1

Latinos Stand for One-Man, One-Woman Marriage in Aurora

AURORA – Saturday in front of State Rep Linda Chapa-Lavia’s downtown Aurora office, demonstrators from both sides of the gay marriage debate expressed their views. Rep Chapa-Lavia, a Democrat, is one of the few House members that has not made public how they intend to vote on the issue. The supermajority of Democrats in the Illinois Senate passed SB 10 earlier this year, with the  help of one Republican – State Senator John Barickman. 

House Democrats representing minorities with strong religious ties are withstanding pressure to support gay marriage, while two House Republicans – State Rep. Ed Sullivan of Mundelein and Ron Sandack of Downers Grove – have publicly announced they will support legalizing same sex marriage.

Saying those he was standing with Saturday value the institution of marriage as being between one man and one woman, Hosea Alonso of Bartlett Illinois said a religious awakening is taking place among Hispanics at Bethel Baptist Church … 

Other Latino churches were also represented at the rally that believe the defintion of marriage should remain one-man/one-woman, including the pastor of the local parish Rep. Chapa-Lavia attends.




Marriage on Front Lines in Aurora

AURORA – The debate over legalizing gay marriage in Illinois was in full force in downtown Aurora Saturday morning, when traditional marriage advocates and gay marriage activists stood side by side in front of State Rep. Linda Chapa LaVia’s (D-Aurora) district office in downtown Aurora. The representative has not publicly stated how she plans to vote on SB 10, which could come before the Illinois House before the May 31st end of session. Interviews with participants will be featured on Illinois Review Sunday.

 

IMG_1306  IMG_1299 
IMG_1302

  6a00d834515c5469e2017eea6f142d970d

 




Lesbian Activist State Rep. to Propose Resolution & DOJ Wants More “LGBT” Teachers

Don’t tell me the sexual predilections of our lawmakers are irrelevant. Lesbian activist and State Rep. Kelly Cassidy (D-Chicago), perfervid promoter of all things homosexual, will be introducing a homosexuality-affirming Day of Silence resolution next week.  Rep. Cassidy in cahoots with the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN) is attempting to use the government to affirm “progressive” assumptions about homosexuality and to exploit instructional time in public schools to advance these beliefs.

Here’s the “Policy Alert” GLSEN just sent out asking Illinoisans to urge their lawmakers to co-sponsor and vote for this resolution:

GLSEN is proud to announce that for the first time ever, state legislators are taking part in the Day of Silence! Representative Kelly Cassidy (IL-14) of Chicago will introduce a Day of Silence resolution in Illinois!

Despite potential opposition, Rep. Cassidy needs your support to get it passed! With the deadline approaching quickly, we need your help today! Show your state legislator that this is an issue which urgently deserves their attention.  

Urge your state representative to support the Day of Silence Resolution in Illinois. Sign-on requests need to be submitted by April 11 at 5:00 PM! 

If this partisan resolution that Rep. Cassidy is wasting lawmakers’ time with should pass, will our lawmakers spend their work days refusing to speak? (In the case of some, that may be a good thing.)

This proposal is a cunning strategic machination. The Left uses efforts like this to play “gotcha” with cowardly lawmakers and the too-gullible public. If someone refuses to support it, the Left screeches, “Aha, Lawmaker X supports bullying!” Of course, rational people know full well that opposing the Day of Silence does not constitute endorsement of bullying. This ugly ad hominem ploy of the Left works only if we let ourselves be bullied into complicity.

Take Action:  Please click HERE to contact your lawmaker and urge him/her to oppose GLSEN and Cassidy’s attempt to impose their particular moral and philosophical beliefs on all of Illinois.

 

 

Galling Justice Department Initiative

department-of-justice-logo1The Justice Department has implemented a de facto affirmative action program for the recruitment and training of homosexual and gender-confused, cross-dressing teachers. You heard that right. In the service of “diversity,” the Justice Department is imposing on the nation “progressive” and pernicious views of what our children need in order to learn effectively. And what do they need? More men who sexually desire men, more women who sexually desire women, and more men and women who electively amputate healthy body parts and cross-dress. Makes sense to me. 

And all this time, I thought the “social issues” (that is to say, those issues most essential to the health and welfare of society) were supposed to be on the backburner until the economy was fixed. Apparently the all-knowing moderate Republican Poobahs forgot to pass that directive on to Cassidy and the Justice Department.

Parents: Keep your children home from school on the Day of Silence if your administration permits students and/or teachers to refuse to speak during class.

Click HERE to learn more about the Day of Silence Walkout.


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




Homosexual Activist Admits True Purpose of Battle is to Destroy Marriage

Even knowing that there are radicals in all movements, doesn’t  lessen the startling admission recently by lesbian journalist Masha Gessen.  On a radio show she actually admits that homosexual activists are lying about their radical political agenda.  She says that they don’t want to access the institution of marriage; they want to radically redefine and eventually eliminate it. 

Here is what she recently said on a radio interview: 

“It’s a no-brainer that (homosexual activists) should have the right to marry, 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. 

The institution of marriage is going to change, and it should change. And again, I don’t think it should exist. And I don’t like taking part in creating fictions about my life. That’s sort of not what I had in mind when I came out thirty years ago. 

I have three kids who have five parents, more or less, and I don’t see why they shouldn’t have five parents legally… I met my new partner, and she had just had a baby, and that baby’s biological father is my brother, and my daughter’s biological father is a man who lives in Russia, and my adopted son also considers him his father. So the five parents break down into two groups of three… And really, I would like to live in a legal system that is capable of reflecting that reality, and I don’t think that’s compatible with the institution of marriage.”

(Source: http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/lifematters/why-get-married/4058506)

For quite some time, the defenders of natural marriage have attempted to point out that the true agenda behind the homosexual demands organizations is not marriage equality; it is the total unraveling of marriage and uprooting traditional values from society.  (This will ultimately include efforts to silence and punish some churches that openly adhere to their religious teachings about marriage and sexual morality.) 

