We conservatives have criticized the practice of homosexuality for a variety of reasons, a primary one being its abusive nature.  In recent years, defenders of the practice have attempted to rebut our attacks saying that what they do to each other is not abuse, and even if it were, they are consenting adults.  I am not sure that they really wish to get into a discussion regarding the abusive nature of their conduct, but are you familiar with S&M or “bondage?” 

If you doubt the tawdry nature of their conduct, just go to one of their parades.  On second thought, don’t.  Just take my word for it that the conduct of parade participants turns the stomach of any normal person.  And if what they do in public is offensive, one can only imagine the abuse that goes on in secret.  Of course you don’t have to just imagine, you can go to their web sites or read their own literature to discover for yourselves its sordid reality.

What we as conservatives find ourselves asking is why anyone would want to live in such abusive relationships?  Interestingly, many practicing homosexuals have defended their lifestyles with that precise question saying that if it were a choice, they would NEVER choose it!  They are bound by their “nature” they say,  and cannot escape!  Yet, activists for the lifestyle adamantly and repeatedly claim their conduct is not destructive.  However, the vast majority, by their own admission, endure treatment at the hands of other men that to us is abusive.   What they are saying is that there is no objective definition for abuse. 

I wish to make it perfectly clear that we do not nor will we ever condone sexual or physical abuse of one person by another.  Therefore, you will never find us approving of the conduct common among homosexuals.  If their behavior was all loving and beneficent, it would not be kept under wraps.  It could be discussed openly.

Accepting homosexual behavior categorically as normal forces us to accept abuse as normal.  At the same time we are, as a society, making an important effort to inform the public that abuse of women is NOT acceptable!  Is not the homosexual lobby undermining this important effort?  If we accept this new status quo, that men abusing men is acceptable so long as it is consensual, we are in the difficult spot of accepting a significantly different treatment of men and women.  It is acceptable for men to abuse men if they both so choose, but it is not acceptable for men to abuse women, even if they both so choose.

If you are at all familiar with abused women’s issues, you know the $64,000 question.  Why do women remain in abusive relationships?  If anyone could actually answer that and provide an antidote, many women would be saved.  No one really understands why people stay where life is often miserable or even dangerous.  But they do.  They clearly get something that they deem worth the price they pay.   The homosexuals’ spokesmen just sidestep the question and reply that they’re adults and they  want to remain in their relationships, whether we view them as abusive or not.   

So, we find ourselves with a real dilemma.  We accept men abusing one another because they choose to remain in those relationships and they can define for themselves what abuse is, but we do not accept men abusing women, even though many women choose to remain in those relationships, and often say that their abusers “love them.” 

Therefore, by declaring homosexuality to be normal, we must accept that men are “mature” enough to choose for themselves to remain where, by society’s standards, they are abused, at the same time saying  women are not “mature” enough and must be protected.  Or else we will accept women’s abuse at the hands of men is not abuse after all. 

On which side of that one do you wish to land?

I, for one, will accept neither.

Oh, for the good old days when the term “hate group” referred to groups that actually hated someone. Now the term “hate group” refers to any group that expresses political, philosophical, moral, or theological beliefs with which the far-left Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) disagrees.

Last week, the SPLC released the winter issue of Mark Potok‘s ironically named “Intelligence Report.” Thearticle “18 Anti-Gay Groups and Their Propaganda” by Evelyn Schlatter lists 18 organizations as “anti-gay” groups with 13 of those to be added to their formal list of “hate groups.” The American Family Association, Family Research Council, and the Illinois Family Institute are three of the 13 that will be included on a list with neo-Nazi organizations.

Schlatter explains that the “propagation” of “known falsehoods” about homosexuality will result in organizations being included on the SPLC’s “anti-gay” list and perhaps also their “hate groups” list. Here are the “known falsehoods” that she and co-author Robert Steinback cite in the companion article “10 Anti-Gay Myths Debunked”:

• If an organization claims that homosexuals “molest children at far higher rates than heterosexuals,” it goes on the SPLC’s “hate groups” list.
• If an organization says that “same-sex parents harm children,” it goes on the SPLC’s “hate groups” list.
• If an organization claims that “people become homosexual because they were sexually abused as children or there was a deficiency in sex-role modeling by their parents,” it goes on the SPLC’s “hate groups” list.
• If an organization claims that “homosexuals don’t live nearly as long as heterosexuals,” it goes on the SPLC’s “hate groups” list.
• If an organization claims that “homosexuals controlled the Nazi Party and helped to orchestrate the Holocaust,” it goes on the SPLC’s “hate-groups” list.
• If an organization claims that “hate crime laws will lead to the jailing of pastors who criticize homosexuality and the legalization of practices like bestiality and necrophilia,” it goes on the SPLC’s “hate groups” list.
• If an organization claims that “allowing homosexuals to serve openly would damage the armed forces,” it goes on the SPLC’s “hate groups” list.
• If an organization claims that homosexuals “are more prone to be mentally ill and to abuse drugs and alcohol,” it goes on the SPLC’s “hate groups” list.
• If an organization claims that “no one is born a homosexual,” it goes on the SPLC’s “hate groups” list.
• If an organization claims “Gay people can choose to leave homosexuality,” it goes on the SPLC’s “hate groups” list.

Under each of these “myths,” Schlatter and Steinback offer analyses and evidence of such poor quality that their arguments wouldn’t pass muster in many high school English classes in which there are actual standards for logic and use of evidence. I will examine just a few of the many problems in their analyses, which in turn will reveal the intellectual and ethical vacuity that pervades the SPLC.

Same sex parents harm children

The SPLC thinks that the belief that same sex parents harm children constitutes hatred. The first problem is that Schlatter and Steinback fail to define harm. If one believes that homosexuality is morally flawed, then a household centered on a morally flawed relationship cannot be beneficial.

It is entirely possible that a brother and sister in an incestuous relationship or that polyamorist parents could raise children, providing for their physical needs, comforting them, and teaching them their ABCs. But most of society believes that such relationships would harm children because they would teach children that incest and polyamory are morally permissible. Would Schlatter and Steinback include organizations on their “hate groups” list that propagate the belief that incestuous parents or poly-parents harm children?

The SPLC and many homosexuals are outraged over any comparison of homosexuality to adult consensual incest or polyamory because they view homosexuality as moral and incest and polyamory as immoral. But no one is obligated to accept the SPLC’s flawed comparison of homosexuality to race or to accept their moral assumptions. After all, who is the SPLC to impose their moral views on all of society? Why are IFI’s moral beliefs about homosexual acts hateful and the views of those who oppose incest or polyamory legitimate? Why do IFI’s moral beliefs about volitional homosexual acts land us on the “hate groups” list, while the moral beliefs of those who oppose incestuous parents or poly-parents do not land them on the “hate groups” list?

Many people believe that children have a fundamental right to be raised by the biological parents who procreated them. Many people, including Roman Catholics, Muslims, Orthodox Jews, and Protestants as well as people who follow no faith tradition, believe it is immoral for homosexuals to adopt or use in vitro fertilization and surrogacy to acquire children. Do they all deserve to be labeled “haters”?

Homosexual parents teach their children that gender is irrelevant to marriage and to parenting. They teach them that homosexual acts are inherently moral. And they deliberately deprive children of either a mother or a father. Those corruptions of truth and essential human relationships harm children.

Childhood molestation, innateness (“born that way”) and homosexuality

The one point about which many on both sides of the homosexuality debate agree is that the causes of same-sex attraction are not known. Many believe that same-sex attractions result from a complex interaction of biologically shaped predispositions and environmental factors. If we do not know the causes of same-sex attraction, and if some of the factors that contribute to it are environmental experiences, how can anyone declare that childhood molestation never contributes to the development of same-sex attraction? And if childhood molestation may contribute in some cases to the development of same-sex attraction, how can it constitute hatred to say so?

Oprah, an inveterate promoter of all things homosexual, recently did two powerful programs about men who were molested as children. One of her guests was a therapist who has treated hundreds of men who were molested as children. He stated that one result of the sexual molestation of boys is “sexual orientation confusion.”

Schlatter and Steinback also assert that it’s hateful, false, and mythical to say “no one is born homosexual,” and then virtually their entire analysis reveals that there is no research proving that people are “born homosexual.” Schlatter and Steinback write, “a great many studies suggest that it is the result of biological and environmental forces.”

Following their repeated assertions that there is no proof that homosexuality is congenital, Schlatter and Steinback suggest the false dichotomy that if people do not choose their same-sex attraction, they must be “born that way,” completely ignoring two essential truths. First, the fact that people do not choose their feelings does not mean that such feelings are biologically determined. Second, freely chosen behaviors that emerge from feelings shaped by biological influences are not automatically moral.

IFI has consistently said that although no one chooses their feelings, people do choose how to respond to them. Saying that people ought not to act upon same-sex attraction is no more hateful than saying that people ought not to act upon unchosen, powerful, persistent attractions to pornography, multiple people, or their siblings. All moral beings have to decide which of their unchosen, powerful feelings are morally legitimate to act upon.

