The Kellogg's cereal company is experiencing a backlash from Christian consumers who claim they'll no longer buy the company's products after it helped sponsor the Atlanta gay pride march in mid-October by using the beloved Frosted Flakes mascot, Tony the Tiger, in a pro-LGBT advertisement in the event's pride guide.

"Wear your stripes with pride," the Kellogg's ad states, highlighting the word "pride" in large-font rainbow-colored letters, while Tony the Tiger stands to the right with his arms crossed and a familiar smile on his face.

The American Family Association, a traditional Christian values activist group, posted a picture of the Tony the Tiger advertisement to itsFacebook page last Friday and since then, the post has received over 800 comments. Many of the comments were highly critical of the company for using a cartoon character to promote homosexuality, while a number of other commenters stated that Kellogg's has no place, as a food manufacturer, to weigh in on sexual preference.

"Our policy toward corporate America and companies that serve the public is that we ask them to remain neutral in this battle over same-sex marriage," Ed Vitagliano, research director for AFA, told The Christian Post on Tuesday.

"We don't expect them to take our side but we don't expect them to support groups that want to legalize same-sex marriage," he continued. "So we let our followers and supporters know because these companies rely on the patronage of their customers; and there are a lot of people who, in their own states, voted to keep marriage between one man and one woman. I don't think they appreciate knowing that the companies they buy products from are working against that."

The pro-LGBT ad also included a seal in the bottom right-hand corner of the advertisement that indicates Kellogg's was listed by the Human Rights Campaign, a gay activist group, as "one of the best places to work for LGBT equality."

"At Kellogg's, we're an evolving culture that respects and accepts employees' sexual orientation, gender identity and gender expression so that all employees can be authentic and fully engaged," The ad's message states.

Kellogg's is not alone in supporting homosexuality. As Gay Star News points out, "Today, 85 percent of Fortune 500 companies have policies that protect employees from anti-gay discrimination, which is up from 51 percent in 2000."

Vitagliano also noted that since Kellogg's produces cereal and most cereals have cartoon characters associated with them, "They really have no choice but to put Tony the Tiger forward as the representative of Kellogg's making this statement 'wear your stripes with pride.' But we do not approve of charging children with this messages that their parents might not approve."

"This is an argument that our culture is having over the nature of homosexuality and we don't think cereals and cartoons should be bypassing parents to speak about moral issues to children without permission from parents. If that was Kellogg's intent then shame on them, and I hope parents take note of that," he asserted.

As Christian News Network points out, General Mills, a fellow cereal company, voiced support for same-sex marriage in 2012. As the company is headquartered in Minneapolis, its executives voiced opposition to a proposed amendment to Minnesota's constitution in 2012 that would have labeled marriage as only between a man and a woman.

General Mills' vice president of diversity, Ken Charles, issued a letter throughout the whole company saying that if gay marriage was banned in the state it would have made it more difficult to retain skilled workers.

"We do not believe that the proposed constitutional amendment is [in] the best interests of our employees or our state economy," Charles' letter stated.

General Mills has also used LGBT-themed advertisements to promote Lucky Charms and Cheerios in the past.

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor temporarily stopped a lower court decision that would have allowed gay marriages in Kansas.

Justice Sotomayor issued a one-page preliminary injunction Monday per the request of Kansas Attorney General Derek Schmidt, but she also directed the American Civil Liberties Union to respond to the stay.

"IT IS ORDERED that the preliminary injunction entered by the United State District Court for the District of Kansas on November 4, 2014, is hereby stayed pending receipt of a response, due on or before Tuesday, November 11, 2014, by 5 p.m. ET, and further order of the undersigned or of the Court," read the stay.

The stay by Sotomayor came after the U.S. Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals had denied Schmidt an earlier request. Sotomayor could reverse the stay after she receives the ACLU's response.

In 2005, Kansan voters overwhelmingly approved a ballot initiative that added an amendment to the state constitution defining marriage as being between one man and one woman.

