The Newsweek article by Natasha Chart and Rabbi Yaakov Menken begins with these words: “It would be hard to accuse an Orthodox Jewish rabbi and an agnostic feminist leader of walking in lockstep.” All the more would this be true if you added Catholics to the mix, then threw in some evangelicals. What cause could bring such disparate people together, all united as one?

Religious Rights and Women’s Rights at Stake

As Chart and Menken wrote, “We agree entirely that the Equality Act is a fatally flawed, and even hateful, piece of legislation.” Or, as expressed by the chairmen of five U.S. bishops’ committees, the Equality Act will “discriminate against people of faith” — meaning, of Christian faith or other faiths.

As summed up by evangelical leader Mat Staver, “HR 5 is a bill that pushes the LGBT agenda on all people and targets Christianity in every area of life — including the church. There will be an increase of instances where Christians and others are being punished unless they violate their beliefs in order to comply with such a law. And that is just the beginning of unconstitutional chaos in America.”

In short, not only would religious beliefs be trampled in the name of “equality,” but simple human rights — most specifically, women’s rights — would be trampled as well. (As Chart and Menken wrote, “Women, check your ‘privilege.’”)

That’s why many people of faith and non-faith are uniting together against the so-called Equality Act.

Just consider what it would mandate across the nation, with no possibility of religious exemptions.

Here are some potential scenarios.

What Might Soon be Illegal “Discrimination”? Plenty.

An out and proud gay schoolteacher wants to teach at an Orthodox Jewish day school. Under the Equality Act, the school could not refuse him a job because his out and proud lifestyle violated Jewish law. That would be discrimination. As for Orthodox Jewish synagogues, if challenged, they would not be allowed to have separate seating for men and women at public events. Discrimination again!

What if a biological male who identifies as a female, yet still likes to sport a 5-o’clock shadow, wants to work at a Christian preschool, reading stories to the children? The school could not say, “We’re sorry, but we’re not hiring you. That would be confusing to the children.” Under the Equality Act, that would now be discrimination.

Here are a few more scenarios to consider.

You are a professional counselor, and an 18-year-old girl struggling with unwanted same-sex attractions comes to you for help. She had been raped when she was 12 and since then, has found men repulsive. Yet she always wanted to be married and have children and she’s interested in getting to the root of her unwanted same-sex attractions. Under the Equality Act, counseling her would be illegal.

You run a women’s shelter for abused women and have always refused to house biological males who identify as transgender women. You have limited facilities, and there’s no way your clients, already traumatized, should be forced to share showers and bathrooms and bedrooms with biological males. Under the Equality Act, you would be forced to accept transgender “women.”

You are the principal of a public school with an excellent girls’ track team, and your top female athletes win college scholarships on a regular basis. Under the Equality Act, you would be forced to allow boys who identify as girls to compete with the girls, thereby robbing them of both victories and scholarships, not to mention personal dignity. (One website pointed out that, “In 2018, 275 high school boys ran the 400 meter faster than the lifetime best of Olympic Team USA member and world-record-holding sprinter Allyson Felix, while in 2017 thousands of men ran the 400 meter faster than any of the world’s three fastest women.”)

Your church building is used to host weddings on a regular basis. Under the Equality Act, you will not be allowed to say no to same-sex couples, even though this violates historic tenets of your faith.

Traditional Religious Practices: “As Unacceptable as was Jim Crow”

That’s why Mat Staver is almost shouting out this warning about the bill (emphasis his):

It even criminalizes those who share their own story of finding freedom in Christ from homosexuality in a book or speaking engagement. This bill literally sets the stage for banning the Bible, which offers the power to free those wanting to turn away from homosexual conduct.

And there is NO RELIGIOUS EXEMPTION to this bill!

Similarly, Chart and Menken warn, “Incredibly, the Equality Act specifically strips away protection of religious practice guaranteed under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993.” (Their emphasis.)

In short, “The Equality Act thus deems a religiously motivated refusal to participate in a same-sex marriage to be no different than a KKK member’s refusal to cater a multiethnic couple’s nuptials. Traditional religious practices, according to the Equality Act, are as unacceptable as was Jim Crow.”

And that is why people from a wide range of backgrounds are standing together against this ill-conceived bill. (I haven’t even mentioned the abortion-related aspects of the bill, among other important issues. See this relevant article from 2019.)

We Can All Stand Together on This. Here’s How

The U.S. House has passed the bill and it is now pending over at the U.S. Senate. Contact your senators at once, urging them to vote no. It’s one thing to stand against the mistreatment of those who identify as LGBTQ (or anything else). It’s another thing to turn the world upside down, throw out common sense and logic, and trash the religious liberties of the majority of the nation in the name of equality.

As expressed by the Catholic bishops, “Human dignity is central to what Catholics believe because every person is made in the image of God and should be treated accordingly, with respect and compassion. This commitment is reflected in the church’s charitable service to all people, without regard to race, religion or any other characteristic.”

Consequently, “It means we need to honor every person’s right to gainful employment free of unjust discrimination or harassment, and to the basic goods that they need to live and thrive. It also means that people of differing beliefs should be respected. In this, we wholeheartedly support nondiscrimination principles to ensure that everyone’s rights are protected.”

And that is precisely why we need our elected officials to vote against the Equality Act as it is currently written. We can all stand together on this.

Take ACTION:  The measure is pending a vote in the U.S. Senate where the outcome remains uncertain. Click HERE to send a message to our U.S. Senators Dick Durbin and Tammy Duckworth to urge them to oppose the federal Equality Act (H.R. 5) which seeks to amend the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to include protections for an individual’s perceived sex, “sexual orientation,” or “gender identity.”

Read more:

U.S. House Passes “In-Equality” Act

This article was originally published at AskDrBrown.org.

With all the focus on the aftermath of the presidential elections, you might have missed an important victory in the courts recently. As reported November 20 by Liberty Counsel, which litigated the case successfully, “A three-judge panel of the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals struck down laws that ban counselors from providing minor clients with help to reduce or eliminate unwanted same-sex attractions, behaviors, or gender confusion.”

This was a victory for freedom, for tolerance, for individual rights, and for therapist-client privilege. Above all, it was a victory for minors.

Liberty Counsel, led by Mat Staver, represented “Dr. Robert Otto, LMFT and Dr. Julie Hamilton, LMFT and their minor clients who challenged the constitutionality of ordinances enacted by the City of Boca Raton and Palm Beach County which prohibit minors from voluntary counseling from licensed professionals.”

These local, Florida ordinances were part of a disturbing national trend that prohibits minors with unwanted same-sex attraction or gender confusion from seeking professional help.

Of course, under these same ordinances, had these minors wanted help to reinforce their same-sex attraction or gender confusion, that would have been allowed. By all means, let professionals help minors embrace their homosexual desires or their transgender identity.

But God forbid that a 15-year-old male should not want to be attracted to another male. Or an 8-year-old should not want to feel like a boy trapped in the wrong body. No professional help could be offered to them. This is how LGBTQ activists have turned our society upside down.

Let’s say, then, that this 15-year-old male had been raped repeatedly by an older, male neighbor from the ages of 7 to 9, unbeknownst to his parents. As he came into puberty, he felt confused about his sexuality, ultimately realizing he was attracted to males, not females.

He had always dreamed about getting married (meaning, to a woman!) and having children, and he was repulsed by his same-sex attraction, now sharing everything with his parents.

They say to him, “We will get you all the help you need,” and they find a highly-recommended family therapist. But when they share their situation with the therapist, the therapist replies, “Oh, I would love to help you, but it’s against the law. However, I’d be glad to help your son embrace his same-sex attractions. That is perfectly legal.”

What a perversion of fairness, of freedom, and of personal dignity. What an unrighteous and oppressive imposition of the state. Really now, what on earth gives them the right to make rulings like this?

Or consider the case of the 8-year-old girl who is troubled by feelings that she’s actually a boy in a girl’s body. This makes her very uncomfortable, causing confusion for her and her siblings. So her parents reach out to a well-trained professional, feeling they are at their wits end and unable to provide adequate help.

But when they sit down with the family counselor, the counselor says to them, “I would love to help your daughter embrace her girlhood, but I’m strictly prohibited by the law. However, here’s how I can help.

“We’ll work with your daughter to embrace the fact that she’s really a boy, sending her back to school with a new name and dressed like a boy. The school will allow her – actually him – to use the boy’s bathroom. Then, in two years, we’ll start him on hormone blockers to stop the onset of puberty, then have his breasts removed when he’s 18, then schedule him for full-scale gender confirmation surgery at 20, supplemented by male hormones for life. Isn’t that a wonderful option?”

