Written by Elise Bouc and David E. Smith

As we reported a few weeks ago, two lawsuits were recently filed in Cook County by the ACLU and Lambda Legal seeking to overturn Illinois’ marriage law defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman.  The ban is being challenged by 25 same-sex couples who were turned away when they tried to get marriage licenses from the Cook County Clerk’s office.  Furthermore, the elected Illinois officials who should be defending the marriage laws have announced that they not only will not defend the laws, but will seek to intervene to have the laws declared unconstitutional. 

Summary of problem:

Two different lawsuits have been filed by several same-sex couples against David Orr (D), Cook County Clerk, in which they are challenging provisions of the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act.  David Orr has indicated that he supports same-sex marriage and will not contest the lawsuits.  In addition, Anita Alvarez (D), Cook County State’s Attorney, and Lisa Madigan (D), Illinois State’s Attorney, have both announced that they will not defend the Illinois marriage laws, and that they will take legal action to support the two lawsuits in favor of overturning the current ban on same-sex marriages.  Governor Patrick Quinn (D) has also expressed his support for same-sex marriages.  This leaves us with no one in an official legal role to defend our current marriage laws.  If this case proceeds unchecked, it will allow same-sex couples throughout the state to go to Cook County to receive marriage licenses, and provide the groundwork for the state marriage laws to be overturned throughout Illinois.  

In an attempt to defend our state’s marriage laws, Illinois Family Institute, working with our friends at the Alliance Defense Fund, will file a legal motion this week seeking to intervene in the case to defend the law.

Take ACTION:   Our friends at the Thomas More Society have sent a letter to the other 101 Illinois county clerks and the state’s attorneys stating that they have legal cause to intervene in this case due to the ramifications these lawsuits will have statewide, including their counties. You need to ask them to join together as a group to become the defendant and represent you in the county in  which you reside.  The Thomas More Society has volunteered to provide the county clerks with expert legal assistance for free.  

In addition, the Thomas More Society sent a letter to all the 101 other state’s attorneys asking that they consider appointing the Thomas More Society attorneys as Special Assistant State’s Attorneys “for the limited purpose of defending these cases for you, or assisting your staff in defense of these cases.”

We need you to call your county clerk and state’s attorney and encourage them to get involved in this case so that the citizens of Illinois will have their marriage laws defended.  It’s essential that they hear from many residents so that they know they have support to take this step forward and defend traditional marriage.  It’s important for them to understand that if we do not have a defendant who is willing to defend these marriage laws, then we will not have the right to appeal the judgment to the Illinois Supreme Court should we require an appeal, which is likely.  

Your county clerk will also need the support of the state’s attorney in your county, so please call your state’s attorney and encourage him/her to support this action as well.   A link for the county clerks and their respective counties and phone numbers can be found HERE.   Click on your county jurisdiction.  When you call, you can ask the county clerk for the name and phone number of your state’s attorney.   This case is moving quickly, so please call as soon as possible.  Pass this email on to others.  Many are not aware of these lawsuits and how serious this is. 

Please pray that many county clerks will join as defendants, that God will give the Thomas More Society and ADF attorneys wisdom and favor in the courts, and that the institution of marriage which God created will not be redefined in Illinois.

Remember, if we all work together, we can accomplish great things.  “If God is for us, who can be against us?” Romans 8:31

Please feel free to contact us if you have any questions.  (708) 781-9328.

Written by Pastor John Piper

The Star-Tribune article about my sermon this past weekend got it partly right and partly wrong.

The part that they got right was that I did not give a public endorsement for any legislation or candidate.

But they got two parts wrong.

First they say, “Key Minnesota pastors opt out of marriage fight.” I didn’t opt out. I opted in. What is at stake more than anything else is the meaning of marriage and how important it is for the common good and for the glory of Christ. That was the main burden of the message. Marriage is the sexual and covenantal union of a man and a woman pledging life-long allegiance to each other as husband and wife. There is no such thing as so-called same-sex “marriage.” That is clear in God’s word.

The second mistake is to say that I “have not encouraged members to take a stand on the issue.” That is, in fact, the opposite of what I was saying in the last two points of my message (points 7 and 8).

The aim of point 7 was to help our people know how to vote on the marriage amendment. The question for all of us is, Which of our beliefs about what is good for the common good should be put into constitutional law? I gave four guidelines. The aim of those guidelines was not to discourage our people from “taking a stand” but to help them take an intelligent one.

The aim of point 8 was that over the long haul Christians will take clearer, stronger, more effective stands for justice and righteousness and the common good if pastors and preachers speak powerfully and faithfully and biblically to the moral and spiritual and ethical and theological issues surrounding political issues, rather than advocating particular candidates and laws. I gave several historical illustrations of how this has worked.

Therefore, I encourage all Christians to think this through, and to take a stand, and to be as active in the political process on this issue as their conscience dictates.