While few have been as vocal as this lesbian activist was in this interview, we do have numerical examples proving her point.  When given the opportunity to marry, after laws have been struck down relatively small percentages of homosexuals actually bother to marry compared to their heterosexual counterparts.  This raises question about the true need to unravel marriage for the “fair” extension its benefits.  Only 12 percent of homosexuals in the Netherlands marry compared to 86 percent of their heterosexual peers.  Less than 20 percent of same-sex couples already living together in California married when given the chance in 2008.  In contrast, 91 percent of heterosexual couples in California who are living together are married. 

 Clearly this is about cultural change and tearing down the traditional family ethic, since it seems that most homosexuals living together neither need nor desire to marry, though they do desire to radically change marriage.

 Gays and lesbians are free to live as they choose, and we live in a society which roundly applauds them doing so like never before in our history, but they do not have the right to rewrite marriage for all of society.




‘Gay Marriage’ and Religious Freedom Are Not Compatible

Written by Erick Erickson

The kids these days on the right are full of a great libertarian notion that “hey, let’s just get the government out of marriage.”

“Rock on,” say other libertarians.

They then all smugly self-congratulate themselves, pat themselves on the back, and move on to other issues.

What they ignore is that the left will never take marriage out of the hands of the government. The left cannot. But it goes beyond that. The left cannot take marriage out of government because for so long it has been government through which marriages were legitimized to the public and the left must also use government to silence those, particularly the religious, who refuse to play along.

Let’s ignore, for the sake of this post, that the Democracy of the Dead has settled for us that in society marriage should be between a man and woman as the best way to propagate the species.

The left has done an admirable job in secular society making the case that gay marriage merely allows a class of people to be happy and have what everyone else has.

The front on which the gay rights movement has failed is the religious and, in particular in the United States, the Christian front.

From Matthew 19:4-6:

“Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

The Christian Left would prefer to view Matthew 19 as a passage on divorce, which is discussed. But they willfully ignore Christ’s definition of what a marriage is — one man and one woman united to become one.

As much as many would ignore, obfuscate, or try to confuse the beginning of Matthew 19, Christ makes it very clear. The Creator made a male and a female and the two become one. That is marriage in Christianity, despite what a bunch of progressive Christians who have no use for the Bible would have the world believe.

Therein lies the problem for the gay rights movement.

As long as there are still Christians who actually follow Christ and uphold his word, a vast amount of people around the world — never mind Islam — will never ever see gay marriage as anything other than a legal encroachment of God’s intent.

So those Christians must be silenced. The left exerted a great deal of energy to convince everyone that the gay lifestyle is an alternative form of normal. It then has exerted a great deal of energy convincing people that because the gay lifestyle is just another variation of normal, gay marriage must be normalized.

Meanwhile, those Christians are out there saying it is not normal and are refusing to accept it as normal because of silly God dared to say marriage is a union between a man and woman.

Any Christian who refuses to recognize that man wants to upend God’s order will have to be driven from the national conversation. They will be labeled bigots and ultimately criminals.

Already we have seen florists, bakers, and photographers suffer because they have refused to go along with the cultural shift toward gay marriage. There will be more.

Once the world decides that real marriage is something other than natural or Godly, those who would point it out must be silenced and, if not, punished. The state must be used to do this. Consequently, the libertarian pipe dream of getting government out of marriage can never ever be possible.

Within a year or two we will see Christian schools attacked for refusing to admit students whose parents are gay. We will see churches suffer the loss of their tax exempt status for refusing to hold gay weddings. We will see private businesses shut down because they refuse to treat as legitimate that which perverts God’s own established plan. In some places this is already happening.

Christians should, starting yesterday, work on a new front. While we should not stop the fight to preserve marriage, and we may be willing to compromise on civil unions, we must start fighting now for protections for religious objectors to gay marriage.

Churches, businesses, and individuals who refuse to accept gay marriage as a legitimate institution must be protected as best we can. Those protections will eventually crumble as the secular world increasingly fights the world of God, but we should institute those protections now and pray they last as long as possible.

The left cannot allow Christians to continue to preach the full gospel. We already see this in, of all places, Canada. Gay marriage is incompatible with a religion that preaches that the unrepentant are condemned, even of a sin the world has decided is not one. The religious freedom will eventually be ended through the judiciary. We should work to extend that freedom as long as we can.

Now many of you have read through this and you are shaking your head in denial. “No way this is possible,” you say. But then just a decade ago no one seriously considered gay marriage as possible. And we are already seeing signs we’re headed in this direction. It’s coming. Get ready.

Libertarians will have to decide which they value more — the ability of a single digit percentage of Americans to get married or the first amendment. The two are not compatible.


Originally posted at RedState.com.




Marriage Redefinition is Just the Beginning

Written by Nathan Cherry

It is stunning to talk with people that believe same-sex “marriage” is the “end of the line” in the fight to redefine marriage. Unsuspecting, or perhaps naïve, is the best way to describe such a mentality. To believe that homosexual activists would simply seek to redefine marriage to include their lifestyle, while ignoring all other “alternative lifestyles” is simply absurd. The reality is that same-sex “marriage” is just another step in the process to erase the boundaries of what constitutes marriage and family.

If you recall, the very first step was the legal recognition and acceptance of same-sex civil unions. We were told it had to do with taxes and benefits, nothing more, and that it was the “end of the line” for same-sex couples. But no sooner were civil unions legalized in several states and homosexual advocates began screaming “that’s not good enough, or fair enough.” And a push for the next step was put into place – same-sex “marriage.”

Are we really so foolish as to believe this is the end? Do you truly believe homosexual advocates and liberal politicians will stop at redefining marriage? Of course not! If the government redefines marriage for homosexuals it will have to continue redefining marriage for other groups or be guilty of the same discrimination for which it now accuses traditional marriage supporters. And we all know the government doesn’t want to be guilty of discrimination.

To further prove that same-sex “marriage “ is not the end of redefining marriage, Boris Dittrich recently admitted that group marriage, also called polyamory, is the next step. A recent article reports:

“Boris Dittrich, the homosexual activist called the ‘father’ of the political movement in favor of Dutch gay ‘marriage’, has admitted that group marriages of three or more people is the next inevitable logical step in the dismantling of the western world’s traditional marriage laws…the carefully laid-out plan that established first public acceptance, legal civil partnerships, which in turn led inevitably to changing the definition of marriage. The redefinition of marriage, he said, has led to discussions of allowing group marriages of three or more persons.”