And remember: under these oppressive ordinances, to sit and talk with the child was forbidden by law if that child wanted to feel at home in her own body. But to put her on puberty-blocking hormones as a child, then remove total healthy parts of her body, then put her on hormones for life, was allowed by the law.

To call this perverse is an understatement. Child abuse would be more accurate.

Outrageously, 20 states now ban such counseling, which they label “conversion therapy,” alleging that such therapy is harmful to minors. And last year, California almost passed a ban on such counseling for people of all ages. It would have even prohibited religious leaders from offering such counseling.

Yet this is where things are going unless believers, in particular, joined by all freedom-loving people, push back.

The LGBTQ tyranny must be challenged. The assault on individual rights must be resisted.

No one has the right to tell a young person (or any person), “You must be gay” or “You must be trans.”

Absolutely, categorically not. And that’s why this Florida victory is so important.

As to the notion that sexual orientation change efforts (SOCE) are harmful, Peter Sprigg and the FRC just released a 37-page report titled, “No Proof of Harm. 79 Key Studies Provide No Scientific Proof That Sexual Orientation Change Efforts (SOCE) Are Usually Harmful.”

In short, “While these 79 studies do provide anecdotal evidence that some SOCE clients report the experience was harmful, they do not provide scientific proof that SOCE is more harmful than other forms of therapy, more harmful than other courses of action for those with SSA, or more likely to be harmful than helpful for the average client. If alleged ‘critical health risks’ of SOCE cannot be found in these 79 studies, then it is safe to conclude that they cannot be found anywhere.”

Old lies die hard, but for those seeking the truth, the data is undeniable.

Last year, in New York City, an Orthodox Jewish therapist challenged the city’s prohibition of SOCE counseling for people of any age “for violating his freedom of speech and infringing on his religious faith and that of his patients.”

With the help of the Alliance Defending Freedom, the city quickly reversed course, leading to this exuberant announcement from Tony Perkins and the FRC in September, 2019: “The last place anyone would expect liberals to rethink their extremism is New York City. But, thanks to a new lawsuit, even the Big Apple seems to understand when it’s vulnerable. ‘Pinch yourself,’ FRC’s Cathy Ruse says. One of the most radical cities on earth is about to walk back its LGBT counseling ban. All because one courageous psychotherapist fought back.”

In Florida, in the 2-1 opinion, Judge Britt C. Grant wrote that, “We hold that the challenged ordinances violate the First Amendment because they are content-based regulations of speech that cannot survive strict scrutiny.”

Precisely. These ordinances represent a fundamental assault on freedom of speech, among other things. May this be the beginning of a national trend.

In fact, as Liberty Counsel noted,

The 11th Circuit decision was foreshadowed by comments in a 2018 U.S. Supreme Court decision, NIFLA v. Becerra, dealing with California’s efforts to regulate speech by pro-life pregnancy centers. In the course of rejecting the argument that governments can regulate ‘professional speech’ without offending the First Amendment, the Supreme Court directly criticized earlier appeals court decisions that had made the same argument in upholding state therapy bans. Justice Clarence Thomas wrote that ‘this Court has not recognized “professional speech” as a separate category of speech. Speech is not unprotected merely because it is uttered by “professionals.

There is reason for real hope. May the righteous pushback continue unless freedom of self-determination is restored for minors across America.

This article was originally published at AskDrBrown.org.

Written by Jerry Newcombe

Dr. Richard Land once called our country, “the divided states of America.” How apt — especially when we survey the various responses to the coronavirus. They are lessons in liberty and lessons in tyranny.

To paraphrase what a friend of mine wrote me recently, “We have 50 real-world government examples of liberty or tyranny — 50 real-time experiments in whether state governments moved towards liberty (as in Texas and South Dakota) or absolute control (as in California, Michigan and New York).” As a resident, I would add: Florida’s leadership is doing a great job.

Churches Closed, Planned Parenthood Open

Nowhere can this contrast be better seen than in how the state authorities deal with churches versus how they deal with abortion, ordering churches closed while deeming Planned Parenthood and other abortionists “essential services.”

How fitting. In her classic book, Godless, Ann Coulter postulates that abortion is the left’s “sacrament.” The sacraments of the church are out. The left’s new sacrament is in. The most pro-abortion leaders are the ones who are most cracking down on real constitutional freedoms in their states. If a politician gets abortion wrong, they tend to get everything else wrong too.

This anti-religious spirit at work is exceedingly ironic because America was born as a religious nation. In the Mayflower Compact, the Pilgrims explained their reason for coming: “For the glory of God and the advancement of the Christian faith.”

Our First Amendment declares our first freedom — freedom of religion. The founders stipulated there would be no national denomination and there would be no prohibition on the “free exercise” of religion. They didn’t add, “except in times of pestilence.”

“No Pandemic Exception to the Bill of Rights”

Indeed, Attorney General William Barr sides with the churches (following social distancing guidelines, etc.) in this conflict. He said, “There is no pandemic exception to the Constitution and its Bill of Rights.”

But many of the left today have used the pandemic crisis to try and shut down a lot of religious services:

• The mayor of Kansas City, Missouri was demanding that churches hand over a list of anyone who attended any of their services. When Mat Staver and Liberty Counsel threatened to sue, the city backed down.

• The governor of Illinois postulated that church services may need to be banned for a year. This is the same governor who prohibited residents in his state from traveling — while apparently his wife vacationed in Florida.

• Overzealous administrators have sought to ban churches even from holding “drive-in” church services, which follow the mandates to prevent the spread of the coronavirus.

If your church parking lot permits, holding a drive-in service is a clever way to worship the Lord together. Usually, the pastor would preach to the congregation in their cars though a low frequency on the FM dial in such services.

“A Lesson to Governors”

But even in the Bible belt, such as in Kentucky and Mississippi, some overzealous administrators have tried to shut such services down. First Liberty Institute has threatened lawsuits, and the cities have relented.

The Wall Street Journal had an editorial entitled, “Caesar, God and the Lockdowns,” in which they note, “A federal court ruling on religious liberty is a lesson to governors.”

The editorial talks about Maryville Baptist Church in Louisville, which held a modest Easter service — with some worshipers inside and others in the parking lot, hearing the service through a loudspeaker.

To harass the worshipers, notes the WSJ, “The police took down license-plate numbers. The church sued.”

A panel on the Sixth Circuit ruled in favor of the church: “It’s not always easy to decide what is Caesar’s and what is God’s — and that’s assuredly true in the context of a pandemic. … Why is it safe to wait in a car for a liquor store to open but dangerous to wait in a car to hear morning prayers?”

The Left-Right Divide in Leadership

A new report out of Chicago over the weekend shows the lengths to which the anti-God forces will go. Wirepoints observes that the mayor sought to punish a church, Philadelphia Romanian Church, to prevent it from holding services. They stated, “On Sunday morning the tow trucks descended — not just on churchgoers, but on residents and everybody else, and on a private lot used by parishioners.”

The pastor of the church said, “The mayor is inciting hate against the church which is very sad. A lot of our members risked their lives to escape Communism, only to find it germinating in 2020 under Mayor Lightfoot in Chicago.” Lori Lightfoot is so committed to abortion rights, she helped drive out of office one of the last Democrat, pro-life U. S. Congressmen.

Wirepoints adds, “It should also be a clarion call to the churches across the city as to how far the left will go to crush the faithful of all denominations.”

Freedom-loving Americans can look at a map of the country and see how those on the left versus those on the right are delicately handling the crisis. The abortion-loving, church-hating politicians stand in great contrast with their freedom-loving counterparts in the red states.

Jerry Newcombe, D.Min., is a senior producer and an on-air host for D. James Kennedy Ministries. He has written or co-written 32 books, such as The Unstoppable Jesus Christ, American Amnesia: Is American Paying the Price for Forgetting God?, What If Jesus Had Never Been Born? (with D. James Kennedy) and the bestseller, George Washington’s Sacred Fire (with Peter Lillback). Learn more at jerrynewcombe.com and follow him on Twitter @newcombejerry.

Truth is not only stranger than fiction. Truth is also more disturbing than fiction. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the abortion industry, where baby parts are meticulously collected and systemically labeled for immediate, profitable sale.

Not only so, but all this takes place without the knowledge of the mother, who recovers in a waiting room nearby. And, if the reports are accurate, some of the slicing and dicing is done while the baby is still alive.

Did I say that truth is more disturbing than fiction?

