Dr. R. Albert Mohler Jr.

Tuesday’s release of a video showing the senior medical director of Planned Parenthood casually discussing the sale of organs from aborted babies is a moral challenge thrown right in the face of all Americans.

The video reveals Dr. Deborah Nucatola, senior director of medical services for Planned Parenthood, discussing the intentional harvesting of organs and other tissues from babies aborted in Planned Parenthood clinics. While reaching with her fork for salad, Dr. Nucatola openly tells a group she believes to be medical researchers that there is a great demand for fetal livers, but “a lot of people want intact hearts these days.”

Dr. Nucatola went on to explain in chilling detail that abortionists often plan in advance how to harvest desired organs, even telling the group that a “huddle” is sometimes held with clinic staff early in the day, so that targeted organs can be harvested from unborn babies.

Her language is beyond chilling as she described how abortions are conducted specifically to harvest intact organs: “We’ve been very good at getting heart, lung, liver, because we know that, so I’m not gonna crush that part. I’m gonna basically crush below, I’m gonna crush above, and I’m gonna see if I can get it all intact.” She also described using an abortion technique that appears to be partial-birth abortion.

The undercover video was released by the Center for Medical Progress, a group with ties to previous efforts to expose Planned Parenthood and the reality of its murderous work. As expected, Planned Parenthood struck back, claiming that the video misrepresented Dr. Nucatola, Planned Parenthood, and the procurement of fetal organs.

In the video, Dr. Nucatola suggests that a cost of $30 to $100 would be a likely range of charges for organs and tissues harvested from aborted babies. She also tells the group that Planned Parenthood does not want to be seen as profiting from the sale of such organs, but she makes clear that this concern is not hampering the harvesting and transfer of the organs.

The sale of human tissues is illegal in the United States, as is the timing or arranging of an abortion if the cause of the abortion is the procurement of organs or tissue. Within hours of the release of the video, Republican presidential candidates and at least two governors were calling for investigations into the involvement of Planned Parenthood in the business of selling fetal organs.

Likewise, the defenders of Planned Parenthood attacked the video and the organization behind it. But Planned Parenthood is clearly concerned about the effect of the video, and it should be. The sight of the senior medical director of Planned Parenthood reaching for salad as she explicitly discusses tearing apart babies in the womb is impossible to reduce to words.

Planned Parenthood called the video “heavily edited, secretly recorded,” and said that it “portrays Planned Parenthood’s participation in tissue donation programs that support lifesaving scientific research.”

The Center for Medical Progress also released over two hours of what it said was unedited video of the conversation. As in the case of previous revelations of wrongdoing by Planned Parenthood, the group goes after the accuser more than the accusations.

But Planned Parenthood is having a hard time keeping its story straight. Eric Ferrero, vice president of communications for the national organization, acknowledged the transfer of fetal organs and tissues, but said that it was all legal and insisted that “there is no financial benefit for tissue donation for either the patient or for Planned Parenthood.” And yet, a public relations firm supporting Planned Parenthood, also put out a release stating that “the transcript indicates that Deborah Nucatola was speculating on the range of reimbursement that patients can receive after stating that they wish to donate any tissues after a procedure.” Well, which is it?

Planned Parenthood stands at the epicenter of the Culture of Death and receives almost half a billion dollars a year in government support. They are not going to be able to explain this video away.

I have no reason to believe that the video is anything less than totally credible. But, even if Planned Parenthood somehow finds a way to evade justice in terms of criminal activity, the part of the video that Planned Parenthood does not –and cannot — deny reveals their senior medical director enjoying a conversation over a meal in which she describes tearing apart the bodies of unborn human beings in order to get the desired organ: “I’m gonna basically crush below, I’m gonna crush above, and I’m gonna see if I can get it all intact.”

When the Allied forces liberated the concentration camps of the Nazi regime, General Dwight D. Eisenhower ordered the ordinary German citizens of nearby towns and villages to walk through the camps and to see what they had allowed and facilitated. Eisenhower’s point was all too clear — you allowed this to happen, and you share the guilt.

So it is with all Americans. Planned Parenthood and the abortion industrial complex are funded with our tax dollars. Planned Parenthood’s founder, Margaret Sanger, was a racist openly committed to eugenics. Millions of unborn babies have died in its facilities. The group thrives because Americans allow it to thrive.

When this video went viral yesterday, I waited to see how the mainstream media and abortion supporters would respond. That response has, for the most part, been exactly what I expected — defend Planned Parenthood at any cost.

But the video is out there, and it will stay out there. There is no way to un-see it once it is seen.

Writing at Cosmopolitan magazine, abortion supporter Robin Marty said that she had seen the video. Then she said, “Now, frankly, I’m just going to yawn.”

Maybe she will, but if so that will require a massive act of denial. Later in her own essay she stated: “I shuddered when listening to the discussion of how the fetus can be removed, and the idea of a ‘menu’ of fetal tissue and organs that could be procured depending on the gestational age of the pregnancies being terminated and the number of patients who consent to donating is one I hope I never have to encounter again.”

Once again, which is it?

We must pray that this video will mark an important turning point in our nation’s conscience. Images and words can become seared in our minds. The horrifying knowledge of harvested baby hearts must lead to our own broken hearts.

A nation that will allow this, will allow anything.

This article was orginally posted at albertmohler.com

By Ryan T. Anderson

By Tony Perkins

When the President said he wanted to make over the military, lifting the ban on transgenders isn’t what most people had in mind.

With less than 18 months left in his mission of “fundamentally transforming America” President Obama is accelerating the effort to repeal the ban stopping men and women suffering from gender confusion from serving in the military.

In an announcement Monday, Secretary Ash Carter said, “The Defense Department’s regulations regarding transgender service members are outdated and are causing uncertainty that distracts commanders from our core missions.”

No, what distracts commanders from their core missions are ridiculous social experiments like this one.

As part of the statement, Carter launched a six-month study on the impact of repealing the ban — which, if it’s anything like “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’s,” will have no bearing whatsoever on the final decision-making. And, after five years of that experiment, support for the repeal isn’t exactly growing. Just a third (32%) of voters now think open homosexuality is a good thing for the military — an all-time low, Rasmussen found.

While LGBT activists cheer, others can only shake their heads in astonishment.

“Considering the abysmal condition of our military and a decline in readiness, why is this a top priority for the Obama administration?” our own Lt. Gen. Jerry Boykin asked.

