NARAL president Nancy Keenan is stepping down.

There’s a war on the family taking place in America. It seeks to destroy any semblance of what the traditional family was and redefine every aspect of “family” into something it was never meant to be. Liberal lawmakers and social leaders are waging this war in an effort to execute a radical agenda that will ultimately violate the religious liberties and other freedoms we’ve enjoyed for so many years. And, unless you pay attention you might be unaware of the tools being used to wage this war.

A recent article I came across spells out in detail at least 10 of the tools being used to attack the traditional family and its values.

While most of these should come as no surprise, some might not be suspected by most people. But when we stop to really consider the implications on society, it is easy to see how “No Fault Divorce,” “Child Custody Laws,” and “Welfare” are able weapons in the liberal left’s arsenal. We here at the FPCWV see the need to address “No Fault Divorce” through divorce reform which is why we helped author and pass the Premarital Education Act through the state legislature this year. The bill was signed by Governor Tomblin at our National Day of Prayer Gubernatorial Breakfast just on May 3^rd.

You certainly would not be wasting your time to take a few moments and read the well written, practical article found at World Net Daily.com. It’s always good to be prepared and to know your enemy when fighting a war.

One of the biggest weapons being leveled against the family is abortion. From academic studies to surveys and polls, we have seen where abortion has served to cause ongoing emotional, mental and physical problems for women; which translates to their families. Secret abortions have torn family’s apart and made sex-trafficking and prostitution easier.

The good news is that the tide is turning decisively in the direction of life! Despite what Planned Parenthood and other groups might tell us and want us to believe, life is becoming a major force in the American socio-political landscape. So much so that even pro-abortion groups like NARAL are starting to admit that the tide is turning.

In fact, NARAL’s leader Nancy Keenan has decided to step down due to concerns that abortion lacks support among younger voters. The results of a recent poll by NARAL shows:

“…that 51 percent of pro-life voters age 30 or younger feel abortion is a very important issue for them at the polls. Only 26 percent of pro-choice voters feel so intensely.”

In other words, twice the amount of pro-life voters feels strongly about the issue as pro-abortion voters. This could be attributed to any number of variables, but I have a feeling it’s simply that more people are recognizing that abortion is the killing of an innocent child. Evidence of this was seen in 2010 when pro-life voters helped 15 states move their legislature’s conservative during mid-term elections.

These and other statistics are encouraging to pro-lifers as we move forward step by step toward seeing abortion made illegal in America. And though we have the most pro-abortion president in U.S. history in Obama currently giving federal money to Planned Parenthood and other abortion groups, we have hope of seeing a pro-life president take office after November if Americans continue to vote according to their moral conscience.

The video below shares more on this development and the surging trend of Americans toward life. Take a moment to watch the video and the comments made by Chuck Donovan of the Susan B. Anthony List. Then, forward this to everyone you know as a mean sof encouragement to stay strong in the fight to defend life. Especially send this to those tireless volunteers at Care Pregnancy Centers; they certainly need to know their efforts are making a huge difference.

If the video doesn’t appear please refresh your browser.

Help Protect the Family Now!     Please click here to give through our secure online server

Related posts:

1. A New Trend in Abortion Legislation?
2. Squawk Box – Anti-abortion group’s ad targets Mollohan
3. Silent No More: A Video Testimony of Abortion

I think the “hero” status President Obama has enjoyed for most of his presidency is just about gone. In the last 6 months his ratings have plummeted (not that they were great to begin with) and prominent politicians and leaders are creating distance between themselves and the president. It’s almost as if no one wants to be associated with the most pro-abortion, pro-homosexual president in our nation’s history that also has a failed record. Well, okay, so that makes pretty good sense.

But, I have a feeling that the president had no idea at all that his announcement last week would have garnered the kind of backlash he is now experiencing. Since “coming out of the closet” last week in support of legalizing same-sex “marriage” Obama has seen everyone from evangelicals to black voters decry his position and express their doubt over his re-election.

All of the president’s close allies, mainstream media, talking heads, etc. are trying to rally support by downplaying the “revelation” and giving accolades to Obama for his position. Even Newsweek put Obama on the cover of their magazine with the title “The First Gay President,” as if that was something we would all cheer.

And The Blaze.com has covered the massive damage control Obama is now doing to right the ship (pun intended) after the disastrous effects of his announcement. As The Blaze.com notes, even African American’s are beginning to abandon the “hope and change” of Obama with this new revelation that they believe is contrary to their evangelical faith.

What I can’t help but find most disturbing regarding this issue is a number of sources reporting on the percentage of “evangelical Christians” that are “shifting” their views on homosexuality. Articles like this one say that where 85% of “born again” people once opposed same-sex “marriage,” now only 59% oppose it.

The problem, as I see it, is that we have a generation of “Christians” that keep saying “don’t talk about politics or socio-political issues in the church.” And we have a group of pastor’s that are afraid to make anyone angry, so the issues never get addressed. Never mind the fact that pastors are commanded to “preach the whole counsel of God,” and that the Bible has plenty to say about homosexuality, gluttony, divorce, pre-marital sex, pornography, drunkenness, co-habitation, and other issues.