For the last eleven years, I have been doing live, daily radio broadcasts five days a week, taking calls, tackling controversies, and interviewing guests. And it is exceedingly rare that the words of a guest or caller are so troubling that I am literally moved to tears.

But that is exactly what happened when I interviewed Mat Staver, Founder and Chairman of Liberty Counsel, a Christian legal organization which is now defending Sandra Merritt against Planned Parenthood.

Merritt is described as “a courageous pro-life grandmother who exposed Planned Parenthood’s horrific trade in baby body parts.” Together with David Daleiden, founder of the Center for Medical Progress, Merritt recorded secret videos of Planned Parenthood leaders and workers discussing the sale of baby parts for profit, creating shockwaves for the abortion giant.

Now, as the trial proceeds, shocking, heartrending testimonies are being heard.

On my show, Staver referred to “amazing situations” where Planned Parenthood clinics“were taking babies and intentionally aborting them so they could harvest intact organs, some of which were born alive while the hearts were still beating. Hearts were being removed while they were still alive.”

He continued, “Brains were being removed while the hearts were still beating, and we have evidence where they sliced the baby’s face in two with a scalpel and then extracted the brain while the baby was still alive.”

Who can imagine such things? Who would even envision them in a work of fiction? Yet, according to Staver, these are 100 percent, accurate accounts. And the motivating force behind these allegations is greed.

Let that sink in for a moment.

For good reason Staver spoke of Planned Parenthood’s “inhumane, unthinkable, unspeakable acts.”

Yet Planned Parenthood was not alone in its savaging of the unborn.

According to Staver, companies like Stem Express had full menus on their website where you could make customized choices when ordering your baby parts.

He explained, “You could actually go on the website and select . . . that you wanted a certain heart at a certain gestation at a certain size, intact. Then Stem Express would take that to Planned Parenthood that day. They would fulfill that order from those babies that were brought in, never telling the parent, the mom, what was happening with her child in the room next door.”

Staver was not exaggerating when he stated that if he described such procedures without revealing the age of the victim, we would think this was coming from Nazi Germany.

Precisely so.

A recent report on the Liberty Counsel website carried the headline, “Selling Baby Scalps,” stating that, “A former board director for the Center for Medical Progress testified during the civil trial in the San Francisco Federal District Court that the scalps of babies provided by the abortion industry are being harvested for research in treating baldness.”

Yes, selling baby scalps for treating baldness.

The mind boggles when trying to comprehend such cruel, cold, and calculated barbarity. Yet we dare not close our eyes or stick our heads in the sand. All this is happening on our watch.

In my new book, Jezebel’s War with America, I document the clear connection between radical feminism, witchcraft, and the militant pro-abortion movement. (Yes, I actually document this.)

I also compare the horrific, ancient practice of child sacrifice with late-term and partial-birth abortion procedures.Perhaps this doesn’t sound so extreme to you after hearing some of Staver’s testimony?

Ironically, after Pastor Robert Jeffress made a similar comparison during a recent radio interview, referencing Moloch, the ancient god of child sacrifice, leftists responded with sarcastic glee.

One tweeted, “ALL HAIL MOLOCH HIS WILL BE DONE.”

Another wrote, “DON’T MESS WITH OUR GOD, MOLOCH.”

Yet what they posted in jest is not without truth.

That’s because, for many of those on the radical left, abortion is not just a right. It is a rite, a venerated rite, a sacred rite. “Do not mess with our right to abort!”

Not surprisingly, most of the Democratic presidential candidates are veering further to the left when it comes to abortion, to the point that most of the candidates now support bills which, if enacted, would legalize some of the crimes committed by abortionist Kermitt Gosnell.

And all of this leads to a simple question: What are you and I going to do to stop these horrific practices? And how can we offer a message of life and hope to mothers and fathers who want to abort?

Somehow, someway, we must shout to the nation the humanity of that unborn child and the sacredness of life. Then, just as loudly, we must bring to the attention of the nation the barbarity of the actions of Planned Parenthood and their cohorts.

If each of us does our part, through sharing the message, through pro-life activism, through voting and campaigning, through prayer and compassion, the tide can turn.

We owe it to the little ones to take action today.

This article was originally published at AskDrBrown.org.

Blockbuster news came out this week revealing that Twitter has cut ties with the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) because of reports of controversial financial activity, leaders tainted by scandal, and–according to one source–a “toxic” work environment.

The news has rocked an organization whose stated purpose is to combat discrimination, intolerance, and groups that in the view of the SPLC, practice hatred towards others.  The organization reports such groups to the FBI and is often cited by the media.  Academics and others rely upon SPLC’s listings, which they in turn use to ostracize such groups.

Founded in 1971 and based in Montgomery, Alabama, the SPLC is no stranger to controversy.  The group has long been accused of targeting conservative and Christian organizations.  Ironically, the SPLC attacks groups such as the Alliance Defending Freedom and Jihad Watch, who themselves are fighting discrimination and racism.

Controversy has reached to the very top of the SPLC.  Morris Dees, the co-founder of the organization, was accused back in 1994 of discrimination against black employees, who according a local newspaper, the Montgomery Advertiser, “felt threatened and banded together.”

In 2007, Stephen Bright, a former president of a sister organization, the Southern Center for Human Rights, accused Dees of being “a con man and fraud” who “has taken advantage of naive people–some of moderate or low incomes–who believe his pitches and give to his $175 million operation.”

Dees was fired this year after two dozen employees complained about mistreatment and sexual harassment.  One former employee claimed that Dees had “a reputation for hitting on young woman” and had caused a staff revolt over his behavior.

Liberty Counsel is coordinating with more than 60 conservative and Christian groups (including IFI) that are considering taking legal action against the SPLC–a number that continues to grow.  The coalition claims that the SPLC, while ostensibly fighting bias and hate groups, is guilty of engaging in the same discriminatory activity that it purports to disavow–actions which resulted in conservative/Christian groups being banned from social media platforms, thus rendering them less effectual.

Mat Staver, founder and chairman of Liberty Counsel, commented after Twitter disassociated itself from the SPLC: “The rest of the tech companies should follow Twitter’s lead and divorce from the SPLC. It appears to have taken a major implosion within the SPLC for others to finally see what organizations like Liberty Counsel have been saying all along.”

What we may be seeing is a revolution against enormously powerful organizations like the SPLC that for far too long have sought to blacklist groups that do not share their far-left ideology and for whom freedom of expression is a one-way street.

A bold voice for pro-family values in Illinois!

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

The hate business may not be what it used to be – at least on the government level.

The Defense Department has become the latest federal agency to sever ties with the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), an Alabama-based, hard-left group whose “hate map” is being used against Christian groups.

Well, bully for the Pentagon for showing that bully to the door.

The DOD’s pullback from the SPLC was reported by the Daily Caller, which said that a Justice Department attorney stated in an email that the DOD “removed any and all references to the SPLC in training materials used by the Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute (DEOMI).”

In 2014, the FBI dropped the SPLC from its resources page after congressional staff, acting on behalf of the Family Research Council (FRC) and other Christian groups on the “hate map,” met with FBI officials to discuss their concerns, according to the Daily Caller.

Once hailed for tracking the Ku Klux Klan and other extremists, the SPLC has in recent years been wielded against mainstream Christian organizations over their defense of Biblical sexual morality and marriage.

If you say out loud that men are different from women, you just took a big step toward the “hate map.”  If you say that marriage necessarily involves both sexes, bingo.  And if you say that it’s not loving to steer boys into identifying as girls, you might earn an SPLC mention alongside skinheads and Neo-Nazis.

The SPLC also targets those who oppose illegal immigration and those who believe Islamic expansionism is a threat to freedom.  All in all, the SPLC might want to consider changing its name to Hate, Inc.

In 2015, the SPLC placed presidential candidate Ben Carson, who now heads the Department of Housing and Urban Development, on an “extremist” hate watch list.  After taking considerable flak, the SPLC removed the citation and apologized to Dr. Carson.

But this guilt-by-association ploy is having a huge effect in Silicon Valley, where cyber giants who fancy themselves do-gooders look to the SPLC for guidance.

“Right now, [the SPLC is] cutting off hate groups from sources of financing by pushing digital companies like Amazon not to allow hate groups to use their services,” said SPLC’s founder, direct-mail wizard Morris Dees.

Google, Facebook and Twitter are under congressional scrutiny for allegedly “shadow banning” conservative and religious postings.

“The most dangerous aspect of this high-tech offensive on pro-faith groups and individuals is buried deep in the algorithms of these gatekeepers for the new economy,” said Mat Staver, founder and chairman of Liberty Counsel.

