DC Mayor Refuses Citizens a Vote on Marriage

In a hearing today on "Greater Autonomy for the Nation's Capital," Washington, D.C., Mayor Adrian Fenty stated he does not believe citizens in his city should have the right to vote on marriage.

Asked if he would be in favor of a vote on a referendum against same-sex "marriage" in the District of Columbia, he responded, "The short answer is 'no.'"

Most states in the U.S. have held referenda on marriage, voted on by the citizens.

The question was posed by Representative Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah,) who reminded Mayor Fenty that 31 states have already allowed citizens to vote on the definition of marriage. In every case, traditional marriage was preserved.

Mayor Fenty went on to say that the D.C. Council was capable of making a decision regarding same-sex "marriage" since the council was elected by the citizens of the District of Columbia.

D.C. Council Chairman Vincent Gray, also on the panel of witnesses, echoed that sentiment.

Wendy Wright, President of Concerned Women for America, said, "The D.C. Council reeks of rank hypocrisy. For years they have demanded that D.C. citizens should have the right to vote for congressional representation, which is in direct contradiction to the Constitution. Yet now they are denying D.C. citizens the right to vote on marriage, an institution so fundamental to America's well-being that territories were not allowed to become states unless they kept marriage between one man and one woman.

"D.C. officials are proving, once again, why they need congressional oversight. They need to be reminded that citizens are not serfs."

US Bishops Issue Pastoral Letter on Marriage, Condemn Contraception, Homosexual Unions

From Catholic World News

The bishops of the United States have issued a 60-page pastoral letter on marriage that offers an overview of Catholic teaching on the sacrament while addressing the challenges posed by contraception, same-sex unions, divorce, and cohabitation.

The draft of the document, which earned praise from pro-life and pro-family leaders, underwent nearly 100 changes before it was approved by a 180-45 margin. For example, in the section on contraception-- which cites Humanae Vitae seven times-- the sentence “this is an intrinsically evil action” was changed and expanded to

This is objectively wrong in and of itself and is essentially opposed to God’s plan for marriage and proper human development. It makes the act of intercourse signify, or speak, something less than the unreserved self-gift intended in the marriage promises.

The draft’s key paragraph condemning the legal recognition of homosexual unions remained unchanged:

The legal recognition of same-sex unions poses a multifaceted threat to the very fabric of society, striking at the source from which society and culture come and which they are meant to serve. Such recognition affects all people, married and non-married: not only at the fundamental levels of the good of the spouses, the good of children, the intrinsic dignity of every human person, and the common good, but also at the levels of education, cultural imagination and influence, and religious freedom.

Source(s): these links will take you to other sites, in a new window.

• Marriage: Love and Life in the Divine Plan (USCCB)
• Bishops OK marriage pastoral with many changes, some opposition (CNS)
• Draft of pastoral letter (National Catholic Reporter)
• Leaked US Bishops Draft Marriage Pastoral Letter Strong, but Under Fire from Dissidents (LifeSiteNews.com)

D.C. Archdiocese Threatens to Axe Social Service Programs over Same-Sex "Marriage" Law

From LifeSiteNews
By Peter J. Smith

The Catholic Archdiocese of Washington, D.C. has said it will be forced to end its government contracts for social services in the nation's capital, if the D.C. Council does not broaden a religious exemption in a bill to legalize same-sex "marriage." Without the exemption, says the archdiocese, the Church would be required to do such things as extend marriage benefits to same-sex couples, in violation of its core teachings.

The bill under consideration by the district council would legalize same-sex "marriage," but it has a narrow provision that states religious groups would not have to perform same-sex "marriages" or provide their facilities as venues for the novel nuptials.

An earlier version of the bill exempted religious groups from "the promotion of marriage that is in violation of the entity's religious beliefs." However the current legislation whittles down that exemption to just the "promotion of marriage through religious programs, counseling, courses, or retreats," making religious groups and individuals far more subject to persecution via anti-discrimination lawsuits for holding fast to their consciences.

The archdiocese has strongly objected to the legislation, insisting that in all other cases the legislation would put "religious organizations and individuals at risk for adhering to the teachings of their faith."

In areas not exempted by law, individuals and religious organizations will have to obey D.C. laws that prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation, which will then include "married" same-sex couples. This could mean that individuals - from wedding photographers to caterers - will face charges of unlawful discrimination if they refuse their services to same-sex couples for reasons of conscience.

Religious groups and churches, including the Catholic archdiocese and its affiliates, would also have to open up their services to homosexual couples, including: adoption and foster-care services, spousal benefits for "married" same-sex couples, and church halls requested for non-marriage functions.

Despite the archdiocese's having asked for a broader exemption, the D.C. Committee on Public Safety and the Judiciary rejected on Tuesday any amendment to that effect.

That provoked the archdiocese to warn that the D.C. government's relationship with the Catholic Church's social services arm, Catholic Charities, which serves 68,000 city residents every year through 93 social programs carried out by 40 parishes, would be dramatically altered by the legislation if changes were not made.

"It is our concern that the committee's narrowing of the religious exemption language will cause the government to discontinue our long partnership with them and open up the agency to litigation and the use of resources to defend our religious beliefs rather than serve the poor," said Edward Orzechowski, president and CEO of Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of Washington.

The Archdiocese told the Washington Post on Wednesday that failing to broaden conscience protections for religious groups and individuals would force them to cancel its social services contracts with the city. That in turn would affect the tens of thousands of people seeking help with adoption, homeless shelters, and health services.

The Catholic Church in D.C. nevertheless would continue its social ministries that are not contracted with the D.C. government, and therefore would not fall under the district's regulations.

The Washington Post reports that D.C. council members are thus far unmoved. Mary M. Cheh (D-Ward 3) derided the Archdiocese and its concerns as "somewhat childish." David A. Catania (I-At Large) also told the Post he would rather see the city's relationship with the Church ended before accommodating its demands on conscience protections.

