moral propositions.

Although it’s unpleasant to say something that results in hurt feelings and at times hurt feelings result from our sinful words, sometimes “hurt” or bad feelings result from an encounter with truth.

Anyone who bothered to read his original comments knows that he did not suggest that all homosexuals are “like members of the Klan.” His comments were about “some” homosexual activists. Moreover he expressed his “hope” that the “gay pride” parade would not “morph” into something like the marches the KKK led against the Catholic Church.

I understand why non-Christians have lost sight of how profoundly wrong homosexual acts are, but when followers of Christ have so little spiritual discernment and so much theological ignorance, society is in deep trouble.

Homosexual activists as an organized public movement do not preach violence or engage in violence, but many express hatred. I have been on the receiving end of multiple hair-curling epithets and death wishes.

In addition, the effort to teach little children in our government schools, subsidized with public dollars, that this sin is good is an unconscionably evil act. Homosexuality is so serious a sin that it puts people at risk of eternal separation from a Holy God, and we’re teaching children in school that it’s morally equivalent to heterosexuality. Most of us are so desensitized or inured to the wickedness (if I may use this somewhat archaic term) of homosexual acts and so spiritually obtuse that the evil of teaching children that wrong is right doesn’t even register on our moral barometer.

Moreover, homosexual activists seek to prohibit parents from opting their children out of such teaching. I can’t think of a group that seeks such an egregious and arrogant usurpation of parental rights.

I agree that the analogy was inflammatory and that the point that homosexual activism is becoming increasingly hateful, aggressive, and tyrannical could have been made without it. Cardinal George could have said that some homosexual activists discriminate based on religion; that some activists hate people who hold orthodox theological beliefs on homosexuality; that some employ hateful and obscene rhetoric; that some march in the streets violating public decency laws and promoting evil ideas; that some seek to diminish other people’s fundamental constitutionally protected liberties; and that some seek to use public schools to promulgate their philosophical, moral, and political beliefs about homosexuality. All of this may be hurtful to hear, but it is not unethical to say.

What I wish Cardinal George had said was that homosexual acts are soul-destroying acts that are “detestable” in God’s eyes and that the parade is a tragic, offensive event that shouldn’t take place on any day in any neighborhood. It is not an act of love to affirm or appear to affirm that which God condemns.

*Cardinal George should not use the terms “gay” and “lesbian.” Those terms do not merely denote same-sex attraction and volitional acts. They connote biological determinism, immutability, and an inherent morality. What other groups would Cardinal George choose to identify by their disordered inclinations and freely chosen sinful acts? Rhetoric matters.

Click HERE TO SUPPORT Illinois Family Institute.
As little as $60 goes a long way toward protecting your values in Illinois!
Sign up as an IFI Ministry Partner for just $60/year, which is just $5 per month.

I’m reluctant to beat a dead horse, but in light of a comment made by the pastor of Our Lady of Mount Carmel Church and an editorial in the liberal National Catholic Reporter (NCR), a bit more needs to be said about the “gay pride” parade brouhaha.

1.   In addition to the cowardice of conservatives, it is the failures of religious leaders that have helped create the cultural mess we’re in right now. NCR recently wrote favorably about this portion of a statement issued by Our Lady of Mount Carmel’s pastor, Fr. Thomas Srenn:

The annual Pride Parade is one of the hallmarks that make Lakeview unique and we in no way wish to diminish its place in the community.

This should be a deeply troubling comment coming from any Christian leader, whether Catholic or Protestant. The word “hallmark” means either “a mark indicating quality or excellence” or “a conspicuous feature.” Perhaps Fr. Srenn is a skillful rhetorician and was deliberately playing on that ambiguity. Perhaps he thinks the parade is a conspicuous and obnoxious Lakeview feature but hopes that others will assume he finds it an excellent Lakeview feature.

But, viewed in light of the second half of his statement, that is to say, his wish that the parade’s “place in the community” not be diminished, it seems more likely that he looks on the parade positively.

Such a view would be at minimum an odd notion coming from a Catholic priest, presumably well-schooled in theology. How can a Catholic priest view positively a parade that celebrates that which the Catholic Church views as profoundly sinful? I wonder too if he would be willing to invite children to attend this hallmark of the unique Lakeview community.