While gay marriage was already illegal in the state, Amendment 1 was passed with 71 percent of voters in support and 29 percent opposed.

The vote made Kansas one of over thirty states that approved similar amendments to their constitutions via popular referendum.

Since the 2013 Supreme Court decision Windsor vs. United States, however, a wave of judicial decisions against many state level bans have occurred.

In October, the American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit, known as Marie, et al., vs. Moser, et. al., on behalf of two lesbian couples against the constitutional amendment.

Last Tuesday, U.S. District Judge Daniel Crabtree issued an injunction on behalf of the lesbian couples, whose result was stayed pending further action until Veterans Day.

"Had Sotomayor not instituted the stay, same-sex couples would have been able to wed in Kansas starting Tuesday at 5 pm Central Time (7 pm Eastern Time) as a result of an order by U.S. District Judge Daniel Crabtree," reported Chris Johnson of the Washington Blade.

"It's still possible for same-sex couples to wed at that time if the Supreme Court acts quickly to lift its stay."

Sotomayor's stay in the Kansas lawsuit comes not long after the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals declared four states' bans on gay marriage constitutional.

In a two to one decision, the Sixth Circuit overturned lower court decisions against bans found in Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee.

Given that other appellate courts have ruled against the state bans, the overall legal dispute will likely be brought before the Supreme Court in the near future.

With a ruling last week by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals on same sex marriage bans, it appears likely the Supreme Court will ultimately weigh in on the contentious issue, possibly before their term ends in June 2015.

Until recently, all of the federal appeals courts that considered state bans on same sex marriage had struck them down. Then the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals broke with that trend last week, upholding bans in four states. In a 2-1 decision, the Sixth Circuit essentially held that states should have the authority to decide questions regarding marriage.

Appeals regarding same sex marriage bans did reach the nation's highest court earlier this year, but because there was no conflict in the federal circuits, the Justices declined to hear the cases.

Now that a split exists, the Court is much more likely to have to confront the subject, possibly by the middle of next year. Advocates both for and against same sex marriage agree on that, but not much more.

Elizabeth Wydra, Chief Counsel for the Constitutional Accountability Center, said, "Simply because a majority of people vote to ban same sex marriage does not mean they can ignore the guarantees and requirements of the Constitution."

Wydra is among those who believe same sex couples have a "fundamental right" to marriage, based on the Equal Protection Clause found in the 14th Amendment. She remains cautiously optimistic that a majority of the Justices will agree.

Supporters of traditional marriage see a chance to argue before the Supreme Court as a new opportunity, at a time when many are urging them to give up the fight.

Jordan Lorence, Senior Counsel for the Alliance Defending Freedom, said he believed "public policy" issues should be at the top of the Justices' considerations, adding, "The Supreme Court should step out of the way and let this be decided by the people, by the state legislatures."

If an appeal from the Sixth Circuit moves expeditiously, and the Justices agree to take up the case, it could be heard in the spring and decided by late June 2015. It's also highly possible that the procedural timeline pushes the case into the Court's next term, starting in October 2015.

Also Monday, Justice Sonia Sotomayor granted an emergency request from Kansas officials who argued they should not be forced to begin issuing same sex marriage licenses while the legal dispute over the state’s law remains active. Sotomayor has ordered the opposing parties to file a response by 5pm ET on Tuesday.

A federal appeals court in Cincinnati upheld the right of states to ban same-sex marriage by a 2-to-1 vote on Thursday. The ruling overturns lower-court decisions in Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee that found such restrictions unconstitutional.

Observers say the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ruling will most likely force the Supreme Court to make a decision on same-sex marriage for the nation.

"This circuit split means that the Supreme Court's ignoring of this issue will not be able to continue," said Russell Moore, president of the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention. "The people of the states have the right to recognize marriage the way virtually every human culture has, as the union of a man and a woman. The Supreme Court should affirm this right, for all 50 states."