Interestingly, polyamorists in Australia have formed a lobby group not just to lobby for their right to group marriage, but to tell the world that same-sex “marriage” won’t lead to further redefinition of marriage. According to altmedia.net:

“With increasing attention brought to polyamorous relationships by members of the Liberal Party, a formalised Polyamory Action Lobby (PAL) has been founded to combat the image of poly people as relationship bogeymen. A spokesperson for the Sydney-based PAL said fear of differently structured relationships should not be used as a weapon to deny monogamous same-sex couples legal recognition.”

The irony and blatant inaccuracies are astounding. Common sense dictates that if marriage is redefined for one group it must logically be redefined for all groups. Otherwise the groups that marriage was not redefined for can legitimately claim discrimination and favoritism against the government. The government will seek to create “equality” for all groups and will then push to further redefine marriage to accommodate all groups.

So the logical question we need to be asking is “where does it stop?” At what point do we as a society say no more redefining marriage? The problem with the question is that the only answer leads to “discrimination” and “inequality” for groups for which society refuses to redefine marriage.

For example, if we continue to redefine marriage and decide polyamorous relationships are somehow legitimate and worthy of societal acceptance, we can be sure polygamists, pedophiles, and those engaging in bestiality and incest will demand rights. Will we accommodate them? If we don’t, aren’t we then discriminating against these groups? Isn’t non-discrimination the basis for redefining marriage for homosexuals?

And just in case you thought there is no way a person engaging in incest and bestiality would ever admit it, much less demand legal recognition for their deviant sexual practices; consider a recent article at TheBlaze.com about a “sex weekend” workshop at Yale:

“A ‘Sex Weekend’ workshop at Yale University Saturday apparently encouraged an open discussion of incest, bestiality, prostitution, and consensual pain during intercourse.Event director Giuliana Berry ’14 told Campus Reform in an interview on Monday that the workshop was brought to campus to teach students not to automatically judge people who may have engaged in these sorts of activities, but rather to respond with ‘understanding’ and ‘compassion.’”

Somehow I doubt the compassion and understanding sought by Yale involves understanding that these people have a sexual sickness and compassionately helping them seek counseling. But this is how those seeking to destroy marriage and family work. They first seek “compassion” and “understanding” – as they did with homosexuals – then they move to broad societal acceptance and finally legalization.

Same-sex “marriage” is not the end of this redefinition plan, it’s just the beginning. The end is a society that openly embraces every kind of immoral perversion as normal while punishing anyone who would dare object. The end is families made up of any random group of people regardless of what is best for children. The end is at the bottom where we can’t possibly fall any lower.


Nathan Cherry is the chief editor and blogger for the Engage Family Minute blog, the official blog of the FPCWV. He serves also as the Regional Development Coordinator as a liaison to the pastor’s of West Virginia. He is a pro-life, pro-traditional marriage, pro-religious freedom conservative. He is also a husband, father, pastor, author, musician, and follower of Jesus Christ.




Heretical Pastor Rob Bell Embraces Same-Sex “Marriage”

Society thinks teens are especially vulnerable to peer pressure, peer approval, and the need to conform.  We smile at them paternalistically and pat ourselves on the back that we adults are courageous non-conformists, able to leap tall cultural hurdles in a single bound because of our well-formed spines and convictions. 

But it is my observation that far too few adults have managed to shrug off that desperate adolescent need to fit in, which is why so few adults lead with courage and conviction on the issue of marriage. 

Middle-aged hipster pastor Rob Bell is the most recent faith leader to embrace the legal recognition of non-marital homosexual unions as “marriages.” His foolish and non-heroic announcement represents a shift from orthodoxy to heresy.  It shouldn’t be surprising in that Bell has been abandoning orthodoxy on other doctrinal issues for some time. But it is troubling nonetheless. 

Here’s Bell’s scripturally indefensible and intellectually shallow explanation of his current beliefs (which, by the way, could be used to support the affirmation of plural marriage or any other sin inclination): 

I am for marriage. I am for fidelity. I am for love, whether it’s a man and woman, a woman and a woman, a man and a man. I think the ship has sailed and I think the church needs—I think this is the world we are living in and we need to affirm people wherever they are.

I think we are witnessing the death of a particular subculture that doesn’t work. I think there is a very narrow, politically intertwined, culturally ghettoized, Evangelical subculture that was told ‘we’re gonna change the thing’ and they haven’t. And they actually have turned away lots of people. And I think that when you’re in a part of a subculture that is dying, you make a lot more noise because it’s very painful. You sort of die or you adapt. And if you adapt, it means you have to come face to face with some of the ways we’ve talked about God, which don’t actually shape people into more loving, compassionate people. And we have supported policies and ways of viewing the world that are actually destructive. And we’ve done it in the name of God and we need to repent.

I would say that the powerful, revolutionary thing about Jesus’ message is that he says, ‘What do you do with the people that aren’t like you? What do you do with the Other? What do you do with the person that’s hardest to love?’ . . . That’s the measure of a good religion, is—you can love the people who are just like you; that’s kind of easy. So what Jesus does is takes the question and talks about fruit. He’s interested in what you actually produce. And that’s a different discussion. How do we love the people in the world that are least like us? 

Leaving a close analysis of Bell’s strange unbiblical ideas to theologians, I will offer just a few observations: 

  • While Bell when talking about the “Other” implies that he is paraphrasing Jesus, he actually offers no textual support for such a paraphrase. In fact, there is no biblical support for the view that in order to love those who are different, we should affirm all of their feelings, beliefs, or life choices. And there certainly is no biblical support for the idea that the fruits of our faith include abandoning God’s design for marriage. 
  • Bell has offered no justification or evidence for his implicit claim that the legal recognition of marriage as inherently sexually complementary has been “actually destructive.” 
  • If Bell believes that those who support Jesus’ conception of marriage are a “dying subculture,” he is more shaped by the world than by Scripture. 
  • Where in Scripture does Bell see “adaptation” as God’s will for his church? Here’s what I see: 
    • “Do not love the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him” (1 John 2:15). 

