Monday, March 24, 2014
March 23, 2014|9:49 am
A U.S. appeals court on Saturday temporarily put on hold a federal judge's ruling Friday to strike down Michigan's ban on same-sex marriage, a move that followed issuance of more than 300 marriage licenses to gays and lesbians by state officials.
Protestors opposed to same-sex marriage carry signs outside the Federal Court House in Michigan where plaintiffs April Deboer and her same-sex partner Jayne Rowse managed to overturn Michigan's ban on same-sex marriage in Detroit, Michigan in a ruling on Friday March 21, 2014. A temporary stay was granted on Saturday.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit granted a temporary stay until Wednesday, directing those who challenged the state's gay marriage ban to respond to Michigan attorney general's plea to place the lower court's decision on hold pending an appeal.
"To allow a more reasoned consideration of the motion to stay, it is ordered that the district court's judgment is temporarily stayed until Wednesday," the Saturday's ruling said.
State Attorney General Bill Schuette's spokeswoman Joy Yearout said Saturday the stay was intended to preserve the state Constitution pending the appeal's outcome, according to The Associated Press. She didn't comment on whether the state will recognize the new marriages. "The courts will have to sort it out," she was quoted as saying.
Officials in four counties issued 323 marriage licenses Saturday, according to Detroit News.
Michigan's 2004 constitutional amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman, which was approved by 59 percent of voters, was challenged by a Detroit suburb lesbian couple, April DeBoer and Jayne Rowse, who wanted to jointly adopt each other's children but could not.
Anna Kirkland, a University of Michigan professor who submitted an expert report in the Michigan case, told the AP that those issued licenses will be considered "legally married" regardless of what state officials do. "A ruling from a federal judge on the meaning of the Equal Protection Clause ... is binding on the state government," she was quoted as saying. "It's the law of the land until or unless the Supreme Court says otherwise."
In a 31-page ruling, Judge Bernard A. Friedman of Federal District Court Friday stated, "The Court finds that the (ban) impermissibly discriminates against same-sex couples in violation of the Equal Protection Clause because the provision does not advance any conceivable legitimate state interest."
The judge also said that religious views of some people cannot come in the way of equal protection. "Many Michigan residents have religious convictions whose principles govern the conduct of their daily lives and inform their own viewpoints about marriage," Friedman said. "Nonetheless, these views cannot strip other citizens of the guarantees of equal protection under the law."
Federal judges in Texas, Virginia, Kentucky, Oklahoma and Utah have also struck down state amendments and laws banning gay marriage as unconstitutional ever since the U.S. Supreme Court last June squashed a key part of the federal Defense of Marriage Act.
Seventeen states and the District of Columbia now issue licenses for same-sex marriage.
After Friday's ruling, Brian S. Brown, President of the National Organization for Marriage, said it reflects "an all-out assault on marriage, issuing rulings to redefine this foundational institution in violation of US Supreme Court precedent and the rule of law."
Friday, March 21, 2014
March 20, 2014|3:53 pm
A national gay rights organization has taken issue with a Roman Catholic Archdiocese's recently implemented "morals clause" added to their private school teacher contracts.
"As support for LGBT equality continues to grow, particularly among Catholics, the Cincinnati Archdiocese is enacting draconian restrictions on Catholic school employees," Paul Guequierre of the Human Rights Campaign wrote in an entry on the group's website Tuesday that calls for the Archdiocese of Cincinnati to reconsider its new rule. "HRC is calling on Diocese leaders to model Christian values and not discriminate against LGBT teachers or straight allies in their employment practices."
Guequierre argued that the new measure for Catholic school teachers in the Archdiocese is discriminatory and will remove employment protections for teachers.
"The new contract also prohibits membership in an LGBT equality organization, such as the Human Rights Campaign," stated Guequierre. "Creating a safe space for LGBT young people, by placing a friendly sticker on your door for example, could be grounds for dismissal."
Earlier this month, local media reported that the Archdiocese had expanded the so-called "morals clause" in the contracts for teachers at its parochial schools. Originally only a line or two long, the new clause lays out in greater detail the dis-qualifiers for employment with the Archdiocese, reported WLWT.com.