Moore recently held a national conference for Evangelicals, "The Gospel, Homosexuality and the Future of Marriage," designed to equip attendees to defend marriage in the culture and strengthen marriage in the church. He has also been invited by the Vatican to speak at a November colloquium in Rome, where he will provide an evangelical Protestant perspective on marriage and family — joining Pope Francis and religious leaders from all over the world.

Dale Carpenter, a professor of constitutional law at the University of Minnesota, was quoted in The New York Times as saying that the circuit split "will almost surely produce a decision from the Supreme Court, and sooner rather than later. It's entirely possible that we could have oral arguments in coming months and a Supreme Court decision by next summer."

Circuit Judge Jeffrey S. Sutton, who authored the main opinion, wrote: "When the courts do not let the people resolve new social issues like this one, they perpetuate the idea that the heroes in these change events are judges and lawyers. Better, in this instance, we think, to allow change through the customary political processes, in which the people, gay and straight alike, become the heroes of their own stories by meeting each other not as adversaries in a court system but as fellow citizens seeking to resolve a new social issue in a fair-minded way."

The decision conflicts directly with federal appeals courts in the Fourth, Seventh, Ninth, and Tenth Circuits, stated Lyle Denniston in the SCOTUSblog. He wrote that it is "precisely the kind of division of judgment that ordinarily will lead the Supreme Court to step in to resolve the split, especially on an issue of fundamental constitutional significance."

The opinion was joined by Circuit Judge Deborah L. Cook. Dissenting Senior Circuit Judge Martha Craig Daughtry called the Sutton opinion "an introductory lecture in political philosophy," but one that failed, as an appellate court decision, "to grapple with the relevant constitutional issue in this appeal," according to Denniston.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has indicated that the main reason the Court had bypassed the cases so far was that there was not a split among the courts of appeals, according to public comments.

"Now there is a split, and it is a stark one," states Denniston in his blog. "In one sweeping decision, the Sixth Circuit has given all of the states in its geographic region a victory for their bans on both initial marriages of same-sex couples and official recognition of such marriages performed outside of the couples' home states. By contrast, other federal courts have nullified identical bans in 13 states just over the past few months, with the prospect that the number would soon rise of 16 — for a total of 35 states, plus Washington, D.C., allowing such marriages."

Kirsten Andersen |Wed Oct 22, 2014 - 6:07 pm EST | LifeSiteNew.com

In a rare court victory for supporters of true marriage, a U.S. District Judge this week upheld the legality of Puerto Rico’s marriage protection law, which defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman. 

In his 21-page decision, Judge Juan Perez-Gimenez passionately defended true marriage and delivered a scathing rebuke to his colleagues across the nation who have overwhelmingly ruled to overturn state bans on same-sex “marriage” in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s controversial 2013 ruling striking down key portions of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). 

“Because no right to same-gender marriage emanates from the Constitution, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico should not be compelled to recognize such unions,” Perez-Gimenez wrote.

“Recent affirmances of same-gender marriage seem to suffer from a peculiar inability to recall the principles embodied in existing marriage law,” wrote Perez-Gimenez. “Traditional marriage is the fundamental unit of the political order.  And ultimately the very survival of the political order depends upon the procreative potential embodied in traditional marriage.” 

“Those are the well-tested, well-proven principles on which we have relied for centuries,” added the judge. “The question now is whether judicial ‘wisdom’ may contrive methods by which those solid principles can be circumvented or even discarded.”

Lambda Legal staff attorney Omar Gonzalez-Pagan, who represented the gay plaintiffs in the case, told the Washington Blade that Tuesday’s ruling “flies in the face of the blizzard of rulings of the last year … and the decision by the U.S. Supreme Court let stand the rulings striking down five bans similar to Puerto Rico’s.”

Added Gonzalez-Pagan, “One struggles to understand how this judge came to a different conclusion.”

In his ruling, Judge Perez-Gimenez acknowledged he is in the minority of judges willing to defend true marriage.  But he had harsh words for the activist courts that have now redefined marriage to include same-sex couples in 32 states.