2.   NCR opines that Cardinal George’s analogy is a “nonsensical historical comparison.” I’ve already argued ad nauseum that there are valid and obvious points of correspondence between the KKK and the “gay liberation” movement (i.e., hatred of the Catholic Church, vitriolic rhetoric directed at the Catholic Church, and offensive parades). But now NCR raises another issue. If NCR editorial board is so incensed by nonsensical historical analogies, perhaps they could write an indignant editorial about the nonsensical comparison of race to homosexuality, or the nonsensical comparison of the civil rights movement to the “gay liberation” movement, or the nonsensical comparison of anti-miscegenation laws to laws that prohibit same-sex marriage.

Come to think of it, why hasn’t there been an editorial in the Chicago Tribune arguing that the comparison of race to homosexuality is bizarre?

3.   I can’t conceive of a group in America today that holds the Catholic Church in as much contempt as the movement to normalize homosexuality (i.e., the “gay liberation” movement). Fifty years ago, who could have imagined that homosexual activists would become the oppressors of religious freedom? Not some, but many homosexuals detest the Catholic Church because of its theological position on volitional homosexual acts — a theological position that survived the Reformation and is, therefore, the same theological position of many Protestant churches. In fact, there was no theologian prior to the late 20th Century who affirmed volitional homosexual acts as moral acts.

4.   NCR also drew attention to one of the central stratagems of homosexual activists: ad hominem attacks. NCR described Cardinal Francis George’s analogy as “embarrassingly imprudent.”

Conservatives, like all other humans, are ridicule-averse. Ridicule conservatives. Call them homophobes, bullies, haters, and bigots. Call them old-fashioned and out-of-step with the times. Suggest that Lady Gaga would find them totally uncool, and you win the debate through the cowardly forfeit of conservatives.

5.   I would not have used the analogy Cardinal George used, but not because it lacks soundness. I wouldn’t have used it because the emotion it generates within the perpetually petulant world of homosexual activists creates such a gaseous environment, it clouds even what passes for discourse today.

The reality is any comparison of homosexuality to any behavior of which society still has permission to disapprove will generate bilious howls of outrage and nastiness from homosexual activists. The closest analogue to homosexuality is not race or skin color. The closest analogue is polyamory or adult consensual incest. Try using those, especially the latter, and witness the torrent of non-rational, ad hominem-infused, fire-breathing that ensues from homosexual activists.

According to Open Doors, an organization whose mission is to strengthen and equip Christians to stand firm for Christ in the most oppressive countries around the world, “Nigeria had a total of 300 confirmed martyrs in 2011, Egypt at least 60 and Iraq 38. Open Doors defines a martyr as one who loses her or his life as a result of identification with Jesus Christ.”

Because of the often overly expansive or elastic use of words like “discrimination,” “oppression,” and “persecution,” Open Doors offers this helpful clarification of what constitutes persecution:

Though it is sometimes difficult to identify the difference between persecution and the everyday inconveniences of living in a world hostile towards Christianity, there are some clear defining factors.

Persecution occurs whenever a believer is denied the protection of religious freedom, prevented from converting to Christianity because of legal or social threats, physically attacked or killed because of their faith, forced to leave their job or home because of the threat of violence, or imprisoned and interrogated for refusing to deny their faith.

The International Bulletin of Missionary Research reports that “‘the number of [Christian] martyrs [in the period 2000-2010] was approximately 1 million.'”

In the 2002 Geneva Report, the World Evangelical Alliance estimated that “that there are more than 200 million Christians in the world today who do not have full human rights as defined by the UN Declaration of Human Rights, simply because they are Christians.”

In light of these tragic statistics, one might think that our government would be as concerned about the martyrdom of Christians as it is about “homophobia” around the world. Last week, when Secretary of State Hillary Clinton delivered her speech about exporting liberal American views on homosexuality, President Barack Obama sent out an equally troubling “Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies” on the subject of “International Initiatives to Advance the Human Rights of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Persons.“

In this surprisingly detailed memo, Obama directs “all agencies engaged abroad” to “expand efforts to combat discrimination, homophobia, and intolerance on the basis of LGBT status or conduct.” To be crystal clear, he listed the agencies involved in this effort:

the Departments of State, the Treasury, Defense, Justice, Agriculture, Commerce, Health and Human Services, and Homeland Security, the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), the Millennium Challenge Corporation, the Export Import Bank, the United States Trade Representative, and such other agencies as the President may designate.

