What’s next?

That’s the question the citizens of Illinois should be asking themselves. Now that our state lawmakers have decided to redefine marriage, legalize “medical” marijuana and teach “comprehensive” sex-education to young children in our government schools,  what’s next?

Let’s put aside for the moment the fact that our state lawmakers didn’t listen to us–we the people–in their feckless decisions. As for same-sex “marriage,” they decided to make the decision without us, our input or our approval, caving in to the political pressure of Speaker Michael Madigan (D-Chicago) and the multi-million dollar homosexual lobby. But as frustrating as this is, what is of more concern right now is what will happen next?

Well, the day after the Illinois House voted to redefine marriage, we may have been given a preview of things to come. As I was waiting to be interviewed by Tony Sarabi of Chicago’s Public Radio (WBEZ), I listened to him interview Tracy Baim, the publisher and executive editor of Windy City Times, a homosexual Chicago newspaper.  During the interview, she revealed that the true goal of the radical LGBTQ agenda is to silence and punish any moral opposition to their lifestyle–even pastors and priests:

...the problem with Religious Freedom [and Marriage Fairness] Act is that there are all these exemptions on religion, and believe me, I don’t believe that a church should be forced to perform a same gender wedding.  But if you continue down those exemptions after a legitimate church what happens is you have other people that say on religious grounds that they don’t want to serve people, they don’t want, literally, to serve them at their breakfast counter or serve them in their B&B, or provide wedding photography. And while that is really an emotional issue, and I can understand why the right-wing is very upset about B&B owners being sued, we have to look at this through historical lens–and that is so offensive that people could just decide who to serve and who not to serve based on characteristic of who they are, including their religion. [emphasis added.]

Baim continued:

…this new law that just passed yesterday has a whole series of things in it that are questionable of what is a religious institution. So they bent over backwards to try to be accommodating , but in many ways it is a violation of–well it will be played out in court–of what really can be considered.  So can a club, like the Rotary or the Kiwanis or whatever say based on their religious beliefs they don’t want to do something.  Well they can say they don’t want to serve someone who is of a different race or who is Muslim, etc. So it will be interesting to see how this will play out…  [emphasis added.]

Five law professors who favor same-sex “marriage” identified Illinois’ law (SB 10) as the absolute worst in the nation in protecting religious liberty and freedom of conscience, and still Baim and other radical activists in her community will not rest until all exemptions are eliminated and all opposition is punished.

Baim demonstrates an utter lack of respect for religious liberty, which, unlike “sexual orientation,” is actually included in the U.S. Constitution. Religious beliefs and conscience objections to being involved with an activity–not a person–but an activity we believe is immoral is irrelevant to activists like Baim. All rights are subordinate to their purported right to engage in homosexual acts. Our First Amendment civil rights to freely exercise religion be damned.  

That is exactly what is happening in Colorado where a Christian-owned bakery was ordered by a judge from the Colorado Civil Rights Commission to make cakes for same-sex ceremonies or face fines. The baker didn’t refuse to serve homosexuals. He refused to participate in a ceremony that celebrates a union that his faith teaches is an abomination to God. Baim is either dishonest or ignorant when she claims that people of faith will seek to refuse “literally to serve” homosexuals, or “to serve them at their lunch counter.” There is no evidence that Christians seek to refuse to provide lunch to homosexuals at their lunch counters or to sell them donuts on their way to work. Some Christians refuse to use their gifts to provide goods and services for activities (e.g., weddings, civil ceremonies, or sleepovers) that violate their religious convictions.  

And remember how many of our “tolerant” liberal political officials treated the religious views of Chick-Fil-A’s CEO Dan Cathy when he dared to speak in favor of natural marriage? His company was threatened with being blacklisted and forbidden to do businesses in Chicago. Mayor Rahm Emanuel went so far as to say that “Chick-fil-A’s values are not Chicago’s values,” (a strange claim in light of the fact that he worked for Obama when Obama opposed same sex “marriage”).  Elected officials in Boston, Philadelphia, San Francisco and Washington DC said the same thing: Chick-Fil-A was not welcome because the owner holds a traditional view of marriage. 