    • “Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect” (Rom. 12:2). 

    • “If the world hates you, know that it has hated me before it hated you” (John 15:18).

    • “Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few.” (Matt. 7:13-14)

Every time a public figure fashionably announces he or she supports the legalization of same-sex marriage, the ravenous conformist beast within us grows. The secular world and heretics hail these public figures as conquering heroes, and unless we’re wise in our faith and intellectually prepared to understand the specious arguments promulgated in the culture, we too are vulnerable to the powerful yearning to be welcomed into the cool crowd.




Brouhaha Erupts Over Bathrooms in Bay State

Massachusetts parents are in an uproar over new state education policies that allow “transgender” students to use bathrooms of the opposite sex. 

The state’s Commissioner of Education, Mitchell Chester, issued the new guidelines to all schools serving students from kindergarten to 12th grade. 

The policy states that boys who declare they are girls must be allowed to use the women’s restrooms, locker rooms, and changing facilities.  And vice versa. 

“The responsibility for determining a student’s gender identity rests with the student,” the policy reads.  “A school should accept a student’s assertion of his or her gender identity.” 

The policy further directs school officials to address students according to their chosen identity, and to discipline fellow students who fail to affirm a fellow student’s “gender identity choice.” 

The guidelines go so far as to prohibit school officials from discussing a student’s gender identity choice with their parents without the permission of the student. 

The new bathroom rules are the result of legislation passed in Massachusetts prohibiting discrimination based on “gender identity.” 

Kris Mineau, President of the Massachusetts Family Institute, sharply criticized the new directive as a violation of student’s privacy.  “This policy places girls at risk of privacy invasions and sexual abuse as early as kindergarten.”   

In related news, a Colorado couple has filed a complaint against their local school district because school officials won’t allow their six year-old son to use the girls’ bathroom. 

Jeremy and Kathryn Manis have filed a complaint with the Colorado Civil Rights Division against Eagleside Elementary School in Fountain, Colorado. 

They claim that their son, Coy, is a victim of “gender identity” discrimination in violation of Colorado’s newly revised anti-discrimination statutes. 

Even though Coy is allowed to wear girls clothing to school and is referred to in feminine terms, his parents say that is not enough.  They insist that failure to allow Coy to use the girls’ bathroom “singles out and stigmatizes” their child.  




An Open Letter to ‘Gay’ Teens

Who am I? I’m a husband and a father. More importantly, and by the grace of God, I’m a follower of Jesus Christ.

This is what motivates me to write you.

You don’t have to read on, but I pray you will.

What I write I write with the purest of aims and with your well-being in mind – physical, emotional and spiritual well-being, both now and for eternity.

You will read truth here, not because I say it’s true – I’m nobody – but, rather, because the Creator of the universe, the very God Who wove you together in your mother’s womb made it true.

His truths never change.

I have three kids, a boy and two girls. My son will soon enter his teenage years. I’ve had many people ask me what I’d say to my children if one of them came to me and declared: “Dad, I’m gay.”

Here’s what I’d say. I’d tell them exactly what I’m about to tell you.

I love you. I neither judge you nor condemn you. I accept you and I would die for you.

But you are not “gay.”

Yes, you may be physically attracted to people of the same sex, but how you act on those attractions is entirely your choice. Who you are – your identity – is not defined by your sexual feelings, temptations or behaviors. The difference between who you are and what you feel or do is as the difference between night and day.

Here is who you are: You are a wonderful, beautiful, precious human being created in the image and likeness of the one righteous and Holy God of the universe.

You are priceless.

But you are flawed – you are a sinner.

I am flawed – I am a sinner.

We are all flawed sinners – corrupted beings in a corrupted world. We are all tempted by sin.

Those temptations manifest themselves in different ways for each of us. We are all on equal footing, however, as to how we react to those temptations.

Homosexual behavior is always wrong – demonstrably and absolutely wrong.

Period.

Every major world religion, thousands of years of history and uncompromising human biology declare this objective reality from the rooftops.

Though your heart may deceive you, something deep within you knows this to be true. Scripture says, “The heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure. …” (Jeremiah 17:9)

Some say, “But Jesus never mentioned homosexuality.” First, we don’t know this. We have no record in Scripture of Him specifically addressing homosexual sin, but neither do we have a record of His addressing incest, bestiality or other sexual sins.

Jesus was clear. He condemned all sexual immorality as detailed within the moral law. He was clear that any sexual activity outside the bonds of marriage between husband and wife is sexual immorality – sin.

In fact, homosexual sin is expressly identified in both the Old and New Testaments as being among the list of sins that, if committed without repentance, will prevent you from “inheriting the kingdom of God.”

That is to say, yes; unrepentant homosexual behavior is disobedience to God. If we rebel against God and refuse to repent and ask His forgiveness, then we have chosen our own fate – we have chosen to disqualify ourselves from heaven.

We have chosen hell.

I know, it’s not easy. Temptation is not easy.

To sin, however, is easy.

Still, to endure the consequences of that sin, both here and throughout eternity, will be more difficult than our limited minds can fathom.

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

Sin can lead to physical death; but it also leads to emotional and spiritual death.

If you are caught up in homosexual sin, you know – intuitively you know – that such conduct is wrong, that it is both immoral and unnatural behavior.

Truth is truth, even though we may deny it.

God has written His law on your heart. You are a physical being; but, more importantly, you are a spiritual being. When we sin, we create separation between ourselves and God.

God’s word also says that when we sin sexually, it’s particularly egregious because our bodies are the temple of Christ. This separation from God – a natural result of sexual sin – can lead to depression and even despair.

If you feel such despair, know this: it is not “homophobia” causing it, as adult enablers might tell you, but, rather, it is the sin itself that causes it (or struggling alone, absent Christ, with the temptation to sin).

You are being used. Adult homosexual activists with a political agenda are using you as a pawn to achieve selfish goals in a dangerous political game.

You’re just a means to an end.

They may have convinced themselves otherwise, but they don’t care about you. They don’t love you. They can’t. Their version of “love” is built on lies. It’s devoid of truth.

Love without truth is hate.

If you continue down this wide, empty path, make no mistake: it will not “get better.”

It gets much, much worse.

