Last Sunday in an on-air, post-game interview and subsequent tweet, Chicago Bears kicker Eddy Piñeiro Jr. said, “If you don’t believe in God you better start believing he’s REAL.” Anyone watching the moment with eyes unclouded by hatred of and rebellion against God, could see the joy of a man who wants to share his joy with others. But what Chicago Tribune opinion columnist Eric Zorn saw was this:

Piñeiro’s post-game remarks—including a follow-up tweet—were a taunt, not an expression of humility. They implicitly derided nonbelievers and deployed his success as evidence of the superiority of his theological outlook.

Zorn mistook a wish for a taunt, joy for arrogance.

Zorn then meanspiritedly mocks and mistranslates (or transmogrifies) Piñeiro’s statements, twisting them beyond recognition:

I made a field goal, therefore Jesus is real and atheists and agnostics should get on board!

Serious, theologically orthodox Christians don’t believe Jesus is real because of the successes they experience or gifts they are given. In fact, the Bible teaches that Christ-followers like every other human in this fallen world will suffer: “We are afflicted in every way, but not crushed; perplexed, but not driven to despair; persecuted, but not forsaken; struck down, but not destroyed.”

Maybe Piñeiro, who evidently loves Jesus and desires that all would come to know and love Him, wanted to take this opportunity to share some really good news—news about Christ. Maybe Piñeiro wants atheists and agnostics to one day see the kingdom of Heaven. Is that wish a taunt or an expression of love for the lost?

While Zorn may know a thing or two about writing, he’s as bad at theology as is his ideologue-in-arms Rex Huppke, so here’s a primer in theology (trigger warning for Zorn who may find Jesus’ belief “in the superiority of his theological outlook” off-putting):

• Jesus says, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.”

• Jesus says, “For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few.”

• Jesus commands his followers to “Go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to the whole creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.”

• Jesus says, “Anyone who loves me will obey my teaching. My Father will love them, and we will come to them and make our home with them.”

• Jesus says, “If the world hates you, know that it has hated me before it hated you. If you were of the world, the world would love you as its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you.”

• Jesus says, “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’”

• Peter says to followers of Christ, “But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light.”

Zorn’s beef is really with God.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

IFI depends on the support of concerned-citizens like you. Donate now

-and, please-

Leftist Chicago Tribune columnist Rex Huppke has penned a column on the recently released Nashville Statement. His article is titled “150 Evangelicals DENY love for LGBT people.” The Nashville Statement is a critically important and desperately needed document that succinctly affirms theologically orthodox positions on homosexuality, marriage, and the objective goodness and immutability of maleness and femaleness.

The Nashville Statement signatories include these Evangelical luminaries: Sam Allberry, Alistair Begg, Michael Brown,  Rosaria Butterfield, Denny Burk,  D.A. Carson, Francis Chan, Matt Chandler, Mark Dever, Kevin DeYoung, James Dobson, Ligon Duncan, John Frame, David French, Robert A. J. Gagnon, Wayne Grudem, R. Kent Hughes, John MacArthur, C. J. Mahaney, Al Mohler, Russell Moore, J. P. Moreland, Paul Nyquist, Marvin Olasky, J.I. Packer, Tony Perkins, John Piper, R. C. Sproul, Thomas Schreiner, Sam Storms, Owen Strachan, Eric Teetsel, Bruce Ware, and Christopher Yuan.

Pastor, theologian, and signatory John Piper says this about the Nashville Statement:

It speaks with forthright clarity, biblical conviction, gospel compassion, cultural relevance, and practical helpfulness. There is no effort to equivocate for the sake of wider, but muddled, acceptance.

It is built on the persuasion that the Christian Scriptures speak with clarity and authority for the good of humankind. 

Here are Huppke’s beliefs about what Scripture teaches about love—which is something quite different from what Scripture teaches about love:

The love Jesus encouraged is often distorted in ways that, in my mind, run afoul of what the man was talking about. The Nashville Statement is one of those distortions, a declaration that some love is acceptable and some love isn’t…. I don’t buy that. I’ll never buy that….

What must Huppke think of the judgmentalism of Jesus who told the adulteress to stop “loving” all those men? And what about the Apostle Paul who condemned a man for “loving” his step-mother? And then there was that judgmental Moses carrying on about those who “love” their close relatives and animals.

George Bernard Shaw famously said animals are his friends. Shouldn’t people be free to “love” their friends? I mean, love is love. Who are we to judge?

Huppke says that “declaring LGBT people and their allies sinners doesn’t strike me as a particularly kind gesture.”

The Bible declares that all people are sinners—not just “LGBT” people and their allies:

“None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one.”

“There is no fear of God before their eyes.… for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God…”

 

Not very kind by the standards of post-Christian cultures.

Yes, Rex Huppke is a sinner. Ellen DeGeneres is a sinner. Mother Theresa was a sinner. Jim Elliot was a sinner. All the signatories to the Nashville Statement are sinners.  Everyone who works for Apple, Google, and the Human Rights Campaign is a sinner. And I am a sinner.

Huppke believes “it’s an offense to God to not acknowledge that all humans are different, to ignore the fact that telling LBGT people that they’re sinners, that their identity is wrong, that they’re somehow imperfect, is wildly and dangerously damaging, not to mention a sin in and of itself.”

• So, does Huppke apply that principle consistently? Does he argue that moral disapproval of, for example, adult consensual incest, zoophilia, or polyamory constitutes an offense to God?

• Are all behaviors impelled by unchosen, powerful, and persistent desires intrinsically moral simply because someone says they form the core of their identity?

• Aren’t all humans imperfect, and aren’t our imperfections revealed in part through engaging in immoral behaviors?

• Does the expression of all moral propositions with which someone may disagree damage those people?

• Has Huppke damaged theologically orthodox Christians through his indictment of beliefs that are central to their identity?

The wisest words Huppke expressed in his column are, “I’m not a theologian.” Huppke, who believes God celebrates homosexuality and biological-sex rejection, also says, “I’m not even a particularly good Catholic.” Yes, embracing apostasy/heresy makes him not a “particularly good Catholic.”

Perhaps Huppke’s most dishonest statement is this: “I’m not going to tell anyone what they should believe or what God wants or what makes someone a good Christian.” Then he goes on to tell everyone what they should believe, what God wants, and what makes someone a good Christian, and he does so from an acknowledged position of theological ignorance.

