It’s nigh unto impossible to stop teachers from showing films with egregiously obscene language and depictions of sodomy, masturbation, and pedophilic fantasies in public schools, but when the gender/sexuality deconstructionists—aka “progressives”—want father-daughter dances gone, in the blink of a blinkered eye, they’re gone. When “progressives” in Cranston, Rhode Island said jump, school administrators said how high.

The administration of a school district in Cranston, Rhode Island, just a stone’s throw from the high school sued by the atheist teen over a banner on which was written a prayer that made her feel “unwanted,” was recently reprimanded for hosting its longstanding annual father-daughter dance because it supposedly violates the city’s anti-discrimination policy which prohibits discrimination based on gender in all school activities.

Although, the dance took place, the district apologized for this grievous offense to the sensibilities of sexuality anarchists.

Discrimination or Stereotyping: What’s the problem?

Even though the school agreed to offer an equivalent activity for boys (i.e., a mother-son baseball game), the gender deconstructionists at the ACLU were not satisfied. They sent a letter to the school which stated in part:

A dance for girls and a baseball game for boys, particularly in light of the stereotypes they embody, are not, we submit, ‘reasonably comparable’ activities….To the contrary; the stereotypes at their core undermine the goal of school anti-discrimination laws.

So, the goal of school anti-discrimination laws is to eradicate stereotypes? By stereotypes, the ACLU means any recognition that there are differences between boys and girls. I wonder what these stereotype-haters think of Will and Grace and Modern Family, which make their bread and butter by recognizing, promoting, and celebrating stereotypes of homosexuals. And since when is stereotype-eradication the proper role of any law?

This pernicious interpretation of anti-discrimination law points to the difference between legitimate and illegitimate discrimination. One meaning of discrimination is good. When we make judgments between right and wrong, we discriminate legitimately. When we make distinctions, that is to say, discriminate, between things that are by nature different, we discriminate legitimately. When we recognize, participate in, or promote types of activities or relationships in which gender or gender differences play a role, we are discriminating legitimately.

We ought not impose gender distinctions where they are irrelevant, but that doesn’t mean that society—including public schools—are prohibited from offering activities that recognize gender distinctions. It is ethically legitimate to have women’s book clubs, men’s golf outings, separate bathrooms for men and women, sexually complementary marriage, and father-daughter dances.

I guess the Rhode Island school could have provided a mother-son dance as the reasonably comparable activity for boys, which would have solved the problem of stereotyping. Or better yet, they could have offered a father-son dance, which would have really blown gender stereotypes to smithereens. But why is it inherently better to prohibit all formal recognition that there are differences between males and females than to occasionally recognize that most boys and most girls generally fit within these recognizable gender categories. What sense does it make for homosexual men to say they prefer men over women if there are no gender differences? With regard to dances, generally speaking, more young girls like to get gussied up and go to dances than do  young boys.

Anti-discrimination laws were never intended to obliterate public recognition of gender differences. Or at least the public was never told that the obliteration of all public recognition of gender differences was the ultimate goal of these laws.

Homosexuality and Gender Confusion Affirmed in Public Schools

Perhaps, however, it wasn’t the promotion of the evil stereotype that girls tend to like dances more than boys do that has the ACLU so incensed. Perhaps the ACLU’s concern is that those who are being raised by single or homosexual parents or who suffer from gender confusion will “feel bad” if there is any activity offered that doesn’t jibe with their circumstances. After all, it is their feelings and beliefs that now control public schools.

Public schools are pressured to accept as true the fanciful and subversive notion that one’s real gender is determined by one’s internal thoughts and desires. And public schools are pressured to affirm all family structures as equivalent in order not to make students who have only one parent or who are being raised by homosexuals “feel bad.”

This, of course, means public schools are not neutral on the issue of gender confusion, divorce, or families headed by homosexuals. Pretending that little boys are in reality little girls is not a neutral position. Affirming family structures that have only one parent or in which children are raised by homosexuals as equivalent to the traditional family structure in which there is a mother and father is a non-neutral position.

Suffering in Motherless or Fatherless Families

It is tragic that some children don’t have mothers or fathers. The reasons are many ranging from death to divorce and abandonment to the selfish desires of men and women who intentionally create motherless or fatherless children. But the unfortunate circumstances of some children should not preclude society from providing opportunities to celebrate the types of relationships that emerge from sexual differentiation.     

The Rhode Island story raises a number of questions:

• How can a society promote that which is good if it must continually defer to the feelings of those who either voluntarily make bad choices or who are victims of the bad choices of others?
• May society affirm the value of parents working to keep their family intact if doing so makes children whose parents divorce feel bad?
• Is the sadness of fatherless children caused by messages that affirm good things like the relationship between fathers and daughters? Or is the sadness caused by the absence of fathers?
• Does it help these children to conceal all celebrations of the good of father-daughter relationships?  

The fact that a student feels bad when exposed to an idea or activity does not mean that the idea should censored, or that the activity should be prohibited, or that either is wrong. Sometimes our sad (or guilty) feelings are good things. Sometimes they result from recognition that our own ideas and choices or the ideas and choices of people we love are not good. Sometimes our sorrow results from the absence of something good and desirable.

What is the origin of the opposition of gender deconstructionists to gender-related activities? Are they centrally concerned about the sadness children feel because their life circumstances are different from those of their peers? It could be that the ACLU believes that schools shouldn’t play any part—no matter how incidental, remote, or ancillary—in making kids feel bad because of differences in their life circumstances. If that’s the case, then schools must do away with honors nights because some kids can’t garner honors. And swim teams shouldn’t invite parents down on deck on senior night because some children don’t have parents. And health classes shouldn’t teach about the health risks of obesity because some kids have obese parents.

Or is their central concern their desire to eradicate any recognition of the objective status of gender differences and the critical role gender differences play in human flourishing? It could be that gender deconstructionists want to obliterate the objective truth that objective gender exists and that gender differences play an essential role in procreation and socialization. They may want to replace those truths with their radical, unproven beliefs that gender has no objectively discernible reality and plays no essential role in any activity or social experience.

If that’s the case and they win the cultural day, we’re in for a world of hurt. If we think schools are hurting children by holding an after-school, father-daughter dance, imagine a world where little girls and boys are taught that objectively discernible gender doesn’t exist and where all activities that recognize and celebrate gender differences are prohibited.