If the President were as focused on the world’s threats like he was focused on LGBT activism, America would be the safest, most powerful country in the world. Instead, the White House is so busy using the troops as carriers for his social engineering that our military can’t even confront the real enemy. It all confirms what former Defense Secretary Robert Gates wrote in his book — that the only time he sensed passion from the President about any issue involving the military was overturning “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”

Meanwhile, U.S. veterans (if they aren’t on waiting lists for health care) watch helplessly as the blood they poured out to help stabilize the Middle East is lost while this administration pushes an agenda to persuade Americans that the country’s current policy is “discriminatory.” But the reality is, the military discriminates constantly in its attempts to find the best physical and mental recruits it can.

Why is this any different?

Otherwise qualified men and women are turned away from the military every day for bad eyes, flat feet, asthma, and a host of other truly immutable characteristics. Yet in the phony name of fairness, our leaders would willingly let people into the military whose mental state is not only unstable — but a detriment to their fellow service members? It’s illogical. Allergies can keep you out of the military, but gender dysphoria can’t?

The tension with China and Iran is escalating, and America’s strength is declining. Instead of Humvees, we’re buying hormones. A military whose budget was cut to bare bones will suddenly be forking over millions of dollars for surgeries, therapies, pills, and retrofitting of facilities. And for what? Certainly not to make the military more capable of performing its mission. It is time for our nation’s military leaders to put their stars on the line and tell the President “no.”

The thousands of men and women who serve in our military follow the orders flowing from the Pentagon, trusting that their leaders are doing what is necessary to accomplish the military’s mission — not the deviant agenda of this President.

This article was originally posted at barbwire.com

Let’s turn the culture war into a culture competition.

By Fay Voshell

The extremists of the LGBT movement display all the characteristics of a cult-like religion, including opposing critical thinking, severely penalizing any opposition, demanding complete and unwavering acceptance of its doctrines, putting loyalty to the cult above family and any other institution, including the Church, disallowing any member the right to change one’s mind and leave orseek change without dire consequences, as well as essentially demanding complete capitulation of conscience of doubtful converts.

Just as importantly, the LGBT movement deals with ultimate questions belonging to theology. The movement holds to theological doctrines concerning the nature of the human being, sexual identity and behavior, the definition of marriage, the family and the place of children, the role of government, and the transformation of traditional American institutions and documents adhering to Christian principles, particularly the Church — and the US Constitution. It has set itself up as a new sexual orthodoxy that usurps the place of orthodox Christianity and Judaism.

In brief, the establishment of the new state orthodoxy, the genesis of which can be found in ancient pagan phallic cults, is the culmination of several generations of efforts to displace Christianity and Judaism in America. Now that the modern sexual creed is woven into the very fabric of the executive and judicial branches, both will accelerate attempts to promulgate the sex cult, increasingly targeting Orthodox Christians and Jews.

As noted, the LGBT movement is characterized by severe and draconian reductionism.  Only one aspect of what it means to be human – sexuality — is emphasized.

Reductionism is always tyranny’s handmaiden.  People are much more easily categorized and then punished when they are seen through only one prism or measured by only one characteristic such as race or sexual proclivities.  Dissenters are far more readily judged to condemnation by only “incorrect” belief. That is why tyrannical ideologues take one or two favorite doctrines deemed as infallibly central to their power plays, separate people out according to belief or disbelief in those tenets, and then punish or completely eliminate any who oppose them.

The litmus test of the new creed can be race, a single ideological tenet, or the equivalent of a password. “Are you more than 50% Jewish?”  “Do you believe in Chairman Mao’s Little Red Book?”  “Stomp on this image of Christ.”

No? You are anti-government and a threat to civil society. Justified oppression awaits you.

The new state sanctioned cult also has its litmus tests.

“Will you or will you not bake a cake for our gay wedding and thus participate in a service of a faith that is in diametrically opposed to your own beliefs?”  No?  You are fined $135,000 and must obey a gag order.

“You object to having your sixth grade daughter fitted with an IUD?”  You must adhere to a strange morality diametrically opposed to the tenets of our cult.  You are a Christian? Your parental rights and your consciences are overruled by what your little girl and we choose.

“You don’t want your children to receive lessons on anal sex and incest?  You object to your school’s goal to teach students about homosexual, bisexual, and transgender identity?”  You probably should be visited by Social Services.

Very importantly, the new passwords and litmus tests of the new American state religion will make it relatively easy for a tyrannous United States government to persecute and prosecute the Christian Church, raiding it for its wealth by taxationand eventually seizing its assets, much as Henry VIII confiscated the wealth of the monasteries when he made himself the supreme head of the Church of England.

All that has to be done is to apply the sex cult’s litmus test to pastors and the congregants: “Will you marry same sex couples?” An answer in the negative will automatically make the church and every member within an enemy of the state and therefore worthy of exploitation of assets and, ultimately, complete destruction.

Hyperbole?  Scarcely.

History is replete with efforts to make the gods of the state ascendant and without competition, complete with forced compliance to new mores, dictates and “rights,” sexual and/or otherwise.  The question of “Will you marry same sex couples” amounts to the older, perennial challenge to dissidents of any era: “Will you bow down and worship Caesar?”

Caesar has many guises by which he has time and again attempted to enter and conquer the sacred temple, bringing his statues and religion with him.  So there is nothing new in the attempt of the LGBT movement to insert the doctrine of gay marriage as a scared rite within the Christian Church, forcing the Church to alter one of its most sacred ceremonies in order the liturgy and doctrines be retrofitted to the new dogma.

After all, Jews of the Maccabaen era found out just how far Caesar would go when Antiochus IV decided to destroy them and their religion, supplanting Judaism with Greek culture, including Greek mores and Greek gods.  As Bible History Online relates:

“The most radical Hellenizers felt that things were not moving fast enough…. It was now the goal that Judaism was to be destroyed. In the mind of Antiochus to be un-Hellenized was stiff-necked nonsense. If Judaism stood in the way then Judaism was to be destroyed so he gave the orders.

“The Syrian army marched into Jerusalem and many of the people were killed and others escaped to the hills…Orders were given: NO Sabbath, NO Holy Days, and NO Circumcision. A Statue of Zeus/Antiochus was placed in the Temple above the altar. The most detestable animals (the pig) were brought and sacrificed on the altar.”