A vote on the D.C. same-sex "marriage" bill is expected sometime in December.

An ecumenical pro-family coalition, Stand4Marriage Coalition D.C., led by Bishop Harry Jackson of Hope Christian Church and fellow black pastors is lobbying, along with the Catholic archdiocese, to put an initiative banning same-sex "marriage" on the ballot for 2010.

Victory for Traditional Marriage in Maine

From Catholic World News

By a 53%-47% margin, Maine voters have repealed a measure that would have legalized homosexual marriage in the state-- even though, in the words of the Associated Press, “the stars seemed aligned for supporters of gay marriage. They had Maine’s governor, legislative leaders and major newspapers on their side, plus a huge edge in campaign funding.”

Bishop Richard Malone of Portland has been an active supporter of traditional marriage, ordering a collection in all parishes on behalf of the effort. The shepherd of the state’s sole diocese noted in a recent referendum alert:

Please let your conscience be formed by these clear and authoritative words of Pope Benedict XVI (Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger): “In those situations where homosexual unions … have been given the legal status and rights belonging to marriage, clear and emphatic opposition is a duty.” A Catholic whose conscience has been properly formed by Scripture and the teachings of the Catholic Church cannot support same sex marriage. Please vote YES on question 1.

Source(s): these links will take you to other sites, in a new window.

• Defeat in Maine a harsh blow to gay-marriage drive (AP)
• Diocese of Portland in Maine
• Same-sex marriage in Maine (Wikipedia)

,

Schwarzenegger Defies Voters; Signs Pro-Sodomite Bills Into Law

Yesterday evening Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed SB 54 and SB 572, both authored by Senator Mark Leno, into law. SB 54 requires California to grant all the privileges and rights of marriage to same-sex marriages performed outside of California prior to the passage of Proposition 8 last year. SB 572 requires the governor to declare every May 22 Harvey Milk Day in California.

"This is tragic news for California families," state Karen England, executive director of Capitol Resource Institute. "The governor has chosen to completely undermine the will of the people -- the millions of Californians who have twice stated that they intend for only traditional marriage to be recognized in our state. By signing SB 54, the governor thumbs his nose at the initiative process and the voters who trust that their vote means something.

Last year the governor vetoed a bill identical to SB 572 that would have declared Harvey Milk Day in California. In his veto message, the governor cited the local influence of Milk in San Francisco, stating that Milk's recognition should not be mandated statewide.

"We don't know why the governor suddenly changed his mind and decided to impose a radical social agenda in every classroom," stated England. "One possible explanation is the influence of the governor's Hollywood friends. After a biopic on Milk received Academy Award recognition earlier this year, Hollywood political activists began lobbying the governor to sign the resurrected Harvey Milk Day bill. It seems that the governor places more value in the opinion of his Hollywood friends and their values than the values of the people who voted him into office."

The Harvey Milk Day bill was so controversial that the governor dedicated a phone line in his office to calls regarding Harvey Milk Day.

"The people of California have clearly spoken out against same-sex marriage and Harvey Milk Day, yet the legislature and the governor continue to push their agenda on our children," stated England. "Parents are outraged that their young children -- including kindergarteners -- will be forced to participate in activities 'commemorating' the life of a man known for his sexuality. Parents and voters are deeply disappointed and outraged by the governor's signing of these two unnecessary, agenda-pushing bills."

Read SB 54
Senate Votes for SB 54
Assembly Votes for SB 54

Read SB 572
Senate Votes for SB 572
Assembly Votes for SB 572

Conservative Leaders Urge FRC President to Tell the Truth About Romney's Pro-Sodomy, Pro-Abortion Record

From Christian Newswire

This weekend, leading Christian pro-family advocacy organization Family Research Council (FRC) will feature former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney as one of its featured speakers at its "Value Voters Summit" www.valuesvotersummit.org. Despite Romney's unbiblical and far left-wing record as Massachusetts governor on the issues FRC claims to care the most about, FRC President Tony Perkins continues to refer to Romney as a "friend of the pro-family movement."

That's why we have authored the website www.tonyperkinstellthetruth.blogspot.com, because we believe someone claiming to stand for biblical teaching, as Mr. Perkins claims to, should have the integrity to tell the truth about the candidates he's providing a platform to reach Christian voters.

"In Mitt Romney's healthcare plan that he is applauding you can get an abortion for $50," said noted GOP strategist Mary Matalin on 1040-WHO Radio in Des Moines, Iowa, on December 12th, 2007.

We would like to ask Mr. Perkins if Ms. Matalin is lying, and if she isn't, do taxpayer-funded, $50 elective surgical abortions sound like a policy signed into law (2 years AFTER Romney's supposed "pro-life conversion") by a "friend of the pro-family movement?"

Please tell the truth, Mr. Perkins.

CNS.com reported on August 25th, 2008, that before the Massachusetts legislature had even had a chance to pass a law legalizing homosexual marriages (which they never did), Governor Romney unilaterally and unconstitutionally authorized the illegal alterations to and issuance of marriage licenses to homosexual couples, and even went so far as to demand that justices of the peace who wouldn't perform homosexual "marriages" for moral reasons, resign. www.cnsnews.com/news/article/34561

We would like to ask Mr. Perkins if CNS.com is lying, and if it isn't, does that sound like the actions of a, "friend of the pro-family movement?"

Please tell the truth, Mr. Perkins.

Attorney, scholar, and activist Phyllis Schlafly said Romney was claiming he had to "follow the law" when he unilaterally and illegally enacted homosexual "marriages," but that "there is no law (in Massachusetts) that requires or even allows" homosexual marriages. www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56674

We would like to ask Mr. Perkins if Ms. Schlafly is a liar, and if she isn't, does this sound like the actions of a "friend of the pro-family movement?"