So, as a younger generation screams not to talk about these issues, and fearful pastors capitulate to the sheep they are to lead, the result is churches full of “Christians” that don’t know what the Bible says and aren’t being taught by their spiritual leaders, resulting in pervasive opinions leading the way rather than the blazing truth of Scripture.

We can sit here and talk about the love, mercy, grace, and forgiveness of Jesus all you want, I love to talk about it. But when we’re done we have to talk about the truth, righteousness, and holiness that is His as well. Jesus never condoned or pardoned sin in an attempt to please anyone. Jesus never “changed his mind” or “evolved” on an issue. Jesus spoke truth whether anyone liked it, accepted, or hated Him because it was the truth.

It’s not loving or compassionate to push a person farther from God by accepting their sin in an effort to be politically correct or socially acceptable. And, frankly, it’s not Godly either. Homosexuality, among other sins, will drive a person father from God into the depth of immorality; this is certainly not something Jesus would do.

Jesus was the first to point to the sin in a person’s life that He knew was keeping them from a relationship with God. You want to know how honest Jesus was in pointing to the sin in someone’s life. Look at his encounter with the woman at the well. He told her she was living in sin because she was co-habitating and then told her “go sin no more.” He told the woman caught in adultery to “go sin no more.” When Peter tried to stop Him from accomplishing His mission in life Jesus called him “Satan.”

It’s not at all loving to accept a sinful lifestyle in order to “show compassion” or “be like Jesus.” Jesus never accepted sin and refused to look past it. And, unless the Bible has changed or Jesus has changed, He is still convicting people of sin and calling them to abandon their sin in order to have a relationship with Him. The fact that Jesus has not changed is a great point in a recent article by Joseph Farah. Public opinion might change, social views might change, but Jesus and His truth do not change, ever.

There is a very big, misunderstood difference between accepting sin and loving a person. I can easily love someone without accepting their sin. And this is what Jesus did, without accepting sin He unconditionally loved every person. This is what every true Christian should do without question. However, supporting sin in an attempt to love someone is never appropriate and not something Jesus ever did.

So, please excuse me if I refuse to accept same-sex “marriage” or condone homosexuality as a lifestyle, I’m just trying to be like Jesus.

Help Protect the Family Now!     Please click here to give through our secure online server

Related posts:

1. Would Jesus March in the Gay Pride Parade?
2. West Virginia Record | THEIR VIEW: Time to defend marriage in W.Va. is now.
3. Election 2012: Vote for…Jesus

As I write this, it is literally4 a.m.and I am seriously wide awake.  I went to sleep before11 p.m.but awoke from a disturbing dream.  Is what has been happening inAmericathat far away from a bad dream?  We have drifted, no run, so far from our roots of religious freedom and our Christian roots that it is difficult to recognize the country we have become.

Did you know, for example, that the first official act of the first Congress, immediately following the first inaugural address of George Washington was to follow him in a procession from Federal Hall inNew York Cityto St. Paul’s Chapel where he led the Congress in a prayer of consecration – yes, consecration of the nation – to the work of God, and a prayer of thanks to God for His guidance and blessings on the formation of our government?

Did you know that in that first inaugural address,Washingtonwent so far as to say,

“The propitious smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right which Heaven itself hath ordained.”?

Religious freedom sounds quite abstract when spoken alone – without context – but carries with it an obligation when set in the surroundings of our everyday lives.  Religious freedom is what prevents the government from telling us what to believe or whom to believe in.  It does not force us to believe anything.  Rightly so, since beliefs are personal and should be voluntary in order to be meaningful and sincerely held.

We write countless articles about the many attempts to suppress religious freedom in 21^st centuryAmerica.  Why, dear readers, do we think this is happening?  Is it some broad conspiracy?  Is it misguided progressives who hold humanist beliefs?  Is it all about the atheists attempting to impose their fictional “separation of church and state” on the rest of us?  I submit that while all of the above are happening, not necessarily in concert, but simultaneously, they are instrumental rather than causal.  Confused?  So was I…until…

Anyway, this strange dream led me to the den and my chair where I thought I’d do some reading since sleep was no longer in the realm of possibility.

I took that opportunity, first, to finish reading a book that I had ordered a couple weeks ago that caught my attention on-line.  The Harbinger, by Jonathan Cahn, a Messianic Rabbi fromNew Jersey, is a story of an ordinary man, a prophet, messages, seals, history, and a strange comparison between events that took place in ancientIsraelin 732 B.C. and modern dayAmerica.  Outwardly, it has all the earmarks of a “historical novel” that would catch the attention of most mystery buffs.

Remarkably, however, it is 100% true with regard to the historical facts.  The only “fiction” in this book is the formatting that has been done to turn it into a narrative story.  Those who bless themselves with its reading will find a clear understanding of what has happened to this country since the end of World War II and why the things with which we are confronted today not only threaten our religious freedom, but threaten the future of our country, our way of life, and for those who have not experienced it already, their eternal salvation.