The outrages of Antiochus IV would be repeated by Caligula, who proclaimed himself a god.  He sent Petronius with an army to Jerusalem to place his statue in the very Temple of the Jews.  Petronius was to kill all who opposed the emperor’s decrees.

In modern times, Caesar — in the guise of fascism, communism, Islamism and progressivism — has demanded and is demanding Christians and others who will not worship the contemporary gods of their particular religious movement bow down and worship the gods of the State or be destroyed.

Once again, but this time here in America, the whole culture is to be fundamentally transformed by worship of Caesar’s gods.  Violence toward dissenters is and will be the inevitable result.

Need we look far for contemporary examples of how Caesar’s newly established sex cult demands all bow down and worship?  Lifesite News reports:

“Businesses that disagree with gay marriage are being forced to shut down. Churches in Denmark have been ordered to perform gay weddings. Our tax dollars are used to fund Pride Parades that are starting to look like public orgies. The Sexual Revolutionaries are not, for the most part, about living and let live—only look at the Trinity Western University case.  They are about compulsory acceptance. Sexual rights, in other words, take precedence over all other rights.”

Bryan Fischer warns American Christians may soon be disqualified from holding public office:

“Mark my words on this. The ultimate outcome of this unconscionable act is that one day, before too long; it will be officially illegal for Christians to hold public office in the United States.

“How will this happen? It’s simple. Every holder of public office takes a solemn and sacred oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States. Liberals will argue that since June 26, 2015, our Constitution has been amended to include the right to marriage based on the infamous crime against nature.

“The left will argue that if an individual is not prepared to swear that they wholeheartedly support sodomy-based marriage, they have no right at all even to take the oath of office. An individual’s opposition to same-sex marriage will be (falsely) interpreted as opposition to the Constitution itself.”

It is clear that just as in the days of the hellenization of the Jews, just as in the days of the Caesars and all the rest of history’s tyrants, the battle lines are being drawn.  The Christian Church will be required to stand for orthodoxy or be reduced to exile and ultimately total irrelevance.

But can Christians fight, even when in exile?

The answer to that question is, “Yes.”  They must.

The Church can remember it is called to resist earthly authorities when those authorities exceed their God-ordained limits.  Civil disobedience is a means of resistance against those who would force the Church to go against its conscience.

In Philadelphia, Liam Goligher, the pastor of Tenth Presbyterian Church, which the author regularly attends, has written about Tenth Presbyterian’s response to the SCOTUS decision:

“We believe that God will use this challenge to purify his church in the world. There are already conversations afoot to take away our non-profit status, which will undoubtedly have a huge effect on our work. Already there are threats that if we oppose the ruling of the Supreme Court we will be held guilty of hate speech. So be it. Our consciences are tied to the Word of God and we must stand there.”

In so writing, Dr. Goligher and others  — Franklin Graham among them– standing against the predations of the State against Christian orthodoxy and conscience, echo the words of Martin Luther, who when called on to recant his “heretical” position, said:

“Unless I am convicted by scripture and plain reason — I do not accept the authority of popes and councils for they have contradicted each other — my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not recant anything, for to go against conscience is neither right nor safe. Here I stand, I cannot do otherwise, God help me. Amen.”

All Christians who adhere to orthodoxy and to their consciences, be they pastors, theologians or congregants, will find an example in the apostle Peter.  When he was told to shut up and stop preaching and standing for the truths of Christianity, Peter the Rock said, “We must obey God rather than men.”

At one time Christians in America were free to say, “We must obey God rather than men.”  They were even free to put into practice the belief “We must obey God rather than men.” There was great glory in that belief.  There were great deeds and great reforms stemming from it, as the abolition and civil rights movements were to reveal.

Now, under increasing duress from the State concerning religious liberty, Christians must stand and say it again and again and again:

“We must obey God rather than men.”

---

This article was originally published at www.americanthinker.com

Written by Scott Phelps

Bristol Palin is facing stiff criticism in the wake of her announcement that she is pregnant for a second time — and still unmarried. She is being called a hypocrite due to her work as an abstinence advocate for the Candie’s Foundation. Palin denies ever being paid as an “abstinence spokesperson.” Posting evidence online to the contrary, her detractors now say that she is not only a hypocrite but also a liar.

Bristol Palin is right. She is neither.

The Candie’s campaign was titled: “Pause Before You Play.” In one video, Palin tells her male suitor that she hopes he is “committed to safe-sex.” She later states, “I’m worried about you and you practicing safe-sex” to which he replies, “I practice a whole lot” as he pulls out a wad of condoms to prove he is “practicing safe-sex.” Palin then responds:  “Pause before you play.”

So Palin’s not lying. That’s not an abstinence message. It’s actually the “safer-sex” message promoted by her most strident critics. Calling this an “abstinence” campaign gives abstinence a bad name. It’s like someone buying a knock-off Coach purse on a New York sidewalk and then complaining about the poor quality. This is why we have trademark laws. Too bad we can’t trademark “abstinence” to combat the forgeries.  Palin was not an abstinence spokesperson.

In Candie’s defense, they don’t claim to promote “abstinence” or “marriage.”  Their low-bar threshold is simply “to delay pregnancy,” a standard which, by the way, Palin achieved.

In addressing her critics, Palin defends herself saying that Candie’s is  “a teen pregnancy prevention non-profit and I worked for them when I was 18 and 19… However, I’m not 17 anymore, I am 24. I’ve been employed at the same doctor’s office for over six years now; I own a home; I have a well-rounded, beautiful son.”

See. She did it. She’s not a teen anymore. She delayed her pregnancy, just as the Candie’s campaign said. She’s no hypocrite.  Seriously.

But this is the problem. Too many teens have received and followed Candie’s advice to delay pregnancy without being taught the value of waiting until marriage. Candie’s states:

“Each year millions of teens are exposed to the foundation’s message, which encourages them to delay pregnancy …  our goal is to influence teen culture.”

And they are.

Last year, 882,398 babies were born to women in Palin’s age group (20-24).  Of those, 579,653, or two-thirds of those babies, were born to unmarried mothers. But Candie’s isn’t the only group pushing the “delay-sex-safe-sex” message that has been so detrimental to our young adult culture. Candie’s is just a tiny part of the anti-abstinence groupthink that pervades the media and much of the educational establishment.