________

Recent series from John Piper:

• Homosexuality, Human Relations, and the Challenges to Evangelism

(Re-posted from http://www.desiringgod.org/blog/posts/what-the-star-tribune-got-right-and-wrong)

 John Piper (@JohnPiper) is the Pastor for Preaching and Vision at Bethlehem Baptist Church (Minneapolis, MN) and the founder of Desiring God.

An article  in the Star Tribune titled “Key Minnesota Pastors Opt Out of Marriage Fight” grossly misrepresents  how Pastor John Piper is addressing the November vote on a proposed marriage amendment to the Minnesota Constitution.

Star Tribune reporter Rose French states the following:

Two key conservative evangelical leaders in Minnesota are not endorsing the marriage amendment or directing followers to vote for it, marking the first time during debate over the measure that major faith leaders have not encouraged members to take a stand on the issue.

Influential preacher and theologian the Rev. John Piper came out against gay marriage during a sermon Sunday but did not explicitly urge members of his Minneapolis church to vote for the amendment.

French is correct in saying that Piper did not “explicitly” urge church members to vote for the amendment, but she is woefully disingenuous in saying that Piper did not direct—which means to move or guide—followers to vote for the amendment. She is equally wrong when she implies that Piper did not encourage his church members to take a stand on the issue.

It’s clear that Piper did, indeed, direct his church members to vote for the proposed marriage amendment. He did so by explaining how to think through this critical cultural issue biblically and logically, rather than merely telling them what to do in the voting booth.

Below are some excerpts from Piper’s recent sermon (which everyone should listen to) on the marriage amendment, from which French conveniently did not quote:  

Today’s message is…designed to give a biblical vision of marriage in relation to homosexuality, and in relation to the proposed Marriage Amendment in Minnesota. I asked that Hebrews 13:1–6 be read not because I will give an exposition of it, but to highlight that one phrase in verse 4: “Let marriage be held in honor among all.”

…

There is no such thing as so-called same-sex marriage, and it would be wise not to call it that.

The point here is not only that so-called same-sex marriage shouldn’t exist, but that it doesn’t and it can’t. Those who believe that God has spoken to us truthfully in the Bible should not concede that the committed, life-long partnership and sexual relations of two men or two women is marriage. It isn’t. God has created and defined marriage. And what he has joined together in that creation and that definition, cannot be separated, and still called marriage in God’s eyes.

…

[I]t would contradict love and contradict the gospel of Jesus to approve homosexual practice, whether by silence, or by endorsing so-called same-sex marriage, or by affirming the Christian ordination of practicing homosexuals.

We must not be intimidated here. The world is going to say the opposite of what is true here. They are going to say that warning people who practice homosexuality about final judgment is hateful. It is not hateful. Hate does not want people to be saved. Hate does not want people to join the family. Hate wants to destroy. And sin does destroy. If homosexual practice (and greed and idolatry and reviling and drunkenness) leads to exclusion from the kingdom of God — as the word of God says it does — then love warns. Love pleads. Love comes alongside and does all it can to help a person live — forever.

…

Deciding what actions will be made legal or illegal through civil law is a moral activity aiming at the public good and informed by the worldview of each participant.

Minnesota citizens are being asked this November to vote yes or no on this question: “Shall the Minnesota Constitution be amended to provide that only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Minnesota?” And a blank vote is a no vote. If passed section 13 will be added to Article xiii of the State Constitution which reads: “Only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Minnesota.”

How should Christian citizens decide which of their views they should seek to put into law? Which moral convictions should Christians seek to pass as legal requirements? Christians believe it is immoral to covet and to steal. But we seek to pass laws against stealing, not against coveting. One of the principles at work here seems to be: the line connecting coveting with damage to the public good is not clear enough. No doubt there is such a connection. God can see it and the public good would, we believe, be greatly enhanced if covetousness were overcome. But finite humans can’t see it clearly enough to regulate coveting with laws and penalties. This is why we have to leave hundreds of immoral acts for Jesus to sort out when he comes.

Laws exist to preserve and enhance the public good. Which means that all laws are based on some conception of what is good for us. Which means that all legislation and all voting is a moral activity. It is based on choices about what is good for the public. And those choices are always informed by a world view. And in that worldview — whether conscious or not — there are views of ultimate reality that determine what a person thinks the public good is.

Which means that all legislation is the legislation of morality. Someone’s view of what is good — what is moral — wins the minds of the majority and carries the day. The question is: Which actions hurt the common good or enhance the common good so much that the one should be prohibited by law and the other should be required by law?

Here are a few thoughts to help you with that question.