Affirming what the Bible says is never unkind, though it may be unpleasant for some to hear. Affirming as good volitional acts that God condemns may be pleasant to the “itching ears” of those who want to engage in those acts, but it is profoundly unloving.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/Stop-the-Presses.mp3

Read more:

Can a Progressive’s ‘Inclusive Values’ Include Christianity? (National Review Online)

The Nashville Statement Isn’t About Trump, And A Ton of Evangelicals Support It (The Federalist)

The Progressives Who Cried Bigotry (The Week)

Why The Nashville Statement Is Needed (The American Conservative)

IFI works diligently to serve the Christian community in Illinois with email alerts, video reports, pastors’ breakfasts, special forums, worldview conferences and cultural commentaries. We do not accept government funds nor do we run those aggravating popup ads to generate funds.  We depend solely on the support of readers like you.

If you appreciate the work and ministry of IFI,
please consider a tax-deductible donation to sustain our endeavors.  

It does make a difference.

Leftist Chicago Tribune columnist Rex Huppke has penned a column on the recently released Nashville Statement titled “150 Evangelicals DENY love for LGBT people.” The Nashville Statement is a critically important and desperately needed document that succinctly affirms theologically orthodox positions on homosexuality, marriage, and the objective goodness and immutability of maleness and femaleness.

The Nashville Statement signatories include these Evangelical luminaries…

Read more…

If Chicago Tribune columnist and arch-defender of all things sexually deviant, Rex Huppke, had the humility to know that he doesn’t understand the Bible, he might refrain from using it foolishly to mock Christians.

In a column last week, he took a verse from Exodus out of a biblical context which he clearly doesn’t understand in order to ridicule Kentucky County Clerk Kim Davis. In this column, he used Exodus 16:12 as the basis for an analogy intended to indict Kim Davis for her act of civil disobedience in refusing to issue marriage licenses with her name on them to those whose unions are inherently non-marital.

There are two important reasons for responding to Huppke’s “argument”: First, he has a large audience and, therefore, the potential to influence people. Second, his feckless ideas are, unfortunately, not unique to him.

Exodus 16:12 says, “’I have heard the grumbling of the Israelites. Tell them, ‘At twilight you will eat meat, and in the morning you will be filled with bread. Then you will know that I am the LORD your God.’”

After citing Exodus 16:12, Huppke feigned abhorrence at the announcement that McDonald’s will start serving breakfast all day. In his bootless burlesque, Huppke abhorred that McDonald’s would serve the same type of meal all day when God “separates” breakfast from dinner.

Here’s more snark from Huppke, who can’t tell when a metaphor has been extended waaay too long:

I realize my opinion might seem old-fashioned in an anything-goes age when most young people think it’s “A-OK” to eat a bacon, egg and cheese biscuit at 4 p.m….

LeeAnn Richards, an Arizona franchisee who led a task force that studied the all-day breakfast concept, said: “It’s nice when you can give people what they want, what they’ve been asking for.”

Maybe it’s nice for you, LeeAnn Richards of Arizona, but my beliefs cannot be swayed by public opinion, and they certainly won’t be changed by Big Burger’s cavalier redefinition of breakfast or by human belief in the separation of church and steak.

The question is: Will people of faith, the ones charged with serving scrambled eggs at immoral hours, stand up to this assault on religious liberty? I have hope that they might, thanks to the actions of Kim Davis, a county clerk in Kentucky who has refused to issue same-sex marriage licenses despite the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling that makes “issuing same-sex marriage licenses” part of her job description.

On Tuesday, Davis defied a federal court order and again denied marriage licenses to gay couples, saying she works under “God’s authority.”

“It is not a light issue for me,” Davis said through her lawyers. “It is a heaven or hell decision.”

Amen, sister! It’s crucial that you keep the government that pays you from imposing its will on the faith you are willfully imposing on everyone else. (That’s definitely in the Bible somewhere.)

I hope Davis’ resilient belief that marriage is between a man and a woman will inspire McDonald’s workers who share my belief that a breakfast is between 5 a.m. and 10:30 a.m. And I hope those workers will stand strong and refuse to issue Egg McMuffins to customers outside of traditional breakfast hours.

You must stay strong, McDonald’s workers. Let Kentucky’s most famous county clerk be your inspiration. And remember this other verse from the Bible:

“Therefore let us not pass judgment on one another any longer, but rather decide never to put a stumbling block or hindrance in the way of a brother.”

On second thought, forget that one. Just believe that your religious convictions trump everyone else’s rights and don’t give anybody breakfast after 10:30 a.m.

Of course, more literate biblical readers know that multiple literary genres are found in the books of the Bible. The first 18 chapters in Exodus constitute history, and the verse Huppke chose is not a prescription or command regarding what to serve at breakfast and dinner. It is, rather, an historical account of what God did. God provided manna—that is, bread—in the morning and quail in the evening to the Israelites whom he had recently freed from bondage.

In contrast, both the Old and New Testaments tell us what marriage is, and expressly prohibit homoerotic activity.

Literate readers of Scripture also recognize a metaphor when it knocks them upside the head. The manna from Heaven that God promises and provides is also an image and prefigurement of Christ who is the bread of life.

When Huppke cites Romans 14:13 (“Therefore, let us not pass judgment.…”), he exposes his ignorance again. In the book of Romans, Paul is discussing how to unify Gentile followers of Christ with Jewish followers of Christ who came with prior customs, like dietary practices, that are no longer required. Paul is instructing Gentiles not to cause division over these non-essential matters. If this verse were a general or absolute prohibition of all moral judgments, Paul would be guilty of violating his own words because the book of Romans is rife with moral judgments about essential matters.

This verse does not prohibit Christians from expressing a view of marriage with which someone may disagree. And it doesn’t prohibit Christians from expressing moral propositions regarding what constitutes right or wrong behavior. Paul, who condemned homoerotic acts in Romans 1, wrote this to stop conflicts among Christians on non-essential matters.

“Progressives,” displaying the kind of biblical ignorance Huppke displays, often try to play “gotcha” with Christians who believe that Scripture condemns homoeroticism. These “progressives” will cite scriptural passages about slavery, or Old Testament prohibitions of shellfish-eating, or of mixing fabrics in clothes, thinking that they’ve offered foolproof evidence of the Bible’s moral unreliability when actually all they provide is evidence of their own foolishness.

While “progressives” erroneously argue that conservative Christians read every word of Scripture literally, it is actually “progressives” who are guilty of that. No Christian—at least none that I know of—reads every word of Scripture literally.

The Christians I know are able to distinguish, for example, history from poetry. They’re able to distinguish language that should be read metaphorically from language that should be read literally. They’re able to distinguish Old Testament ceremonial laws codes applicable only to ancient Israel from civil laws and both from universal, eternal moral laws that still appertain. They’re able to distinguish prescriptions and proscriptions from descriptions. Finally, they understand that context is king.