Father-daughter dances are not merely enjoyable activities for fathers and daughters (or grandpas and granddaughters, uncles and nieces, older brothers and little sisters). They also teach girls how men should treat women. In a small way, they help girls know the experience of being honored and cherished. And maybe in some small way that will help girls later in life reject those men who don’t honor and cherish them—or those who abuse them.

Public schools have no ethical obligation to affirm the non-objective belief that gender is constituted by feelings or thoughts, or that anatomy and DNA are wholly unrelated to gender. Public schools have no ethical obligation to affirm the peculiar assumptions of those who believe that gender has no objectively discernible and profoundly meaningful reality.

Public schools have no ethical obligation to try to alleviate all suffering, including the suffering that results from the poor choices of adults. Schools can’t lessen the pain that results from missing fathers or mothers. Schools can, however, make it more difficult for children to see the real source of their pain. Schools can also stand in the way of children growing up to aspire to something better. When schools teach implicitly and explicitly that fatherless or motherless families are just as beneficial for the rearing of children as stable families with one mother and one father who are married for life, they make it less likely that children will aspire to such family structures when they grow up. 

Stand With Us

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

Click here to support Illinois Family Action (IFA). Contributions to IFA are not tax-deductible but give us the most flexibility in engaging critical legislative and political issues.

Click here to support Illinois Family Institute (IFI). Contributions to IFI are tax-deductible and support our educational efforts only.

You can also send a gift to P.O. Box 88848, Carol Stream, IL  60188.

The controversy over Mitt Romney’s comments about the 47 percent dependent on government coffers continues to heat up, with political pundits stunned that anyone running for president could be so insensitive. 

“There are 47 percent who are with [Obama], who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it,” Romney told a small group of high dollar donors. 

It’s abhorrent, liberals are saying, that Romney would berate those struggling through tough times while it’s laudable for the President to demand more from the nation’s wealthiest producers. 

This year’s key issue has become the redistribution of wealth – when government intervenes to take from the rich and give to the poor. 

The Holy Scriptures instruct believers to care for the widows and orphans and bring tithes into the storehouse. We are not to be greedy nor selfish with the blessings God has bestowed. 

But when is enough enough? And when does our charity lead to a crippling, unhealthy dependency? 

Illinois must face this urgent moral question because the state’s entitlement programs are on the path to bankruptcy. Illinois led the nation with 1 in 298 units in foreclosure proceedings in August. Our unemployment rate is among the highest and our poverty rate is rising. 

Nationally, there are more looking to the government for assistance than ever before, the Heritage Foundation found in a recent study. Government dependency jumped 3.28 percent in 2011, with the largest increases in higher education loans and grants and in retirement spending. From 2007 to 2011, the rate rose by 31.73 percent. 

There’s no question that everyone’s looking for an upsurge that produces jobs. An economic boost would, we assume, cause the government dependency rolls to shrink and states like Illinois would swing from being welfare providers to being revenue recipients. 

But would an economic recovery and a job boon really fix Illinois’ revenue problem? 

Those that resist discussing social issues this political season will be disappointed that jobs and the economy are only part of the solution. It’s only part because a dramatic rise in unwed births and the accompanying decline in marriage are the biggest cause of child poverty in Illinois, the Heritage Foundation said in a study released last week. 

Heritage ran the numbers for Illinois and found that a staggering 73 percent of all poor families in Illinois are unmarried. Only one-quarter of poor families with children involve married couples. 

Indeed, despite all the attempts to steer around this issue, marriage – yes, marriage – is the one crucial factor as to whether a child grows up dependent on Illinois’ welfare system. Marriage drops the probability of child poverty by 85 percent. 

As Illinois nears economic calamity with its state treasury drowning in red ink, the only way to remedy the situation is to change public policy emphasis. Education reduces poverty, but so does marriage. In fact, Heritage Foundation found, a married family headed by a high school dropout in Illinois is actually less likely to be poor than a non-married family headed by an individual with a few years of college. 

As traditional and old-fashioned as it may sound, the best economic environment for children is a two-parent household. When compared to children in intact married homes, children raised by single parents are more likely to have emotional and behavioral problems; be physically abused; smoke, drink, and use drugs; be aggressive; engage in violent, delinquent, and criminal behavior; have poor school performance; be expelled from school; and drop out of high school. 

Each of those negatives costs the state’s taxpayers more and more over time, not to mention the loss of talent and an overall missing contribution to the community. 

Who would have imagined that Illinois’ public policy and decisions made at the State Capitol could make a difference on its families and its children’s futures in such a obvious manner? It’s not only best for our children, but it’s in the state’s best interests financially, psychologically, emotionally and spiritually to encourage traditional marriage in Illinois. 

It is best for all – even that 47 percent who don’t pay federal taxes – to strive for independence from the state’s mercies. 

As Ronald Reagan said, “The American people, the most generous on earth, who created the highest standard of living, are not going to accept the notion that we can only make a better world for others by moving backwards ourselves. Those who believe we can have no business leading the nation.” 

This election, it’s crucial we choose leaders at state and national levels that recognize the value of traditional marriage, and determine to use that insight to lead us forward once again. With it, we can hope for a more fiscally-sound future. 

If all human beings should have the right to marry (or simply be with) the one they love, as proponents of same-sex marriage constantly tell us, then why shouldn’t adult, incestuous couples enjoy that same “right”? Hollywood director Nick Cassavetes is the latest to say, “Why not?”, and I for one am not in the least bit surprised.

Simply stated, with the public endorsement of same-sex relationships, the endorsement (or at least acceptance) of consensual, adult, incestuous relationships is the next step. Consider the following:

• Already in April, 2007, Time Magazine featured a major article entitled, “Should Incest Be Legal?” The article noted that critics of the Supreme Court’s Lawrence v. Texas ruling in 2003, which struck down Texas’ anti-sodomy law, argued that the ruling would lead to attempts to legalize same-sex marriage and polygamy. “It turns out,” Time noted, “that the critics were right,” adding that plaintiffs were now “using Lawrence to challenge laws against incest.”
  