Consider, for instance, that according to the CDC this path will lead you, boys, to a one-in-five chance of contracting HIV/AIDS. The CDC also found that 64 percent of all syphilis cases strike “gay” males and that homosexual behavior leads to astronomical risk of nearly all other forms of STD.

Even more startling is the fact that, according to the International Journal of Epidemiology (IJE), “[L]ife expectancy at age 20 years for gay and bisexual men is 8 to 20 years less than for all men.”

Unnatural behaviors beget natural consequences. “The wages of sin is death.”

But there is hope.

Jesus loves you with a love that no human can fully grasp. This is true not because of your so-called “sexual orientation,” but, rather, it is true in spite of it.

Jesus said, “Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest.” (Matthew 11:28)

Kids, take your sexual confusion – your struggle with sin – to Christ.

No one else can give you rest.

_________________________________________________________________________________

Matt Barber (@jmattbarber on Twitter) is an attorney concentrating in constitutional law. He serves as Vice President of Liberty Counsel Action . (This information is provided for identification purposes only.) 




URGENT: Protect Marriage in Illinois

Since the mainstream media never does their job when it comes to issues related to homosexuality, ordinary citizens must do it.  The mainstream media continually ask conservative lawmakers hard questions about the legalization of same-sex marriage, while never asking hard questions that challenge the views of “progressive” lawmakers. Therefore, IFI is asking Illinoisans to do so. 

IFI is urging two groups of Illinoisans to ask some hard questions of any lawmaker who will be or may be voting in favor of the legalization of “same-sex marriage”: 

1. Those who will be going to Springfield should ask these questions when they meet with their representatives on Wednesday. 

2. Those who are unable to go to Springfield should schedule appointments with their representatives in their local offices. Try to bring as many constituents as possible to these meetings, including local clergy. 

Here are the questions to which lawmakers must respond:
(Click HERE for a PDF version of these questions.) 

  1. What is marriage? What are the inherent, fundamental constituent features of marriage? 
  2. Supporters of this bill claim that marriage has no inherent connection to gender, sexual complementarity, or reproductive potential. If marriage has no inherent connection to gender, sexual complementarity or reproductive potential, why are you limiting it to two people? 
  3. Marriage revisionists claim that the sole defining feature of marriage is love. They claim that marriage is solely about “who loves whom.” If that’s so, why is the government involved? Does the government have a vested interest in affirming the love of those in an inherently non-reproductive type of relationship? If the government has a vested interest in legally recognizing and affirming love, then why doesn’t it recognize other loving relationships, like close platonic friendships? 
  4. Do children have an inherent right to a mother and a father? 
  5. Since many claim that access to marriage is a “civil right,” could you tell me what civil rights are? Is access to civil rights guaranteed to couples or to individuals?
  6. Are polyamorists and bisexuals denied their civil rights and are they being treated unequally since they cannot marry the persons they love? 
  7. Since marriage revisionists assert that the prohibition of “same-sex marriage” is analogous to the prohibition of interracial marriage, could you tell me in what specific ways homosexual unions are analogous to interracial unions? 
  8. In educating yourself on this issue that will radically alter marriage and culture, can you tell me specifically what you’ve read about marriage, including what marriage is, what the public purpose of marriage is, and how the legalization of “same-sex marriage” would affect the culture? 

Compel your lawmaker to defend his or her vote with actual reasons rather than superficial sound bites. Ask, and ask, and ask until they answer. Don’t settle for evasion and obfuscation. Your lawmakers work for you. They are your public servants. Write their answers down and send them to us and to your local press in letters to the editor. If you forget to print this list of questions, it will be available at the IFI desk in the Capitol Rotunda on Wednesday.

Two years ago 4,000 homeschooling parents rallied in Springfield to protest a proposed law that would have required them to register their children with the state. 

Recently, somewhere between 350,000-1,000,000 people, including homosexuals, rallied in France to protest the legalization of same-sex marriage. 

If 4,000 Illinoisans are willing to fight for homeschooling rights and 1,000,000 French citizens are willing to fight to preserve marriage, we shouldbe able to muster several thousand to fight for the critical institution of marriage in Illinois. 

If we say and do nothing as homosexuals and their ideological allies vigorously push to legalize what should be inconceivable, we bear significant responsibility for the presence of pernicious, fallacious ideas in elementary schools. 

If we say and do nothing while the government becomes complicit in the destruction of marriage, we bequeath to our children and grandchildren a country of diminished rights and greater oppression, which will follow as surely as night follows day. 

If we say and do nothing, we get what we deserve.

Please join us in Springfield on Feb. 20 and inspire others around the country like Illinois homeschoolers and the people of France have inspired us! And for those who cannot make it, please schedule meetings with your representatives in their local offices. 

DEFEND MARRIAGE Lobby Day 
Click HERE for a PDF version of the lobby day instructions.         

When:  Wednesday, February 20th, 2013 
Where:  Illinois State Capitol
Address:  401 S. 2nd Street, Springfield, IL  62701
Time:  10:30 am – 1:30 pm 
Rally: At the Lincoln statue in front of the Capitol (10:30 AM)




The Boy Scouts Saga Continues

As a manipulative political stratagem, the Left propagates the notion that the normalization of homosexuality is a cultural inevitability. Belief in this inevitability dispirits conservatives and depletes whatever reservoir of motivation they may have to dissent, thus effectively surrendering the public square to sexual subversives.

It is not, however, inevitable that one day all of society will come to believe that homosexuality is morally equivalent to heterosexuality. God’s truth and wisdom spoken with unequivocal, unashamed forthrightness, courage, consistency, and persistence by flawed people who take seriously the duties of discipleship can make a difference.

Look no further than the decision of the National Executive Board of the Boy Scouts of America (BSA) to postpone the vote on its national policy on homosexuality. It’s fair to assume that vociferous public opposition to the proposal to abandon its national policy prohibiting homosexuals from membership in or leadership of the Boy Scouts was the catalyst for this postponement. We should use this victory to refill our depleting reservoirs.