Please tell the truth, Mr. Perkins.

In March of 2008, World Magazine reported the late Paul Weyrich admitted in a room of his peers at the Council for National Policy meeting in New Orleans, that he was wrong to have endorsed Romney for president. Weyrich is reported to have said, "Before all of you and almighty God I want to say I was wrong" and that it was "the worst mistake of (his) life."

We would like to ask Mr. Perkins if Mr. Weyrich, one of the Founding Fathers of the Christian Conservative movement and Reagan Revolution, was wrong, and if he wasn't then how can you continue to refer to the founding father of sodomy-based "marriages" and $50 tax-subsidized elective surgical abortions as a "friend of the pro-family movement?"

Please tell the truth, Mr. Perkins.

If you are attending the Values Voters Summit this weekend or would like more information, please visit www.tonyperkinstellthetruth.blogspot.com. Perhaps you can reach Mr. Perkins and ask him to tell the truth, since we have attempted to do so privately on several occasions over the last several years and all of our pleas to reach our brother in Christ have been ignored.

Voter Referenda on Same-Sex "Marriage" on Nov. Ballot in Washington and Maine

Washington Gay activists attempting to obtain full details of referendum list to threaten, intimidate signers

From LifeSiteNews
By Peter J. Smith

Voters in the states of Washington and Maine will get the opportunity this November to decide the fate of same-sex "marriage" in their respective states, now that two measures have been certified to appear on the November ballot.

Maine election officials announced Wednesday that pro-family advocates had gathered more than enough signatures - nearly twice the number required - to effect a referendum on the same-sex "marriage" law passed by the Maine legislature. The referendum means Maine voters have the chance to exercise a "People's Veto" of the law, which if successful would then reduce the number of states legalizing same-sex "marriage" to five.

Democratic Gov. John Baldacci, who supports same-sex "marriage," yesterday signed the proclamation that puts the "Act To End Discrimination in Civil Marriage and Affirm Religious Freedom" on the ballot for November 3.

The Stand for Marriage Maine coalition collected just over 100,000 signatures, well over the required 55,087 validated signatures to bring the referendum to a vote. Secretary of State Matthew Dunlap's office stopped counting signatures at 60,391 before certifying the measure.

This leaves a two month time frame for pro-family advocates to make their case to the majority of Maine voters. Pro-family advocates in the Stand for Marriage Maine/Yes on 1 coalition count the Knights of Columbus, National Organization for Marriage, and the Portland Catholic Archdiocese as among their active supporters.

Meanwhile on the West Coast, the Secretary of State for Washington has approved R-71, a voter referendum that would overturn a law (SB 5688) passed by the legislature in April that gives homosexual couples all the rights and benefits of marriage, but stops short of giving same-sex unions the title of "marriage."

Pro-family advocates sponsoring R-71 under the banner of Protect Marriage Washington, however, say the law attacks the "historical understanding and definition of marriage" as the lifelong union of a man and a woman, and invites litigation that would lead to state courts legalizing same-sex "marriage."

Protect Marriage Washington submitted nearly 138,000 signatures by the July 25 deadline in order to get R-71 on the November ballot. However state elections officials threw out thousands of signatures, recognizing 121,617 signatures as the final tally. According to the Washington Secretary of State, just 120,557 were required to secure approval for the Referendum.

However the situation in Washington is far more precarious than in Maine, as homosexual activists plan to file a lawsuit on Thursday arguing that Secretary of State Sam Reed certified thousands of invalid signatures, which would then disqualify R-71 from the November ballot.

Yet the Protect Marriage Washington coalition is also fighting attempts by two homosexual activist groups to make the identities public of all Referendum 71 signers. The groups WhoSigned.org and KnowThyNeighbor.org have vowed to create searchable databases of the signers' names, along with the amount they gave and their place of employment. It is unclear whether their home addresses will also be published.

Pro-family advocates charge that the activists are using public disclosure laws to create an environment ripe for voter intimidation, harassment, and violence no different from what happened to Proposition 8 supporters in California. (see coverage here and here)

The Los Angeles Times reported in November that the El Coyote restaurant came under siege by hundreds of protesters, because one such website exposed the private $100 "Yes on 8" contribution of the owner's daughter, Marjorie Christoffersen. The rioting became so out of control at one point that the L.A. Police Department was forced to quell the disturbance in riot gear.

Christoffersen met with protesters and even broke down in tears, but the picketers were not satisfied, and continued their protest both in front of the store and online, where they deluged the restaurant with bad reviews.

U.S. District Court Judge Benjamin Settle has issued a temporary order blocking the release of petitioners' names and will hear arguments today from Protect Marriage Washington before making a decision.

Most Americans Oppose Same-Sex 'Marriage'

Research still shows the majority of Americans are against homosexual "marriage."

From OneNewsNow
By Charlie Butts

Carroll Doherty is a spokesman for the Pew Research Center, which conducted the research. "We found 35 percent overall in favor of it, [with] 54 percent opposed," he says. "The opposition is slightly higher than it was the last time about a year earlier, up from 49 percent, but these attitudes have been fairly stable for the past few years."

Then researchers asked participants their opinion of same-gender civil unions that grant most of the privileges of traditional marriage. "You've got 53 percent [in] favor. You really do get just a slight majority in favor of it, 39 percent opposed," Doherty adds. "So you see that [same-sex] marriage obviously draws much more opposition...."

The research indicated that African-Americans as well as born-again Christians are against homosexual marriage. About half of Democrats favor it, while Republicans oppose it nearly five-to-one.

Lesbians Charged with Assault after Mace, Pepper Spray Used Against Pro-Marriage Rally

From Catholic World News

Four women, including a lesbian couple, have been charged with assault and disorderly conduct after they allegedly threw bottles, garbage, and paint at participants in a small pro-marriage demonstration sponsored by the American Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family and Property. One of the women has been charged with felonious assault after mace and pepper spray were used against three demonstrators.