  
• In December 2010, when Columbia University professor David Epstein was charged with one count of incest because of his three-year, consensual affair with his adult daughter, his attorney Matthew Galuzzo remarked, “It’s ok for homosexuals to do whatever they want in their own home. How is this so different? We have to figure out why some behavior is tolerated and some is not.”
  
  
• In May 2010, Salon.com ran an article on “Gay Porn’s Most Shocking Taboo,” namely “Twincest.” As expressed by one of the twins, “My brother is my boyfriend, and I am his boyfriend.” One commenter wrote, “I have total moral and legal integrity here: no sexual act that results from the consent of both parties should be illegal or immoral. These boys apparently consented to do this: there is no possibility of deformed or retarded children: therefore it is not a crime or your business.” But of course. Not surprisingly, a colleague reported to me that on other gay websites, the same argument was frequently raised in support of the twins.
  
  
• Even more shocking news was reported in May, 2010. A 72 year-old woman and her long estranged grandson in England were going to have a child together through a surrogate mother. Said the grandson, Phil: “You can’t help who you fall for.” Said his grandmother, Pearl: “Phil’s going to be a great dad. I never in a million years thought at 72 I’d be ‘pregnant’ and in love with my grandson. I make no apologies and I believe God’s given me a second chance.”
  
  
• In February of this year, Emily Yoffe (aka Prudence) responded to a question in her column on Slate.com. Male, fraternal twins who had been living together as lovers for many years wondered if they should come out and tell their family. After discussing legal and family matters, she closed with this counsel: “When people ask when you’re each going to go out there and find a nice young man, tell them that while it may seem unorthodox, you both have realized that living together is what works for you. Say no brothers could be more devoted or compatible, and neither of you can imagine wanting to change what you have.” Gay activist Dan Savage seconded her advice.
  
  
• In several countries, incest laws are being challenged, most notably in a major case in Germany involving a brother and sister who did not meet until later in life, only to fall in love and have children. Their attorney used the precedent of same-sex marriage to argue on his clients’ behalf.
  
  
• Some scientists now speak of GSA, genetic sexual attraction, which “occurs between two adults who have been separated during the critical years of development and bonding and are reunited years later as adults.” When they are finally reunited, “they become captivated with one another, sharing similar physical features, likes and dislikes.” Perhaps they could say, “My genes made me do it!”

In light of the above, which could be multiplied almost ad infinitum (and ad nauseam), Nick Cassavetes’ comments shouldn’t be so shocking: “I’m not saying this is an absolute but in a way, if you’re not having kids – who gives a d-mn? Love who you want. Isn’t that what we say? Gay marriage – love who you want? If it’s your brother or sister it’s super-weird, but if you look at it, you’re not hurting anybody except every single person who freaks out because you’re in love with one another.” Yes, isn’t that what “we say” these days?

Promoting his new movie “Yellow,” which features an adult incestuous relationship, he said, “We had heard a few stories where brothers and sisters were completely, absolutely in love with one another. You know what? This whole movie is about judgment, and lack of it, and doing what you want.” Exactly. Who are you to judge?

A gay man and his partner once asked me, “But how can you say our relationship is wrong? We’re not hurting anyone and there is no victim.” I asked them, “Would you approve of two adult gay brothers having a relationship?” They both replied, “But that is so wrong!” Yet when I pressed them further, they could not say why their relationship was fine but that of two consenting brothers was not.

So, what’s it going to be? Do we hold the line on marriage as the union of a man and woman only, or do we eventually open the door to incest too?

This week, a bipartisan group of 11 members of the Illinois General Assembly filed an amicus curiae brief defending the constitutionality of Illinois law defining marriage as the union of a husband and a wife. Led by Senator Kirk Dillard (R-Westmont) and Senator Bill Haine (D-Alton), the legislators’ brief supports a motion to dismiss the ACLU and Lambda Legal lawsuits filed by Thomas More Society attorneys, on behalf of downstate county clerks who were allowed into the case to defend the law.

“We welcome the bipartisan support for Illinois’ marriage law offered by this respected group of legislators,” said Peter Breen, executive director and legal counsel for the Thomas More Society. “They rightly point out that under our constitutional system, the issue of how the government treats domestic relationships is reserved to the General Assembly.”

The legislators assert that the judicial branch should not rewrite the state’s marriage laws, stating that “to do so would be to place the court in a position of acting as a super-legislature, nullifying laws it does not like. That is not our proper role in a democratic society.” They also claim that such action would, “Dramatically interfere with the constitutional guarantee of separation of powers by which the general assembly is empowered to make public policy….”

The legislators also cite several sociological arguments stating that “… the marriage structure that helps children the most is a family headed by two biological parents ….” The legislators also supported the religious liberty concerns raised by the amicus brief of the Catholic Conference of Illinois, also filed this week, indicating that “of great concern to us is hostility that may be shown to Illinois’ religious minorities” who oppose same-sex marriage.

The amicus curiae brief is available HERE.

The proposed amici curiae, Senator Kirk Dillard, Senator William Haine, Senator Matt Murphy (R-Palatine), Senator Darrin LaHood (R-Peoria), Senator Bill Brady (R-Bloomington), Representative David Reis (R-Olney), Representative Joseph Lyons (D-Chicago), Representative Michael Connelly (R-Naperville), Representative Richard Morthland (R-Moline), Representative Patti Bellock (R-Westmont), and Representative Paul Evans (R-Highland), all of the Illinois General Assembly, are represented by retired Cook County Chancery Court Judge, Robert V. Boharic.

Take ACTION:  Click HERE to contact your state representatives and state senators, urging them to support HJR 95 and its call for an amendment to the Illinois Constitution that clearly defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman. 

Weekly editorials complain about the violence of our streets, the failures of public schools, and the apparent hopelessness of American’s youth, but solutions are notably absent.  In fact, the lame suggestions offered, which I suppose are considered answers by those who offer them, address symptoms at best and rarely the underlying issues. 

The reasons for the dearth of real answers lies in the fact that such answers are politically incorrect, and much of America trembles at the feet of the “political correct” police. Now, I have never seen one of these “police,” and I expect you have not either, but they wield incredible power over the thinking of Americans.  How tragic that in the “Land of the free and the home of the brave” multitudes remain paralyzed for fear of the “PC police.”