Huppke erred in another way. He pointed to the marital failures of Kim Davis as a way to, I guess, suggest that she has no right to make distinctions about the nature of marriage based on Scripture. While Huppke ridiculed Davis’ marital transgressions, he declined to share reports that her marital failings occurred before she became a Christian.

Apparently, Huppke believes only morally perfect humans are entitled to express ontological or moral propositions or try to live in accordance with them. In the service of moral and intellectual consistency then, perhaps Huppke, who quite frequently expresses his moral propositions, should provide evidence of his moral perfection.

Perhaps Huppke could share too what he thinks about Martin Luther King Jr. It is well known that he was unfaithful to his marriage vows and plagiarized significant portions of his doctoral dissertation, and yet most Americans view him as a towering moral leader, who, by the way, advocated civil disobedience when manmade laws fail to conform to God’s laws and the natural law. I’m not suggesting that Kim Davis’ actions are equivalent to the work of Martin Luther King Jr. Rather, I’m suggesting that moral failings don’t necessarily render persons incapable of acting in the service of truth. Just ask Bill Clinton.

In Huppke’s risible attempt at an analogy, he describes the change in McDonald’s menu as an “abomination,” a term that is used in the Bible to refer to homoerotic acts—not to God’s provision to the Israelites of manna in the morning and quail at night. In so doing, Huppke brings into even starker relief not only his biblical ignorance but also his ignorance of the nature and public purposes of marriage.

Marriage has an inherent nature central to which is sexual differentiation. Children have an inherent right to be raised whenever possible by a mother and a father, preferably their own biological parents. And the public good is served in incalculable ways by recognizing and protecting marriage and children’s rights.

So, precisely what was Huppke’s purpose?

Was he mocking the Bible in its entirety—a compilation of texts the meaning of which he seems not to grasp?

Was he mocking Christians for taking Scripture seriously?

If he is offended by Christians who take seriously God’s design for marriage and God’s prohibition of homoerotic acts, is he equally offended by Christians who take seriously God’s prohibition of consensual adult incest and bestiality? After all, the verses that condemn homoerotic acts are the same verses that condemn incest and bestiality.

And what about Christians who take seriously the verse in Exodus 20 that says, “You shall not murder,” or the one that says, “You shall not commit adultery,” or the one that says, “You shall not steal.” Does Huppke think opposition to adultery is analogous to opposition to serving breakfast all day at McDonald’s?

Both conservatives and “progressives” agree that elected government officials, those employed by the government, and citizens in the private sector ought to obey laws. Both sides also agree that civil disobedience is occasionally morally justifiable. The two sides just disagree on which laws (or Supreme Court decisions) are so egregiously unjust and irrational that civil disobedience is warranted or justifiable.

So, when conservatives waxed angry about President Obama’s or Eric Holder’s refusal to defend the duly enacted Defense of Marriage Act, they—conservatives—were not angry about Obama’s, Holder’s civil disobedience per se. Conservatives were angry that they refused to defend a just and rational law—one which, to paraphrase Martin Luther King Jr., conformed to both God’s law and natural law.

Let’s imagine that five unelected U.S. Supreme Court justices were to apprehend within the Constitution’s emanations and penumbra a phantasmagorical justification for prohibiting interracial marriages. Would Huppke become incensed if a county clerk were to continue to issue marriage licenses to interracial couples? And what would Huppke think if she, like Martin Luther King Jr., were to cite her religious beliefs as justification for her action?

Regardless of what happens in Kentucky, it’s just a matter of time before another case of civil disobedience arises and perhaps one that will be less fraught with intellectual and moral complexity. Imperious “LGBTQQIAP” activists who demand that even the First Amendment yield to their social and political agenda will brook no dissent. As New York Times lefty Frank Bruni hopes, soon the exercise of religious liberty will be restricted to heart, home, and pew. Dare to trot it out in the public square, and in the brig you will go.

Support the work & ministry of IFI
Help us spread the truth in the Land of Lincoln!

The second secretly-recorded Planned Parenthood video is out, and like the first, it reveals that Planned Parenthood is staffed by Josef Mengele wannabe’s.

In this mindboggling video, Dr. Mary Gatter, president of Planned Parenthood’s Medical Directors Council, negotiates compensation for preborn baby body parts:

While discussing the possibility of manipulating abortion procedures to increase the likelihood of preserving babies’ bodies intact, the cold, calculating, conscience-less abortionist Gatter makes this stunning comment:

If we want to pursue this mutually, I’ll mention this to Ian [the abortionist in the facility Gatter runs in Pasadena] in terms of how he feels about using a less crunchy technique to get more whole specimens.

“Progressives,” always eager to manipulate language to promote moral deviance, refer continually to “specimens” and “tissue” rather than body parts. They seek to equate baby hearts, lungs, livers, and limbs with tumors and cysts without  explicitly making the case for equivalence. They hope that no one notices their sickening use of euphemistic language.

When the buyers from the fake fetal-tissue procurement company inquire about the possibility of acquiring “intact specimens” from 10-12 week human fetuses, Gatter responds:

So, that’s an interesting concept. Let me explain to you a little bit of the problem, which may not be a big problem. If our usual technique is suction, at 10-12 weeks, and we switch to using an IPAS [manual vacuum aspirator] or something with less suction, or to increase the odds that it will come out as an intact specimen, then we’re kind of violating the protocol that says to the patient that “We’re not doing anything different in our care of you.” Now to me that’s a specious little argument, and I wouldn’t object to asking Ian, who’s our surgeon who does the cases, to use an IPAS [manual vacuum aspirator] at that age in order to increase the odds that he’s going to get an intact specimen.

Manipulating the abortion procedure to preserve babies’ bodies intact for the purposes of “donating” them to medical research doesn’t only “kind of” violate “protocol.”  It also violates federal law.

Even more seriously, the deliberate killing of innocent humans, whether preserving their bodily integrity or destroying  it in the process of murdering them, violates God’s command and, therefore, should violate the consciences of all humans.

Federal law allows for “reasonable payments associated with the transportation, implantation, processing, preservation, quality control, or storage of human fetal tissue. Here are Dr. Gatter’s compensation considerations:

If [other California Planned Parenthood affiliates] are getting substantially more, then we can discuss it….[The amount of money] has to be big enough that it makes it worthwhile for me….so let me just figure out what others are getting, and if this is in the ballpark, then it’s fine. If it’s still low, then we can bump it up. I want a Lamborghini [giggle].

