Trditional Marriage News

Date:
Wednesday, June 10, 2015
June 10, 2015|8:27 am | THE CHRISTIAN POST | 

 

A number of prominent pastors and lay leaders have signed a petition pledging civil disobedience if a U.S. Supreme Court decision redefining marriage to include same-sex couples infringes upon their religious freedom.

 

"Experience and history have shown us that if the government redefines marriage to grant a legal equivalency to same-sex couples, that same government will then enforce such an action with the police power of the State. This will bring about an inevitable collision with religious freedom and conscience rights. The precedent established will leave no room for any limitation on what can constitute such a redefined notion of marriage or human sexuality. We cannot and will not allow this to occur on our watch. Religious freedom is the first freedom in the American experiment for good reason," the pledge states, in part.

At press time, over 42,000 had signed the "Pledge in Solidarity to Defend Marriage."

 

Prominent signers include, Republican presidential candidate and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee; Dr. James Dobson, founder of Family Talk Radio; Bishop Harry Jackson, founder of High Impact Leadership Coalition; Rev. Samuel Rodriguez, president of the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference; Penny Nance, president of Concerned Women for America; Richard Land, president of Southern Evangelical Seminary and executive editor of The Christian Post; Jerry Johnson, president and CEO of National Religious Broadcasters; and Rev. Rick Scarborough, president of Vision America Action.

The pledge was drafted by Mathew Staver, chairman of Liberty Counsel Action, and Deacon Keith Fournier, editor in chief at Catholic Online.

 

According to a press release, "Those who signed the petition will resist all government efforts to require them to accept gay marriage. They will accept any fine or punishment — including jail time — to protect their religious freedom and the freedom of others."

According to the pledge website, www.defendmarriage.org, the idea for the pledge originated during a Vision America teleconference with pastors led by Dobson, Scarborough and Staver.

"I am speaking as a minister to the moral and biblical ramifications of this expected ruling," Scarborough said on the call. "This would be a decision as incorrect and as tragic as Dred Scott [a Supreme Court decision upholding slavery]. Because of the trends and cultural shifts that we have witnessed in culture over the past 40 years, we have all known that this day would likely come and Christians would be put at odds with the culture and the courts.

 

"I believe we are there. We are approaching a Bonhoeffer moment in America."

Dietrich Bonhoeffer was a German pastor who spoke out against the Nazis during World War II and ultimately gave his life for the cause.

Later in the call, Staver agreed with the Bonhoeffer analogy.

 

Referring to wedding vendors who have been punished for living according to their beliefs, he said, "We either all stand together, or we hang separately. This is indeed a Bonhoeffer moment. They might be able to pick us off individually, but collectively they can't. Whenever someone gets targeted, we must gather around them and say no."

In addition to Bonhoeffer, the pledge cites the example of civil rights movement leader Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. as a precedent for civil disobedience.

 

In "Letter From a Birmingham Jail," King advocated disobedience to unjust laws.

"Though affirmed, fulfilled, and elevated by faith, the truth that marriage can exist only between one man and one woman is not based on religion or revelation alone, but on the Natural Law, written on the human heart and discernible through the exercise of reason. It is part of the natural created order. The Natural Law is what Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., referred to as a higher law or a just law in his famous 'Letter from Birmingham Jail,'" the pledge states.

 

This idea is reiterated in the second to last paragraph, which states, "Our highest respect for the rule of law requires that we not respect an unjust law that directly conflicts with higher law. A decision purporting to redefine marriage flies in the face of the Constitution and is contrary to the natural created order. As people of faith we pledge obedience to our Creator when the State directly conflicts with higher law. We respectfully warn the Supreme Court not to cross this line."

The Supreme Court will announce its decision sometime this month on whether the Constitution requires all states to redefine marriage to include same-sex couples.

Date:
Tuesday, June 9, 2015
BY NAPP NAZWORTH , CHRISTIAN POST REPORTER
June 9, 2015|8:04 am| The Christian Post| 

 

Is the Obama administration moving to require Christian nonprofits that receive government grants to follow LGBT non-discrimination rules in hiring?

May 29 blog post by Austin Ruse, president of the Center for Family & Human Rights (C-Fam), claimed that an "unnamed source within the federal government" informed him that "the White House is quietly moving forward" with an LGBT non-discrimination policy for nonprofit organizations receiving government grants.

Since then, however, a White House official has assured another religious freedom organization that no decisions have been made about federal grantees.