Abstinence education does not teach teens to “delay sex” but rather to save all sexual activity for marriage. These are two distinctly different messages, as this episode illustrates. Abstinence programs encourage teens to finish school, pursue their career goals, and to reserve all sexual activity and childbearing for marriage. This proven formula provides the best hope for future outcomes and is vital in seeking to restore a culture of marriage and family in America.

According to the CDC most high school students are abstinent and teen pregnancies are at an all-time recorded low. Parents, pastors, and school administrators can encourage this trend by avoiding gimmick campaigns and providing their students with true abstinence-until-marriage education.

Scott Phelps is executive director of the Abstinence & Marriage Education Partnership near Chicago and a co-founder of the National Abstinence Education Association in Washington D.C.

This article was first published by the Chicago Sun-Times.

Written by John Stemberger

At first glance, it sounds nice to say we should “get government out of the marriage business.” Marriage, as far as the state is concerned, would be merely a private relationship contract, with no reference to the lasting features of natural marriage between a man and woman, and its connection to the bearing and raising of children.

Many libertarians, including Rand Paul, and now even some conservatives, claim that this will solve the same-sex marriage controversy. Few understand the logical implications of their argument. There are at least seven reasons why “marriage privatization,” if really achieved, would profoundly harm citizens and society.

(1) Private “relationship contracts” would immediately legitimize and permit polygamy, group marriages, incest and other aberrant relationships.

Anthropologist Stanley Kurtz notes that even if marriage is “privatized,” government “still has to decide what sort of private unions merit benefits … under this privatization scheme.” We would end up with the “same quarrels over social recognition that we got before privatization.” Government will have to deal with polygamous, polyamorous, and incestuous relationships also attempting to obtain contracts under the new scheme as well as attempts by heterosexual acquaintances to make “marriages of convenience” to obtain things such as spousal medical insurance. Legitimizing these aberrant relationships would only further dilute the meaning of natural marriage as a norm in society.

(2) It would increase the sexual exploitation of children through human sex-trafficking.

Marriage laws that currently regulate the age at which a person can be married protect children from sex-slavery and even from desperate parents from certain impoverished countries who may seek to exploit or manipulate minor children into “arranged” marriages for financial gain. News in London now reports 15 and 16 year old girls are being duped into “marrying” ISIS operatives and are running away from home. This would be easy in the U.S. if marriage were a private contract.

(3) It would overburden courts and side-step legal protections for children and abandoned spouses, replacing them with court ordered damages, penalties and state-coerced action.

If a legislature repealed marriage statutes and did nothing to define or regulate the creation and or dissolution of marriages, then by default, parties would be left only with legal contracts to address child custody, visitation, alimony and property rights. If the parties breached these private contracts, litigation would ensue regarding the intent, interpretation, and enforcement of those agreements — many of which would likely be drafted by non-lawyers with vague and confusing terms. Courts would issue penalties, damages and would have to order private parties to enforce contracts, often with draconian results. Real-life economic and practical hardships would befall untold thousands of single mothers where men to abandon their families – or even take forcible physical custody of small children — where no such contract was in place.

The creation of plural marriage and group marriage contracts would create the legal equivalent of the “Wild-Wild-West.” These “prenuptial-like” marriage contracts would also further undermine the idea of marriage as a lasting, life-long covenant. Instead of keeping government out of the marriage business, this move would do just the opposite. The great irony of marriage privatization is that it would only increase the state’s involvement in the lives of its citizens.

(4) It ignores what’s best for children.

Arguments to privatize marriage, whether made by scholars or politicians, tend to ignore what is best for children. Economist Jennifer Roback Morse, who has strong libertarian credentials, argues that marriage privatization would come “at the expense of children,” and “is a concept developed by adults that will benefit only adults.”

In the common law, whenever children are involved in divorce, custody disputes, adoption or dependency proceedings, the legal standard has always been is the best interest of children involved. With the redefinition of marriage to include same-sex unions, “adult desires” have been allowed to trump what’s best for children. Dissolving marriage law would have the same effect. When men divorce the mothers of their children without these private agreements, single mothers would be left with no laws to protect or support their children.

(5) It would create more social maladies, broken families, and human suffering.

Throughout history, marriage has been always been regulated in some way. In small and cohesive societies, this was usually done through strong social mores and religious institutions. In larger, more diverse and modern societies, marriage has also been regulated through law and public policy. This is part of what separates civil societies from more primitive ones. For this reason, completely privatizing marriage could be a sociological disaster.

Today’s inner cities are “Exhibit A” to the poverty, crime, fatherlessness and devastation that emerges when marriage and family structures are weak, fragmented or nonexistent. This measured collapse in inner cities would move even faster into every area of communities if marriage is legally abolished and reduced to private contracts.

 (6) It would cost taxpayer’s big-time.

Maggie Gallagher has called marriage privatization a “fantasy” since “there is scarcely a dollar that state and federal government spends on social programs that is not driven in large part by family fragmentation: crime, poverty, drug abuse, teen pregnancy, school failure, mental and physical health problems.” A study by the Institute for American Values concluded that the cost to U.S. taxpayers from family fragmentation as a result of divorce and unwed childbearing was $112 billion annually.

Sadly, the political left in America feeds on divorce, broken families, and unwed childbearing. Strong marriages and families help break the grip of an ever-growing administrative state, freeing her citizens from poverty to reach their fullest economic potential as creators of wealth rather than being chronic recipients of distributed wealth.

(7) It would grow government.

Government has a compelling interest in defining, regulating, and promoting marriage because of the self-governance it creates when children are socialized in this environment. At the most basic level, marriages — and the families they create — produce social order in homes, neighborhoods, states and nations. Marriage channels masculine energy in socially productive ways, protects women, and increases almost every category of human flourishing. Research is clear that a married biological mother and father is objectively the optimal context for rearing children. Marriage benefits not just those in the relationships, but the businesses, economies, and communities around them. Marriages, and the families that flow from them, tend to produce more productive citizens who create wealth and contribute to society.

The failure of marriages and families has caused the rapid expansion of the welfare state, dramatic tax increases, and has helped increase the national debt. Jennifer Roback Morse argues that “it is simply not possible to have a minimum government and a society with no social or legal norms about family structure, sexual behavior, and childrearing. The state will have to provide support for people with loose or nonexistent ties to their families. The state will have to sanction truly destructive behavior, as always. The destructive behavior will be more common because the culture of impartiality destroys the informal system of enforcing social norms. … A free society needs marriage.”