"Such conduct or lifestyle that is in contradiction to Catholic doctrine or morals includes, but is not limited to, improper use of social media/communication, public support of or publicly living together outside marriage, public support of or sexual activity out of wedlock, public support of or homosexual lifestyle, public support of or use of abortion, public support of or use of a surrogate mother, public support of or use of in vitro fertilization or artificial insemination, public membership in organizations whose mission and message are incompatible with Catholic doctrine or morals, and/or flagrant deceit or dishonesty," reads the clause.
Dan Andriacco, spokesman for the Archdiocese, told The Christian Post that the contract will take effect in the fall.
"Our experience has been that some teachers who violated the moral conduct clause in the past said they didn't understand that they were doing so," said Andriacco. "So we think that the examples will help the teachers. The new wording doesn't impose any new requirement or expectation on our teachers; it just makes the long-standing expectations more explicit."
When asked by CP about the allegation of being discriminatory, Andriacco said the new morals clause is not so.
"When you read the contract you will see that it doesn't keep anyone from teaching in our schools on the basis of age, race, gender, religion, or sexual orientation," said Andriacco. "Our Catholic schools are a ministry of the Catholic Church. It shouldn't surprise anyone that we ask our teachers who serve in them not to contradict the teachings of the Church by their public actions or pronouncements."
Tuesday, March 18, 2014
March 15, 2014|12:42 pm
Supporters of same-sex marriage appear to increasingly hold the view that for gay rights to expand, religious freedom must shrink. Some same-sex marriage supporters, though, are pushing back against that trend.
Before states began recognizing some same-sex unions as a marriage, proponents of same-sex marriage made a "live and let live argument:" opponents of same-sex marriage will not be harmed, let same-sex marriages be recognized by the government and it will have no impact on anyone else, the argument went.
In a short period of time, that argument has been replaced with an effort to use the power of the state to punish some who believe that marriage can only be between one man and one woman. In the words of author Heather Wilhelm, "live and let live" has become "you will be assimilated" and all must become part of the Borg collective.
Some same-sex marriage supporters, though, are pushing back against the Borg mindset. Here are six of them.
Same-sex marriage should be legal in all 50 states, Friedersdorf believes. But he does not want to coerce those who disagree with him, and own wedding-related businesses, to do something they do not want to do.
Writing for The Atlantic, Friedersdorf said that he personally knows Catholics who would not only decline a same-sex wedding invitation, but they would decline invites for second marriages and weddings that do not take place as part of a Mass as well.
While he does not share those opinions, Friedersdorf said he "can respect their right to think differently," and he does not believe they would decline a same-sex wedding invitation "because they have anything against gays, but because they're committed to participating only in sacramental marriage as their church defines it, ...."
"I certainly don't think they should be coerced into doing otherwise if they own a wedding-related business," he added. "Is it really worth depriving a tiny religious minority of following their conscience or their livelihood to make a point that has little bearing on gay equality?"
Koppelman, professor of law and political science at Northwestern University School of Law, is a long-time supporter of gay rights and gay marriage. He also believes that those who disagree with him should have the freedom to live according to their beliefs.
"I've worked very hard to create a regime in which it is safe to be gay. I would also like that regime to be one in which it is safe to be a religious dissenter," Koppelman said in November at a Federalist Society conference.
"The strongest argument for accommodation (of wedding photographers who object to photographing a same-sex wedding) here is a pretty simple one: there are lots of other wedding photographers," he explained.
During the debate over passage of Arizona's S.B. 1062, a bill that would have clarified the state's Religious Freedom Restoration Act, critics claimed the bill would allow business owners to ban gays from public accommodations. A group of 11 law professors sent Ariz. Gov. Jan Brewer (R) a letter explaining that the bill would not do that and those critics are "trying to deceive you."
One of the signers of that letter was Douglas Laycock, Robert E. Scott Distinguished Professor of Law at University of Virginia School of Law, who supports same-sex marriage and religious freedom. He explained his position on the Arizona bill for The Volokh Conspiracy, a Washington Post blog.