These governmental agencies are then directed to “engage” other international organizations to “bring global attention to LGBT issues.” And then every one of our agencies must “prepare a report within 180 days…and annually thereafter, on their progress,” which will be submitted to the State Department and then transmitted to the president.

I spent some time on the White House website searching for a similar memo directing all agencies engaged abroad to work toward ending the persecution of Christians but found nothing equivalent. Here is the most detailed and feeble public statement that I could find from President Obama on the worldwide persecution of Christians:

We bear witness to those who are persecuted or attacked because of their faith. We condemn the attacks made in recent months against Christians in Iraq and Egypt, along with attacks against people of all backgrounds and beliefs. The United States stands with those who advocate for free religious expression and works to protect the rights of all people to follow their conscience, free from persecution and discrimination.

On Religious Freedom Day, let us reflect on the principle of religious freedom that has guided our Nation forward, and recommit to upholding this universal human right both at home and around the world.

In addressing the Obama Administration’s disparate treatment of Christians and homosexuals, I don’t seek to pit one group against another. Rather, I hope to illustrate that the current administration is concerned less about human rights violations and more about proselytizing and political strategics. Evidence suggests that the current administration cares less about fundamental rights–those that are articulated in our Constitution–and more about normalizing disordered sexual impulses via the specious use of civil rights arguments and about the deep pockets and political power of homosexual activists.

Take ACTION: Click HERE to send an email to President Obama to ask him to stop playing politics with Human Rights and encourage him to speak out about persecuted Christians around the world.

The moral assumptions of President Obama about the nature and morality of homosexuality are not only false but also offensive to many Americans as well as many people around the world. He has no right to use taxpayer resources to try to impose his controversial policies, unproven assumptions, and theologically unorthodox beliefs on the entire world.

• Americans should demand that our government refrain from issuing public statements or using public resources to promulgate arguable assumptions about the nature of homosexuality (i.e., that homosexuality is biologically determined, immutable, and analogous to race) and about the morality of homosexual acts (i.e., that volitional homosexual acts are morally equivalent to heterosexual acts).
• Americans should demand that our government refrain from issuing public statements or using public resources that imply that moral disapproval of volitional homosexual acts constitutes illegitimate discrimination or hatred.
• Americans should demand that our government refrain from issuing public statements or using public resources to undermine the moral beliefs of citizens of other countries or to undermine their opposition to “same-sex marriage.”

Finally, Americans should urge our leaders to use the resources and influence of the United States to combat the persecution of Christians around the world.

Make A Tax-Deductible Donation

From IFI’s beginning, we have been motivated by love for our neighbor. We care about marriage and strong families because people matter.

This is why Illinois Family Institute is…

a voice in the culture where the need is great for strong families;

in the halls of government where priorities for families need to be articulated;

in the education arena where true ideas and beliefs are either affirmed or undermined.

Would you like to join with us? Your financial support makes you part of this work to help change the conditions in Illinois for the better.

Let me encourage you to take a moment and make an online donation to Illinois Family Institute. A gift of any size will make a difference, particularly as we approach the year’s end.

You can be part of this positive change by partnering with us today!

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

Phone: (708) 781-9328
Fax: (708) 781-9376

Evil men don’t understand the importance of justice,
but those who follow the Lord are much concerned about it.
~Proverbs 28:5

Southwest Airlines Official Airline of National LGBT Conference

The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force has announced that Southwest Airlines is the official airline of its National Conference on LGBT Equality: Creating Change January 25 – 29, 2012 in Baltimore, Maryland. The low-cost carrier is the largest airline in the U.S.

“We believe that Southwest’s open embrace of a radical political agenda — an agenda that identifies itself by its sexual proclivities — undermines essential societal institutions, particularly, the natural family,” said David E. Smith, Executive Director of Illinois Family Institute (IFI). “By its action, Southwest Airlines violates the deeply held convictions of many of its customers. Through both funding and corporate policies, Southwest Airlines affirms and supports radical and culturally divisive anti-family principles.”

The Dallas-based airline operates more than 3,400 flights a day with 236 of those flights departing from Chicago, making the Windy City its top city served.

“At Southwest Airlines, we take pride in our outreach and commitment to the GLBT community,” the airline’s web site states. “We have community partnerships with a variety of local and national organizations who are dedicated to GLBT causes and initiatives.”