Note that when Gatter discusses the possibility of increasing compensation from her original figures of $50-75 per “specimen,” she does not refer to transportation, processing, preservation, quality control or storage costs but to what other Planned Parenthood facilities are getting.

Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards apologized last week for abortionist Dr. Deborah Nucatola’s tone when discussing crushing preborn babies’ bodies. It appears that Richards is going to be one busy lady, apologizing for the tone-deafness of Planned Parenthood leaders. It is hoped that one day, she’ll apologize for the murders about which her employees talk in such cavalier tones. If Richards ever fully apprehends the enormity of the evil the organization she leads and defends has committed, it’s hard to imagine that she would be able to survive her guilt and grief.

Recently, liberal Chicago Tribune columnist Rex Huppke expressed his annoyance at the “pragmatic, dismissive, clinical, compassionless” response from Planned Parenthood on the first secretly-taped exposé of their disposition of preborn babies. He expressed no offense about the careful crushing of preborn babies’ bodies to maximize their utility for medical researchers. In the perverse existential universe of “progressives,” what is the source of tiny human livers, lungs, limbs, and hearts other than tiny humans?

Every time a “progressive” refers to the inappropriateness of the tone in these videos, they dig themselves a deeper ethical hole. It becomes incumbent upon them to explain why “pragmatic, clinical, compassionless” tones are inappropriate. If these “specimens” were the ontological equivalent of cysts, tumors, or liposuctioned fat, no one would argue that discussions should be somber or compassionate.

The product of conception between two humans is undeniably human. Since when does dependency-status, physical location, or absence of developmental maturity grant more developed humans the moral right to exterminate less-developed humans? And if the right to control one’s reproductive capacity directly conflicts with another person’s right simply to exist, which is a right of a higher moral order? What kind of people find tone-deaf discussions about “donating” preborn baby parts a greater moral outrage than poisoning, crushing, and dismembering preborn babies?

Huppke admits that “in parts” of the first video, abortionist Deborah Nucatola “comes off as a monster.” There’s a reason for that monstrous image. Crushing human beings—whether for convenience, profit, or medical research—is a monstrous act.

Please don’t allow yourselves to become desensitized to the evil revealed in these videos. Don’t allow your passion to wane when the press hurriedly moves on to other stories. And don’t allow yourselves to be distracted by the red herrings the Left is frantically tossing up about the ethics of secret recordings, or the legality of compensation for “donations,” or the value of “donated” baby body parts for medical research, or their pathetic apologies for tone.

Send letters to your local press. Donate to organizations committed to eradicating this evil from our midst. Contact your lawmakers, demanding that the unscrupulous Planned Parenthood Feticide Federation of America be defunded and investigated. Don’t let up. The Left never does. It’s not the rights of women that are at stake. It’s the lives of babies. There exists no moral right to kill innocent humans.

Please support IFI as we fight for liberty & work to advance the truth
about the sanctity of life & importance of marriage in our culture!

Wisconsin governor Scott Walker is in hot water with omniscient Chicago Tribune pundit Rex Huppke for claiming ignorance about President Barack Obama’s faith. In answer to a question about whether he believes Obama is a Christian, Walker said he didn’t know.

So, what’s a politician to do? hmmm…

I know, give the answer “progressives” desire. Leftist columnist Rex Huppke pontificated that this is what politicians should assert about the interior religious beliefs and affections of Barack Obama: Yes, Obama is a Christian.

Since I’m not privy to the interior beliefs and affections of Huppke, I don’t know if he believes Obama is a Christian or if he’s merely suggesting that this is the most strategically savvy response.

I do know this, however, it’s unlikely Huppke knows if Obama is a Christian. This is not to say Obama isn’t. It’s merely to say that it’s unlikely Huppke knows with absolute certainty whether Obama is a Christian, because there is a wee bit of evidence to the contrary.

In order to help illuminate Obama’s faith for those who believe that possible 2016 presidential contenders must have a definitive and correct opinion on whether a lame duck president is a Christian, here are some Bible verses followed by relevant actions of or statements by Obama:

On salvation: Jesus said, “‘I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.’”

In contrast, Barack Obama holds this belief on salvation:

There’s the belief, certainly in some quarters, that [if] people haven’t embraced Jesus Christ as their personal savior that they’re going to hell….I find it hard to believe that my God would consign four-fifths of the world to hell….That’s just not part of my religious makeup.

On “gender”: The Bible teaches “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.” And it teaches that “A woman shall not wear a man’s garment, nor shall a man put on a woman’s cloak, for whoever does these things is an abomination to the Lord your God.”

According to the executive director of the National Center for Transgender Equality, Obama “has been the best president for transgender rights, and nobody else is in second place.” The public may be largely unaware of his anti-biblical position on “gender,” however, because Obama has kept his actions intentionally “low-key,” working through executive orders and federal agencies unaccountable to the public.

On marriage: Jesus taught this:

“Have you not read that He Who made them in the first place made them man and woman? It says, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and his mother and will live with his wife. The two will become one.’ So they are no longer two but one.” 

Obama, in direct opposition to Christ’s teaching, asserts that “same-sex couples should be able to get married.”

On homosexuality: The Old Testament teaches that “”You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.” The New Testament affirms Old Testament teaching:

“[T]heir women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.” (Rom. 1:26-27)

And:

“Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.” (1 Cor. 6:9)

Obama stated the following in a “Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Pride Month” proclamation:

“I am proud to be the first President to appoint openly LGBT candidates to Senate-confirmed positions in the first 100 days of an Administration…. LGBT families and seniors should be allowed to live their lives with dignity and respect….I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim June 2009 as Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Pride Month. I call upon the people of the United States to turn back discrimination and prejudice everywhere it exists.IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this first day of June, in the year of our Lord two thousand nine.”

No follower of Christ can believe both that homoerotic activity is abominable and that homoerotic activity deserves respect. Homoerotic activity mars the dignity that derives from being created in the image and likeness of a holy God.

On holiness: Holy means set apart for God, sacred, morally perfect, and worthy of veneration. The Bible teaches, “Who will not fear, O Lord, and glorify your name? For you alone are holy. All nations will come and worship you, for your righteous acts have been revealed.”

In a speech in Cairo, Egypt, Obama describes the Koran as the “Holy Koran.”

On murder: The Bible teaches, “You shall not murder,” and “Your eyes saw my unformed substance; in your book were written, every one of them, the days that were formed for me, when as yet there was none of them.”

Obama defends the legal right to kill preborn children—including third-trimester babies capable of feeling pain and surviving outside the womb and on whom doctors perform surgery.