While many things contribute to the cultural problems we face, one eclipses all the rest in its importance, and that is the collapse of the traditional family.  This is not debatable.  The evidence is overwhelming.  And we must not be side-tracked by the critics who persistently parade out the “exceptions.”  Yes, some people fail at marriage and some people use marriage to hide vile behavior.  But, there is no substitute for a loving, intact family in the shaping of a well-rounded,  healthy child.  It is probable that we did too little in helping young people prepare for marriage during the 50’s assuming they understood more than they really did about building essential relationships. 

But, it must be understood that it is people failing at marriage and not the institution itself, that is the cause of these woes, just as it was people who failed in their duties as leaders which brought on the current financial malaise, not America’s form of government or economic system.

But, all these crises find a primary solution in the restoration of the nuclear family. There is no better place to learn how to live than in a good home.  But, before we will see a resurgence of the family, we must address the question as to why it has fallen into disrepute in the first place.  The family is not perceived to be a viable answer to our cultural ills for several reasons. 

• First, there is no utopia, with or without intact families.  But, some, who hate what the family represents, have highly exaggerated the weaknesses and failures of  the family.  It is difficult to be enthusiastic about an institution the failures of which are the target of incessant caricature and parody.  You will search in vain through TV programming to find a healthy family portrayed anywhere. 
  
  
• Second, we have become a lazy and narcissistic society, and creating a healthy family requires both hard work and sacrifice. 
  
  
• Third, public education and organizations which used to encourage and foster family now undermine them. 

I read a Girl Scout recruiting poster the other day and found it called girls to a myriad of great adventures, but nowhere advocated for preparing for motherhood!  I suggested to a high school principle a few years ago that to the list of opportunities the school high-lighted on “Career Day” he should add a session on motherhood.  He recoiled as if I suggested adding neo-Nazism and sputtered, “We could never do that!”  I used to think that fatherhood was the most disrespected vocation in America, but now realize the Left, especially as represented by radical feminism, detests motherhood with a passion that eclipses even their hatred for dads! 

It is clear why the nuclear family is on life support in America and why we have so many intractable social problems.  The hot house in which vulnerable little ones are introduced to life is being broken down and destroyed.  The wringing of hands on the Left over hurting children is a sham.  If they really cared, they would quit their assault on the family and invest their energies on rebuilding and encouraging solid, healthy, traditional, two-parent families.

It may help to have a friendly village to raise a child, but the village does nothing compared to the family in bringing up healthy and happy young people!  And, in America’s case, our current village is openly hostile to children.

It would be best to avoid the village in raising children for the foreseeable future.

Every one of us is the product of one man and one woman, period.  That fact is profoundly significant.  It gives the “one man-one woman” relationship an exclusivity demanding special treatment and high regard.  Since the future of the human race is dependent upon the continued well-being of one man-one woman relationships, it is imperative that we protect them at all cost.  It is also true that we are  not just genetically descended from one man and one woman, we are also the product of their cultural views, their strengths, weaknesses, failures and successes.

The more stable and enduring those one man-one woman relationships are, the better off we all are, and the brighter our children’s future looks.  To dismiss this reality would be a most egregious error.  Even so-called “test-tube babies” are dealing with the consequences of their progenitors’ philosophies.  The unique role that one man-one woman plays in a nation or culture’s future forces us to especially value and protect that relationship.  Enduring cultures throughout history have always made maintaining the nuclear family a highest priority.  If America is to survive, it must do the same. 

No thinking person can lightly treat the subject of how culture and law ought to affect the environment into which children are born.  To cavalierly redefine the family and marriage in order to satisfy some cultural “egalitarianism” will lead not only to cultural suicide, but to a future the human race has never before experienced.  Something that has stood the test of time for literally thousands of years, has never been questioned as normative until recently, and is proven to be in society’s and children’s best interest ought not be radically changed at the behest of a few individuals who have a particularly novel view of sexuality, or by judges who are compelled by political pressures rather than what is truly best for the whole of society. 

Marriage defined as one woman and one man has always been the norm, and for good reason.  For all the failures we discern in cultures of the past, at their zenith they have all had one common perspective: they desired a safe and stable future for their children and grand children.  It is clear that they understood that the ONLY way to provide such a future for their children was to protect the nuclear family, to elevate it, and to give it unique status among institutions of their culture.  It is only as cultures declined and collapsed that we see a decline in the elevated role of the nuclear family.  How we can even discuss taking a course that will almost certainly bring an end to the traditional family while we are daily picking up the bodies of kids destroyed by the breakdown of the family in our inner cities defies reason.  How many thousands of children must die before we come to our senses and do all that is necessary to reestablish the traditional family as normative and excellent? 

There are two basic failures that I discern in our society’s willingness to ascribe normality to homosexual unions.  The first is to simply gloss over the glaring abnormalities that homosexuality promotes.  Even if one sets aside Biblical injunctions, there is nothing normal or healthy about the physical aspects of homosexual behavior.  The fact that some heterosexuals have also adopted deviant behavior (promiscuity, etc.) does not change the standards of normality.  Also, the fact that many people have taunted, ridiculed, or otherwise mistreated homosexuals over the years does not for one moment require that we normalize their behavior.  I expect that known thieves have also found themselves stigmatized, but the solution for that disapprobation is not to normalize stealing!  Any culture that wishes to survive MUST have the wisdom and character to attach stigma to behavior that, if it were to become too common, undermines or destroys the culture! 

Homosexual behavior will always remain deviant behavior whether the culture thinks it is or not because it is physically and spiritually abnormal.  Just as 2+2 will always equal 4 whether we acknowledge it or not.  And to place deviancy or normality up for vote is demonstrably unwise!  Sadly, evils such as slavery and even genocide have often won a plurality of popular approval in many cultures.  History is replete with examples of people accepting horrendous behaviors as normal to their own destruction, and often at the cost of the lives of vast numbers of people.  A culture that is willing to discard the traditional family in order to placate a few belligerents pushing an aberrant sexuality cannot survive!  