Interested participants are directed to www.southwestairlines.com/gaytravel. Here the company shares its support for the gay and lesbian community.

While IFI believes that those who self-identify as homosexual have a right to live and work in their communities free from harassment and are equal in dignity and worth to heterosexuals, this family advocacy group has great concern with the airline’s stated activism.

“IFI expects that Southwest Airlines, as a business enterprise, would refrain from taking positions on arguable, divisive cultural issues,” said Smith. “The solution should be obvious: conduct business and leave the transformation of public sentiments on controversial moral issues to others.”

Take ACTION: Click HERE to send an email to Southwest’s leadership: CEO Gary Kelly, CFO Laura Wright and COO Mike VandeVen to complain about its sponsorship and promotion of an organization that advances an immoral political agenda.

The ACLU finds itself in the midst of another controversial legal battle, this time in Missouri where they are suing a school district to allow K-12 students to access GLBT (gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender) websites. The ACLU’s Eastern Missouri chapter wrote to the school district in May telling it to stop using the sexuality blocker on its filtering software. But doing so would likely put the school in violation of the federal Children’s Internet Protection Act (CIPA), which requires public schools and libraries to protect children from harmful web content as a condition of receiving federal funding. The heros at the Alliance Defense Fund are taking up the school district’s case.

What’s disturbing about the ACLU’s demand is that it goes beyond the usual lines about tolerance and nondiscrimination to demand that the district stop filtering sexually graphic content. What about GLBT websites do kids need to be seeing if their content won’t pass a sexuality filter? The school’s policy is not discriminatory; children should be protected from all illegal pornography — especially when it is distributed on taxpayer funded computers — regardless of its sexual orientation. The federal government recognized this with CIPA.

The reason school’s Internet filters block GLBT websites isn’t because of the so-called “identity” of the people who run them, but that the sites contain inappropriate and sexually graphic material.

On Wednesday, August 17, child advocates Matt Barber, Vice President of Liberty Counsel Action, and Dr. Judith Reisman, a visiting law professor at Liberty University School of Law, attended a Baltimore, MD conference hosted by the pedophile group B4U-ACT. Around 50 individuals were in attendance including a number of admitted pedophiles – or “Minor-Attracted Persons” as they prefer to be identified (MAP “sexual orientation”) – as well as several supportive mental health professionals. World renowned “sexologist,” Dr. Fred Berlin of Johns Hopkins University gave the keynote address, saying: “I want to completely support the goal of B4U-ACT.”

Highlights of the conference:

• Pedophiles are “unfairly stigmatized and demonized” by society.

• There was concern about “vice-laden diagnostic criteria” and “cultural baggage of wrongfulness.”

• “We are not required to interfere with or inhibit our child’s sexuality.”

• “Children are not inherently unable to consent” to sex with an adult.

• “In Western culture sex is taken too seriously.”

• “Anglo-American standard on age of consent is new [and ‘Puritanical’]. In Europe it was always set at 10 or 12. Ages of consent beyond that are relatively new and very strange, especially for boys. They’ve always been able to have sex at any age.”

• An adult’s desire to have sex with children is “normative.”

• Our society should “maximize individual liberty. … We have a highly moralistic society that is not consistent with liberty.”

• “Assuming children are unable to consent lends itself to criminalization and stigmatization.”

• “These things are not black and white; there are various shades of gray.”

• A consensus belief by both speakers and pedophiles in attendance was that, because it vilifies MAPs, pedophilia should be removed as a mental disorder from the American Psychiatric Association’s (APA) Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), in the same manner homosexuality was removed in 1973.

• Dr. Fred Berlin acknowledged that it was political activism, similar to that witnessed at the conference, rather than scientific considerations that successfully led to the declassification of homosexuality as a mental disorder: The reason “homosexuality was taken out of DSM is that people didn’t want the government in the bedroom,” he said.

• Dr. Berlin appeared to endorse the politically maligned clinical practice of “reparative therapy” for homosexuals and pedophiles alike, saying, “If someone, for their own reasons, doesn’t want to live a homosexual lifestyle, I tell them that it’s hard but I’ll try to help them.”

• The DSM ignores that pedophiles “have feelings of love and romance for children” in the same way adult heterosexuals and homosexuals have romantic feelings for one another.

• “The majority of pedophiles are gentle and rational.”