Marriage is not merely a private, religious institution; it is also a public institution deserving of public recognition and protection, quite apart from any religious or theological argument. Marriage serves not only people of faith but also the common good of society. “Family is built on marriage,” argues Princeton’s Robert George, “and government — the state — has a profound interest in the integrity and well-being of marriage, and to write it off as if it were purely a religiously significant action and not an institution and action that has a profound public significance, would be a terrible mistake.”

Removing the legal recognition of marriage would devastate not just marriage and family, but civil society as a whole.

John Stemberger is an Orlando Attorney who is President of the Florida Family Policy Council. Originally published at thestream.org.

One day after the [Obergerfell v. Hodges] ruling, I received a press release from Pro-Polygamy.com  one of the largest Polygamy groups east of the Mississippi, located in Maine.  Their slogan is “Polygamy: The Next Civil Rights Battle.”   Last Sunday they followed up with another release of an editorial.   Both items complain, “all that Kennedy declared about the importance of marriage to those who choose same sex marriage (SSM) equally applies to others who choose unrelated consenting adult polygamy (UCAP).”

Mark Henkle of Pro-Polygamy states, “for UCAPs, only one obstacle to freedom remains to be overcome – the outstanding bigotry of big government still unconstitutionally mandating an arbitrary determinant of “two-person unions” for the definition of marriage. After that, polygamy will be included.”

Numerous commentators, and even Justices John Roberts and Samuel Alito, have also noted that the SCOTUS ruling contains no logical basis for prohibiting polygamy or practically any other limit on marriage. This supports the comment in my media statement that, “if marriage can mean anything, it ultimately means nothing. When marriage loses its meaning, society and children suffer.  When children suffer, government expands. When government expands, liberty contracts.”

By the way, homosexuals, bisexuals, polygamists, the polyamorous, are not the only ones looking for societal approval based upon sexual orientation.  This article on the blog of former U.S. Congressman Allen West referencing a more detailed and disturbing article from the Northern Colorado Gazette says there is a quietly growing group of “experts” claiming that pedophilia is a sexual orientation worthy of special rights and recognition.

One such group is the Institute for the Advanced Study of Human Sexuality in San Francisco. The IASHS lists, on its website, a list of “basic sexual rights” that includes “the right to engage in sexual acts or activities of any kind whatsoever, providing they do not involve nonconsensual acts, violence, constraint, coercion or fraud.” Another right is to, “be free of persecution, condemnation, discrimination, or societal intervention in private sexual behavior” and “the freedom of any sexual thought, fantasy or desire.” The organization also says that no one should be “disadvantaged because of age.”

For all practical purposes, the tax-funded sex education/abortion giant, Planned Parenthood, has made similar statements in defense of their school programs for years.

Follow IFI on Twitter: @ProFamilyIFI

“Like” us on Facebook!

Written by Charlie Butts

America’s largest retailer was among the corporate sponsors of recent homosexual “pride” events in New York City, including all-night parties and a vulgar parade down Fifth Avenue.

Activities the corporations sponsored last month included a “burlesque masquerade fantasy” on June 26 and a “VIP Rooftop Party” on June 27, the “NYC Pride” website reveals. A suggestive, school-themed party at the Hammerstein Ballroom, with male “bad teachers” and “hot cheerleaders” flown in from overseas, was also held on June 27.

Peter LaBarbera of Americans for Truth About Homosexuality attended the June 28 “pride” parade. He tells OneNewsNow a Wal-Mart float was included in the event that featured public nudity and vulgarity – with children present.

“It’s really a mirror into the households of homosexual-led households,” LaBarbera says.

According to the pro-family activist, Wal-Mart was a major sponsor of the parade. OneNewsNow confirmed on the “NYC Pride” website (Caution: website has objectionable material) that the retailer is among the corporate “Platinum” sponsors of “Pride events” held by NYC Pride. Other sponsors at that level include Delta Airlines, AT&T, and Diet Coke. It’s unclear from the website how much those sponsors donated for the “Platinum” designation.

Other major brands listed as NYC Pride sponsors (other than Platinum) include such recognizable names as Hilton Hotels, Bud Light, Netflix, Wells Fargo, PBS, MasterCard, and Amtrak.

LaBarbera sees inconsistency in Wal-Mart’s handling of issues considered controversial. He points out that despite sponsoring activities in support of the homosexual lifestyle, the retailer recently decided that items displaying the Confederate battle flag were too controversial to appear on its shelves.

“But apparently a homosexual parade, which is celebrating beyond homosexuality – they celebrated sadomasochism, lots of perverted behavior, even open nudity in this parade – apparently none of this was too controversial for Wal-Mart to be involved in sponsoring this parade,” he adds.

LaBarbera encourages people to contact Wal-Mart to complain and to shop elsewhere.

OneNewsNow contacted Wal-Mart for comment but received no response.

This article was originally posted on the One News Now website.

The viral discussion regarding Joshua Duggar over the last few weeks presents us with a very troubling but interesting irony.  Anyone interested in the glory and honor of God and the well-being of children cannot help but be saddened by these events.  But, it has been interesting to listen to the debate.  I will have to leave the legalities to others as I do not know what was done and should have been done then and what ought to be done now.

But, I would ask a simple question: If America is going to reject the biblical and historical definition of marriage as normative, if we believe that sex need not be limited to a man and a woman who have made a life-long commitment, on what basis do we condemn a Joshua Duggar?

It is the biblical/historical definition of marriage, its demands for chastity until marriage, its emphasis on child-bearing, and the implicit and explicit biblical demands for maturity in marriage that places sexuality in a unique category requiring strict controls.   While all cultures have had restrictions of one kind or another on sexual activity, it is the Scriptures that give us an understanding as to why!  It is the spiritual and  metaphysical aspects of sexuality as well as its significant consequences that distinguish it from all other human activities and alone explain the pain and sorrows that go with its abuse.  If, as opponents of traditional marriage claim, sexuality is merely a “biological function,” why are children so traumatized by it?   Opponents of traditional marriage have worked feverishly to degrade sexuality to something any two people can do any time and most any place.  The casual attitude of modern culture regarding sexuality places it not far from eating or combing one’s hair.  One-night stands and anonymous sex are common, and one must assume from this that the promoters see sex as inherently meaningless beyond the pleasure of the moment.  This is one of the arguments that groups like NAMBLA make to de-stigmatize and legitimize pedophilia.