Homosexual men and shortened life spans

Under the “myth” about the shortened life spans of homosexual men, Schlatter and Steinback made the following statement:

Bob Unruh, a conservative Christian journalist who left The Associated Press in 2006 for the right-wing, conspiracist news site WorldNetDaily, said shortly before the federal law was passed that it would legalize “all 547 forms of sexual deviancy or ‘paraphilias’ listed by the American Psychiatric Association.” This claim was repeated by many anti-gay organizations, including the Illinois Family Institute.

Either because of Schlatter’s and Steinback’s poor research or lack of ethics, they failed to include the fact that exactly one week after making the error regarding the DSM, writer Kathy Valente posted a correction which is still on our website. It reads as follows:

In the article entitled “Hate Crimes Bill Moves to Senate” (5/5/09), we mistakenly stated that the American Psychiatric Association’s actual definition of “sexual orientation” includes paraphilias. The APA’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV) classifies “sexual orientation” as heterosexual, homosexual, and bi-sexual. The 547 mental disorders called paraphilias specifically involve non-human objects, physical pain, or unwilling partners as in pedophilia. IFI apologizes for the error.

I hope and assume that Schlatter and Steinback will demonstrate the integrity and professionalism that Ms. Valente did by publishing a correction and apology.

In their argument that talking about the shorter life spans of homosexual men constitutes an act of hatred, Schlatter and Steinback focused on research by Paul Cameron, while completely ignoring research by the well-respected International Journal of Epidemiology that found the following:

[W]e demonstrated that in a major Canadian centre, life expectancy at age 20 years for gay and bisexual men is 8 to 21 years less than for all men. If the same pattern of mortality continued, we estimated that nearly half of gay and bisexual men currently aged 20 years would not reach their 65th birthday. Under even the most liberal assumptions, gay and bisexual men in this urban centre were experiencing a life expectancy similar to that experienced by men in Canada in the year 1871.

The authors of this article, upset that conservative groups disseminated this troubling fact, issued an update that said, “if we were to repeat this analysis today the life expectancy of gay and bisexual men would be greatly improved. Deaths from HIV infection have declined dramatically in this population since 1996.”

Though mortality rates have dropped due to improved treatment protocols, HIV infection rates for “men who have sex with men” (MSM) are soaring. According to the CDC, “While CDC estimates that MSM account for just 4 percent of the U.S. male population aged 13 and older, the rate of new HIV diagnoses among MSM in the U.S. is more than 44 times that of other men.”

I wonder if Schlatter and Steinback are planning on publishing an addendum to their article in which they address HIV infection rates for homosexual men, or perhaps they’re going to include the CDC on their “hate groups” list.

Nazism

Schlatter claimed erroneously that I “compared homosexuality to Nazism,” which makes me wonder if she even bothered to read the articles in which I referred to Nazism. Here’s an excerpt from one:

Although genocide and homosexual acts are both sins, in man’s economy–and my own belief system–genocide is a far greater sin. And although I believe that all sin represents rebellion against God, I believe that homosexuality and genocide are by nature distinct….I never posited that homosexuals were the moral equivalents of Nazis. Rather, I compared the rationalizations church leaders offered for the silence of the church in the face of the evil of Nazism to the rationalizations church leaders offer for the silence of the church in the face of the evil of using public schools to promulgate destructive, erroneous views of homosexuality….The feckless or deceitful claim that I said homosexuals are equivalent to Nazis makes no more sense than claiming that someone who says the church should address both the sin of murder and the sin of gossip are saying that murderers and gossips are morally equivalent.

Sin in the closet

The SPLC believes it’s an act of hate to say that homosexuality should remain in the “in the closet.” Ms. Schlatter quoted an article in which I said “There was something profoundly good for society about the prior stigmatization of homosexual practice…. [W]hen homosexuals were ‘in the closet,’ (along with fornicators, polyamorists, cross-dressers, and ‘transsexuals’), they weren’t acquiring and raising children.”

Many people believe that immoral behavior should be concealed from the public rather than paraded about or publicly celebrated. For example, many people–perhaps most–do not want polyamorists’ or cross-dressers’ behavior to be public where children can see it. Does the SPLC view those who don’t want their children to see manifestations of polyamory or cross-dressing as haters?

My belief that it would be better for society if homosexuality were not publicly affirmed, normalized, or celebrated no more constitutes hatred of homosexuals than does other people’s belief that polyamory should not be publicly affirmed, celebrated, or normalized constitute hatred of polyamorists.

Ex-gays

The SPLC states that saying people can choose not to act on same-sex attraction or that they can leave a homosexual lifestyle constitutes hatred of homosexuals. Following that logic, what does it mean when someone says people can leave a polyamorous lifestyle or that they can choose not to act on their powerful attractions to multiple people? And what does it say to the hundreds of men and women who have abandoned their homosexual lives that the SPLC says discussing such a path is an act of hatred?

Conclusion

No longer is hate defined as, well, hatred. Anyone who finds the SPLC’s analogies faulty; their research selective; their concealing of inconvenient facts troubling; or their unproven, non-factual moral beliefs wrong, is now guilty of hatred.

The SPLC holds the unproven, non-factual belief that homosexuality is moral and arrogantly demands that all of society agree, or be silent, or be labeled a “hate group.” That strikes me as a strange manifestation of tolerance or respect for speech rights and diversity. Ironically, the SPLC has become the oppressor.

The SPLC hopes that their smear campaign will silence conservatives so that only the SPLC’s moral views will be heard in the public square. No one should allow the unprincipled bullying tactics and specious reasoning of the SPLC to intimidate them into silence. The SPLC’s ontological and moral beliefs about homosexuality are not facts, and dissent from the ethically impoverished SPLC’s beliefs does not constitute hatred.

Please take time to read this comprehensive indictment of the SPLC from the Social Contract Journal, which dedicated its spring 2010 issue to exposing the SPLC.

And if that’s not enough, click here, here, here, and here.

(Originally published on December 3, 2010)

Stand With Us

Your support of our work and ministry is always much needed and greatly appreciated. Your promotion of our emails on Facebook, Twitter, your own email network, and prayer for financial support is a huge part of our success in being a strong voice for the pro-life, pro-marriage and pro-family message here in the Land of Lincoln.

Please consider standing with us by giving a tax-deductible donation HERE, or by sending a gift to P.O. Box 88848, Carol Stream, IL  60188.

To borrow from President Obama’s Black Nationalist mentor, Jeremiah Wright, the Southern Poverty Law Center’s hate-baiting chickens “have come home to roost.” The hard-left group has become everything it presumes to expose.

On Wednesday, homosexual activist Floyd Corkins entered the Washington-based Family Research Council (FRC) armed with a gun and a backpack full of ammunition. He also had 15 Chick-fil-A sandwiches (FRC recently defended the food chain’s COO Dan Cathy for pro-natural marriage statements).

The only thing standing between Corkins and mass murder was FRC facilities manager and security specialist Leo Johnson. As Corkins shouted disapproval for FRC’s “politics,” he shot Johnson who, despite a severely wounded arm, managed to tackle Corkins and disarm him (of course, this is all impossible as it’s illegal in Washington, D.C., to carry a concealed weapon).

Of Johnson’s actions, D.C. Police Chief Cathy Lanier said, “The security guard here is a hero, as far as I’m concerned.”

I agree.

Upon hearing of Leo’s selfless act of heroism, I was reminded of John 15:13: “Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends.”

But according to the SPLC, Leo’s heart is, instead, full of hate. In fact, everyone at FRC is hateful. After all, in 2010 the SPLC, with much fanfare, “officially certified” FRC as a “hate group” for its orthodox Christian positions on marriage and family.

Alongside violence-charged photos of actual hate groups like the Aryan Brotherhood and the KKK, the SPLC lists on its website the decidedly mainstream and always peaceful FRC.

It’s a clever strategy, dishonest and reprehensible though it may be. By juxtaposing FRC and other Christian organizations with violent extremist groups, SPLC has engaged in intellectual sloth at its worst (the organization has repeatedly declined to debate FRC President Tony Perkins over its “hate group” smear).

Rather than debating – on the merits – mainstream Christian groups with which it has ideological disagreement, SPLC has chosen, instead, the coward’s way out: demonization and marginalization through false guilt by association.

It’s a scheme not only slimy, but extremely dangerous.

If ever there were a time I’d prefer not to have been right, now is that time. Back in November 2011, I essentially predicted both the FRC shooting and the SPLC’s undeniable complicity therein.

With a column headlined, “Liberal violence rising,” I wrote, “The SPLC’s dangerous and irresponsible (‘hate group’) disinformation campaign can embolden and give license to like-minded, though less stable, left-wing extremists, creating a climate of true hate. Such a climate is ripe for violence.” (If anyone deserves to be taken out – rationalizes the unbalanced SPLC dupe – its members of this or that evil “hate group” whom, as he’s been repeatedly told, mean him great harm.)

That was before the fact. After the fact – one day after the shooting – Tony Perkins addressed exactly that which I forecast:

“Let me be clear that Floyd Corkins was responsible for firing the shot yesterday,” he told Washington reporters. “But Corkins was given a license to shoot an unarmed man by organizations like the Southern Poverty Law Center that have been reckless in labeling organizations hate groups because they disagree with them on public policy.”

The SPLC “should be held accountable for their reckless use of terminology that is leading to the intimidation and what the FBI here has categorized as an act of domestic terrorism.”