“A clear majority of courts have struck down statutes that affirm opposite-gender marriage only,” Perez-Gimenez wrote. “In their ingenuity and imagination they have constructed a seemingly comprehensive legal structure for this new form of marriage. And yet what is lacking and unaccounted for remains: are laws barring polygamy, or, say the marriage of fathers and daughters, now of doubtful validity? Is ‘minimal marriage,’ where ‘individuals can have legal marital relationships with more than one person, reciprocally or asymmetrically, themselves determining the sex and number of parties’ the blueprint for their design?”

The Supreme Court’s decision regarding DOMA, “does not – cannot – change things,” wrote Perez-Gimenez.  “[The Supreme Court] struck down Section 3 of DOMA which imposed a federal definition of marriage, as an impermissible federal intrusion on state power. [The court’s] opinion did not create a fundamental right to same-gender marriage nor did it establish that state opposite-gender marriage regulations are amendable to federal constitutional challenges.  If anything, [the decision] stands for the opposite proposition: it reaffirms the States’ authority over marriage.”

“It takes inexplicable contortions of the mind or perhaps even willful ignorance … to interpret [the Supreme Court’s] endorsement of the state control of marriage as eliminating the state control of marriage,” Perez-Gimenez added.

Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, praised the judge for his ruling, calling him, “a model of judicial restraint.”

Lamenting an “epidemic of federal judges legislating from the bench on the issue of marriage,” Perkins said, “it is time for other courts to follow his example, and the Supreme Court shouldn't allow activist lower courts to redefine states' marriage laws.”

"Judge Pérez-Giménez not only rejected the constitutional arguments for redefining marriage, but succinctly made the case for natural marriage,” Perkins said.  “He is correct in saying that this is among the 'principles of logic and law that cannot be forgotten.'”

"In my recent Fox News Sunday debate with [pro-same-sex “marriage”] attorney Ted Olson, I challenged him to articulate what boundaries may be placed if 'love' is the only criteria for marriage. He refused to do so,” added Perkins. “Judge Pérez-Giménez offered the same challenge … .”

Concluded Perkins, “Every judge considering a marriage case-and every public official charged with administering or enforcing his or her state's laws on marriage-should read and take guidance from this ruling.”

Pope Francis is set to open the "Complementarity of Man and Woman" conference at the Vatican on Nov.17-19, which is dedicated to traditional marriage and is set to feature speakers from various Christian churches, as well as from Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Jainism, Taoism and Sikhism. Russell D. Moore, the president of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, said that he accepted the invitation in order to bear witness to what evangelicals believe about marriage.

While noting that the different religious traditions who will be speaking have "real and ongoing differences on soteriology and ecclesiology," Moore noted on his website that he is "willing to go anywhere, when asked, to bear witness to what we as evangelical Protestants believe about marriage and the gospel, especially in times in which marriage is culturally imperiled."

Catholic News Service reported that the event will feature more than 30 speakers representing 23 countries, and will aim to "examine and propose anew the beauty of the relationship between the man and the woman, in order to support and reinvigorate marriage and family life for the flourishing of human society."

The conference comes nearly a month after the closing of the majorSynod of Bishops on the family, which examined Roman Catholic responses to controversial issues, such as divorce, same-sex unions and other nonmarital relationships.

Other prominent speakers will include Archbishop Charles J. Chaput of Philadelphia and the Rev. Rick Warren, senior pastor of Saddleback Church in California; as well as Lord Jonathan Sacks, former chief rabbi of Great Britain, and Anglican Bishops N.T. Wright and Michael Nazir-Ali.

Topics that will be discussed include "The Cradle of Life and Love: A Mother and Father for the World's Children" and "The Sacramentality of Human Love According to St. John Paul II."

Coverage of October's Synod of Bishops conference has attracted some criticism, with Archbishop Chaput telling an audience in New York that he had been "very disturbed" by press reports of last month's synod, saying, "I think confusion is of the devil, and I think the public image that came across was of confusion," though he added: "I don't think that was the real thing there."

In his blog post, Moore noted that he has been critical of Francis on more than one occasion, referring to the Synod in October, but said that he can "hardly criticize from across the Tiber and then refuse to talk, when invited, about these matters."