Many of those who are condemning Joshua Duggar do nothing to shield children from graphic sexual images in our culture.  Everywhere one looks, whether billboards, TV commercials, or programming itself, one is deluged by raw sexuality.  Even iconic Disney channel sexualizes little children in some of its programming.  It is clear the Left sees no reason for protecting children from sex.  Why their sudden obsession with Josh Duggar?

If sexuality is to be separated from one-man and one woman for life, and if sex is primarily about pleasure, then there is no explanation for why a boy touching or kissing a younger girl would be inappropriate, other than tradition.  In other regards America generally treats its children as if “fun” is all there is to life! Most parents are also pretty fast and loose with candy and other treats for their children.  If, on the other hand, a child, who is too young to understand, is still traumatized by a touch, it is clear that sexual activity goes far deeper than mere pleasure!  In these children’s responses, all, who care about truth, understand that the emperor of laissez-faire sexuality has no clothes.

Whether the Left likes it or not, the transparent response (trauma) of children to sexual contact proves that sexuality is not merely a biological function, and the biblical definition and restrictions placed on sexual expression give that negative reaction context.

If you do not accept a biblical definition of marriage, if you do not believe that sexual activity ought to be restricted to traditional marriage, and if you are consistent, you will find it intellectually impossible to condemn Joshua Duggar.

Follow IFI on Twitter: @ProFamilyIFI

“Like” us on Facebook!

The Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention just released a document titled “Here We Stand: An Evangelical Declaration on Marriage,”  signed by scores of religious leaders. It is largely an excellent document that embodies an unequivocal, courageous commitment to truth.

That said, it also makes the troubling claim that Christians ought not be angry: “Outrage and panic are not the responses of those confident in the promises of a reigning Christ Jesus.”

My concern about this may seem an unnecessary quibble, but the notion that Christians ought not feel angry is integral to the serious problem of Christian silence on matters related to homosexuality.

This statement echoes what Trinity Evangelical Divinity School New Testament professor D.A. Carson said in a recent interview with Desiring God: “This is no time for panic, or resentment, and it is certainly no time for hate.”

Clearly, it is no time for panic, and it’s no time for hate if by hate Dr. Carson is referring to hatred of persons.

I think, however, that resentment of injustice and hatred of wickedness are warranted. A fuller, more nuanced discussion would have been helpful in freeing Christians from bondage to a neutered, passionless complaisance regarding a pernicious Court decision that embodies pernicious ideas about marriage and homoeroticism.

The claims about anger expressed in the declaration and articulated by Dr. Carson seem to contradict the views of Leon Podles in an article titled “Unhappy Fault” published in Touchstone Magazine:

[M]any Christians have a false understanding of the nature and role of anger. It is seen as something negative, something that a Christian should not feel.

In the sexual abuse cases in the Catholic Church, those who dealt with the bishops have consistently remarked that the bishops never expressed outrage or righteous anger, even at the most horrendous cases of abuse and sacrilege.

…
Conrad Baars noticed this emotional deformation in the clergy in the mid-twentieth century….In forgetting that growth in virtue was the goal of the Christian’s moral life, it forgot that the emotions, all emotions, including anger and hate, are part of human nature and must be integrated into a virtuous life.

Baars had been imprisoned by the Nazis. He knew iniquity firsthand and that there was something wrong with those who did not hate it:

A little reflection will make it clear that there is a big difference between the person who knows solely that something is evil and ought to be opposed, and the one who in addition also feels hate for that evil, is angry that it is corrupting or harming his fellow-men, and feels aroused to combat it courageously and vigorously.

Wrath is a necessary and positive part of human nature: “Wrath is the strength to attack the repugnant; the power of anger is actually the power of resistance in the soul,” wrote Josef Pieper. The lack of wrath against injustice, he continued, is a deficiency: “One who does good with passion is more praiseworthy than one who is ‘not entirely’ afire for the good, even to the forces of the sensual realm.”

Aquinas, too, says that “lack of the passion of anger is also a vice” because a man who truly and forcefully rejects evil will be angry at it. The lack of anger makes the movement of the will against evil “lacking or weak.” He quotes John Chrysostom: “He who is not angry, whereas he has cause to be, sins. For unreasonable patience is the hotbed of many vices, it fosters negligence, and incites not only the wicked but the good to do wrong.”

…

As Gregory the Great said, “Reason opposes evil the more effectively when anger ministers at her side.”

…

Sorrow at evil without anger at evil is a fault….

I’m not alone in my concern about the ERLC’s statement about anger. New Testament scholar Robert A. Gagnon is also troubled:

I believe the unnamed author of the document…erred in claiming that Christians should not express outrage at this decision….When I read the document, this statement jumped out at me more than any other. Apparently, I wasn’t the only one for whom this was the case. Christianity Today highlighted that remark above all others (in apparent approval, unfortunately).

Jesus expressed outrage at sin repeatedly in his ministry (the cleansing of the temple is a fairly concrete case in point). So did John the Baptist (his direct criticism of Herod Antipas for taking his brother’s wife is an obvious instance). So did Paul (I would say that outrage was a hallmark of his comments on tolerance for the incestuous man in 1 Cor 5). So did John of Patmos in Revelation (comparing the Roman Empire and its emperors to a harlot and a disgusting 7-headed beast rising from the sea, a puppet of the dragon that symbolizes Satan; likewise symbolizing the provincial imperial cult leaders as a blasphemous beast rising from the earth).

Friends, if this were the Supreme Court attempting to restore the Dred Scott ruling, would it be unchristian to express “outrage”?…Democracy and liberty in America have been struck the greatest body blow in our lifetime. The action of the five lawless Justices will have enormous negative repercussions for the church corporately and Christians individually. And outrage at egregious immorality is not antithetical to love. This action by the Lawless 5 will harm many, especially those who experience same-sex attractions. We should have a godly outrage toward that.

In my view, although the statement polarizes outrage and faith (implicitly also love), the real polarization is between outrage and “niceness.”

It is troubling to have religious leaders advocating a generalized prohibition of anger. There exists evil in the world about which those who know truth should outrage. God does not enjoin followers of Christ never to feel or express anger. We need to guard how we express anger, and we must  temper anger when excessive. But we ought to feel anger about wickedness that harms those we are commanded to love.

