A consensus appears to be developing among otherwise reasonable people that Kim Davis, of Rowan County fame, either needs to start issuing marriage licenses or quit her job.

For those just joining us, a county clerk in Kentucky is refusing to issue marriage licenses against her conscience and is also refusing to resign. Her name, which should be on a bronze plaque on the side of the courthouse, is Kim Davis. A federal judge has ordered her to appear in his courtroom Thursday to explain why Davis should not be held in contempt of court for refusing to issue marriage licenses.

File this under sentiments which seem extreme at the time, but heroic when the danger is over, and you are reading them inscribed on the base of a polished marble memorial.

But there is a difference between contempt of court and seeing that the courts have become contemptible.

Now while florists and bakers and photographers enjoy a great deal of active support from the broader Christian world, the most people like Davis will get is a sympathetic lack of sympathy. It falls out this way because Christians generally understand the private sector — that’s where they live, after all — but they don’t understand the nature of government. They don’t understand the public sector and the relationship of God’s  Word to it. Their theology develops a distinct limp as soon as they step into the public square, but it is not the kind of limp you might acquire by wrestling with God at Peniel. It is more like what might happen if you dropped the Collected Works of Immanuel Kant on your foot. That results in quite a distinctive limp, one  you see everywhere.

Here is a quick sampling of that sympathetic lack of sympathy:

Carly Fiorina says the clerk needs to comply or move on. Ed Morrissey says the same. Ryan Anderson generally agrees with that, as does Rod Dreher. Note particularly the last comment in Dreher’s piece — that there are hills to die on, but that this is not it.

Update: After Ryan Anderson objected, I went back and reread him. His position is more nuanced than I let on, and so my apologies to him. I still have objections to his solution, but that will require a separate post.

So I want to begin by making an observation about that hill-to-die-on thing, but then move on to discuss the foundational principle that is at stake here. After that, I want to point out what it would look like if more government officials had the same understanding that Kim Davis is currently displaying — despite being opposed by all the intoleristas and also despite being abandoned by numerous Christians who admire her moxie but who don’t understand her moxie.

First, whenever we get to that elusive and ever-receding “hill to die on,” we will discover, upon our arrival there, that it only looked like a hill to die on from a distance. Up close, when the possible dying is also up close, it kind of looks like every other hill. All of a sudden it looks like a hill to stay alive on, covered over with topsoil that looks suspiciously like common ground.

So it turns out that surrendering hills is not the best way to train for defending the most important ones. Retreat is habit-forming.

This brings us to my second goal this morning, which is to highlight the principle. Pick some absurd issue — admittedly a dangerous thing to do in these times that defy the tender ministrations of satire — and that means that to be sufficiently absurd it would have to be an issue like legalized cannibalism. Now let us say that we live in a time, some weeks hence, when cannibalism can be practiced generally on established free market principles (Dahmer v. Illinois, 2023). But if you want to have a BBQ of that nature in a city park, on city property, then you are going to need a permit. Now say that you are Kim Davis’s granddaughter, and your office issues the permits for all activities in all the city parks. Do you issue the permit? Or do you arrange for a compromise? Find somebody in the office not nearly so squeamish as you are? “Hey, Queequeg! Can you handle this one?”

I interrupt this post to anticipate an objection to my choice of illustrations. “Are you saying, Wilson, that same sex marriage can be equated with cannibalism?” Well, no, they are very different sins. That said, they are both very wicked and God hates them both, and county clerks ought not give either one the sanction of law. But I am not trying to equate anything here — I am simply trying to illustrate how a believer’s conscience ought to work if he is employed by a government that tries to sin grievously through the instrumentality of a godly magistrate. This is just how I paint illustrations, with bright yellows and gaudy greens. I do that so that people can see them.

So, follow me closely here. Chesterton once said that art, like morality, consists of drawing the line somewhere. We have a set up where a line must be drawn at some point. And in the abstract all evangelical Christians would almost certainly agree that when that line was crossed, wherever it is, the revolt of the county clerks would be a good thing. With me?

Let me spell it out further. Back in the thirties, if a county clerk had refused a marriage license to a couple because they attended a church where the pastor baptized people with heads upstream, instead of her preferred way, with heads downstream, we would all agree that said clerk had gotten above himself. And if a county clerk expedited and stamped all the processing papers for trains full of Jews headed to Auschwitz, we would all have no problem with said clerk being prosecuted after the war. And when he was prosecuted, “it was entirely legal” would not be an adequate defense. Got that? Two positions, marked clearly on the map, and there is a line somewhere between them.

Where is that line? Why is that line there? By what standard do we make that determination? Who says? These questions cannot be answered apart from the law of God, and that is why we are having such trouble with them. We want a pagan society to respect our sentimental religiosity, and that is not going to happen any time soon.

The point here is not just private conscience. The right to liberty of conscience is at play with florists, bakers, and so on. But Kim Davis is not just keeping herself from sinning, she is preventing Rowan County from sinning. That is part of her job.

Every Christian elected official should be determining, within the scope of their duties, which lines they will not allow the state to cross. When they come to that line, they should refuse to cross it because “this is against the law of God.” They should do this as part of their official responsibilities. This is part of their job. It is one of the things they swear to do when they take office.

This is nothing less than Calvin’s doctrine of the lesser magistrates (Institutes 4.20.22-32), which I would urge upon all and sundry as relevant reading material. And as Calvin points out, after Daniel — a Babylonian official — disobeyed the king’s impious edict, he denied that he had wronged the king in any way (Dan. 6:22-23).

Now this takes me to my citation of Jefferson above. Some might say that it is a shame that I, a staunch Calvinist, have taken to quoting a Deist on the relationship of righteousness to government. And I say that it is a shame that a 18th century Deist has a better grasp of the relationship of righteousness to government than do two and a half busloads of 21st century Reformed seminary professors. The striking inconsistency might have two possible causes, in other words.

If just ten governors treated Obergefell the same way Kim Davis is treating it, that entire unrighteous and despotic imposition would collapse and fall to the ground. And if they did so, they would not be sinning against the United States. Rather, they would be preventing the United States from sinning.