 

The White House, Ruse wrote, "has recently directed federal agencies to include the 'sexual orientation and gender identity' clause in all grant agreements. The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) has agreed to make this change and is said to be weeks away from implementation.

"The source added that federal agencies are being pressured to make this change without a subsequent executive order and that the State Department legal office has advised the White House that this is not a legal matter but a matter of policy," he continued.

 

The potential policy change is similar to one for government contractors that Obama made last year. That executive order required contractors to not discriminate against LGBT individuals in hiring and firing practices. There was no blanket religious exemption but a religious hiring exemption remained in place, which left the actual implications for faith groups a bit murky.

There are not many faith-based government contractors, but there are a large number of faith-based organizations that receive government grants to provide important social services. So a policy affecting grantees would have more far-reaching consequences than a policy affecting contractors.

Stanley Carlson-Thies, founder and senior director of the Institutional Religious Freedom Alliance, reached out to Melissa Rogers, executive director of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships, to find out if this was true.

 

In a Friday IRFA blog post, Carlson-Thies wrote that while C-Fam believes a policy for grantees has been made, "there is good reason to doubt that it has been or can be made."

If the Obama administration were "quietly" making this change, he explained, it would show up in grant announcements and application forms. Since IRFA advocates on behalf of faith-based groups, it would likely be one of the first to know about the change.

 

Second, unlike federal contractors, the hiring rules for grant recipients are set by Congress, not the president. So if Obama attempted to intrude upon congressional authority, there would likely be an executive/legislative power struggle.

Third, Rogers assured Carlson-Thies that "the White House has made no decision to extend the restrictions on contractors to grantees."

Ruse posted another blog post on Friday noting what Carlson-Thies found. He also noted that a World article quoted a National Security Council spokesperson saying that the Obama administration is not extending its LGBT hiring policy for federal contractors to federal grantees.

 

Carlson-Thies does acknowledge that he cannot verify whether a policy change is being made in secret. And he advises faith-based groups to prepare for the worst while hoping for the best.

"Faith-based organizations must take a deep and careful look at their operations and take deliberate action to ensure that there is a strong alignment between their religious beliefs, their operational policies, and their actual practices. Their religious identity ought to be clear to everyone, inside and outside the organization, and the religiously based rationale for their policies and practices ought to be evident to anyone who takes a look," he wrote.

 

Date:
Monday, June 8, 2015
June 5, 2015|8:58 am| The Christian Post| 

 

Aaron and Melissa Klein, former owners of an Oregon bakery that refused to bake a wedding cake for a lesbian couple and as a result was fined over $130,000, declared in an exclusive interview with the Daily Signal that the case against them needs to be removed from the bureaucratic governmental agency that oversees discrimination complaints because of possible new evidence of bias.

"I think the case should be pulled out of [the Bureau of Labor and Industries court and put into a civil court because I cannot get due process here," Aaron Klein told The Daily Signal.

 

Last week the Daily Signal, a news site related to the Heritage Foundation, published evidence of collusion by the Bureau of Labor and Industries and the pro-LGBT group Basic Rights Oregon. Based on this new evidence, which consists largely of emails, texts, and phone conversations between the two parties, prompting lawyers for the Kleins to file another motion to reopen the case. A similar motion to reopen the case was denied in March before the Daily Signal's publication of new evidence.

Brad Avakian is the judge at the bureau who is responsible for issuing a final ruling concerning the $135,000 fine. Sweet Cakes by Melissa has since shut its doors because of backlash and boycotts by those angered over their actions. The Kleins' children were even the targets of death threats.

"I had a gut feeling that he was in cahoots with [Basic Rights Oregon] from the get go," Aaron Klein declared in the interview. "We already knew that he had a premeditated idea about what was going on."

 

Avakian made a Facebook post about the Kleins' guilt before the agency's ruling and imposing of a fine.

"You can't have an office that has a judge, jury and executioner," Aaron Klein declared. "Judges should be unbiased and they should be elected by the people without the power to legislate, investigate and do everything else."

The Kleins have consistently said serving a gay wedding ceremony is against their Christian beliefs. Rachel and Laurel Bowman-Cryer, the lesbian couple, testified at a hearing in March that they suffered emotional distress because they were "humiliated" and "ashamed" that they were not accepted as a soon-to-be married couple.