1. A constitutional amendment should address a matter of very significant consequence. To give you an idea of what has been regarded as worthy inclusion in the state constitution, Section 12 of Article xiii was passed by voters in 1998. It reads as follows: “Hunting and fishing and the taking of game and fish are a valued part of our heritage that shall be forever preserved for the people and shall be managed by law and regulation for the public good.” In deciding whether the meaning of marriage is significant enough to put in the constitution one measure would be to weigh it against hunting and fishing.
2.  The recognition of so-called same-sex marriage would be a clear social statement that motherhood or fatherhood or both are negligible in the public good of raising children. Two men adopting children cannot provide motherhood. And two women adopting children cannot provide fatherhood. But God ordained from the beginning that children grow up with a mother and a father, and said, “Honor your father and your mother” (Exodus 20:12). Tragedies in life often make that impossible. But taking actions to make that tragedy normal may be worth prohibiting by law.
3.  Marriage is the most fundamental institution among humans. Its origin is in the mind of God, and its beginning was at the beginning of the creation of humankind. Its connections with all other parts of society are innumerable. Pretending that it can exist between people of the same sex will send ripple effects of dysfunction and destruction in every direction, most of which are now unforeseen. And many of those that are foreseen are tragic, especially for children, who will then produce a society we cannot now imagine.
4. Before now, as far as we know, no society in the history of the world has ever defined marriage as between people of the same sex. It is a mind-boggling innovation with no precedent to guide us, except the knowledge that unrighteousness destroys nations, and the celebration of it hastens the demise. (Deuteronomy 9:5; Proverbs 13:25; Romans 1:24–32)

To summarize, Piper said, among other things, the following:

• His sermon was going to address the proposed marriage amendment.
• There is no such thing as same-sex marriage, and we shouldn’t call a sexual relationship between two people of the same sex marriage.
• Endorsing “so-called same-sex marriage” contradicts both love and the gospel of Jesus Christ.
• Laws exist to preserve the public good. What constitutes the good is a moral question. All laws legislate morality. Voting is a moral activity.
• Constitutional amendments must address only significant issues. The people of Minnesota passed an amendment on the issues of hunting and fishing which are not nearly as significant as marriage.
• Legalizing same-sex marriage would make a clear and tragic statement that either mothers or fathers or both are expendable and have no effect on the public good.
• Marriage is the most fundamental of human institutions, and legalizing same-sex marriage is a deceit that will bring incalculable dysfunction and destruction to children and society.
• No society in history has ever defined marriage as between two people of the same sex.
• Legalizing same-sex marriage is unrighteous; unrighteousness destroys nations; and the celebration of unrighteousness hastens the destruction of nations. 

French must not have listened to or read Piper’s wise and compassionate sermon because no thinking person could hear or read his words and conclude that Piper has opted out of the fight for marriage. In unequivocal language, Piper provided clear guidance to Christians on the issue of amending constitutions to protect marriage.

Piper concluded by saying, “If the whole counsel of God is preached with power week in and week out, Christians who are citizens of heaven and citizens of this democratic order will be energized as they ought to speak and act for the common good.” If this is what “opting out of the marriage fight” looks like, let’s hope and pray that countless pastors across the country opt out as John Piper has done.

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.

Lambda Legal in cahoots with the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Illinois are suing the Cook County Clerk for purportedly violating the Constitution of Illinois when Cook County refused to issue marriage licenses to men who sought to marry men and women who sought to marry women. To make matters worse, these ethically challenged Illinois leaders have all expressed support for the lawsuit: Governor Patrick Quinn, Attorney General Lisa Madigan, Cook County State’s Attorney Anita Alvarez, and Cook County Clerk David Orr.

Lambda Legal is a homosexual legal organization hell-bent on using the judicial system to bypass the will of the people in order to impose its subversive sexuality theories on the entire country. This is the organization that shoved same-sex marriage down the throats of Iowans, which, not incidentally, brought the electoral defeat of those judges who threw their lots in with Lambda Legal.

Like the Iowa judges, Lisa Madigan and Anita Alvarez have crossed over to the dark side by abandoning all ethical and professional commitments to uphold and defend Illinois laws. Illinois’ Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act defines marriage as a legal relationship between one man and one woman. It was amended in 1996 to prohibit marriage between two people of the same sex. Even Lambda Legal attorney Camilla Taylor expressed shock over Anita Alvarez’ refusal to defend a duly enacted law, saying, “’I’ve never encountered this before.’”

Why should homosexuals be permitted to redefine marriage while other groups may not?

Lambda Legal and the ACLU hold the bizarre belief that there is a constitutional right for homosexuals to demand that the most fundamental constitutive element of marriage — sexual complementarity — be jettisoned.  It is, however, no more unethically discriminatory for the government to retain sexual complementarity in its legal definition of marriage than it is to limit marriage to two people, which effectively prohibits polyamorists from accessing marriage. I wonder if Lambda Legal and the ACLU of Illinois believe that laws limiting marriage to two people are unconstitutional because such laws will prevent three loving people in a polyamorous union from marrying.  And do they believe that laws prohibiting close blood relatives from marrying are unconstitutional because such laws will prevent a brother from marrying a male sibling with whom he is in love and hopes to raise children?  

Do governments construct marriage?

The government does not construct marriage out of whole cloth. Marriage has an inherent nature and purpose that societies and their governments merely recognize. Our government recognizes, regulates, and promotes a type of relationship that exists and best serves the needs of children.