The bill, he wrote, "was egregiously misrepresented both before and after the veto. ... These laws enact a uniform standard – substantial burden and compelling interest – to be interpreted and applied to individual cases by courts. They rest on the sound premise that we should not punish people for practicing their religion unless we have a very good reason."
Linker, senior correspondent at TheWeek.com, supports gay marriage and is "cheered" by all the recent gains by those who agree with him. At the same time, he is "troubled by the equally stunning lack of charity, magnanimity, and tolerance displayed by many gay marriage advocates."
Same-sex marriage supporters, he said, "don't just want to win the legal right to marry. They don't just want most Americans to recognize and affirm the equal dignity of their relationships. They appear to want and expect all Americans to recognize and affirm that equal dignity, under penalty of ostracism from civilized life.
"That is an unacceptable, illiberal demand."
In a liberal democracy, Linker concluded, "traditionalist religious believers are our fellow citizens and neighbors, and the United States is as much their country as it is ours."
Saletan, a writer for the liberal website Slate, says that he has long been a "fan of gay marriage" and was the best man in a same-sex wedding 23 years ago. Looking at how his fellow same-sex marriage supporters treat those who disagree with them, however, he is "disturbed by what I see today."
"We're stereotyping and vilifying opponents of gay marriage the way we've seen gay people stereotyped and vilified. This is a deeply personal moral issue. To get it right, we need more than justice. We need humanity," he wrote.
Sullivan, founding editor for The Dish, is a gay, married man who describes himself as a conservative and an Obama supporter. To supporters of traditional marriage, whom he refers to as "fundamentalists" and "bigots," Sullivan says, "live and let live."
"My view is that in a free and live-and-let-live society, we should give them space," he wrote. "As long as our government is not discriminating against us, we should be tolerant of prejudice as long as it does not truly hurt us. And finding another florist may be a bother, and even upsetting, .... But we can surely handle it. And should."
Friday, March 14, 2014
March 13, 2014|8:31 am
A graduate of a Southern Baptist seminary and former campus Baptist minister is suing to overturn an Alabama law that does not recognize gay marriages performed outside of the state.
Paul Hard, 55, an alumnus of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, filed his lawsuit after his husband, David Fancher, died in a car accident in 2011, less than two months after they had married in Massachusetts.
Paul Hard, a graduate of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, speaks about his lawsuit to overturn an Alabama law that does not recognize same-sex marriages performed outside the state, Feb. 13, 2014.
Hard was named as his spouse's sole beneficiary, but current Alabama law forbids him from receiving benefits from a wrongful-death lawsuit that has been filed by his estate against the trucking company where Fancher worked.
In the immediate aftermath of the accident, hospital staff did not recognize Hard as Fancher's next of kin, despite him bringing Fancher's power of attorney, living will and their marriage certificate." Hard said the hospital staff's insistence that they would only speak with a family member made him "angry" and then "frantic."
"After what seemed to be about 30 minutes, finally the hospital administration called the desk and said, 'You can take him on back.' At that point, I assumed that David was simply badly injured and asked the orderly who was escorting me back, 'Is he badly hurt?' The orderly simply said, 'He's dead,'" Hard said, as reported to AL.COM.
Hard, an Auburn University Montgomery professor who is now Episcopalian, said that he is filing the lawsuit to keep others from experiencing a situation similar to the one he suffered while at the hospital in the aftermath of Fancher's injuries.
"It's important, because nobody should ever have to go through this at the worst extreme of our lives; we should be able to expect the compassion and support of our fellow citizens," Hard said. "Southerners have tremendous heart. They are known for their kindness. They are known for their courtesy. They are known for their ethics. And they're known for their humanity. I don't believe that anybody that could witness what I went through could simply step back to a political or a legal position."
The prosecution will go after a 1998 state law, the Marriage Protection Act, and the Sanctity of Marriage Amendment. The latter piece of legislation was approved by more than 80 percent of voters statewide in 2006.
Hard will be represented by the Southern Poverty Law Institute, a left-of-center organization that has previously designated the Family Research Council, a conservative Christian advocacy organization, as a "hate group."
Tuesday, March 11, 2014
March 11, 2014|8:41 am
Founder of Socrates in the City and author of best-selling biographies of William Wilberforce, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, and others, Eric Metaxas speaks at the Conservative Political Action Conference in National Harbor, Md., March 7, 2014.