The second failure of our current culture is that of ignoring the future.  Such a failure ought to be criminal.  But, it is not surprising that we see little concern for how accepting homosexual “marriage” would affect the nation’s future because in most every aspect of our culture we pay no attention to how current actions impact future generations.  Defenders of homosexual “marriage” will certainly claim that its “normalization” will lead to a better, more harmonious culture.  But, such a view is naive at best.  The reality is that proponents see the destruction of “normal” marriage as the ONLY pathway to the normalization of homosexual behavior.  So long as genuine $50 dollar bills exist, counterfeits  will remain counterfeits.  Such recklessness on the part of America’s leadership should raise red flags in everyone’s mind, especially as we see that our leadership has been AWOL regarding protecting our children’s future so often in so many ways.  Consider other ways our leadership has sold out future generations: 

First, there’s the national debt.  We have saddled every child in America with tens of thousands of dollars of debt before they are even old enough to know what money is!  We have promised pensions to government workers that will strangle the economy for decades.  We have rendered ourselves so dependent on foreign goods that future American workers see little hope for prosperity.  Culturally, we feed our future leaders, i.e. children, a diet of inane comedy and sexually titillating TV programming and music that is loaded with violence and hopelessness.  Old fashioned discipline is considered “abusive” and harmful to children’s “self esteem” leaving young people often unable to cope with a world that is often not benign, and cannot be rendered benign.  In other words, an impartial viewer might think we were preparing for our own cultural, political and national suicide.  

We are not only doing little to promote the “general welfare” and success of the next generation, we are doing virtually nothing to provide them with the tools and resources necessary to even survive.  And, considering the fact that the America’s survival depends upon stable, two-parent, heterosexual homes, one has to wonder about the intentions of those who intentionally undermine the family.  

It is clear that radicals on the left are doing nothing to stop our slide into the abyss. Rather, they appear to be greasing the skids.  

There is now scientific research proving what many parents have always believed about today’s coarse, sex-saturated culture. Such things do impact the behavior of youth. The study of 1,228 youth aged 12-14 concludes that the more exposure children have to movies with sexual content,the more likely they are to engage in similar behaviors later as teens.

The study also cautions parents not to simply rely on movie ratings to protect their children. It is not just the R rated films that might be off limits. Researchers found that of the 684 movies in their study, 68 percent of G rated movies, 82 percent PG rated movies, and 85 percent of PG-13 rated movies contained sexual situations.

Here is what Ross O’Hara, one of the study’s authors, observed:

“I found that the most surprising part of these results were that adolescents who viewed more sexual content from movies reported higher sensation seeking during their teenage years. Not only did this higher level of sensation seeking predict an earlier age of sexual debut and riskier sexual behavior, but could have important implications for other risk behaviors, like alcohol use or smoking.”

This should be no surprise to those who have ever stopped to consider that businesses spend millions for just 30 or 60 seconds of screen time to influence what kind of toothpaste we should buy, what kind of clothes we want, or what kind of hamburger we might eat.

Social liberals always amaze me on their double-mindedness on this subject. On the one hand they routinely dismiss and mock our concerns about sexual content in the media.  Yet, behind the scenes, homosexual activist groups like GLAAD work relentlessly to normalize and promote homosexual characters on screen as creative, funny, desirable or no big deal, knowing the power film has on viewer attitudes.

Read more HERE. 

Retiring open homosexual U.S Congressman Barney Frank (D-MA), has told the Washington Blade that the 15-member panel of the Democratic Party platform committee unanimously approved language calling for the unraveling of marriage via support for same-sex marriage. This is an historic policy shift that is in disagreement with the views of many Democrats.

Ironically, the platform will be voted upon during the party’s convention later this summer in North Carolina, the 32nd state adopt a marriage protection amendment that seeks to give the next generation the best shot at having both a mom and a dad.   Many observers believe that President Obama’s admission that he supports the undefining of marriage, and now this liberal platform plank, will cost him that state this fall.   Democrat support of homosexual marriage will hand those electoral delegates to Mitt Romney who understands that men and women are different and therefore both are vital, irreplaceable components of the family.

This position is also causing enthusiasm problems for the President among African-Americans who for decades have seen the devaluing of marriage and its negative implications throughout their communities.   Other segments of Democrat voters, particularly those with a faith basis or heritage, may also have problems with this move against traditional family values.

The Obama administration is clearly taking a gamble that this platform move will generate more campaign money from homosexual activists and campaign enthusiasm among liberals.   The risk is that it will alienate too many marginal Democrat voters and independents. 

Last week, we told you how a great American company, Chick-fil-A, was being smeared and threatened by radical pro-homosexual activists, including Chicago’s very own Mayor Rahm Emanuel and Alderman Joe Moreno.   Almost a thousand of you sent emails or faxes to Alderman Moreno demanding that he stop the religious bigotry and intolerance shown to Chick-fil-A and the Cathy family.   Those of us who stand for natural marriage need to be encouraged by Chick-fil-A’s slogan of  “Eat Mor Chikin” — not act like one. 

Despite fierce pressure from the Left, CEO Dan Cathy is planting his feet in the face of criticism and reiterating that their business is as God-centered as it ever was.  Asked about the franchise’s support for family values, Dan responded, “guilty as charged.”  If you’ve been watching the news at all, you’ve witnessed the national debate over Mayor Menino’s threatening response to pro-family comments by the president of Chick-fil-A.  As a result, pro-family leaders from around the country have rallied to the restaurant’s defense, and the defense of free speech and religious liberties. 

This spontaneous movement has called for today, Wednesday, August 1st, to be ‘Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day.’  Our whole office had lunch at a local Chick-fil-A yesterday, and we were pleased to see so many of you there.  

Not surprisingly, homosexual activists are threatening to stage a “Kiss-In“ at Chick-fil-A restaurants on Friday, August 3rd.   Is there no shame?   For these intolerant liberals, there is absolutely no room for people like you and me — or our values — in the public square.   We here at IFI will gladly have lunch at Chick-fil-A and we’ll see you there!

Written by Owen Strachan (Baptist Press)

There’s been a lot of talk about evangelicals opting out of the culture wars recently. Some of that could be good. Few of us want to identify the church with the Republican Party, or to act as if anything is more needful than the promotion of the Gospel.

But some of this discussion has been deeply harmful. Why? Because there is a desperate need for the church to be the church in this fallen world. Now is not the time to back off from a robust cultural ethic. Now is the time to engage.