On lying: The Bible teaches that “Lying lips are an abomination to the Lord, but those who act faithfully are his delight,” and “Do not lie to one another, seeing that you have put off the old self with its practices and have put on the new self, which is being renewed in knowledge after the image of its creator.”

Barack Obama told the “Lie of the Year” when he stated that under Obamacare, “If you like your health care plan, you can keep it.”

According to Obama’s friend and former campaign manager, David Axelrod, Obama lied during the last campaign when he said he opposed the legalization of same-sex “marriage.”

And Obama lied when he said he has not changed his position on using executive authority to stop deportation of undocumented immigrants.

On false teachers: Saint Peter writes that “false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them.”

Obama announced that “The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.” Does Obama consider it slander to say that Mohammed is a false prophet who has brought destructive heresies to the world?

Inquiring minds wonder what Huppke thinks of I John 2:4, which says this about those who claim to be followers of Christ: “Whoever says ‘I know him’ but does not keep his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him.”

Or what Jesus said in Matthew 7:

“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’

Or these words of Jesus: “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will recognize them by their fruits.” What kind of fruits do lying, denying the singularity of the salvific work of Christ, the promotion of same-sex mirage, the vigorous support of intrauterine murder—including the murder of nearly full-term babies—constitute? I would argue his fruits are fetid, poisonous fruits.

Jesus tells us to “Judge not, lest ye be judged.” The Left mistakenly believes that this means Christians must not discriminate between right and wrong actions. Well, that’s not exactly accurate. The Left believes that Christians ought not hold any biblical views on behavior with which the Left disagrees. So, it’s fine by “progressives” to “judge” racism and bestiality as wrong but wicked to “judge” homoerotic activity as wrong.

The truth is Christians are prohibited from hypocrisy. Christians are prohibited from judging the behavior of others as wrong if they themselves are engaging in it.

God has provided us with his Word to help us discern truth from lies and right from wrong. I guess it can be used too to help possible presidential contenders figure out if Obama is a Christian. Of course, only God knows with certainty if Obama is a follower of Christ. What’s curious is how Rex Huppke has concluded with dogmatic absolutism that Obama is a Christian.

Please support the work of Illinois Family Institute.

“Swallowing half an hour before closing time that second dose of soma had raised
a quite impenetrable wall between the actual universe and their minds”
(Aldous Huxley, Brave New World).

I’ll give it a go once more for the intellectually lazy and socially insulated “progressives” out there who, when discussing issues related to homosexuality, refuse to address questions regarding basic presuppositions and logical consequences. For example, Chicago Tribune columnist Rex Huppke just wrote a silly and condescending column in the Chicago Tribune about the serious issue of religious liberty in which he revealed his own ignorance of the topic.

“Progressives” like Huppke replace serious intellectual thought and rigor with ridicule and condescension in their quest to impose their homosexuality-affirming dogma on the entire country. Unfortunately in a country hypnotized by the digital soma that spews from Hollywood, this retreat from intellect works.

Huppke’s “argument” includes the following:

1.)  First, he trivializes the real concerns of conservative people of faith that they will be required to contribute to a same-sex “wedding” celebration. He trivializes this concern through exaggeration, saying that conservatives fear that homosexuals will “flock to bakeries run by people whose faith denounces gay marriage.” 

Well, he’s surely correct in saying that homosexuals won’t “always” seek the services of orthodox Christian, Jewish or Muslim business owners, but that’s hardly reassuring to those who have been, are currently, and will in the future be sued by those homosexuals who do intentionally seek those businesses out.

2.)  He trivializes the religious liberty component central to the debate by saying that though “Americans have many serious issues to worry about—unemployment, education…one issue rises above all others…gay wedding cake.” He further describes efforts to protect religious liberty as efforts to oppose the “menace of gay wedding cakes.” 

Perhaps Huppke and his ideological compeers aren’t aware that cultural change—including radical cultural change—rarely happens through a single cataclysmic event, but rather through the slow accretion of small events or seemingly trivial ideas that society ignores, accommodates, or embraces. Using the force of government to compel property owners to violate their faith in even seemingly small matters constitutes a significant erosion of religious liberty. 

3.)  Huppke mocks Christian beliefs about the nature of homosexuality through his neologism “gaynosity.” He explains that a number of states are considering “religious liberty laws that would allow bakers—or photographers, or florists, or, I suppose, plumbers—to deny service to gay couples if the business owner’s faith is compromised by the gay couple’s gaynosity.”He might be surprised to learn that many Christians do not believe that homosexuals choose their feelings. What they actually believe is that those who affirm a “gay identity” choose to place their unchosen feelings at the center of their identity and choose to act on them. So, while their feelings are not chosen, their (to use Huppke’s insulting term) “gaynosity” is. Where orthodox Christians most disagree with “progressives” is on the Left’s assumption that homosexual acts are morally neutral or morally good—which, of course, is not a fact.

4.) Huppke and virtually every other “progressive” trot out that bedraggled, old false analogy which holds that homosexuality is analogous to African American descent, comparing the efforts of Blacks to gain access to government schools and restaurants to homosexuals forcing businesses to provide their goods and services for an event that violates their religious convictions.

Homosexuality per se has no points of correspondence to skin color, but Huppke never addresses that pesky little fact. And Christian business owners are not refusing to serve homosexuals. They’re refusing to use their labors in the service of a ceremony that the God they serve abhors. But Huppke doesn’t address that pesky fact either.  

5.)  Then Huppke goes off the humor rails in a juvenile faux-interview with well-known Illinois  homosexual activist Rick Garcia, asking him inane questions that mock what the socially insulated, intellectually lazy “progressives” assume orthodox Christians believe: 

• “Rick…are you still gay?
• “Did you find that [eating a gay wedding] cake made you more gay?”
• “Do you believe gay wedding cakes can turn people gay?”
• “What is it about wedding cakes baked by gay marriage opponents that makes (sic) them so irresistible to gay people? Does the sinfulness of the occasion enhance the taste of the cake?”

6.)  Huppke thinks he has discovered a heretofore hidden conservative inconsistency. He argues that the claim of Christian bakers that using their labors in the service of a homosexual “wedding” means they’re “complicit in a gay marriage” is at odds with the claim of gun manufacturers who argue that their sale of a gun to someone who later commits a crime does not make them complicit in the crime. But selling a legal product to someone who without the gun manufacturer’s (or seller’s) knowledge intends to use it for an immoral act is patently not analogous to creating and selling a product with the certain knowledge that it will be used exclusively for an immoral act. There is no other purpose for the wedding cake other than the non-marital, faux-wedding, which is the immoral act. 