The end game here is not armed revolution. The end game is simply a refusal to cooperate with their revolution. Make them fire or impeach faithful officials. Once removed, such faithful officials should run for office again with a promise to continue to defy all forms of unrighteous despotism. As one friend of mine put it, “Lather. Rinse. Repeat.”

Some might ask what the good in that would be. Wouldn’t it just result in no Christians in such positions? Perhaps, but it would be far better to have godless results enforced by the godless than to insist that the godly do it for them. It would be far better to have the “no Christians in power results” when it was actually the case that no Christians were in power. I would rather have non-Christian clerks acting like non-Christian clerks than to have Christian clerks do it for them. I mean, right?

Don’t tell believers to stay engaged so that they can make a difference, and then, when they start making a difference, tell them that this is not a hill to die on. Make the bad guys reveal themselves. Make them crack down on evangelical county clerks, while continuing to wink at sanctuary cities and local defiance of federal pot laws. Why do they apply their “It’s the law! Bow down!” standard so inconsistently? Well, mostly it is because evangelicals are sweet and naive enough to let them get away with it.

So it is ironic that this valiant stand is being taken by a clerk, because those sidling away from her provide a standing example of our real problem — the trahison des clercs.

Article was originally posted at douglaswilson.com

The disordered desires of a gender-confused teenage boy who wishes he were a girl have divided another community. On Monday, the efforts of this boy, who calls himself Lila Perry, to use the girls’ restrooms and locker room resulted in a protest of over 200 students at Hillsboro High School in Hillsboro, Missouri. What’s surprising is that most of the protesting students supported the privacy rights of girls. These students demonstrated more wisdom and courage than most adults in America.

Perry, who cross-dresses to school, is a sad victim of the deceitful manipulations of adult homosexual activists who will resort to any tactic to pervert the culture. Perry, deceived by stupid, exploitative comparisons of homosexuality to race, now compares gender confusion to race. In an interview, Perry compared girls who oppose sharing bathrooms and locker rooms with boys to bigoted whites who once opposed sharing bathrooms with blacks. While it’s easy to excuse the lousy reasoning of this confused and troubled young man, it’s not so easy to excuse the activists who, motivated by selfish desires and political expediency, advanced such stupid reasoning.

For the beguiled among us, here goes:  There exist no ontological differences between whites and blacks, and, therefore, white opposition to sharing locker rooms or restrooms was clearly motivated by racial bigotry. In contrast, there exist objective, substantive, and meaningful differences between males and females, which even homosexuals acknowledge when they claim they are romantically and erotically attracted only to their same sex, and which gender dysphoric people acknowledge when they insist on using only opposite sex restrooms and locker rooms.

Question for “trans-activists” and their ideological accomplices: If gender-dysphoric people should not have to use locker rooms and restrooms with those whose “gender identity” they don’t share, then why should “cisgender” people (i.e., non-dysphoric people, also known as normal people*) be compelled to use restrooms and locker rooms with those whose objective sex they don’t share?

Hillsboro High and every other high school, middle school, and elementary school should preemptively establish policy that makes clear that restrooms and locker rooms correspond to objective, immutable sex—not desires about objective, immutable biological sex.

School boards and administrators claim to respect diversity while scrambling fearfully among the thorny, incoherent, irrational ideological weeds sown by sexuality liars and promoted by the National Education Association; the Southern Poverty Law Center’s educational arm “Teaching Tolerance”; the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network; and “progressive” teachers who view themselves as “agents of change.” Well, in the service of respecting diversity, here are some sound ideas worthy of deep respect and accommodation:

• The belief that biological sex is objective and immutable is inarguable. Even the Left agrees with that statement. Such a belief deserves respect.
• The belief that males and females are inherently different deserves respect.
• The belief that maleness and femaleness are inextricably linked to objective, immutable biological sex deserves respect.
• The belief that objective, immutable biological sex has profound meaning deserves respect.
• The belief that objective, immutable biological sex is good deserves respect.
• The belief that modesty regarding the bodily manifestation of objective, immutable, biological sex is profoundly important deserves respect.
• The belief that if there is misalignment between a healthy body and desires, the error rests in the desires deserves respect.
• The belief that cross-dressing, cross-sex hormone doping, and bodily mutilation undermines truth and human flourishing deserves respect.
• The belief that it is fitting that language-users have a way to identify objective, immutable biological sex deserves respect.
• The belief that pronouns should continue to correspond to objective, immutable biological sex deserves respect.

Another remarkable aspect to this story is that those who are committed to reporting facts—that is to say, news reporters—have caved completely to the doctrinaire and imperious commands of aberrancy activists who demand that even grammar be transmogrified in accordance with deviant desires. Every reporter now uses cross-sex pronouns which correspond not to fact but to subjective desire.

One’s sex cannot change, which is a fact with which even leftists agree. Bruce Jenner is not now, nor ever has been, nor ever will be a woman. He can pretend and with enough money the mask and costume he wears to the cultural masquerade may become increasingly convincing. But to aid and abet his delusional desires, he needs to eliminate all glimmers of truth. He needs everyone to affirm his mock female beauty, his outlandish sartorial choices, and his moniker “Caitlyn.” He needs to use women’s restrooms, locker rooms, and dressing rooms. He needs to mutilate his male body. And he needs our grammar changed.

Every intentional use of the correct pronouns or even clumsy slips of the tongue from disciples of deviance on whose hearts the truth is written mark a painful encounter with the immutable truth that Bruce Jenner is a fearfully and wonderfully-made man. If love were to win, Bruce Jenner and Lila Perry would affirm as good the bodies God gave them and resist the father of lies who confuses.

Since the imperious demands of “LGBTQQIAP” activists—which are  untethered from reality and rationality—are becoming increasingly ubiquitous, schools should also establish policy affirming the historical use of pronouns: Pronouns correspond to objective, immutable biological sex.

We can either continue rationalizing our accommodation of the incremental changes sexual deviants demand, or we can establish a red line over which we will not step. So far, conservatives have been unwilling to establish and hold that line. And so incrementalism in the service of pagan sexuality wins, and true love loses—big time.

*I am using “normal” in the sense of “conforming, adhering to, or constituting a typical type,” and “free from physical or emotional disorder.”

