The second Defend Marriage Lobby Day of the year is less than two weeks away on Wednesday, October 23rd in Springfield.

Whether you’re able to come or not, we need you to contact your state legislator today.  If you are able to join us in Springfield, please let your legislators know that you’re coming and look forward to speaking with them about protecting marriage in Illinois.  If you’re unable to come, please send your legislator a message to protect marriage by clicking HERE.  Tell them that you wish you could attend and ask them to protect marriage. 

Your attendance could very well lead to the defeat of same-sex “marriage” this year.  Our adversaries have only six days this fall to accomplish their radical goals: October 22-24 and November 5-7.  We are holding our Defend Marriage Lobby Day on the second day of the veto session.

While it would not be prudent to publicize all of the information about the vote count on SB 10, I can say that I am encouraged.  A large turnout on October 23rd will make a huge difference and could derail the opposition’s efforts.  (Find a bus ride HERE).

Your efforts are already making a difference.  Stephanie Trussell of WLS radio interviewed me on Sunday afternoon.  Stephanie saw a bumper sticker on a supporter’s car and googled “Defend Marriage Lobby Day.”  This led to the phone call, and an opportunity to get the word out to tens of thousands of listeners.  Then yesterday afternoon, Joe Walsh from WIND radio had me on his program to help us get the word out.  

Thank you for your faithfulness and courage in standing for the truth. Keep getting the message out!

I am so excited to see how our grassroots efforts are making a difference.  You made it possible for us to sell out the IFI Fall Banquet that we held recently with Dr. Benjamin Carson.  Over 1,100 Illinoisans turned out to show their support for Christian values.  This event reminded me that, despite what media pundits want us to believe, protecting life, family, and freedom is a value shared by many, many citizens.

The Illinois Review published a comprehensive news story on the event.  They wrote:

Dr. Carson subtly compared what is happening in the White House to the teachings of Chicago native, Saul Alinsky, whose Rules for Radicals published in 1971 served as impassioned counsel to young radicals on how to effect constructive social change.  Never mentioned by name, but implied, was how the President had been schooled in Alinsky’s rules as a community activist in Chicago.  Prevalent among Alinsky’s rules being applied by the White House through its actions and policies: 1) if you push a negative hard enough it will gain traction and become a positive and 2) driving a wedge between people or groups of people will create class warfare and with it division and unrest.

The push for same-sex “marriage” is meant to divide people, and it is, of course, a negative.  Secular progressives know that if they push this negative hard enough it will eventually appear to be a positive.  They hate the God of Christianity and the Bible.

We must resist this scheme.  As Christians, it is our duty.  For the sake of our children and grandchildren, let’s make sure marriage revisionists go no further in advancing their effort to pervert the legal definition of marriage.  

You can help right now by contacting your legislator:

Take ACTION:  Send an email or fax to your state representative today.  Ask him/her to stand firmly and courageously against SB 10, and warn him/her not to be persuaded by the emotionally manipulative and intellectually hollow rhetoric of the homosexual lobby.

In a stunning public admission during a debate on the future of marriage in Illinois, the chief sponsor of SB 10, the proposed bill to legalize same-sex “marriage,” homosexual State Representative Greg Harris (D-Chicago) acknowledged that the bill does not provide religious liberty or conscience protections for individual Christian business owners. Further, it was clear that both he and homosexual Chicago Alderman Deb Mell (a former state representative and co-sponsor of of SB 10) oppose any such protections.

In the unfortunately titled “Marriage Equality” debate, sponsored by the Chicago Tribune, moderator Bruce Dold asked Harris about the absence of conscience protections in the bill:

Dold: The bill specifically protects churches, but it does not have any language about individual conscience…. Would the bill not have a better chance if it had an individual conscience protection in it?

Harris: [D]ecades ago when the Human Rights Act was passed, it said, we the people of Illinois have decided not to allow discrimination based on race, religion, sexual orientation, disability, veteran’s status in housing, employment, or public accommodations. The question of should we treat all of our citizens equally in all of those three areas has been answered. But also there are exemptions for religious institutions in the Human Rights Act. There’s also the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and specific language in this bill…that explicitly protects freedom of religion for those churches and denominations which do not want to consecrate same-sex marriages.”

Harris publicly admitted that this bill protects the religious liberty of only religious institutions, churches, and denominations—not individuals. It was clear that Harris has no desire or intent to include such protections.

That said, the inclusion of such protections would not make this a good bill. It would simply make it a less terrible bill.