You see, The Harbinger, is about God’s infinite love for us, his Providential hand on the formation and first 212 years of our nation’s history, and how, when faced with the first of numerous warnings given by Almighty God, our nation has responded with the identical arrogance of ancient Israel.  The parallels will literally leave you aghast at how clearly God has delivered his warnings, how clearly we have responded without heeding them, but rather, have boasted of our own ability to come back from the ashes of September 11, 2001, based on our own actions, abilities, and talents instead of accepting, trusting, and relying on – placing our faith in – God.

The Harbinger is no ordinary book.  Here are two links to reviews…one from Kevin DeAnna of WND.com and another from Charisma.  Regardless of where you get it – it is available at many different on-line stores as well as Wal-Mart – get it!   And while you are at it, the DVD based on the book (The Isaiah 9:10 Judgement) is well worth watching, too, since it takes it out of the context of a story and shows the many parallels between the ancient and the modern without the distractions of the narrative.  It is very reasonably priced on-line as well.

It’s now5:10 a.m.  I find myself thoroughly stimulated to do more of whatever I can to bring this book and its message to the attention of as many people as possible.   You are my first contacts, but I assure you – not the last.   This book will change how you see yourself and America!

Related posts:

1. The Long List of Obama’s Attacks on Religious Freedom
2. Religious Freedom Victory in New York
3. Evangelicals Seems Less Concerned About Religious Freedom Than Others

In today’s post, I want to turn from excising bad arguments to making the positive case for the sacred definition of marriage cannot and should not be abandoned within our civil laws.

Like Newhart, it’s a two word piece of advice, “Common grace.”

Common Grace – Don’t Stop it!

Far from requiring bifurcation, we as Christians ought to be the strongest advocates of our government’s adoption of the Christian definition of marriage as the one that governs our country.

Why?  Because not only do we believe that a Christian pursuing a life of sanctification and holiness ought to order his or her life according to the Scriptural demands of matrimonially monogamous sexuality, but we believe that what God designated as good for his people (the “Elect,” if you like) is likewise good for all people.

This is what has been classically called, “common grace.”  That’s a theological term with a lengthy definition, but the shorthand version defines, “common grace” as the spill-over blessings that God pours out upon his people that inure to the benefit of the lives of non-believers and society as a whole.

That is why Jeremiah writes to the people of Israel as they are being exiled to, “seek the welfare of the city where I have sent you, for, in its welfare you will find your welfare.”  (Jeremiah 29:7)  In other words, as we work to apply the eternal Truths of Scripture to be adopted as policy around us, not only do we benefit as the people of God, society benefits because of them as well.

Clearly, this is evident in the world of marriage.  Government ought to be doing all that it can to strengthen and protect marriage, not undermining it.  Marriage benefits society – especially children – in ways that no other relationship can.  It promotes healthy, natural families for the common good – today and for future generations.  Marriage expresses the truth that men and women bring distinct, irreplaceable gifts to family life and honors humanity’s diversity like no other relationship can.

This is why both these libertarian-leaning ideas must be rejected.

By suggesting that marriage should be JUST a sacred rite and government should regulate a marriage-like institution (civil unions, domestic partnerships, etc.) is to say that some other relationship like – but not identical to – marriage provides these benefits to society at large.  It permits government to express approval of other relationships as having equal benefit to society.  It elevates friendship to the same level of importance as marriage.  It encourages, rather than discourages, arguments in favor of redefining marriage.

That is not a good public policy and, frankly, it does not advance liberty because it places individuals at odds with their created nature, rather than encourage them to freely pursue happiness.

Two men may make incredible fathers, but they’ll never make a mediocre mother.  Two women may have the capacity to carry a child, but they cannot create one spontaneously.  Three people who are “in love” may make various beneficial contributions to the life of a child and society at large, but they do not provide the necessary stability and biological connection that the relationship between one man and one woman provide.

Therefore, in this instance it would be wise for the State to be influenced by the Church.  Is this a codification of morality?  Yes!  Of course.  What law isn’t?  One of my favorite criticisms that I get is, “Don’t legislate your morality on me!!”  I love it because I get to use my favorite retort, “Ok.  Would you prefer that I legislate my immorality on you?”

Such gentle sarcasm makes a significant point: law is the codification of morality.  Thanks be to God that we have a democratic republic that permits us to contend for which (whose?) morality will be so codified.

So, my libertarian friend, don’t be afraid of having this universal definition of marriage – with admitted Biblical roots – be enshrined in law.  There’s no need to rationalize a compromise position.  Celebrate boldly the wisdom of God in giving humanity this unique institution called marriage!

And, if you’re determined to keep arguing with me that we ought to secularize and privatize marriage between state and church, respectively, then I am putting you on fair notice.  I will, hereafter, only have one response to your argument:

“Stop it!!”

Related posts:

1. Libertarian on the Definition of Marriage? Stop it! (Part 1)
2. The Definition of Marriage: Anyone and Anything that are in “Love”:
3. PRESS RELEASE: Federal Court in MA Undermines Definition of Marriage in WV

(If video does not appear above, refresh your browser, or click here to watch on YouTube.)

There was a video floating around the web recently in which Bob Newhart played a psychologist.  In the sketch, a patient says that she has a fear of being buried alive in a box and said phobia causes her to never leave the home and generally ruins her life.