 

The Daily Signal's continued reporting about the collusion exacted a response by Basic Rights Oregon on Tuesday:

"The Heritage Foundation has fabricated a conspiracy theory between Oregon's Bureau of Labor and Industries (BOLI) and Basic Rights Oregon, ignoring the truth and the facts.

"Here's reality: The Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries (BOLI) did not consult Basic Rights Oregon on the Sweet Cakes by Melissa discrimination case," declared pro-LGBT rights group Basic Rights Oregon. "To the extent Basic Rights Oregon has been in contact with BOLI staff about this case, it was to stay informed about timeline and process only."

 

Basic Rights Oregon did not mention in their press release their donations to Avakian's bid to be commissioner of the BOLI nor Avakian's purchases of tickets costing hundreds of dollars to attend Basic Rights Oregon's annual fundraising galas and gay pride parades. They did however mention their endorsement of Avakian through their PAC.

Melissa Klein told the Daily Signal she plans to "fight this all the way we can."

"We're definitely not going to back down," said Melissa Klein. "We take this very seriously … for not just ourselves but for other business owners who this could happen to."

Date:
Friday, June 5, 2015
June 4, 2015|2:25 pm| The Christian Post| 

 

A man who identifies as ex-transgender has expressed "caution" regarding former Olympic athlete Bruce Jenner's decision to change his gender identity to become "Caitlyn."

Walt Heyer, author and blogger with The Federalist, stated in an interview Tuesday with CNN that while Caitlyn Jenner may feel great at present "this doesn't always last."

 

"The surgeons can make it look like you changed genders but the fact of the matter is it's all cosmetic surgery. There's really no actual gender change," Heyer asserted during an interview with CNN's Carol Costello.

"I felt like I had been duped, tricked, and it wasn't really real. I wasn't really a woman. I looked like one."

 

In an interview with The Christian Post, Heyer emphasized that he "never declared Jenner was wrong to change his gender."

"I did suggest caution because I have received hundreds of emails from transgenders over the years who regret making the transition. The long-term outcomes are not always the best and suicide is always a risk," Heyer emphasized.

Heyer was born a man and underwent gender reassignment surgery to become a woman only to eventually become a man once more.

 

An author of multiple books, Heyer has become a critic of gender reassignment surgery and believes that transgendered identity carries with it emotional wounds.

"Transgenders undergo hormone injections and irreversible surgeries in a desperate effort to feel better, yet they attempt and commit suicide at an alarming rate, even after treatment," reads the description of one of his books.

According to a 2003 study conducted in Sweden, transsexuals who change their gender through body mutilation or hormone therapy have a higher suicide rate than the general population.

 

The study, which followed 191 male-to-female gender reassignments and 133 female-to-male gender reassignments from 1973-2003, found that suicide attempts and in-patient psychiatric treatment actually increased in Sweden among those who had a sex change.

Heyer's comments come as the July issue of Vanity Fair magazine has Caitlyn Jenner on its front cover.

Jenner has received much support and admiration from social media, major media outlets, and fellow high profile celebrities and public figures.

 

"Bruce always had to tell a lie, he was always living that lie. Every day he always had a secret. From morning until night. Caitlyn doesn't have any secrets. As soon as the Vanity Fair cover comes out, I'm free," Jenner said in a promo video for the magazine.

Many social conservatives have taken issue with the gender identity change and assumption that Jenner has improved by now being Caitlyn, including the Rev. Franklin Graham.

"I have news for them — changing the outside doesn't change the inside. No man-made modification can fix what's wrong with the heart," posted Rev. Graham on Facebook.

 

"Only God can fix the human heart. If we ask for His forgiveness and accept by faith His Son, Jesus Christ, He will wipe the slate clean."

When asked by CP about Americans' acceptance of transgender identity, Heyer said he believed "it is important to have compassion for anyone struggling with their gender identity."

"After living eight years in a different gender, I do not think the long-term solution to resolving gender confusion is hormones, surgery and a change of clothing. It is a deeper issue," Heyer explained.

Date:
Thursday, June 4, 2015
BY SAMUEL SMITH , CP REPORTER|June 3, 2015|3:38 pm| The Christian Post| 

 

WASHINGTON — Senator Mike Lee, R-Utah, addressed concerns that faith-based schools and institutions would be at risk of losing their tax-exempt status for upholding their biblical belief of traditional marriage if the U.S. Supreme Court delivers a pro-gay marriage ruling this month.

