The mainstream media, including it seems virtually every political pundit on the Left and the Right, are dancing a jig over the “inevitability” of the widespread cultural embrace of a queer (pun intended) revision of marriage. These pundits, who jigged their way all over the Sunday morning news programs, pointed to the support among a troubling number of Republican “leaders” (aka followers) and youth—always known for their wisdom, maturity, and sexual restraint—as justification for their confident prognostications.

I watched four of these programs and was struck that on the issue of marriage, our whip-smart pundits are wholly ignorant.  Not one interviewer asked these esteemed pundits what marriage is, or why the government is involved with marriage, or if children have any inherent rights regarding their biological parents, or why marriage should be limited to two people if it has no inherent connection to sexual complementarity or reproductive potential. When the comparison of bans on interracial marriage to bans on the legal recognition of same-sex unions as “marriage” were alluded to, no pundit asked “In what specific ways is homosexuality analogous to race?”

Their “reasons” for their joyous jigging over the “inevitable” radical transmogrification of civil marriage are that Republicans like Senator Rob Portman (R-OH) and young people support it. What the pundits didn’t discuss is either the recent and huge Reuters poll (24, 455 people polled) that was conducted between Jan. 1 – Mar.14 that showed that only 41 percent of Americans support same-sex “marriage.“  That’s remarkable considering the fact that the mainstream press, Hollywood, Broadway, and our public schools—which is to say, our culture-making institutions—are in the tank for all things homosexual, including same-sex “marriage.”

What the pundits also didn’t discuss, however, is that not all of our young people support the legal recognition of same-sex unions as marriage. This was a glaring omission in that the bible of many pundits, the New York Times, even discussed  it last week.

The New York Times interviewed the following young scholars:

• Ryan T. Anderson, 31, a Heritage Foundation fellow and co-author of What is Marriage? Man and Woman; A Defense
• Joseph Backholm, 34, the executive director of the Family Policy Institute of Washington
• Will Haun, 26, a lawyer and member of the Federalist Society
• Thomas Peters, 27, the communications director for the National Organization for Marriage 
• Ashley Pratte, 23, the executive director of Cornerstone Policy Research and Cornerstone Action
• Caitlin Seery, 25, the director of programs for the Love and Fidelity Network
• Eric Teetsel, 29, the executive director of the Manhattan Declaration
• Andrew T. Walker, 27, a policy analyst at the Heritage Foundation.

Eight young intellectual defenders of true marriage, interviewed in the New York Times, but nary a mention of them on the four Sunday morning news programs I watched.

I have some perhaps surprising news for our cultural elites (or elitists) like Matthew Dowd, Jake Tapper, George Will, Peggy Noonan, Anna Navarro, and Margaret Hoover. All over America there exist smart, wise, kind, and courageous young men and women like those interviewed by the New York Times. I’m blessed to know some of them.

I received the following email from one* of them in response to my question about how to recapture the hearts and minds of young people:

I wish I had the solution. I don’t know if I do. 

My thoughts are that the work must start in the church. What has intrigued me about the progress of gay “marriage” in this country is that states have only now begun approving of it, but entire Protestant denominations have approved of same-sex relationships for years now. Progressive denominations have run out ahead of the culture on this issue. Faithful Christians need to combat the work of progressives in their own denominations. 

Pastors must also be willing to preach the whole counsel of God (Acts 20:27). What is crazy to me is how many of the churches I have been to don’t even seem to preach a text. Not any text. It isn’t that they’re just misinterpreting it. They’re simply not preaching it. I think that Christians need to be taught to expect the pastor to preach the Bible, and I think that they should be expecting him not just to read a text and speak on whatever he wants but actually exposit the Scriptures for them. 

As a part of the preaching of the whole counsel of God, pastors need to preach not only the things that people don’t mind hearing, but also the things that rub us the wrong way. There are uncomfortable parts of the Scriptures, and we should realize that the parts that make us the most uncomfortable are probably the parts we need to hear the most. 

This brings up another point. People simply need to read their Bibles. If we’re spending more time every day watching TV than we are being in Scripture and prayer, our priorities are seriously messed up. Most Christians I know would claim to love Jesus more than their episodes of the Big Bang Theory or Modern Family, but my guess is that most Christians my age will spend more time watching those shows this week than they will praying or studying the Scriptures. This is a serious problem. No wonder so many people who claim to have some sort of Christian faith also don’t have a problem claiming homosexuality is okay. They probably couldn’t even tell you if or where the Bible speaks to the issue, but they could tell you how cute it is that the gay couple they love on their favorite TV show is raising an Asian daughter.

And this reminds me that Christians need to stop watching so much TV. What a waste of a life. In Psalm 90 Moses asks that God will teach us to number our days aright that we may gain a heart of wisdom. In the face of a life that is incredibly brief, Moses asks God for help in living wisely. There is no possible way that a life spent in front of the television is a life lived wisely. 

Christians need to give up on the talk of relevance. Many churches are willing to bleed for relevance. That needs to stop. Churches and Christians must heed the words of 1 Corinthians 4 and must be willing to be called the scum of the world, the refuse of all things. Christians need to give up this desire to be liked by everyone, give up the unwillingness to offend, get off the niceness which isn’t undergirded by goodness. None of this serves the church. None serves the cause of Christ. Christians need to come to Christ to die, not come to him to be entertained. 

None of these things are innovative or new or anything like that. None of them have to do specifically with the issue of homosexuality, but I think that the problem is far broader and deeper. The problem is we’ve become frighteningly biblically illiterate. It is that we care more for our reputations than we do for truth. It is that we have churches which have set up to entertain the goats rather than feed the sheep. It is that we offer a, nicer, cheesier, blander version of secular culture and then wonder why our churches shrink. It is that we’ve become spineless in all things. It’s no wonder that we can’t stand up to a cultural redefinition of marriage. We haven’t stood up to anything else. 

I wonder how differently the culture would view marriage if every time a homosexuality-affirming play, novel, essay, film, speaker, picture book, or lecture were presented to children and teens in our schools or elsewhere, the ideas of these young people were presented at the same time. 

What is so remarkable in the jawboning of the press is their claim that Republicans who oppose the jettisoning of sexual complementarity from the legal definition of marriage have “moved too far to the Right.” Since when does not moving become moving? 

There are times and reasons for cultural movement. When policies and laws are objectively wrong and logically indefensible, the culture should move as it did in opposition to slavery, Jim Crow laws, and interracial marriage. And there are times and reasons for steadfast immobility as with the protection of the unborn, the preservation of sexually complementarity marriage (i.e., true marriage), and the refusal to subordinate the inherent rights of children to the selfish desires of adults.

*This friend is 28 years old, has his BA in Philosophy with Theology from Wheaton College, his MA in Historical and Systematic Theology from Wheaton College, and his M. Div. from Westminster Theological Seminary (CA). 