Source(s): these links will take you to other sites, in a new window.

• Police: Area men assaulted at anti-gay-marriage rally (York Daily Record)
• Four charged in attack on anti-gay marriage group (Providence Journal)
• The American Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family and Property

Obama-Recommended Census Rules Take Effect: Same-Sex "Marriage" Data to be Released

From LifeSiteNews
By Patrick B. Craine

Responding to the direction of the Obama administration, the U.S. Census Bureau released guidelines Monday indicating that they will now begin reporting data on same-sex "marriage."

Due to the late decision, the 2010 Census will operate according to previous policy, with Census software recoding relationship status entries for same-sex partners who identify themselves as "husband or wife," to "unmarried partner." In late 2011, however, Census officials will, for the first time, release raw state-by-state data on same-sex partners who identify themselves as "husband or wife."

The Bush administration had prohibited the release of such data based on their interpretation of the 1996 Defence of Marriage Act (DOMA); but in a legal opinion published last week, Commerce Department lawyers disagreed, concluding that DOMA does not prohibit the release of data relating to same-sex "marriage."

The Census Bureau has slowly adapted its data collection to an American culture that is increasingly dominated by the homosexualist agenda. In the 1990 Census, the Bureau resolved the problem of same-sex partners identifying their relationship status as "husband or wife" by 'editing' the gender of one of the partners. In 2000, however, such entries were recoded to "unmarried partners."

The Bureau will first report on same-sex "marriage" data later this year in its release of the 2008 American Community Survey, which will include unedited responses about relationship status.

The Wall Street Journal reported in June that the Obama administration had directed the Census Bureau to find a way to include same-sex "marriages" and partnerships in the 2010 Census. White House spokesman Ben LaBolt commented: "The administration continues to make progress on the president's longstanding commitment to promoting equality for [lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender] Americans."

Peaceful Marriage Demonstrators Assaulted

From LifeSiteNews

Demonstrators with the American Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family, and Property (TFP) were assaulted yesterday in Warwick, Rhode Island, as they peacefully held signs in support of traditional marriage.

"We were at a busy intersection, getting strong support for traditional marriage," recounted Volunteer Rex Teodosio. "Three women approached us - one threw mayonnaise, while the other two grappled with our photographer.

"Then we were sprayed with mace. Finally, a burly woman got out of a car and punched our photographer in the face. They shouted obscenities the whole time."

Teodosio said the group was able to get the license plate number of the second car, and file a police report. The first car's license plate had been covered with a shirt.

The group says that pro-homosexual individuals have thrown water bottles, pesticide, rotten eggs and soda at TFP volunteers. But, they say, this is the first time the Catholic group was pepper-sprayed and physically attacked.

TFP said that police at Warwick station responded promptly and have opened a case. Pictures and video footage of the assault are helping the investigation.

"So much for tolerance," said TFP member Joseph Ferrara, who was struck by the attackers.

"Homosexual activists talk about tolerance, but everyone who saw the attack, saw their 'tolerance' in action. For me, these attacks reinforced my resolve to defend traditional family values."

Another Legal Victory for Traditional Marriage as Challenge to Proposition 8 is Tossed by Federal Judge

From Christian Newswire

A federal judge granted another strong legal victory for Proposition 8 today by throwing out the challenge that directly attempted to overturn the measure on federal constitutional grounds.

United States District Court Judge David Carter threw out the challenge to Proposition 8 and dismissed the state of California as a defendant in the case of Smelt vs. United States. The judge indicated in his ruling that since the plaintiffs in the case were legally married before the enactment of Proposition 8, and because the California State Supreme Court recently held that such marriages would remain intact, they had no "injury" or standing to challenge the measure. Portions of the case challenging the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) will be heard in August.

"This is another great day for marriage in California," said Andrew Pugno, Chief Legal Counsel for ProtectMarriage.com, the official campaign committee for Proposition 8 and for the proponents of the measure. "The twice-expressed will of the people of California for traditional marriage is under assault from many lawsuits, but our recent string of victories in both state and federal courts is very gratifying."

The challenge to the Federal DOMA law will move forward with the U.S, Department of Justice as the official defendant. The next hearing is scheduled for August 3.

"ProtectMarriage.com will continue to fight for marriage and fight to defend the will of the people, no matter what course and no matter what legal theory they conjure up," said Pugno.

Judge Sides with Christian Student Professor Called "Fascist Bas**rd" over Views on Marriage

Whether it's in the South Carolina blogdom, academia, or politics, the homo-fascists themselves make the most compelling case for natural law and Christian morality. May they continue to show America what they represent in all its darkness and evil.

From LifeSiteNews
By Peter J. Smith

A US District Judge has blocked the Los Angeles Community College District from enforcing its sexual harassment policy, which the judge ruled had promoted a hostile environment for the free speech rights of a Christian student.

U.S. District Judge George H. King agreed with Jonathan Lopez, a student attending Los Angeles City College (LACC), that the District's policy as written had created the environment that emboldened his speech professor to call Lopez a "fascist ba***rd" for explaining his Christian beliefs and how they related to his views against same-sex "marriage."

King stated in a ruling handed down last week that key sections of the policy were "unconstitutionally overbroad" and then issued the preliminary injunction on the policy, saying that the way the policy was constructed meant it "cannot be rendered constitutional by excising words or severing sections."

Represented by lawyers with the Alliance Defense Fund, Lopez had filed a lawsuit against the District and LACC back in February after he had been censored and threatened with expulsion by Professor John Matteson, who had assigned the members of his public-speaking class in mid-November to give an informational speech on any topic.