We have been warning our subscribers for years now:  The end goal of the radical LGBTQ agenda isn’t “marriage equality.” The end goal is to silence any and all moral opposition to homosexuality. And they plan to use the heavy hand of government to censor and punish conservative and Judeo-Christian views on sexuality and marriage. How long before they tell our churches, our ministries and our families that our values are not their values? It’s coming faster than you realize.

Further, if the government redefines marriage for homosexuals, it must continue to redefine marriage for other groups or risk being guilty of the same kind of discrimination of which natural marriage supporters stand accused. So, what will be the next legal battle facing marriage?

Already efforts are under way to legalize plural unions in order to protect the “rights” of polygamists and polyamorists. Late last week, a federal judge in Utah struck down part of a Utah law that outlawed plural marriage. This is the logical and inevitable next step after eliminating sexual complementarity from the legal definition of marriage. After all, it is far more radical to jettison sexual complementarity from the legal definition of marriage than it is to jettison the requirement regarding number of partners. 

These “alternative lifestyles” further reduce marriage to any group of people that want to live together and have sexual relations. They also place the desires of adults above what is best for children while ignoring recent studies showing that kids are better raised in a home with a mother and a father.

Now more than ever we need you to stand with the Illinois Family Institute in defending the Judeo-Christian worldview. As we actively defend the traditional, conservative values upon which our country was built, we recognize that we can’t do it without your support.

The attacks our values face are many. They are well-funded, well-organized attacks aimed at destroying our shared values–values that are essential to the continued health of the nation. But we have something that our opposition doesn’t: the majority. Our numbers are far greater than theirs as recent studies continue to show a strong support for natural marriage, life and religious freedom.

Though our adversary is well-funded, politically connected and speaking loudly, we the people have greater numbers that can make an incredible impact if we stand together. Will you commit right now to stand with the Illinois Family Institute in defending our shared values from the attacks of a few people that want to fundamentally change our country?

Whether you can commit to sending a one-time gift, become a monthly donor or help underwrite the cost of specific needs we have right now, every person, and every effort makes a difference.

Please stand with the Illinois Family Institute by donating right now!

Now is not the time to sit back and wait for someone else to get involved. Now is the time to stand up and become a proactive force in defending the values we cherish. Imagine what could be accomplished if you, your family and your friends each decided to get involved. The momentum we could create would be an unstoppable force.

IFI will be leading the charge in 2014 educating voters throughout our state with our Voter Guide, standing up to those seeking to attack the family, continually standing for innocent human life and opposing those seeking to undercut our family values in our government schools.

Our mission at Illinois Family Institute is to stand for biblical, Judeo-Christian values, and in doing so, help bring Illinois back to a state in which religious liberty flourishes, families prosper and every human life is valued. Your support by the end of the year will ensure that we have the resources necessary to fulfill our mission in 2014.

I want to remind you that we have a $25,000 Year-End Matching Grant offered by a group of generous benefactors.  Any donation given or mailed by December 31st will go toward this matching challenge and will be fully tax-deductible, lowering your 2013 tax burden.

Any donation received by (or postmarked on) December 31st will be matched. If you contribute $50 IFI will receive $100, if you give $1,000 we will receive $2,000 and so forth.  No amount, whether a monthly or one-time gift, is too small or too large. We appreciate all of your donations more than we can possibly say.

Please partner with us and make a tax-deductible gift today.

May God bless you and your family this Christmas season.

Sincerely,

David E. Smith
Executive Director 

P.S. Help us reach our goal of raising a total of $50,000 by the end of the month – Donate today!  To make a credit card donation over the phone, call the IFI office at (708) 781-9328.  

You can also send a gift by mail to:

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

Written by Robert Gilligan

This week, the Illinois House of Representatives completed a mission started by its Senate counterparts in February by redefining what is outside of its authority: a nature-ordered union of one man and one woman, the institution of marriage.

Come June 1, 2014 marriage in Illinois will be defined as “between two persons.”