Illinois Family Institute
Faith, Family and Freedom Banquet

Friday, September 18 , 2015
The Stonegate Banquet & Conference Center (Map)
Click HERE for a banquet flyer.

Secure your tickets now – click here or call (708) 781-9328.

Program advertisements & banquet sponsorships available.

Mauck & Baker is a well-respected Chicago law firm committed to protecting religious liberty through the application of biblical principles. In the service of this commitment, they have issued a statement regarding Republican Governor Bruce Rauner’s deeply troubling abandonment of conservative principles through his enactment of a controversial, anti-autonomy law that prohibits mental health professionals from helping minors who seek assistance in resisting unwanted, unchosen same-sex attraction, rejecting a “gay” identity, and/or accepting their physical embodiment:

Rauner Signs Bill Restricting Sexual Orientation Counseling for Minors

(Chicago, Illinois) Late last Friday, Illinois Governor Bruce Rauner signed into law the deceptively titled “Youth Mental Health Protection Act,” becoming one of only three states to make it illegal to counsel minors on how to cope with or overcome unwanted same-sex attraction. The Act further provides that “no person or entity may, in the conduct of any trade or comer… represent homosexuality as a mental disease, disorder, or illness.”

The law is written broadly enough to put at risk not only licensed counselors but also pastors and others  who are in “commerce” (compensated for counseling) and refer to homosexuality as an illness or “disorder” (i.e. sin) to any counselee, minor or adult, with the purpose of helping the counselee be free from same-sex attractions. Those who continue to provide such counseling and care will face disciplinary actions by the state and are subject to suit under the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act.

Attorney John Mauck, partner at the law firm Mauck & Baker responded, “According to Scripture, it is possible for all of us who have sinful tendencies and compulsions to change and become holy in God’s sight. The Apostle Paul indicates this is also true for those involved in homosexual conduct. In 1 Corinthians 6:11, speaking of ‘homosexual offenders’ and others, Paul writes, ‘such were some of you.’”

Licensed counselors, minors who struggle with same-sex attraction, or pastors, are encouraged to contact Mauck & Baker to discuss their civil rights and join with others interested in challenging the law. Also, the full length documentary, “Such Were Some of You” from Pure Passion Media is a valuable resource for testimonies of ex-gays and how Jesus helped them leave the gay lifestyle. To purchase the DVD for $15, call (312) 726-1243 or email info@mauckbaker.com.

By Anugrah Kumer

Several members of the Denver City Council have stalled a lease for a Chick-fil-A restaurant at the city’s international airport due to the fast-food chain’s opposition to same-sex marriage.

If the committee, which is scheduled to meet again on Sept. 1, chooses to reject the lease, any member can introduce it in the full council.

Robin Kniech, the council’s first openly gay member, was quoted as saying she didn’t want a local franchise generating “corporate profits used to fund and fuel discrimination.”

The Atlanta-based company, which is known for its commitment to employing biblical beliefs in its business practices and has a very loyal following in the South, has restaurants in approximately 1,775 locations.

The company’s founder, S. Truett Cathy, died at 93 in September 2014.

The fast-food chain received criticism and calls for boycott after the founder’s son and Chick-fil-A CEO Dan T. Cathy, in a 2012 interview on “The Ken Coleman Show,” said of the company: “We are very much supportive of the family — the biblical definition of the family unit. We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that.”

Though Dan Cathy later pledged the company would not champion any political agendas surrounding marriage or family, the Cathys stood firm on its Christian values.

According to the company’s website, “Truett Cathy, made the decision to close on Sundays in 1946 when he opened his first restaurant in Hapeville, Georgia. He has often shared that his decision was as much practical as spiritual. He believes that all franchised Chick-fil-A Operators and Restaurant employees should have an opportunity to rest, spend time with family and friends, and worship if they choose to do so. That’s why all Chick-fil-A Restaurants are closed on Sundays. It’s part of our recipe for success.”

After the founder Cathy’s death, megachurch Pastor Perry Noble described the-late restaurateur on Twitter as “a great man who built a great business, has a great family and kept your eyes on Jesus, you will be missed!”

Billy Graham Evangelistic Association CEO Franklin Graham posted on Facebook, “I knew Mr. Cathy for many years and had the privilege of riding motorcycles with him. He was a fine Christian gentleman that carried his Christian business principles throughout life. His restaurants were never open on Sunday out of respect for the Lord’s day. He was kind and extremely generous and used the profits from his business to help others. He will be greatly missed.”

Originally Posted on www.thechristianpost.com

“Judge not, lest ye be judged” is among the most frequently-uttered passages in the Bible, particularly by those who wish to shut down any discussion on some objectively immoral behavior.

Even so, this opening verse from Matthew 7:1-3 is also among the Scriptures’ most misrepresented and, consequently, misunderstood passages. As verses 2 and 3 conclude, “For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you.”

The “judge not” passage is in no way an admonition against casting judgment upon sin. It is, rather, and clearly so, a warning against another sin – the sin of hypocrisy. In the eyes of the moral relativist left, and when applied exclusively to Christians, hypocrisy, incidentally, is the only sin that matters.

Still, this is the one thing – literally the one and only thing – that moral relativists have right.

Hypocrisy is sin.

It is hypocrisy, for instance, to run around cheating on your wife, and to then self-righteously rebuke others for the sin of adultery or some other sexual depravity. But the sin being rebuked remains sin nonetheless, even when he who rebukes it is a hypocrite.

Indeed, we don’t have to judge sin, because that which is sin has already been judged so, irrevocably, by the final Judge Himself, Christ Jesus. To call sin sin is not to judge, but, rather, is to merely state a fact.

Here is a fact: Adultery is sin.

Here is another fact: “[Y]ou may be sure that your sin will find you out” (Numbers 32:23).

And how.

Some 32 million paying customers of the vile adultery website Ashley Madison, which makes a fortune off the backs of families it helps to destroy, have just learned this truth the hard way. The site, which boasts of being the “most successful website for finding an affair and cheating partners,” was hacked by a group calling itself the “Impact Team.” The hackers published the identities of Ashley Madison “customers” online for all to see.

Their sin found them out.

And “the wages of sin is death” (see Romans 6:23). That includes death of marriages and families.