• The DSM should “focus on the needs” of the pedophile, and should have “a minimal focus on social control,” rather than obsessing about the “need to protect children.”

• Self-descried “gay activist” and speaker Jacob Breslow said that children can properly be “the object of our attraction.” He further objectified children, suggesting that pedophiles needn’t gain consent from a child to have sex with “it” any more than we need consent from a shoe to wear it. He then used graphic, slang language to favorably describe the act of climaxing (ejaculating) “on or with” a child. No one in attendance objected to this explicit depiction of child sexual assault.

To schedule an interview with Matt Barber or Dr. Judith Reisman, send an email request to jmattbarber@comcast.net

Illinois parents may soon begin to taste the diseased fruit of the Illinois “enumerated” anti-bullying act that Governor Quinn signed into law a year ago on the Sunday morning of the Chicago “gay pride” parade at a ceremony at Nettelhorst School, Chicago’s first public elementary school to march in the debauchery-affirmation parade, which is located in the city’s premier homosexual neighborhood “Boystown.” (And there are still gullible people who buy the deceit that this law is centrally about bullying.)

The term “enumerated” is an obfuscatory euphemism that means the law specifically includes homosexuality, Gender Identity Disorder, and cross-dressing. Of course our lawmakers wouldn’t dare use those terms out of fear that Illinoisans would see the pernicious truth lurking behind the civil rights argot. No, our lawmakers use the equally obfuscatory euphemisms of “sexual orientation,” “gender identity,” and “gender expression.”

This law required our State Superintendent of Education, Christopher Koch, to appoint a Task Force to make recommendations about the implementation of the anti-bullying law. Here are just a few of the “unbiased” Task Force members:

Christopher Koch: Illinois State Superintendent of Education, who according to the Chicago Tribune, lives with his “partner.” Other public sources (here and here) reveal that partner to be Kyle A. Lentz.

In 2009, Koch was honored by the homosexual activist organization, Illinois Safe Schools Alliance, as “advocate of the year.”

Rocco Claps: openly homosexual Director of the Department of Human Rights (Read more HERE).

Shannon Sullivan: openly homosexual Director of the Illinois Safe Schools Alliance, who seeks to exploit all public schools — including elementary schools — to normalize her own sexual proclivities.

Jennifer Nielsen: Associate Director of the Anti-Defamation League (pictured here in the homosexual newspaper Windy City Times, promoting the pro-homosexual film It’s STILL Elementary. Trailers of this film can be viewed HERE).

Lonnie Nasatir: Regional Director of the Greater Chicago/Upper Midwest area with pro-homosexual Anti-Defamation League. Nasatir had this to say about the civil union law: “In our eyes this is an issue of pure and simple fairness and equality; we knew representative [Greg] Harris would need a lot of help and we thought it would be a great opportunity to inform the community about what the bill means and other issues about the LGBT community to be informed and educated citizens.”

And this: “Today we celebrate the hard work of advocates and legislators, and specifically Representative Greg Harris, who worked tirelessly on this bill for several years to ensure all citizens are afforded the rights and privileges of married couples…. This is a proud day for the state of Illinois as we have recognized a fundamental inequality and taken steps to remedy it.”

Dr. Stacey Horn: assistant professor in the College of Education, University of IL at Chicago (former academic home of Bill Ayers). In an article co-authored by Horn she writes, “A final LGBTQ school safety strategy involves…integrating LGBTQ topics into the school curricula.”

According to the UIC website, Horn is “interested in factors (e.g., age, religion, school context, intergroup context) related to sexual prejudice among adolescents and adults….In her teaching, she….also examines how to use our knowledge about adolescent development in creating educational and social context that support and promote positive developmental outcomes for all youth, and specifically for youth who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender.”

Click here, here, and here for more on Horn.

Dorothy Espelage: Professor of Educational Psychology, College of Education, University of IL at Urbana-Champaign. HERE are some words of wisdom from Espelage: “Kids are bombarded by homophobic messages….The kids’ attitudes in this state are homophobic in nature. They marginalize boys who don’t act like boys and girls who don’t act like girls….This is very controversial….It’s tied to religion, it’s tied to values, and we’re a very sexually repressed nation as it is, anyway.”

Ann Rangos: self-identified lesbian high school student who is described by David Fischer of the Illinois Safe Schools Alliance as “an incredible activist.”