During floor debate, lawmakers threw out words such as “equality” and “fairness.” But one important term was glossed over — religious freedom.

It’s in the title of the bill, lawmakers said, the “Religious Freedom and Marriage Fairness Act.” They further noted that no church or clergy will be forced to solemnize any same-sex marriage or rent their parish or fellowship halls for any type of same-sex wedding recognition.

It’s all good, lawmakers assured faith groups and religious organizations. Your religious freedom is secure.

Where have we heard that before?

How about three years ago, when Illinois lawmakers promised during floor debate on civil unions legislation that no faith-based social service organizations would be affected. But within six months of civil unions becoming law, all Catholic Charities in the state were pushed out of their longtime mission of caring for abused, abandoned, and neglected children. The state refused to renew contracts for foster care and adoption services because of Charities’ religious belief of not placing children with unmarried couples, be they heterosexual or homosexual.

We know better this time. We know our religious freedom is not protected. And when we asked for more protection, our pleas for fairness were rebuffed and spurned.

Senate Bill 10 offers no specific protection regarding employment practices. If a current church employee chooses to “marry” a same-sex partner, the legislation offers no specific protection regarding the church being forced to pay — from funds collected every Sunday from faithful church-goers in the pews — for benefits for the “spouse.”

The legislation offers no conscience protections to health-care facilities, educational facilities, or social service agencies. So, faith-based hospitals, colleges, and universities that own and operate venues for rent are not protected.

Individuals and independent business owners whose religious beliefs do not condone same-sex marriage are also left in the dust. There are the stories about the photographers, bakers, florists, and bed-and-breakfast owners who have come under fire for refusing to serve same-sex weddings. What about the county judge asked to perform a same-sex wedding, or a public school teacher forced to teach about a family with two moms, two dads, or some other permutation?

They get nada.

Is this fairness, or tolerance?

As other states grapple with redefinition of marriage efforts, we urge them to learn from Illinois. Hold on to the natural order of marriage as one man and one woman joining together to form a union of body, mind, and spirit, with the intent and hope of creating children with whom to share their love.

Hold on to marriage as the only institution that ties children to their biological mother and father, and serves as the cornerstone of the family and society.

And hold on to the religious freedom that allows us to practice our faith beyond the four walls of a church.

Robert Gilligan is the Executive Director of the Catholic Conference 

My random thoughts following the vote on marriage:

1.)  Tuesday, cowardly and/or ignorant Illinois lawmakers in defiance of truth, history, logic, compassion, and in some cases, their own religious traditions voted to legally recognize non-marital unions as marriages. In so doing, they have expanded the role of government in the lives of Americans, diminished religious liberty, rendered inevitable the legalization of plural unions, and harmed children in incalculable ways. They have given their stamp of approval on the practice of denying children’s inherent right to have both a mother and father. And they have assured that public schools will teach about sexual perversion in positive ways to children from kindergarten on up.

2.)  The voices of tolerance, truth, compassion, and love did not win. The voices of ignorance and the father of lies won. Here are emails I received from ardent supporters of genderless faux-marriage:

Robert Fracassa sent these three emails to me:

“You Lose. Loser!!!!!!!!” 

“How does it feel? Really bad? Imagine a lifetime of people as evil as you against birth of a child living in misery. No more!  Retire, all your work did nothing and means nothing!!! Marriage equality wins!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Yayyyyyy, slam dunk in your face, freak!!!! 

“Reminder, Score: equality 1…Illinois Family Institute and NOM – ZERO!!!!! F U !!!!”

Homosexual activist Scott Rose  (aka Scott Rosenweig or Rosensweig) who writes for the New Civil Rights Movement and filed the challenge to University of Texas Professor Mark Regnerus’ important study of homosexual families, sent this email:

Ha ha!  Ha ha, Laurie.  You do still have the blood of gay-bashing victims dripping off of your bigot fingers, yet you live in a state where the gay people are going to have federal level equality. 

Your life is a waste. 

I think it would be a good idea for you now to kill yourself. 