Harris tried to claim that SB 10 poses no threat to religious liberty, but was challenged by both Robert Gilligan, Executive Director of the Catholic Conference of Illinois, and Peter Breen, Vice President and Senior Counsel with the Thomas More Society, who talked about the Illinois bed and breakfast owner who is being sued for his refusal to rent out his facility for a same-sex civil union ceremony  (read more HERE).

Mell, who earlier had claimed that warnings about future religious persecution were dishonest “scare tactics,” responded “But [the bed and breakfast] is a business that does business in the state of Illinois, and in Illinois, we don’t allow discrimination.” While claiming that warnings about loss of religious liberty were deceptive and false “scare tactics,” she vigorously defended this religious discrimination. She apparently didn’t notice her own contradiction.

Neither she nor Harris seemed to notice that while they obsess about Illinois’ prohibition of discrimination based on “sexual orientation,” they pay no attention to its prohibition of religious discrimination. They don’t care if the bed and breakfast owner is discriminated against because of his religious beliefs.

Former Georgetown University law professor and current EEOC Commissioner, lesbian activist Chai Feldblum has written that when same-sex marriage is legalized, conservative people of faith will lose religious rights. She argues that it’s a zero-sum game in which a gain in sexual rights for homosexuals will mean a loss of religious rights for conservative people of faith, which she finds justifiable. She, Mell, and Harris share the view that the sexual “rights” of homosexuals trump religious rights.

Harris cited the Illinois Human Rights Act as his justification for not protecting the rights of people of faith to refuse to use their labor and goods in the service of an event that violates their deeply held religious beliefs. Well, the Illinois Human Rights Act also prohibits discrimination based on religion; hence the conflict of which Chai Feldblum spoke. Harris finds discriminating based on religion tolerable and justifiable but not discrimination based on sexual predilection.

By the way, choosing not to participate in a same-sex “wedding” does not reflect discrimination against persons. It reflects discriminating among types of events. The elderly florist who is being sued by the state of Washington for her refusal to provide flowers for a same-sex “wedding” did not discriminate against a person. She made a judgment about an event. She had previously sold flowers to one of the homosexual partners. She served all people regardless of their sexual predilections, beliefs, sexual activities, or relationships. She just wouldn’t participate in an event that she (rightly) believes the God she serves abhors. She takes seriously Jesus’ command to “Render unto Caeser what is Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s.”

Prior to the debate, I had a conversation with one of the event planners in which I predicted Harris would refuse to answer the critical question regarding why marriage should remain a union of just two people. Dold twice asked, if marriage is a right, why should it be limited to two people? Twice Harris obstinately refused to answer.

It was an embarrassingly obvious and intellectually dishonest dodge. Harris tried to use the language of the current bill to deflect the question saying in essence that the bill’s language says nothing about plural unions. This is the same embarrassing dodge ACLU spokesman Ed Yohnka used in a program on which both he and I were guests. Three times I asked him why marriage should be limited to two people, as he claimed it should be. Three times he awkwardly refused to answer.

It doesn’t take much intellectual wattage to understand that once the ideas that marriage is just about love and has nothing to do with sexual complementarity or reproductive potential are embedded in law, there remains no reason to restrict marriage to two people. The legalization of plural unions becomes not merely possible but inevitable.

Harris also said, “All families should be created equal,” to which I would have asked, “Even polyamorous families?”

And he said marriage law should “expand to reflect the reality of society,” to which I would have said, “But there exist polyamorous families in society.”

A few additional thoughts on the debate:

1. “Progressive” language police: At one point Mell attempted to compel Breen to use the term she wanted him to use for her partner (whom she “married” in Iowa). She attempted to compel him to use the term “wife.” She correctly insisted that “terminology is important.” But the law is not the ultimate arbiter of truth and reality. Compelling Breen to use the term “wife” would rob him of the right to use the term he wanted to use and believes reflects truth and reality. Conservatives have the ethical right and obligation to use the language they believe reflects truth and reality. Conceding terminology to the Left, as conservatives too often do, is not smart, not truthful, not helpful, and not compassionate.
   
   In reality, a wife is the spouse of a man (and each partner must actually be the sex they claim to be). No one is ethically obligated to participate rhetorically in any fiction the government has foolishly decided to join.

2. Media bias and the “equality” chimera: The importance of terminology is the reason I described the title of the debate, “Marriage Equality” as unfortunate. “Marriage Equality” embodies and reflects assent to “progressive” assumptions. Conservatives recognize that the notion of “equality” in this context is strategically effective non-sense.  Treating different things differently does not reflect unjust, unequal treatment. Equality demands we treat like things alike. When homosexual men and women say they are attracted only to persons of their same sex, they are acknowledging that men and women are fundamentally and significantly different. As such, a union composed of two people of the same sex is fundamentally and significantly different from a union of two people of opposite sexes. Society has no reason to treat them as if they are the same.
   