Marriage is a particular type of relationship that has existed for the entire history of mankind and across all cultures. Men and women come together to form a union that is not merely emotional, but sexual and biological, which means it has a natural biological end (i.e., it is a procreative type of union, whether or not children result). Recognizing, regulating, and promoting this particular type of union is a legitimate interest of government. The government has no vested interest in “affirming love” through law. If marriage were centrally or solely about love and sexual desire and had no connection to either gender or procreation, there would be no reason for the government to be involved and no reason to prohibit incestuous or plural marriages.

Are laws banning same-sex “marriage” analogous to laws banning interracial marriage?

According to the Chicago Tribune, David Orr said that “he believes the state’s ban on same-sex marriage is akin to laws that once banned mixed-race couples from marrying.” But that assertion requires evidence that homosexuality is by nature akin to race, something that David Orr was apparently not asked to provide.

Here are some critical differences between race and homosexuality: Race is 100 percent heritable, in all cases immutable, and has no behavioral implications that are legitimate objects of moral assessment. Homosexuality, on the other hand, is not 100 percent heritable, is in some cases mutable, and is constituted by subjective feelings and volitional acts that are legitimate objects of moral assessment.

There are other reasons that laws banning same-sex marriage are utterly different from laws banning interracial marriage, including the following:

• Race is irrelevant to the inherent nature and purpose of marriage and to the government’s sole interest in marriage: procreative potential.
• Anti-miscegenation laws were based on a flawed understanding of human nature. As Dennis Prager explains, anti-miscegenation laws were based on the false notion that people of different races had different natures: “There are enormous differences between men and women, but there are no differences between people of different races. Men and women are inherently different, but blacks and whites (and yellows and browns) are inherently the same. Therefore, any imposed separation by race can never be moral or even rational; on the other hand, separation by sex can be both morally desirable and rational.”  Marriage laws that recognize that marriage is a sexually complementary union are based on the true belief that men and women are by nature different.
• Finally, anti-miscegenation laws were based on who the person is, whereas laws prohibiting marriages between people of the same sex are based on actions.  Thomas Sowell, who happens to be black, explains, “The argument that current marriage laws ‘discriminate’ against homosexuals confuses discrimination against people with making distinctions among different kinds of behavior. All laws distinguish among different kinds of behavior.” A black man who wants to marry a white woman is seeking to do the same action that a white man who wants to marry a white woman seeks to do. A law that prohibits an interracial marriage is wrong because it is based on who the person is, not on what he seeks to do. But, if a man wants to marry a man, he is seeking to do an entirely different action from that which a man who wants to marry a woman seeks to do. A law that prohibits homosexual marriage is legitimate because it is based not on who the person is but rather on what he seeks to do. Any man may engage in the act of marrying a woman (if she is of age and not closely related by blood).

Conclusion

Homosexual men claim they are attracted only to men. Homosexual women claim they are attracted only to women. Both sets of claims point to the truth that men and women are by nature different. If men and women are by nature substantively different, then unions composed of two people of the same sex must necessarily be substantively different from sexually complementary unions. It is perfectly legitimate for the government to treat different things differently.

Men and women who choose to make their unchosen same-sex attraction central to their identity are not prohibited from participating in the institution of marriage. They choose not to participate in it.  The starting point for homosexual activists in their analysis of the issue of redefining marriage is not the Constitution, the law, or deep thinking about the sources of morality. No, their analysis starts with their own sexual feelings. From there, like the Sophists of old, they concoct specious “reasons’ to persuade the public that gender and procreative potential are irrelevant to marriage.

The ignorance of homosexuality-affirming activists like Lambda Legal attorney Camilla Taylor is exceeded only by their hubris. We hope and pray that the efforts of the Thomas More Society and the Illinois Family Institute, which have stepped in to do what Madigan and Alvarez should be doing, will prevail over ignorance and self-righteous hubris.

In the past week, the natural family has once again come under attack.  The threat is a familiar one; activist judges who have a distinct animosity to faith and tradition, and who want to restructure our society in their own intellectual image.  Last Thursday in Boston, the First Circuit Court of Appeals issued a ruling declaring the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) unconstitutional.  Then, on June 6th, the Ninth Circuit Court in California dismissed the appeal of a decision overturning the expressed will of seven million Californians to keep marriage between one man and one woman.  Both cases have been widely viewed as headed for the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS), and both took a major step closer to that ultimate destination in the past several days.

On May 31st, federal judges in Boston issued an opinion that twisted some legal precedents and ignored others in their effort to promote the normalization of homosexual behavior.  Feeling constrained by legal precedent, the court decided to create a new legal standard of review, called by attorney Dale Schowengerdt of the Alliance Defense Fund, “rational basis on steroids,” in order to find that DOMA discriminated against same-sex marriage in the application of federal benefits.  The court went on to say, incorrectly, that Congress has never defined marriage or bound the states to a particular definition of marriage.  That erroneous claim inexplicably ignores the fact that Congress required Utah to prohibit polygamy as a condition of statehood, and this law was later upheld by the Supreme Court in Murphy v. Ramsey. 