Go ahead and tell the public…that  I said that. 

I could care less if the public knows that I said it would be a good idea for an anti-LGBT bigot to kill themselves. 

Yes, I am gloating over your defeat. 

Your life is a waste. 

3.) Of course, this transmogrification of marriage has nothing whatsoever to do with equality, which demands that we treat like things alike. Homosexual unions and heterosexual marriage are not alike. They’re as different as night is from day and men are from women.

4.) The Left makes the non-sequitur claim that because heterosexual marriages are failing, homosexual unions should be recognized as marriages. By that “logic,” one could argue that because marriages composed of two people are failing, we should legally recognize plural unions as marriages. Or because marriages composed of biologically unrelated people are failing, we should legalize incestuous marriages. Or because marriages between people of major age are failing, we should legalize marriage between adults and children.

5.) Far too many Christians and their religious leaders were missing in action on this battle and have been for a very, very long time. Churches are not educating either their adult members or their youth on the issue of homosexuality in general and marriage in particular, and this dereliction of duty leaves Christians either confused or, worse, persuaded by the lies of the world.

Our children are growing up in a culture suffused with the poison of sexual perversity, the advocacy of which is propelled by the manipulation of their feelings and thoughts. Who will teach are children the flaws in the arguments proffered by progressives to normalize homosexuality and pervert marriage, if not the church? Most of their parents can’t critique and refute the specious secular arguments used by the Left. And teens aren’t spending their time reading First Things and Touchstone magazines or visiting the website Public Discourse.

So, where, pray tell, will kids be taught how to think through the plethora of fallacious messages with which the culture is slowly being poisoned? One of God’s many gifts in creating us in His image is that we enjoy the gift of reason. Rationality is not a sphere separate from the sacred.

6.)  Far too many religious leaders claim the church should not be involved in “political issues.” But what if political issues are first biblical issues? During the slave era, should churches have remained silent as Scripture was twisted to justify slave-holding (just as it is twisted today to justify same-sex pseudo-marriage)? Was it right that so many Christians refused to stand for truth during Hitler’s reign of terror? Should Christians have refrained from participating in the Civil Rights marches in the 1960’s?

7.)  Listening to the floor “debates” in Springfield, I was reminded of Neil Postman’s prophetic words in Amusing Ourselves to Death, in which he warns about our television-based culture losing its capacity to reason. Instead, appeals to emotion will rule.

The manipulative non-arguments in Springfield included reading a letter from a ten-year-old girl who, prior to being adopted by two homosexual men, had been in foster care. Two thoughts: First, adoption by a similarly compassionate mother and father would have been a better option. Second, the compassionate nurturance of these two men does not mean that their union constitutes a marriage. Although this is a perfect example of a manipulative appeal to emotion, it makes no sense as an argument. If five people of assorted sexes were to take this young girl in and fulfill all the responsibilities of a father and mother, their union would still not constitute a marriage.

8.)  It’s easy for the Left to vilify as hateful bigots people like me as long as there are only a handful of us around the country. If Christendom would come alive with the desire to protect children, preserve religious liberty, expose the deeds of darkness, and suffer for Christ, the Left would be unable to marginalize them all. The Left’s deliberate strategy of vilification and marginalization of those who serve as the tip of the spear works because the church slumbers—or hides. It’s easy to mock and demonize 100 people. It’s not so easy to malign 100,000.

9.)  What does the vote count really tell us in this heavily blue state in which the corrupt Democratic Party controls Springfield and in which House Speaker Mike Madigan for 10 years refused to allow a state constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman even to have a hearing?  The speaker had to arm-twist members of his own party to get their votes on Tuesday. This close vote in this corrupt blue state may tell us that there are fewer Americans in love with this queer form of marriage than the press would have us believe.

Finally, thank you from the bottom of our weary but at peace hearts! Thank you to all who helped through emails and calls to and meetings with their state representatives, by attending marriage lobby days and pastors breakfasts, for financial support, for prayers, and for emails of support to us.

Thanks you to every state representative who through their votes defended true marriage, an act which is becoming a counter-cultural act of courage.