   
3. The connection between marriage and children: Both Mell and Harris talked about children deserving, in Mell’s words, “the label” of marriage. Inconsistencies abound. While homosexuals claim that marriage has no inherent connection to reproductive potential, they use arguments about children as justifications for the legal recognition of same-sex unions as marriage. This points to the fact that homosexuals are pursuing the acquisition of children, which necessarily means that in their view, children have no inherent, unalienable right to be raised by their biological parents. Homosexual couples are creating children who will be wholly unconnected to either their biological mother or father or both. In addition, they are creating intentionally motherless or fatherless children, which means homosexuals believe children have neither a right to be raised by both their mother and father, nor a right to be raised by a mother and father.
   
   The issue of children naturally and inevitably arises because marriage is centrally about the next generation. If marriage weren’t centrally about the procreation of children, if children weren’t procreated via sexual unions, there would be no such thing as marriage. The government has no more vested interest in recognizing inherentlysterile homosexual relationships as marriages than it does in recognizing platonic friendships as marriages. The government simply has no vested public interest in recognizing or affirming loving, inherently non-reproductive relationships. If it does, Harris and Mell need to explain what it is. And remember, they cannot include children in their answer, because the Left says marriage has no inherent connection to children (and by extension, their rights).
   
   If the government is compelled to recognize as marriage any loving relationship that involves the raising of children, then, for example, a grandmother and aunt who are raising the children of their deceased daughter/sister, should be permitted to marry.

4. Appeals to emotion and redefining marriage: Mell’s “arguments” amounted to little more than appeals to emotion: She really loves her partner. She and her partner have been together for nine years. Her partner has stuck with her through difficult times. Therefore, the government should legally recognize their relationship as a marriage.
   
   Say what? If marriage has an inherent nature, it doesn’t change simply because she and her partner wish it were different. Harris and Mell have concluded that because they are not attracted to people of the opposite sex, marriage has nothing inherently to do with sexual complementarity or reproductive potential.
   
   What’s interesting is that they don’t deny marriage has a nature that is inherent and immutable. They believe marriage is inherently and immutably constituted solely by the presence of love between two people. But then they can’t provide a single reason for their stubborn insistence that marriage is an inherently binary institution. Harris and Mell need to provide reasons for jettisoning sexual complementarity from the legal definition of marriage while retaining the less essential requirement regarding number of partners in a marriage. Simply asserting that marriage is a union of two people is not an argument.

5. Catholic Charities and religious discrimination: During the debate, a brief discussion arose about Catholic Charities being forced to drop out of the adoption business following the passage of Illinois’ civil union law—a change that Harris views as serving the “best interests” of children. Neither Harris nor Mell expressed concern about the clear presence of religious discrimination—something which deeply concerned Princeton University law professor Robert George. In a 2011 CNN debate among candidates running in the Republican primary, George asked the following question and in so doing, told congressmen and women what they should do:
   
   

   In Illinois, after passing a civil union bill, the state government decided to exclude certain religiously affiliated foster care and adoption agencies, including Catholic and Protestant agencies, because the agencies, in line with the teachings of their faith, cannot in conscience place children with same-sex partners.

   Now, at least half of Illinois’ foster and adoption funds come from the federal government. Should the federal government be subsidizing states that discriminate against Catholic and other religious adoption agencies? If a state legislature refuses to make funding available on equal terms to those providers who as a matter of conscience will not place children in same-sex homes, should federal legislation come in to protect the freedom of conscience of those religious providers?

There is no more critical legislation pending than SB 10. Despite what some lawmakers and pundits fecklessly claim, this issue is more important than even pension reform. The rights of children, parents, and people of faith are at risk.

Demonstrate that you care more about preserving marriage than the Left does in destroying it. Demonstrate your willingness to endure hardship and even persecution in the service of truth.

Please call your lawmaker, and please try to attend the Defend Marriage Rally in Springfield on Oct. 23. The Left will be marching on Oct. 22. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It is clear from reactions to the U.S. Supreme Court rulings on same-sex “marriage” that many Americans do not understand the public purpose of marriage.

Marriage has a public and a private purpose. The public purpose of marriage is to unite men to women and both to any children they produce.  Governments recognize marriage because it is an institution that benefits society and children like no other relationship.  Where marriage declines, government grows, intrudes, and steps in to pick up the pieces.