By:  Michael Brown

In the midst of his announcement on Sunday that he now supports same-sex marriage, Rob Bell warned American evangelicals to “adapt or die.” His counsel, intended to be helpful, is actually a guaranteed formula for failure and a proven recipe for disaster. In fact, the only way for us to make a lasting impact on the culture and maintain a relevant witness to society is to do the opposite of what Bell advised.

Over the last few years Bell, a bestselling author and former megachurch pastor, has steadily distanced himself from the mainstream evangelical community. Known for asking provocative questions and challenging the status quo, he amassed a large following which has been drawn to his non-dogmatic approach, an approach which I call a “celebration of ambiguity.”

To paraphrase this approach, rather than the leader saying, “This is the way. It is proven and sure. Follow me,” the leader now says, “Who am I to know? How can anyone be sure? Isn’t it narrow and small-minded of us to be so inflexible and dogmatic?”

Somehow, young people in particular have rallied around this mindset, a mindset that has already lost its way before it even starts. Yet losing one’s way is celebrated too: “The destination is not important,” we are told. “It’s the journey that matters!”

Personally, I would rather enjoy a terrible journey to heaven than a lovely journey to hell. Speaking of which, Bell’s 2011 New York Times bestseller Love Wins represented another departure from the evangelical mainstream. In the book, Bell suggested that, to a great extent, hell is here and now, and in the end, everybody will make it into God’s heavenly kingdom.

Last year, speaking at a church gathering in California, Bell stated his belief that you could be a practicing homosexual and a follower of Jesus at the same time, encouraging his listeners to take their focus off of gay-related issues and to look instead at the “truly big problems in our world; that I believe Jesus would us to band together, and tackle together.”

In light of this, it was hardly a surprise when he announced on Sunday during a Q & A session that, “I am for marriage. I am for fidelity. I am for love, whether it’s a man and woman, a woman and a woman, a man and a man. I think the ship has sailed and I think the church needs — I think this is the world we are living in and we need to affirm people wherever they are.”

Of course, Bell is right that, to an extent, “the ship has sailed,” and affirming same-sex marriage is now the politically “in” thing to do, as witnessed by the recent statements of former President Bill Clinton, Senator Rob Portman, and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

But what in the world does that have to do with right and wrong? If society has lost its moral bearings, should the Church lose its moral bearings as well? Shouldn’t we rather swim against the tide of popular opinion and call the world to turn around?

And since when do we drag down the teachings of Jesus, which were marked by divine authority and absoluteness, to meet the standard of “the world we are living in”? Aren’t we supposed to challenge the world to live up to the standards of the Lord?

Bell said on Sunday, “I think we are witnessing the death of a particular subculture that doesn’t work. I think there is a very narrow, politically intertwined, culturally ghettoized, Evangelical subculture that was told ‘we’re gonna change the thing’ and they haven’t. And they actually have turned away lots of people. And I think that when you’re in a part of a subculture that is dying, you make a lot more noise because it’s very painful. You sort of die or you adapt.”

Without a doubt, Bell is right that in many ways the evangelical Church has fallen out of touch with the nation, and to the extent we can be culturally sensitive and “understand the times” (see 1 Chronicles 12:32), we make an impact. On the other hand, Bell is completely wrong when he warns that “You sort of die or you adapt.”

In the days of the Maccabees, did the Jewish people survive the onslaught of Hellenism by adapting to paganism, with all its worldly appeal, or did they overcome by resisting at any cost, thereby demonstrating the power of their convictions? Did the early Church survive the polytheism of Rome by bowing to the emperor, or did they overcome by refusing to compromise, even to the point of death, thereby pointing to a better life?

Remarkably, on Sunday, “When the Very Rev. Jane Shaw attempted to get Bell to take a firm position as to whether Christians ‘know’ the truth in some ultimate sense, Bell veered in a different direction.”

But that is the very heart of the problem. Bell’s celebration of ambiguity has become a dogmatism of uncertainty, and it is because of his lack of spiritual absolutes that he has wandered off the path, leading a generation in his wake.

The truth is that 100 years from now, either in this world or the world to come, history will record that those who conformed their beliefs to the culture were nothing more than a passing curiosity, while those who refused to compromise truth will be regarded as the spiritual heroes and torchbearers.

In the words of Charles Spurgeon, “Character is always lost when a high ideal is sacrificed on the altar of conformity and popularity.”

I read an interesting study recently which was designed to test little children’s ability to delay gratification.  What the scientists did was place children as young as two years old in a room at desks, gave them a treat, and told them that if they refrained from eating the treat for a certain length of time, they would be rewarded with a second treat.  It was amazing how many of the children, even very young ones, were able to resist!  You can go on-line (Stanford Marshmallow Study) and watch them.  It is a pleasure to see their strength of character! 

So, while the scientists were learning about the children’s willingness to delay gratification, I understood something else; for what this revealed to me was that each child had an innate desire to get more treats for him/herself.  In other words, the child had an inherent willingness to expend energy to improve his situation. In economic terms, it is the underlying urge manifested in what we call the profit motive!  And, I have no doubts that if we were to study children anywhere on the planet we would get the same results. 

Now, I am sure that the Left will explain this by declaring that children have LEARNED to be selfish capitalists from their parents!  It is because mom and dad are reading Adam Smith, Von Mises, and Hayek to their newborn bundles of joy at bedtime each night that these innocent children have become at these tender ages such greedy, free market economic abusers.  If parents would instead dust off Keynes and Marx and put their little munchkins to sleep listening to the sweet droning of these selfless ideals, the world would quickly morph into the utopia of their dreams. 

On the other hand, if we would see things as they actually are, maybe we could better deal with them.  We understand this motive in children as selfishness (what theologians call “original sin”) that cannot be removed in this life, only brought under discipline.  And, from a general sociological standpoint, the best way to do that is via the capitalistic economic system under which we in America have, until recently, lived.  Imperfect, yes, but the best system the world has ever seen. 

It’s really not that difficult to understand.  There are two basic principles which undergird our economic system: 

1.  Free people will willingly buy only what they need or want.  Therefore, I must figure out what people want or need and then supply them. 

2.  My getting what I want or need depends upon me helping others get what they want or need!  My selfishness is kept in check by their selfishness and visa-versa! 

If these principles are allowed to operate as freely as possible, much of the abuse so common to mankind will be kept in check.  It’s simple, if my selfishness shortchanges others, they will not buy my goods, and my selfishness will come back to bite me. 

It is when governments get too involved that this breaks down.  As the nanny state grows, it protects people from their own selfishness, and rather rewards them for it.  Thus, people continue to serve themselves undeterred by bad consequences.  It no longer matters whether I produce something others want or need, I get what I want or need regardless.  When others see that occur, it discourages them from disciplining their own selfishness, and they demand more than they deserve as well and find sitting idle far more attractive.  This is why in Soviet Russia it was discovered that the miniscule garden plots the government allowed families for their own use far out produced the vast millions of acres of public lands the people were charged to farm “for the state!” 