Regrettably, Mr. Perkins finds himself in a uniquely credible position to make this charge.

Still, although there remains a vast ideological divide between the SPLC and the tens of millions of Christian Americans represented by the Family Research Council, the Southern Poverty Law Center now finds itself with a brief window of opportunity to both do the right thing and rehabilitate its badly damaged reputation.

To the SPLC, I say this: Your cynical efforts to dehumanize Christians and equate biblical truth to “hate” are working better than I think even you expected. It’s now within your power to right a horrible wrong and restore a sense of peace and security to the rattled folks at FRC. What a gift that would be.

I appeal to your sense of goodwill. This is not a game. Lives are at stake. I know you have good employees (I’ve met some) who believe they’re doing the right thing; so, please, validate that belief. It’s time to remove your metaphorical “hate group” Star of David from mainstream Christian organizations before another of your ideological allies spills blood.

And to homosexual activists and other liberal groups, I say this: Rise above the fray. Let’s come together. Here is something on which even we can agree. Publicly encourage SPLC to lift this veil of fear.

Media, you, too, are on notice. Remember Wednesday’s shooting next time you even think about repeating SPLC’s “hate group” brand while addressing the Christians upon whom it’s tattooed. You also have share in the blame.

SPLC, hear me now: If, God forbid, something like this – or even worse – happens in the future and you have yet refused to retract and apologize for your “hate group” propaganda, then your hands will forever be stained with the blood of innocents.

Still, either way, we Christians are commanded to speak the truth of Christ “even unto death.”

FRC will not be deterred. “We’re not going anywhere,” Tony Perkins told reporters Thursday. “We’re not backing up; we’re not shutting up,” he vowed. “We feel that – we don’t feel, we know [that] we have been called to speak the truth. Speak it in love, but to speak the truth nonetheless – and we will not be intimidated, we will not be silenced.”

“I was there as [Leo] came to from the anesthesia,” said Perkins, “and I told him, ‘Leo, I want you to know you’re a hero.’ And he thought about it for a minute and he said, ‘You know, this hero business is hard work.’”

Heroes don’t work for “hate groups,” and FRC’s hard work is heroic indeed.

I’m proud to count them my friends.

You should be, too.

More than 120 pro-family and pro-life leaders from 11 countries signed a letter initiated by the World Congress of Families, protesting the U.S. Embassy’s participation in the Prague “Gay Pride” parade on August 18.

Signers include a former President of the Southern Baptist Convention, a former Majority Leader of the U.S. House of Representatives, a former Arkansas Governor, the head of Torah Jews for Decency and the former Venezuelan Ambassador to the Vatican.

The letter notes that the Obama administration has made promoting gay rights – including same-sex marriage – a foreign policy priority. If also observes the irony of those who complain ceaselessly about “cultural imperialism,” trying to force the worldviews of the American left on societies with traditional values.

It further comments that: “The United Nations has never affirmed homosexual marriage or rights” and that the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights specifically says that “men and women…have a right to marry and found a family.” Family is described as “the natural and fundamental group unit of society” and, as such, “is entitled to protection by society and the state.”

The Madrid Declaration of  World Congress of Families VI (May 25-27, 2012) – unanimously adopted by more than 3,200 delegates from 72 countries – reads in part: “We affirm the natural family to be the union of a man and a woman through marriage for the purposes of sharing love and joy, propagating children, providing their moral education, building a vital home economy, offering security in times of trouble, and binding the generations.”

The letter continues: “Regarding ‘gay rights,’ those caught up in this lifestyle have the same rights as other citizens. This does not include the ‘right’ to force others to validate a lifestyle they find objectionable, for religious or other reasons. It also does not include the right of men to marry men and women to marry women. The foregoing pseudo-rights do not advance human freedom and dignity but debase them.”

Click here to read the full text.

No matter how much ink has been spilled on the unconstitutionality of using government power to censor speech, including by scores of “progressives,” homosexual activists just won’t let up.

The Civil Rights Agenda (TCRA), yet another organization committed solely to normalizing homosexuality, has filed an absurd complaint against Chick-fil-A with the Illinois Department of Human Rights. Their claim is that Chick-fil-A violates “Section 5-102(B) of the Illinois Human Rights Act, which prohibits a ‘public accommodation’ from making protected classes ‘unwelcome, objectionable or unacceptable.’”

In their press release last Thursday, TCRA made clear their tyrannical and unholy demands on Chick-fil-A — demands that no serious Christian could accommodate. TCRA explained that they and Alderman Proco “Joe” Moreno  have been trying since last February to get Chick-fil-A to “examine” its corporate policies. Here’s what TCRA and Moreno want from Chick-fil-A:

…an LGBT-inclusive non-discrimination policy, diversity and cultural competency training, parity in employee benefits that included benefits for couples in civil unions and domestic partnerships, appropriate and respectful advertising in the LGBT community and transgender inclusive health benefits.

Yes, TCRA and Moreno want to coerce an organization that is owned by theologically orthodox Christians to have policy that implicitly and/or explicitly teaches employees that homosexuality is ontologically and morally equivalent to heterosexuality, to provide benefits to unions that violate the clear teachings of Scripture, to advertise in a community that seeks to redefine marriage and family, and to subsidize hormone-doping and genital-mutilating surgery for the gender-confused.

The complaint from TCRA exposes a number of troubling issues:

1. The complaint reveals the serious problem with the ambiguous language in the Illinois Human Rights Act, which includes the following:

It is a civil rights violation for any person on the basis of unlawful discrimination to…[d]irectly or indirectly, as the operator of a place of public accommodation, publish, circulate, display or mail any written communication…which the operator knows is to the effect that…any person is unwelcome, objectionable or unacceptable because of unlawful discrimination.

The sentence construction is odd and awkward. I suspect its awkward construction resulted from homosexuality advocates’ intent to use this for exactly the purpose it’s being used now. TCRA is using this section of the Illinois Human Rights Act to prosecute speech outside of the work place that they don’t like.

Dan Cathy’s expression of his beliefs about marriage had nothing whatsoever to do with customer service in Chick-fil-A restaurants, which are the only actions that this section of the Human Rights Act should legitimately address. His statements about marriage said nothing whatsoever about who is not welcome in Chick-fil-A restaurants. For this section of the Human Rights Act to be applicable to the Chick-fil-A situation would require that Dan Cathy knew that his statement of belief about marriage would make homosexual patrons be unwelcome — not feel unwelcome, but actually be unwelcome. There is no evidence that those who identify as homosexual are unwelcome in any Chick-fil-A in the country or that any employee has ever treated any homosexual customer as objectionable or unacceptable.

Quite the contrary. The anonymous couple on whose behalf TCRA is filing the complaint have said that until they learned of Dan Cathy’s beliefs on marriage, Chick-fil-A “was one of their favorite places to eat.” In other words, this couple and the child they are raising were treated well.

Homosexual activists are essentially arguing that any public expression of disapproval of homosexuality makes them uncomfortable and, therefore, should be illegal. They are saying that they don’t feel welcome unless everyone approves of homosexuality — or conceals their disapproval. They are saying, in effect, that only they are permitted to express moral claims about homosexuality in the public square.

The problem is that the government has no right to prohibit speech simply because it hurts someone’s feelings. It’s both unconstitutional and dangerous to prohibit citizens, including business owners, from making moral or political claims about any issue, including sexuality and the nature of marriage. The First Amendment guarantees the right to express beliefs and opinions, especially unpopular opinions.

2. If TCRA’s reasoning were to be applied consistently, it would prohibit anyone who runs a business from ever expressing opinions on what constitutes moral behavior. If Dan Cathy’s expression of his belief that marriage is a sexually complementary union violates some fundamental anti-discrimination principle because it makes those who are in same-sex relationships feel bad, then does the expression of the belief that marriage is a union of only two people violate the same principle because it makes Fundamentalist Latter Day Saints who believe in polygamy feel bad?

Moreover, if Cathy’s expression of the belief that marriage is the union of one man and one woman makes homosexual couples feel unwelcome, and if their subjective (and erroneous) feelings that they are unwelcome constitutes proof that he violated the Illinois Human Rights Act, then what does it mean if a business owner says that marriage has nothing to do with sexual complementarity? Clearly, when a business owner expresses that idea, it means he thinks Christian, Muslim, and Orthodox Jewish beliefs about marriage are wrong. If Christians, Muslims, and Jews, therefore, feel unwelcome in businesses owned by people who express “progressive” beliefs, are those business owners guilty of engaging in religious discrimination, which is also prohibited by the Illinois Human Rights Act? After all, the religious beliefs of Christians, Muslims, and Jews are as central to their identity as are the sexual feelings and beliefs of homosexuals.

This intellectual and pragmatic sticky wicket points to the critical need to remove this ambiguous language from the Illinois Human Rights Act. No law should include language that could be interpreted in such a way as to make it illegal for a business owner to say publicly that he believes homosexual impulses are disordered, or that homosexual acts are immoral, or the there is no such thing as same-sex marriage; or that Illinois should not legalize same-sex unions; or that homosexuals should not be permitted to adopt, without fear of complaints or lawsuits. We should not have a law that contradicts the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution which guarantees the right to speak freely on issues even when such speech offends someone.