Throughout history, in diverse cultures on every part of the globe, governments have understood that marriage is not just any kind of love.  It is the special union of a man and a woman.  Still today, 94 percent of all the countries on earth recognize marriage as a man and a woman. Contrary to perception, not one of America’s 38 state laws upholding natural marriage were just struck down. 

Marriage is about the established needs of children, not merely the desires of adults or the demands of activists. Changing the foundation of marriage from the set needs of society and children to the various desires of adults is a dangerous move.

Less than 24 hours after the rulings, those with other desires claimed their agenda.  The polygamists see their long awaited opportunity for multiple partner marriages.  As Practical Polyamory spokeswoman Anita Wagner Illig said “We polyamorists are grateful to our [LGBT] brothers and sisters for blazing the marriage equality trail.”   They know that once society walks away from the logical, time tested boundary of one man and one woman there is no stopping point.

Those who defend natural marriage are not seeking to change anything or to force a new view of marriage upon others.  Without the fixed standard of one man and one woman, anyone will be able to remold a marriage as if it were Silly Putty and force their view upon schools, churches and other institutions.

Homosexuals in all 50 states are free to live together, buy property together, enter contracts, and have their unions blessed by a religious community, but redefining marriage for all of America based simply upon their personal desires goes too far.  Rather than what some may want or feel, the public purpose of marriage should be based upon what we know to be true about the needs of children and society.

[**WARNING: Not for younger readers.**]

In 2010, the Australian press, as in thrall to the homosexual community as our ignorant, sycophantic America press is, told the foolishly titled story “Two dads are better than one,” about a homosexual couple who went to Russia to adopt a child. These “fathers” described the obstacles they faced in trying to find a surrogate in the U.S. and the scrutiny they faced when they returned to Australia with their child, all because of the suspicions of authorities who feared that two homosexual men might be pedophiles. The article concluded with this heartwarming quote: “’We’re a family just like any other family,’ [one of the fathers] said with pride.”

Fast forward to 2013. One of these two proud and ostensibly loving fathers, U.S.-Australian citizen Mark J. Newton was just convicted in an Indiana court of “conspiracy to sexually exploit a minor and conspiracy to possess child pornography” and sentenced to 40 years in prison.  Newton’s partner Peter Truong awaits trial on similar charges.

Multiple news reports state that there is video of one of the “fathers” performing a sex act on their son when he was two-weeks old. In addition, these men made their son sexually available from age 2-6 to at least eight other men in three countries. They also videotaped these sick crimes, posting the videos on the homosexual pedophile website “Boy Lovers Network.”

This story follows the 2012 story of Kenneth Brandt who adopted three boys and a girl and then raped and prostituted the boys.

And the Brandt story follows the 2011 story of “married” Connecticut couple George Harasz and Douglas Wirth who adopted nine boys, five of whom have accused the men of raping them.

I’m going to make the wildly politically incorrect statement that the male homosexual community has a serious problem with pedophilia, including its various incarnations like hebephilia and ephebophilia. To the uninitiated, those terms refer to the predator’s favored age of prey.

The Catholic Church’s sex abuse scandal was primarily homosexual in nature. In other words, all of the predators were male and the vast majority of their victims were male.

The Boys Scouts of America sex abuse scandal revealed in 2012 was entirely homosexual in nature, which is to say, male predators were preying on male children and teens. 

Though male homosexuals constitute between 3-4 percent of the population, multiple reports suggest they commit a statistically higher rate of sexual abuse than do heterosexuals.

And let’s not forget that in virtually every society in history that accepted homosexuality, the dominant form was between adult males and pubescent boys. If you have a spare minute and a strong stomach, wander around a “gay” website. You will see photo upon photo of youthful, hairless boys who appear to be teens.

Sexual crimes against children are certainly not limited to the homosexual community. And I’m not arguing that all homosexuals are pedophiles. I am arguing, rather, that the homosexual community is not immune to the infection of pedophilia—or what some euphemistically refer to with the neologism “minor-attraction,” which to “minor-attracted persons” is just another “sexual orientation.” (And “sexual orientation” is itself a euphemism concocted to efface the difference between rightly ordered sexual impulses that are consonant with biology and anatomy and disordered sexual impulses that result in sterility and disease because they oppose biology and anatomy).

It just may be true that the community that pridefully celebrates that which is worthy of shame has an even more serious perversion problem than just the sexual desire of men for men.

I wonder if the poor little Russian boy whose mother sold him for 8,000 pieces of silver to evil men who used him as their sex toy will grow up to be sexually attracted to men. Oh wait, that can’t happen because the homosexual community says they’re “born that way.”