NATIONAL HARBOR, Md. – A moral and religious population is necessary for free markets and democratic institutions to work well, best-selling author Eric Metaxas told The Christian Post after speaking at The Conservative Political Action Conference.
"The free market and democracy by themselves, unmoored by a religious population or a moral population, are nothing," Metaxas said Friday. "The free hand of the market will provide cheaper, better pornography and drugs, if that's what the population wants."
"To have a robust free market is compromised if we are mired in debt, and to have a robust free market of ideas is compromised if religious freedom is threatened – they're really both sides of the same thing, different kinds of liberty that are inextricably intertwined," he added.
Founder and host of Socrates in the City and author of best-selling biographies of William Wilberforce, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, and others, Metaxas emphasized both the debt and religious liberty, the topic of his speech earlier that day. In that speech, Metaxas urged Republicans and conservatives not to spend their energies fighting one another, but defeating Democrats in elections. "We need to be careful about not attacking those on our side out of some false sense of purity, unless it is absolutely necessary," he argued, because debt and religious liberty are too important to be delayed.
"First of all, if we do not have a president who understand that this nation is going down for the third time and drowning on the issue of debt, the Great American Experiment of 230 plus years is over," Metaxas starkly declared. He told CP that American liberty cannot last with a government owing so much.
Metaxas blamed President Obama for failing to address the issue of America's ballooning debt. "President Obama will go down in history as the man who led us over the waterfall," the author declared. "It is absolutely unconscionable."
In his speech, the author mentioned the 50 million Americans who are on food stamps as "a national humiliation," and a reason the national debt has increased. He argued that conservatives and the Republican Party must "let people know that we think good jobs are better than food stamps."
Metaxas also issued a dire proclamation about the state of religious liberty in modern America. "Once religious liberty is compromised, all liberties are compromised," he told CP. The author listed the HHS mandate and the legal redefinition of marriage in some states as threats to religious liberty.
The author also expressed his surprise that there were reportedly no CPAC panels on abortion or religious liberty. "If you're going to have a conservative conference, you need those issues on the table," Metaxas said. He argued that the pro-life position is but one facet of the religious freedom issue.
America's Heritage of Religious Freedom
According to Metaxas, the mechanisms of America's success in the world flow from its moral and religious heritage.
"The very reason people left Europe in small boats to come here and risk their lives was for religious freedom," Metaxas told The Christian Post. In his speech, he argued that conservatives must retell the story of America's heritage for voters to fully embrace their side of the story. "If we do not know these stories in our bones and teach these stories, we really have nothing to sell."
Metaxas emphasized the national stories that connect to religious freedom. "Do we remember the pilgrims as real human beings who suffered horribly?" he asked. "Do we remember that the revolution was a real thing – that real men bled and died for that thing called liberty?"
Metaxas pointed out that the founders of the Abolition and Civil Rights Movements were avid believers. "It was people of faith, crazy Evangelicals, who said we're all created in the image of God," the author declared. "Did you know that Rosa Parks was a serious Christian, that Jackie Robinson was a serious Christian?"
America Is Great Because It Blesses Others
"America is great because we know everything we have is a gift from God that we don't deserve and that God has given it to us for the sake of others," Metaxas declared. He insisted that Americans are not better than any other people, but that the United States is the greatest country in the history of the world, despite its many faults, due to the gift of God.
God does not favor one nation over another, but He does bless people or nations so that they can in turn be a blessing to others, Metaxas argued. "The way George Washington crossed the East River in August 1776 was nothing less than a miracle, as everyone who was there acknowledged," he said, citing one example of God's providence. "Liberty should have been strangled in the cradle that day, but somehow it seems that God intervened."
"This country was wealthy and made wealthy so that we could be generous," Metaxas insisted. He argued that America defeated Nazi Germany because citizens understood that they themselves might be in the death camps. "We were a beacon of hope and truth in a world of darkness and lies."
Religious liberty is important because America needs to honor God if it is to continue to succeed, Metaxas said. He quoted Lincoln, declaring, "We shouldn't pray that God is on our side but that we are on God's side. That takes humility."