3. The complaint reveals the problem of establishing a protected class that is constituted by subjective desire and volitional sexual acts. Protected classes should be constituted by morally neutral, immutable, objective characteristics. That is to say, protected classes, like race, biological sex, or national origin, are wholly objective conditions, in all cases immutable, and are not in any way constituted by freely chosen behaviors.

Homosexuality is in some cases mutable (even “queer” theorists argue that “sexual orientation” is fluid) and is constituted solely by subjective feelings of attraction and volitional sexual acts that are perfectly legitimate to assess morally.

This raises the question that will surely soon emerge on the cultural landscape: Why should homosexuality and “gender identity,” which are constituted by subjective feelings and volitional acts, be included as protected classes in anti-discrimination laws but not other conditions similarly constituted? For example, why shouldn’t polyamory be included in anti-discrimination laws?

4. The complaint provides yet another example of how homosexual activists continually conflate disapproval of volitional sexual acts with disrespect or hatred of persons. The complaint states that Chick-fil-A has “made it clear the lives of LGBT individuals are unacceptable to them and that same-gender families are unwelcome at Chick-fil-A.” One would assume that the lives of “LGBT” individuals involve more than just their homosexual (or cross-dressing) acts. Expressing the belief that marriage is the union of one man and one woman, as Dan Cathy did, says nothing about what he believes regarding the totality of the lives of homosexuals. And judging from press accounts, there is no indication that his treatment of or interactions with homosexuals indicates that he believes their lives in their totality are unacceptable or that they are unwelcome in any Chick-fil-A restaurant. Has Jeff Bezos, founder, chairman, and CEO of Amazon who just donated $2.5 million to defend same-sex marriage, “made it clear that the lives” of theologically orthodox Christians are unacceptable to him because he thinks their beliefs on marriage and sexuality are wrong?

The Illinois Human Rights Act is a rhetorical and legal mess being exploited by those like The Civil Rights Agenda who have a pernicious obsession: the eradication or silencing of conservative moral beliefs about homosexuality. If the Constitution has to be shredded in the process, so be it.

Stand With Us

Your support of our work and ministry is always much needed and greatly appreciated. Your promotion of our emails on Facebook, Twitter, your own email network, and prayer for financial support is a huge part of our success in being a strong voice for the pro-life, pro-marriage and pro-family message here in the Land of Lincoln.

Please consider standing with us by giving a tax-deductible donation HERE, or by sending a gift to P.O. Box 88848, Carol Stream, IL  60188.

Robert Lopez is assistant professor of English at California State University-Northridge. He is the author of Colorful Conservative: American Conversations with the Ancients from Wheatley to Whitman. This year he will be publishing novels he wrote in the 1990s and 2000s.

Last Wednesday, also known as Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day, was a very encouraging day for anyone who values the First Amendment and who believes that government doesn’t create marriage and ought not try to deconstruct it.

Americans turned out in droves to demonstrate their support for free speech, religious liberty, and true marriage. They showed their support by patronizing Chick-fil-A, waiting patiently for hours to demonstrate with their time and their money that First Amendment rights and marriage matter.

For those who have been vacationing in some Internet-free wilderness, Chick-fil-A’s president and COO Dan Cathy has been vilified for stating in an interview with a Christian organization that he believes marriage is the union of one man and one woman and for donating money to organizations that are trying to maintain the legal definition as such.

Pandering Politicians and “Diversity”

The mayors of Chicago, Boston, and Washington D.C. as well as Chicago Alderman Proco “Joe” Moreno and New York City Council speaker, lesbian Christine Quinn, in effect, told the entire nation that conservatives are unwelcome in their cities. In so doing, they revealed a willingness to abuse power and an embarrassing degree of constitutional ignorance.

Quinn wrote this in a letter to the president of New York University:

NYC is a place where we celebrate diversity….We revel in the diversity of all our citizens and their families….Let me be clear—I do not want establishments in my city that hold such discriminatory views. We are a city that believes our diversity is our greatest strength and we will fight anyone and anything that runs counter to that….As such I urge you to sever your relationship with the Chick-fil-A establishment that exists on your campus. (emphasis added; irony Quinn’s)

How do progressives demonstrate tolerance and revel in diversity? They ostracize anyone who does not think exactly as they do. Here are some of the men and women who, according to these elected leaders, would be unwelcome in their cities: Jesus Christ; every Old and New Testament writer; virtually every biblical scholar in the history of Christendom until the late 20^th Century; the pagan writers Juvenal and Horace; all faithful Catholics and Southern Baptists; all faithful members of the Eastern Orthodox Church; all faithful members of the Anglican Church of North America; all faithful members of the Presbyterian Church of America, Orthodox Presbyterian and Reformed Presbyterian churches; all Orthodox Jews; all Muslims; the 3,700-member Coalition of African-American Pastors; and, of course, Barack Obama (between the years 2004 and mid-2012 when he opposed “same-sex marriage”).

The good news is that outside the irrational, hypocritical, bullying world of homosexual activism, these five received widespread condemnation even by progressive pundits and the ACLU.

The Strange Theology of Alderman Moreno

Cardinal Francis George responded  to Rahm Emanuel’s claim that support for true marriage is inconsistent with Chicago values (which may be true, if Emanuel is using “Chicago” as a presumptuous synecdoche for himself).  Christians, both Catholic and Protestants, have been encouraged by his unequivocal words, a portion of which are quoted here:

Recent comments by those who administer our city seem to assume that the city government can decide for everyone what are the “values” that must be held by citizens of Chicago. I was born and raised here, and my understanding of being a Chicagoan never included submitting my value system to the government for approval…. The State’s attempting to redefine marriage has become a defining moment not for marriage, which is what it is, but for our increasingly fragile “civil union” as citizens.

The Chicago Tribune reports that Alderman Moreno had this to say about Cardinal George and the Bible: 

“It’s unfortunate that the cardinal, as often happens, picks parts of the Bible and not other parts,’ said Moreno, who added that he was raised Catholic in western Illinois, attended a Catholic grade school and was an altar boy. Moreno said he now occasionally attends church.

“The Bible says many things,” Moreno said. “For the cardinal to say that Jesus believes in this, and therefore we all must believe in this, I think is just disingenuous and irresponsible. The God I believe in is one about equal rights, and to not give equal rights to those that want to marry, is in my opinion un-Christian.”

Four thoughts: 

• I’m not Catholic, but I assume that cardinals have read and studied the Bible more thoroughly than have altar boys and occasional church attendees. 
• Generally speaking, it is not cardinals and other theologically orthodox religious leaders who pick and choose those parts of Scripture that suit their fancy. It’s theological heterodox religious leaders, atheists, and homosexual activists who cherry-pick and decontextualize Scripture. 
• Clearly, a man who thinks it’s “irresponsible” to suggest that Christians must believe what Christ believes understands virtually nothing about Christ’s Lordship or the nature of God. 
• I wonder if Moreno will catch any flak from progressives for violating the separation of church and state by using his Christian beliefs about “equal rights” to shape public policy? 

The Look of Love

Pandering politicians like mayors Rahm Emanuel, Tom Menino, and Vincent Gray have a greater commitment to currying favor with homosexual activists, who have become increasingly brazen in part because of conservative cowardice, than they do to protecting constitutional rights.

The behemoth of homosexual activism has grown by gorging on political and judicial power, academia, the mainstream press, the entertainment industry, and the arts. Now it stands slavering over the church and marriage. It licks its chops while waiting for these last delectable morsels of civilized life to be handed to them on a silver platter by an obsequious public afraid of confrontation and persecution. Yum, yum, eat ‘em up. 

And they’re no fools. They gussy themselves up in Sunday-go-to-meetin’ finery, deceiving America—especially America’s gullible youth—with the language of love and “social justice,” keeping their gimlet eyes affixed on images that appeal and beguile. Homosexual activists keep Americans from the hard intellectual work of critically analyzing their flawed presuppositions, propositions, and analogies:

• They want to keep Americans from thinking deeply about whether marriage is a private institution concerned only with the romantic and sexual feelings of adults.
• They want to keep them from thinking about whether marriage is really an infinitely malleable social construct or whether it has an intrinsic nature.
• They want to keep them from wondering why, if marriage has no intrinsic connection to sexual complementarity or procreative potential, we limit it to two people.
• They want to keep them from asking whether prohibiting polyamorists from marrying the persons they love constitutes hatred, discrimination, and intolerance.
• They want to keep Americans from demanding evidence for the claim that homosexuality is by nature like race.
• And they definitely want to keep them from asking whether children have any inherent rights to be raised whenever possible by their biological parents. Homosexual activists don’t want Americans to ask whether the desires of couples who are sterile by design supersede the rights of children.

Public Controversies and Good Business Practices

Throughout the Chick-fil-A imbroglio, a number of commentators have said that although Dan Cathy has a right to express his views and donate his money to whatever cause he wants, getting involved in controversial social issues is just bad business practice. It’s curious that I have never heard those same pundits fret about the “bad business practices” of Jeff Bezos, founder and CEO of Amazon who just donated $2.5 million to defend same-sex marriage in Washington State; Disney; General Mills; Home Depot; JC Penney; Marriott; Microsoft; Nabisco; Office Depot; Starbucks; or Target, all of which have very publicly taken sides on the controversial issue of homosexuality.