President Barack Obama in yet another proclamation that defies the God he claims to serve and hurts children, pontificated on the controversial issue:

My attitude is that gays and lesbians should have access and opportunity the same way everybody else does, in every institution and walk of life. The Scouts are a great institution that is promoting young people and exposing them to opportunities and leadership that will serve people for the rest of their lives, and I think that nobody should be barred from that.

That’s a mouthful of obfuscation. What he fails to address is whether organizations and associations have the right to make distinctions between moral and immoral acts. Homosexuality, unlike for example race, is centrally defined by volitional sexual acts that are open to moral assessment. When President Obama refers to “gays and lesbians,” he’s not referring only to people who experience same-sex attraction. He’s referring to people who experience same-sex attraction; affirm homosexual acts as moral and normative; and affirm same-sex attraction, acts, and relationships as central to their identity. If, according to President Obama, those who affirm same-sex attraction, acts, and relationships as moral “should have access” to “every institution and walk of life,” how, pray tell, do those who believe such acts and relationships are immoral exercise their freedom of religion and association?

Does President Obama really mean that “nobody” should be barred from the Boy Scouts? What about those who affirm polyamory or adult consensual incest as central to their identity? What about those who espouse theories of racial superiority? And how does an organization promote moral straightness or fidelity to God if it can’t make distinctions between moral and immoral conduct? (Let’s not forget that God has some rather uncompromising things to say about homosexuality.)

The BSA Executive Board has said that if it changes the national policy, local organizations will still be permitted to adopt whatever policy they want regarding homosexuality. Well, homosexual acts are either moral or immoral. There is no middle ground. If the board votes to change the national policy, it will necessarily have to have concluded that homosexual acts are moral acts.  Only if  homosexual acts are moral acts could the board permit local clubs to allow those who affirm homosexuality to serve in leadership positions. It would make no sense for the board to say that local clubs have the right to permit those who affirm immoral acts to serve in leadership positions. Conversely, it would make no sense for the board to say that local clubs have the right to prohibit those who affirm moral acts from serving in leadership positions. There can be no moral mugwumpery on this issue.

Thanks to the relentless, presumptuous quest of homosexuals to shape the moral views of other people’s children, this Boy Scout kerfuffle is not over. Despite specious claims to the contrary, this battle is not about “equality” or “fairness.” It’s about the desperate desire of homosexuals to eradicate conservative moral beliefs and every last vestige of moral disapproval from the global moral landscape. The proper response to this obnoxious pressure from homosexual activists and corporations—neither of which group is noted for their commitment to God or sexual rectitude—would be for the BSA leadership to honor God and act bravely by publicly affirming that there are objective moral truths from which our sexual lives are not exempt.

When considering the potential for harm to children, set aside for a moment the issue of homosexuals who may prey on the boys under their charge. There is another harm that will be done to all boys whose leaders are homosexual. Those boys will be taught by example the deceit that homosexual acts and relationships are moral. It is unconscionable that an organization committed to God and moral integrity would countenance such destructive role modeling.

Christians must take a stand on this issue. My father, my husband, and my son were Boy Scouts, so it pains me to say this, but if the National Executive Board decides to abandon its national policy on homosexuality, Christians should abandon the Boy Scouts.

Take ACTION:  Click HERE to send an email to the BSA urging its board members to retain its current policy on homosexuality. If the BSA hopes to retain the trust, loyalty, and affection of parents and supporters nationwide, it must unequivocally reaffirm its current God-honoring policy.




In a full page ad today in USA Today, Family Research Council and 41 other organizations, including the Illinois Family Institute, urged the Boy Scouts to keep their moral values.

Click HERE to see the ad.  Below is FRC’s press release.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: February 4, 2013

CONTACT: J.P. Duffy or Darin Miller, (866) FRC-NEWS or (866) 372-6397

 Family Research Council, 41 Allied Organizations Release Ad Urging Boy Scouts to Keep Moral Values

 February 04, 2013

***Media Advisory*** 

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Family Research Council (FRC) and 41 allied organizations ran an ad today in USA Today urging the Boy Scouts of America (BSA) to stay true to their timeless values and not surrender to financial or political pressures by corporate elites on the issue of homosexuality. BSA is considering changing its long-standing policy prohibiting openly homosexual members and leaders. 

Among the groups signing onto the ad are the American Family Association, American Values, Bott Radio Network, Catholic Family & Human Rights Institute, International Communion of Evangelical Churches, Liberty Counsel, Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, Patriot Voices, and a number of state family policy organizations. 

The organization decided last July, following a two-year study, and because of the opinions of a “vast majority of parents” of Boy Scout members, that the policy would not be changed. BSA has since reconsidered and will release their decision about the policy on Wednesday. 

The ad states that a policy change would be “a grave mistake” and that, “Every American who believes in freedom of thought and religious liberty should be alarmed by the attacks upon the Boy Scouts,” whose oath includes that members should be “morally straight.” The ad emphasizes that, “To compromise moral principles under political and financial pressure would teach the boys cowardice, not courage.” 

The ad highlights BSA’s policy of recognizing the right of parents to teach their children about sexual topics. The ad concludes by challenging readers to ask themselves, “How will parents be able to entrust their children to the Boy Scouts if they trade the well-being of the boys for corporate dollars?” 




Zones of Gratitude

Written by Peter J. Leithart

Homosexuality will be one of the key public issues confronting the next generation of American pastors. Nearly every pastor will counsel someone battling homosexual desires or actively engaged in a homosexual lifestyle. Compassionate, firm counsel is the least of the challenges. As the gay marriage movement makes headway, there will be subtle but relentless pressures from public opinion, media, law, entertainment, and, unfortunately, from within the church. Rusty Reno is right: We can expect to hear from many Christians whose views on homosexuality have “evolved” to keep pace with the new marriage regime. Those who hold out will be isolated and mocked as bigots.

Pastors and future pastors need to be prepared to suffer such low-level martyrdom. Any man who can’t take the pressure should find some other line of work.

And the first step in being prepared to witness with the Spirit against sin is to be absolutely convinced that the Bible is the standard of sexual morality and absolutely convinced that the Bible condemns homosexual desires and acts as sin. According to Paul, the approval of homosexuality is a sign that a civilization that has been delivered over to sin by the judgment of God (Romans 1:24-27). By some inner logic, idolatry produces sexual confusion, which eventually results in social chaos.