Evidently, one of the site’s adultery-seeking clients was former reality star and pro-family activist Josh Duggar. In a statement released Thursday, Duggar seemed to admit guilt, saying, “I have been the biggest hypocrite ever. While espousing faith and family values, I have secretly over the last several years been viewing pornography on the internet and this became a secret addiction and I became unfaithful to my wife.”

Duggar, who earlier this year was caught up in another scandal when it was revealed that he had apparently fondled five minor girls while a young teen, concluded, “I humbly ask for your forgiveness. Please pray for my precious wife Anna and our family during this time.”

I don’t mean to kick Josh while he’s down. Having been a serial fornicator myself as a young man, before I surrendered my life to Christ, I think I’ll drop my stone in the sand. Still, I can, we all can, rightly judge as sin the adulterous and hypocritical behaviors of both Josh and the millions more busted cold in this heart-wrenching scandal.

We “judge not” when we call sin sin, because God has already passed judgment. As Proverbs 6 rhetorically asks: “Can a man carry fire next to his chest and his clothes not be burned? Or can one walk on hot coals and his feet not be scorched? So is he who goes in to his neighbor’s wife; none who touches her will go unpunished … of his house. He who commits adultery lacks sense; he who does it destroys himself.”

Our nation watches in shock as these timeless truths become manifest. As the media’s hungry eyes comb over the now revealed identities of Ashley Madison clients, there can be little doubt that other high profile names will emerge in coming days. More importantly, more marriages and families will be torn apart.

Indeed, our hearts must grieve for Josh Duggar, his wife Anna and their four children. We must also mourn the millions of other families devastated by the willful sins of both wayward family members and Ashley Madison employees. They all need our heartfelt prayers and they certainly have mine.

We are sinners all, you see – lost, selfish and in desperate need of a Savior. Absent the saving grace of Christ Jesus, Creator of the heavens and earth, we are each destined to get exactly that which we deserve.

But there is redemption available.

There is redemption available for Josh Duggar.

There is redemption available for these Ashley Madison tools of their father, the devil.

And there is redemption available for the millions of our fellow sinners who, tragically, chose to avail themselves of this sick site’s sinful “service.” While they have become fully exposed, utterly humiliated and, for many, even ruined by a most selfish and lustful ambition; total redemption is yet within reach.

“For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Romans 6:23).

Redemption is available.

Eternal life is available.

But they are available through Christ Jesus alone.

Governor Bruce Rauner lied—or perhaps more precisely his wife, helpmeet, and mouthpiece, Diana Rauner, lied for him.

In a campaign ad, Mrs. Rauner stated with a Cheshire grin and a long nose that “Bruce doesn’t have a social agenda.”

Oh really…

Just this afternoon following the day during which we had to hear more about Planned Parenthood’s bloody baby-breaking business—which Ms. Rauner heartily supports—Governor “No-Social-Agenda” signed into law the anti-autonomy “Youth Mental Health Act,” deceitfully called the “conversion therapy ban” by radical LGBTQQIP activists. HB 217 will now become law.

Now minors who experience same-sex attraction as a result of sexual molestation will be prohibited from receiving counseling that may help them reject an unwanted, unchosen “gay identity.”

And minors who experience gender dysphoria will be prohibited from receiving counseling to help them accept as good their physical embodiment and to affirm a “gender identity” consonant with their objective, immutable biological sex. Even liberal sexuality and gender scientists Dr. Eric Vilain and Dr. J. Michael Bailey expressed their opposition to bans on so-called “conversion therapies” for gender dysphoric minors. I guess the powerful Wizard of Springfield knows something these experts don’t.

Or…he has a social agenda, and one that’s as colorful as Obama’s rainbow-dipped D.C. home.

If you still doubt Rauner’s social agenda, please note that he could have done nothing and the bill would have become law anyway.

Alternatively, he could have used his “amendatory veto power,” which only a few governors have and which he used recently with the marijuana law. Socially quiescent Bruce could have used this power to request the following changes which we sent him several days ago:

1.) Request that the bill be amended to prohibit only coercive aversion therapies.

2.) Request that the bill be amended to define specifically what constitutes aversion therapy.

3.) Request that a specific exemption be added to allow counselors to discuss the connection between childhood molestation and sexual orientation confusion and/or same-sex attraction. The liberal American Psychological Association admits the following:

Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles….

Even homosexual counselors acknowledge that childhood molestation can result in “sexual orientation” confusion. Minors who have been sexually molested have a right to explore the link between their molestation and subsequent same-sex attraction.

4.) Request that the bill be amended to exclude gender dysphoria, “gender identity,” and “gender expression” from this bill. We have a very unusual definitional construct in Illinois law. The Illinois Human Rights Act specifically includes “gender identity” and “gender expression” under the rubric of “sexual orientation.” Because of this unusual legal definition, this bill would effectively ban any therapeutic modalities in which counselors help gender dysphoric minors accept their physical embodiment (i.e., their objective biological sex). Well-respected, liberal gender/sexuality scientists oppose bans on “conversion therapy” for gender dysphoric minors.

5.)Request that the bill be amended to permit minors who voluntarily seek counseling to help them construct an identity that does not affirm same-sex attraction to be able to access such counseling. Since gender dysphoric minors are permitted access to medical help in voluntarily rejecting their unwanted, unchosen physical embodiment, other minors should be able to access medical help in voluntarily rejecting their unwanted, unchosen same-sex attraction.

Governor Rauner could have done nothing or he could have used his amendatory veto power to request reasonable changes, but he didn’t because he has a pernicious social agenda that will undermine human flourishing.

Oh well, I guess in the big picture, what really matters are not the rights and welfare of minors and those who love them most. What really matters is that adult LGBTQQIP activists are sated and pensions are funded.

Illinois Family Institute
Faith, Family and Freedom Banquet

Friday, September 18 , 2015
The Stonegate Banquet & Conference Center (Map)
Click HERE for a banquet flyer.

Secure your tickets now – click here or call (708) 781-9328.

Program advertisements & banquet sponsorships available.