Here are just a few evils that warrant Christian outrage:

• We should feel anger that incipient human lives are being daily snuffed out.
• We should feel anger that judges and lawmakers deem the slaughter of the unborn a “right.”
• We should have felt anger when men, women, and children were bought and sold as chattel during the slave era.
• We should have felt anger when black men were lynched.
• We should have felt anger when Plessy v. Ferguson was passed by another group of feckless justices, reinforcing the practice of treating blacks as inferior to whites.
• We should have felt anger over the imprisonment and extermination of Jews by the Nazis.
• We should feel anger when girls and women today are bought or traded for the twisted pleasure of men.
• We should feel anger when children are abused and adults conceal and facilitate their abuse.
• We should feel anger about the existence of child pornography.
• We should feel anger when teachers introduce our little ones to perversion in our taxpayer-funded schools and call it good.
• We should feel anger when teachers in taxpayer-funded schools teach that all family structures are equally valuable.
• We should feel angry when our laws and policies embody the false and destructive idea that children have no inherent right to both a mother and father.
• We should feel angry over parades that celebrate perversion in our streets and when our elected officials join in the corrupt chorus rejoicing in the normalization of sodomy as an “identity” and non-marital sodomitic unions as “marriages.”
• We should be outraged when public high school “educators” teach the egregiously obscene, pro-homosexual play Angels in America: A Gay Fantasia on National Themes to high school students.

And we should feel outrage that parents of an eight-year-old boy permitted him to cross-dress and “vogue” in the recent New York City “pride” parade after which throngs of adults with darkened minds cackled and shrieked at the tragic spectacle of an exploited little boy in a dress sashaying across a stage.

Perhaps the ERLC marriage declaration needed to be more carefully crafted in order to make a clearer distinction between permissible and warranted righteous wrath and impermissible types of  expressions of anger. Perhaps the writer or writers could have distinguished between bitterness and appropriate anger at evil that harms. Perhaps they should have warned against excessive anger.

With all due deference to men far wiser and knowledgeable than me, I think what America needs right now is righteous anger and fearless, impassioned denunciation of a sexuality and marriage ideology that deprives children of their rights and threatens the temporal and eternal lives of men and women.

Please support IFI!

The U.S. Supreme Court decision in the Obergefell v. Hodges case provides yet more evidence that smart people can be monumentally foolish. This decision not only denies reality but also robs citizens of their right to self-government. From the gaseous emanations of their own imaginations, five of our supremacist justices have discerned a heretofore nonexistent constitutional requirement that homoerotic unions be recognized as “marriages.” Justices Kennedy, Breyer, Ginsburg, Kagan, and Sotomayor have also decided to impose same-sex marriage on all states, nullifying the decisions of citizens in states that have legally established marriage as a sexually complementary institution.

Just as Dred Scott and Roe v. Wade gave birth to relentless cultural turmoil, division, and suffering, so too will the Obergefell decision. By imposing on the country a deceit buttressed by false allegations that opposition to the legal recognition of non-marital unions as marriages is motivated by “animus,” these five judges have watered the seeds of strife planted by sexual anarchists.

The Dred Scott decision, written and supported by Democrats, erred in its denial of the ontological reality of race. Roe v. Wade, written by wildly liberal Harry Blackmun and supported by Democrats, erred in its denial of the ontological reality of incipient human life. Obergefell, written and supported by Democrats, errs in its denial of the ontological reality of marriage.

Theologically orthodox Christians, Orthodox Jews, Muslims, and even many homosexual secularists know that marriage has an intrinsic nature central to which is sexual complementarity and without which a union is not a marriage. Not even the arrogant and foolish rationalizations of five flawed judges can nullify that reality.

If judges, lawmakers, and “progressives” in thrall to the doctrinaire sexuality ideology of “LGBT” activists insist not only on denying reality but also on deracinating religious liberty, speech rights, and association rights of dissenters, they will foment civil disobedience the likes of which America has not seen since the 1960’s.

“Progressives” claim that history teaches that the value of marriage derives from the permanence, fidelity, and stability that the institution engenders, but they assume without proof that these qualities have no inherent connection to the sexual complementarity that was an integral part of the historical institution they tout as conducive to human flourishing.

Do permanence, fidelity, and stability enhance the moral status and cultural benefits of every type of loving union? Would the cultural perks of permanence, fidelity, and stability justify the legal recognition of plural and incestuous unions as marriages? Is it desirable that an inherently and profoundly immoral relationship that denies the rights of children be permanent?

Does the provision of a marriage license to boundary-less, criteria-less relationships magically create permanence, fidelity, and stability? Or is sexual complementarity the origin of these attendant features? Does the need for permanence, fidelity, and stability emerge from the very nature of marriage—an intrinsic nature that the Left denies exists even while (publicly) affirming that the twoness of marriage is intrinsic and non-negotiable?

This pernicious SCOTUS decision also provides evidence that the moral arc of America—at least with regard to marriage—bends not toward justice, wisdom, or morality but, rather, toward perversity and injustice. Liberals are once again on the shameful side of history and will once again foment cultural conflict and human suffering.

No one wants to see a divorce or separation. And no one wants to see it made easier or erase a loving parent from a child’s life.

That’s why it’s important that you contact the Governor’s office and urge him to veto Senate Bill 57, which has passed both chambers in the Illinois General Assembly.

SB 57 seeks to make divorce in Illinois easier and quicker and greatly reduces the chance of reconciliation, thereby placing more mothers and children at future risk of poverty.

SB 57 allows one spouse to file for divorce after a 6 month separation even if the other spouse does not want the divorce. Furthermore, it tramples parental rights by providing for visitation rights for non-relatives.

When it comes to restricting or terminating parental rights, it should be held to the highest evidence standard possible.  “Clear and convincing evidence” is used throughout the bill except when it comes to restricting or terminating parenting time, and/or rights and responsibilities.

SB 57 is attempting to create a back door to termination of parental rights by using the ‘preponderance of the evidence standard’  instead of the “clear and convincing evidence” standard. (p. 133 line 18-25) SB 57 uses this arbitrary standard to award or deny parental rights and seeks to deny access to school and medical records to any parent not awarded parenting time. (p. 136 line 6-9)

The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires more than a preponderance of the evidence standard when denying parental rights. 