Newhart’s response is classic.  It’s just two words delivered with some force and little empathy, “Stop it!”

I am getting close to the point of pulling out this line when it comes to debating and discussing with many Christian conservatives (especially, it seems, the libertarian leaning ones) the issue of whether or not the government should define marriage.

“Stop it!” I want to say when I hear their arguments that have an air of thoughtful hubris, but – if I may be blunt – are utterly stupid.

Marriage on Sunday, Civil Unions on Monday

Here’s one of these well-meaning, but just ridiculous lines.

They argue, “Marriage is the domain of the church, not state.  Therefore, government should not regulate marriage.  The church should.  All other ‘marriage-like’ relationships can be given a civil union or domestic partnership status.”

“Stop it!”

This is a stupid, not to mention implausible idea!  And it shouldn’t be done.

Yes, marriage was defined in the Garden of Eden and, thus, uniquely defined by God.  As he is the head of the church, yes, marriage ought to be regulated by the church.  But that regulation ought to be regulation in the sense of adherence to church teaching and the duties implicit in membership in the visible church.

Churches cannot, and should not be, regulating the myriad of legal issues that arise from marriage and affect the broader society.  Such regulation by a church ought to be limited to the scope any church has been tasked with: the restoration of the believer to the fellowship (See Matthew 18).  That’s it.

You see, implicit in this fetid argument is that government and church are parallel institutions.  Well, that’s sorta right, but it’s really wrong.  God has established both institutions on this earth and given each specific responsibility.  The mission of the church is drastically different from that of the state.

The church’s mission is to go into the whole world proclaiming the Good News of Jesus Christ, baptizing those who believe in Christ, and making disciples of every nation.  The mission of the state is to punish evil and preserve the space for the Gospel to go forward.  There is a necessary overlap, to be sure, but these are distinct missions.

Thus, it is entirely appropriate for the state to order society in such a way that it regulates human relationships, among them being marriage.

Where the church regulates marriage as it concerns the theological concept of sanctification and how that affects both church membership and visible witness of the Gospel, the state also has legitimate and necessary responsibilities as to how the marital relationship affects the broader civic ordering of its citizens.

This is, in the first place, why government has always recognized and encouraged as special, unique, and necessary the marital relationship between one man and one woman.  By marriage, generations progress.  Children issue from moms and dads.

You say that any two physically healthy people can reproduce.  Perhaps, but despite this reproductive capacity homo sapiens possess, marriage is designated as the conjugal union that finds not only human fulfillment (what we refer to as the one-flesh union) in a complementary sex, but also it is the way parents (particularly fathers) are bound to their children.

This brings into focus the great need for the state to regulate (encourage) marriage between one man and one woman.  By it, society is ordered, children are provided for, and future generations are carried successfully into place.

So, if you are still making this, “Let’s bifurcate marriage between church and state,” then I say to you, my libertarian friend, “Stop it!”

But, there’s more!

Separate Cathedral and Capitol

After Newhart’s client argues with him about his unusual treatment, Newhart expands his advice with an even more firm barb, this time in 10 words.  He says to his phobia-riddled client, “Stop it or I’ll bury you alive in a box!”

Someone, perfectly well-intentioned, actually suggested to me this week that marriage is a uniquely religious term (much like communion and baptism) and, as such, any regulation of it by the state is a violation of the First Amendment prohibition on separating church and state.

“Stop it or I’ll bury you alive in a box!!”

Ignoring that this polemic is premised on the sensational, but not legally persuasive, doctrine of, “separation of church and state,” this argument is just plain laughable!

What else has been defined by God (and His church) and is likewise legitimately legislated by government?

How about life?  It’s pretty clear, regardless of your position on abortion, that the intentional deprivation of an innocent human’s life is a violation of Scripture AND the law of every state in the United States.  Why isn’t the ACLU suing the government for violating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment? (Maybe I shouldn’t give them any ideas!)

What about lying?  Yep.  It violates not only the 9th Commandment, but also the various laws of the various states and Federal government against perjury, extortion, fraud, etc.  Should these laws be invalidated on so-called, “separation of church and state” grounds?  Of course not.

I could go on, but you get the point.  It is because the eternal, unchanging God of the universe defined something as objectively true – and gave government the limited authority to enforce such laws, punishing those who violate them and rewarding those who obey them – that we ought to adopt the same as law within the civil system in which we live.

Related posts:

1. Libertarian on the Definition of Marriage? Stop it! (Part 2)
2. The Definition of Marriage: Anyone and Anything that are in “Love”:
3. PRESS RELEASE: Federal Court in MA Undermines Definition of Marriage in WV

The religious freedoms of American’s are under attack, of that we can be sure. Never before in our nation’s history has our government sought to violate the deeply held religious convictions of churches, Christian businesses and employers, and individuals. If the plan is to take a back seat and just let things happen then we had better prepare for persecution not seen on American soil, ever.

The Speak Up Movement blog asks a very good question that every religious person with deeply held convictions should ponder and answer: “Do timeless religious convictions need to ‘adapt’ to fit these times?”