However, there is some good news to come out of this decision.  We are happy to report that our friends at the Massachusetts Family Institute (MFI) filed a ‘friend of the court’ brief which may have helped to restrain the scope of the court’s decision.  Citing the case law that MFI argued in its brief, the First Circuit said “it does limit the arguments to ones that do not presume or rest on a constitutional right to same-sex marriage.”  Even this court recognized that there is no requirement under our federal constitution to recognize same-sex marriages.    The court also refused to recognize the pro-homosexual lobby’s tired and offensive accusations that opposition to same-sex marriage is merely a result of animus, ignorance or bigotry.  “…[W]e do not rely upon the charge that DOMA’s hidden but dominant purpose was hostility to homosexuality…“  This means the next time you face the epithet of ‘hate’ for believing marriage should be between one man and one woman, you can cite the same justification espoused by the crafters of DOMA and acknowledged by this court, “to preserve the heritage of marriage as traditionally defined over centuries of Western civilization.”  Unfortunately, although the First Circuit admitted that “[t]raditions are the glue that holds society together” and that the “desire to retain them is strong and can be honestly held,” they went on to rule that homosexual relationships were a “minority group interest” and therefore warranted special protection by the courts.

Both of these decisions, one from San Francisco and the other from Boston, are likely headed to the U.S. Supreme Court in the next several months.  Pro-family advocates have ninety days in each case to decide whether to petition the nation’s highest court to hear these cases.  We believe that they will, and we ask you to continue to pray with us that the Supreme Court will restore order, and honor, to the law of marriage.  IFI will be monitoring these developments closely and will keep you informed of the latest.

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.

A May 26th story in the Wall Street Journal confirms what many of us have heard – half of all Americans are now on some form of government assistance. According to new data from the US Census Bureau, 49.1% of Americans live in a household that receives at least one government benefit.  There are many households that receive more than one form of taxpayer funded aid. That is up from 30% in the last large recession of the early 1980’s in which unemployment, inflation and interest rates were at much higher rates.

There are a lot of things that could be said of these numbers. l have some questions too. What aid is effective and the most helpful? Are there fewer stigmas to government aid than there were in the past? Does this widespread government assistance mean that voters will, or will not “bite the hand that feeds them” if a candidate supports cuts in aid or government spending? Is this massive dependency an intentional part of a bigger plan by some political elites, as first suggested by Columbia University scholars Cloward & Piven? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloward–Piven_strategy)

There is one answer we do know; this condition is inconsistent with the history of the free-enterprise system and it is not what our nation’s founders envisioned for us.

Written by Kevin DeYoung, The Gospel Coalition

On Wednesday afternoon, to no one’s surprise, President Obama revealed in an interview that after some “evolution” he has “concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same sex couples should be able to get married.” This after the Vice-President came out last Sunday strongly in favor of gay marriage. Not coincidentally, the New York Times ran an article on Tuesday (an election day with a marriage amendment on one ballot) about how popular and not controversial gay television characters have become. In other words, everyone else has grown up so why don’t you? It can seem like the whole world is having a gay old time, with conservative Christians the only ones refusing to party.

The temptation, then, is for Christians go silent and give up the marriage fight: “It’s no use staying in this battle,” we think to ourselves. “We don’t have to change our personal position. We’ll keep speaking the truth and upholding the Bible in our churches, but getting worked up over gay marriage in the public square is counter productive. It’s a waste of time. It makes us look bad. It ruins our witness. And we’ve already lost. Time to throw in the towel.” I understand that temptation. It is an easier way. But I do not think it is the right way, the God glorifying way, or the way of love.

Here are five reasons Christians should continue to publicly and winsomely oppose bestowing the term and institution of marriage upon same-sex couples:

1. Every time the issue of gay marriage has been put to a vote by the people, the people have voted to uphold traditional marriage. Even in California. In fact, the amendment passed in North Carolina on Tuesday by a wider margin (61-39) than a similar measure passed six years ago in Virginia (57-42). The amendment passed in North Carolina, a swing state Obama carried in 2008, by 22 percentage points. We should not think that gay marriage in all the land is a foregone conclusion. To date 30 states have constitutionally defined marriage as between a man and a woman.

2. The promotion and legal recognition of homosexual unions is not in the interest of the common good. That may sound benighted, if not bigoted. But we must say it in love: codifying the indistinguishability of gender will not make for the “peace of the city.” It rubs against the grain of the universe, and when you rub against the grain of divine design you’re bound to get splinters. Or worse. The society which says sex is up to your own definition and the family unit is utterly fungible is not a society that serves its children, its women, or its own long term well being.

3. Marriage is not simply the term we use to describe those relationships most precious to us. The word means something and has meant something throughout history. Marriage is more than a union of hearts and minds. It involves a union of bodies–and not bodies in any old way we please, as if giving your cousin a wet willy in the ear makes you married. Marriage, to quote one set of scholars, is a” comprehensive union of two sexually complementary persons who seal (consummate or complete) their relationship by the generative act—by the kind of activity that is by its nature fulfilled by the conception of a child. So marriage itself is oriented to and fulfilled by the bearing, rearing, and education of children.” This conjugal view of marriage states in complex language what would have been a truism until a couple generations ago. Marriage is what children (can) come from. Where that element is not present (at the level of sheer design and function, even if not always in fulfillment), marriage is not a reality. We should not concede that “gay marriage” is really marriage. What’s more, as Christians we understand that the great mystery of marriage can never be captured between a relationship of Christ and Christ or church and church.