The process begins with inner uncleanness. In the old covenant, Israelites became defiled by fluids and flesh that flowed out from the body (Leviticus 15), and sometimes by food or dead bodies from the outside (Leviticus 11; Numbers 19). In the new covenant, Jesus says, the things that flow from the heart defile. Evil desires (epithumia) – sexual lust, envy, hatred, bitterness – defile (Matthew 15:18). Paul tells us that the heart-impurity that results from evil desire has visible and public ramifications: The lustful dishonor (atimazo) their bodies as they act out their evil desires (Romans 1: 24). So God gives the impure over to their dishonorable (atimia) passions, expressed in unnatural sex by men and women (Romans 1:26). Idolatry corrupts desires, and corrupted desire leads to dishonorable, unnatural sexuality.

Paul takes up these themes later in Romans. Torah cannot overcome the corruptions of desire. At best, law specifies evil desire as a transgression, and so brings it to the surface of consciousness. Paul would not have known lust (epithumia) if the law had not said “Do not covet.” Yet the ultimate result of the law is not to suppress evil desire but to provoke it: “Sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, produced in me coveting of every kind” (7:7-8). By sharing in Christ’s death in baptism, however, we die to sin, and are no longer obligated to “obey the lusts (epithumia) thereof” (6:12). Having put on the Lord Jesus, we have the weaponry to fight sin and to stop making provision for fleshly desires (epithumia) (13:14; cf. Galatians 3:27; Ephesian 6:11). What purifies heart desires is baptismal participation in the death and resurrection of Jesus. The gospel is also the answer to dishonor. Evil desire contaminates and disfigures the image of God’s glory. But those who persevere in doing good receive honor (time) and eternal life (Romans 2:5-10).

The original source of sexual perversion is the refusal to honor God as God or to give thanks. Ingratitude and idolatry darken hearts, confusing wisdom and folly as they confuse Creator and creature (Romans 1:21-23). If ingratitude and idolatry are the source of sexual degeneration, then worship and gratitude are the church’s primary “methods” of social renewal. Legal restrictions on homosexuality and bans on gay marriage have their uses, but Paul warns us that no law, neither Torah nor the US Constitution, can purify hearts. Only the gospel answers to the heart-condition that is the mainspring of homosexual culture, but the gospel answers that condition only as it takes form as communities of worship and continuous thanksgiving.

Every pastor will counsel a homosexual; some may be sued for hate speech. But pastors address the root causes of our cultural decay in every Lord’s service. Every time a pastor presides at the Eucharist, he throws Romans 1 into reverse because every Eucharist cultivates an ecclesial zone of gratitude in a confused and ungrateful world.


Peter J. Leithart is a pastor, theologian, and Senior Fellow of Theology and Literature as well as Dean of Graduate Studies at New Saint Andrews College and holds a doctorate from Cambridge University. He was selected by the Association of Reformed Institutions of Higher Education to be one of the organization’s 2010-2012 Lecturers. He is the author of commentaries on the Book of Kings and the Book of Samuel, as well as a Survey of the Old Testament. He has authored several highly acclaimed books, including Defending Constantine, Deep Exegesis, Athanasius, Against Christianity, A Son to Me, A House for My Name, Blessed are the Hungry, Wise Words, Brightest Heaven of Invention, Heroes of the City of Man, and many more. He serves as a contributing editor for Touchstone and First Things magazines. His scholarly and popular articles have appeared in Pro Ecclesia, Journal of Biblical Literature, Westminster Theological Journal, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Birmingham News, First Things, Touchstone, and other publications. Other works include books on topics such as Dante’s Inferno, Dostoyevsky, and Jane Austen. He is also the author of a book of children’s bedtime stories titled Wise Words based on the Book of Proverbs. 

Dr. Leithart is also a father of ten. 

Education

  • Ph.D. in Systematic Theology – University of Cambridge (1998)
  • Master of Theology – Westminster Theological Seminary (1987)
  • Master of Arts in Religion – Westminster Theological Seminary (1986)
  • A.B. in English and History – Hillsdale College (1981)



To the Boy Scouts: Social Justice Demands Protection of Children

Written by Greg Quinlan, president of Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays & Gays (PFOX)

 As a former homosexual who was sexually molested as a child, I urge the Boy Scouts of America to reinforce their policy prohibiting homosexuals as Scout leaders entrusted with the care of impressionable young boys and teens. 

Boy Scouts leaders are exactly that – leaders.  Boys watch them very closely. Boys also look up to older Boy Scout members and want to imitate them and follow their examples.  Boys at that stage of maturity emulate male role models.  A homosexual who gently eases boys and young men into exposure of homosexuality by his own personal example promotes homosexual behavior as normal, natural and healthy.  This paves the way for youth to question their own sexuality and be affirmed into homosexuality.  Promoting homosexuality to youth is also a political ploy to further homosexual approval. 

Like the Catholic Church hierarchy, the Boy Scouts have a history of hushing up and settling sexual molestation cases brought by boys under their care. The book, Scout’s Honor by investigative reporter Patrick Boyle, revealed 1,800 cases in which Scout leaders had been dismissed for abusing boys. And two years ago, a jury awarded $18.5 million to a man abused by a Scoutmaster. 

My own sexual molestation as a youth was a contributing factor to my homosexual behavior as I got older.  I left homosexuality only when I saw over 100 of my friends die of AIDS. I regret all those years of living homosexually – time wasted when I could have been dating and experiencing a relationship with a woman, gotten married, and raised children together. But sexual molestation and homosexuality raped me of those precious years, which should have been the best years of my life. 

Today, I should be able to look at my children’s faces and see reflections of my wife. Instead, I am fighting heterophobic legislation initiated by the gay lobby, which would prevent children molested by homosexuals from seeking heterosexual counseling. Gay activists like the Human Rights Campaign and the Southern Poverty Law Center demand equality while denying equality to the ex-gay community, but denying children access to full mental health care is outrageous and perverted. 

To insist that homosexuals be allowed to participate in the Boy Scouts while demanding that heterosexual counseling for molested children be outlawed is a gross miscarriage of justice. What do the Boy Scouts have to say about this injustice? 