For multiple reasons children should not be placed in the homes of homosexuals. First, homosexual acts are inherently immoral. Second, there is evidence that many homosexuals find nothing problematic about sex between adult males and minors of diverse ages. Third, homosexual couples are more unstable than heterosexual couples. Fourth, for many male homosexual couples, fidelity does not include sexual monogamy. And finally,  children have an inherent right to be raised by a mother and father—roles that Barack Obama has publicly declared are essential to the lives of children even as he incoherently declares his support for a form of marriage that necessarily presupposes the expendability of either mothers or fathers.

Click HERE to support Illinois Family Institute. 

While poorly decided U.S. Supreme Court cases are a dime a dozen, prior to Wednesday, two stood alone as the most wretched and constitutionally groundless in American History. First was the 1857 Dred Scott decision. Among other things, it robbed African-Americans of both their U.S. citizenship and their dignity.

Next came the 1973 ruling in Roe v. Wade. It has robbed over 55 million U.S. citizens of their very lives. For the first time in American history, the high court imagined a phantom constitutional right for women to dismember alive their own pre-born children.

Both of these cases are blights on American history. Fortunately, the first, Dred Scott, has been officially relegated to the dustbin of judicial disgrace, while the second, Roe v. Wade, continues to be used as justification for mass genocide. With each passing day, the bodies of the innocents pile-up like God’s chosen at Auschwitz.

Tragically, this past week we hit the unholy trifecta. A third precedential abomination was added to the mix. On Wednesday, the high court handed down two cases concerning the pagan left’s abjectly bizarre efforts to redefine the age-old and immutable institution of marriage (Hollingsworth v. Perry and U.S. v. Windsor). The more egregious of the two opinions, Windsor, presumes to invalidate Section 3 of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), granting limited federal recognition to sin-centric and sodomy-based same-sex “marriage.”

Not only did this 5-4 decision effectively deconstruct the institution of legitimate marriage, removing all ethical and legal justification for barring similar such perverse “marriage” amalgamations as “gay marriage” (i.e., multi-party or incestuous nuptials) – it also laid the groundwork to force the 37 “marriage reality” states to join the remaining 13 in a corporate “marriage equality” delusion. This is not just judicial activism; its judicial tyranny – a potentially fatal self-inflicted wound to the high court’s yet waning legitimacy.

Still, while much will be written about Windsor from a legal standpoint, for now, let’s focus on another of the decision’s inevitable outcomes: Anti-Christian persecution. If, through judicial fiat, “gay marriage” ultimately becomes the law of the land, tens-of-millions of Christians (as well as Jews and Muslims) will be forced to choose between obedience to God and obedience to Caesar – between fidelity to conscience and government oppression.

Millions of us have already made that choice.

As we’ve now seen in states that fancy mock “gay marriage,” for instance, the only way to force Christian individuals and business owners – such as bakers, photographers, innkeepers and florists – to lend their talents to sin-centered “gay weddings” is through the power of the police state. This amounts to a systemic, immoral and profoundly unconstitutional trampling of the First Amendment.

What follows will be a deviant-sexual-behavior-based “LGBT” suspect minority class with all the associated trimmings. In the eyes of government, Bible-believing Christians will be treated as modern-day racists. Any outward expression of the Judeo-Christian sexual ethic will be trumped by newfangled “gay rights” and deemed verboten. For all intents and purposes, Christianity will be criminalized. This is not mere speculation. It’s been the plan all along.

Case in point: Chai Feldblum, President Obama’s EEOC commissioner – a lesbian activist who supports “plural marriage” – has promised as much. She admits that progressives “want to revolutionize societal norms” and believes that “gay sex is a moral good.” She calls the clash between religious liberty and “sexual liberty” a “zero-sum game,” meaning someone wins and someone loses. Guess who loses? Feldblum has “a hard time coming up with any case in which religious liberty should win.”

Even so, Wednesday, after the offending high court opinions were announced, I was reminded by a close friend and fellow Christian attorney that, “God is in control, and that has to be more than a slogan at times like this.”

Since, no doubt, the Obama NSA has already read our entire email exchange, I thought I’d go ahead and share excerpts with you as well. My colleague’s insights are profound. I found them encouraging. I hope you do, too.

“Amen,” I replied. “At the risk of sounding a bit apocalyptic, I’m fully convinced that this is part of His divine plan – perhaps to begin separating the wheat from the chaff. We have arrived: ‘As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man.’ Matthew 24:37.”

“I agree with you,” he responded, “and that conviction makes all this much easier. What depresses me is the astonishing disconnect and irrationality that sin so easily produces, and how quickly it spreads; we are truly sheep and fully as stupid without a Good Shepherd.