4. Allowing for the legalization of gay marriage further normalizes what was until very recently, and still should be, considered deviant behavior. While it’s true that politics is downstream from culture, it’s also true that law is one of the tributaries contributing to culture. In our age of hyper-tolerance we try to avoid stigmas, but stigmas can be an expression of common grace. Who knows how many stupid sinful things I’ve been kept from doing because I knew my peers and my community would deem it shameful. Our cultural elites may never consider homosexuality shameful, but amendments that define marriage as one man and one woman serve a noble end by defining what is as what ought to be. We do not help each other in the fight for holiness when we allow for righteousness to look increasingly strange and sin to look increasingly normal.

5. We are naive if we think a laissez faire compromise would be enjoyed by all if only the conservative Christians would stop being so dogmatic. The next step after giving up the marriage fight is not a happy millennium of everyone everywhere doing marriage in his own way. The step after surrender is conquest. I’m not suggesting heterosexuals would no longer be able to get married. What I am suggesting is that the cultural pressure will not stop with allowing for some “marriages” to be homosexual. It will keep mounting until allaccept and finally celebrate that homosexuality is one of Diversity’s great gifts. The goal is not for different expressions of marriage, but for the elimination of definitions altogether. Capitulating on gay marriage may feel like giving up an inch in bad law to gain a mile in good will. But the reality will be far different. For as in all of the devil’s bargains, the good will doesn’t last nearly so long as the law.

The breakdown of marriage and the family are closely associated with the welfare state. Unwed childbearing and marital decline have consequences for individuals as well as the next generation. A research paper called A Closer Look at Welfare from the Heritage Foundation details some of the interesting social costs of behavioral poverty and welfare dependence.

Here are a few of their findings:

• Men who grow up in a welfare family are 39% less likely to marry the mother of their own baby.
• Women whose families receive welfare are three times more likely to be on welfare themselves,
• Earlier sexual activity is linked to higher levels of child and maternal poverty. (Nearly three times more women who began sexual activity at age 13 or 14 were in poverty as adults than women who abstained until the age of 21.)
• Women are more likely to live under the poverty line after a divorce than men,
• Parental divorce increases the likelihood that a daughter will be on welfare later in life,
• Women who have a child in their teens are less likely to marry and more likely to live in poverty,
• Single mothers who marry are less likely to be in poverty than their unwed peers and near equal with continuously married parents.

Tuesday’s voting results show the marriage amendment in North Carolina passing with over sixty-one percent of the vote and a margin of twenty percent ahead of the opposition.  It was extremely encouraging to learn that evangelist Billy Graham publically endorsed the marriage amendment effort, and rallied the faithful to the cause, saying, “At 93, I never thought we would have to debate the definition of marriage.  The Bible is clear – God’s definition of marriage is between a man and a woman.”  His son, Franklin Graham, and daughter, Anne Graham Lotz, also released video messages in support of the effort.  We hope the Graham family’s courageous actions, in addition to aiding the victory in NC, will encourage other pastors to actively engage on these critical cultural issues, and not let fear or apathy relegate them to the sidelines. 

Of course, each one of these victories for natural marriage in the hands of the voters conjures up conflicting emotions for those of us in the Land of Lincoln.  It is exciting to continue to see states protect their best interests from what started in Massachusetts with activist judges thrusting homosexual so-called “marriage” upon us. On the other, seeing citizens having the opportunity to vote on marriage serves as one more reminder of what has been repeatedly denied the voters in Illinois by those elected to represent them. 

Perhaps the greatest immediate impact of this latest victory for marriage for those of us here in Illinois is the demonstration of, once again, the obvious falsity of the Left’s arguments that all who oppose their agenda are ‘bigoted’, ‘ignorant’, or ‘irrational’.  The fact is that a vast majority of voters – over 50 million – in now 32 of 32 states have confirmed the definition of marriage as God designed it to be.  To label all those millions of faithful Americans with epithets seems, well, rather intolerant, doesn’t it?

This inspiring and compelling short video reveals by contrast what a diminished (or perverse) view of marriage society has and is passing on to our children:

 Have your tissues ready.

The sexual revolution of the last several decades has transformed any public conversation about sex and sexuality. The revolutionaries directed their attention to the dismantling of an entire edifice of sexual morality that had been basically intact for well over 2,000 years.

At one point in the sexual revolution, efforts were made to legalize prostitution as a “victimless crime,” a term that anyone could recognize as an oxymoron. Most of these efforts went nowhere in the United States and most of Europe, though “progressive” law enforcement officials often looked the other way and did little to curb the market for illicit sex.