The Firing of CFO Adam Smith

Adam Smith, the CFO and treasurer of a medical device manufacturing company in Tucson, Arizona, and a lecturer at the University of Arizona, visited a Chick-fil-A on Wednesday, recorded his conversation with the young woman who waited on him, and then posted his recording on YouTube. He is now the former CFO and treasurer of the medical supply company, Vante.

Some are arguing that he shouldn’t have been fired and that conservatives are hypocritical for not supporting his right to express his views. That line of thinking seems flawed. Adam Smith’s problematic behavior was not the expression of his political or religious views. The problems were, first, he publicly impugned the character of a young woman whom he did not know, saying to her, “I don’t know how you live with yourself and continue to work here.”

Second, he continued to record her even after she told him that she was uncomfortable with him recording her.

And finally, he posted this recording, presumably without her permission, online. If this remarkably poised and respectful young woman is under 18, Smith’s actions may not have been merely rude and inconsiderate, they may have been illegal.

The lack of respect for the feelings of this young woman and his lack of judgment in posting his video are more than sufficient justification for his firing.

Final words

Some claim that this incident was “really just about the First Amendment.” It wasn’t. It was equally about the truth of marriage. It was equally about whether marriage has an objective status and whether our government should recognize, promote, and regulate it—or whether it should be deconstructed to accommodate the desires of a small group of people with specious arguments, abusive voices, political power, and deep pockets.

Let’s hope Americans will not slip back into inertia, acquiescence, and cowardice. As Michael Medved said, Wednesday was inspiring.

Stand With Us

Your support of our work and ministry is always much needed and greatly appreciated. Your promotion of our emails on Facebook, Twitter, your own email network, and prayer for financial support is a huge part of our success in being a strong voice for the pro-life, pro-marriage and pro-family message here in the Land of Lincoln.

Please consider standing with us by giving a tax-deductible donation HERE, or by sending a gift to P.O. Box 88848, Carol Stream, IL  60188.

**Caution: Reader discretion advised.**

A study conducted by Mark Regnerus of the University of Texas compared the “social, emotional, and relational” outcomes for children raised in different family structures, including children raised by heterosexual parents and those raised in homes in which the parents had been in homosexual relationships. It found that the children raised in homes in which parents had had homosexual relationships were disadvantaged in numerous ways.

Regnerus’ research has come under heavy fire for flawed test construction which, critics charge, is due to bias. The central criticisms include the following:

1. Regnerus’ conclusions are biased because he follows a faith tradition that teaches that volitional homosexual acts are not moral.
2. Regnerus’ study was funded by two conservative organizations.
3. Regnerus compared apples to oranges. That is, he compared the social, emotional, and relational outcomes for children raised within intact heterosexual family structures to those for children raised by parents who had had a homosexual relationship. As William Saletan for Slate Magazine explained, “[Regnerus] compared children of intact mom-and-dad families not to the tiny subset of kids raised by same-sex couples (which was statistically nonviable) but to the much bigger sample of kids with a parent who had at some point engaged in a gay relationship.”

The scorched earth assault on Regnerus’ study was precipitated by two events: a petition signed by 200 academicians, surely motivated only by their professional concern for the ethical integrity of academic research (nudge, nudge, wink, wink).

The other precipitating event was a formal letter of complaint sent to the Director of Research Integrity at the University of Texas by a notorious homosexual activist from New York City, Scott Rose (aka Scott Rosenweig or Rosensweig), who is known for his anti-Christian hatred, obscenity-laced screeds, and misogyny.

Rose likes to think of himself as an “investigative journalist,” and the “neutral” press is only too happy to play along. Rose’s role in the Regnerus saga needs to be more fully known and his dubious character more fully exposed.

Scott Rose: toxic shock

I first learned about Rose last year while working with a parent group in the Anoka-Hennepin school district in Minneapolis who were trying valiantly to establish school policy that would prevent teachers from using curricula and their classrooms to advance their personal moral and political views of homosexuality. Rose sent a letter to the Anoka-Hennepin superintendent in which he called the parents group as well as Minnesota Family Council, “loud-mouthed anti-gay bigot adults.”

Then last month, Rose contacted me incensed that I had posted an article critical of Harvey Milk. At one point in our email exchange I said, “My hope and prayer is that someday you will come to know Christ, who can free you from bondage to sin and give you peace,” to which Rose responded, “You come at me with your condescending Jesus bull****. You cannot possibly have any close friends who are Jewish, because if you did, you would know not to come at a Jewish person with your Jesus bull****.”

Even more disturbing — bordering on pathological — is the blog Rose had which was titled “Anti-Gay Bigotry Scares Me.” He took it down within a week after our email exchange during which I quoted his own shocking words from his blog to him. I suspect Rose took down his blog because he didn’t want his true nature to be revealed to the public and the credulous press.

Rose now writes for The New Civil Rights Movement, whose name parasitically exploits the African American fight for civil rights and depends on the offensive and nonsensical comparison of homosexuality to race. You can, however, read two of his posts, (HERE and HERE), that were available online as recently as June 10, 2012.  (Caution: disturbing images and language) These posts are ironic coming from a card-carrying member of the “no-name-calling” crowd.

The first one is an execrable piece of calumny written about the brilliant Maggie Gallagher of the National Organization for Marriage who endures the most pernicious ad hominem attacks in the thankless job of defending marriage.

The second of Rose’s blog posts is a repellent attack on Laurie Thompson, one of the parents in the Minneapolis parents group that works tirelessly for the good of children and the integrity of public education.

I apologize to Maggie Gallagher, Laurie Thompson, and IFI readers for the obscene, hateful, misogynistic content of these posts, but the public needs to know the true character of the man who is now trying not just to challenge Regnerus’ research but to assassinate the character of anyone who dares to dissent from Rose’s beliefs about homosexuality.

A few concluding ruminations on social science research

The viciousness, speed, and intensity of the attacks from academicians on Regnerus’ research seem unusual, particularly as compared to the lack of criticism leveled at research whose findings the homosexual community likes. I wonder why 200 academicians didn’t criticize the deeply flawed lesbian study that came out in 2010. As Andrew Ferguson wrote in the Weekly Standard:

The limitations of Regnerus’s study compare favorably with the shortcomings found routinely in the same-sex literature. It does no credit to the guild that researchers have choked on Regnerus’s paper while happily swallowing dozens of faulty studies over the last 20 years—because, you can’t help but think, those studies were taken as confirming the “no difference” dogma. “If the Regnerus study is to be thrown out,” wrote the Canadian family economist Douglas Allen in a statement supporting Regnerus, “then practically everything else [in the literature] has to go with it.” 

Social science research can be helpful, but most of us who are non-social scientists and non-statisticians won’t be able to evaluate the quality of research studies. And in this highly politicized, pro-homosexual climate, it’s difficult to determine the reliability of even assessments of the quality of the research. 

I wonder if academicians are as suspect of homosexuality-related research conducted by those who believe volitional homosexual acts are inherently moral as they are of those who believe it’s inherently immoral.

Finally, social science research has limited utility and certainly can’t be used as any ultimate arbiter of morality. If, for example, social science research were to show that children raised by parents who were biological siblings fared just as well as children raised by non-siblings, I don’t think society would conclude that sibling incest is morally defensible—at least not yet.

Stand With Us

Your support of our work and ministry is always much needed and greatly appreciated. Your promotion of our emails on Facebook, Twitter, your own email network, and prayer for financial support is a huge part of our success in being a strong voice for the pro-life, pro-marriage and pro-family message here in the Land of Lincoln.

Please consider standing with us by giving a tax-deductible donation HERE, or by sending a gift to P.O. Box 88848, Carol Stream, IL  60188.

When it comes to supporting God’s design for marriage, Illinois Family Institute isn’t “chicken,” and neither is Chick-fil-A president Dan Cathy.  Christian-owned Chick-fil-A is under attack because Mr. Cathy has publicly affirmed his belief in the biblical definition of marriage. 

As a result, homosexual groups have launched un-relenting and vicious public attacks against Chick-fil-A. Here in Illinois, Equality Illinois, a pro-LGBT activist group, is calling for a “Kiss-In” this Friday, August 3rd.  According to news reports, Equality Illinois says, “LGBT supporters will show their disdain for Chick-Fil-A’s policies with public displays of affection in front of their restaurants.”  And in the process they will once again be demonstrating just how intolerant, insensitive and disrespectful the Left is in pushing its “anything goes” agenda.  

Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day is being promoted by Gov. Mike Huckabee, Senator Rick Santorum, Gov. Sarah Palin, American Family Association, Family Research Council, WallBuilders and Illinois Family Institute.  This is a great way of showing our support for a company whose owners believe in marriage as one man and one woman.

IFI encourages you to patronize a local Chick-fil-A restaurant on August 1st,  if you are able.  If you cannot make it this Wednesday, please visit one sometime this week. For a list of Chick-fil-A locations in the state of Illinois, click HERE.

And when you do, please take a moment to thank the staff and management by letting them know you appreciate the company’s Christian values.