Well, do they? Do those of us that stand firm on the Bible and hold to the teachings of our faith need to “get with it” and move our beliefs into the 21^st century? Or, is it logically and theologically absurd to ask any religious person to “adapt” their beliefs to the arbitrary prevailing public opinion? I would lean (heavily) toward absurd.

Taking the latest and greatest case of religious persecution by our government, the HHS mandate to provide contraception, birth control, abortifacients, and sterilization coverage in insurance plans, the Speak Up Movement blog shows how government officials don’t regard religious convictions as something worth preserving. Quoting Kathleen Sebelius the article states:

“Nonprofit employers who, based on religious beliefs, do not currently provide contraceptive coverage in their insurance plan, will be provided an additional year, until August 1, 2013, to comply with the new law….  This additional year will allow these organizations more time and flexibility to adapt to this new rule.”

Adapt!? As if centuries of tradition, teaching and religious conviction can be tossed aside because our President doesn’t share or care about our religious beliefs. This proves that the Obama administration has more interest in advancing a radical abortion agenda than they do in preserving the freedoms of Americans.

This also tells me that the Obama administration doesn’t understand the nature of religious convictions. These convictions, held by a majority of Americans, were not written by us. The principles of the Bible that we adhere to were written by God and given to man as a guide and path to be followed. They are eternal, unchanging principles that no man has the authority to change (though some seem to have the audacity to try).

Even if people wanted to change these teachings, these deeply held convictions, we don’t have any authority to do so and the Bible itself warns against “adding or taking away” from the words contained in it. So whether shifting public opinion agrees or not we can’t simply toss these convictions aside or “adapt.” (Do you ever get the feeling that some people simply don’t have any convictions at all?)

What would the framers of the Constitution think of such actions? I agree with commentary from the article:

“Such blatant disregard for the depth of religious convictions has not been seen in American history.  Never before has government attempted to force people of faith to either violate their religious beliefs or be monetarily punished if they choose to abide by them.  The framers of our Constitution, who made the free exercise of religion our ‘first freedom’ by placing it in the First Amendment, would be appalled at the utter disregard shown to people of faith by Ms. Sebelius and the HHS Mandate.”

And frankly, the church and people of faith can no longer afford to sit on the sidelines and watch. We’ve seen what that accomplishes; the result is more freedoms stripped and more persecutions. Perhaps we could take the advice of Presbyterian preacher John Murray:

“The church lives in the world and it lives within the domain of political entities. If it is to be faithful in its commission it must make its voice heard and felt in reference to public questions.”

In other words, if we desire to carry out the Great Commission as we have been called, we must do all we can to protect religious freedom in this country. Without it, our mission will be hindered in ways we never thought imaginable.

Help Protect the Family Now!     Please click here to give through our secure online server

Related posts:

1. Another Obama Slap: Colleges and Universities Forced Under HHS Mandate
2. Compromising in the Political Realm: How Christians can Compromise in Policy, not Conviction
3. AUL Memo: Kagan’s Political Advice to Pres. Clinton: Ignore Constitution

You may remember my last article with recent news on the situation facing the Boy Scouts of America (BSA). Then again it was during our “hacked period” so maybe you missed it. Check it out here. By now most of the country has heard of the controversy facing the BSA over their dismissal of a lesbian woman from her position as a den mother.

The BSA has had a long standing “zero tolerance” policy for homosexual members or leaders. They simply do not allow homosexuals into their organization and, as a private organization, has every right to do so. Truthfully, with rampant abuse taking place in the country it makes sense to safeguard young boys in every way possible. Now that news of Facebook’s child porn ring has rocked the country it’s no wonder parents feel better knowing a heterosexual male is spending the night in the woods with their sons. A recent article comments on the BSA’s right to be “exclusive”:

“As a private organization, the Boy Scouts has the legal right to exclude both gays and lesbians from membership and leadership. That right was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2000, but that has not ended the controversy. Since that decision, the Boy Scouts have paid dearly for the policy, as some cities and other governments and institutions have severed support and relationships with the BSA and its local programs.”

Unlike groups such as Komen that cave under pressure after mere days, the BSA has stood strong for more than a decade in the face of criticism and pressure. That alone deserves a merit badge.

A story at WorldNetDaily.com sums up the BSA’s position on why they do not allow homosexuals into their organization:

“Scouting, and the majority of parents it serves, does not believe it is the right forum for children to become aware of the issue of sexual orientation, or engage in discussions about being gay. Rather, such complex matters should be discussed with parents, caregivers, or spiritual advisers, at the appropriate time and in the right setting.”

I love their position. The Scouts are saying that their organization isn’t about dealing with complex socio-political issues that serve to divide many Americans. Their group is about moral training, character development, and developing real world skills that will serve young men their entire life. But they don’t stop there; they say what many people believe and what many politicians and homosexual advocates fear, they say these issues are best handled by parents and spiritual advisers! An excellent position for the BSA to take on the subject.

But here is where I really applaud the BSA, their position of true tolerance that many just can’t seem to wrap their heads around these days. They say:

“We fully understand and appreciate that not everyone will agree with any one position or policy…To disagree does not mean to disrespect, and we respect everyone’s right to have and express a different opinion…Scouting will continue to teach our members to treat everyone with courtesy and respect.”