Thank you too for the emails we received Tuesday night thanking us and offering encouragement and eager support for the next step in our work to preserve liberty and protect children. Those were balms to our souls.

God’s work in this period of redemptive history is far from over. Teaching our youth; making it possible for parents to exit public schools; booting out foolish and cowardly lawmakers; awakening Christians, particularly clergy, who with the exception of a relatively small group, were largely and unconscionably absent; and alerting other states that will soon see their marriage laws attacked to the critical importance of every Christian speaking out boldly for truth are our next tasks.

In all things, we give thanks.

 Please, click HERE to to support IFI.

How did they vote?

On Tuesday afternoon, the Illinois House of Representatives recklessly voted 61-54 in favor of genderless marriage (SB 10) with 2 representatives voting present and 1 not voting.
 
The debate raged for over two hours with SB 10 with supporters of the bill filling the time with a constant stream of emotion, personal testimony, and accusations of discrimination. Those who spoke out in favor of natural marriage included State Representatives Jeanne Ives (R-Wheaton), David Reis (R-Olney), Rep. Dwight Kay (R-Edwardsville), Tom Morrison (R-Palatine), Mary Flowers (D-Chicago), and David Harris (R-Mount Prospect).
 
Former House minority leader Rep. Tom Cross joined two other Republicans, Ron Sandack (R-Downers Grove) and Ed Sullivan (R-Mundelein)  in breaking with the party platform and supporting this radical liberal bill.
 
Responding to the many references to the Civil Rights movement, Rep. Flowers stated, “When I was discriminated against, it is not because of who I love, but because of the color of my skin…Homosexuality has nothing to do with race.” Flowers continued, “Even if the legal definition of marriage was changed, those two people will never be married in God’s eyes.”
 
Rep. Kay declared, “I’ve heard nothing today about the Scriptures. The only thing I’ve heard is about human rights. So I guess we’ve backed away from our heritage in this nation which we seem to do quite regularly for the expediency of what we wish to do at the moment. And ladies and gentlemen, that’s pride. That’s a belief that you’re better than the very foundation…which we find in the Scriptures.”
 
The vote came less than two weeks after an estimated 4,000 people descended upon Springfield supporting the definition of marriage as being between one man and woman on October 23rd.

SB 10 will go to the desk of Governor Pat Quinn who has publicly expressed his eagerness to sign the bill.
 
How Did Your Representative Vote?

CLICK HERE for the roll call.

 

To see the full video or separate segments of the debate, CLICK HERE.

Over the weekend, I was made aware of the Facebook comments of two of Illinois’ elected lawmakers in response to my article on the impending marriage redefinition vote in which I examined the appeals to emotion that are relentlessly exploited by the Left to divert attention from the intellectual shallowness and inconsistency of the Left’s poor arguments.

These Facebook responses illustrate both the dishonesty and lack of maturity that also inform the movement to normalize homosexuality and pervert the legal definition of marriage.

The first was a comment from the bill’s chief sponsor State Representative Greg Harris (D-Chicago) who either completely misunderstood one of the central points of my article or, more likely, intentionally misrepresented what I actually said.

Harris wrote that I believe:

Family values don’t include church going, homemaking, raising children, doing chores together or helping your spouse go through cancer if you happen to be a lesbian.

What I actually argued is that caring for children, managing finances, attending church, doing chores, and caring for one another during an illness does not mean the adults engaged in those activities are married. Note, I never claimed that those activities are unrelated to family life or family values. I said the presence of those activities does not mean that those engaged in them are in a marital union. I said that the presence of those activities does not mean that marriage is wholly unrelated to sexual complementarity. My point was clear that marriage is not constituted solely by those activities.

It is neither honest nor helpful to misrepresent an opponent’s argument. The public deserves more from the elected employees whose salaries they pay.

Moving from the dishonesty of politicians to the lack of maturity of politicians, we can look to the Facebook post of lesbian State Representative Kelly Cassidy (D-Chicago) who wrote this about me:

This is the same woman who described me [Cassidy] as a ‘perfervid promoter of all things homosexual.’ She [Higgins] definitely got a word of the day calendar for Christmas last year.