“In my 35 years as a Christian, I never seriously believed we might end up in prison for our faith – except, perhaps, for something like a pro-life demonstration. This is the first time it seriously occurs to me that the trajectory of the nation is such that it is possible in five to 10 years. Oddly, this thought does not discourage or scare me; in fact, it’s almost a joyful thought that we might have the privilege to suffer for our faith. Rejoice greatly when men revile and persecute you for my name’s sake, for your reward is great in Heaven (a rough paraphrase of Matthew 5:12).

“It may be that the truly toughest tests we had were earlier in our lives,” he continued, “before we got fully engaged and in the movement. … Now we’re part of networks with support from like-minded people, and we’re largely insulated from what the opposition can do to us. The real heroes are our clients who speak up at the risk of losing their livelihood, getting thrown out of school, or getting death threats from the tolerance crowd. I feel now like my faith costs me less than when I was in private practice before hostile judges and antagonistic media hit-men.”

“You nailed it,” I replied. “What an honor that our Creator chose us before time began to be part of a Gideon’s army of truth-tellers and defenders of the faithful. It’s an amazing time to be alive. But, as you mentioned, although we’re on the front lines, we also have tremendous support. It’s quite liberating to be written-off by the world and, consequently, free to speak and behave in a way that reflects the reality that we couldn’t give a rat’s behind what the world thinks of us. Those we represent rarely have that luxury.

“Whether it’s one day or hundreds of years,” I continued, “I really believe we are living in the last days (in the total scheme of time and space). I just hope that when and if the time comes, the Holy Spirit gives me the strength of character to not only refuse to deny His Truth, but to be like our martyred brothers and sisters who walked up and kissed the stake before being burned alive on it.

“Anyway, that’s enough trying to cheer each other up for now,” I joked. “Keep on keepin’ on, my friend.”

Do I really believe American Christians will be burned at the stake over counterfeit “gay marriage”? No. Do I believe Christians will face real persecution, such as loss of livelihood, civil penalties, physical abuse or even jail? Absolutely.

Still, come what may, we Christ followers must always remember this admonition from Romans 12:12: “Be joyful in hope, patient in affliction, [and] faithful in prayer.”

In other words, mock “marriage” or not: Keep on keepin’ on, my friend.

(Go to MarriageSolidarity.com to pledge no surrender on marriage).

The quickness with which the same-sex marriage proponents appear to have “turned the tide” legislatively in the U.S. forces one to examine their tactics as well as their goals.  An honest observer will note that they have done a good job of propagandizing young Americans, the majority of whom no longer have any significant moral compass by which to determine such things.  Multitudes of those who were born after the 60’s sexual revolution are not concerned with whether God has anything to say about morality!  Young Americans’ concept of “god” apparently is that he is a tender-hearted but dim-witted old soul who knows little of what is going on, and certainly has no inclination to rain on anyone’s parade.

Since Liberalism’s “revolution” liberated sex from the constraints of marriage, it is not much of a stretch to liberate sex from heterosexual restrictions as well.  A principal plank in liberalism’s “platform” is the removal of all restraints from sexual “expression.”  One cannot miss their core belief that sex is like breathing: it can and should be allowed anytime and anywhere by anyone while someone else picks up the tab.  While all constitutional rights have common sense limits, the Left has made it clear that the individual, “right” to pleasure, especially sexual pleasure, literally has NO limits.  To them, there is no evil greater than to suggest that sexual pleasure ought to have restraints.

But, one cannot miss the irony that while America’s popular culture is fleeing the constraints of marriage in general, the homosexual movement is suddenly demanding it for themselves.  What’s with that?  The primary purpose for marriage has always been to restrain the “wild horses” of mankind’s sexuality.  It is intended to place severe limits on one’s sexual activity.  It is entering a solemn contract with God and one’s spouse before public witnesses promising to deny self for one’s lifetime for the sake of others, especially any future children.  In simple terms, it is about voluntary sacrifice. It is due to the restraints of marriage that the radical Left has sought to undermine and destroy it for over fifty years.  However, reading the arguments of the homosexual lobby in their demand for the right to marry, they claim only to want “fairness” for themselves! They declare their intentions are simply to get the same benefits that traditional families have received.  Methinks rather the destruction of marriage and family from the outside has been moving too slowly, so they are shifting tactics and moving the battle inside.