This is true tolerance on display. It is acknowledging the inherent right of other people to have an opinion or view that is divergent from your own. In other words, it’s being able to respectfully, civilly, agree to disagree.

But homosexual advocates don’t seem to be able to do that. They want their lifestyle choice fully accepted and affirmed by every person without allowing those same people to disagree. That’s not tolerance, that’s bigotry and discrimination! How ironic for such people to be the worst offenders.

Rumors abound that this den mother was really removed because she uncovered improprieties of finances within the pack. I hope that’s not true. However, if it is I hope it is dealt with in an appropriate way. I don’t believe however she was simply removed for this purpose, considering the BSA’s long history of not allowing homosexual individuals into their organization. Rather this seems more like a smear campaign; time will tell.

For now I am grateful that the Scouts have stood resolute in their commitment to moral and character training of young men. Other groups could look to the Scouts as excellent examples.

Help Protect the Family Now!     Please click here to give through our secure online server

Related posts:

1. What Do Homosexual Rights, President Obama, and the Boy Scouts have in Common?
2. Sandra Fluke and the Boy Scouts Share Media Time
3. Little Boy Allowed to Join Girl Scouts

There is a saying that has become common over the past sixty years:  “As goes California, so goes the country,” or words to that effect.  California has always been seen as a trend-setter for the rest of us.  Unfortunately, the trends in California are headed in the opposite direction from any destination I would choose to visit.

The latest “trend” has been in the legislative onslaught of laws restricting what can or cannot be said with regard to the pros and cons of homosexuality.  By this I mean that in California, nothing negative can be said about homosexuality and at every opportunity, the schools are forced to praise and honor the “contributions” of people like Harvey Milk and other homosexual “idols.”

Now, the latest segment of the latest trend has been introduced in the California legislature.  State Senator Ted Lieu has sponsored a bill (SB 1172) that [was] given a hearing in the Senate Judiciary Committee on May 8.  This bill would make it, among other things, illegal for a counselor to treat anyone under the age of 18 for sexual orientation confusion (a desire to prevent one from becoming a homosexual).

The bill goes so far as to deny minors the right to counseling to prevent becoming homosexual even if they and both parents are consenting parties to the counseling.  If the counselor does it anyway, he/she opens themselves up to criminal and civil liabilities initiated by the state and/or interested private parties.

Brad Dacus, president of Pacific Justice Institute (PJI), is quoted in Bob Unruh’s piece in WND Faith as saying,

“I can honestly say this is one of the most outrageous, speech-chilling bills we have ever seen in California – and that’s saying a lot,”

The bill, according to Matthew McReynolds of PJI, is “blatantly unconstitutional.”  To this I ask has that ever stopped California legislators in the past?

But this was not the most offensive of its provisions.  McReynolds goes on to say,

“As if all that were not enough, the bill claims that sexually confused youth who experience ‘family rejection … face especially serious health risks’ and the state has a ‘compelling interest’ to protect their health. The logical implication from these two assertions is that the state is giving itself the power to take kids away from parents who do not affirm the kids’ sexual confusion.”

So, now we have a state within the United States of America – subject to the First Amendment and all the other provisions of the Constitution – considering bills that would allow the government to remove a child from the parent’s home on the grounds that the parents were not pleased that their son chooses to be a homosexual.

The WND article quotes Jeff Johnston, writing for Citizenlink as saying:

“I am passionate about stopping the harm that would come from this bill; in this case, the political is also personal.  25 years ago I was living in California and looking for help with same-sex attractions.  My motivation wasn’t self-hatred or pressure from a ‘hetero-normative’ society.”

He continued,

“I believed what the Bible says and the church teaches: God made sexual expression for marriage between a man and a woman. I knew there were grave health risks to homosexual sex, and I wanted a family.  Counseling was a huge help to me on my journey out of homosexuality; now I’m happily married, with three terrific sons.  My marriage and children would not exist without the help and support of Christian therapists.”

Every day, the news, as reported by all of the main-stream sources, continue to be virtually silent about such goings on.  Have you every wondered why?  Have you seen this information provided on the evening news?  Not noteworthy, you say?  Perhaps it is not noteworthy to those who would support the concept that the government is better able to decide these things than the individual citizens.  Perhaps to many in the media, the traditional family and traditional heterosexual relationships are no longer noteworthy.   Perhaps what is at play here is a renewed attempt to undermine traditional marriage and Christian faith.  Whatever the reason, it just means we have to dig a little deeper for the Truth.

We also need to be aware that there are many legislators across the country that agree with this kind of “indoctrination” and government interference into private family relationships and sincerely held religious beliefs – including a few in West Virginia… perhaps.  If what happens in California is thought to be a harbinger of what is to come in the rest of the country, eternal vigilance is the only defense to prevent this kind of legislation from popping up later in our own front yard.  Definitely something to think about!

Related posts:

1. PRESS RELEASE: FPCWV Files Brief Supporting Voters’ Will in California’s Prop. 8
2. Your Kids May Be Learning THIS in School Soon
3. D.C. Parents in Shock, Outraged at Survey Given to Kids

The upcoming election is one of the biggest in our nations’ history, of that I am sure. After nearly four years of the most pro-abortion, pro-homosexual president in U.S. history, our nation is being pushed away from the traditional values it was founded upon. But, while economic and healthcare issues are sure to be front and center in debates, don’t think for one minute that life and marriage are unimportant.