Google now supports a “hate news” database that links to articles referencing Liberty Counsel and other Christian groups on the SPLC “hate” list.  The SPLC’s smears have led Amazon Smile, a charity donation program run by Jeff Bezos’ Amazon company, to ban pro-family Christian groups.

Last year, Apple CEO Tim Cook announced a $1 million Apple donation to the SPLC and added a portal so iTunes buyers could donate directly. Big Tech, meet Big Hate.

The SPLC’s perfidy has led to “hate” labels on Christian groups listed in GuideStar, the charity group database, which removed some labels after a public outcry.  Discover/Diners Club is now blocking transactions with some pro-family groups, according to Liberty Counsel’s Mat Staver.

Making false accusations of hate is profoundly hateful, but it’s also lucrative. The SPLC, which has raised millions since its 1971 founding, has fattened its endowment to more than $477 million, according to its latest Form 990.

In August 2017, D. James Kennedy Ministries, for which I have written several books, finally had had enough and filed a defamation lawsuit against the SPLC in Alabama and also sued GuideStar and Amazon.com, Inc.  The ministry withdrew the GuideStar suit but continued the other litigation.  Liberty Counsel also sued GuideStar, but that suit was thrown out last January by U.S. District Judge Raymond Jackson, a Bill Clinton appointee.

In August 2012, Leo Johnson, the building manager at FRC headquarters in Washington, D.C., was shot while preventing an attempted mass murder by a man who said he was inspired by FRC’s presence on the SPLC’s “hate map.”

The shooter, Floyd Lee Corkins II, planned to kill as many people as possible and jam Chick-fil-A sandwiches into their faces to protest Chick-fil-A’s and FRC’s support for natural marriage.  He was sentenced to 25 years in prison in September 2013 for committing an act of terrorism while armed and other offenses.

Apparently, the SPLC did not find this compelling enough to remove FRC from its “hate map,” where it remained until very recently.  However, FRC – along with D. James Kennedy Ministries, the American Family Association, Alliance Defending Freedom, the Ruth Institute, the American College of Pediatricians and many other reputable Christian groups, along with the Jewish-led parents group MassResistance – is still listed on the SPLC’s “Hate Watch” page.

For pro-family activists, it’s become a badge of honor.

In a fast-moving story, right of conscience cases are moving forward and possibly to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Here are just two recent headlines from Life News:

October 30: Pregnancy Centers Ask Supreme Court to Overturn California Law Forcing Them to Promote Abortions

October 31: Judge Blocks California Law Forcing Pregnancy Centers to Promote Abortions

In a case that could impact Illinois, Life News reports, “California pregnancy centers could hear any day now if the United States Supreme Court will hear their appeal for relief from a pro-abortion state law”:

Their cases involve a pro-abortion California law that forces pregnancy centers to promote abortions. Deceptively named “The Reproductive FACT Act” by its pro-abortion authors, the 2016 law is the subject of multiple lawsuits. It forces about 200 pregnancy help non-profits to either promote taxpayer-funded abortions through the state or face heavy fines.

Jay Alan Sekulow, an attorney for the American Center for Law and Justice which is representing several pregnancy centers, said the case is about whether California can “compel nonprofit, faith-based, pro-life licensed medical facilities, against their religious convictions and identity to advertise a government program that provides free or low-cost abortions.”

If that sounds familiar, it is, because back in 2016, Governor Bruce Rauner signed SB 1564, which forced

medical facilities and physicians who conscientiously object to involvement in abortions to adopt policies that provide women who ask for abortions with a list of providers “they reasonably believe may offer” them. Two federal laws, known as the Coats-Snowe amendment and the Hyde-Weldon amendment, together prohibit states that receive federal funding from forcing pro-life physicians and entities to refer women for abortion or to make arrangements for their referral. Illinois law also prohibits government from placing burdens on religious conscience without a compelling interest for doing so.

Since then, the Alliance for Defending Freedom, alongside attorneys at Mauck & Baker, filed suit on behalf of Illinois clients to overturn the law.

As IFI reported back in August,

a Federal District Court granted the National Institute of Family and Life Advocates and several pro-life pregnancy centers a preliminary injunction against an Illinois law that forces pro-life healthcare professionals to make abortion referrals. The injunction prohibits the State from enforcing the law against healthcare facilities or physicians who have a conscience objection to performing abortions or making abortion referrals.

Attorney Noel W. Sterett told the Illinois Family Institute that the Illinois case is now proceeding through the discovery phase.

Life News reports that whether the challenge to the California law will be heard by the United States Supreme Court might be known as early as Monday.

The Justices have considered the appeals for more than three weeks in their weekly conferences, suggesting at least several of them are inclined to hear the cases.

Recently, lower courts have split on controversies arising from state regulations of medical professions.

The American Center for Law and Justice’s Jay Sekulow said the law violates “the principle that one cannot be conscripted into acting as a ventriloquist’s dummy for a government message.”

“This law is like forcing the Sierra Club to advocate for oil spills or demanding St. Jude expose their patients to lead poisoning,” said Mat Staver, founder and chairman of Liberty Counsel, which is representing another group of California pregnancy centers.

“However, this law is actually much more repulsive. While those situations might cause unintended harm, abortion is intended — even specifically designed — to kill.”

Here is Mauck & Baker’s Noel W. Sterett on the topic of the Illinois law:

“The government has no business forcing pro-life doctors and pregnancy care centers in Illinois to operate as referral agents for the abortion industry. A law that targets medical professionals because of their pro-life views and right of conscience is unconstitutional and unethical.”

In the Life News story from October 31, Jay Hobbs reports:

In a major victory for free speech, Riverside County Superior Court Justice Gloria C. Trask ruled late Monday that California must not force pro-life pregnancy medical clinics to post signage promoting state-covered abortions to their clients.

The October 31 Life News article also includes a reference to the above-referenced statewide preliminary injunction on the 2016 Illinois law.

The Illinois Family Institute will continue to monitor the news regarding both the Illinois and California lawsuits.  Please pray for the ultimate demise of these tyrannical laws.

Download the IFI App!

We now have an IFI mobile app that enables us to deliver great content based on the “Tracks” you choose, including timely legislative alerts, cultural commentaries, upcoming event notifications, links to our podcasts, video reports, and even daily Bible verses to encourage you. This great app is available for Android and iPhones.

Key Features:

• It’s FREE!
• Specific content for serious Christians
• Performs a spiritual assessment
• Sends you daily Scriptures to encourage and equip you
• You determine when and how much content you get

Majorities in both houses of the Illinois General Assembly recently flunked the kind of science test that used to be given to grammar school students. The question, which just a few years ago was not controversial, was “can a man become a woman?” “Can a woman become a man?”

Earlier this month, the Weizmann Institute in Israel released a study and posted an article about it under this headline: “Researchers Identify 6,500 Genes That Are Expressed Differently in Men and Women.”

This (un)shocking study was also reported on by Liberty Counsel:

“This recent study from Israel’s Weizmann Institute of Science further proves that you cannot fool Mother Nature,” said Mat Staver, Founder and Chairman of Liberty Counsel.

“The saying, ‘I think, therefore, I am’ is best left to philosophy and not science. Gender confusion is mental, not physical or biological. God made male and female and no amount of protestation will change the natural created order. The fiction that a person can chose their gender does not help those who are confused” said Staver.

Changing the sex listed on a birth certificate also does not help a person suffering from gender confusion.

Yet on May 31st, HB 1785 passed in the Illinois State Senate by a vote of 32-22, and on May 25th it passed in the House by a vote of 63-32. That bill allows gender-dysphoric persons to falsify their birth certificates, which are both legal and historical documents. This will have consequences with regard to the relentless cultural assault on physical privacy through the sexual integration of previously sex-segregated spaces.

Simply put, biologically intact men will have legal access to women’s restrooms, locker rooms, dressing rooms, shelters, semi-private hospital rooms, nursing home rooms, and prisons.

The state of Illinois has no duty or right to be complicit in fraud by making it easier for men and women who wish they were the opposite sex to falsify their birth certificates, nor should Illinois public policy affirm deceit.

Now that it has passed in both chambers, it will be sent to Governor Bruce Rauner. Once he receives it, he will have 60 days to veto or sign it. If he does nothing, it automatically becomes law.

Take ACTION: Click Here to email Governor Bruce Rauner. Urge him to veto HB 1785 (and get an ‘A’ on this grammar school science test!). 