However, our government has offered benefits to married couples for the express purpose of compensating them for the sacrifices good parents make for their children who just happen to be the future of the state.  The burdens of parenting are at times so significant that many parents struggle under the load.  It is because of wise leadership in the past that our government saw the advantages of encouraging and strengthening the home.  The state gains no benefit in giving aid to people who merely wish to live together, and actually undermines its future by doing so!  To require the state to give the same benefits to non-traditional couples as it does to traditional families would be like requiring the government to give the same benefits to non veterans as it does to vets.  To do THAT would be inherently unfair!

The realities are clear: traditional families are the backbone of the nation, culture, stability and peace.  They contribute overwhelmingly to the well-being of the nation.  On the other hand, the costs to the state in terms of welfare, crime, troubled neighborhoods, etc. due to unfettered sexuality is staggering.  Why would we intentionally add to this crisis by further eroding the traditional family?

Whatever the intentions of the homosexual lobby are, it is clear that the well-being of future generations of children is not one of them.  That is no surprise as our culture and our political leadership of late in general show little interest in the long-term well-being of children.  If they did, they would not tolerate the pollution that television and popular music pour into their minds, and would take the necessary actions to better protect them on the streets.  They would make getting married hard, and getting divorced much harder.  If America loved children we would not chain them in failing schools to satisfy the unions, and we would certainly not abort nearly 1/3 of them before they were born!  If we really cared for children, we would disregard political correctness, reintroduce God to the schools and culture, and do everything in our power to reestablish the traditional heterosexual family as normative.  That is what is best for children, and that is what is best for America.

Whatever the intentions of the homosexual lobby are, this is clear: it is not about them sacrificing anything!  And, one need not be a genius to understand that when adults won’t sacrifice, the children do.

That is not merely unfair, it is immoral!

Take ACTION: Click HERE to contact your Illinois Representative and tell him/her to oppose the effort to redefine marriage!  Even if you have previously contacted your representative, please do so again. Tell your representative in no uncertain terms that you want him or her to oppose the effort to redefine marriage and family in Illinois. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here are the relevant portions of his letter:

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

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

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

Sincerely,

Ed Sullivan 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The New York Times interviewed the following young scholars:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By:  Michael Brown

In the midst of his announcement on Sunday that he now supports same-sex marriage, Rob Bell warned American evangelicals to “adapt or die.” His counsel, intended to be helpful, is actually a guaranteed formula for failure and a proven recipe for disaster. In fact, the only way for us to make a lasting impact on the culture and maintain a relevant witness to society is to do the opposite of what Bell advised.

Over the last few years Bell, a bestselling author and former megachurch pastor, has steadily distanced himself from the mainstream evangelical community. Known for asking provocative questions and challenging the status quo, he amassed a large following which has been drawn to his non-dogmatic approach, an approach which I call a “celebration of ambiguity.”

To paraphrase this approach, rather than the leader saying, “This is the way. It is proven and sure. Follow me,” the leader now says, “Who am I to know? How can anyone be sure? Isn’t it narrow and small-minded of us to be so inflexible and dogmatic?”

Somehow, young people in particular have rallied around this mindset, a mindset that has already lost its way before it even starts. Yet losing one’s way is celebrated too: “The destination is not important,” we are told. “It’s the journey that matters!”

Personally, I would rather enjoy a terrible journey to heaven than a lovely journey to hell. Speaking of which, Bell’s 2011 New York Times bestseller Love Wins represented another departure from the evangelical mainstream. In the book, Bell suggested that, to a great extent, hell is here and now, and in the end, everybody will make it into God’s heavenly kingdom.

Last year, speaking at a church gathering in California, Bell stated his belief that you could be a practicing homosexual and a follower of Jesus at the same time, encouraging his listeners to take their focus off of gay-related issues and to look instead at the “truly big problems in our world; that I believe Jesus would us to band together, and tackle together.”

In light of this, it was hardly a surprise when he announced on Sunday during a Q & A session that, “I am for marriage. I am for fidelity. I am for love, whether it’s a man and woman, a woman and a woman, a man and a man. I think the ship has sailed and I think the church needs — I think this is the world we are living in and we need to affirm people wherever they are.”

Of course, Bell is right that, to an extent, “the ship has sailed,” and affirming same-sex marriage is now the politically “in” thing to do, as witnessed by the recent statements of former President Bill Clinton, Senator Rob Portman, and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

But what in the world does that have to do with right and wrong? If society has lost its moral bearings, should the Church lose its moral bearings as well? Shouldn’t we rather swim against the tide of popular opinion and call the world to turn around?

And since when do we drag down the teachings of Jesus, which were marked by divine authority and absoluteness, to meet the standard of “the world we are living in”? Aren’t we supposed to challenge the world to live up to the standards of the Lord?