Lopez decided to give an informational speech to students on his own Christian beliefs, including Christian views on marriage. Lopez had read aloud the definition of marriage from the dictionary and had also quoted two verses from the Bible, when Matteson interjected in the middle of the speech and called Lopez a "fascist ba***rd" before his classmates.

Matteson refused to let Lopez finish, and instead invited other students to leave if they felt offended. But with no student taking up Matteson's invitation to depart, Matteson ordered the class dismissed. Instead of giving the assignment a grade, Matteson mocked Lopez on his written evaluation, taunting, "Ask God what your grade is."

A week after the incident, Matteson threatened to see to Lopez's expulsion after he saw Lopez speaking with the college's dean of academic affairs.

Faced with legal action, the District disciplined Matteson, and gave Lopez an A in the course; however the ADF argued that the District's sexual harassment policy had created an environment in which Matteson felt comfortable to intimidate Lopez from stating his beliefs.

Judge King agreed that the policy violated First Amendment protections of free speech by silencing viewpoints that others would find offensive, because it failed to contain "both a subjective and objective requirement." King pointed to the District's website indicated any conduct involving sexuality could fall under the heading of sexual harassment including "sexist statements." In this context, the site stated, "If [you are] unsure if certain comments or behavior are offensive do not do it, do not say it. ... Ask if something you do or say is being perceived as offensive or unwelcome."

"Thus, the Policy reaches constitutionally protected speech that is merely offensive to some listeners, such as discussions of religion, homosexual relations and marriage, sexual morality and freedom, polygamy, or even gender politics and policies," wrote King. "While it may be desirable to promote harmony and civility, these values cannot be enforced at the expense of protected speech under the First Amendment."

King paid particular attention to one passage from the policy that included under the sexual harassment code "conduct [of a sexual nature that] has the purpose or effect of having a negative impact upon the individual's work or academic performance, or of creating an intimidating, hostile or offensive work or educational environment."

"The Policy reaches speech unrelated to a class, such as discussions in any public and common areas at LACC. Even speech related to a class can be restricted by the Policy if the speech is not an intrinsic part of the course content," King wrote in his order.

King's order forbids the LA Community College District and the LA City College from carrying out or even promulgating the sexual harassment policy and to remove all references to the policy from its websites within fourteen days of the injunction.

A Christian Vision of Marriage and Family

By R. Albert Mohler, Jr.


"For the first time in its history, Western civilization is confronted with the need to define the meaning of the terms 'marriage' and 'family.'" So states author Andreas J. Kostenberger who, with the assistance of David W. Jones has written God, Marriage, and Family: Rebuilding the Biblical Foundation.

This sense of crisis and the need for definition sets the stage for this book and its central thesis--that the only way out of our present cultural confusion is a return to a biblical vision of marriage and family.

As Kostenberger observes, "What until now has been considered a 'normal' family, made up of a father, a mother, and a number of children, has in recent years increasingly begun to be viewed as one among several options, which can no longer claim to be the only or even superior form of ordering human relationships. The Judeo-Christian view of marriage and the family with its roots in the Hebrew Scriptures has to a certain extent been replaced with a set of values that prizes human rights, self-fulfillment, and pragmatic utility on an individual and societal level. It can rightly be said that marriage and the family are institutions under seige in our world today, and that with marriage and the family, our very civilization is in crisis."

In one sense, the statistics tell the story. The great social transformation of the last two hundred years has led to an erosion of the family and the franchising of its responsibilities. The authority of the family, especially that of the parents, has been compromised through the intrusion of state authorities, cultural influences, and social pressure. Furthermore, the loss of a biblical understanding of marriage and family has led to a general weakening of the institution, even among those who would identify themselves as believing Christians.

At the cultural level, Kostenberger suggests that the rise of a libertarian ideology explains the elevation of human freedom and a right to self-determination above all other principles and values. The quest for autonomy becomes the central purpose of human life, and any imposition of structure, accountability, boundaries, or restriction is dismissed as repressive and backward.

Within the Christian church, Kostenberger discerns what he identifies as a "lack of commitment to seriously engage the Bible as a whole." As he correctly observes, evangelical Christianity has no shortage of Bible studies, media production, parachurch ministries, and the like. Yet, most Christians are woefully unaware of the deep biblical, theological, and spiritual foundations for marriage and the family that are central to the Christian tradition.

"Anyone stepping into a Christian or general bookstore will soon discover that while there is a plethora of books available on individual topics, such as marriage, singleness, divorce and remarriage, and homosexuality, there is very little material that explores on a deeper, more thoroughgoing level the entire fabric of God's purposes for human relationships," he observes. To fill this void, Kostenberger and Jones, along with Mark Liederbach, who contributed sections on contraception and reproductive technologies, attempt to offer an integrative approach that would establish a biblical theology of marriage and family. The primary focus of Scripture, they assert, is "the provision of salvation by God in and through Jesus Christ." Nevertheless, the Bible also addresses an entire spectrum of issues related to marriage and the family--extended to issues such as human sexuality, gender, reproduction, parenthood, and more.

Kostenberger and his co-authors begin their consideration of marriage and family in the book of Genesis, establishing the starting point for these considerations in the doctrine of creation. Throughout the volume, a complementarian understanding of the relationship between men and women is affirmed, and the man and the woman, both created in the image of God, are assigned different responsibilities and roles.

Early in the book, Kostenberger makes an audacious claim: "Our sex does not merely determine the form of our sex organs but is an integral part of our entire being." This flies in the face of the postmodern claim that gender--indeed the very notions of male and female--are nothing more than the product of social construction and ideology. This complementarian arrangement is correctly grounded before the Fall and its consequences.

Yet, Kostenberger gives careful attention to the effect of the Fall and the consequences that follow. Thus, sin and its effects becomes the explanatory principle for all confusion over gender, sexuality, marriage, and the integrity of the family.