Please continue to call the governor’s public comment line every day until this is resolved: (217) 782-0244 and (312) 814-2121.  Also ask him to veto HB 40 – taxpayer funding of abortion while you are at it!

And let us not grow weary of doing good, 
for in due season we will reap, if we do not give up.
~Galatians 6:9

IFI Text Alerts!

For up-to-the minute news, action alerts, coming events and more you can now sign up for IFI Text Alerts!

Stay in the loop with IFI by texting “IFI” to 555888 to be enrolled right away.

Click HERE to donate

Fulfilling a campaign promise to get rid of the “Johnson Amendment,” President Donald Trump, according to Liberty Counsel, “signed an executive order today that promotes religious liberty throughout the federal agencies in general and in certain specific areas”:

The executive order declares that it is the policy of the Administration to protect and vigorously promote religious liberty, directs the IRS to exercise maximum enforcement of discretion to alleviate the burden of the Johnson Amendment, and provides regulatory relief for religious objectors to Obamacare’s burdensome preventive services mandate.

The Johnson Amendment, named for then-Senator Lyndon B. Johnson of Texas and enacted into law in 1954, restricts tax-exempt organizations, including churches and religious organizations, from endorsing or opposing candidates for elected office. The executive order will provide some relief by directing the IRS to relax its enforcement of the provision.

For decades, the Johnson Amendment has deterred many church pastors and leaders from speaking about the moral issues of the day due to the fear of having their tax-exempt status revoked. Unfortunately, it was also used as an excuse to avoid controversial matters of morality that, over the years, became dominated by politics.

In an article earlier this year, Dr. Michael Brown wrote that he believes “it is the fear of man that has muzzled us and it is our desire to be affirmed by the world that has silenced us”:

The Johnson Amendment, as wrong as it is, is quite limited in its scope, primarily prohibiting “certain tax-exempt organizations from endorsing and opposing political candidates.”

It does not prohibit pastors from speaking out against political corruption. It does not prohibit pastors from speaking out against LGBT activism. It does not prohibit pastors from speaking out against abortion.

Nevertheless, many pastors and leaders have feared losing church members or offending those who disagreed. Now, with the loss of the excuse of the Johnson Amendment, Christian pastors and leaders can now, in the words of Dr. Brown, get back to the business of helping believers “sort out” cultural matters  “based on Scripture.”

“This is an appropriate way to commemorate the National Day of Prayer,” said Liberty Counsel Chairman Mat Staver, “as our President commits to protect and promote religious freedom.”

To learn more about the Johnson Amendment and what churches can and cannot do, click here.

Please join the Illinois Family Institute in thanking President Trump.

Take ACTION: CLICK HERE to thank President Trump for keeping his promise to protect free speech and religious liberty.

Editor’s Note:  Today’s action is a great first step in restoring First Amendment religious liberty rights, however it doesn’t change some of our nation’s most troubling laws, like the 1954 Johnson Amendment, or state laws that tyrannize Christian business owners.  We must keep in mind that this Executive Order could easily be overturned by the next president…  so we still have much work to do.

Lawmakers in Washington D.C. and Springfield must still follow through in making real changes to defend religious liberty against despotism.

Image credit: Liberty Counsel.

Would you help IFI continue this work?
Would you contribute $25, $50, or $100 today to help us fight for religious liberty?

Written by Samuel Smith

Probate Judge Don Davis asked to be relieved of the order because it would cause him to violate a federal court order that struck down the marriage law. On March 10, 2015, the Alabama Supreme Court issued a second order refusing to relieve him of the order and directing that he immediately cease issuing same-sex marriage licenses.

On March 12, 2015, the Alabama Supreme Court issued a third order directing that “all probate judges” in the state are subject to the March 3, 2015, order and that they must immediately cease issuing same-sex marriage licenses.

On June 26, 2015, the 5-4 opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court in the Obergefell marriage case was released. The ACLU then asked the Alabama Supreme Court to reverse its prior orders in light of the U.S. Supreme Court opinion. Liberty Counsel argued that the prior Alabama Supreme Court orders remain valid.

Last Friday the Alabama Supreme Court made permanent the Petition for Mandamus, which upheld the marriage laws and ordered the probate judges to comply with those laws. The Alabama Supreme Court then dismissed the ACLU’s motion to clarify and reverse this prior order. The Judgment reads as follows:

CERTIFICATE OF JUDGMENT

WHEREAS, the ruling on the application for rehearing filed in this cause and indicated below was entered in this cause on March 20, 2015:

Application Overruled. No Opinion. PER CURIAM – Stuart, Bolin, Parker, Murdock, Main, Wise, and Bryan, JJ., concur. [This refers to the ACLU motion.]

WHEREAS, the above referenced cause has been duly submitted and considered by the Supreme Court of Alabama and the orders indicated below were entered in this cause:

Petition Granted. Writ Issued. March 3, 2015. PER CURIAM – Stuart, Bolin, Parker, Murdock, Wise, and Bryan, JJ., concur. Main, J., concurs in part and concurs in the result. Shaw, J., dissents. [This refers to Liberty Counsel’s Petition for Mandamus.]

Writ Issued as to Judge Don Davis. March 11, 2015. PER CURIAM – Stuart, Parker, Murdock, Main, Wise, and Bryan, JJ., concur. Shaw, J., dissents. [Same as above]

Writ Issued as to additional respondents. March 12, 2015. PER CURIAM – Stuart, Bolin, Parker, Murdock, Main, Wise, and Bryan, JJ., concur. Shaw, J., dissents. [Same as above]

NOW, THEREFORE, pursuant to Rule 41, Ala. R. App. P., IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this Court’s judgment in this cause is certified on this date. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, unless otherwise ordered by this Court or agreed upon by the parties, the costs of this cause are hereby taxed as provided by Rule 35, Ala. R. App. P.

Along with the Judgment, the Alabama Supreme Court released the separate opinions of the Justices. In his 105-page opinion, in which he concurred in the Judgment, Chief Justice Roy Moore wrote the following:

Today this Court by order dismisses all pending motions and petitions and issues the certificate of judgment in this case. That action does not disturb the existing March orders in this case or the Court’s holding therein that the Sanctity of Marriage Amendment, art. I, § 36.03, Ala. Const. 1901, and the Alabama Marriage Protection Act, § 30-1-9, Ala. Code 1975, are constitutional. Therefore, and for the reasons stated below, I concur with the order.

Later in a public statement after the Judgment was issued, Chief Justice Roy Moore made the following statement:

The Court dismissed in its order “pending motions and petitions” in the API case today but did not dismiss “lawsuits” or dismiss the case. In fact, the Court also issued the certificate of judgment (COJ) which explicitly recognized the 3 orders issued in this case last year. As I stated in my written concurrence, the Court did not disturb the existing orders in this case or the holding in API that Alabama’s Sanctity of Marriage Amendment and the Alabama Marriage Protection Act were constitutional.

“Some media reported the opposite of what the Alabama Supreme Court did. When the Alabama Supreme Court entered the Judgment on its March 2015 order and dismissed the ALCU’s motion to reverse that order, the result was a clear victory for our case,” said Mat Staver, Founder and Chairman of Liberty Counsel. “The Alabama Supreme Court order upholding the marriage laws and ordering the probate judges to comply with those laws still remains in effect. The ACLU’s request to reverse that order was dismissed. The Alabama Supreme Court rejected the 5-4 marriage opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court. While some of the Alabama Supreme Court Justices wrote separate opinions ripping apart the U.S. Supreme Court, it is clear a majority of the Court issued a Judgment affirming that their prior orders upholding the marriage laws remain valid in Alabama,” said Staver.

Liberty Counsel is an international nonprofit, litigation, education, and policy organization dedicated to advancing religious freedom, the sanctity of life, and the family since 1989, by providing pro bono assistance and representation on these and related topics.

[On Friday] in a 170-page ruling, the Alabama Supreme Court rejected the U.S. Supreme Court’s marriage opinion by issuing its own Judgment in favor of Liberty Counsel’s Petition for Mandamus. In the petition, Liberty Counsel demanded on behalf of its Alabama clients – Alabama Policy Institute (“API”) and Alabama Citizens Action Program (“ALCAP”) – that the state’s probate judges obey Alabama’s Constitution and laws. On March 4, 2015, the Alabama Supreme Court ordered the probate judges to immediately cease issuing same-sex marriage licenses.