Monday, March 10, 2014
March 8, 2014|4:27 pm
NATIONAL HARBOR, Md. – A panel at the Conservative Political Action Conference on whether social conservatives and libertarians could cooperate was dominated by the debate over same-sex marriage.
Alexander McCobin, co-founder and president of the Students for Liberty, stressed during Friday's panel the difference between "a political philosophy and a personal lifestyle" and listed various conservatives who may personally oppose same-sex marriage yet accept its legal recognition.
"Just because you believe people ought to act a certain way doesn't mean you want the government to require them to be that," said McCobin.
McCobin argued that gay marriage "is the civil rights issue of the twentieth century," garnering much applause from the audience.
Dr. Matt Spalding, associate vice president and dean of Educational Programs at the Allan P. Kirby Jr. Center for Constitutional Studies & Citizenship, argued that from the onset, the founders of the United States looked toward "liberty" instead of "freedom" as how society should operate.
"They chose the word 'liberty' which is a Latin word rather than 'freedom,' which is a Germanic word precisely because they meant freedom appropriate for man. They understand liberty to be under the laws of nature and nature's God. It didn't mean license," said Spalding.
"We want to have the freedom to choose, I precisely agree with that, but we must agree first and foremost on certain precepts according to which we recognize each other's humanity."
Spalding garnered applause when he argued that marriage definition should be about the interest of children and that if the state is to define marriage, it should hold to the traditional definition as a "key to liberty."
Since November 2012, some within and without the Republican Party argued that the GOP's socially conservative platform cost it the presidential election.
Others have pointed to growing support for same-sex marriage and marijuana legalization as evidence that the GOP and conservatism in general needs to change with the times on said issues.
This emphasis away from social issues appeared to be present in the agenda of CPAC, as none of the panels focused on abortion or homosexuality and both sides of the marijuana decriminalization debate were present.
Titled "Can Libertarians and Social Conservatives Get Along?" the panel was moderated by Tom Minnery, president and CEO of CitizenLink.
In his opening remarks, Minnery discussed items that he liked and disliked about the Libertarian Party from a socially conservative perspective.
"We checked out the platform of the Libertarian Party and there is so much to appreciate in that party platform," said Minnery, who then quoted the pro-sexual libertine portion of the platform.
McCobin pointed out that Minnery began with a "false premise" when relying on the platform of the Libertarian Party to gauge libertarian opinion.
"You can be a libertarian and not be a Libertarian Party member," said McCobin, who argued that anyone who subscribes to the principles of libertarianism is a "libertarian."
The libertarians and social conservatives recognized the need for limited government and for religious liberty for businesses and individuals who may personally oppose same-sex marriage.
The panel, which also featured Matt Welch, editor in chief at Reason Magazine, and Michael Medved, conservative radio talk show host, also acknowledged that a greater ideological opponent could be found with the policies of the current administration.
"Right now we have a common foe," said Medved regarding the Obama administration in relation to both social conservatives and libertarians.
"Right now the forces of big government are on the march and one thing that conservatives and libertarians have in common is resisting it."
Thursday, March 6, 2014
March 6, 2014|3:20 pm
WASHINGTON – Experts denounced the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child's recent report in which it suggested the Catholic Church alter its positions on fornication, contraception, homosexuality, and abortion. The report, they said, is an attack on the Catholic Church and an overreach of U.N. power.
While the committee's report emphasized the Catholic Church's clerical sexual abuse scandals, it also called on the Vatican state to alter its positions on other, unconnected moral issues. The Geneva report criticized the Vatican's opposition to contraception, homosexuality, and abortion in cases of child rape and incest.
Austin Ruse, president of the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute (C-FAM), called the panel's report "a dagger to the heart of motherhood," and denounced it as an overreach of U.N. power. "A treaty-monitoring organization has told a religion to change its teaching on fundamental issues," Ruse declared at a Family Research Council panel on Wednesday.
Travis Weber, director of FRC's Center for Religious Liberty, argued that this decision weakens the credibility of the United Nations' system for adjudicating human rights. "When rights are read into a treaty without the consent of nations, the entire system loses credibility," Weber argued.