 

At a Wednesday press conference held in the senator's Capitol Hill office, Lee, along with prominent members of the evangelical higher education community, voiced concern over comments made in the Supreme Court's oral argument in April by the Obama administration's lead attorney, Solicitor General Donald Verrilli.

 

Lee explained that Verrilli, who testified as a friend of the court on April 28 in favor of making same-sex marriage a national right, was asked by Justice Samuel Alito whether or not making same-sex marriage a constitutional right would allow for the IRS to revoke the tax-exempt statuses of faith-based schools and universities that choose not to recognize same-sex marriage because of their biblical convictions.

"The response uttered by Solicitor General Verrilli was troubling to say the very least. He responded by saying 'I don't deny that. I don't deny that, Justice Alito. It is going to be an issue,'" Lee explained. "He reiterated this response basically four times that this is going to be an issue that he doesn't deny that this is a very real possibility, if not a probability."

 

"Tax-exempt status for religious institutions has historically been granted because we want to keep the government out of the business of interfering with religion," the senator continued. "It really ought not be in the business of disrupting the business of a church or religious institution."

Lee told reporters that he plans to introduce a bill called the Government Nondiscrimination Act, which would essentially prevent the federal government from taking action against an institution based on the institution's belief that marriage should only be a union of one man and one woman.

Lee did not indicate when he plans to introduce the legislation, but he could introduce the bill after the Supreme Court reaches a decision on constitutional same-sex marriage sometime in June.

 

"When the government itself is retaliating against someone based on their religious beliefs, that is a problem and that is what we are trying to protect here," Lee said. " We expect that in part because the Obama administration's chief advocate, before the Supreme Court, acknowledged that it is going to be an issue, that is that you are going to have some religious institutions losing certain status, perhaps tax-exempt status, perhaps some other type of status and that's why we feel like we need this law. We need something in the United States code that protects Americans against that type of discrimination by government."

 

Also speaking at the press conference was Dr. Keith Wiebe, president of the American Association of Christian Schools, who said that if same-sex marriage became constitutional and religiously-affiliated universities began losing their tax-exempt statuses, it would cause them great financial ramifications and even cause those institutions to close down.

"Absolutely, [some religious schools] would have to close down [if they lost their tax-exempt statuses]. The financial ramifications are pretty significant, in terms of them being able to operate if everything they are doing becomes taxable," Wiebe asserted. "They are receiving hundreds of thousands of dollars a year in tuition. Our schools, they are private schools, they are Christian schools, they receive money for tuition, that suddenly becomes taxable."

 

Wiebe also said that the accreditation of religious institutions and the certification of their teachers would likely be rejected should gay marriage become constitutional and Lee's legislation is not enacted to protect them.

Dr. Samuel Oliver, president of the evangelical Union University in Tennessee, added that there are over 29,000 faith-based preschools, elementary schools and high schools along with 1,700 faith-based colleges in the United States. He explained that if some of those schools lost their tax-exempt statuses, it would create a "great burden on the taxpayers" and would be "catastrophic for the common good."

 

"If say even 100 institutions the size of Union [University] closed, that would be 400,000 students that would be put in the system," Oliver said. "The state of Tennessee, where we are, funds higher education and putting those students into those systems would cause great burden on the taxpayers, not to mention the loss of the common good that comes from the institutions themselves."

"If faith-based education ceases to exist, the state educational system will not be able to accommodate the number of students who are dumped into the pool," he added. "To force students, by default, to attend secular schools is a form of mind control."

Expanding the issue outside of the realm of educational institutions, Dr. Jerry Johnson, president of National Religious Broadcasters, wondered whether tax-exempt ministries would be at risk of losing their status. He also pondered whether the Federal Communications Commission would choose to not license or revoke licenses of broadcasters who uphold a biblical belief of traditional marriage.

 

"For radio stations, my interest, the [FCC], those broadcast licenses, are they going to be at risk if they don't honor that new constitutional right?" Johnson asked. "The solicitor general, as the senator pointed out, cleared up any confusion about that in the mind of the administration. I want to quote even more precisely, he said it is 'certainly' going to be an issue. He used the word 'certainly.' This is not maybe. 'Certainly' for this administration, this is an issue.

 

Date:
Wednesday, June 3, 2015
June 2, 2015|12:18 pm| The Christian Post| 

 

Illinois may soon become the latest state to pass legislation banning the practice of sexual orientation change efforts therapy for LGBT youth.