“The ruling last year by the Alabama Supreme Court was historic, and is one of the most researched and well-reasoned opinions on marriage to be issued by any court in the country. Today’s opinion by the Alabama Supreme Court calling the U.S. Supreme Court’s marriage opinion ‘illegitimate’ will be remembered in history like the ‘shot heard around the world,’” said Mat Staver, Founder and Chairman of Liberty Counsel.

Following the June 26, 2015, U.S. Supreme Court’s 5-4 Obergefell opinion on marriage, the Alabama Supreme Court requested the parties to file additional briefs. [On Friday], the Alabama Supreme Court issued its final Judgment, thus affirming and implementing its March 4, 2015 opinion.

“The Alabama Supreme Court has openly rejected the U.S. Supreme Court’s 5-4 marriage opinion, labeling it ‘illegitimate’ and without legal or precedential authority. This is a clear victory for the rule of law and an historic decision by the Alabama Supreme Court. The Judgement makes permanent the Alabama Supreme Court’s order prohibiting probate judges from issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. The Alabama Supreme Court has rejected the illegitimate opinion of five lawyers on the U.S. Supreme Court,” said Staver.

Chief Justice Roy Moore and Justice Tom Parker issued concurring opinions openly criticizing the U.S. Supreme Court marriage opinion. Using Supreme Court Chief Justice John Robert’s term of “five lawyers” when referring to the U.S. Supreme Court Obergefell opinion, Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore wrote a blistering 105-page concurring opinion:

• Today this Court by order dismisses all pending motions and petitions and issues the certificate of judgment in this case. That action does not disturb the existing March orders in this case or the Court’s holding therein that the Sanctity of Marriage Amendment, art. I, § 36.03, Ala. Const. 1901, and the Alabama Marriage Protection Act, § 30-1-9, Ala. Code 1975, are constitutional. Therefore, and for the reasons stated below, I concur with the order.

• I agree with the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, John Roberts, and with Associate Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito, that the majority opinion inObergefell has no basis in the law, history, or tradition of this country. Obergefell is an unconstitutional exercise of judicial authority that usurps the legislative prerogative of the states to regulate their own domestic policy. Additionally, Obergefell seriously jeopardizes the religious liberty guaranteed by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

• Based upon arguments of “love,” “commitment,” and “equal dignity” for same-sex couples, five lawyers, as Chief Justice Roberts so aptly describes the Obergefell majority, have declared a new social policy for the entire country. As the Chief Justice and Associate Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito eloquently and accurately demonstrate in their dissents, the majority opinion in Obergefell is an act of raw power with no ascertainable foundation in the Constitution itself. The majority presumed to legislate for the entire country under the guise of interpreting the Constitution. 

• The Obergefell majority presumes to amend the United States Constitution to create a right stated nowhere therein. That is a lawless act. 

• I submit that our Founders knew a lot more about freedom than [Justice Kennedy’s opinion] indicates. They secured the freedoms we enjoy, not in judicial decrees of newly discovered rights, but in the Constitution and amendments thereto. That a majority of the Court may identify an “injustice” that merits constitutional correction does not dispense with the means the Constitution has provided in Article V for its own amendment.

• Although the Court could suggest that the Constitution would benefit from a particular amendment, the Court does not possess the authority to insert the amendment into the Constitution by the vehicle of a Court opinion and then to demand compliance with it. 

• Novel departures from the text of the Constitution by the Court are customarily accompanied by pretentious language employed to conceal the illegitimacy of its actions. Justice Scalia in hisObergefell dissent refers to this abandonment of “disciplined legal reasoning” as a descent into “the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie.”

• Some of the ostentatious phrases used in the majority opinion [are] more suitable to a romance novel.

• The majority seeks to invoke the grief, sorrow, and compassion associated with a Greek tragedy. Riding a tidal wave of emotion, the ensuing tears and pathos then suffice to fertilize a new constitutional right nowhere mentioned in the Constitution itself.

• Abandoning the role of interpreting the written Constitution, the majority has instead decided to become the supposed “voice” of the people, discerning the people’s sentiments and updating the document accordingly. The function of keeping the Constitution up with the times, however, has not been delegated to the Court — or to Congress or the President; that function is reserved to the states under Article V. 

• Historically, consummation of a marriage always involved an act of sexual intimacy that was dignified in the eyes of the law. An act of sexual intimacy between two men or two women, by contrast, was considered “an infamous crime against nature” and a “disgrace to human nature.”Homosexuals who seek the dignity of marriage must first forsake the sexual habits that disqualify them from admission to that hallowed institution. Surely more dignity attaches to participation in a fundamental institution on the terms it prescribes than to an attempt to wrest its definition to serve inordinate lusts that demean its historic dignity.

• A “disgrace to human nature” cannot be cured by stripping the institution of holy matrimony of its inherent dignity and redefining it to give social approval to behaviors unsuited to its high station. Sodomy has never been and never will be an act by which a marriage can be consummated.

• Government exists to secure that right. Because liberty is a gift of God, it must be exercised in conformity with the laws of nature and of nature’s God.

• Liberty in the American system of government is not the right to define one’s own reality in defiance of the Creator. . . . But the human being, as a dependent creature, is not at liberty to redefine reality; instead, as the Declaration of Independence states, a human being is bound to recognize that the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are endowed by God. Those rights are not subject to a redefinition that rejects the natural order God has created.

• Citing Genesis 2:24 — The Obergefell majority’s false definition of marriage arises, in great part, from its false definition of liberty. Separating man from his Creator, the majority plunges the human soul into a wasteland of meaninglessness where every man defines his own anarchic reality. In that godless world nothing has meaning or consequence except as the human being desires. Man then becomes the creator of his own reality rather than a subject of the Creator of the Declaration.

• This false notion of liberty, which permeates the majority opinion in, is the ultimate fallacy upon which it rests. In a world with God left out, the moral boundaries of Scripture disappear, and man’s corrupt desires are given full rein. The end of this experiment in anarchic liberty is yet to be seen. The great sufferers will be the children — deprived of either a paternal or a maternal presence — who are raised in unnatural families that contradict the created order.

• The invocation of “equal dignity” to justify the invention of a heretofore unknown constitutional right is just another judicial mantra to rationalize the invalidation of state laws that offend the policy preferences of a five-person majority.

• The majority opinion in Obergefell represents the culmination of a change in our form of government from one of three separate-but-equal branches to one in which the judicial branch now exercises the power of the legislative branch.

• The Obergefell majority, presuming to know better than the people themselves how to order the fundamental domestic institution of society, has usurped the legislative prerogatives of the people contrary to the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.

• In short, the majority acts not as a court of law but as a band of social revolutionaries. The Chief Justice, amazed at this presumption, exclaims: “Just who do we think we are?”

• The Chief Justice’s quotation of Justice Curtis’s Dred Scott dissent merits serious consideration. If acquiescence to Obergefell indicates that “we have no longer a Constitution,” then the legitimacy of Obergefell is subject to grave doubt. If five Justices of the Supreme Court may at will redefine the Constitution according to their own policy preferences, the mechanism of judicial review, designed originally to protect the rights of the people from runaway legislatures, has morphed into the right of five lawyers to rule the people without their consent.

• Indeed, as the Chief Justice warns, the plenary power the majority asserts to redefine the fundamental institutions of society offers no assurance that it will not give birth to yet further attacks on the social order.

• If, as the Chief Justice asserts, the opinion of the majority is not based on the Constitution, do state judges have any obligation to obey that ruling? Does not their first duty lie to the Constitution? 

• The right to change the form of government in this country belongs to the people themselves through the amendment process, not to judicial oligarchs.

• These metaphors identify the essence of the majority’s actions: an illegal displacement and usurpation of the democratic process. Chief Justice Roberts accuses the majority of imposing “naked policy preferences” that have “no basis in the Constitution.” Accordingly, the majority’s “extravagant conception of judicial supremacy” is “dangerous for the rule of law.” The unmistakable theme that emerges from these critiques is lawlessness.

• Justice Scalia also emphasizes the revolutionary character of the majority’s assault on the social order — elevating the “crime against nature” into the equivalent of holy matrimony. This decision, “unabashedly not based on law,” represents a “social upheaval” and a “judicial Putsch.” Justice Alito sounds the same themes. The Court has not unwittingly tread into forbidden territory; instead, it has acted “far beyond the outer reaches” of its authority, boldly trampling the right of the people “to control their own destiny.” 

• For the last 50 years, the Supreme Court has consistently misused the Fourteenth Amendment to destroy state laws that protect the marital relation and its offspring. Obergefell is the latest fruit of this corrupt tree (refer to Matthew 7:17-18).