God has created self-correcting consequences to mankind’s selfishness in the economic system we call free-market capitalism.  The “progressivism” President Obama and the Left prescribe appears superficially to address the problem of selfishness head on by denigrating “evil profit” etc., but it fails big time because it assumes the “perfectibility” of man.   Progressivism, or what is more generally known as socialism, concludes contrary to all its history that the human race, with a little help, (and by discarding the nightly reading of Smith, Mises and Hayek) will throw off its selfishness and live harmoniously receiving “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need.” 

It should be noted, by-the-way, that free market capitalism has done far better for those who truly cannot provide for themselves than any of the so-called “compassionate” socialized systems as well. 

If you believe that socialism is the answer, and that it has failed only because it was improperly instituted in Russia, China, North Korea, E. Germany, Cuba, Viet Nam, Cambodia etc., etc., etc.,  . . . and that the slaughter of over one hundred and fifty million people in these countries during times of peace was merely an aberration, then go ahead and vote for big government candidates. 

But, if you understand how a free market actually tempers our selfish impulses for the public good, then you might want to reconsider your vote.

I hope anyone who listens to Sunday morning news program pundits does so with a critical ear.

As almost everyone knows, late last week U.S. Senator Rob Portman (R-Ohio) announced that he now favors the legalization of same-sex marriage. Portman is motivated to eliminate sexual complementarity from the legal definition of marriage because his son is homosexual.

Portman has received some criticism—justifiably in my view—from both the left and right for the self-serving and emotional justifications for his position reversal. (Read more HERE.)

This past Sunday on This Week with George Stephanopoulos, the Matthew Dowd had this to say about Portman’s embrace of “same-sex marriage”:

Rob Portman I know well….And the people that I think that have criticized him and said, “oh, by the way, he only did it was a personal thing that affected him personally, he wasn’t going to do it otherwise.” To me, why do we criticize people for that? The person that started MADD, it was a personal thing. The people that—many—people who have come out against gun control have been personally affected by it. If somebody’s path to the truth, or somebody’s path to a place where we actually think they’re open and compassionate is a personal decision, God be with them.

Dowd fails to make any distinctions among the different ways personal experience can shape political actions. The mother who started Mothers Against Drunk Driving did not switch her position from supporting drunk-driving to opposing drunk-driving because her daughter was killed by a drunk driver. Rather her daughter’s death made her acutely aware of a problem that required greater public awareness and public policy changes.  That’s a wholly different kind of shift than Portman’s.

It is entirely possible for a personal experience to lead one to analyze and evaluate prior positions in light of new information. One would hope such analysis would not lean heavily on subjective feelings, which are woefully inadequate arbiters of truth, but would rely instead on an objective analysis of reasons and presuppositions. Sometimes we have to set aside our feelings in order to think rightly on issues of great cultural import.

There is scant evidence that Portman has thought deeply about the following critical fundamental questions, and the public has no idea how he would answer them:

• Does marriage have an intrinsic nature that the government merely recognizes and regulates, or do we create it out of whole cloth?
• If marriage has an intrinsic nature what are its constituent features?
• Why is the government involved in marriage?
• Is there a public purpose for marriage that justifies government involvement? If so, what is the public purpose of the institution of marriage?
• If marriage is solely about love with no inherent connection to sexual complementarity or reproductive potential, why should it be limited to two people?
• Do children have any inherent right to know (and be known by) and be raised whenever possible by their biological parents?

Dowd stated that support for the legalization of same-sex marriage is the only compassionate response. Thankfully, Carly Fiorina, gracefully and with a humility Dowd lacks, challenged his presumptuous and self-righteous claim:

I think we have to be careful, because John Boehner’s views, which are different from Rob Portman’s views, are equally sincere. And I think we get into trouble on this debate when we assume that people who support gay marriage are open and compassion and people who don’t are not.

Dowd too claims that support for same-sex marriage is indicative of openness. Really? Are Dowd’s latitudinarians any more “open” to conservative assumptions about marriage than conservatives are to “progressive” assumptions about marriage? And why aren’t those like Portman “open and compassionate” about plural marriage?

Both Dowd and George Will rejoiced in the apparent inevitability of the jackbooted march toward gender-irrelevant faux-marriage. Will started the unilluminating discussion with this:

[Portman] will not be the last [Republican to support same-sex marriage], because the demographic tide here is large, powerful and inexorable. I have said on this program before, opposition to gay marriage is literally dying, it’s an older demographic. And if you raise the question among young people, they’re not interested. And I dare say this is one of the good things about CPAC. As you saw at CPAC, this was another division and again, a healthy one. It’s largely young people attend CPAC. And this is not at the top of their agenda. It’s not even on their agenda.

Cheerleader Dowd echoed Will’s pronunciamento:

I think that there’s been an amazing — and George is right, there has been amazing — in the last ten years, I think there’s been almost a 20-point change in people’s perception of gay marriage in this country. I think Rob Portman is another domino in this whole effect. I think Republicans, any Republicans that stand in the way of this, are standing in the way of march of history on this.

They may be right, but we’ve learned from the shifting battle over the rights of the unborn that what once seemed inevitable may not be permanent. Truth (in conjunction with tenacity) has miraculous resurrection powers.

What Dowd and Will fail to address is why our youth are so awash in ignorance. Is the issue of marriage off the agenda of our youth because some sort of organic evolution toward truth has captured not just their malleable hearts, but their minds as well?

Or are there more pernicious reasons for this strange embrace of marriage as an inherently sterile, gender-irrelevant institution?

• Is the issue of marriage off their agenda because society—liberals and conservatives alike—have demonstrated utter disregard for the institution of marriage?  
• Is it because the church has failed to teach the biblical meaning of marriage as the earthly representation of the union of Christ and his church: complementary, indissoluble, and oriented toward new life?
• Is it because the church has failed to teach what the secular purposes are for marriage, and which explain why marriage is binary.
• Is it because the church has failed to help Christians understand the specious arguments used to normalize homosexuality and in this failure facilitated confusion and deception in the body of Christ?
• Is it because our young people—like those at CPAC—have grown up immersed in positive and emotionally compelling images of homosexuality and malignant mockery of conservative views of homosexuality from Hollywood and Broadway?
• Is it because our public schools affirm, espouse, and promote the normalization of homosexuality while censoring all resources that challenge “progressive” ideas?

To paraphrase Richard Weaver, ideas and images have consequences.

I don’t feel quite as certain about the uniformity of views among young conservatives as Will and Dowd do. I know some very smart young men and women who understand what marriage is and will defend it. Unfortunately, the cowardice of those  who are “literally dying” will make it that much harder for our children when they step forward to defend truth. 