The response of this public servant who is pushing to radically change the legal definition of society’s bedrock social institution—a change that will diminish religious freedom; undermine the inherent right of children to be raised by a mother and father, preferably their own; inevitably lead to the legalization of plural unions—is to mock the fact that I know words that she apparently does not.

What Harris, Cassidy, Alderman Deb Mell, Mayor Rahm Emanuel, and Governor Patrick Quinn should do is respond to the questions about marriage that IFI has posed: What is marriage? Why is the government involved? If marriage is constituted solely by intense loving feelings, why should it be limited to two people? What is the origin and reason for the requirement that only two people may marry? If marriage is constituted solely by love with no inherent connection to reproductive potential, why shouldn’t close blood relatives or platonic friends be permitted to “marry”? Do children have an inherent right to be raised by a mother and father—preferably their own biological mothers and fathers?

Mockery, dishonesty, appeals to emotion, and a relentless refusal to respond to these central questions about marriage do not reflect well on our public servants and do not well serve the public.

We need to fight for marriage with intelligence, honesty, seriousness, tenacity, courage, conviction, and prayer.

 Please, click HERE to to support our work in the public square.

Politicians and pundits are making mincemeat of marriage, faith, and religious liberty.

Rumors are circulating that Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan (D-Chicago) and homosexual activist, State Representative Greg Harris (D-Chicago) may call for a vote on the marriage redefinition bill (SB 10) next week. Because their ideological accomplices in the political and punditry spheres are promoting this effort with fervor and tenacity, it’s essential that Illinoisans understand the specious nature of the arguments that animate them. The Chicago Tribune once again provides a cornucopia of lousy — that is to say, false and destructive — ideas about marriage, ideas which, unfortunately, extend beyond the narrow boundaries of the Tribune and the narrow minds of newly installed Chicago Alderman Deb Mell, Tribune columnist Eric Zorn, and Governor Pat Quinn.

Lesbian activist Deb Mell’s recent Tribune commentary isn’t actually a rational argument for the redefinition of marriage. Rather, it’s an extended piece of demagoguery that embodies and conceals a troubling set of assumptions and an absurd conclusion. And it’s the only thing Mell’s got, so she repeats it ad nauseum.

To summarize her “argument”: She and her partner have been together for nine years, they own a home together, they do household chores together, they are raising a child together, they assume extended familial roles together, they attend a church that rejects orthodoxy together, they care for one another during illness, and they manage their finances together. Therefore, marriage has no inherent connection to sexual complementarity.

Yes, folks, that’s what passes for an argument in the alternate universe called “progressivism.” No attempt to define marriage. No attempt to justify why marriage is restricted to two people. No attempt to explain why platonic friends, siblings, or polyamorists — all of whom can do all the things listed above — should not have their unions legally recognized as marriages. No attempt to justify the deliberate denial of children’s inherent right to be raised by both a mother and father, preferably their own biological mother and father. No attempt to explain what the government interest is in inherently non-reproductive types of relationships.

While Mell replaces sound logic with appeals to emotion, Eric Zorn replaces it with ad hominem arguments and condescending dismissals, starting with calling business owners who make distinctions between right and wrong actions “intolerant.” To business owners like the Christian photographers who have been fined $6,637 for declining to photograph a lesbian commitment ceremony, Zorn offers these tolerant and compassionate responses: “Tough,” “Please,” “Yawn,” and “Then don’t open a business.”

Zorn believes that anyone who makes moral judgments with which he disagrees is intolerant. One wonders, would Zorn similarly malign a photographer who refused to photograph a commitment ceremony between a father and his 30 year-old consenting daughter? And let’s complicate the question by hypothesizing this refusal comes during a time when laws prohibiting incestuous acts between consenting adults have been repealed. After all, the government has no business in our bedrooms.