• Truly, the less basis the majority has for its innovations upon the Constitution, the grander is the language employed to justify them, as if high-blown rhetoric could compensate for the absence of constitutional substance. 

• Obergefell is but the latest example of the Court’s creation of constitutional rights out of thin air in service of the immorality of the sexual revolution. Like Roe, Obergefell is no more than “an exercise of raw judicial power … an improvident and extravagant exercise of the power of judicial review that the Constitution extends to this Court.”

• Amendments to the Constitution are the business of the people pursuant to Article V; they are not the business of the Court under Article III. Truth may not always be clearly seen, but the majority’s reasoning should not blind us to the reality that the Court seems determined to alter this nation’s organic law. 

• The definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman has existed for millennia and has never been considered an “ill tendency.” By contrast, the Court’s attempt to redefine marriage is “a dangerous fallacy which at once destroys all religious liberty.” 

• The Obergefell majority, conspicuously overlooking the “essential and historic significance” of the connection between religious liberty and “supreme allegiance to the will of God,” failed to appreciate the seriousness of imposing a new sexual-revolution mandate that requires Alabama public officials to disobey the will of God. 

• Religious liberty, however, is about more than just “teaching” and “advocating” views of marriage. The majority condescendingly approves religious speech against same-sex marriage but not religious practice in conformity with those beliefs. As Chief Justice Roberts states in his dissent: “The First Amendment guarantees … the freedom to ‘exercise’ religion. Ominously, this is not a word the majority uses.”

• Obergefell promises to breach the legal protections that have shielded believers from participating in acts hostile to their faith. As Chief Justice Roberts points out, the Obergefellmajority piously declaims that people of faith may believe what they want and seek to persuade others, but it says nary a word about them practicing or exercising their faith as the Free Exercise Clause provides.

• The Free Exercise Clause, an express constitutional provision, logically takes precedence over a pretended constitutional right formulated from whole cloth by “five lawyers.”

• Foreseeing the dire consequences for religious freedom in the principle that same-sex marriage must be given equal stature with holy matrimony and foreseeing the inevitable pressure to compel religious institutions, businesses, and practitioners of professions to conform to that unreality, it would be imprudent to wait for the onset of these persecutions, to stand idle until Obergefell “usurped power had strengthened itself by exercise, and entangled the question in precedents.” Rather “the axe [must be] laid unto the root of the trees,” (refer to Matthew 3:10) and the consequence avoided by denying the principle. To allow a simple majority of the United States Supreme Court to “create” a constitutional right that destroys the religious liberty guaranteed by the First Amendment violates not only common sense but also our duty to the Constitution. 

• I disagree with the conclusion that the “rule of law” requires judges to follow as the “law of the land” a precedent that is “a super-legislative imposition,” “a mockery,” “a legal fiction,” and “an utter travesty.”

• By the plain language of Article VI, state judges are bound to obedience to the Constitution, laws made in pursuance thereof, and treaties made under the authority of the United States, not to the opinions of the United States Supreme Court. 

• Thus, in the plainest terms and employing emphasis, Hamilton declared that acts of the federal government that invade the reserved rights of the states are “acts of usurpation” that deserve to be treated as such. Such acts “would not be the supreme law of the land, but an usurpation of power not granted by the Constitution.”

• The Supremacy Clause, quite obviously, by this chain of reasoning, does not give the United States Supreme Court or any other agency of the federal government the authority to make its every declaration by that very fact the supreme law of the land. If the Court’s edicts do not arise from powers delegated to the federal government in the Constitution, they are to be treated not as the supreme law of the land but as mere usurpation. 

• Thus, if precedents are “manifestly absurd or unjust,” “contrary to reason,” or “contrary to the divine law,” they are not to be followed.

• Applying Blackstone’s analysis, which is compatible with that of Hamilton, one must conclude that the Obergefell opinion is manifestly absurd and unjust, as demonstrated convincingly by the four dissenting Justices in Obergefell and the writings of two Justices of the Louisiana Supreme Court in Costanza. Basing its opinion upon a supposed fundamental right that has no history or tradition in our country, the opinion of the Obergefell majority is “contrary to reason” as well as “contrary to the divine law.”

• The Obergefell opinion, being manifestly absurd and unjust and contrary to reason and divine law, is not entitled to precedential value. 

• If, as an individual who is sworn to uphold and support the United States Constitution, I were to place a court opinion that manifestly and palpably violates the United States Constitution above my loyalty to that Constitution, I would betray my oath and blatantly disregard the Constitution I am sworn to uphold. Acquiescence on my part to acts of “palpable illegality” would be an admission that we are governed by the rule of man and not by the rule of law. Simply put, the Justices of the Supreme Court, like every American soldier, are under the Constitution, not above it. 

• The general principle of blind adherence to United States Supreme Court opinions as “the law of the land” is a dangerous fallacy that is inconsistent with the United States Constitution. Labeling such opinions as “the rule of law” confuses the law itself — the Constitution — with an opinion that purports to interpret that document.

• Opinions of the Supreme Court that interpret the Constitution are, as Lincoln said, “entitled to very high respect and consideration,” but only insofar as they are faithful to that document. In a case like Obergefell, the “evil effects” Lincoln described should be confined to the unfortunate defendants in that case. We must protect the institution of marriage from judicial subversion and maintain loyalty to the principles upon which our nation was founded.

• Finally, we should reject the conversion of our republican form of government into an aristocracy of nine lawyers.

• Some contend, however, that Obergefell, by its mere existence, abrogates the March 2015 orders in this case. Those orders, of course, were not the subject of review in Obergefell. 

• The Court had no jurisdiction to order nonparties to Obergefell to obey its judgment for they have not had an opportunity to appear and defend.

• No Alabama probate judges were parties to Obergefell. Neither were they officers, agents, or servants of any of the defendants in those cases, or in active concert or participation with any of them. The Obergefell defendants were state officials in the four states in the jurisdiction of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, namely Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee. Needless to say, Alabama probate judges were not agents, servants, or employees of any of those state officials. Nor were they in “active concert or participation” with any of them.Thus, the judgment in Obergefell that reversed the Sixth Circuit’s judgment does not constitute an order to Alabama probate judges.

• The dissents of Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Scalia, Justice Thomas, and Justice Alito provide ample justification to refuse to recognize Obergefell as a legitimate judicial judgment. Obergefellconstitutes an unlawful purported amendment of the Constitution by a judicial body that possesses no such authority. As Chief Justice Roberts stated: “The right [Obergefell] announces has no basis in the Constitution or this Court’s precedent.”

• Rather than limiting themselves to the judicial function of applying existing law to the facts and parties before them, the Obergefell majority violated “the metes and bounds which separate each department of power” by purporting to rewrite the marriage laws of the several states to conform to their own view of marriage.

• Even more injurious to the rule of law, the Obergefell majority “overleap[ed] the great Barrier which defends the rights of the people” as expressed in the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. The majority thus has jeopardized the freedom to worship God according to the dictates of conscience and the right to acknowledge God as the author and guarantor of true liberty. 

• By transgressing “the metes and bounds which separate each department of power” and “overleap[ing] the great Barrier” which protects the rights of conscience, the Obergefell majority “exceed[s] the commission from which they derive their authority” and are “tyrants.” By submitting to that illegitimate authority, the people, as Madison stated, become slaves. Free government, rather than being preserved, is destroyed.

• Obergefell is completely without constitutional authority, a usurpation of state sovereignty, and an effort to impose the will of “five lawyers,” . . . on the people of this country. 

• In my legal opinion, Obergefell, like Dred Scott and Roe v. Wade that preceded it, is an immoral, unconstitutional, and tyrannical opinion. Its consequences for our society will be devastating, and its elevation of immorality to a special “right” enforced through civil penalties will be completely destructive of our religious liberty.

• Obergefell contradicts “the laws of nature and of nature’s God” that were invoked in the organic law upon which our country is founded. To invariably equate a Supreme Court decision that clearly contradicts the Constitution with “the rule of law” is to elevate the Supreme Court above the Constitution and to subject the American people to an autocracy foreign to our form of government. Supreme Court Justices are also subject to the Constitution. When “that eminent tribunal” unquestionably violates the limitations set forth in that document, lesser officials — equally bound by oath to the Constitution — have a duty to recognize that fact or become guilty of the same transgression.

In a separate concurring opinion, Alabama Supreme Court Justice Parker wrote:

• “Obergefell conclusively demonstrates that the rule of law is dead.”

• “Obergefell … trampled into the dust the last vestiges of the legitimacy of the United States Supreme Court.”