It’s never fun to be proven right when warning of some impending wrong. Many in the pro-family movement have long stressed that the cultural Marxist left’s belligerent push for the judicial fiction that is “gay marriage” was never about gaining “equal access” to this biologically exclusive male-female institution, as they profess, but, rather, is, and has always been, about control.

While there are many layers to unfold, the almost instant explosion in government-sanctioned, anti-Christian extremism on display post Obergefell v. Hodges, confirms the poisonous three-fold agenda that underlies the “social justice” mob’s flowery “marriage equality” propaganda. That is: (1) the ultimate destruction of marriage, (2) forced affirmation of sexual deviancy under penalty of law, and (3) the eventual criminalization of Christianity.

The destruction of marriage

Here’s the bottom line: Homosexual activists don’t want the white picket fence; they want to burn down the white picket fence. The endgame is not to achieve so-called “marriage equality” but, rather, to render marriage reality meaningless.

Masha Gessen, a lesbian journalist, activist and author, expressly admitted this fact in a 2012 interview with ABC Radio: “It’s a no-brainer that [homosexuals] should have the right to marry,” she said. “But I also think equally that it’s a no-brainer that the institution of marriage should not exist. … [F]ighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we are going to do with marriage when we get there – because we lie that the institution of marriage is not going to change, and that is a lie.”

Homosexual activist and pornographer Clinton Fein echoes Gessen’s candid sentiments: “Demand the institution [of marriage] and then wreck it,” he once wrote. “James Dobson was right about our evil intentions,” he quipped. “We just plan to be quicker than he thought.”

The goal is to water down marriage until marriage is pointless. And as evidenced by the burgeoning legal push for polygamous and incestuous “marriages” – even for the “right” to“marry” a robot – sexual anarchists are well on their way to achieving this goal.

Forced affirmation of sexual deviancy

Here’s what Christian America is already experiencing from coast to coast. On Wednesday, civil rights law firm Liberty Counsel filed a request for a stay and an appeal of U.S. District Judge David Bunning’s opinion ordering Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis to issue same-sex “marriage” licenses both in violation of her First Amendment right to religious free exercise and the biblical mandate that she must not participate in this explicitly sinful activity. Davis had been sued by the ACLU and two lesbian political activists.

“The plaintiffs in this case only sought licenses from Ms. Davis after learning of her religious objections to same-sex ‘marriage,’ and they refuse to obtain a license elsewhere,” said Mat Staver, founder and chairman of Liberty Counsel. “Just as Justice Alito predicted in his dissent in Obergefell, secularists are trying to ‘stamp out every vestige of dissent’ by targeting people of faith who do not agree with same-sex ‘marriage.'”

Judge Bunning wrote, “Davis remains free to practice her Apostolic Christian beliefs. She may continue to attend church twice a week, participate in Bible study and minister to female inmates at the Rowan County Jail. She is even free to believe that marriage is a union between one man and one woman, as many Americans do. However, her religious convictions cannot excuse her from performing the duties that she took an oath to perform as Rowan County Clerk,” the ruling said.

“Judge Bunning’s decision equated Kim’s free exercise of religion to going to church. This is absurd!” responded Staver. “Christianity is not a robe you take off when you leave a sanctuary. The First Amendment guarantees Kim and every American the free exercise of religion, even when they are working for the government.

“Kim Davis did not sign up as a clerk to issue same-sex ‘marriage’ licenses. Her job duty was changed by five lawyers without any constitutional authority. At a minimum, her religious convictions should be accommodated,” concluded Staver.

Indeed, Davis’ oath as county clerk was to defend and protect the U.S. Constitution and the constitution of Kentucky. As Chief Justice John Roberts rightly observed in his Obergefelldissent, the activist majority’s opinion actually hijacks the democratic process and is in no way rooted in the Constitution: “[D]o not celebrate the Constitution,” he said. “It had nothing to do with it.”

The fact is that if Ms. Davis were to issue counterfeit same-sex “marriage” licenses, she would not only be disobeying God and directly participating in expressly sinful activity, she would be violating her constitutional oath.

The criminalization of Christianity

To her credit, Ms. Davis is standing her ground while the decision is appealed. Predictably, many leftists are now clamoring for her imprisonment. They want her held in contempt of courtand thrown in jail for refusing to at once affirm homosexual sin and violate God’s commands. This is the new pagan orthodoxy. It’s “here, it’s queer, get used to it.”

Meanwhile, Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) reports on “a Colorado Court of Appealsdecision Thursday in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Craig, regarding a cake artist who declined to use his artistic abilities to promote and endorse their same-sex ceremony even though other cake artists were willing to do the job.”

“Americans are guaranteed the freedom to live and work consistent with their faith,” observed ADF attorney Jeremy Tedesco. “Government has a duty to protect people’s freedom to follow their beliefs personally and professionally rather than force them to adopt the government’s views. Jack simply exercised the long-cherished American freedom to decline to use his artistic talents to promote a message with which he disagrees. The court is wrong to deny Jack his fundamental freedoms.”

The court affirmed an earlier order wherein Phillips and his Christian staff were not only ordered to bake homosexual “wedding” cakes against their will, but were additionally forced into pro-homosexual “sensitivity” propaganda classes.

And if they refuse?

Then they go to jail.

That’s how it works. Christian free exercise isn’t outlawed all at once. Judges across our fruity plain simply order from the bench that millions of Christians, just like Kim Davis and Jack Phillips, must either deny recognition of God’s natural order and Christ’s admonition to “go and sin no more,” or face prison for “contempt of court.”

Welcome to America 2015, where evil is good, men are women, judges are tyrants, and Christians are persona non grata. There is no more in between. The anti-Christ left has thrown down the “gay marriage” gauntlet. It’s either God or man.

“But if serving the LORD seems undesirable to you, then choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve …. But as for me and my household, we will serve the LORD” (Joshua 24:15).

The politically expedient title of the anti-autonomy, anti-choice bill (HB 217) sitting on Governor Bruce Rauner’s desk points to its nebulous, overbroad, and deceitful content. It’s titled the “Youth Mental Health Protection Act.” I mean, who isn’t for “youth mental health.”