In successive chapters, the book moves through a series of special topics, surveying the biblical material and presenting a systematic exposition of the Bible's teachings. The authors balance considerations from both testaments and deal honestly with the biblical narratives concerning biblical characters. Thus, the Patriarchs become examples of faithfulness, even as their own sin and misadventures in marriage and parenting are candidly observed. The authors use a very helpful outline format in setting out the various scriptural passages and their importance to each question. In this sense, they succeed in presenting an integrative model, pulling from a comprehensive reading of the biblical text.

For example, marriage and the roles of both husbands and wives is grounded in Genesis and then traced through the entire Old Testament. Husbands are to love and cherish their wives, to bear primary responsibility for the marriage union and to exercise authority over the family, and to provide the family with necessities for life. The wife, on the other hand, is to present her husband with children, manage her household with integrity, and provide her husband with companionship. Contemporary readers may be shocked by the candor of Kostenberger's presentation, but he grounds his arguments directly in the biblical text. Thus, readers are offered the opportunity to read the critical passages for themselves, and then to understand how Kostenberger framed his argument.

In an interesting section, Kostenberger acknowledges that, within six generations of Adam, the biblical vision of monogamy was at least occasionally compromised by the practice of polygamy. As Kostenberger observes, "While it is evident, then, that some very important individuals (both reportedly godly and ungodly) in the history of Israel engaged in polygamy, the Old Testament clearly communicates that the practice of having multiple wives was a departure from God's plan for marriage." Further, the Bible is clear that individuals in the history of Israel who abandoned God's design of monogamy and participated in polygamy did so contrary to the Creator's plan and ultimately to their own detriment. The sin and disorder produced by polygamy, then, is further testimony to the goodness of God's monogamous design of marriage as first revealed in the marriage of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden."

In light of contemporary confusions, this is a most helpful and accurate clarification. Similarly, Kostenberger deals honestly with the Bible's teachings concerning deviant sexual practices, ranging from homosexuality and adultery to incest.

In another helpful section, Kostenberger differentiates between "traditional" and "biblical" visions of marriage. The traditional vision is deeply rooted in middle-class experience in America. The biblical vision is not dependent upon this traditional model.

Considering the nature of marriage, Kostenberger dismisses the notion of marriage as a sacrament or as a mere contract. Instead, he argues that marriage is rightly understood as a covenant, defined as "a sacred bond between a man and a woman instituted by and publicly entered into before God (whether or not this is acknowledged by the married couple), normally consummated by sexual intercourse." Thus, marriage is not merely a bilateral contract, but is a sacred bond. Moving from marriage to the larger family context, Kostenberger suggests that a biblical definition of family points to the structure constituted by "primarily, one man and one woman united in matrimony (barring death of a spouse) plus (normally) natural or adopted children and, secondarily, any other persons related by blood." Citing Old Testament scholar Daniel Block, Kostenberger identifies the family in ancient Israel as patrilineal, patrilocal, and patriarchal. As Block helpfully suggests, the Old Testament family might best be described as "patricentric." In other words, the family is centered around the father.

In the New Testament, the structures of marriage and family are explicitly affirmed, even as the church is identified as the new family of faith. Nevertheless, the emergence of the church does not eliminate marriage, family, or the bonds and responsibilities established in Creation.

In a helpful section originally contributed by Mark Liederbach, the authors survey questions related to procreation, contraception, and the use of advanced reproductive technologies. The authors write with sensitivity, but also warn against a superficial embrace of contemporary technologies as without moral and theological complication. Readers are advised to look carefully at the nature of reproductive technologies, as well as contraceptive choices, in order to evaluate such options in light of biblical principles and mandates.

Kostenberger also presents a wealth of material related to the structure of the family, parenthood, and the care and discipline of children. He deals honestly with the need for parental correction and discipline, and affirms the role of corporal punishment in the raising of the young. "Of course children will disobey--they are sinners!," Kostenberger observes. "Parents rather should be expecting their children to sin, even after they have come to faith in Christ. Such an expectation is realistic and enables the parent to deal with each infraction calmly and deliberately, administering discipline with fairness, justice, and consistency."

The authors also provide a very helpful consideration of the biblical material concerning homosexuality. "The biblical verdict on homosexuality is consistent," Kostenberger argues. "From the Pentateuch to the book of Revelation, from Jesus to Paul, from Romans to the Pastorals, Scripture with one voice affirms that homosexuality is sin and a moral offense to God. The contemporary church corporately, and biblical Christians individually, must bear witness to the unanimous testimony of Scripture unequivocally and fearlessly." In later chapters, Kostenberger deals with questions related to divorce and remarriage and to the roles and responsibilities of men and women within the church. Even those who disagree with this understanding of divorce and remarriage will appreciate his careful consideration.

Against the backdrop of civilizational crisis, Kostenberger concludes by arguing that this crisis is "symptomatic of an underlying spiritual crisis that gnaws at the foundations of our once-shared societal values." Further, "In this spiritual cosmic conflict, Satan and his minions actively opposed the Creator's design for marriage and the family and seek to distort God's image as it is reflected in God-honoring Christian marriages and families."

Thus, recovery of a biblical understanding of marriage and family is itself a witness to the gospel and to the grace and mercy of God in giving humanity these good gifts for His good pleasure. Kostenberger and his coauthors are to be congratulated on a volume that takes the biblical text seriously and seeks to apply Scripture to contemporary questions in a way that is neither arbitrary nor piecemeal. Their integrative approach will assist Christians to think through the most important issues of our day and, more importantly, lead their families to show the glory of God in the midst of a fallen world. This book should be welcomed and widely read.

R. Albert Mohler, Jr. is president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky. For more articles and resources by Dr. Mohler, and for information on The Albert Mohler Program, a daily national radio program broadcast on the Salem Radio Network, go to www.albertmohler.com. For information on The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, go to www.sbts.edu. Send feedback to mail@albertmohler.com. Original Source: www.albertmohler.com.