Help us continue the fight for pro-life, pro-marriage and pro-family values in Illinois by donating $15, $25, $50 or $100 or more today. With your support we can continue our vital work!  Click HERE to support the work and ministry of Illinois Family Institute.

Ohio Republican U.S. Senator Rob Portman’s political and theological views on marriage have evolved (or devolved depending on one’s perspective on truth). He has concluded not only that marriage has no inherent connection to sexual complementarity, reproductive potential, or the rights of children, but also that it is appropriate to impose his political and theological views on the entire country through the legalization of “same-sex” marriage. (Isn’t “imposing” what “progressives” claim conservatives are doing when they seek to retain sexual complementarity in the legal definition of marriage?)

And what precipitated this radical shift in Portman’s political and theological views?  His son is homosexual.

So, you have a loved one who’s homosexual and presto change-o marriage becomes a genderless institution wholly unrelated to reproductive potential and children’s inherent rights. Got it.

Portman explained that he wants all of his children to have happy lives with the people they love. News to Portman, homosexuals are free to live with the people they love and to commit to remain faithful to them for life. Portman seems to have adopted the foolish and pernicious notion that the government’s reason for being involved in marriage is to affirm love.

He also implies that loving, living with, and committing to one’s sexual partner for life are insufficient for attaining happiness. Nope, what’s necessary for happiness in Portman’s political and theological universe is for the government to affirm love.  That, my friends, epitomizes big government liberal dogma.

According to the Associated Press, “[Portman’s] previous views on marriage were rooted in his Methodist faith. ‘Ultimately, for me, it came down to the Bible’s overarching themes of love and compassion and my belief that we are all children of God,’ [Portman] wrote.”

Apparently, Portman now rejects God’s overarching plan for marriage and holy sexuality for his children because his son wants to marry and have sex with a man. What if Portman’s son had announced he was bisexual or polyamorous? Would Portman then seek to have the government recognize plural unions as marriages?

Imagine if we all did exegesis like Portman. Imagine if everyone decided that the “Bible’s overarching themes of love and compassion” and the “belief that we’re all children of God” compel us to affirm all the feelings, beliefs, and life choices of our loved ones. Scary. The truth is, it is entirely possible to deeply love people while finding their feelings, beliefs, and life choices disordered or false.  In this wildly diverse world, most of us do it all the time.

As a Methodist, Portman would do well to think deeply about what John Wesley, founder of the Methodist movement, had to say about sin:

. . . [T]he First use of [the law] without question is, to convince the world of sin. This is, indeed, the peculiar work of the Holy Ghost; who can work it without any means at all, or by whatever means it pleaseth him. . . . But it is the ordinary method of the Spirit of God to convict sinners by the law. It is this which, being set home on the conscience, generally breaketh the rocks in pieces. It is more especially this part of the word of God which is . . . quick and powerful, full of life and energy, “and sharper than any two edged sword.” This, in the hand of God and of those whom he hath sent, pierces through all the folds of a deceitful heart, and “divides asunder even the soul and the spirit;” yea, as it were, the very “joints and marrow.” By this is the sinner discovered to himself. All his fig-leaves are torn away, and he sees that he is “wretched, and poor, and miserable, and blind, and naked.” The law flashes conviction on every side. He feels himself a mere sinner. He has nothing to pay. His “mouth is stopped,” and he stands “guilty before God.”

To slay the sinner is, then, the First use of the law; to destroy the life and strength wherein he trusts, and convince him that he is dead while he liveth; not only under the sentence of death, but actually dead unto God, void of all spiritual life, “dead in trespasses and sins.” The Second use of it is, to bring him unto life, unto Christ, that he may live. It is true, in performing both these offices, it acts the part of a severe school-master. It drives us by force, rather than draws us by love. And yet love is the spring of all. It is the spirit of love which, by this painful means, tears away our confidence in the flesh, which leaves us no broken reed whereon to trust, and so constrains the sinner, stripped of all, to cry out in the bitterness of his soul, or groan in the depth of his heart,

“I give up every plea beside, — Lord, I am damn’d; but Thou hast died.”

A friend shared with me her thoughts about the unfortunate Portman situation: “For most people, the Bible is right only until it gets in the way of emotions. When called upon to choose between righteousness and attending the “wedding” of a homosexual loved one, well, righteousness is mighty inconvenient. ‘Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me’ (Matt. 10:37).” 

And to “progressives”: In light of Portman’s (and Obama’s) religious justifications for their support for the legalization of “same-sex marriage,” please stop caterwauling that those who want the government to retain sexual complementarity in its legal definition of marriage are engaging in some sort of unconstitutional violation of the separation of church and state. 

HAGA CLIC AQUÍ PARA ESPAÑOL

Regrettably, on June 26, 2015 the U.S. Supreme Court unilaterally decided that marriage was a civil right, legalizing same-sex so-called “marriage” in all 50 states.

As you know, in November of 2013, the Illinois General Assembly and Governor Pat Quinn statutorily redefined marriage in the state of Illinois to include any two people regardless of gender.

Despite these setbacks, Illinois Family Institute is not giving up on the defense of marriage as one man and one woman. Being educated on the true purpose of marriage has never been more crucial. We must now work to restore marriage as God designed it to be.

Below are some great resources and articles:

Don’t Lose Heart!

Anti-Marriage Deceivers and Fools

Anger and SCOTUS Anti-Marriage Decision

Marriage is not a Civil Right

Talking Points

Talking Points (en espanol)

What Same-Sex Marriage Has Done to Massachusetts

What Same-Sex Marriage Has Done to Massachusetts (en espanol)

VIDEO: Same-Sex Marriage” is Here, What’s Next? 

Why Children Need Natural Marriage

Why Preserving Marriage Matters

Marriage: The Complementarity Principle

Culture and the Meaning of Marriage

Shocking Child Molestation Story

Is Same-Sex “Marriage” a Civil Right?

Marriage, Church, & State: Healthy & Unhealthy Tensions

The Right of Self-Governance

The Effects of Same-Sex Marriage on Education

Business Community Consequences of Redefining Marriage

Why Libertarians Should Oppose Same-Sex Marriage

The Limited Government/Libertarian Case for Marriage

‘Marriage Equality’ Isn’t the Only Goal

Open Letter from Dr. Lutzer, Pastor Ford, Rev. De Jesus & Rev. Vanden Bosch

ADF Legal Analysis of SB 10

Catholic Conference of Illinois Marriage Toolkit

Cardinal Francis George: “Same-sex Marriage:” What do Nature and Nature’s God say?