An ugly cultural truth has been confirmed through the Chick-fil-A mess. Yes, some glimmers of light momentarily pierced the darkness as we saw most of the country’s liberal columnists and pundits condemn Boston Mayor Thomas Menino, Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel, Chicago Alderman Joe Moreno, and now Philadelphia Councilman Jim Kenney for their anti-liberty pontifications. 

I say “glimmers” of light because these same pundits also feverishly assured the public that while they defend the First Amendment, they condemn Dan Cathy’s views, lest anyone think they’re ignorant, provincial, un-evolved, un-hip, hateful chuckleheads. 

I say “momentarily” because I have no confidence that a decade from now our liberal pundits and columnists will be such vociferous defenders of speech rights and religious liberty when it comes to homosexuality. We need only look at Canada to see our future. 

Religious discrimination directed at any religion is wrong, offensive, and scary, but what Americans should have learned through recent events is that in America, there’s really only one faith tradition against which our cultural elites pride themselves in discriminating: theologically orthodox Christianity. (Many also rather enjoy mocking orthodox Christians). 

A number of stories have emerged that reveal that Menino and Emanuel are far more generous to and tolerant of those who hold the same marriage views as Dan Cathy but follow religious traditions that aren’t as politically easy to persecute.

Boston radio host Michael Graham explains that “Mayor Menino ‘sold’ $2 million worth of city property to the [Islamic Society of Boston’s mosque] for $175,000, despite their well-documented links to Muslim extremism. The mosque teaches a form of Islam that condemns homosexuals to death.”

Rahm Emanuel proclaimed “‘Chick-fil-A’s values are not Chicago values. They’re not respectful of our residents, our neighbors and our family members. And if you’re gonna be part of the Chicago community, you should reflect Chicago values.'” That strikes many as a peculiar comment in light of the fact that until a few months ago the president whom Emanuel served opposed same-sex marriage and said so explicitly during his first presidential campaign.

It’s also peculiar because Emanuel apparently feels no moral queasiness about the Nation of Islam reopening its restaurant Salaam in Chicago even though Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan said this about same-sex marriage:

Sin is sin….[Obama’s] the first president that sanctioned what the Scriptures forbid. Now why is it all you politicians take your oath of office on the Bible? If the Book is no good, what the h*ll are you using it for?

Philadelphia Councilman Kenney is a Jimmy-come-lately to the freedom fray and apparently hasn’t noticed that even most “progressives” are troubled by the implications of government efforts to penalize someone for exercising his First Amendment rights.  In his effort to promote tolerance in “the city of Brotherly Love and Sisterly Affection,” Kenney wrote this to Dan Cathy (you can’t make this stuff up): “So please—take a hike and take your intolerance with you.”

The notion that the Constitution guarantees the right of men to marry men and women to marry women is sufficiently bizarre to cause some serious grave-turning among our Founding Fathers. So too would be the notion that opposing “same-sex marriage” could get you in a financial or legal sticky-wicket. This is not progress. Our collective cultural understanding of church-state relations, marriage, and sexuality is devolving from sense to pernicious non-sense.

Please Christians, get educated and speak up boldly while you’ve got the chance. If not for yourselves, do it for your children and grandchildren.

From today’s Chicago Tribune and Scott Stantis:

Take ACTION:  If you haven’t yet taken action, please click HERE to let Alderman Joe Moreno know that his actions constitute an intolerant affront to many Illinoisans, threaten religious liberty and speech rights, and demonstrate a profound lack of respect for diversity.  Please be respectful in your comments.

More ACTION:  Pro-family groups across the country are calling for a Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day on Wednesday, August 1st.  IFI would like to encourage you to patronize a local restaurant, if you are able. For a list of Chick-fil-A locations in the state of Illinois, click HERE.

Stand With Us

Your support of our work and ministry is always much needed and greatly appreciated. Your promotion of our emails on Facebook, Twitter, your own email network, and prayer for financial support is a huge part of our success in being a strong voice for the pro-life, pro-marriage and pro-family message here in the Land of Lincoln.

Please consider standing with us by giving a tax-deductible donation HERE, or by sending a gift to P.O. Box 88848, Carol Stream, IL  60188.

Another large company has recently come out of the corporate closet in support of same-sex marriage. Food giant General Mills has joined a growing list of corporate gay marriage supporters like Target and Starbucks.

Speaking at a Gay Pride event recently, CEO Ken Powell said General Mills opposes an effort to preserve marriage as the union of one man and one woman in Minnesota, where the corporation is headquartered.

Tom Forsythe, vice president of corporate communications, echoed Powell’s thoughts claiming the proposed constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage would hurt Minnesota’s economy.  “For decades, General Mills has worked to create an inclusive culture for our employees. We believe it is important for Minnesota to be viewed as inclusive and welcoming as well. We oppose the proposed constitutional amendment because we do not believe it is in the best interests of our employees or our state economy,” he said.

The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) blasted the General Mills Corporation for the show of support.  “Marriage as the union of one man and one woman is profoundly in the common good, and it is especially important for children,” said Brian Brown, NOM’s president. “General Mills makes billions marketing cereal to parents of young children. It has now effectively declared a war on marriage with its own customers when it tells the country that it is opposed to preserving traditional marriage, which is what the Minnesota Marriage Protection Amendment does.”

A national survey conducted by the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) last year showed that 63 percent of people with children living in their home, “believe marriage should be defined only as a union between one man and one woman.” Just thirty-five percent of people with children at home disagreed with the statement. Overall, the ADF survey found that 62 percent of adults believe marriage is only the union of a man and a woman.

“This will go down as one of the dumbest corporate PR stunts of all time,” said Brian Brown. “It’s ludicrous for a big corporation to intentionally inject themselves into a divisive social issue like gay marriage. It’s particularly dumb for a corporation that makes billions selling cereal to the very people they just opposed.”

The maker of cereals such as Cheerios, Chex and Cinnamon Toast Crunch joins St. Jude Medical as one of two companies based in Minnesota who have taken an anti-amendment position. Most companies have pledged neutrality on the issue.

“It is very disappointing that General Mills has decided to play PC politics by pandering to a small but powerful interest group that is bent on redefining marriage, the core institution of society,” said John Helmberger, Chairman of Minnesota for Marriage. “Marriage is more than a commitment between two people who love each other. It was created by God for the care and well-being of the next generation. The amendment is about preserving marriage and making sure that voters always remain in control over the definition of marriage in our state and not activist judges or politicians.”

The Chicago Tribune is reporting  that Chicago Alderman Joe Moreno (D-1st Ward) is blocking the construction of a Chick-fil-A in his ward because he disagrees with owner Dan Cathy’s beliefs about marriage. Since Dan Cathy’s beliefs are explicitly religious, Moreno’s effort would seem to violate the Illinois Human Rights Act  which states the following:

                It is the public policy of this State:

(A)   Freedom from Unlawful Discrimination. To secure for all individuals within Illinois the freedom from discrimination against any individual because of his or her race, color, religion, sex, national origin, ancestry, age marital status, physical or mental handicap, military status, sexual orientation, or unfavorable discharge from military service in connection with employment, real estate transactions, access to financial credit, and the availability of public accommodations.

The Tribune further reports that “Mayor Rahm Emanuel backed Moreno’s ideological viewpoint, saying the city does not share the values espoused by Dan Cathy, president of the family-owned Chick-fil-A fast-food restaurant chain.” Really? The entire city of Chicago rejects the belief that marriage is a union between one man and one woman? To whom exactly is King Rahm referring? Does he speak for all of the little people in his kingdom?

Moreno has decided that no one who wishes to do business in his ward can express the belief that marriage is a union between one man and one woman. The hubris and ignorance in his words and actions are astonishing. The threat to speech rights and religious liberty, frightening.

Take ACTION:  Click HERE to let Alderman Joe Moreno know that his actions constitute an intolerant affront to many Illinoisans, threaten religious liberty and speech rights, and demonstrate a profound lack of respect for diversity.  Please be respectful in your comments.

More ACTION:  Pro-family groups across the country are calling for a Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day on Wednesday, August 1st.  IFI would like to encourage you to patronize a local restaurant, if you are able. For a list of Chick-fil-A locations in the state of Illinois, click HERE.

Michael Signorile, a homosexual activist, wrote a piece on Huffington Post about recently deceased astronaut Sally Ride’s homosexuality.  Here’s an excerpt from his post:

Ride’s posthumous coming out is a wonderful gift to America’s youth. And it’s what we needed right now. If astronauts are among the ultimate heroes and examples of American ingenuity, fortitude and bravery, then with that one line in her obituary — survived by “Tam O’Shaughnessy, her partner of 27 years” — Sally Ride dispeled [sic]all the ugliness foisted on this country in recent weeks by the Boy Scouts of America [and] Chick-Fil-A…. The Boy Scouts, which claims to value “good conduct, respect for others, and honesty,” believes gay kids and gay and lesbian adult leaders don’t measure up. But with her service to the country, not just as member of NASA’s space program but with her dedication to educating American children, and particularly young girls, about science, Sally Ride shows the Boy Scouts to be running purely on the fumes of bias.

Signorile is known for being a pioneer in the “outing” of homosexual journalists and other public figures. He’s also notorious for his escapades with the radical homosexual group ACT-UP, which included pointing at  then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) in a church and shouting, “‘He is no man of God—he is the devil!’”