Sukari Stone: self-identified lesbian high school student who writes the following on her blog:

I’m extremely passionate about human rights. More specifically gay rights. I work with an orginization that helps make schools safer and more welcoming to LGBTQA students. Equal rights are very important to me. Probably one of the most important things in my life at the moment (and hopefully for awhile). I have serious pride in who I am and honestly don’t care whether others accept me or not. And because of my ridiculous pride I’ll let you in on a little secret of mine…I’m a rainbow kid. Get it? I like girls. Cool right? (Source)

I was thinking gay thoughts as usual)….I promise to try to cut down on the ridiculous about of gay things in my posts. I really can’t help it. Most people have 2 parts of their brain, a logical side and an artistic side. I actually have 3 parts; an artistic side, a logical side and a gay side. (Source)

After reading [“Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God” by Jonathan Edwards], I honestly laughed. Seriously, this guy needs to be put away. I could just imagine a red-faced fat man screaming this sermon at the top of his lungs. “What’s his deal?” I asked myself.

What surprised me even more was the fact that people were so quick to believe this idiot. If they even read the Bible they’d know that the God portrayed in it was a good one. A loving caring and accepting one.

Personally, I am not religious. I don’t believe in God but I have read the Bible and studied religion a little bit. It’s just not my cup of tea. I could rant on and on about religion in general but I don’t want to ridiculously offend someone (for once in my life).

I think that Johnathan Edwards was trying to get his listeners to live a life of fear of paranoia. After all, if I believed that God was holding me by a string over a flaming pit I’d be pretty damn scared too. He’s using fear to force people to live their lives perfectly and not to make any mistakes. The God portrayed in the Bible was a forgiving guy so I’m not exactly sure what edition Edwards was reading. Maybe he knew that this wasn’t happening. That God was a hateful being that wanted to kill everyone. It could’ve been a pretty smart way to brainwash people into believing what you had to say.

Basically, Johnathan Edwards was either a ridiculously smart manipulator or a guy that was coming down from a serious acid trip while delivering his sermon. (Source)

Here are some of the recommendations made by the Koch-appointed Task Force (comments and questions in brackets are mine; all emphases are mine):

• education stakeholders in Illinois [should] commit to engaging in overall school transformation….To accomplish transformation, schools must:
• Recognize the impacts of systemic cultural issues such as racism, sexism, classism, adultism, disability discrimination andhomophobia that contribute to negative and hostile environments for youth and adults
• Provide effective youth programming with:
• Strong ties to theoretical constructs related to bullying…and behavioral change [Will any of the “theoretical constructs” used in “youth programming” dissent from liberal dogma regarding homosexuality and Gender Identity Disorder?]
• An evaluation component [Will students be evaluated? If so, on what will they be evaluated? Will they be evaluated on the degree to which they have embraced the moral assumptions of liberal demagogues?]
• Methods and strategies for adapting programs to unique school contexts (e.g., race, age, gender) and ecological domains (e.g., peer relationships, family relationships)
• Provide professional development to all school personnel (including not only administrators and teachers, but bus drivers, maintenance workers, security, cafeteria workers, etc.) on issues of:
• School-wide expectations, as well as reporting and monitoring requirements when expectations are not met
• Impacts of systemic cultural issues such as racism, sexism, classism, adultism, ableism and homophobia that contribute to bullying and school violence, as well as hostile environments for youth and adults that inhibit learning and development
• In order to support schools in the school transformation process, the Illinois State Board of Education (ISBE) and other governmental agencies, where possible, should:
• Support amendment of the PSVA (the Illinois “enumerated” anti-bullying law) and implementing regulations to…cover all public and non-public schools, require more detail in mandated anti-bullying policies, and more effectively support school transformation efforts
• Develop two to four common indicators (e.g., incidence rates, discipline referrals related to bullying, overall school climate) that address bullying and school violence and require all schools and districts to report annually
• Establish an administrators’ academy to teach all school administrators ways to establish and maintain a positive school climate
• Make available quality technical assistance and professional development to schools engaged in the school transformation process
• Ensure all pre-professional education for school personnel prepare them to engage in and lead school transformation processes [“Pre-professional education” refers to students preparing to become teachers. In other words, the task force is recommending that all future teachers be indoctrinated with their subversive ideas about homosexuality.]
• Fully fund pilot projects to collect and evaluate data on the efficacy of the proposed school transformation model to comprehensively prevent and address bullying and school violence

Some random thoughts about this legislative debacle:

— It’s odd or ironic or hypocritical that an educational group that purports to embrace diversity and tolerance would apparently make no effort to create a diverse task force. It’s clear that the task force excluded anyone who opposes bullying but believes that affirming volitional homosexual acts harms children.