Among Illinois’ sexuality dogmatists, like lesbian activist Representative Kelly Cassidy (D-Chicago), who never miss an opportunity to exploit minors for their selfish political ends, the bill is informally called the “conversion therapy prohibition act.” It’s a deceitful colloquial title intended to connote religiosity and compulsory therapies and to conceal that some therapeutic protocols are neither religious nor coercive.

Not only is the bill overbroad and nebulous but also the bill’s sponsors failed to provide any conclusive evidence-based research to defend its overbroad goals.

This onerous bill embodies numerous intellectual failures and reveals the ethical failures of its sponsors:

• This bill ignores the fact that the liberal American Psychological Association admits that “Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles….” If social and cultural influences can affect “sexual orientation,” isn’t it possible that childhood molestation may influence it? Even homosexual counselors acknowledge that childhood molestation can result in “sexual orientation” confusion. Would this bill permit therapists to discuss with their minor clients the possible connection between molestation and same-sex attraction?

• While gender dysphoric minors are permitted to access medical help in rejecting their unwanted, unchosen physical embodiment, this bill would legally prohibit other minors from accessing medical help in rejecting their unwanted same-sex attraction. Such a prohibition constitutes not only indefensible inconsistency but also egregious governmental interference with minors’ autonomy. Surely if gender dysphoric minors are permitted to get medical help in aligning their bodies with their desires, other minors should be permitted to get medical help in aligning their sexual orientation with their desires.

• The bill makes no distinction between coercive aversion therapies and talk therapies.

• This bill makes no distinction between involuntary counseling and voluntary counseling desired by minors.

• There is a difference between eradication of desires and not affirming desires. This bill makes no allowance for minors who may want help in constructing an identity that does not include the affirmation of their unwanted, unchosen same-sex attraction.

• This bill fails to acknowledge that numerous homosexual scholars assert that sexual orientation is fluid and, therefore, can and does change.

• The bill relies on the American Psychological Association’s (APA) 2009 “Task Force Report on Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual Orientation,” which has been challenged for a number of reasons, including the fact that the task force was composed of only six people, all of whom were homosexuality-affirming activists and/or homosexual themselves.

• Many Illinoisans do not realize that the Illinois Human Rights Act defines “sexual orientation” as inclusive of “gender identity” and “gender expression.” Therefore, because of this unusual legal definition, if passed this bill would prohibit counseling to help gender-confused minors accept their objective biological sex. This bill makes no reference to the two liberal sexuality/gender scientists, Dr. Eric Vilain and Michael Bailey, who argue that lawmakers should not ban counseling efforts that help gender dysphoric minors accept their physical embodiment.

For these reasons, IFI is urging Governor Rauner to veto the bill.

Take ACTION: Click HERE to send an email or a fax to Governor Rauner’s office, asking him to allow licensed and professional therapists to do their job. Urge him to veto HB 217.

You can also call the governor’s office in Springfield at (217) 782-0244 or in Chicago at (312) 814-2121.

Illinois Family Institute
Faith, Family and Freedom Banquet

Friday, September 18 , 2015
The Stonegate Banquet & Conference Center (Map)
Click HERE for a banquet flyer.

Secure your tickets now – click here or call (708) 781-9328.

Program advertisements & banquet sponsorships available!

Those parents whose children are enrolled in public schools have a moral obligation to protect the hearts and minds of their children from the propaganda to which increasing numbers of public school pseudo-educators are exposing children on the interrelated issues of homosexuality and gender confusion.

Parents should be bold and unequivocal advocates for their children, demanding (respectfully, of course) that their young children not be exposed to any material or activities that embody Leftist assumptions about homosexuality or gender confusion and that their older children either be exposed equally to all views on these topics or none.

Below are sample letters that parents can email to their children’s teachers, school administrators, and school board members. One letter is for use by parents of elementary and middle school students, and one is for use by parents of high school students. These letters can be sent as is or modified:

Suggested Template for Letters to Elementary  and Middle Schools:
(Click HERE to download as MSWord Doc.)

Dear (teacher or administrator name),

In light of relatively recent and radical cultural changes regarding homosexuality and gender confusion and in light of the fact that there are many educators using public education to transform the philosophical, moral, and political views of other people’s minor children on these issues, we are notifying you that under no circumstance is our (son or daughter) (child’s name) to be exposed to any curricular resources, supplementary resources, activities, or discussions that address homosexuality or gender confusion. This would include but not be limited to picture books, nonfiction books, novels, plays, essays, newspaper or magazine articles, movies, speakers, and anti-bullying programs.

Many public school teachers are engaging in de facto censorship, presenting only resources that embody progressive assumptions about homosexuality and gender confusion, thus undermining  sound pedagogy by transforming education into indoctrination. This advocacy is especially troubling in elementary schools where children are neither intellectually nor emotionally equipped to identify or understand the complexities of these issues. For example, progressives defend picture books that portray homosexual relationships positively by asserting that they’re just about “love.” What they fail to address is the type of love positively portrayed in such picture books: homoerotic love. The underlying assumption embodied and promoted in such books–which is that homoerotic love is by nature equivalent to male-female erotic love–is highly controversial and a-historical. If the distinction between sexually complementary and homoerotic love and the controversy about homoeroticism are age-inappropriate for elementary school students, then so too are picture books that implicitly introduce them.

To protect our child from this troubling political and philosophical advocacy, (he or she) is not to be exposed to resources that espouse or embody progressive assumptions.

Finally, under no circumstance is our child permitted to use restrooms or locker rooms with students, faculty, staff, or administrators of the opposite sex.

Please let us know whether you will honor our requests.

Thank you very much.

Sincerely,

(Parent or parents’ names)

Suggested Template for Letter to High Schools:
(Click HERE to download as MSWord Doc.)

Dear ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­(teacher or administrator name),

In light of relatively recent and radical cultural changes regarding homosexuality and gender confusion and in light of the fact that there are many educators using public education to transform the philosophical, moral, and political views of other people’s minor children on these issues, we are notifying you that our (son or daughter) (child’s name) is not to be exposed to any curricular resources, supplementary resources, activities, or discussions that address homosexuality or gender confusion unless they are exposed to resources from both sides of the debate.

Many public high school teachers are engaging in de facto censorship, presenting resources that embody or advocate for progressive assumptions about homosexuality and gender confusion, thus undermining sound pedagogy by transforming education into indoctrination.