Cardinal Francis George: “Same-sex Marriage:” What do Nature and Nature’s God say? (en espanol)

Marriage: America’s Best Antidote to Child Poverty

The Natural Family – A Universal Definition with Supportive Language from the United Nations and President Obama

Petition Form in Opposition to Same-Sex Marriage

Petition Form in Opposition to Same-Sex Marriage (en espanol)

MP3 Audio: The True Purpose of Marriage– Glenn T. Stanton of Focus on the Family

MP3 Audio: Questions and Answers on Same-Sex Marriage–Pastor Erwin Lutzer of the Moody Church

The Bottom Line:

Marriage between a man and a woman is not outdated. Marriage as the union of one man and one woman matters to EVERYONE! Let’s stop pretending that Illinois licenses the love, commitment, and responsibility between two people. Certainly, healthy marriages and relationships contain all of those things, but when it comes to government getting involved in our intimate relationships, it is only for the purpose of promoting stability and safe environments for children in potentially procreative unions as a public benefit to all citizens—anything more would be governmental overreach.

State Representative Lou Lang (D-Skokie) is once again pushing a bill to legalize “medical” marijuana.  This 211 page proposal, HB 1, passed out of the Human Services Committee last week by a vote of 11 to 4.  State Representatives JoAnn Osmond (R-Gurnee) and John Cabello (R-Loves Park) joined the other nine Democratic members of the committee in approving the measure. It now moves to the full Illinois House for debate and vote.

Take ACTION: Click HERE to send your state representative an email or a fax to tell him/her that you do not want marijuana sold in your neighborhood for any purpose.

The issue of legitimizing the use of marijuana for medical purposes will encourage and increase destructive behavior in users. Marijuana is the most widely used illicit drug in the United States. Research has found that adolescent and teen drug use rises as the perception of harm diminishes. If marijuana is classified as medicine, marijuana use among youth would increase.

Points to consider:

• In August 2010, Colorado had 104,138 people who hold valid registry cards for medical marijuana. Based upon Colorado’s 2010 population of 5,029,169, this is roughly two percent. Forty-five minors, under the age of 18, held valid registry cards. (Source: Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment)  
  
  
• In August 2010, Illinois had a population of 12,830,632; Two percent of Illinois’ population is 256,612. Based upon Colorado’s statistics, Illinois could expect 256,612 medical marijuana patients.
  
  
• In Illinois 15,759 marijuana users were admitted for treatment in 2010 — 36.4 percent were 12-17 years-old, 18.2 percent were 18-20 years-old, and 18.8 percent were 21-25 years-old.
  
  
• HB1 allows eighteen-year-olds to have marijuana. As a qualified patient the high school student would get 2½ ounces of marijuana every 14 days (183 joints, 13 per day). Even the most experienced marijuana all-day-long drug user smokes on average only three to four joints a day.
  
  
• Smoking 3 or 4 joints a day of the 183 joints would leave you with roughly 135 joints, or slightly less than 2 ounces (1.8 ounces). The patient could sell the 1.8 ounces of marijuana for $250 to $550. Diversion of medical marijuana would be a problem for schools and teachers.

Please call your legislator now and urge him or her to oppose HB 1.  It will only take a minute, so please take action now. Then share this alert with your friends and family in Illinois so that they, too, can ask their representatives to stand against anti-family policies like HB 1.

Last Tuesday I was in Springfield when the Illinois House Executive Committee narrowly approved State Representative Greg Harris‘ bill to redefine marriage and family. I will be in Springfield again today and tomorrow to speak with key lawmakers about this terrible bill, hoping to appeal to their better judgement. I ask for your prayers.

With just one more step in the legislative process, the homosexual lobby is pushing extremely hard to get the 60 votes they need to send it to the governor, who has already promised to sign it. While they do not yet have the votes, they are working tirelessly to make Illinois the 10th state in the nation to officially recognize same-sex “marriage.” In an all-out effort to get the votes they need, Lt. Gov. Shelia Simon and Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel are doing everything they can to generate a grass-roots response from their base. Last week, high-profile lobbyists from Washington D.C. were there trying to convince key lawmakers in the black caucus.

The stated goal from proponents is to try to get this anti-family legislation passed this week. Our stated goal is to make sure they never reach the 60 vote number and therefore, are not able to call it for a vote in the Illinois House at all this year.  

Please help us preserve the culture and families of Illinois from the devestating effects of marriage redefinition. Don’t wait. Your voice may be the ONE that makes the difference.

Take ACTION:  If you haven’t yet sent an email or a fax to your state representative — it is time to speak up now!  Click HERE to contact your Illinois Representative and tell him/her to oppose the effort to redefine marriage! You can also call him/her through the Capitol switchboard at (217) 782-2000.

Better still, schedule a meeting with your representative, bring as many constituents as you can, and ask him or her the questions available HERE.

Bulletin Insert:  Ask your pastor to share this new bulletin insert with the congregation.  The body of Christ and people of faith must speak out now.

More ACTION:  Contact your family and friends at church and let them know that they should speak out against this radical proposal — post your opinions on Facebook and Twitter.

You can also help us continue the fight for natural marriage by donating $15, $25, $50 or $100 or more today. With your support we can continue our vital work!  Click HERE to support the work and ministry of Illinois Family Institute.

It is difficult to believe that we have reached the point where our leaders apparently cannot see the difference between traditional and same-sex” marriage.”  Numerous studies have been done over the years, and regardless of political correctness, they have shown that equating these two relationships has produced significant negative consequences. 

Surveys taken in Europe, where same-sex marriages have been legal for over a decade, reveal that traditional marriage suffers badly as a consequence.  Many married couples surveyed for one study were actually embarrassed to have gotten married at all!  But, why wouldn’t they be embarrassed, since their relationship is now considered equivalent to what everyone knows is an aberrant lifestyle? 

As with “The Emperor’s New Clothes,” while it was a child who pointed out that the emperor was naked, everyone else knew it, too, but had remained silent out of fear.  And so it is today.  It matters not how loud the Left shouts that homosexuality is normal, everyone knows it is not! 

God’s word, the Bible is explicitly clear on such subjects.  Homosexual conduct brings His sharp rebuke, as also does immoral conduct between heterosexuals.   Have our elected officials really given thought to the fact that they are declaring themselves wiser than God?  Must we remind them that the Bible states, “Woe unto them who call good evil and evil good?”  

Before new drugs are introduced to the public, though they are often intended for only a small percentage of Americans, yet they undergo grueling tests and trials lasting years and costing millions or even hundreds of millions of dollars.  Yet, in the face of powerful evidence that same-sex marriage has profound negative consequences to families and especially children which will last for generations to come, our elected officials are plowing full speed ahead to legalize and sanction same-sex marriage! 

Make no mistake about this: If we did not believe unequivocally that same-sex marriage was very harmful to children, we would say nothing at all.  We have no interest in or time for arguments over trivialities. 

However, traditional marriage is the most important ingredient in a stable childhood, life, and civilization.  Are we so blinded by political correctness or the homosexual lobby that we would sacrifice our children, their future and the future of our civilization to gain a few votes or to hear the accolades of the Left?  Have we no statesmen  left? 