Events of the last few weeks along with this week’s election results have told me that social issues like life and marriage are still major factors in people’s mind as they decide who they will vote for. Even president Obama is leveraging social issues like marriage with his announcement this week that he now fully supports legalizing same-sex “marriage.” This could also be a political chess move to distract American voters from his failed record, who knows.

The fact is these issues have always been important to the American people. Now more than ever, more Americans identify as pro-life and support restrictions on abortions, limiting abortions to rare and emergency cases, and removing all tax funding from abortion. Yet with a super-majority of Americans in favor of such measures, our pro-abortion president has given more money to fund abortion than any other president, has fought any and all restrictions of abortion, and generally done all he can to ensure groups like Planned Parenthood can continue their criminal activities.

But West Virginia sent two very clear messages during Tuesday’s election.

According to West Virginian’s for Life, fully 88% of endorsed pro-life candidates passed the primary election to get on the ballot in November. This means 130 of 147 endorsed candidates will now be on the ballot in November. You can read this article to see the full list of those making it past the primary on Tuesday. Regarding Sen. Manchin the article states:

“The group did not endorse Senator Manchin, saying, ‘He has betrayed pro-life voters with his disappointing 75% pro-abortion voting record.’ The group also did not back pro-abortion John Yoder for WV Supreme Court since he supported the pro-abortion ‘Freedom of Choice Act’ as a state Senator.”

Another very clear, albeit somewhat strange message sent by West Virginians on Tuesday came in the Democratic primary for president. It seems West Virginia Democrats are unhappy with President Obama and looking for someone else; even an inmate!

As strange as it might seem, an inmate from West Virginia currently serving his sentence in a Texas prison received 42% of votes on Tuesday, according this politicalticker.com article. The article states:

“Keith Judd, who is currently serving a 210-month sentence at a correctional facility in Texarkana, Texas for extortion, is trailing the president 42.28% to 57.72% in the state based on the unofficial vote totals, but is leading in eight counties…Judd only needs 15% of the vote to qualify for at least one delegate at the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte, North Carolina this summer, according to The Charleston Gazette. His expected release date is June 24, 2013, according to the Federal Bureau of Prisons.”

While the president is not winning any popularity contests here in West Virginia, or nationwide for that matter, the article goes on to say that Romney received 70% of the vote. It also states, as I have mentioned, that Sen. Manchin and Gov. Earl Ray Tomblin as continuing to distance themselves from Obama and looking for another option.

What we can learn here is that social issues like life and marriage matter to Americans. Putting them on the backburner and ignoring them is not a good idea for any serious candidate. And, like much of the country, people are not happy with Obama and are interested in another candidate. Obama’s failed energy policies, failed economic policies, failed foreign policies, his support for abortion, and now his support for same-sex “marriage” have people wondering why he should be re-elected.

I’m thankful for the strong support for life in West Virginia and hope these pro-life candidates continue to win elections.

Help Protect the Family Now!     Please click here to give through our secure online server

Related posts:

1. VIDEO: Two of West Virginia’s Own Take Pro-Life Message to Washington
2. Who Is The Best Candidate for West Virginia?
3. West Virginia Legislature Takes Bold Step in Strengthening Marriage in West Virginia

You can listen to the debate between myself and former chairman of Fairness WV, Stephen Skinner, by clicking here. 

As you know, sometimes you think of the perfect thing to say or wish you had said something you did say a bit different after you hang up front he interview.  Or, sometimes, time just doesn’t afford the opportunity to expand on a point.  That’s why I usually post this, “What I should have said . . .” post.

It’s not that I’m not happy with what I did say.  Our society – and our President – ought to be doing everything it (he) can to strengthen and support marriage, not undermine it.

But, there’s always more to say, I supposed.  So, here’s what I maybe should have said:

It’s all about the money.  If you listened to the show, Hoppy interviewed Chris Stirewalt soon after our debate.  Chris evaluated the President’s announcement by basically saying, “Look, same-sex activists were demanding this if President Obama wanted to raise any money from them.  President Obama needs the cash; ergo, the announcement.”  This is all too true and it should cause us all no little discomfort.  In fact, as I watched President Obama’s announcement, I saw a man who was uncomfortable, almost under duress.

Now, I happen to think that President Obama believes in the redefinition of marriage, but I also think, as a man, he doesn’t like to be put in a box.  Here, it seems he had to say what he had to say in order to retain his position.  That is the epitome of the special interest politics most people hate about our current political system.

“Churches can do whatever they want.” Frankly, I was surprised to hear Mr. Skinner say that.  I expect more from him. What he meant was that Churches, he believes, won’t be forced to perform same-sex “marriages” if their doctrine doesn’t agree with the same.  But, in reality, experience suggests something else.  Redefining marriage has tremendous implications upon religious liberty – especially when combined with another favorite of this administration and same-sex activists, nondiscrimination policies.