• “Obergefell is not based on legal reasoning, history, tradition, the Court’s own rules, or the rule of law, but upon the empathetic feelings of the ‘five lawyers’ in the majority.”

• “[The Supreme Court] majority illegitimately imposed its will upon the American people. We now appear to be a government not of laws, but of ‘five lawyers.’”

• “Obergefell is ‘no judicial act at all’ because it is ‘without principled justification.’”

• “Obergefell is without legitimacy.”

• “This is not the rule of law, this is despotism and tyranny.”

• “Despotism and tyranny were evils identified in the Declaration of Independence as necessitating the break with King George and Great Britain.”

• “Obergefell is the latest example of judicial despotism.”

•  “As justices and judges on state courts around the nation, we have sworn and oath to uphold the United States Constitution. We have not sworn to blindly follow the unsubstantiated opinion of ‘five lawyers.’”

Justice Parker quotes from the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1992 abortion decision in Planned Parenthood v. Casey:

[T]he Court cannot buy support for its decisions by spending money and, except to a minor degree, it cannot independently coerce obedience to its decrees. The Court’s power lies, rather, in its legitimacy, a product of substance and perception that shows itself in the people’s acceptance of the Judiciary as fit to determine what the Nation’s law means and to declare what it demands…. [A] decision without principled justification would be no judicial act at all…. The Court must take care to speak and act in ways that allow people to accept its decision on the terms the Court claims for them, as grounded truly in principle, not compromises with social and political pressures having, as such, no bearing on the principled choices that the Court is obliged to make. Thus, the Court’s legitimacy depends on circumstances in which their principled character is sufficiently plausible to be accepted by the Nation.

“Justices and judges are bound to interpret the U.S. Constitution. When they write opinions that have no legal foundation, then their opinions lack legal legitimacy. That is what the five lawyers did on the U.S. Supreme Court in the marriage opinion. They ignored the Constitution, the Court’s precedents, and millennia of human history. Their opinion calls into question the legitimacy of the Supreme Court. When we the people lose trust in the Justices, the authority of the Supreme Court is undermined. If the people accept this 5-4 opinion, then we have transitioned to a despotic form of government. The people must now decide if we are governed by the rule of law or the whim of unelected judges,” concluded Staver.

Liberty Counsel is an international nonprofit, litigation, education, and policy organization dedicated to advancing religious freedom, the sanctity of life, and the family since 1989, by providing pro bono assistance and representation on these and related topics.

While the legal case will continue to work its way through the courts, the bottom line is this: Kim Davis has won. The homofascists have lost.

Last Tuesday, Kentucky’s new governor, Matt Bevin, issued an executive order that eliminates the names of all county clerks from marriage licenses and protects the unalienable constitutional rights and religious freedoms of Kim Davis and all other clerks in Kentucky.

“This action is a fulfillment of a campaign promise by Gov. Bevin and is directly what our client Kim Davis has been requesting for months,” said Mat Staver, Davis’ attorney and founder of the Christian civil rights firm Liberty Counsel. “This promise will enable her and other clerks to do their jobs without compromising religious values and beliefs.”

The governor’s statement reads in part:

“To ensure that the sincerely held religious beliefs of all Kentuckians are honored, Executive Order 2015-048 directs the Kentucky Department for Libraries and Archives to issue a revised marriage license form to the offices of all Kentucky County Clerks. The name of the County Clerk is no longer required to appear on the form.”

While the First Amendment alone should be enough to ensure these safeguards, the unconstitutional actions of five “progressive” lawyers on the U.S. Supreme Court, who, back in June, presumed to capriciously redefine the immutable meaning of marriage, has created legal and moral chaos from coast-to-coast, making fixes such as that issued by Gov. Bevin necessary. Furthermore, these extremist lawyers’ subjective and unprecedented opinion will require additional fixes in all other states to reaffirm Christians’ objective and constitutionally guaranteed rights. Although the fight to repair the perversion of marriage committed by the high court will continue, this is an important step in the right direction.

You may recall that Davis was arbitrarily imprisoned for five days earlier this year by federal Judge David Bunning for exercising her religious liberties and refusing to violate her conscience by signing her name to, and, thereby, giving her official approval of, counterfeit “gay marriage” licenses. These licenses, of course, violate both natural law and the manifold biblical proscriptions against the sin of unnatural same-sex deviancy. Bunning’s tyrannical move backfired tremendously, earning Davis’ the support of tens-of-millions of Christians worldwide, as well as both a private audience with, and the express support of, Pope Francis.

“This is a wonderful Christmas gift for Kim Davis,” continued Staver. “This executive order is a clear, simple accommodation on behalf of Kim Davis and all Kentucky clerks. Kim can celebrate Christmas with her family knowing she does not have to choose between her public office and her deeply held religious convictions. What former Gov. Beshear could have done but refused to do, Gov. Bevin did with this executive order. We are pleased that Gov. Bevin kept his campaign promise to accommodate the religious rights of Kim Davis. We will notify the courts of the executive order, and this order proves our point that a reasonable accommodation should have been done to avoid Kim having to spend time in jail.”

“Bah humbug!” cried the ACLU.

“Governor Bevin’s executive action has added to the cloud of uncertainty that hangs over marriage licensing in Kentucky,” claimed ACLU of Kentucky Legal Director William Sharp.

“The requirement that the county clerk’s name appear on marriage licenses is prescribed by Kentucky law and is not subject to unilateral change by the governor,” he demanded, proving that the anti-Christian left’s goal was never about so-called “marriage equality” but, rather, was to force Christians to deny marriage reality and personally affirm, under penalty of law, mock “gay marriages.”

The ACLU will soon have little more to say on the subject as lawmakers are poised to further codify and build upon Bevin’s executive order. “Next month, the Kentucky legislature is expected to update the state’s marriage laws and will consider a provision exempting county clerks from having to issue them,” reports ABC News. “Davis said Kentucky’s marriage laws have been ‘completely eviscerated’ by the Supreme Court’s ruling and said she would be willing to come to the state Capitol to testify about any changes.”

Other state legislatures, as well as the U.S. Congress, must soon follow suit if any progress is to be made into the impasse between secularist change agents hostile to religious freedom, and the faithful Christians who enjoy it as a matter of law.

“In an interview with the Associated Press about her year at the center of one of the biggest social changes in decades, Davis described it as ‘a very emotional and a very real situation to all people.’ But she said simply telling others about her faith was not ‘going to make anybody believe anything.’ And so she put her faith in action by refusing to issue the licenses,” added ABC.

“‘No one would ever have remembered a county clerk that just said … ‘Even though I don’t agree with it, it’s OK. I’ll do it,’ Davis said. ‘If I could be remembered for one thing, it’s that I was not afraid to not compromise myself.’”

Kim Davis will certainly be remembered for her steadfast refusal to compromise herself. But she, along with Gov. Bevin, will also be remembered for helping, this Christmas season, to re-establish the gift of religious freedom for the people of Kentucky.

Even so, the war for our culture will continue into the New Year and well beyond.

Support IFI

Please consider supporting IFI’s ongoing work to educate, motivate and activate Illinois’ Christian community.  Your donation will help us stand strong in 2016!  To make a credit card donation over the phone, please call the IFI office at (708) 781-9328.  You can also send a gift to:

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

On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court lifted a stay paving the way for Alabama probate judges to issue same-sex “marriage” licenses and perform the ceremonies. Liberty Counsel founder Mat Staver tells OneNewsNow that Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore issued a memo to the judges instructing them not to do so because a federal court lacks jurisdiction to force them to do it.

“We fully support that,” Staver emphasizes. “We’re ready to defend any Alabama probate judge who refuses to participate – and we’re actually willing also to come against those who violate now the administrative order of the chief justice.”

Liberty Counsel is representing Nick Williams and other probate judges in Alabama who refuse to participate in same-sex marriages. “And we fully support not only the letter and the memorandum and now most recently the administrative order from the Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court, Roy Moore,” Staver adds.

Some of the probate judges are issuing the licenses, but Staver says Judge Moore is on target with his instruction forbidding them to do it – an argument the chief justice himself has made.

“This is to be applauded,” states the Liberty Counsel founder. “This may set up a clash between the federal and state system, a clash that is far overdue – because these federal judges have gone way beyond their authority assuming that they can order the rest of state authorities and officials to participate in an immoral act such as same-sex marriage.”

Staver points out that the Alabama code doesn’t require a judge of probate to perform marriage for anyone – so they can refuse if they choose. A federal judge has no jurisdiction over them.

Read Judge Moore’s order to Alabama probate judges