Last week the state legislature passed House Bill 217, sending it to the desk of Governor Bruce Rauner, who has not indicated whether or not he will sign it into law.

Samantha Ames of the National Center for Lesbian Rights said in a statement last Friday that she and her organization were proud of the legislature's action.

 

"We couldn't be prouder to add Illinois to the list of legislatures that have acted to protect LGBT youth, and we applaud the dedication of Equality Illinois and the tireless coalition on the ground," stated Ames.

"We hope Governor Bruce Rauner will join fellow Republicans like Chris Christie, who signed New Jersey's conversion therapy ban in 2013."

Introduced by Rep. Kelly M. Cassidy, HB 217 sought to ban SOCE therapy for minors and to label commercial ads declaring homosexuality a mental illness as fraud.

 

"No person or entity may, in the conduct of any trade or commerce, use or employ any deception, fraud, false pretense, false promise, misrepresentation, or the concealment, suppression, or omission of any material fact in advertising or otherwise offering conversion therapy services in a manner that represents homosexuality as a mental disease, disorder, or illness, with intent that others rely upon the concealment, suppression, or omission of such material fact," read HB 217.

"Any sexual orientation change efforts attempted on a person under the age of 18 by a mental health provider may be considered unprofessional conduct. Mental health providers found to have engaged in a sexual orientation change effort on a patient under the age of 18 may be subject to discipline by the licensing entity or disciplinary review board with competent jurisdiction."

 

HB 217 was similar to a piece of legislation that Rep. Cassidy had introduced in a previous legislative session which was voted down.

First read in January, HB 217 passed the House in May with a vote of 68 to 43 and last Friday passed the Senate in a vote of 34 to 19, with 1 abstention.

 

In a statement released Saturday, the conservative group Illinois Family Institute denounced the passage of the bill as a political ploy with little actual regard for protecting minors. The group also complained that the bill makes no distinction between therapies freely chosen by youth and more coercive therapies.

"HB 217 makes no distinction between coercive aversion therapy and 'talk therapies' that would allow minors a measure of autonomy in constructing an identity that does not affirm unchosen, unwanted same-sex attraction," stated IFI.

 

"This bill is not a reasoned attempt to protect children. It's a political maneuver that serves the strategic interests and profoundly selfish desires of adults committed to perverse activity and delusional thoughts."

At present, California, New Jersey, Oregon, and the District of Columbia have passed similar bills into law. Several states are presently considering similar legislation and many have voted them down.

Date:
Tuesday, June 2, 2015
June 2, 2015|8:06 am| The Christian Post| 

 

There may be evidence that the government agency in charge of enforcing Oregon anti-discrimination laws colluded against Aaron and Melissa Klein, former owners of Sweet Cakes by Melissa bakery, with the pro-LGBT group Basic Rights Oregon.

The Daily Signal, the news arm of The Heritage Foundation, exposed the communications contact between officials at the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries and Basic Rights Oregon, obtained through a public records request, in their story titled, "Emails Raise Questions of Bias in Case Against Bakers Who Denied Service for Same-Sex Wedding."

The communications between the two groups raises questions of the impartiality of the government organization tasked with deciding to bring a case against the Kleins, who were forced to close their bakery after declining to bake a wedding cake for a lesbian marriage ceremony and saddled with over $150,000 in damages.

 

Bureau of Labor and Industries Commissioner Brad Avakian, who will determine the final fine paid by the Kleins, appears to be far from impartial. The Daily Signal reported on the conflict of interest:

"Emails also show Avakian purchasing tickets costing hundreds of dollars to attend Basic Rights Oregon's annual fundraising galas and gay pride parades, while his agency's case against the Kleins was underway."

The Daily Signal further uncovered in its report that in 2012, "Basic Rights Oregon donated almost $8,000 to Avakian's bid for commissioner."

The Christian Post reached out to the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries for comment but did not receive a response by press time.

 

The Daily Signal reported the communications director for the Bureau of Labor and Industries mostly ignored its press inquires about the case against the Kleins, but were quick to inform Basic Rights Oregon of updates in the case, sometimes sending them texts about new or developing updates.

The two groups even communicated together about avoiding questions from the Daily Signal, a conservative media site.

The Daily Signal did report that the Bureau of Labor and Industries provided a statement to them where they reiterated their commitment to "fair enforcement."