No matter what precautions the Boy Scouts put in place so that open homosexuals can participate, such safeguards will never be enough. It’s like installing smoke alarms, fire ladders, and extinguishers in your home. Yes, if there’s a fire, a family may survive and get out of a burning house. But the best thing would be to not light the match in the first place. 

As an ex-gay man, my personal message to the board of directors of the Boy Scouts of America is this: 

Dear Messrs. Randall L. Stephenson, James S. Turley, Nathan S. Rosenberg, Wayne Perry, Wayne Brock, Alf Tuggle, Gary P. Butler, Tico Perez, and others

It seems that one or more of your major corporate donors is pressuring you, and others are bullying you, to change the Boy Scout policy to admit homosexuals. This corporate donor is concerned about “discrimination” and knows many nice gays who he is certain would never look at a child sexually. 

I, too, was one of those nice gays.  But I was also one of those nice children who was molested. Please do without some corporate funding if you must, cut your budget and protect the children in your care. One case of child sexual molestation is one case too many. 

Money with dangerous conditions attached is not a donation – it’s a bribe. 

TAKE ACTION: Call the Boy Scouts now at 972-580-2000, and tell them: “DO NOT CHANGE YOUR POLICY ON ‘SEXUAL ORIENTATION.” Also call 972-580-2597; use their Contact Page or click HERE to send them an email.


Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays & Gays (PFOX) provides outreach, education, and public awareness in support of families and the ex-gay community. They can be reached at http://pfox.org/about_us.html




Save the Boy Scouts of America

The Boy Scouts of America (BSA) has been under relentless assault by homosexual activists for years, and it appears the pressure is wearing down its leadership. The BSA may be poised to reverse its long-standing national policy that prohibits homosexuality in the Boy Scouts.

A review of the mission statement of the BSA and the Boy Scout Oath and Law are helpful in evaluating just how profoundly wrong the decision to change its policy on homosexuality would be.

The BSA mission statement:

The mission of the Boy Scouts of America is to prepare young people to make ethical and moral choices over their lifetimes by instilling in them the values of the Scout Oath and Law.

The Boy Scout Oath:

On my honor I will do my best
To do my duty to God and my country
and to obey the Scout Law;
To help other people at all times;
To keep myself physically strong,
mentally awake, and morally straight.

The Boy Scout Law:

A Scout is trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean, and reverent.

How does the BSA promote fidelity to God if it permits men or women who affirm that which God views as detestable (i.e., homosexual acts) to serve as role models and leaders?

And how does the BSA promote fidelity to an oath when with a finger held to the political wind and a vote, its leadership decides that the Boy Scouts’ long-held convictions are dispensable?

There exist objective truths regarding sexual morality, truths which if violated mar the image of God imprinted on men and women. When men have sex with men or women have sex with women, they demonstrate a profound disrespect for God and for themselves, which, although less important, violates the Boy Scout Law which asserts that “a Scout is … reverent.”

No one is arguing that homosexual men and women are devoid of admirable values and traits that boys would be well-served to emulate. What many are arguing is that the affirmation of a homosexual identity is not one of them. Further, the affirmation of a homosexual identity is so profoundly immoral as to render them unsuitable for the role of shaping “morally straight” young men. No boy should be taught implicitly or explicitly that the affirmation of a homosexual identity or homosexual acts are moral acts.

BSA spokesperson Deron Smith issued this statement:

For more than 100 years, Scouting’s focus has been on working together to deliver the nation’s foremost youth program of character development and values-based leadership training….

Currently, the BSA is discussing potentially removing the national membership restriction regarding sexual orientation. This would mean there would no longer be any national policy regarding sexual orientation, and the chartered organizations that oversee and deliver Scouting would accept membership and select leaders consistent with each organization’s mission, principles, or religious beliefs. BSA members and parents would be able to choose a local unit that best meets the needs of their families.

This policy change would be a cowardly act because it would pass on to individual families the task of asking their local leaders what their policy is regarding homosexuality, which is far more difficult than having an established national policy. Maybe Deron Smith and other BSA leaders are able to deceive themselves into believing that such a policy change would constitute a “brave” and morally defensible act, but countless Americans know otherwise. This would be an act of cowardice driven by fear of perpetual slandering by homosexual activists and pressure from soulless corporations that do not have character formation as integral to their mission and yet self-righteously pretend they do.

In response to the announcement by Deron Smith, the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) president, Herndon Graddick prematurely exulted, “The Boy Scouts of America have heard from scouts, corporations and millions of Americans that discriminating against gay scouts and scout leaders is wrong. Scouting is a valuable institution and this change will only strengthen its core principles of fairness and respect.”

In referring to “discrimination,” Graddick exploits the language of racial injustice. But making distinctions between moral and immoral sexual acts bears no similarity whatsoever to illegitimate discrimination of persons based on non-behavioral characteristics like race.

Graddick’s reference to “corporations” should remind Americans not to underestimate the influence of corporate pressure. Money is the driving force behind this possible policy reversal. Does anyone really believe that most parents who support Boy Scouts want homosexual men to contribute to the formation of their sons’ moral character?

Parents and other BSA supporters shouldn’t be duped into believing that this policy change, which would leave decisions regarding homosexuality to local organizations, will be left alone. Zach Wahls, Eagle Scout and founder of Scouts for Equality—who, interestingly, was raised by two lesbians—made clear that the relentless assault on the BSA’s commitment to sexual morality will continue unabated until every troop abandons moral convictions: “’We look forward to working with BSA Councils and chartering organizations across the country to end the exclusion of our gay brothers in Scouting, as well as the gay and lesbian leaders who serve the organizations so well.’” Regarding the possibility of only some clubs allowing homosexual members, Wahl correctly and ominously proclaimed, “‘Once you’ve started to introduce openly gay members, there’s no way to stop it.’”

Take ACTION:  Despite eager chomping-at-the bit accounts from homosexual activists, however, the deal is not yet done. Parents of current and future Boy Scouts and alumni supporters can make a difference. Click HERE to send an email or take a moment to call any of these numbers to express your opposition to any policy change: (972) 580-2400 (also 2401, 2405, 2239, 2443, 2280, 2199).