Then something truly interesting started to happen. Influential forces in society began to notice the scale and magnitude of the market for sex. Law enforcement officials started to acknowledge the fact that women, along with under-age girls and boys, were being “trafficked” through international networks of gangsters. By the end of the last decade, American officials were aware that sex trafficking was taking place in cities large and small. Women, along with boys and girls, were being kidnapped in far parts of the world and on the streets of American cities, to be sold into what could only be considered as sexual slavery.

Over time, the shadow of international sex trafficking became evident in criminal networks that span the globe. Women and girls answering advertisements for models, maids, and child minders found themselves sold into slavery and transported around the world.

Wealthy Americans booked vacations to destinations where their sexual appetite of choice, including children, could be easily purchased. As recently as the 2012 Super Bowl, American officials warned that several hundred under-age sex workers might be brought into the host city. These developments make the international sex trafficking networks impossible to deny.

Then came the news that at least eleven Secret Service agents had been involved in a prostitution scandal in Cartagena, Colombia in advance of a visit there by President Barack Obama. It is believed that several members of the United States military were also involved. Even as that scandal began to break, the international media reported that cities like Cartagena have become magnets for the sex trade, with much of their business provided by lustful Americans.

Critics of the Secret Service suggested that a good many of its agents adopted a motto of “wheels up, rings off,” indicating plans to visit prostitutes in their destination city. They planned their involvement with prostitutes well in advance of their arrival to “advance” the President’s trip, it is alleged.

As if Americans were not sufficiently shocked, USA Today reported that the Secret Service scandal was “no aberration.” Kirsten Powers reported: “Men working abroad on behalf of our government engage in this kind of behavior so frequently that the Pentagon was forced in 2004 to draft an anti-prostitution rule aimed at preventing the U.S. military from being complicit in fueling sex trafficking.”

It appears that the rule did not restrain those involved in the Cartagena scandal, nor many others. Powers also reported that the American government has been aware for some time that much of the energy in the international sex trafficking underworld comes from American government personnel, both in uniform and out.

Powers cited Rep. Christopher Smith (R-NJ), who declared that “women and girls are being forced into prostitution for a clientele consisting largely of military services members, government contractors and international peacekeepers.”

One report indicates that young girls have been kidnapped in Eastern Europe “specifically to be sold to the American contractors to use for sex.” Those contractors were there under the auspices of our government to establish peace and security in the aftermath of the Bosnian crisis.

As Kirsten Powers observed, “Representatives of the U.S. government should be setting the standard for the world, not feeding the problem of sex trafficking. The chances that the women or girls the Secret Service agents procured for their pleasure were there by free will is very low. Most likely, they were sex slaves.”

Thankfully, there is much less talk these days about prostitution and sex trafficking as a “victimless crime.” Few crimes offer such a dismal view of the human moral reality. There is a ready market for every form of lust, and criminal syndicates stand ready to sell anyone and anything for a price.

Bringing the story even closer to home, Nicholas Kristof of The New York Times reported the story of a sex worker in New York City. “If you think sex trafficking only happens in faraway places like Nepal or Thailand, then you should listen to an expert on American sex trafficking I interviewed the other day,” he wrote. “But, first, wish her happy birthday. She turns 16 years old on Thursday.”

Kristof told of “Brianna,” who had been effectively kidnapped and sold into the sex trade after she ran away from home for only one night at age 12. He also described the prominence of major Internet sex trafficking sites, one of which “accounts for about 70 percent of America’s prostitution ads.” Brianna reported that she had been offered on such a site, estimating that half of the business into which she was sold came through the site. Chillingly, Kristof also reported that major Wall Street financial firms were profiting by the business.

Kirsten Powers got it just right when she wrote, “We have a global epidemic of sex trafficking.” I can only wonder how many Americans understand that the “we” in that statement means us — the American people. When a congressman can admit for us all that women and girls are being forced into the sex trade for a clientele “consisting largely” of American government officials and contractors along with the U.S. military, that problem becomes the responsibility of every American.

American Christians, who understand the incomprehensible scandal and moral horror of sex trafficking must recognize that this is an issue of high moral priority.

We must demand the enforcement of laws meant to protect human beings from being sold into sexual slavery and the vigorous prosecution of those who are engaged in sex trafficking. We must demand that any American involved in such activities be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, and that every effort be made to release women and young people from sexual slavery.

No American can rest with an easy conscience while this nation is known around the world for sending out officials, business associates, government contractors, and military personnel whose motto is “wheels up, rings off.”

This scandal has revealed that the concept of the Ugly American has taken on a humiliating new dimension.

Kirsten Powers, “Colombia Scandal Exposes Sex Trafficking Growth,” USA Today, Thursday, April 19, 2012.

Nicholas Kristof, “Not Quite a Teen, Yet Sold for Sex,” The New York Times, Thursday, April 19, 2012.

Some Fighting Illini are battling to block the opening of a new fast-food franchise on the University of Illinois campus.  A collection of students, faculty and staff contend Atlanta-based Chick-fil-A embraces a corporate culture that is “anti-gay” and doesn’t match the diversity of the university’s environment. 

Recently, student government members at the University of Illinois Springfield tabled supporting a proposal to bring a Chick-fil-A restaurant to its campus.