Can you elected officials guarantee that there will be no harmful consequences from your decision to fundamentally alter the structures of home and society?  If, as time passes we follow in the footsteps of Europe in destroying the nuclear family will you, once the damage of this choice is evident, reverse this horrendous decision and then proceed to tender your resignation and leave politics behind? 

It is abundantly clear that over the last fifty years, in “liberating” the culture from its historic Judeo-Christian morality, the US has devastated its children.  Thus it is very simple: if approving same-sex marriage further undermines children’s welfare, that approval must be withheld.  

Concerned Illinois citizens need to contact their legislators now! 

Homosexuals can survive without “marriage.”  Children cannot!

Eliminating sexual complementarity from the legal definition of marriage necessarily means formally declaring that marriage has no inherent connection to reproductive potential. Those who seek to redefine marriage—marriage revisionists—claim that because many marriages don’t result in children, the issue of reproductive potential is irrelevant. 

But reproductive potential is the only reason the government is involved in marriage. The government is involved in the marriage business precisely because the union of one man and one woman is the type of relationship that naturally results in children. And the government has a vested interest in protecting the rights and needs of children upon whom the future health of any nation depends. 

Marriage revisionists who claim that marriage has no inherent connection to reproductive potential and is constituted solely by deep emotional bonds shift the focus from the needs and rights of children to the desires of adults. In so doing, marriage revisionists erode the only justification for government involvement in marriage. 

Further, marriage revisionists have no reason to prohibit plural marriage or incestuous homosexual marriage and no way to explain why marriage should be permanent and exclusive. 

If marriage is constituted by deep emotional bonds with no inherent connection to procreation and childrearing, then there’s no reason to desire it to be exclusive or permanent. After all the government  has no more vested interest in recognizing and regulating inherently sterile loving relationships between two homosexuals than it does in recognizing and regulating loving relationships between platonic friends. 

And the government has no more vested interest in supporting through marriage the permanence and exclusivity of inherently sterile, loving relationships between two homosexuals who have acquired a child to raise than it does in supporting through marriage the permanence and exclusivity of two friends (or siblings) who may be raising an orphaned child together. 

Just because the conjugal union of one man and one woman is the type of relationship (i.e., marital) that naturally results in children does not mean that the every type of relationship that involves the raising of children is a marriage.  

The traditional and true understanding of marriage is the only view of marriage that can justify and account for the cultural belief that marriage is necessarily binary, exclusive, and permanent. 

The inevitable consequences of such a radical revision of marital laws are profound. Some will be felt immediately; some will not be manifest for some years. But all will be destructive to children and the family. 

Here are just a few of the ways the legal recognition of homosexual unions as “marriages” will affect the family: 

• Once marriage is severed from any inherent connection to reproductive potential, once the revisionist view of marriage as a private relationship constituted solely by the deep feelings of those seeking to marry, it becomes meaningless as a public institution. Eventually even heterosexual investment in it will decrease.
• As fewer heterosexuals choose to marry and increased numbers of children are raised by single mothers or lesbians, greater numbers of children will grow up fatherless, which will increase the myriad and tragic harms that result from being deprived of fathers (click HERE  and HERE  for more information). 
• The law will support and propagate the radical, destructive, and fallacious idea that children have no inherent right to know and be raised by their biological parents. 
• The law will support and propagate the radical, destructive, and fallacious idea that mothers and fathers are interchangeable and that mothers or fathers are expendable. 
• Unethical ways of producing children (e.g., egg and sperm donation, surrogacy, and in vitro fertilization) will be further normalized and increase in frequency. 
• Increasing numbers of children will be deliberately deprived of either a mother or father, which will harm children in incalculable and numerous ways (click HERE , HERE  and HERE). 
• Children will be deprived of the right to be known by their biological parents.
• Public schools —including elementary schools—will expose children to non-objective homosexuality-affirming beliefs about homosexuality. 
• Public schools will censor all competing (i.e., conservative) views of homosexuality.
• Children will be taught that traditional beliefs about what marriage is are hateful, bigoted, and ignorant.
• Parents of children in public schools will lose the right to be the sole determiner of what their children learn about homosexuality and when they learn it. 
• Laws currently presume that the spouse of a woman who has given birth is the father. When homosexuals are allowed to marry that presumption becomes irrational. The government will become ever more entangled in issues related to legal parentage.

Abolishing sexual complementarity from the legal definition of marriage is not an “equality” issue. It’s not an issue of “fairness” or “justice.” And it’s certainly not an issue of compassion. Homosexual activists are not pursuing marriage for the benefits or privileges that accompany marriage. They already have those. 

They are pursuing the elimination of the central defining feature of marriage in the service of their unholy quest for compulsory cultural approval of homosexuality—approval that they seek too through access to the hearts and minds of our little ones. Legalized “same-sex marriage” wins them that access.

Take ACTION:  If you haven’t yet sent an email or a fax to your state representative — it is time to speak up now!  Click HERE to contact your Illinois Representative and tell him/her to oppose the effort to redefine marriage!.  You can also call him/her through the Capitol switchboard at (217) 782-2000.

Better still, schedule a meeting with your representative, bring as many constituents as you can, and ask him or her the questions available HERE.

Click HERE for Talking Points.

More ACTION:  Contact your family and friends at church and let them know that they should speak out against this radical proposal — post your opinions on Facebook and Twitter.

You can also help us continue the fight for natural marriage by donating $10, $25, $50 or $100 or more today. With your support we can continue our vital work!  Click HERE to support the work and ministry of Illinois Family Institute.

William Wilberforce said, “Accustom yourself to look first to the dreadful consequences of failure; then fix your eye on the glorious prize which is before you; and when your strength begins to fail, and your spirits are well nigh exhausted, let the animating view rekindle your resolution, and call forth in renewed vigour the fainting energies of your soul.”

The glorious prize for countless Illinoisans right now is the preservation of the single most important social institution: natural marriage. They understand the dreadful consequences of failure, and yesterday in a remarkable demonstration, Illinoisans, numbering in the thousands, sacrificed their time, labor, and comfort to defend it.

Yesterday in Springfield—in 19° weather—hope animated the men, women, and children as they arrived, busload by busload, car by car, from every corner of the state to express their opposition to the removal of sexual complementarity from the legal definition of marriage.

Despite the indoctrination that pervades academia, the bias that dominates the mainstream media, the flood of Hollywood images that glamorize homosexuality, and the increasing vilification of those who dare to dissent from “progressivism,” scores of Illinoisans remain resolute in their defense of marriage.

All those unable to be in Springfield but who recognize that children have a right to a mother and a father, who treasure religious liberty, who understand that the government does not construct marriage, and who rightfully fear the consequences of the government’s refusal to recognize what marriage is owe a debt of gratitude to the thousands who stood for truth in the public square today.

Now that lawmakers have seen and heard that Illinoisans care deeply about natural marriage, let’s hope they have the wisdom and integrity to protect it.