Just a few random thoughts about Signorile’s post:

• Just as Sally Ride’s homosexuality does not diminish her impressive accomplishments and should not diminish our respect for them, her accomplishments do not mitigate the immorality of volitional homosexual acts and should not affect our understanding of those acts as immoral. But homosexual activists use the accomplishments and good character traits of homosexuals as a non-rational means of transforming how society thinks about homosexuality. 

Do the accomplishments of Franklin Delano Roosevelt render adultery moral? Do the accomplishments of Martin Luther King Jr. render plagiarism or philandering moral? Do the academic accomplishments of former Columbia University political science professor David Epstein render his consensual sexual relationship with his adult daughter moral? Do the accomplishments of Father Robert Drinan (Leftist Jesuit priest, partial-birth abortion supporter, and former Democratic congressman from Massachusetts) render his fondling of Slate magazine writer Emily Yoffe when she was 18 years old moral? 

Sally Ride’s “posthumous coming out” is not a wonderful gift to America’s youth if they are snookered into believing that her accomplishments tell us anything about homosexuality. Her homosexuality is a very sad fact about her personal life. 

• According to deep thinker Michael Signorile, the Boy Scouts of America “foisted ugliness” on this country when this private organization voted to retain their historical policy regarding homosexuality.  So now any policy—even that of private organizations—that reflects the belief that volitional homosexual acts are immoral constitutes foisting ugliness on America. Does that proposition hold true for polyamory? If a private organization bans open polyamorists from leadership roles, is it guilty of foisting ugliness on America?

• Signorile tries futilely to make the case that the Boy Scouts of America believes that “gay kids and gay and lesbian adult leaders don’t measure up” in regard to standards of “good conduct, respect for others, and honesty.” Well, the Boys Scouts of America have never claimed that kids or adults who identify as homosexual are disrespectful of others or that they’re dishonest. The policy narrowly reflects the belief that volitional homosexual acts do not constitute good conduct, which does not reflect bias. There are a plethora of reasons for the belief that homosexual acts are disordered and immoral—both religious and secular. I wonder if Signorile actually knows what “bias” means. And I wonder, do Signorile’s moral claims, especially those that reflect moral disapproval, smell of bias? 

Stand With Us

Your support of our work and ministry is always much needed and greatly appreciated. Your promotion of our emails on Facebook, Twitter, your own email network, and prayer for financial support is a huge part of our success in being a strong voice for the pro-life, pro-marriage and pro-family message here in the Land of Lincoln.

Please consider standing with us by giving a tax-deductible donation HERE, or by sending a gift to P.O. Box 88848, Carol Stream, IL  60188.

Struggling with homosexuality is a paradox, but embracing homosexuality is a contradiction.

Written by Michael Horton and reposted from ChristianityToday.com

Can Christians embrace a same-sex lifestyle and still be members in good standing in a Christian church?

I’ve been asked to comment on the controversy provoked by a recent interview in the Atlantic with Alan Chambers, the president of Exodus International—an evangelical ministry founded to help Christians and non-Christians find freedom from the guilt and power of a same-sex lifestyle.

Christians may debate public policy, but in this interview, Chambers raises issues that are very clearly addressed in Scripture. Especially when we are dealing with human lives, daring to draw our counsel from God, we need to affirm the simplicity of biblical teaching on the subject while rejecting an over-simplifying of the issues involved.

The problem (sin and death) as well as the solution (redemption in Christ through the gospel) are simple, but hardly simplistic. In terms of sin, Scripture is quite clear about the condition (original sin—guilt, bondage, corruption leading to death) and the acts that arise from it. There are versions of the pro-gay and anti-gay agenda that assume a simplistic rather than simple understanding of the issue—at least from a biblical perspective. Reject it or embrace it: that’s the easy choice that makes for great sound-bites but ruins lives.

So let’s apply this “simple but not simplistic” formula to homosexuality.

Simple … 

First, the Bible’s teaching on the subject is simple in the sense of being straightforward and unambiguous. Does Scripture forbid homosexual behavior? Of course it does. Jesus and his apostles taught that God’s intention in marriage is for a man to leave his parents and join himself to one woman (Matt. 5:27-32; 19:3-6). Furthermore, the New Testament clearly teaches that homosexuality is immoral (Rom. 1:26-27; 1 Cor. 6:9-10; 1 Tim. 1:10) and that those who embrace a sexually immoral lifestyle will not inherit Christ’s kingdom (Gal. 5:19-21; 6:7-9; Eph 5:5; 1 Thes. 4:2-8). Isn’t it more complicated than that? After all, doesn’t Paul have in mind relationships based on temple prostitution or perhaps slavery, rather than committed relationships? No, the noun arsenokoitēs means “those who practice homosexuality.” It is an unusual compound, but it makes Paul’s point. And it’s not like prohibitions against eating shellfish or pork chops: part of the old covenant law that distinguished Israel visibly from the nations as a theocratic nation, which foreshadowed Christ and is now obsolete since the reality (Christ himself) has arrived.

As with the law, Scripture is also marvelously simple in proclaiming the gospel: Christ has won for us that victory over sin’s guilt, dominion—and ultimately, presence—that we were helpless to defeat.

… Without Being Simplistic

However, just at this point the complexity of both sin and redemption come into the picture. If sin were just a behavior, we could stop it. If we had done it a lot, we might need some help in stopping it, but eventually—if we tried hard enough—we could. However, sin is not just a behavior. Long before they made any choice about what to do with it, people were predisposed toward same-sex attractions. Affirming original sin, Christians don’t have trouble accepting this. We reject the Pelagian reduction of sin to an action that one can overcome with enough will-power. We are depraved (warped) in every respect: spiritually, morally, intellectually, volitionally, and physically. Long before genetics became a flourishing field, Christians have spoken about sin as an inherited condition. Furthermore, we can inherit specific sins—or at least tendencies—of our fathers and mothers. Then add to that the ways in which people are sinned against by the attitudes and behaviors of others, especially in childhood. So even before we actually decide to take that first drink, place that first bet, unleash our first punch, or fool around with our best friend, we are already caught up in the tangled web of solidarity in sin. At the same time, we are responsible for our choices, which reinforce or counter the specific sins toward which we are especially disposed.

There is no reason to think that Christians who struggle with these attractions are any less justified and renewed by God’s grace in Christ than are those who wrestle especially with greed or anger or gossip. The gospel frees us to confess our sins without fear of condemnation. Looking to Christ alone for our justification and holiness, we can finally declare war on our indwelling sin because we have peace with God.

If there is no biblical basis for greater condemnation, there is also no scriptural basis for greater laxity in God’s judgment of this sin. It is as unloving to hold out hope to those who embrace a homosexual lifestyle as it is to assure idolaters, murderers, adulterers, and thieves that they are safe and secure from all alarm. Nor will it do to say, “Well, we’re all idolaters, etc.,” since here—in 1 Corinthians 6—Paul’s concern is not to beat down legalistic self-righteousness but to warn professing Christians that they cannot worship Diana on Tuesday and Jesus on Sunday. Paul’s point is clear: For Gentiles, sexual immorality (including homosexuality, within proper social boundaries) is normal, but to take that view is to exclude oneself from the kingdom of Christ. A proud sinner defiantly ignoring the lordship of Christ while professing to embrace him as Savior is precisely what Paul says is impossible. These passages do not threaten believers who struggle with indwelling sin and fall into grievous sins (see Romans 7 for that category); rather, they threaten professing believers who do not agree with God about their sin.

At the end of his rope, a young man called me at the suggestion of a mutual friend. After a summer of discussing these questions and building new categories, with the support of a good church, he returned home. He told his parents that he was neither “gay” nor “straight.” Secure in Christ’s sufficient work, he was a Christian struggling with same-sex attraction yet who rejects the gay lifestyle. It was not a category for these folks. After his pastor informed him that he was one of those Gentiles whom Paul refers to as “given up” by God to their depraved desires, this friend and brother committed suicide. Superficial views of sin can be deadly, especially when the lethal weapon was a misuse of Scripture.

Yet for every simplistic condemnation there are 20 simplistic approvals. Given that only decades ago psychologists and psychiatrists were torturing LGBT patients in the name of science, it may have been on balance salutary when the American Psychological Association issued dire warnings against those who regard homosexuality as a “disorder.” However, psychology exceeds the boundaries of its competence when it imagines that taking a behavior off of the psychological disorder list means that it cannot be considered a disorder (or sin) in a moral and spiritual sense.

One problem of simplistic views of sin is that they always generate simplistic views of redemption. Scripture speaks of salvation in terms of a tension between the “already” of salvation and the “not-yet” that still awaits us. Unwilling to embrace the paradox of being “simultaneously justified and sinful,” we reject either justification or sanctification. However, a simplistic view of sin as acts requires as its solution nothing more than red-faced threats or smiling therapies for getting our act together. “Just stop doing it,” says the simplistic anti-gay position. “Just embrace it,” says the simplistic pro-gay position. There is even a version of the gospel today that is just as simplistic as the legalistic alternative. In many ways, it sounds like a thinly Christian veneer laid over a basically therapeutic message: “God loves you unconditionally” (with no mention of repentance, faith, or even Christ); “no matter what you do, God isn’t angry toward you,” and so forth. Anyone who imagines that how we live does not affect our relationship with God has not taken seriously the warnings and exhortations throughout the New Testament. Self-trust is not the only sin that distracts us from looking to Christ alone in faith.