Bell said on Sunday, “I think we are witnessing the death of a particular subculture that doesn’t work. I think there is a very narrow, politically intertwined, culturally ghettoized, Evangelical subculture that was told ‘we’re gonna change the thing’ and they haven’t. And they actually have turned away lots of people. And I think that when you’re in a part of a subculture that is dying, you make a lot more noise because it’s very painful. You sort of die or you adapt.”

Without a doubt, Bell is right that in many ways the evangelical Church has fallen out of touch with the nation, and to the extent we can be culturally sensitive and “understand the times” (see 1 Chronicles 12:32), we make an impact. On the other hand, Bell is completely wrong when he warns that “You sort of die or you adapt.”

In the days of the Maccabees, did the Jewish people survive the onslaught of Hellenism by adapting to paganism, with all its worldly appeal, or did they overcome by resisting at any cost, thereby demonstrating the power of their convictions? Did the early Church survive the polytheism of Rome by bowing to the emperor, or did they overcome by refusing to compromise, even to the point of death, thereby pointing to a better life?

Remarkably, on Sunday, “When the Very Rev. Jane Shaw attempted to get Bell to take a firm position as to whether Christians ‘know’ the truth in some ultimate sense, Bell veered in a different direction.”

But that is the very heart of the problem. Bell’s celebration of ambiguity has become a dogmatism of uncertainty, and it is because of his lack of spiritual absolutes that he has wandered off the path, leading a generation in his wake.

The truth is that 100 years from now, either in this world or the world to come, history will record that those who conformed their beliefs to the culture were nothing more than a passing curiosity, while those who refused to compromise truth will be regarded as the spiritual heroes and torchbearers.

In the words of Charles Spurgeon, “Character is always lost when a high ideal is sacrificed on the altar of conformity and popularity.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cheerleader Dowd echoed Will’s pronunciamento:

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

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

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

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

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

To paraphrase Richard Weaver, ideas and images have consequences.

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

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

Written by Jim Campbell

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It is difficult to believe that we have reached the point where our leaders apparently cannot see the difference between traditional and same-sex” marriage.”  Numerous studies have been done over the years, and regardless of political correctness, they have shown that equating these two relationships has produced significant negative consequences. 

Surveys taken in Europe, where same-sex marriages have been legal for over a decade, reveal that traditional marriage suffers badly as a consequence.  Many married couples surveyed for one study were actually embarrassed to have gotten married at all!  But, why wouldn’t they be embarrassed, since their relationship is now considered equivalent to what everyone knows is an aberrant lifestyle? 

As with “The Emperor’s New Clothes,” while it was a child who pointed out that the emperor was naked, everyone else knew it, too, but had remained silent out of fear.  And so it is today.  It matters not how loud the Left shouts that homosexuality is normal, everyone knows it is not! 

God’s word, the Bible is explicitly clear on such subjects.  Homosexual conduct brings His sharp rebuke, as also does immoral conduct between heterosexuals.   Have our elected officials really given thought to the fact that they are declaring themselves wiser than God?  Must we remind them that the Bible states, “Woe unto them who call good evil and evil good?”  

Before new drugs are introduced to the public, though they are often intended for only a small percentage of Americans, yet they undergo grueling tests and trials lasting years and costing millions or even hundreds of millions of dollars.  Yet, in the face of powerful evidence that same-sex marriage has profound negative consequences to families and especially children which will last for generations to come, our elected officials are plowing full speed ahead to legalize and sanction same-sex marriage! 

Make no mistake about this: If we did not believe unequivocally that same-sex marriage was very harmful to children, we would say nothing at all.  We have no interest in or time for arguments over trivialities. 

However, traditional marriage is the most important ingredient in a stable childhood, life, and civilization.  Are we so blinded by political correctness or the homosexual lobby that we would sacrifice our children, their future and the future of our civilization to gain a few votes or to hear the accolades of the Left?  Have we no statesmen  left? 

Can you elected officials guarantee that there will be no harmful consequences from your decision to fundamentally alter the structures of home and society?  If, as time passes we follow in the footsteps of Europe in destroying the nuclear family will you, once the damage of this choice is evident, reverse this horrendous decision and then proceed to tender your resignation and leave politics behind? 

It is abundantly clear that over the last fifty years, in “liberating” the culture from its historic Judeo-Christian morality, the US has devastated its children.  Thus it is very simple: if approving same-sex marriage further undermines children’s welfare, that approval must be withheld.  

Concerned Illinois citizens need to contact their legislators now! 

Homosexuals can survive without “marriage.”  Children cannot!