People's Veto to Overturn Gay "Marriage" Nears Finish Line

The following news story from Maine concludes with a very important point, and that is, traditional marriage has never lost on the ballot in any state. Vocal, organized activists, driven by a rage that comes from the pit of Hell, have foisted the sham of same-sex "marriage" on a public that has everywhere and always rejected it when given the opportunity. We have no doubt that Maine will soon uphold the natural law also.

From Christian Newswire
By Mary Conroy

Looking to overturn a bill signed by Governor John Baldacci in May approving same sex marriage, Stand For Marriage Maine announced today that they have collected more than the 55,087 signatures needed to place a People's Veto on the November ballot and are collecting additional signatures as insurance to meet the deadline to qualify the measure for the 2009 statewide election.

"In just four weeks, we've gathered more than 55,000 signatures from Mainers who believe they, not the legislature and governor, should have the final say on the definition of marriage," said Marc Mutty, Chairman of the coalition. "There has been an extraordinary outpouring of support from voters across the state. This response gives us momentum that will lift us over the first hurdle of putting the issue before the people and, ultimately, carry us to victory in November."

All signatures must be certified by the Secretary of State for validity. Once certified, the issue is cleared to appear on the November 2009 ballot.

"The fact that we've gathered all these signatures in just a month to proceed with the People's Veto suggests that the people of Maine, like those in 43 other states, want to restore marriage to its historical and time-honored definition as between a man and a woman," said Bob Emrich, founder of the Maine Jeremiah Project and an Executive Committee member of Stand for Marriage Maine. "We look forward to submitting the measure for certification and engaging Mainers in a vigorous defense of marriage. Traditional marriage has never lost on the ballot in any state. We expect it to prevail in Maine."

Stand For Marriage Maine is a broad-based coalition of business, elected officials, the Catholic Diocese of Portland, the Maine Jeremiah Project, and others. Visit www.standformarriagemaine.com for more information.

NEA to Consider Full Support of Homosexual 'Marriage'

This would not seem to be in the best long-term career interest of teachers, but then when did children ever enter into the considerations of the NEA?

From OneNewsNow
By Peter Chagnon

The co-founder of the National Education Association (NEA) Conservative Educators Caucus says the NEA will consider adoption of a resolution supporting homosexual "marriage."

The NEA is currently holding its annual convention in San Diego, California. Educator and conservative activist Jeralee Smith called OneNewsNow from the convention to report that the executive council has approved language that will throw the full support of the NEA behind same-gender marriage, homosexual adoption, and other issues surrounding the homosexual agenda.

"They will help to overturn legislation that is discriminatory against same-sex couples," she notes. "And then there is one little bullet about [how] they will recognize that marriage has a religious connotation and it's not compatible with beliefs and values -- because of that they recognize that certain churches should not be forced to conduct same-sex marriage."

Smith says the resolution could be voted on as early as midday Friday or as late as Tuesday of next week. She points out this is not the first political issue the NEA has undertaken. The NEA gave $50 million to help elect President Obama in 2008.

Same-Sex 'Marriage' Loses Support Among Americans

A recent poll indicates that Americans are not as supportive of homosexual "marriage" as they once were.

From OneNewsNow
By Charlie Butts

A CBS-New York Times survey shows that support for redefining marriage to include same-gender couples has declined. Jenny Tyree of Focus on the Family Action tells OneNewsNow that, according to The New York Times, the figure dropped slightly -- but she believes nine percentage points is more than slightly.

"I think that this really digs into what Americans really feel about marriage -- that they like that [marriage is] defined between a man and a woman," she contends. "And also it's a bit of a backlash against the five states whose legislative bodies have redefined marriage very recently within the last several months."

Part of the drop may also relate to the continuing battle to defeat California's Proposition 8, she says, in which voters defined marriage as between a man and a woman.

"I think Americans really saw the intolerance that occurred after the Proposition 8 vote back in November," she recalls. "They saw that many who want to redefine marriage were not happy with really what the people decide, and what the people decided in California was to continue to define marriage the way it has been defined."

After the election, several lawsuits were filed to try to overturn the voters' decision. Another federal lawsuit challenging it was filed just last week. Tyree believes the poll also sends a strong message to the White House, which has stated as a goal to repeal the federal Defense of Marriage Act.

Friends With Benefits

"Are we witnessing the quiet spread of heterophobia?"

From The American Spectator
By George Neumayr

Thursday's Washington Post contained comprehensive coverage, three stories no less, of Barack Obama's presidential memorandum that decrees in these dark days of recession new "benefits to partners of federal workers." But don't worry, your scarce hard-earned tax dollars won't go to all domestic lovers. Just homosexual ones.

The memorandum "does not cover domestic heterosexual partners," reports the Post. And who largely drafted the memorandum? John Berry, director of the Office of Personnel Management, who is "the highest-ranking openly gay person in the administration."

Heterosexual sinners need to hire better lobbyists, or hope that Obama soon finds in his impressively massive heart a new and richer understanding of their attempts at semi-committed love.

Again I ask: Are we witnessing the quiet spread of heterophobia? Why should a Carrie Prejean not enjoy the ample protections of Obama's hate-crime laws? Why should the girlfriends of fornicating federal workers not receive, as homosexuals now do, "long-term-care insurance benefits" for their short-term relationships?

As I don't need to tell you, this president is deeply committed to "competitiveness" and released his memorandum with the efficiency of the federal government at the very top of his mind: "Extending available benefits will help the Federal Government compete with the private sector to recruit and retain the best and the brightest employees." But doesn't he see that by denying benefits to the heterosexually shacked-up he is risking the loss of their abundant talents too?

This nation cannot afford to lose a single one of the federal government's 2 million civil servants. Remember how impossible life became after Bill Clinton shut the federal government down due to Newt Gingrich's recalcitrance and sent, I'm sorry to use this cruel term but it was the state-of-the-art phrase at the time, "unessential workers" home? No one wants to go through that again.