More pictures posted at the IFI Facebook Page!  

Written by Laurie Higgins and David E. Smith

The Senate Executive Committee decided to override Illinois history this afternoon by approving SB 10 which redefines marriage to include two individuals of the same sex. The bill passed out of committee by a 9-5 vote along party lines. 

The bill now moves to the full Illinois Senate for its consideration, with a possible vote coming on Valentine’s Day (February 14th).  If it were to pass the Illinois Senate, it would move to the Illinois House for a committee hearing.  This makes the February 20th Defend Marriage Lobby Day more important than ever.  This planned lobby day couldn’t come at a better time. We have a very good chance of stopping this bill in the Illinois House IF we show up and speak out!  (Read more HERE.) 

Take ACTION:  If you haven’t yet sent an email or a fax to your state lawmakers, please do it now!  Click HERE to let them know what you think.

In response to the Illinois Senate’s action, IFI Executive Director David Smith pointed out: 

The state does not have the moral authority to redefine what all societies have understood marriage to be: a comprehensive union of one man and one woman. The government merely recognizes and regulates marriage, and it does so because it has a compelling interest in the health, welfare, and inherent rights of children—the next generation. 

ADF Legal Counsel Joe La Rue (pictured above), who testified in the committee hearing, had this to say about today’s committee recommendation: 

The bill to redefine marriage provides inadequate safeguards for religious liberty. It leaves churches and religious organizations at the whim and mercy of the courts who will have to interpret the marriage redefinition law and how it interacts with Illinois’ public accommodation and employment non-discrimination laws.

Simply put, this bill does not protect churches and religious organizations from having to rent their facilities to same-sex couples for wedding ceremonies, even when doing so violates the church’s religious beliefs. Nor does the bill protect churches and religious organizations from being forced to hire employees from same-sex marriages. The bill also provides no protection for individuals, like wedding photographers, who object to same-sex marriages but may be asked because of their business to participate in same-sex ceremonies.

This law does not protect religious freedom as it claims. Rather, it promotes religious intolerance, bigotry and discrimination.

(Read the entire ADF legal memo on SB 10 HERE.) 

Marriage has an inherent nature that the government merely recognizes and regulates. The government does not create marriage. The sole reason that justifies government involvement in marriage is that conjugal unions are the type of unions that produce children. Some argue that homosexual couples are raising children, so they too should be permitted to marry. But it is not merely the presence of children that creates marriage. If it did, then two aunts who were raising children together should be permitted to marry.  

In his annual Mother’s Day and Father’s Day proclamations, President Barack Obama has affirmed the essential roles that both mothers and fathers have in the lives of their children. This political agenda necessarily denies that these roles are essential. 

Neither SB 10 nor its sponsors have addressed the question of whether children have any inherent rights to know and be raised by their biological parents. 

The revisionist view of marriage, which is reflected in this radical proposal, argues that the sole necessary feature of marriage is the presence of feelings of romantic love and that marriage has no inherent connection to sexual complementarity or reproductive potential. If that view is true, then there is no rational justification for prohibiting plural or incestuous same-sex unions. 

As Illinois Family Institute’s cultural analyst Laurie Higgins explains, “The state has no vested interest in recognizing the love two people have for each other. The state has no more interest in recognizing the love two men or two women in sexual relationships have for each other than it does in recognizing the love two platonic friends have for each other.” 

Further, the legalization of same-sex “marriage” will undermine religious liberty as even homosexual legal scholars have affirmed. We have already witnessed the loss of religious liberty that is the logical outcome of government recognition of same-sex unions. Immediately following the passage of the Religious Freedom Protection and Civil Union Act, Catholic Charities and the Evangelical Child and Family Agency lost their right to have their child placement policies reflect their religious beliefs, and a Christian business owner was sued for refusing to rent his bed and breakfast to a homosexual couple for their civil union ceremony. 

When the traditional views of marriage are deemed discriminatory, the religious liberty of those who hold them will be diminished. 

Written by: Matt Birk

Same-sex unions may not affect my marriage specifically, but it will affect my children.

It should come as no surprise that the National Football League supports the right of its players to share their opinions on important public matters, nor should it come as a surprise that I personally support my colleagues’ rights to voice their opinions.

But the conversation during the last few weeks on the subject of same-sex marriage has told a different story — one that appears to be drawing a false connection between supporting true American values like free speech and the institution of marriage, our most fundamental and important social institution.

I think it is important to set the record straight about what the marriage debate is and is not about, and to clarify that not all NFL players think redefining marriage is a good thing.

The union of a man and a woman is privileged and recognized by society as “marriage” for a reason, and it’s not because the government has a vested interest in celebrating the love between two people. With good reason, government recognizes marriages and gives them certain legal benefits so they can provide a stable, nurturing environment for the next generation of citizens: our kids.

Children have a right to a mom and a dad, and I realize that this doesn’t always happen. Through the work my wife and I do at pregnancy resource centers and underprivileged schools, we have witnessed firsthand the many heroic efforts of single mothers and fathers — many of whom work very hard to provide what’s best for their kids.

But recognizing the efforts of these parents and the resiliency of some (not all, unfortunately) of these kids, does not then give society the right to dismiss the potential long-term effects on a child of not knowing or being loved by his or her mother or father. Each plays a vital role in the raising of a child.

Marriage is in trouble right now — admittedly, for many reasons that have little to do with same-sex unions. In the last few years, political forces and a culture of relativism have replaced “I am my brother’s keeper” and “love your neighbor as yourself” with “live and let live” and “if it feels good, go ahead and do it.”

The effects of no-fault divorce, adultery, and the nonchalant attitude toward marriage by some have done great harm to this sacred institution. How much longer do we put the desires of adults before the needs of kids? Why are we not doing more to lift up and strengthen the institution of marriage?

Same-sex unions may not affect my marriage specifically, but it will affect my children — the next generation. Ideas have consequences, and laws shape culture. Marriage redefinition will affect the broader well-being of children and the welfare of society. As a Christian and a citizen, I am compelled to care about both.

I am speaking out on this issue because it is far too important to remain silent. People who are simply acknowledging the basic reality of marriage between one man and one woman are being labeled as “bigots” and “homophobic.” Aren’t we past that as a society?

Don’t we all have family members and friends whom we love who have same-sex attraction? Attempting to silence those who may disagree with you is always un-American, but especially when it is through name-calling, it has no place in respectful conversation.

A defense of marriage is not meant as an offense to any person or group. All people should be afforded their inalienable American freedoms. There is no opposition between providing basic human rights to everyone and preserving marriage as the sacred union of one man and one woman.

I hope that in voicing my beliefs I encourage people on both sides to use reason and charity as they enter this debate. I encourage all Americans to stand up to preserve and promote a healthy, authentic promarriage culture in this upcoming election.