To protect our child from this troubling political and philosophical advocacy, (he or she) is not to be exposed to resources that espouse or embody progressive assumptions unless equal time is spent studying resources that challenge, critique, and/or dissent from progressive assumptions. This would include but not be limited to nonfiction books, novels, plays, essays, newspaper or magazine articles, movies, speakers, field trips, and anti-bullying programs. Our request pertains to all classes, including but not limited to English, social studies, health/sex ed, theater, world language, and science classes.

Finally, under no circumstance is our child permitted to use restrooms or locker rooms with students, faculty, staff, or administrators of the opposite sex.

Please let us know whether you will honor our requests.

Thank you very much.

Sincerely,

(Parent or parents’ names)

Illinois Family Institute
Faith, Family and Freedom Banquet

Friday, September 18 , 2015
The Stonegate Banquet & Conference Center (Map)
Click HERE for a banquet flyer.

Secure your tickets now – click here or call (708) 781-9328.

Program advertisements & banquet sponsorships available.

I had an interesting heart-to-heart with my dad the other day. We were discussing my son, his grandson, who was spending time with my folks in Colorado over the summer. At the risk of bragging a bit – my boy, an eighth grader who recently turned 14, is already 6-foot-1, very handsome and a competitive Olympic-style boxer. Evidently, on the previous day a “drop-dead gorgeous” high school girl had made a sexual advance at him, and while as a Christian young man, he had managed to graciously rebuff that advance, he shared with his grandfather that “it was tempting.”

Boy do I know it. Having been a teenage boy myself a few decades back I faced those same temptations on multiple occasions, and, regrettably, as I’ve shared before, both then and into my young adulthood, I succumbed to those temptations more often than not.

That fact is part of what my father and I were discussing. He grew up in West Texas where, as with much of the country today, it was considered machismo for men and teenage boys to rack up as many sexual conquests as possible. While he became a Christian just before he and my mother were married, the message I yet received from him was, with a wink and a nod, that “boys will be boys.”

It’s the old Don Juan double standard. What’s good for me, ladies, is not good for thee. As the late comedienne Joan Rivers once quipped, “A man can sleep around, no questions asked, but if a woman makes 19 or 20 mistakes, she’s a tramp.”

Jokes aside, this double standard is real, and it’s even embraced by much of the church today. I don’t mean to blame my father. This was the exact message I wanted to hear as a hormonal teen. Even so, it was the wrong message. More importantly, I was wrong to use that message as a rationalization for my own sexual immorality. Today, my father and I are in full agreement on these points.

Here’s the universal truth. God takes all sexual immorality very seriously, and any sexual conduct outside the “male and female” marriage covenant, as Christ exclusively defined it, is sexual immorality (see Matthew 19:4). It’s sin. “But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband” (1 Corinthians 7:2).

Hebrews 13:4 makes God’s expectation for us abundantly clear: “Let marriage be held in honor among all, and let the marriage bed be undefiled, for God will judge the sexually immoral and adulterous.”

For everyone, Christ followers especially, sexual purity is not an option. As Ephesians 5:3 admonishes, “But among you there must not be even a hint of sexual immorality, or of any kind of impurity, or of greed, because these are improper for God’s holy people.”

This is serious stuff. So serious, in fact, that those who maintain an unrepentant, sexually immoral lifestyle face eternal separation from God. “Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral (fornicators), nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality … will inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Corinthians 6:9-10).

During our conversation, my dad shared a recent exchange he had with an elderly pastor he sometimes visits. He was telling the pastor about his youthful sexual exploits and that even today, though he knows it’s wrong, he sometimes feels a tinge of pride about them because, in his hometown, the more a young man “scored” with the ladies, the more he was admired. Almost like a hero.

The pastor looked my father in the eye, stone-faced, and told him directly and without equivocation, “You were no hero. You were a coward.”

Ouch. That’s gonna leave a mark.

It cut to the quick, not just for my father, but for me as well. I’d never thought of it that way. In this world, the cowardly thing to do is to conform to this world. When it comes to sexual morality, and especially for young people in our sewer-like culture, what’s difficult to do is the right thing to do.

And the right thing is to obey God.

Indeed, Jesus commands that we “flee from sexual immorality.” In the face of danger, we think of fleeing as the coward’s way out. But when we’re fleeing from temptation, from sin, to take flight is to show courage. It’s an act of righteousness.

Guys, fornication is cowardly. It’s the easy way out. Women are not the objects of our pleasure. They are God’s daughters, created in His own image and likeness. When we use them sexually, we dishonor them, our own bodies and their future husbands. It’s theft. We’re stealing a priceless gift reserved for another.

No, the courageous thing to do is to remain pure – especially in a culture that glorifies sexual impurity of every kind. It’s courageous because it’s difficult. It’s courageous because with purity will come mockery and contempt. Young men, this is true especially for you. Even when I was a teen, boys who chose sexual abstinence were considered “sissies.” They were weird.

But they weren’t weird. What they were was obedient. What they were was courageous. What they were was honorable.

What they were was blessed.

“Blessed is the man who remains steadfast under trial, for when he has stood the test he will receive the crown of life, which God has promised to those who love him. Let no one say when he is tempted, ‘I am being tempted by God,’ for God cannot be tempted with evil, and he himself tempts no one. But each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire. Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin, and sin when it is fully grown brings forth death” (James 1:12-15).

Like I said, this is serious stuff.

“How can a young man keep his way pure? By guarding it according to your word. With my whole heart I seek you; let me not wander from your commandments! I have stored up your word in my heart, that I might not sin against you” (Psalm 119:9-11).

Buck up, boys. Don’t be a coward. Show some courage. Show some honor.

I wish I had.

Continuing to advance a progressive socialist agenda, Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel proudly announced this week that taxpayers in the City will be required to contribute to the funding of a new so-called “health” benefit: sex reassignment surgery.

It is difficult to see how sex reassignment surgery is a health benefit since gender dysphoria is still considered a mental disorder and since sex reassignment surgery mutilates bodies and renders patients sterile.