Some still think that they have the luxury of sitting out the national debate over homosexuality. They think, “Well, the battle over marriage is for those frothy-mouthed Christians who send out the weird newsletters and are always sounding the doomsday bell. I don’t really have the stomach for that; I don’t want, after all, to be weird, or unliked, or out of tune with The New York Times and NPR crowd. I’m educated and above the fray. Culture wars, as I’ve come to understand from the media, are for hillbillies and fear mongers, the God-and-country set. Nope. No thank you.”

Others are more biblical in their convictions, but still think they can opt out of the conflict over marriage and homosexuality. They think, “I don’t want my Christianity to be political. The church should do what the church does. I’ll sit this one out, as I usually do, and go on my way, trusting in a sovereign God.”

Both positions suffer from a common flaw: lack of moral realism as it relates to our cultural moment. You see, there is not going to be an “opt out” option in the coming days. Actually, let’s change that — there no longer is an “opt out” option. The conflict over homosexuality and marriage is here to stay. It’s only going to pick up steam. Barring a miracle from God, the clock will not be turned back. Most every Christian in every place in America is going to face a direct, confrontational challenge on this issue. You can’t escape this.

Do you see this? It’s different from abortion, which everyday Christians didn’t have to really get involved with. Because abortion happens behind closed doors in nondescript clinics, Christians like you and me could pretend it didn’t happen. We could occasionally pray, and occasionally give and serve, but because this menace was unseen, we didn’t have to get whipped up about it. We could leave that to “weird,” “in-your-face” Christians, whom we might subtly demean for their outspokenness.

But things have changed. I just learned on Facebook that gay pride groups marched in my hometown of Machias, Maine (and other Maine towns). Machias is a tiny coastal town. It’s a long ways from Manhattan, culturally speaking. But just a few weeks ago, in the Fourth of July parade, a group of gay and lesbian supporters marched, just as they did in numerous other small Maine towns.

I’ll ask this again: Do you get what’s happening? This is a Fourth of July parade. Over the years, there’s been no more “safe” cultural event for Americana. Everyone cheers the Shriners, the small-but-vigorous community band, the fire department as it blares its siren and throws candy to skittering children. Everyone. But that all, in a flash, changed in Machias, Maine. Here’s what I can guess: This will happen all across America. 

There is no perfect nonbiblical argument we can make to repudiate and oppose same-sex marriage. We can cite statistics and studies, and we should. We can offer sound logic and clear moral guidance. But at the end of the day, you and I have a choice as Christians: We either can sit this one out and let our society embrace a flagrantly sinful lifestyle. Or we can stand up and oppose these efforts. That’s it. Two options: capitulation or challenge.

This doesn’t mean that we can’t fully trust our sovereign God to work out His perfect will, which may mean hardship and many earthly defeats for American and Western Christians. Sometimes God wills this for His people, who are then challenged to remember that we serve a spiritual Kingdom, not an earthly one. Our hope is the Gospel, not a political end.

But these glorious truths should not cause us to retreat from the world. Pastors, churches and individual Christians will all have to work out their own unique ways to engage this and other pressures. There is not a one-size-fits-all approach here. Churches are not to be political bodies or political action committees. But no Christian should excuse himself or herself from this fight — and make no mistake, it is a fight. You can engage the other side in a godly manner, yes, and you must as a believer. But do not stoop to such breathtaking naïveté as to think that if you are clear on the issue of same-sex marriage you can avoid being disliked and even hated by unbelievers.

An hour of winnowing is coming and has come to America, even as it has already come to other western countries. Those who have previously defended marriage from a “neutral” set of presuppositions are not going to last; examine one-time traditional marriage advocate David Blankenhorn’s recent defection. That will happen in increasing measure in coming days, I think. Get ready to feel lonely, Christian, and to be unliked. It’s unavoidable for ethical, Gospel-driven evangelicals who know that they cannot sit this one out. Actually, we may even see a measure of unity in this battle; complementarians and egalitarians, for example, must and surely can find common cause on this issue, to cite just one common point of division. We need to do so. This is by no means only a complementarian issue.

Step up. Contribute to organizations that are contending in the political realm for biblical marriage. Contact friends to alert them to this hour of need. Figure out a way in your own corner of the world to get involved here. Collect signatures for petitions and send them to your legislators. Do whatever you can. Above all, pray. And do not — please do not — opt out. As always, engage this issue and those with whom you disagree with the love of Christ. We’re not opposing flesh and blood here, and even as we contend for biblical truth (Romans 1), we seek to win those who are lost just as we were lost before God’s marvelous grace saved us.

Lastly, remember Matthew 5:10-12. Let these familiar words ring in your ears, and let the resurrection hope of the One who said these fateful words wash over you even as you celebrate righteousness and oppose darkness:

“Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. 

“Blessed are you when others revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account. 

“Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you.”

Owen Strachan is assistant professor of Christian theology and church history at Boyce College in Louisville, Ky. This column first appeared at his website, http://owenstrachan.com. Get Baptist Press headlines and breaking news on Twitter (@BaptistPress), Facebook (Facebook.com/BaptistPress ) and in your email ( baptistpress.com/SubscribeBP.asp).

The Jim Henson Company (yes, the Muppet creators) has decided to stop working with Chick-fil-A and to donate the money it received from its work with Chick-fil-A to the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation. This is what “progressives” truly think: Anyone who expresses the view that marriage is the union of one man and one woman is guilty of defamatory and hateful acts.

Some homosexual activists know no bounds when it comes to their arrogant demand that all of society accept their unproven, non-factual moral views. Some have organized the “National Same-Sex Kiss Day at Chick-Fil-A” for August 3. It’s offensive enough that a National Same-Sex Kiss Day exists at all, but for homosexual activists to urge homosexuals to go to a family restaurant that they know is patronized by conservative Christian families and kiss is an arrogant outrage. This exposes the lie that they are a poor, pitiful, powerless minority group.

This campaign reveals the truth that many homosexual activists are guilty of the same sins of which the rest of us mere mortals are guilty: They are often intolerant, uncivil, manipulative, ignorant, obscene, and hateful.