Yet SB 57 uses a higher standard of proof, ‘clear and convincing,’ to restrict or remove visitation from a non-biological parent once allocated, such as a step parent, grandparent, aunt, uncle or sibling. (p. 145 line 1-11)

This bill will NOT lessen litigation and help children.

Children are the reason the court battles continue for years after the divorce or separation. Under this act both litigants will now have to prove their level of parenting and how much time they spent in order to derive which parent will become the “primary responsible parent” and which parent will be the parent who will fill the traditional non-custodial parent role, which in turn is going to cause longer litigation from the onset and  severe mental and emotional harm to the very children it looks to protect from such effects.

The effects of a missing parent on a child are devastating, often causing them to fall behind in school, get involved in drugs, teen pregnancy, teen suicide, bullying and the list goes on and on.

SB 57 will further weaken the family structure and should be strongly opposed.

Take ACTION:  Please call Governor Rauner’s office and urge him  to veto SB 57. The number is (217) 782-0244 or (312) 814-2121.  Click HERE to send him an email.

More ACTION:  On Saturday June 27th, Illinois Fathers will host a rally and candle light vigil outside of the Governors Mansion in Springfield to urge a veto of SB 57. At dusk, organizers will begin a candle light vigil which will go through the night into the early morning of Sunday June 28th. Sunday morning they will hold a prayer service then dismiss around 9am.  Learn more HERE.

The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) will soon issue a ruling on same-sex “marriage.” In the video below, Princeton University Professor Robert P. George tells IFI that  Christians should be in prayer about the Justices’ decision:

“Prayer is the most powerful weapon we have.”

Take ACTION:  Click HERE to visit The Defend Marriage Pledge website. Add your name to send a clear message to the justices of the SCOTUS, asking them to uphold God’s biblical plan for marriage and to uphold the choice of the American people.

It is vital for people of faith to let the justices know that millions of American voters stand united in defense of biblical marriage: one man and one woman.  We cannot remain silent when our government officials mandate policies that conflict with God’s design of marriage.

Please support IFI!

Written by Ryan T. Anderson

Later this month The Supreme Court is expected to issue its ruling on state marriage laws. Here are the three most important things you need to know about the case, and what to do after the Court rules.

1. Whatever people may think about marriage as a policy matter, everyone should be able to recognize the U.S. Constitution does not settle this question. Unelected judges shouldn’t insert their own policy preferences about marriage and then say the Constitution requires them everywhere.

There simply is nothing in the Constitution that requires all 50 states to redefine marriage. Sen. Rob Portman, R-Ohio, represents one of the states whose law is under review by the Court. While Portman is personally in favor of same-sex marriage, Portman is against the Court unilaterally redefining marriage for the entire country. Portman rightly recognizes that marriage policy must be worked out democratically.

After all, the overarching question before the Supreme Court is not whether a male-female marriage policy is the best, but only whether it is allowed by the Constitution. Nor is it whether government-recognized same-sex marriage is good or bad policy, but only whether it is required by the Constitution.

If the Court were to redefine marriage for the entire country it would beengaging in judicial activism because the Constitution does not require such a redefinition. Rather than rush to a 50-state “solution” on marriage policy for the entire country, the Supreme Court should allow the laboratories of democracy the time and space to see how redefining marriage will impact society as a whole.

There is no need for the Court to “settle” the marriage issue like it tried (unsuccessfully) to settle the abortion issue. As I told George Stephanopoulos in April on ABC’s “This Week,” because the Supreme Court cut the democratic process short on abortion, it exacerbated tensions in American public life over the issue.

Our politics on abortion have been polarized because the Court didn’t allow the democratic process to work. Why would the Court want to repeat that mistake? Why would the Court want to inflame the culture wars on another issue?

Allowing marriage policy to be worked out democratically will give citizens and their elected representatives the freedom to arrive at the best public policy for everyone.

2. The government is not in the marriage business because it’s a sucker for adult romance. No, marriage isn’t just a private affair; marriage is a matter of public policy because marriage is society’s best way to ensure the well-being of children. State recognition of marriage protects children by encouraging men and women to commit to each other — and to take responsibility for their children.

Marriage exists to bring a man and a woman together as husband and wife, as well as to be father and mother to any children their union produces. Marriage is based on the anthropological truth that men and woman are distinct and complementary, the biological fact that reproduction depends on a man and a woman, and the social reality that children deserve a mother and a father.

Redefining marriage to make it a genderless institution fundamentally changes marriage: It makes the relationship more about the desires of adults than about the needs — or rights — of children. It teaches the lie that mothers and fathers are interchangeable.

Everyone in this debate favors marriage equality. Everyone wants the law to treat all marriages in the same ways. The only disagreement our nation faces is over what sort of consenting adult relationship is a marriage. Since the Constitution doesn’t answer that question, the people and their elected representatives should.

3. Whatever the Court rules about marriage, the government should not discriminate against any citizen, charity, school, business or any other institution of civil society that continues to believe that marriage is the union of husband and wife. Even if the Court issues an activist decision mandating states to recognize same-sex relationships as marriages, such a ruling does not mean that government has to force citizens and institutions of civil society to violate their beliefs. Nor should it mean that.

Again we can look to Portman. While he is personally in favor of democratically redefining marriage, he does not want the government to force his definition onto other people, coercing them into violating their consciences and penalizing them if they refuse.

Unfortunately, there have been too many cases where the government has coerced and penalized citizens simply for acting in accordance with their belief that marriage is the union of husband and wife.

This must stop.

After all, sexual liberty and religious liberty can co-exist. And ordinary citizens want them to coexist. Ordinary Americans — both those in favor of gay marriage and those who oppose gay marriage — do not want the government violating the rights of conscience of their neighbors.

Policy should prohibit the government from discriminating against any individual or group, whether nonprofit or for-profit, based on their beliefs that marriage is the union of a man and woman or that sexual relations are reserved for marriage. The government should be prohibited from discriminating against such groups or individuals in tax policy, employment, licensing, accreditation, or contracting.

No matter what the Court decides, the United States is in a time of transition. Beliefs about human sexuality are changing. Will the right to dissent be protected? Will the right of Americans to speak and act in accord with what the United States had always believed about marriage — that it’s a union of husband and wife—be tolerated? It should.

Originally published at Stream.org.