Yet, administrators in the City tell us that there are no resources for additional police, no resources to keep schools open and there are certainly resources for a trauma center in Roseland, South Shore or Englewood.  How is it that they can find tax dollars for elective surgeries for those confused about their gender?

According to tgender.net and health.costhelper.com, the average cost for a male-to-female reassignment procedure — an elective surgery — averages between $20,000 to $30,000.

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

By John Fund

It’s hard to keep up with the Gods of Political Correctness. I grew up in the San Francisco Bay Area and have been familiar with sexual-diversity issues from an early age. But just when I had mastered the need to respect LGBT rights, I was told the proper acronym was LGBTH. The “H” stood for hermaphrodite, a person born with sexual characteristics of both males and females. Then I learned from the National Gay and Lesbian Journalists Association that the term hermaphrodite was “outdated,” and that Intersex was the preferred term.

Now comes word from the University of California at Irvine that students there will be able to choose their gender from six different choices starting this fall.

The new form will ask students to pick one gender from six different choices. Prospective students will be asked to choose between male, female, trans male, trans female, gender queer/gender non-conforming and different identity.

CBS Los Angeles spoke to students at UC Irvine about the change . . . Beyond the political or social reasons, some saw the financial reasons too.

“A lot of those questions when you’re applying to graduate school or any sort of school are important for financial aid opportunities you can have,” said Joanna Laird to CBS Los Angeles.

In a statement, Janet Napolitano, the president of the UC system (and President Obama’s former Secretary of Homeland Security) said: “UC is working hard to ensure our campuses model inclusiveness and understanding. I’m proud of the work we’ve done so far, but it doesn’t stop there. We must continue to look at where we can improve so everyone at UC feels respected and supported.”

Now that we’ve gotten the memo, look for many other campuses to fall in line. Until the choice of six genders proves to be too confining or is deemed “outdated” or discriminatory.

As I said, you can’t keep up.

Originally posted on nationalreview.com

This is a letter written by a local pastor regarding Same Sex Marriage & SCOTUS.

Since there are some who think “silence gives consent” I would like to voice my opposition to the ruling of SCOTUS on the issue of same sex marriage.

First of all let me say God loves homosexuals.  Always has, always will.  God not only loves the homosexual but He loves all people.  That is wonderful good news for all of us.  We cannot reach a point where God does not love us!  However, God always hates sin which is any violation of his commandments.  This is the nature of God:  He always hates sin but He always loves the sinner.

On Friday, June 26th, 2015, the Supreme Court of the United States of America handed down their decision and declared that same sex marriage should be legal in all fifty states.  The homosexual activists and many others are happy with the decision.  It seems that dramatic and sweeping changes will be coming in our nation because of this ruling.

Unfortunately, those who are celebrating this landmark decision are not listening to God’s   commandments that we find in His word.  The Scriptures are clear about homosexual behavior.  I will spare you the sermon but if you are interested to read here are some of the Scriptures that speak directly to homosexual behavior: Genesis 2:18-24; Genesis 18:1-19:29; Leviticus 18:22; Leviticus 20:13; Romans 1:18-25; 1 Corinthians 6:9-11; 1 Timothy 1:9-10, etc.

Even more unfortunate is that those who are celebrating same sex marriage are overlooking the reality that children need both a mom and a dad.  Let me quote just a bit from the Illinois Family Institute:  “Marriage exists for the benefit of children.  Social science research and thousands of years of history show that children do best when raised by their married mom and dad.”

Even though SCOTUS is the highest judicial body in the nation they are not the highest authority in the nation.  The almighty God is, always has been and always will be the highest authority in our nation.  Since God created us and created the institution of marriage it is necessary that we who love God also follow Him in all things.  How can SCOTUS define marriage since they did not create it?

God tells me that I should love my neighbor as myself.  I am trying to do that.  I really don’t I have to hate anybody to embrace God’s wonderful design for marriage.  I will continue to love those that disagree with me.  Sadly, some who disagree with me have called me a bigot and told me that I hate homosexuals.  That is simply not true.

In the wake of the Supreme Court decision this in part is the statement from my denominational leaders:   “We believe a biblical view of marriage involves a monogamous, covenantal relationship between a man and a woman….We pray that God will help us be examples of His truth in a world that needs to see God’s love demonstrated in word and deed more than ever.”

I am not interested in arguments or debates.  Those who favor same sex marriage have spoken loud and clear.  I simply write to let it be known that many do not agree with the logic and judgment of the highest court in our nation.  I have said what I have said to encourage those who, like me, are trying to test all things through the lens of Biblical truth.  Thank you.

Pastor Jim Buchanan, Havana Church of the Nazarene.

Last week I mentioned how the perception advanced by the media is that most Americans support the unraveling of marriage (because the media supports this).  In their minds, the U.S. Supreme Court simply settled it on the majority opinion side.  I told you of a new Associated Press poll finding more Americans opposing the court ruling than supporting it.  That poll also found nearly 60 percent of the U.S. is concerned about the potential loss of religious freedom because of the homosexual political agenda.

A few days after that AP poll, the Washington Post revealed that in their poll they asked voters if they approved of the direction America is headed on social issues.  Sixty-three percent said “NO.” They disapproved of this cultural march toward liberalism.    Now polls from Reuters and Gallup have also found a drop in support for same-sex marriage of several points since April, just as did the AP poll.

Writing in National Review, David French speculates that the media and liberals, whom he labels as “social justice warriors,” overreacted to the point of scolding those who believe children need both a mom and a dad.  He thinks that these polls are the American people reacting to being taunted and the over-the-top reaction by the left such as the rainbow profile picture campaigns on Facebook and the illumination of the White House as if the U.S. had landed on the moon or won WW2 again. He writes:

“The Social Justice Warriors forgot that most Americans just don’t like mean people. And in one two-week span of American life, millions of SJWs helpfully and unmistakably labeled themselves with their rainbow profile pictures, then proceeded to act like hectoring, condescending, arrogant scolds — loudly and publicly, day after day. They were mean. They mocked Christians, celebrated the plight of a Christian baker’s family as it faced financial ruin for refusing to facilitate a gay wedding, and kept pointing at the Supreme Court and the White House as if they represented some sort of cosmic scoreboard — as if the only response for conservatives was to take their ball, slink away, and go home.”