Out of either ignorance or dishonesty, Zorn fails to address the fact that the photographers did not decline to photograph homosexuals. They declined to photograph a homosexual ceremony. They were not discriminating against people. They were making legitimate ethical distinctions among types of activities—an inconvenient truth for “progressives.”

Zorn seems to believe that the ultimate arbiter of all matters moral is THE LAW. Yes, laws like the Illinois Human Rights Act, which was created by Left-leaning Illinois politicians in cahoots with homosexual activists, are the ultimate arbiters of moral truth. Regarding religious liberty, Zorn says:

“You want to open a business that serves the public? Then you can’t practice discrimination on the basis of…religion…sexual orientation and so on….The law [the IL Human Rights Act] doesn’t care what you think about customers in these protected categories.”

Zorn doesn’t seem to see his inconsistent application of both a principle and a law. He uses the law that prohibits discrimination based on “sexual orientation” and religion to compel business owners to engage in an activity that violates their religious beliefs.

Further, “sexual orientation” is merely a dishonest term concocted to disguise the fact that a condition constituted by subjective sexual desires and volitional sexual acts has no similarity to other protected categories. Zorn with unequivocal eagerness subordinates religious liberty to the newly minted sexual “rights” of homosexuals. Methinks there’s some rollicking grave-rolling roiling the cemeteries of our Founding Fathers.

Zorn harrumphs that the religious protections in the proposed marriage revision bill that protect the right of churches to refuse to solemnize homosexual “weddings” are all the protections conservative people of faith deserve. This exposes Zorn’s ignorance of what it means to be a Christian and what the First Amendment was intended to protect. The totality of the life of a Christian is informed by his or her faith. There is no distinction between the sacred and the secular spheres for true followers of Christ, a point Martin Luther King Jr. eloquently expressed in his “Letter from Birmingham Jail.”

Governor Quinn, who claims to be a Roman Catholic, reveals, like Zorn, a troubling measure of theological ignorance. Quinn defends his defiance of the teachings of the Catholic Church on marriage by stating that he is acting in accordance with his “conscience.” Zorn and Quinn share a strange and stunted view of faith, doctrine, and religious liberty. Zorn wants to keep religion out of the public square. Quinn wants to keep it out of the public square and his conscience.

IFI is extending an urgent plea to our readers to take a few moments to express your opposition to SB 10, the bill that will permit the government to recognize non-marital unions as marriages, will harm children, and will further undermine religious liberty. It’s not just homosexual activists in Illinois who are watching this vote. Homosexual activists and their ideological allies throughout the country are watching Illinois. So too are conservatives in other states in which marriage is now or soon will be under attack. Defeat of this bill will offer hope to them.

Take ACTION: Send an email or a fax to your state representative.  Encourage your him/her to uphold marriage, family and religious freedom in Illinois by voting against SB 10.  Then take a moment to call the Capitol switchboard at (217) 782-2000 and ask your state representative to vote NO to SB 10.

 Please help your Illinois Family Institute remain strong in this fight.  
Please, click HERE to contribute what you can today.

Thank you.

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.

How did they vote?

Five pro-family lawmakers, Senators Tim Bivins (R-Dixon), Dan Duffy (R-Barrington), William Haine (D-Alton), Dale Righter (R-Mattoon), and Kyle McCarter (R-Vandalia), had the courage to challenge this anti-family legislation on the Senate floor during debate while seven Democratic lawmakers  made emotional manipulative appeals for the bill’s passage.  Surprisingly, Senator Jason Barickman (R-Bloomington) was the only Republican to speak in favor of this anti-family legislation.  He then was the only Republican in the Illinois Senate to vote in favor of Gay Marriage.

This bill now moves over to the Illinois House where it is short the votes necessary to pass.  

This is why our Defend Marriage Lobby Day on February 20th is so important!  If we hope to defeat this bill in the Illinois House and maintain a sufficient level of opposition to this proposal, we must have a strong showing next week.  Read more about this lobby day HERE.  We need you to show up and send a clear message to state lawmakers in the Illinois House that Illinoisans will NOT allow marriage to be destroyed!  We can stop this!

To see how your state senator voted, click HERE.

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