Matt Birk, a native Minnesotan, is a former center for the Minnesota Vikings and current center for the Baltimore Ravens. To read more marriage amendment commentaries, go here.

The effort to to redefine marriage and family is shifting into high gear. The Chicago Sun-Times is reporting that the proponents of same-sex “marriage” plan to attempt to pass their disastrous  legislation in the Illinois Senate on Valentine’s Day. One would hope that our state lawmakers wouldn’t be susceptible to this type of emotional manipulation, but I am not so sure. From the article:

Valentine’s Day might wind up being more than just a day of romance for Illinois’ gay and lesbian couples.

Senate President John Cullerton (D-Chicago) wants Feb. 14 to be the day his legislative chamber votes to legalize gay marriages in Illinois.

“I’d like to pass it out of committee next week and pass it on Valentine’s Day,” Cullerton told the Chicago Sun-Times in a meeting Thursday with the newspaper’s Editorial Board.

Cullerton said he believes the legislation, Senate Bill 10, has the necessary 30 votes to pass and move to the House, clearing a major hurdle in making Illinois the 10th state to legalize same-sex marriages.

IFI Cultural Analyst Laurie Higgins notes the appropriateness of Cullerton’s proposal: “Cullerton’s statement epitomizes the Left’s approach to serious moral and legislative issues which is to divert the public’s attention from reason, logic and evidence by appealing to emotion. Yank on the heartstrings of an intellectually lazy public and voilà another victory for sexual anarchists and marriage nihilists.”

Now is the time to make your voice heard!

With the beginning of a new General Assembly — which includes 27 new state representatives, 16 new state senators and many new district boundaries — it is imperative that each of us again reaches out to our state lawmakers on this issue. There is a good chance that  your lawmakers have changed. We need you to contact your legislators today. Tell them that it is unconscionable to be complicit in the destruction of marriage and family in Illinois. They must hear from us! 

Take ACTION: 1. Click HERE to email your state lawmakers today, urging them to uphold natural marriage and not to cave to the culturally destructive groups that are intent on altering society’s definition and understanding of marriage. Tell them you do not support the legalization of gay “marriage,” and that studies show same-sex marriage is bad for children, families and society. Let them know that with all of the problems we face as a state and nation, the General Assembly should not be harming the institution most essential to the social and economic well-being of society.

2. Join us on February 20th in Springfield for a “Defend Marriage Lobby Day.” (Read more HERE.) Plan to bring your family and friends AND organize your church to support this lobbying day to defend marriage.

3. Pray that God would give wisdom to our state lawmakers. Pray that God would convict the hearts of our lawmakers. Pray that God would give courage to our lawmakers to do the right thing in the face of tremendous pressure to do otherwise. Pray that God would have mercy on the families of Illinois.

4. Ask your pastor to share this bulletin insert with the congregation. 

5. Share this message with family, friends and on social media. Forward this email to like-minded contacts. Ask them also to send emails and make calls.

Click HERE to make a donation to the Illinois Family Institute.

Help expand our reach by forwarding this email
to like-minded family and friends.

Written by Dr. Mitchell S. Rosenthal

Pot is not legal—at least not yet. But it’s not exactly illegal either—not anymore. More than a dozen states have decriminalized the possession of marijuana. Nearly a score of them sanction its medical use. Voters in Washington and Colorado have made recreational use of the drug legal in their states.

One way or another, all of these changes mean that there will be more marijuana in homes for young people to find and use. Granny may be smoking it for glaucoma, but there is nothing benign about the effects of pot on a juvenile brain. Whatever its legal status, pot is not harmless.

Marijuana hasn’t achieved its present status of relative social acceptability by virtue of its virtues, but rather despite mounting evidence of the dangers it poses, especially to young users—and even more to users under age 18. While adults may be at risk, too, a considerable number of them appear to use marijuana in relative safety. So the case for prohibition has rested most securely on potential harm to adolescents.

Pot’s potential for harm has as much to do with the nature of adolescence as it does with the nature of THC, the active ingredient in marijuana. That’s because kids do foolish things because they are kids—and their brains are not yet fully developed. Unfortunately, the part of the brain that censors dumb and dangerous behavior is last to develop. It doesn’t generally come fully on line until the mid-20s, but the pleasure-seeking part of the brain is fully functioning by puberty.

So, kids do foolish things that are often risky—and get so much riskier when teenagers are high. Moreover, smoking marijuana is by itself a risky enterprise, and most addictive for the young. A study published in the Journal of Clinical and Experimental Pharmacology in 1994 found that one in 10 young people who use marijuana will go on to become addicted. Pot smoking puts the user at risk of psychosis, changes in the anatomy of the brain, and damage to the heart and lungs. It retards maturation and impairs learning, memory and judgment—no small matters during the adolescent years.

Among the many thousands of adolescents we have treated at the programs of Phoenix House over the past four decades, the overwhelming majority have used no drug more potent than marijuana. And for many of those young people, the course of their lives has been altered, sometimes permanently and often tragically, with suicides, car accidents and drownings—or with interrupted education, chronic depression and joblessness.

Federal law still outlaws marijuana. Yet President Obama told Barbara Walters in December that “it does not make sense from a prioritization point of view for us to focus on recreational drug users in a state that has already said that under state law that’s legal.” Meanwhile, the Senate Judiciary Committee plans hearings to find some legislative route around the federal-state impasse.

Given all that we know, the sensible strategy at this point is to send an unequivocal message that “legal” is not a synonym for “safe.” This is not a novel concept. We have plenty of examples. Alcohol is legal and, in many ways, it can be even more threatening to teens than marijuana. Hand guns (and assault rifles) are also legal, but they are hardly benign.

While rational societies generally make some effort to protect children from obvious dangers, it is fundamentally a parental responsibility—and one that we humans share with the rest of the animal kingdom. It may be helpful if there is law on the parents’ side. But this is not essential, nor does its absence diminish in any way a parent’s familial obligations.

There will be restriction on legal marijuana sales to children—following the alcohol template, states considering legalization use 21 as the legal age. But we cannot expect such restrictions to be any more effective in limiting teen marijuana use than they are in limiting teen smoking or drinking.

And then there is the issue of easier-than-ever access as more adults can buy or grow marijuana for their personal use. In 2000, a study commissioned by Phoenix House found that among 600 young people in treatment, only 1% were introduced to drugs by a dealer, and that a primary source of illicit drugs was relatives or family friends.

At this point in the country’s history, whether pot is legal or not is no longer the main issue. The issue is the danger that marijuana poses to kids, how parents can protect their children from that danger, and what the rest of society—absent the criminal justice system—can do to support them in that fight.

Dr. Rosenthal, a child psychiatrist, is the founder of Phoenix House, the nation’s largest nonprofit substance-abuse treatment and prevention organization.

A version of this article appeared January 17, 2013, on page A15 in the U.S. edition of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: Legalizing Pot Won’t Make It Any Safer.