What else should business owners be compelled by the government to do in violation of their consciences—and remember, Christian bakers, florists, and photographers are not refusing to sell their products to homosexuals. They’re refusing to sell their products for a particular event:

• Should a male Muslim photographer who would be willing to photograph the pre-wedding preparations of groomsmen be compelled also to photograph the pre-wedding preparations of the bridal party, which would entail violating his religious beliefs about interactions with women?
• Should a Catholic photographer be compelled to photograph the annual Easter “Hunky Jesus” contest  (WARNING: SOME EXPLICIT PHOTOS) in San Francisco, which is hosted by the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence, a group of “cross-dressing nuns,” and starts with an Easter egg hunt for children?
• Should an Evangelical Christian be compelled to photograph a commitment ceremony for five polyamorists, two males, two females and one genderless (aka “neutrois”)?
• If Kermit Gosnell had sought to hire a cleaning service owned by a pro-life Christian to clean aborted baby parts out of his refrigerator, should she be prohibited from refusing?

Some may raise objections to these questions, arguing that they don’t illustrate discrimination based on “sexual orientation.” First, I would once again remind them that Christian business owners are not refusing to serve homosexuals. Christian business owners are refusing to use their services for particular kinds of events. They’re perfectly willing to sell cakes and flowers to homosexuals—whose orientation they have no way of knowing anyway. Second, just wait a few years; polyamorists are going to be clamoring for their right to have their sexual desires and volitional sexual acts identified as a “sexual orientation.”

This type of objection should raise the more important question: Is “sexual orientation” a valid protected category?  No, it’s not. Historically protected categories were constituted by objective, morally neutral conditions like biological sex, race and ethnicity, and nationality. Homosexuality, in contrast, is constituted solely by subjective feelings and volitional acts on which there is no moral consensus. If “progressives” had any real interest in consistency, they would insist on protecting all members of groups that are constituted by subjective feelings and morally dubious volitional acts. This would mean adding all paraphilias to our anti-discrimination policies and laws. Logical consistency would demand that sadists, masochists, minor-attracted persons (MAPS), frotteurists, and zoophiliacs be protected for they are members of groups constituted by subjective feelings and often volitional sexual acts that are virtually always unchosen, powerful, and persistent.

But if we “protect” all groups constituted by subjective feelings and volitional acts, what happens not only to our religious liberty but also to our liberty to freely associate and assemble? What else do we base our diverse associations on other than feelings, beliefs, and volitional acts?

Though Huppke intended his Garcia interview to mock conservatives, what it really accomplishes is to reveal his own ignorance of what thoughtful Christians actually believe. It’s curious that “progressive” media pundits like Huppke rarely seem to find time to interview serious conservative theologians and legal scholars from academia who are writing on this topic. Many “progressives” have no idea who the conservative scholars are who are writing on topics related to homosexuality. Nor do they engage the serious ideas that inhere this discussion. The reasons for those intellectual failures are either ignorance or fear that their “arguments” don’t pass rational muster.

When “progressive” pundit Kirsten Powers recently outed herself as a born-again believer (whose theology needs some work), she made yet another astonishing revelation: Before her religious conversion at age 38, she did not know any Christians. As disciples of diversity and militants of multiculturalism, the social and intellectual insularity of so many “progressives” is both astonishing and ironic.

“Progressives” don’t really want to engage in a reasoned argument on this or any other topic related to sexual deviance. They don’t really want to debate in a serious way the ideas proposed by smart, well-educated dissenters. This in part explains why public high school teachers censor virtually all resources that espouse conservative views on the nature and morality of homosexuality (the other reason is arrogant self-righteousness). And so “progressives” leap nimbly over arguments with unctuous sophistic non-arguments and mockery. If they’re not simply mocking, they’re reaching into their cornucopia of fallacies. In Huppke’s short piece, we can find these fallacies: false analogy, straw man, and ad hominem (the fav of “progressives”).

The only funny part of Huppke’s lamentable article was his very last sentence in which he described his interview with Garcia as a “reasoned argument.”

 Click HERE to support the work and ministry
of Illinois Family Institute.

Today, May 30, 2012, the homosexual activist organization Lambda Legal and the ACLU of Illinois have filed two lawsuits against the clerk of Cook County, charging that his office’s refusal to issue marriage licenses to 25 homosexual couples violates the equal protection and due process clauses of the Illinois Constitution.

The fact that Illinois’ civil union law grants homosexual couples all the rights, privileges, and responsibilities of marriage means next to nothing to homosexual activists. As IFI and many others warned, civil union legislation was merely a stepping stone to legalized same-sex marriage.  “It’s now painfully obvious that the purpose for securing civil unions legislation last year was to gain legal leverage in the attempt to overturn the Illinois law that defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman,” said IFI’s executive director, David E. Smith.

It is not the legal benefits and responsibilities that homosexual activists most ardently desire. Rather, they seek the symbolic victory that legalized same-sex marriage represents. Homosexual activists want to eradicate any formal public recognition that homosexual relationships are different from heterosexual unions.

The Illinois Family Institute’s cultural analyst Laurie Higgins states that “Homosexual activists and their ideological allies will exploit any means to achieve their goal of eradicating moral disapproval of homosexuality, including censorship, propaganda, demagoguery, slander, and judicial activism.”

The means they are now using in Illinois are those they used to legalize same-sex marriage in Iowa. Homosexual activists have announced they are bypassing the will of the people as reflected in their elected representatives. According to the Chicago Tribune’s cheerleader for the homosexuality-affirming movement, Rex Huppke, “[John] Knight, the ACLU attorney, said that he is confident same-sex marriage rights can be won through the state’s judicial system and that there is no reason to wait for lawmakers to act.”

Governor Pat Quinn (D) and Cook County Clerk David Orr (D) have both stated publicly that they believe same-sex marriage should be legalized.  While apparently believing that the criterion of numbers of partners is essential, they believe that sexual complementarity is irrelevant to marriage.

Let’s hope and pray our judges are wiser.

Today, Monday, December 19, 2011, the Chicago Tribune included not one, but three articles (click HERE,HERE, and HERE) on “transgenderism” by Rex Huppke, their designated proselyte for “progressive” views of homosexuality and Gender Identity Disorder (GID). (In the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, the American Psychiatric Association uses the term Gender Identity Disorder to designate the phenomenon that Huppke refers to as “transgender issues.”)

In response to these articles, I sent this brief letter to Mr. Huppke and to the Tribune editorial board:

Dear Mr. Huppke,

Once again, you’ve written an editorial masquerading as a news story. Your lengthy article (or three articles) on “transgender” issues includes one mention of American Family Association’s dissenting views on Gender Identity Disorder and one quote from Focus on the Family’s position statement on Gender Identity Disorder.