Just ask Ake Green, Churches in Kansas, or the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association.   Wish I would have pressed him on that point a bit more.  One of the ways redefining marriage is harming marriage (and society), right now – especially in states where marriage has been redefined – is in the world of religious liberty.  Dare say something – anything – that counters full acceptance of homosexual behavior and you risk being branded an irrational bigot, sued, and ostracized.

“Am I an Intolerant Bigot?”  About 14-15 minutes into the interview Mr. Skinner essentially accused the average West Virginian of being an, “intolerant bigot.”  Hoppy tried to pin him down and Mr. Skinner tried to walk that back a bit by saying he was referring to bullying-type behavior (that everyone agrees is condemnable), but the context of his original comment had more to do with simply believing that marriage is the union of one man and one woman.  He never did qualify that statement when I pressed him a moment later.  I hope his opponent in the upcoming election – as well as those constituents in Jefferson County – continue to press him on this point.

Is this the new Roe v. Wade?  We didn’t get into this much, but one of the reasons, some say, President Obama felt good to say this was because the conversation had so dramatically shifted and people are, “ok” with same-sex “marriage.”  That could be, but I doubt it and here’s why.  First, 32 of 50 states have voted on this point and every single time have upheld marriage as the union of one man and one woman.  Every time.  That’s 64+ million Americans and 2/3′s of the states who have been asked and who have answered.  Has the polling changed in 20 years?  Probably, but I think the recent experiences of North Carolina and Anchorage (rejecting a nondiscrimination policy that was declared a slam dunk for same-sex activists) suggest otherwise.  We’ll see.  Minnesota, Maryland, Washington (state), and Maine all have referenda on the topic this coming November.  That could make states 33-36.

But, as an aside, I think we are, today, close to where the country was on abortion in 1973 – or, more likely, 1972.  Roe v. Wade settled nothing.  Sure, it made abortion, “legal,” but what do you think?  Has it been culturally accepted?  Not by a long shot.

It seems, the same may be happening with the redefinition of marriage.  Sure, polling has grown indicating that more people are, “ok” with the idea – even people in the church.  That was the same around 1972.  Now, 40 years on, and things look a little different.  It may be we have to experience the totality of the, “tolerance” agenda before we conclude that redefining marriage was a bad, bad idea.

And, frankly, it would be horrible if, as a culture, we experiment with undermining the very definition of marriage for 40 years.  Just for a glimpse of what that might look like, consider what no-fault divorce – itself a byproduct of the liberal ‘60’s-‘70’s – has done to marriage.  Now magnify that definitionally.

Just two persons or polygamy.  Mr. Skinner did a few interesting things in this interview.  First, he said he’d defend marriage, “for any two people” who love each other.  I just about blurted out, “Why just two people?”  What’s magic about two?  If three people love each other, why not allow them to marry?  Four?  Five? Why is Mr. Skinner discriminating on the basis of numbers?

Second, he attempted to use polygamy as a recent redefinition of marriage.  I’m not sure I clearly answered that canard very well.  Let me try again.  Polygamy has always been an aberration.  It’s never been the ideal.  In every culture that it has been tried, it has always failed.  No culture has adopted it as the ideal and long lasted.

Likewise, he attempted to suggest that interracial marriage was once prohibited, but is no longer and, ergo, this is another example of the definition of marriage changing.  Not quite.  First, interracial marriage was wrong because it disqualified someone based upon their immutable race.  The Supreme Court said you cannot discriminate based upon someone’s race.  The “redefinition” was redefining race relations, not marriage.

The same is true for the argument about women being “property.”  This, again, was a detraction from the equal worth and value of the genders and served to do more harm than good to the institution of marriage.  It up-ended the Biblical notion of the, “one-flesh” duality that is marriage rightly understood and exercised.  THAT is why this notion was dismissed.  That’s not a redefinition of marriage, it’s a correction of wrong thinking on the topic of gender.

In each of these cases, notice, there has always been a pointing back to the ideal.  Polygamy was wrong because it added too many to the ideal.  Interracial marriage bans were wrong because it kept one man and one woman apart.  Patriarchy was wrong because it was an abuse of the ideal.  Never was the conjugal function of marriage questioned.

The same cannot be said for same-sex “marriage.”  Children added to such, “marriages” (because they will and cannot occur naturally) will always be deprived of both a mom AND a dad.  That’s not right and that is among the many harms that undermining and redefining marriage will level against our society

More.  But, don’t take my word for it.  Here are a number of articles that may be helpful to you as you continue to consider the impact of the President’s decision to undermine marriage, rather than support and strengthen it:

• “Five Reasons Christians Should Continue to Oppose Gay Marriage” by Kevin DeYoung.
• “President Obama’s Scriptural Defense of Gay Marriage” by Denny Burk.
• “Obama on Marriage: Bigot or Liar?” by Prof. Robert P. George.
• “Making Sense of Marriage News” by Jim Daly.
• “Evolution’s end?  President Obama Calls for Same-Sex Marriage” by Dr. Albert Mohler.

Related posts:

1. Austin Nimocks: Same-sex marriage is not all roses
2. Bishop Harry Jackson: One Man, One Woman
3. The Redefinition of a Parental Right