Pat Fagan, senior fellow and director of FRC's Marriage and Religion Research Institute, carefully compared the report to Kristallnacht, the "Night of Broken Glass," an attack against Jews throughout Nazi Germany. Fagan emphasized that this connection is loose. "This is not a Kristallnacht, but it is a breaking of windows," he explained, "because it makes very clear what the agenda is."
"This is a violation of religious freedom, and this targeting of the Catholic Church makes eminent sense for the radical Left," Fagan declared. He argued that an international movement for the causes of abortion and same-sex marriage, among others, targeted the Catholic Church due to its clear stance on morality. "The Catholic Church is known internationally as a source for being clear on what is right and wrong for men."
Fagan warned that "if the Catholic Church can suffer this indignity without any response, the radical Left has gained massive yardage" in the fight against religious freedom.
The MARRI director attacked the U.N. treaty on the Rights of the Child for violating the rights of parents. "It is a fundamental universal human right to transmit your religious and moral beliefs to your child while he is a minor," Fagan declared.
Ruse agreed, arguing that the document gives the child religious liberty and "free access to information from every source," two provisions which make it impossible for parents to protect their children from a host of dangers on the Internet. In addition to these violations, already in the original treaty which the Vatican signed, the commission also requested it change its positions on other issues.
A Non-Binding Resolution
The U.N. Commission on the Rights of the Child ordered the Vatican to reconsider its positions on numerous issues, from spanking to "the diversity of family settings" – a reference to homosexual adoption – and even fornication. "The church has to overcome taboos on adolescent sexuality," Ruse quoted from the report.
The report, however, is completely unbinding, the speakers agreed. The declarations of the commission are "not decisions in any way, shape, or form," Ruse explained. "They are comments and suggestions which governments are free to ignore." He also emphasized that the committee members do not represent the various countries which nominated them to serve. "Only individuals could do something so crazy."
"This report has no binding effect," Weber agreed. "It's almost as if it's just one step further than one voice telling the Catholic Church what to do."
Nevertheless, each panelist argued that it is important for the Catholic Church to respond, and for other groups to join in their attack on this report. "We have to build upon layers of response in order to prepare for attacks years from now," Weber argued.
"You have a very long-term battle going on about fundamental issues of humankind," Fagan declared. He argued that the activists for gay marriage and abortion "love a reasonable response because they have no interest in discourse but in popular messaging." They aim to elicit mocking and derision in order to defame their enemies, Fagan argued. To them, "this is an occasion by which they can humiliate the Catholic Church."
Even so, Fagan suggested a response through different groups. He argued that nations with a concern for the family – both those from Christian and Muslim traditions – should join together to oppose these attacks. "I would also call upon the United States Council on International Religious Freedom" to list the U.N. International Commission on Human Rights as a threat to religious freedom, he added.
"This is a gift from God because it highlights how crazy and radical these committees are," Fagan stressed. He argued that the Catholic Church and other organizations, including Congress, should take this opportunity to denounce U.N. overreach.
Tuesday, March 4, 2014
March 3, 2014|11:41 am
Uwe and Hannelore Romeike (middle) and their six children, with Michael Farris (L) and the rest of the HSLDA legal team (back), at a hearing for Romeike vs. Holder at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, Cincinnati, Ohio, April, 23, 2013.
The U.S. Supreme Court declined on Monday to hear an appeal from the Romeikes, a German homeschooling family that had asylum in the United States. The U.S. Justice Department sought to deport them back to Germany where they could lose custody of their children due to their religious beliefs.
"Today, the United States Supreme Court declined to review Uwe and Hannelore Romeike's asylum case," Michael Farris, chairman of the Home School Legal Defense Association, wrote in a letter to supporters. "We knew it was an uphill battle since the Court only accepts 80–100 out of nearly 10,000 requests each year. While we are disappointed, the court's decision in no way changes our commitment to fight for the Romeikes and homeschooling freedom."
The Romeikes chose to homeschool because they believed the public schools were teaching their children values inconsistent with their Christian views. HSLDA helped the Romeikes flee Germany after they were threatened with jail time and losing custody of their children. HSLDA has also represented the Romeikes in court.