Apparently, you didn’t solicit any comments from either public policy organizations or mental health professionals who hold different views on the nature of Gender Identity Disorder, the morality of cross-dressing, or the ethics of “sex reassignment” surgery. The absence of any substantive exposition of dissenting views is particularly notable in light of two articles written by psychiatrist Dr. Keith Ablow that lit up the blogosphere, particularly among those who identify as homosexual and transgender. (Read Dr. Ablow’s articles HERE and HERE.)

It would have been illuminating to interview some theologians and philosophers on the nature of reality. For example, is “reality” merely a construct of our minds or our subjective feelings, or does an objective reality exist?

Another interesting question concerns allowing people to change their birth certificates: Does such an act make the state complicit in fraud?

Or, what evidence do you have for your clear implication that “discrimination” is the cause of the the increased risk of suicidal ideation among those who experience Gender Identity Disorder. And what do you mean when you use the word “discrimination”? Do all expressions of moral disapproval of behavior constitute illegitimate “discrimination” or just those with which you disagree?

But alas, it’s abundantly clear that your mission is not to report or discuss, but to exploit your position as a journalist to write an extended apologetic for your personal moral, philosophical, and political views, painted over with a rhetorical patina of neutrality.

What is equally troubling is that your bosses find this acceptable.

Sincerely,

Laurie Higgins
IFI Cultural Analyst

Take ACTION: Chicago Tribune reporter Rex Huppke continues to write pro-homosexual opinion pieces, presenting them as “new” articles.

Send email complaints to the Tribune editorial board about Mr. Huppke’s lack of balance and failure to present views from mental health professionals who hold different views on the nature of Gender Identity Disorder, the morality of cross-dressing, or the ethics of “sex reassignment” surgery.

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

I can’t say I was surprised by Rex Huppke’s Dec. 1, 2010 front-page Chicago Tribune story on the passage of the “civil union” bill, but I was certainly disappointed by its lack of objectivity. His sources were exclusively pro-homosexual, and there was nary a word about opposition to this bill. He evidently didn’t solicit so much as a comment from anyone who finds this bill troubling.

Not only was there no discussion of the controversial nature of the bill or its potentially harmful implications, but there was also no mention of any strong arm tactics that may have been responsible for conservative lawmakers reversing their commitments to oppose the bill.

Huppke more than once introduced the hospital visit red herring, without once mentioning President Obama’sApril 15 executive order mandating that any hospital that receives Medicaid or Medicare funds allow hospital visits for same-sex partners.

And there was a curious discussion at the end of this article regarding the economic impact of this bill. Huppke quotes Brad Sears who claims that any increase in health care costs will be negligible “because the LGBT population is small and the same-sex couple population is even smaller.” And yet, this very small population of same sex couples will potentially save “tens of millions” of state dollars because once same-sex partners are joined in a civil union, their combined income may make them ineligible for social services.

Doesn’t it seem odd that due to its teeny tiny size this segment of the population will not noticeably increase health care costs, but this same teeny tiny group may potentially save social services tens of millions of dollars? I guess if the entirety of this teeny tiny group of same sex couples is on Medicaid, it could account for this huge savings.

On Dec. 3, Huppke’s next advertisement for civil unions appeared in the Trib.

Advocate Huppke gave one paragraph to homosexual activist Rick Garcia, three paragraphs to attorneyCamilla Taylor who works for the homosexual advocacy law firm Lambda Legal, three paragraphs to pro-homosexual law professor Andrew Koppelman, and only one to Catholic Conference director Robert Gilligan.

It was especially troubling that Huppke chose to showcase these ignorant and smug words from Koppelman in the concluding paragraph:

The big picture is that the people that think homosexual conduct is intrinsically immoral have been spectacularly unsuccessful at passing on their views to their children….I got news for you. You’re already on the slippery slope.

It would have been both fair and illuminating to solicit a response from a conservative scholar on the issue of the apparent increasing support among the nation’s youth for all things homosexual. Koppelman (and perhaps Huppke) is either deceitful or spectacularly ignorant of the reasons for such apparent increasing support.

Might the exploitation of public education have something to do with the transmogrification of children’s moral and political views? There is absolute censorship of all writing by conservative scholars in public schools even as students are exposed to essays, articles, plays, novels, films, speakers, and “enumerated” anti-bullying resources that espouse unproven, non-factual “progressive” beliefs about the nature and morality of homosexuality. Public school libraries carry anywhere from 50-150 resources that affirm “progressive” assumptions about homosexuality and 0 that affirm conservative views. Why doesn’t Huppke do a story on that astonishing manifestation of censorship–censorship that should trouble all educators, civil libertarians, and defenders of diversity?

I am on occasion interviewed by high school and college students. I have learned that many are spectacularly ignorant:

• They believe without evidence that homosexuality is ontologically equivalent to race. They and anyone else who employs arguments based on the flawed analogy between homosexuality and race should be asked to provide justifications for this analogy. For example, all public educators who use such an analogy should be required to explain the ways they believe homosexuality is like race and that they explain to students the weaknesses of and challenges to this analogy.
• They believe that laws prohibiting same-sex “marriage” are analogous to laws prohibiting interracial marriage. This reveals that they don’t understand the difference between homosexuality and race/skin color. They don’t understand that anti-miscegenation laws were based on the erroneous belief that black men and white men are ontologically different, whereas laws prohibiting same-sex marriage are based on the true belief that men and women are ontologically different. These young people also don’t understand that when a black man seeks to marry a white woman, he is seeking to do the same thing that a white man is doing, so the discrimination inherent in anti-miscegenation laws is discrimination based on race or skin color. In the case of same sex “marriage,” however, the discrimination is based on behavior, which is legitimate. In the case of same sex “marriage,” a man is seeking to marry a man, which is an utterly different act that a man marrying a woman. Laws prohibiting same-sex marriage are not discriminating between people based on immutable, morally neutral conditions; these laws make rational distinctions between behaviors or acts.
• They believe that marriage is solely a private relationship.
• They have no understanding of the reasons why the government is involved with marriage.
• They believe that disapproval of homosexual acts constitutes hatred of persons, and yet curiously they don’t apply that principle consistently. They don’t assert that their moral disapproval of particular beliefs or volitional acts constitutes hatred of persons.
• They believe that to demonstrate love, one has to affirm all beliefs and all behavioral choices of others, and yet they don’t apply that principle consistently. They believe that it’s possible for them to love those whose moral beliefs and behavioral choices they do not affirm.
• They have no idea that until the late 20th Century, there were no Catholic or Protestant theologians who embraced “gay” theology.
• They believe that homosexuals constitute 10% of the population (a long-discredited figure).
• They believe that science has proved that homosexuality is 100% heritable even though they can’t produce even one study to support that claim.
• They have no idea that “Queer Theory” argues that homosexuality is mutable and fluid.
• They have no understanding of church-state relations. They would be stunned to read what Martin Luther King Jr. said about law in “Letter From Birmingham Jail.” I’m often asked if my opposition to legalized same-sex marriage violates the Constitution. Because students have such a lousy understanding of the First Amendment, they have trouble answering this question: If someone attends a church that affirms homosexuality, should they be prohibited from imposing their religious beliefs in law through support for legalized same-sex marriage?