What, you may be wondering, are the benefits in Wednesday's memorandum that will make the federal government a little more brisk? One apparently is that gay federal workers can now take time off to care for "children not related by blood or adoption."

Say a child is struggling with "LGBT" issues of one kind or another; that federal worker could now take the afternoon off and sooth the youngster by reading with him or her President Obama's proclamation, addressed in part to "LGBT" youth, that declared June "Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Pride Month."

Gay activists seemed a little surly after Obama went to the trouble of signing an order that elevates them and snubs heterosexuals. What gives? Unlike Republican pols, who find the pro-lifers to whom they have to hurl bones from time to time very boring and tiresome, Obama actually likes and agrees with his ideological base. He has made it clear to gay activists, via his wife, that his nominal opposition to gay marriage is political, not philosophical, and that once the coast is clear he will endorse it in every state.

Why the impatience? Well, at least Candy Holmes has things in perspective. A veteran of the Government Accountability Office, she told the Post that the words "hopeful" and "excited" describe her mood. She wants "to believe this is the beginning of equality."

Holmes and her lesbian partner, by the way, "are both ordained clergy with the Metropolitan Community Church," so perhaps in the near future they will have a little more time for troubled youth and some freed-up money, otherwise used on niggling insurance plans, for more affirming purchases, such as the memoirs of Milwaukee Archbishop Emeritus Rembert Weakland.


George Neumayr is editor of Catholic World Report and press critic for California Political Review.

British Ambassador to Poland Blasted for Promoting "Gay Rights" in Strongly Pro-Family Nation

From LifeSiteNews
By Thaddeus M. Baklinski


Poland's civil rights ombudsman, Janusz Kochanowski, said British ambassador Ric Todd was "being improper and doesn't understand the role of a diplomat" following the disclosure that Todd gave homosexual activist leaders a copy of the "UK Guide To Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual And Transgender People And Their Rights," translated into Polish, earlier this week.

The booklet is an adaptation of a political correctness manual for UK civil servants produced by the British Foreign Office, and the act was seen as a promotion by the ambassador of the planned "gay pride" march due to take place in Warsaw on Saturday.

"Ambassador Todd has exceeded his authority," Mr. Kochanowski told The Daily Mail. "He represents the UK, he is not meant to intervene here in the way that he chooses."

Slawomir Skiba, editor of Polonia Christiana, a Catholic newspaper published by the Polish Association of Christian Culture, agreed. "The ambassador has demonstrated an extreme lack of diplomacy and absolute ignorance of the values by which the vast majority of our society lives."

He added that Todd should confine himself to represent the interests of Britain, not the "homosexual lobby."

Last year Todd was criticized for flying the rainbow flag of the "gay rights" movement beside the Union Jack flag in front of the British embassy in Warsaw.

Asked at the time whether he would raise the rainbow flag at the British embassies in Saudi Arabia or Iran, Mr Todd said, "I have made a judgment about what I should do in Poland, and in my opinion this is the appropriate thing to do in this country. I am not interfering in Polish politics or society nor am I criticizing it."

"The UK remains committed to promoting the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people overseas," Todd said. "This small gesture is a symbol of the British embassy's commitment to equality and acceptance for all."

A British foreign office spokesman said that it "does have a policy of promoting LGBT rights abroad."

Poland is considered to be one of the most Catholic societies in Europe, with relatively low rates of abortion, divorce and teenage pregnancy. The country has constantly resisted pressure from the EU to acquiesce to the acceptance of the homosexual agenda.

President Lech Kazcynski has said that indiscriminate approval of the European Union Charter of Fundamental Rights would "affect the accepted moral order in Poland."

Activist Announces Plans for Homosexual “Marriage” March on Nation’s Capitol

From LifeSiteNews
By Peter J. Smith

While homosexual activists have planned various excursions and events for National Coming Out Day, one leader in the homosexual movement has announced plans for a march on the nation’s Capitol to demand that Congress legalize same-sex “marriage.”

Cleve Jones, the founder of the AIDS quilt and a protégé of Harvey Milk, San Francisco’s first openly homosexual elected official, told a crowd assembled at the annual Utah Pride Festival that a national march was upcoming for October 11, to coincide with this year’s National Coming Out Day. The intent of the march would be to advocate changing the definition of marriage at the national level to include homosexuals.

“It is time to march again. Time to end this state-by-state, county-by-county, city-by-city struggle for equality and rip apart the patchwork of inequality that it has created,” said Jones, the grand marshal for the Utah pride festival. Jones told the crowds that the march would be a new chapter in the homosexual rights movement and that it was up to them “to seize this moment history, to believe as President Obama has taught us, that real change is possible in this country that we love.”

“We have a message for the people, the President, the Congress and the Supreme Court of the United States of America. We are equal!” Jones shouted into the microphone.

The march planned by Jones would be the fourth march by homosexual activists on Washington since the first one held 30 years ago on October 11, 1979. Previous marches were held in 1987 and 1993.

Jones also took a moment to single out the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (LDS), whose headquarters in Salt Lake City are just blocks away from where the rally was held, and which had been a critical player in the coalition to preserve the true definition of marriage in California by supporting Proposition 8.

“I have two words for Thomas S. Munson,” said Jones referring to the LDS leader. “Thank You!”

Jones told the crowd that the LDS’s moral and financial opposition to same-sex “marriage” had only galvanized homosexual activists. “You may have won last November, but your victory will be short-lived,” he said.

However, while Jones’s planned march on Washington will likely gain media coverage, very few, if any, legislators will be at the Capitol as Congress will not be in session on October 11. Jones also has yet to confirm whether he has obtained the necessary permit with the D.C. police to have a march on the Mall.