In a related essay on cronyism last week at The Federalist, Michael A. Needham and Ryan T. Anderson discussed how cronyism and collusion, especially within the courts, is infecting culture.

 

Cultural cronyists often start in the courts," declared Needham and Anderson, "where they leverage the networks and institutions they dominate in law and academia to convince sympathetic judges to enact sweeping rulings that declare their core social priorities to be fundamental rights."

Almost prophetically in terms of this case, the two noted, "Progressive allies often have a seat at the table when the government decides how to crack down on civic institutions that don't toe the Progressive cultural line."

Avakian is expected to rule on the final penalty against the Kleins this summer.

 

Hans von Spakovsky, a senior legal fellow at The Heritage Foundation, called the agencies action "a clear conflict of interest.

"State agencies have a duty to represent the best interests of the general public, declared von Spakovsky, "not the interests of one particular advocacy group.

"The relationship shown by these communications is inappropriate and raises basic questions about the objectivity, bias, and fairness of this agency and its proceedings."

The Kleins attorneys are hopeful that the newly uncovered communications will once and for all prove clear bias in the case against their client. The Heritage Foundation published a motion by the attorneys to reopen the case because of new evidence based on bias and collusion.

Date:
Monday, June 1, 2015
May 31, 2015|9:50 am| The Christian Post|
 

 

Freedom of speech, press, and religion "have suffered greatly" in Canada since it began federally mandating same-sex marriage in 2005, the Rev. Franklin Graham warns even as the U.S. Supreme Court is considering its legalization.

"[In Canada] If you say or write anything questioning same-sex marriage, you could face discipline, termination of employment, or prosecution by the government!" Graham, who leads the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association, wrote on hisFacebook page on Friday.

"We need to realize that if our Supreme Court makes same-sex marriage the law in the United States, we will be in the same boat," he added, asking, "Will the next step be to ban us from speaking God's truth from His Word about this issue?"

 

In his post, Graham included a link to an "eye-opening" article written by an adult child of gay parents.

In the article, titled, "A Warning from Canada: Same-Sex Marriage Erodes Fundamental Rights," the author, Dawn Stefanowicz, identifies herself as "one of six adult children of gay parents who recently filed amicus briefs with the US Supreme Court, asking the Court to respect the authority of citizens to keep the original definition of marriage: a union between one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others, so that children may know and may be raised by their biological parents."

 

"It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that men and women are anatomically, biologically, physiologically, psychologically, hormonally, and neurologically different from each other," writes Stefanowicz, who lives in Canada. "These unique differences provide lifelong benefits to children that cannot be duplicated by same-gender 'legal' parents acting out different gender roles or attempting to substitute for the missing male or female role model in the home."

Citing incidents of violations of basic freedoms, the author, a member of the Testimonial Committee of the International Children's Rights Institute, adds: "In Canada, it is considered discriminatory to say that marriage is between a man and a woman or that every child should know and be raised by his or her biological married parents. It is not just politically incorrect in Canada to say so; you can be saddled with tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees, fined, and forced to take sensitivity training."

 

Earlier this week, Graham said Ireland was once a "staunchly religious country" but has now become a "light shining in the wrong direction."

Ireland recently became the world's first country to legalize gay marriage through a referendum.

 

"According to a gay Irish Cabinet minister, '[the vote to legalize same-sex marriage in Ireland] makes us a beacon, a light to the rest of the world, of liberty and equality,'" Graham said in a social media post. "They must not realize that this is a light shining in the wrong direction!"

Graham focused on Christian teaching instead of popular opinion, adding: "Jesus Christ said, 'I am the light of the world. Whoever follows Me will not walk in darkness, but will have the light of life (John 8:12).'"

Date:
Friday, May 29, 2015
May 26, 2015|11:57 am| The Christian Post| 

 

Diarmuid Martin, the archbishop of Dublin, Ireland, believes the Catholic Church needs to reestablish itself as a moral authority in Ireland after the passing of same-sex marriage by popular vote last week.

 

Martin spoke with broadcaster RTE about the Catholic Church needing to reconnect with young people after a referendum found 62 percent of people were in favor of changing Ireland's constitution to allow gays and lesbians to marry.

"We [the church] have to stop and have a reality check, not move into denial of the realities. We won't begin again with a sense of renewal, with a sense of denial," said Martin.

He also elaborated on the point of view of gays and lesbians who are now celebrating.