Perhaps their ignorance is facilitated by the failure of public schools to have students study the work of the best scholars on both sides of the debates surrounding homosexuality. Perhaps their ignorance is facilitated by biased reporting like that of Huppke. And perhaps their ignorance contributes to their adoption of myopic, specious Leftist assumptions.

Now factor in the entertainment and advertising industries that promote through language and images the same unproven Leftist assumptions. Finally, throw into this toxic mix the use of invective to scorn and humiliate anyone who dares to publicly assert the belief that homosexual acts are immoral, and even Koppelman might be able to understand why the younger generation appears to be embracing the ontological and moral views of the Left.

I have been called “c**t,” “b**ch,” and “a****le”–multiple times. I have been told that I’m a “f***ing idiot” who should die–multiple times. I was recently threatened with “schoolyard” violence. And the Southern Poverty Law Center has added IFI to their “hate groups” list. Might this kind of vitriolic bullying contribute to the transformation of the moral views of young people or at least to their silence?

Neither I nor anyone affiliated with IFI has ever advocated hatred or violence. In fact, we have advocated against both. We neither express hatred nor feel hatred, but that’s irrelevant to the contemporary promoters of diversity and tolerance. If anyone dares to express his conservative moral claims with as much boldness and conviction as “progressives” do theirs, he will be on the receiving end of shocking hostility, lies, and invective.

It might have served both the cause of journalistic integrity and enlightened discourse if Huppke had bothered to explore the propagandistic tools that are shaping the public debate on homosexuality.

I have a question for the powers-that-be at the Chicago Tribune: Do you believe that Rex Huppke is covering the homosexual issue in general and the civil unions issue in particular fairly and objectively?

Perhaps Mr. Huppke could be reassigned to the editorial page and leave reporting to someone with the professional integrity to write objectively.

Rex Huppke, who purports to be a reporter for the Chicago Tribune, but is, in reality, a mouthpiece for homosexual activism, has written yet another propaganda piece about homosexuality. Huppke wrote an article — not an opinion piece — but an article that doesn’t even attempt a pretense of objectivity.

In language dripping with bias, Huppke wrote about the plight of Americans who define their identity by their homosexual desires and behavior and who have non-American sexual partners. Huppke wrote a thinly disguised endorsement of U.S. Rep. Luis Gutierrez‘ disastrous immigration reform proposal which would allow “foreign-born partners of gay and lesbian Americans the same path to citizenship as heterosexual spouses.” It was an endorsement so thinly disguised it could be mistaken for a bare-naked, Hollywood-produced public service announcement.

Congressman Gutierrez — and evidently his PR accomplice Huppke — seeks to write into law the unproven, a-historical assumption that relationships defined by unnatural homosexual desire and immoral homosexual acts are morally equivalent to heterosexual relationships.

In a 747-word article, Huppke allotted a whopping 21 words to an acknowledgment that opposing views exist. This is the entirety of his commitment to presenting both sides:

Invariably the addition of language to benefit same-sex couples will rile some who oppose extending marriage rights to gays and lesbians.

Here are some additional telling stats from the impartial, unbiased reporter Rex Huppke:

• Number of quotes from Gutierrez: 4
• Number of quotes from supervising attorney for the National Asylum Partnership on Sexual Minorities at the National Immigrant Justice Center in Chicago (yes, apparently, such a center exists): 2
• Number of quotes from homosexuals who have foreign-born partners: 3
• Number of quotes from opponents of Gutierrez’ proposal: 0

It’s not merely the inclusion of quotes from only supporters of the proposal that is problematic; it’s also the soap opera-esque content that is troubling.

Huppke quoted Gutierrez who said that “The underlying part of any comprehensive immigration bill is family unity.” This language manipulates Americans’ deep respect for family and family unity while ignoring the disturbing embedded assumption that two homosexual men constitute a “family” that per se deserves respect.

Huppke then quoted a homosexual Episcopal priest who frets about the possibility of his homosexual paramour being deported:

You can’t imagine the stress we live under daily…To wake up every morning and think this could be the day that we no longer have the resources or support to be together.

And then Huppke delivered his coup de grace in a concluding tear-jerking anecdote. Have your hankies at the ready:

For Josh Lampinen, a 30-year-old Chicago Web designer, a change in the law couldn’t come soon enough. His fiance, Jerome Lienard, lives in France, and the couple are struggling to find a way to be together.

…

Lampinen said the distance between them is always a strain, particularly in times of crisis. A year and a half ago, Lampinen’s grandmother died, and Lienard couldn’t be by his side.

“That’s when you want your partner there,” Lampinen said. “And he wasn’t. It just wasn’t possible. It’s instances like that that just make it evident how unfair this situation is.”

Unfortunately, in an increasingly non-rational, non-thinking culture, appeals to such tales of woe carry persuasive power. It is these kinds of “narratives” that are shaping the views of even conservative Christians, particularly younger Christians who are not being taught to think critically. As Thomas Sowell, African American Senior Fellow at Stanford’s Hoover Institution, writes:

The problem isn’t that Johnny can’t read. The problem isn’t even that Johnny can’t think. The problem is that Johnny doesn’t know what thinking is; he confuses it with feeling.

Huppke reported that Gutierrez met with “LGBT community leaders at noon on Monday at the [homosexual] Center on Halsted” where he was joined in his confab by U.S. Rep. Mike Quigley (D-IL) and openly homosexual Rep. Jared Polis (D-CO).

Some concluding and random thoughts:

• Appeals to emotion are not reasons.
• The presence of sad feelings tells us precisely nothing about the morality of homosexuality — or any other moral issue.
• The presence of emotional and sexual feelings and sexual interactions between two (or more) people does not render their relationship a family structure worthy of affirmation or legal status.
• Rex Huppke is not reporting; he is cheerleading and proselytizing.