— It’s also odd that despite the fact that lesbians constitute less than 2% of the population, they comprise 100 percent of the student representation on the task force.

— According to research, the kids who are most frequently bullied are obese kids, and not one was included on the task force. In addition, I’ve never heard a single expert advocate the celebration and affirmation of obesity as a means to eradicate the bullying of obese students.

— I am loathe to refer, even indirectly, to particular students, but our state’s educational leaders have foolishly decided to make students public figures by including them on the task force. This reminds me of the equally foolish practice in District 113 of including students on committees that interview teacher candidates. Teacher candidates should be insulted by such a practice. However did we arrive at a cultural place where immature students who lack both knowledge and wisdom and who hold disordered moral beliefs serve on committees that make critical educational decisions for Illinois students? Clearly, Koch’s allegiance to homosexual kids is greater than his allegiance to conservative adults, sound pedagogy, or philosophical diversity. Perhaps he fears being accused of “adultism” if he doesn’t include students and “homophobia” if he doesn’t include homosexual students on the task force.

—Many conservatives fearfully, ignorantly, and, in some cases, self-righteously proclaim–at least publicly–that the homosexuality of educators and lawmakers doesn’t matter to them. Well, it better matter to them because when an educator or lawmaker affirms and embraces a homosexual identity, they are announcing precisely what they hold to be true about the nature and morality of volitional homosexual acts. And these non-factual assumptions about homosexuality will shape their decisions on a whole host of issues including laws, school policies, curricula, their own classroom comments, and professional development opportunities provided to school employees at public expense.

—How much will these complete “transformations” of all schools cost individual districts and the state?

It should be obvious that this anti-bullying law, like virtually all contemporary anti-bullying laws, policies, and activities, is centrally concerned with exploiting legitimate anti-bullying sentiment and public education to transform the moral beliefs of Illinois students. Part II of this article on Illinois’ “enumerated” anti-bullying law will focus on what community members can do in the hope of mitigating the law’s moral and pedagogical damage.

Click HERE TO SUPPORT Illinois Family Institute.
As little as $60 goes a long way toward protecting your values in Illinois!
Sign up as an IFI Ministry Partner for just $60/year, which is just $5 per month.

by John Piper –DesiringGod.org

On May 21, 2011, the proposed Minnesota Marriage Amendment passed the House of Representatives by a vote of 70 to 62. This means that the question will be put on the ballot in the 2012 election.

If the amendment passes in November of next year, Article XIII will be amended to include the words, “Only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Minnesota.”

The question submitted to the voters will be: “Shall the Minnesota Constitution be amended to provide that only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Minnesota?”

Here are some thoughts rooted in my Christian, biblical convictions that may help you think through this issue. I hope they help.

1. There is no such thing as so-called “gay marriage.”

Except in a sentence like this one, I don’t think we should use the term “gay marriage” or “same-sex marriage.” I think in our everyday discourse, we should say “so-called gay marriage” or “so-called same sex marriage.” I would encourage politicians, pastors, and people to adopt this simple habit.

The reason is that in God’s eyes, there simply is no such thing as so-called “gay marriage.” It does not exist. It cannot be made to exist by desires or decisions or language or laws. God ordained marriage with the words: “A man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh” (Genesis 2:24). Marriage is the union of a man and a woman in a lifelong covenant as husband and wife.

Humans don’t create or define marriage. God does. Not all humans believe this. But those who do, should not use the term “marriage” to refer to any other relationship than the one God ordains.

2. Same-sex sexual relations are sin.

When the human relationship with God was broken at the beginning of our race, countless good things were broken, including the goodness of sexuality. When the vertical axis of our existence was disordered, the horizontal axis was disordered.

There are many tragic expressions of this disordering in the sphere of sexuality. For example, narcissism, exhibitionism, bestiality, pornography, fornication, adultery, abusiveness, coercion. All of us are broken sexually one way or the other and in need of the forgiving and healing mercy that only comes through Jesus Christ.