Conformity to Christ’s image can only be driven by the gospel. And yet it is directed by the specific commands and exhortations of God’s word. How many times are we admonished to fleetemptations in Scripture? Sin is attractive largely because it is always a corruption of something good, true, and beautiful. One may have a greater propensity for inordinate eating, drinking, or workaholism than others. Yet it is the duty of Christian wisdom to resist situations that inflame our fallen tendency to pervert God’s good gifts. Lust is a perversion of sex and homosexuality is a perversion of philia—that profound love that men and women have for each other that is wonderfully different from the love of husband and wife.

A repentant Christian is one who agrees with God about the nature of sin and the need for redemption through Jesus Christ. Even when such a person falls, the face is set against the besetting sin and fixed on the faithful Savior at the Father’s right hand.

Refusing to agree with God about the nature of such behavior as sinful, those who embrace sexual immorality as a lifestyle reject the gospel. One cannot even seek forgiveness for something that one does not regard as sinful in the first place. Repentance means “change of mind.” It does not mean that one never struggles with that sin again; in fact, the struggleindicates repentance! Rather, it means that has decisively set his or her face against it. And we repent together, not just by ourselves.

“A Hospital for Sinners”—Really?

We like the idea of the church as a hospital for sinners-in-general; it’s specific illnesses that we’d rather not have to treat.

Often in our churches there is a tendency to idolize marriage and the family. From the New Testament perspective, the church as God’s family is more ultimate and intimate than our natural one. Yet if someone asks what our church has to offer families, most of us can think of something to say, while we might be at a loss for words if someone asks what our church has to offer single people—especially Christians struggling with same-sex attraction.

And yet, when it comes to cross-bearing, what greater testimony to Christ’s cross can there be than that a sinner would find his or her sufficiency in Christ to the extent that even sexual pleasure could be surrendered? Like other single Christians, freed from many domestic responsibilities, these brothers and sisters are able to invest more of their lives in the fellowship of saints. It changes the rest of the congregation, too, as others have to wrestle with their own responses and vulnerabilities. Children growing up recognize the seriousness of their own sin and the call to holiness; they also see firsthand just how true the gospel is on the ground, as they receive Communion together with brothers and sisters who have been forgiven much and therefore love much. This witness to Christ’s Cross expands beyond the local church. The unbelieving world may express hostility toward the traditional denunciations of homosexuality by churches, but it’s more difficult to mock people who have actually turned up their nose at the culture’s prized idol: the self with its unlimited range of identities. No, there is something more ultimate in reality and therefore more ultimately worth knowing than sexual pleasure.

It may sound like compassion, but it’s actually self-righteous pride to deny to some sinners that privilege of church membership and discipline that the rest of the body enjoys and from which it grows up into its head, Jesus Christ. We are all under church discipline: that is, the obligation to mutual accountability in the body of Christ. This is exercised, by Christ’s own appointment, through pastors and elders. Even in the extreme case of excommunication, where, after long-suffering admonitions and tearful pleas, unrepentant members are excluded from Communion in Christ’s body and blood, the goal even of this “tough love” is repentance and restoration to fellowship. Christians who fall are not under this threat. Rather, they are guided, encouraged, absolved, and admonished along with the rest of us. However, members who refuse the yoke of Christ are not Christians. It is one of the most obvious teachings in the New Testament that without repentance no one can be saved.

We dare not try to cut Christ in pieces, as if we could receive him deliverer from sin’s guilt but not from its dominion, or as Savior but not as Lord. Nor can we cut ourselves in pieces, severing our body from our soul—as if we could give our heart to Jesus and keep the title deed to our body. It’s precisely because our bodies are too important to the biblical drama that they cannot be exempted from biblical discipleship. As Paul put it:

The body is not meant for sexual immorality, but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body. And God raised the Lord and will also raise us up by his power. Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I then take the members of Christ and make them members of a prostitute? Never! Or do you not know that he who is joined to a prostitute becomes one body with her? For, as it is written, ‘The two will become one flesh.’ … Flee from sexual immorality …You are not your own, for you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body (1 Cor. 6:13-20).

Michael Horton is professor of theology and apologetics at Westminster Seminary, California, and editor-in-chief of Modern Reformation magazine. He is author of many books, most recently, The Gospel Commission: Recovering God’s Strategy for Making Disciples (Baker), the thesis of which will be the focus of a cover story in CT in the coming months.

Episcopal Church

The Episcopal Church has lost its collective theological mind. On Monday, July 9, 2012, the Episcopal Church General Convention voted to add the terms “gender identity and expression” to its anti-discrimination canon. That’s seems at minimum  odd because God clearly discriminates against cross-dressing.

What this means is that those who choose elective body mutilation (i.e., “sex reassignment surgery”) and cross-dressing can be ordained within the Episcopal church. Those who reject the sex that God has assigned them and who reject Scripture on cross-dressing and marriage and church leadership will now be teaching in churches.

Ironies abound, including the tragic irony that while Christ beckons children to come to Him, “trans-inclusive” Episcopalians will make church a place where children should not go.

Barney Frank

The arrogant U.S. Representative Barney Frank now has the dubious distinction of being the first member of Congress in the history of the United States to “marry” someone of his own sex. Frank also has the dubious distinction of having been reprimanded by the U.S. House of Representatives for fixing 33 parking tickets for the male prostitute whom Frank hired and housed in his home.

Frank recently pouted in an interview that none of his Republican colleagues had publicly congratulated him on his nuptials. He acknowledged private kudos from a few Republicans and hearty congrats from many Dems. Shame on anyone for congratulating Franks for his participation in a sham marriage that contributes to the further erosion of the institution that stands at the center of civilized public life.

Penguin Sexual Antics

The BBC is reporting  that a detailed account of the sexual activities of adelie penguins written by biologist George Murray Levick, who was part of Captain Scott’s expedition to the South Pole in 1910, has just been made public. This report reveals that adelie penguins were seen engaging in “sexual coercion, sexual and physical abuse of chicks, non-procreative sex,” sex with penguin corpses, and homosexual acts.

Much ink has been spilled about the children’s picture book And Tango Makes Three, which tells the heartwarming tale of purportedly homosexual penguins Roy and Silo who hatched a chick together.  They were deemed homosexual despite the fact that no one ever saw them engaged in sex.

Much less ink has been spilled—at least in the mainstream press—about the end of this saga. The purportedly homosexual Silo jubilantly celebrated by homosexual activists is now ex-gay, having been transformed by the alluring female Scrappy who sashayed into his life.

The larger question that Levick’s South Pole account brings into focus is, should we really be looking to the animal kingdom for our ideas about human morality?

And let’s pray that there are no picture books based on the penguin antics described by Dr. Levick.

Pride Parades

Parents who take their children to parades that celebrate deviant sexuality (aka “gay pride” parades) with obscene public behavior demonstrate their unworthiness to be parents. Americans for Truth has provided a glimpse into the sordid world of “pride” parades with photos from the recent sorry spectacle in Philadelphia which children of all ages not only attended but participated in.

What kind of government leaders permit and participate in such sickening public displays? What kind of business leaders sponsor and participate in such decadent spectacles? Has their lip-smacking lust for power, position, and money devoured their consciences?

And what kind of darkness clouds the hearts and minds of parents who bring their children to witness such soul-destroying pollution?

Click here to see some of what our business and government leaders think serve the best interests of the Philadelphia community, but be forewarned, it ain’t pretty.

Brad Pitt’s Mom

Jane Pitt deserves our thanks, admiration, and prayers for saying publicly what so few have the courage to say. She sent a letter to her local Springfield, Missouri newspaper in which she stated the unvarnished truth that Barack Obama supports “same sex marriage” and the killing of the unborn.

And how do those who clamor for “equal rights” while denying unborn babies the right to mere existence and who decry name-calling respond to Mrs. Pitt’s respectfully expressed views?  They respond by issuing death threats and hurling hair-curling epithets at Mrs. Pitt. So much for tolerance and diversity.

Please pray for Mrs. Pitt. Pray that God grants her peace, comfort, protection, wisdom, and courage.  And pray that we all, including Mrs. Pitt, remember that Jesus said, “you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved.”

Family “Diversity”

The notion that no one should ever feel bad about their behavior or the behavior of loved ones has proven to be a cultural toxin. In the service of non-discriminating non-judgmentalism, we now have picture books read to children in early elementary school that teach that all family structures are indistinguishable in terms of their inherent goodness. These books proclaim deceitfully that it matters not to the welfare of children whether they’re raised by single parents, divorced parents, or homosexual partners.

Silence in public schools on the topic of “diverse family structures” is not an option for “progressive” teachers who view themselves as “agents of change.” And teaching that intact, married heterosexual parents are best for children would be a grotesque injustice to these change agents. Nope, nothing less than affirmation of all structures will do—well, almost all. It will be at least a year or so before affirmation of polyamorous structures will be demanded.

But, if society is prohibited from saying, for example, that unwed single motherhood or divorce are harmful to children because saying so will make children feel bad, how will society discourage unwed single motherhood or divorce?