This campaign also reveals the irreconcilable nature of the conflict between those who seek to normalize homosexuality and those who believe homosexual acts are profoundly immoral. Homosexuals find nothing wrong with public displays of homosexual affection, while those who believe that homosexuality is immoral do not want their young children to see such public acts. Conservatives no more want their children to see such acts than those who believe polyamory or “transgenderism” is immoral want their young children to see polyamorous kissing or cross-dressing.  

One thing that homosexual activists are consistently guilty of is misrepresenting the beliefs, feelings, and claims of conservatives, screeching “hater” at anyone who expresses moral and ontological views on volitional homosexual acts with which they disagree.

And why do they screech “hater”? They do because it works. It effectively silences dissent by creating fear and embarrassment in those who have not taken the time to study the issue and who don’t trust the God they claim to serve.

I received a troubling email from a very bright, well-educated, compassionate friend of my son regarding the abandonment of sound biblical doctrine on homosexuality by his evangelical Christian peers, many of whom have earned advanced degrees from prestigious conservative theology programs. This young man has a B.A. in Philosophy and Theology, an M.A. in Systematic and Historical Theology, and is working on his M.Div.

He wrote:

I’m pretty sure I have told you before, but I’m very thankful for the work you are doing. I’ve been greatly saddened recently as it seems more and more of my _______ grad friends are posting things on Facebook suggesting that promoting gay marriage is a justice issue Christians should be fighting for, and that people like Obama are heroic for coming out in support of it. I despise the fact that a warmed over secular liberalism is now passing for Christian compassion in the minds of many I graduated from ______ with. I’ve seen and experienced the apathy and cowardice that you’ve mentioned, and I don’t ever want to fall into the same.

My response:

Thanks very much for your expression of appreciation. I do what little I can but so much of the burden to convey truth will soon fall to your generation, which has been shaped by cultural institutions in thrall to deception. 

I hear in the mainstream press that many in the culture—including Christians and conservatives—are becoming supporters of civil unions, “same-sex marriage,” and the normalization of homosexuality. And yet there’s rarely any discussion of the reasons for such a cultural transformation. The issue is treated as if it’s just a logical, ineluctable evolutionary progression. But might the de facto censorship of conservative ideas in the arts, academia, and mainstream press have something to do with this shift? 

I’m regularly interviewed by high school and college journalism students, including from two of the top journalism schools in the country (i.e., Medill and the University of Missouri). I’m continually amazed at the embarrassing ignorance and superficial thinking of bright college students. They’ve put almost no critical thought into “progressive” presuppositions. And they’ve never read the work of or even heard the names of conservative scholars who are writing on the issue. Such is the commitment of academia to critical thinking and diversity. 

Now, due to the apathy, ignorance, and cowardice of my generation, including lay Christians; pastors; professors in all manner of disciplines, including theology; and politicians, we will bequeath to you a culture of greater ignorance, diminished liberty, and greater persecution. I hope and pray that God will raise up some Davids to courageously speak truth even in the face of hatred or (God forbid) imprisonment. 

And I wish Christians would start acting as if they believed their beliefs were objectively true instead expressing them timorously, awkwardly, defensively, or self-consciously. Through acts of imagination and will, we need to remember that though affirming same-sex attraction may—and I emphasize may—facilitate temporal pleasure, it will most assuredly result in eternal damnation. It boggles the mind that Christians can be complicit in that affirmation and call it love or justice. 

The most serious problem is the abandonment by Christians of the clear teaching of the Bible on homosexuality and marriage. Another problem, however, is that few Christian young people could effectively identify the weaknesses in virtually every proposition—religious and secular—used to normalize homosexuality. I would recommend that churches and Christian colleges start preparing their students to understand and refute the specious arguments they encounter daily in conversations with friends and family, in the films and television programs they watch, and in academia and the mainstream press. As it stands now, few of them could argue their way out of a paper bag.

And while you’re waiting for your children to be educated, feed them at Chick-fil-A.

Stand With Us

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

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

Two Illinois state lawmakers are pushing back against an ACLU lawsuit seeking to overturn the Illinois’ 1996 marriage law that defines marriage as between one man and one woman.

Defying Michael J. Madigan, Speaker of the Illinois House of Representatives, State Reps. Tom Morrison (R-Palatine) and David Reis (R-Olney) have introduced House Joint Resolution 95 (HJR 95) in the Illinois House, which would allow Illinois voters to vote in the 2014 Illinois General Election on defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman in our state constitution.

(Note: A constitutional marriage amendment has been introduced in every General Assembly since 2003 but has never been given even a hearing.)

Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan is on record in support of redefining marriage as well as in support of the ACLU lawsuit intended to circumvent the will of the people to accomplish that goal. 

Rep. Reis is “calling upon Lisa Madigan to recuse herself and the resources of her taxpayer-funded state office from supporting two lawsuits questioning the constitutionality of Illinois’ gay marriage ban.”

“‘As Attorney General, it is her office’s duty to support the Illinois Constitution. Statutorily, it has been long established in Illinois that marriage is between a man and a woman,’ Rep. Reis said. ‘Madigan’s use of scarce taxpayer resources is an injustice to the oath of office she swore to uphold.’” 

“Attorney General Madigan stated her office would not defend the state’s marriage definition by law, saying her office will ‘present the court with arguments that explain why the challenged statutory provisions do not satisfy the guarantee of equality under the Illinois Constitution.’”

“‘Rather than questioning the constitutionality of a longstanding law in Illinois, the Attorney General’s office should be focused on the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act implemented by the Obama administration,’ Reis stated. ‘Instead of standing with the twenty-six states across America who are challenging the constitutionality of Obama Care, Madigan has chosen to use taxpayer dollars to legalize same-sex marriage.’”

Take ACTION:  Click HERE to contact your state representatives and state senators, urging them to support HJR 95 and its call for an amendment to the Illinois Constitution that clearly defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman. 

“If we don’t, this issue might very well get decided in the courts,” said Reis. 

Similar lawsuits have been filed in states like Massachusetts and in Iowa which resulted in their state supreme court legalizing the redefinition of marriage.

***Update:  State Representatives Paul Evans (R-Highland), Dwight Kay (R-Edwardsville), Jil Tracy (R-Quincy), Wayne Rosenthal (R-Litchfield), Mike Bost (R-Carbondale ), Adam Brown (R-Decatur), Brad Halbrook (R-Effingham), and Patricia Bellock (R-Westmont ) are now co-sponsoring this important resolution.