One of the expressions of this horizontal disorder of our sexuality is same-sex desires. Thousands of decent, moral people, including Christians, find this disorder in their desires. Many do not want it, but it is there. The apostle Paul describes the roots of it, along with other sins, in the disordering of man’s relationship with God.

[We humans have] exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator . . . . For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts. (Romans 1:25-27)

This does not mean that every person who finds same-sex desires in his heart has consciously brought it on himself by exchanging God for a lie. Some of the most God-honoring, Christ-exalting people may find themselves with deep disorders.

Paul’s point is that, in general terms among the human race, a disordered desire for God has resulted in a disordered desire for people. Homosexual desire is one form of that disorder. There are others.

As in the case of other disordered desires, God forbids that we indulge same-sex desires. For example, the apostle says, “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” (1 Corinthians 6:9).

Therefore, the practice of homosexuality is a sin. And we can see from this same verse that heterosexual adultery is also a sin. Both sins are the indulgence of disordered sexual desires. Men should not desire another man or another man’s wife. Therefore, God forbids that we act on these desires.

Knowing how deeply dependent all of us are on the mercy of God for the forgiveness of our sins, and the healing of our peculiar brokenness, Christians should be slow to anger and quick with compassion. Jesus did not condone sin, but was compassionate with broken-hearted sinners. From the cross he even prayed for his proud adversaries: “Father forgive them, for they know not what they do” (Luke 23:34). Joe Hallett, who died of AIDS in 1997, helped me taste how conviction and compassion come together. I pray that this remarkable and rare combination will pervade the Christian community as the marriage debate continues.

3. Not all sins should be proscribed by human law, but some should be.

Almost everyone agrees that there are unethical actions that should not be illegal, and some that should be. Almost everyone would agree that theft and murder are unethical actions that should be proscribed by human law. If life and property are not protected by law, living in society becomes virtually impossible.

But where to draw the line on which unethical actions are made illegal is a judgment call that in our system of government is made by elected legislators. It’s a pretty good system that balances the freedom of the human conscience (Luke 12:57; 2 Corinthians 5:11; Acts 17:11) with the rights of government to make laws and use force (Romans 13:1-4).

For example, looking at pornography should not be proscribed by human law. To be sure, the lustful use of pornography dishonors God’s design for sexuality, damages male-female relationships, and corrupts a person’s capacity for holy affections. It is sin. But it should not be proscribed by human law.

Some of the reasons would be 1) without a common ground of biblical holiness, the precise definition of what’s acceptable to look at would entangle our lawmakers in hopeless disputes; 2) the privacy of the act would make the law virtually unenforceable; and 3) the indirect way that people are hurt make it unfeasible for the law to be handled with proper proportion. So there are many sinful behaviors that should not be illegal.

4. The legal significance of marriage makes a statutory definition necessary.

It is clear that some laws are necessary in relation to marriage. The clearest place this is seen is in relation to children. Sexual union in marriage usually produces children. Marriage creates a mutual claim of parents to have the right to raise their children. These rights of parents must be protected by law because of the reality of kidnapping and because of custody conflicts that arise through divorce.

There are many other laws relating to marriage, such as inheritance laws, and the rights of married couples to own property or file income taxes together, and so on. The inevitable legal significance of marriage makes it imperative that there be a clear statutory definition of what it is.

5. It is wise that our laws define marriage as between a man and a woman.

This is not because homosexual practice or same-sex relationships should be legally stopped. Rather, it’s because they should not be legally sanctioned. The issue is not whether same-sex unions are permitted, but whether they are institutionalized. The issue is not whether we tolerate same-sex relationships, but whether we build on them as a foundation for society. The issue is not whether we forbid a particular sin, but whether we mandate social approval of that sin. The issue is not whether we block a sinful behavior, but whether we imbed it in our laws.

I am not making a case for the legal prosecution of homosexual practice. Nor would I advocate the legal prosecution of heterosexual fornication. But I would make a case against the institutionalization of fornication, or making it a building block of society, or mandating its approval, or imbedding it in our laws. It is one thing to tolerate sin. It is another to build society on it.

________

May God have mercy on us. Laws are not our Savior. We need a great awakening to the truth and glory of Jesus Christ far more than we need a marriage amendment. Our hope lies in the work of Jesus-for us on the cross, and in us by his Spirit. Be thankful for laws and for courageous political servants, but live for the gospel and the glory of Christ (Mark 8:35).