The Romeikes were initially granted asylum by a federal judge in 2010 after they fled Germany in 2008. In 2012, though, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement appealed that decision.
The U.S. Justice Department sided with ICE, arguing that there is no fundamental right to determine the education of one's children and that Germany's law banning homeschooling makes sense because denying parents the right to homeschool teaches children tolerance of a diversity of opinions.
Farris says that all the court options to save the Romeikes from being deported have been exhausted, but HSLDA is working on a congressional solution.
"Even now," he wrote, "we have been working with supportive members of Congress to introduce legislation that could help the Romeikes and others who flee persecution."
In a post to its Facebook page, HSLDA argued that with approximately 12 million unauthorized immigrants living in the United States already, the country should be able to accommodate one homeschooling family.
"Although this is the end of the normal legal battles, we are not giving up. If 12 million people can live here illegally, then surely there is a way to find a place for this one family," the post stated.
Thursday, February 27, 2014
February 26, 2014|1:55 pm
A newly married couple pose for a photograph in the snow opposite the Houses of Parliament, in central London, in this Dec. 18, 2010 file photo.
Editor's Note: This is the second part in a series on gender roles in Christian marriages. Read Part 1 here.
A Christian author claims that husbands are "dropping the ball" when it comes to shepherding their families' prayer lives, but not all Christian leaders agree that the man should be the spiritual leader of the home.
"My wife shared her heart with me, and said, 'I feel like you have failed me.' The weight from spiritual and emotional battles were falling on her shoulders alone," Sam Ingrassia, Columbia strategy leader for ministry group e3 Partners, told The Christian Post in an interview on Friday.
Ingrassia believes that praying through Scripture can empower men to lead their wives rightly, which is something he talks about in his new book, Just Say the Word. The book, complete with a reading program on YouVersion's Bible App, gives men tools on how to pray through Scripture with their wives.
Mimi Haddad, president of Christians for Biblical Equality, told CP in a recent interview that husbands should not take an exclusive position of spiritual leadership in their marriage.
"We talk about Christians living mutually, sharing leadership and authority, which is a call to serve," Haddad explained.
Ridiculing a gender-stereotyped version of leadership, Haddad commented that, for some, "the church is pink and blue – service and leadership is driven by gender." She strongly believes that this is a consequence of sin, and something the Church should reject.
Reaching spiritual intimacy through the husband's shepherding
Ingrassia doesn't limit the lessons of his book to be exclusively for men, but he does assert that Christian men feel called to lead their wives. "Christian husbands want to shepherd their wife, and there's a place of spiritual intimacy they want to get to with their wife, and they're not getting there," he explained.
He also rejects the term "leader," and prefers to use "shepherd" as a better descriptor for a husband's spiritual position in the home. Ingrassia doesn't place an emphasis on the male/female dichotomy, but said he wrote the book in order to meet a specific need. "A lot of men feel that they're failing in providing that shepherding," Ingrassia told CP.
Sharing his conviction, he added, "my spiritual connectedness and leadership with my wife lacked intentionality and regularity." The solution, he said, was to pray through Scripture.
"As Evangelicals, we pray the same things in the same way – it's almost a little boring now in our prayer," he commented. "But we started following the Word of God and let the Holy Spirit show us from the text ideas, key words, phrases, doctrines, promises and blessings – each became a prayer point."
Just Say The Word trains Christian men to discover those prayer points and use them to invigorate their prayer lives with their wives. Ingrassia cited 1 Peter 3:7, noting that Peter "links prayer with this perfect unity in marriage," which means "living with your wife in a considerate, understanding way."
Biblical counselor June Hunt, founder and CEO of Hope For The Heart ministries, outlined a role of tender leadership for husbands in an interview with CP on Friday.
"In a healthy marriage, there is joy in helping the rest of the body become all it was intended to be," Hunt declared. "It's not competition, it's not coercive, demanding or abuse."
Emphasizing that the husband's leadership must help the wife to grow, Hunt asserted, "If you're a healthy head, you provide, you protect, you enable your spouse to exercise the fullness of her gender." This other-focus, she said, embodies the leadership of Christ, as Scripture calls husbands to do.