 

"I appreciate how gay and lesbian men and women feel on this day," he continued. "That they feel this is something that is enriching the way they live. I think it is a social revolution."

The archbishop admittedly voted no to the changing of the constitution, however, he does believe "gay rights" should be respected without changing the definition of marriage.

 

Martin also said he feels the church has lost its influence with the younger generation.

"I ask myself, most of these young people who voted yes are products of our Catholic school system for 12 years? I'm saying there's a big challenge there to see how we get across the message of the church," he said.

 

Around 84 percent of people in Ireland identify as Catholic. However, its influence in society and politics has dwindled along with church attendance since the early 1990s.

Last Friday, over 1.9 million people voted whether or not to amend Ireland's constitution which originally defined marriage as being between one man and one woman. Voters were asked if they agreed with the statement: "Marriage may be contracted in accordance with law by two persons without distinction as to their sex."

 

The victory for same-sex marriage comes just 22 years after homosexual acts were decriminalized in the country.

The referendum prompted many young people to vote for the first time. However, the older generation was not as quick to embrace the change.

"You can give gays their rights without redefining the whole institution of marriage. What they're asking for is too much," said 61-year-old voter Bridget Ryan to The Associated Press.

Date:
Wednesday, May 27, 2015

Genevieve Wood /May 08, 2015| The Daily Signal|

 

In 2004, voters in Michigan and 10 other states passed state constitutional amendments defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

Ten years later, in March 2014, a federal judge struck down the law saying it violated the U.S. Constitution’s 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause.

But just eight months later, the 6th Circuit Court overturned that decision, ruling that Michigan’s law—and similar marriage laws enacted by Ohio, Kentucky and Tennessee, the three other states under the court’s jurisdiction—were indeed constitutional. The judges writing that decision noted: “Our judicial commissions did not come with such a sweeping grant of authority, one that would allow just three of us, just two of us in truth, to make such a vital policy call for the 32 million citizens who live within the four states of the 6th Circuit.”

 

The U.S. Supreme Court took up the case recently, and now the question is whether nine judges (or just five to be more accurate) will express the same humility as the 6th Circuit or will they instead determine they do have the sweeping authority to make such a decision for more than 300 million American citizens who live in all 50 states?

The issue before the court is not whether states have the right to redefine marriage but whether states should be forced to redefine marriage. And despite what recent public opinion polls may suggest, when voters have been given the opportunity to have their say, they have overwhelmingly voted in favor of traditional marriage.

 

In only three states has marriage been redefined by popular vote. That means that of the 37 states that recognize same-sex marriage, only three do so because the citizens of that state voted for it. Eight states changed the definition of marriage through their state legislatures, and 26 states have been forced to do so by courts.

Take a look at the national popular vote. Over the last 10 years, this issue has been on the ballot 39 times in 35 states. The number of votes in favor of traditional marriage? 51,483,412. The number of votes in favor of same-sex marriage? 33,015,412. As attorney John Eastman of the National Organization for Marriage rightly concludes, “That’s a vote margin of 60.93 percent to 39.07 percent, a landslide in American politics.”

 

One might also point out that the belief that marriage is the union of one man and one woman has been a landslide decision across the millennia of human history.

There are a host of reasons one can give for being for or against changing the definition of marriage. But of those who believe nine judges can settle such a contentious cultural matter once and for all, I would ask them to recall a similar decision made by the high court over 40 years ago called Roe v. Wade. Does anyone believe the matter of abortion is “settled” public policy in this country? To the contrary, the issue of abortion is more contested today, at both the state and federal levels, than ever before. A court decision forcing all 50 states to redefine marriage would be no different.

 

John Bursch, the attorney representing the state of Michigan, included this line of reasoning in his arguments: “When people have to act through the democratic process, it forces neighbors to sit down and civilly discuss an issue and try to persuade each other through reason, love and logic. … When you enact social change of this magnitude through the federal courts, it’s cutting off that dialogue and it’s saying one group gets their definition and the other is maligned as being irrational or filled with animus. And that’s not the way that our democratic process is supposed to work and there are long-term harms to our country and to that fundamental liberty interest to govern ourselves.”

 

Proponents of same-sex marriage insist that public opinion polls indicate most Americans are in favor of redefining marriage—and that their ranks are growing by the day. If that’s the case, why not let those citizens speak for themselves via the ballot box? Let all Americans have a say in this issue, as opposed to having a handful of judges make the decision for them.

Pages