Stand With Us

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

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

Today, Cook County Circuit Court  Judge Sophia Hall granted the Thomas More Society’s motion to intervene on behalf of two downstate county clerks in Illinois’ same-sex marriage case brought by the ACLU of Illinois and Lambda Legal. The motion was not opposed by the other parties in the case.

The clerks have filed a motion to dismiss the complaints brought by the ACLU of Illinois and Lambda Legal, which will now be briefed. The parties have until August 20 to file their response, and the Thomas More Society has until September 19 to reply. Oral argument on the motion to dismiss will be held on September 27, 2012 at 10:30 a.m. before Judge Sophia Hall in courtroom 2301.

 The Agreed Order can be found at this link http://www.scribd.com/doc/98997261/Agreed-Order

On Friday, Thomas More Society attorneys filed a motion to intervene, asking the Cook County Circuit Court to allow them to defend Illinois’ marriage law in the same-sex marriage lawsuits filed by the ACLU and Lambda Legal Defense & Education Fund. The motion to intervene was filed on behalf of Christie Webb, Tazewell County Clerk, and Kerry Hirtzel, Effingham County Clerk. Attorneys with the Thomas More Society have been appointed Special Assistant State’s Attorneys to represent Ms. Webb and Mr. Hirtzel in this litigation.

“When the ACLU and Lambda Legal brought plaintiffs from across the State of Illinois to sue the Cook County Clerk, this became a statewide issue affecting the duties and responsibilities of every county clerk in the State of Illinois,” said Peter Breen, executive director and legal counsel of the Thomas More Society. “Legal claims similar to those asserted here by the ACLU and Lambda Legal have been rejected by every federal appellate court and the substantial majority of state courts. Illinois’ marriage law is valid and constitutional. Our state’s laws deserve robust defense, and with this motion to intervene, we intend to ensure that defense.”

The Thomas More Society’s request to enter the case follows the decisions of Cook County Clerk David Orr, Cook County State’s Attorney Anita Alvarez, and Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan to refuse to defend the 1996 Illinois marriage law that defines marriage as the union of one man one woman. The intervention motion requested by the Society is currently set for hearing on Tuesday, July 3, 2012 at 9:15 a.m. before Judge Sophia Hall in courtroom 2301.

The ACLU and Lambda Legal have asserted that the General Assembly acted with intent to discriminate against same-sex couples when it enacted the Illinois Defense of Marriage Act in 1996. At that time, the sponsors of the legislation, State Senator Peter Fitzgerald and State Representative Tom Johnson, stated that the legislation was intended to preserve the traditional understanding of marriage and ensure that Illinois would not be required to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states. During the debate on the measure, State Senator John Cullerton, now the President of the Illinois Senate, opposed the legislation because he thought it was unnecessary, stating that: “It is very clear that today in Illinois marriage is reserved as a union between a man and a woman. That is our policy, and I personally support that. I think it should be reserved for a union of a man and a woman. There are historic, cultural, religious, and civil traditions for this, and we should continue in that tradition.”

Court Filings:

•        Proposed Interveners’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Complaints

•        Proposed Intervenors’ Motion for Enlargement of the Court’s 15 Page Limitation on Briefs

•        Verified Petition of Christie Webb and Kerry Hirtzel for Leave to Intervene and Memorandum in Support

•        Notice of Emergency Motion

•        Emergency Motion to Set Briefing Schedule on the Verified Petition of Christie Web and Kerry Hirtzel

•        Proposed Intervenors’ Memorandum in Support of Their Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Complaints

About the Thomas More Society

Founded in 1997, the Chicago-based Thomas More Society is a national public interest law firm that seeks to restore respect in law for life, marriage, and religious liberty. The Society is a nonprofit organization wholly supported by private donations. For more information or to support the work of Thomas More Society, please visit www.thomasmoresociety.org. 

A recent email sent by homosexual activist and CEO of Equality IL, Bernard Cherkasov, urges same-sex “marriage” supporters to call their county clerks and state’s attorneys, just as IFI has urged believers in natural marriage to do. Cherkasov writes: 

“The misnamed Illinois Family Institute is pushing further than ever in its desperate effort to derail marriage equality by publicly pressuring the State’s Attorneys and County Clerks throughout the state to intervene on behalf of the ban on marriages for same-sex couples. Cook County State’s Attorney Anita Alvarez and County Clerk David Orr have stated that they will not defend the ban because they believe it’s unconstitutional. … 

FIRST, please contact your local County Clerk and tell them NOT to defend the unconstitutional ban on marriages for same-sex couples. … 

While these groups try to use religion as the logic behind their attacks, Equality Illinois is working with leaders in the faith community to foster support for marriage equality. Just last month, we announced that more than 260 members of the clergy and lay leaders from across the state have signed our petition in support of marriage equality.”

It’s critical that Christians, those who believe in the sufficiency of Scripture, defend what we know as God’s solid Truth.  The Body of Christ has been commissioned by God Himself to speak His Truth to a dark culture.  It will offend many, as Scripture tells us, but Christians must not succumb to the culture out of intimidation and fear. Romans 8:12-16 

God created marriage. The government did not. For centuries, the government has understood its importance and limited marriage to a man and a woman as the ideal union that can produce and raise the next generation of healthy and productive members of society. The natural family, which is the only foundation of a strong stable society, has been falling apart. And it’s our children and grandchildren who will bear the consequences, if we don’t act now. 

God gave us clear standards by which to live in every area of life, including sexuality. It is abundantly clear that all sex outside of marriage is sin, including homosexual sex. However, the goal of homosexual activists is to change these standards for marriage and normalize their sexual behavior. It could not be clearer from Scripture that marriage is to unite one man and woman for the purpose of “producing godly offspring”  which two men or two women cannot do. 

Letters were sent to 101 county clerks and state’s attorneys from the pro-family law firm Thomas More Society, asking for their involvement on our side of these lawsuits.

Take ACTION:  Please call and urge your county clerk to represent you in the effort to preserve natural marriage.  Click HERE to look up the contact information for your local county clerk.