"Wives feel much more secure with that kind of leadership, knowing that the highest purpose is not, 'I'm going to have my way,' but reflects the character of Christ," she added.
Hunt acknowledged that many people oppose the idea of one gender having spiritual leadership over the other because husbands have abused that power, as in her own parents' marriage. Nevertheless, she defended the idea of husbands leading, according to 1 Peter 3, where Scripture exhorts husbands to "be considerate as you live with your wives, and treat them with respect," since they are "heirs with you in life."
Is male leadership is a consequence of sin?
Haddad argues that "patriarchy is a consequence of The Fall," when Adam and Eve sinned against God. In her opinion, a culture of male-dominated leadership is "one of the most devastating things," and calls for mutual service and authority on the part of both husbands and wives.
"Headship is not about authority, but service and love," Haddad explained. She believes that when Scripture exhorts husbands to love their wives as Christ loved the Church, it means they ought to serve and sacrifice themselves, not insist on having their own way.
Haddad also claims that love and respect are "interchangeable qualities." Scripture's call for husbands to love their wives and wives to respect their husbands really means that both partners should love and respect each other, not that their roles are separate and prescripted for them.
Christians are "not doing the Gospel any service by calling men to leadership or authority," Haddad asserted, noting that every scriptural mandate for men to "lead" their wives truly means "laying yourself down for your wife," and believes "that's the kind of leadership all Christians should have, not just husbands."
Wednesday, February 26, 2014
February 26, 2014|8:30 am
GOP presidential nominee, Mitt Romney (inset) urged Republican Gov. Jan Brewer of Arizona (pictured) to veto the states controversial religious freedom bill SB 1062 on Tuesday because it is the "right" thing to do.
Mitt Romney, the 2012 GOP presidential nominee, waded into the fray surrounding Arizona's controversial religious freedom bill which opponents say discriminates against gays when he urged the state's Republican Gov. Jan Brewer to veto it because it is the "right" thing to do.
In a tweet to Gov. Brewer shared with his 1.55 million followers Tuesday evening, Romney noted: "veto of #SB1062 is right." It has since been retweeted more than 2,500 times as of Wednesday morning and has more than 1,400 favorites.
Romney's tweet came as a surprise to many, particularly due to his staunch opposition to same-sex marriage.
"This coming from the guy who opposed same sex marriage. Massachusetts as governor? @MittRomney:@GovBrewer: veto of #SB1062 is right," tweeted Jason Evan Mihalko.
"Wow. I really did NOT see that one coming. #progress," tweeted Dan Richter.
In an interview with CNN on the issue Monday Brewer, who has until Saturday to sign or veto SB 1062, did not indicate which way she will decide. If she does nothing, the bill will automatically become law.
"I can assure you, as always, I will do the right thing for the state of Arizona," she told CNN.
"I'm going to go home, and when I receive the bill, I'm going to read it and I'm going to be briefed on it. We have been following it. And I will make my decision in the near future," she said.
According to the report, however, Arizona Republicans who know the governor well say it is very likely that she will veto the bill that many argue if it becomes law will be bad for Arizona's economy.
Popular conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh charged on his radio show Tuesday that Gov. Brewer is being bullied into vetoing the bill by gay advocates.
"Religious beliefs can't be used to stop anything the left wants to impose, unless they're Muslim religious beliefs and then we have to honor those. But any other religious beliefs are not permitted," said Limbaugh, according to a Politico report. "The left will not allow them. Now, the current thinking is that Gov. Brewer will probably veto the bill, which, you might think on the face of it will make her a hero with the news media and the rest of the left."
He explained that vetoing SB 1062 will make her a hero for a total of "five minutes." After that, she will continue to be a "near criminal conservative Republican," said Limbaugh. "Their reaction will be, what took her so long? Why did she even consider not vetoing this?"
"She's being bullied by the homosexual lobby in Arizona and elsewhere," he continued. "She's being bullied by the nationwide drive-by media, she's being bullied by certain elements of corporate America in order to advance the gay agenda. I guess in that circumstance bullying is admirable. In fact, this kind of bullying is honorable."