"Here's what I hope comes out of the meeting. I hope that this gathering of religious leaders can stand in solidarity on the common grace, creational mandate of marriage and family as necessary for human flourishing and social good," Moore wrote.

"I also hope that we can learn from one another about where these matters stand around the world. And I hope that those of us from the believers' church tradition can represent well our views of how marriage is more than just a natural good (although it is never less than that), but is a picture of the gospel one-flesh union of Christ and his church."

In addressing some of the most challenging questions about homosexuality and marriage, British minister Sam Allberry emphasized that biblical marriage between one man and one woman is a core issue in Christianity, and urged Southern Baptist pastors, teachers and leaders gathered that the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission's 2014 National Conference to boldly preach about it.

"We believe what we believe about homosexuality because we believe what we believe about marriage" said Allberry.

He explained: "One of the purposes of marriage in the Bible is that this union between a man and a woman shows the mystery of Christ and the church. Human marriage is the icon of the relationship Jesus has with His people. But if we now construe marriage as being between a man and a man or a woman and a woman, that picture is disfigured. We're left instead with Christ and Christ or the church and the church. In other words, when you begin to change the biblical definition of marriage, you end up changing something that should be reflecting the Gospel."

The associate minister of St. Mary's church in Berkshire urged leaders who are silent on this issue, or are teaching something contrary to one man and one woman, to stand on the side of Jesus.

"We do very well to remember that if we are on the right side of (the Jesus of Revelations 1), we will not be on the wrong side of history because He is the beginning and the end, the first and the last," said Allberry.

Allberry's Tuesday night talk entitled "Is God Anti-Gay?" took on questions frequently posed to Christians, such as: Did Jesus ever talk about homosexuality?; Why can't the church overlook this issue?; and Is it OK to be in a same-sex relationship if it is faithful and committed?

He also addressed church leaders who answer these questions in various ways, ranging from forcefully against same-sex marriage to acceptance.

Allberry admonished leaders who have strayed from traditional biblical teachings to affirm same-sex relationships, saying their stance puts souls at risk. He warned: "Eternity is at stake. If we approve of something that God Himself forbids. My friends, we are sending people to hell."

The British minister also took issue with leaders who speak too forcefully on the issue of the homosexual lifestyle. Allberry urged teachers and preachers not to tolerate teaching that leads to sexual sin, but cautioned "not tolerating those things is no excuse for rudeness or brashness or arrogance or cockiness."

Allberry also made clear that church leaders cannot remain silent about homosexuality or choose neutrality. Jesus, he explained, was not neutral about homosexuality.

In answering the question does Jesus mention homosexuality, Allberry explained, "Jesus does not mention homosexuality. Secondly, in what Jesus does mention He does address it. "

He concluded, "Not taking a side on this issue is taking a side. It is tolerating and (Revelations 2:20) shows us if you do that, you risk having Jesus against you."

Silence, he said, is on par with false teaching. "If the folks in your church are not being taught by you on this issue, they will only be taught by the secular world around them."

Pastors, he said, can share God's plan for marriage confidently to both heterosexuals and homosexuals because God has a good word for those with same-sex attractions.

He shared that homosexuals and heterosexuals are equally called to deny themselves for the sake of the Gospel. In that sense, Allberry said, "none of us are straight. All of us are skewed in our sexual desires."

Additionally, Allberry, who identified himself as having same-sex attractions, said homosexuals do not get a raw deal when they come to Christ. "There is no one for whom the Gospel is not hugely costly, and there is no one for whom that same Gospel is not utterly worth it."

He said the Bible says those who leave things behind, namely relationships, to follow Christ are promised rewards both in this life and beyond — including new friends and family in the church.

Allberry's talk was one of several discussions about the gospel, homosexuality and the future of marriage hosted by the ERLC National Conference in Nashville, Tennessee, Oct. 27 - Oct. 29.

"The costs are great, the rewards are greater," he summed.