Equality Matters reports that Chick-fil-A’s WinShape foundation, the company’s charitable arm, has donated between $1.3 million and $1.6 million to pro-family groups between 2003-08.  In 2009 alone, it contributed $2 million to organizations such as Exodus International, Focus on the Family and the Family Research Council.  

“At Chick-fil-A, we have a genuine commitment to hospitality for all of our guests,” Dan Cathy, president and COO of Chick-fil-A, said in a media statement. “We are not ‘anti- anybody’ and have no agenda, policy or position against anyone as some continue to confuse with misleading reports. Instead, we have a 65-year history of providing hospitality for all people and, as a dedicated family business, serving and valuing everyone regardless of their beliefs or opinions.”

The chain that serves up chicken sandwiches and various other items has received widespread support from the evangelical Christian community over the years.  Many Christians appreciate its mission “to glorify God by being a faithful steward of all that is entrusted to us” as well as its commitment to keeping the stores closed on Sundays.

It’s these values that keep many Christians coming back for more. 

“I love Chick-fil-A and will continue to support it as long as they hold true to their biblical values,” said David E. Smith, executive director of the Illinois Family Institute.

Dan Gilgoff, CNN Belief Blog co-editor, believes the food chain could see more confrontation as it tries to grow beyond the Bible belt in the Deep South.

“Considering Chick-fil-A’s conservative Christian mission, perhaps the most striking feature of the recent controversy is how unusual it is for the company,” wrote Gilgoff. “As the chain continues to grow, they may find it more difficult to avoid the culture war.” 

The University of Illinois isn’t the only school to attempt blocking the chain’s expansion efforts. Students at Northeastern University have blocked the company from opening a restaurant on its Boston campus, citing the chains financial support of pro-family rights organizations. 

There are 14 Chick-fil-A restaurants in Illinois.  Please consider supporting their Christian mission by voting with your wallet.

In Aurora @ 4435 Fox Valley Center Dr Aurora, IL 60504 

In Bloomington @ 1 State Farm Plz Bloomington, IL 61710 

In Carbondale @ 1255 Lincoln Dr Carbondale, IL 62901 

In Charleston @ 600 Lincoln Ave Charleston, IL 61920 

In Chicago @ 30 E Chicago Ave Chicago, IL 60611 

In Edwardsville @ University Ctr Edwardsville, IL 62026 

In St. Clair @ 281 Saint Clair Sq Fairview Heights, IL 62208

In Lombard @ 717 E Butterfield Rd Lombard, IL 60148 

In Moline @ 4500 16th St Moline, IL 61265 

In Orland Park @ 15605 S La Grange Rd Orland Park, IL 60462 

In Schaumburg @ 935 E Golf Rd Schaumburg, IL 60173 

In Urbana @1401 W Green St Urbana, IL 61801 

In Wheaton @ 301 E Loop Rd Wheaton, IL 60189 

New figures released from the 2010 census reveal that the proportion of homes containing a married husband and wife has dropped to 48 percent, down from 52 percent ten years ago and a peak of 78 percent in 1950.  At the same time, the proportion of unmarried couples living together jumped 40 percent from 2000.  While same-sex partner households increased, they still make up less than 1 percent of total households, contrary to the impression one might receive from TV and most of the mainstream media.

Read more about the biased media stories and the truth of homosexual households in Illinois in the article titled: Despite Liberal Media Claim, Same-Sex Households Have NOT “Skyrocketed”

The average child today spends 53 hours a week in front of a screen. Have you ever wondered if media and technology have enslaved our generation? Could the greatest leap in technological advancement also have become the biggest setback in keeping us from the things that matter most in life? Has the world of screens, phones and all that comes with them become a technical utopia or a virtual prison? Is social experience more significant or shallow? Is technology all of these things or none of them?

These are the questions a remarkable new documentary called Captivated asks. The DVD looks at how communication through texting, facebook, email and other helps might actually be hurting how we communicate and interact with others.

It is impossible for most of us to completely cut off technology and this movie doesn’t say that we should. Technology has many blessings and advantages previous generations could only imagine, but with these changes come challenges too. If this interests you, take a look at the trailer about this movie here:  http://www.captivatedthemovie.com/

The mission of Visionary Family Ministries is to build the church of Jesus Christ through a global reformation of family discipleship.

They have four major areas of ministry:

• Visionary Parenting: Equipping parents to pass faith and character to their children and grandchildren.
• Visionary Marriage: Inspiring couples to capture a compelling, Bible-driven mission for their life together.
• Never Too Late: Encouraging Faith In Your Adult Child: Encouraging empty-nest parents how to draw adult children back to Christ.
• Building Bible-Driven Churches: Training church leaders how to build biblical family ministries.

In addition to their conference ministry, they seek to equip families and churches through writing Christian books and articles, as well as providing pastoral counseling individuals, couples, and families.

Learn more about joining our prayer team, promotion team, or financial support team.

In this short video Dr. Rienow shares about his journey as a father, and the heart of Visionary Parenting: