Debate Is About Accepting Bad Behavior

Over at Illinois Family.org, there is an excellent article which gives us the deep down truth of the matter regarding the debate between homosexual activists, conservative Christians, and the marriage definition issue.

The debate is not about respecting people, but about accepting bad behavior.

Here is a copy of the article:

Respecting Homosexuals
7/30/2008 7:00:00 AM
By Thorin Anderson -Illinois Family Institute

Whenever there is conflict between homosexual activists and conservatives regarding the issues such as the acceptance of same sex marriage, we on the right are accused of a lack of respect for homosexuals.

But, I would like to make one thing clear. The debate is not about respecting people, but about accepting bad behavior. There are many human behaviors which we conservatives believe to be unacceptable. They range from lying and cheating to promiscuity before or during marriage. They include murder and rape and a host of other deeds, criminal or otherwise. To say that we don't respect someone when we disagree with their conduct is to suggest that confronting any bad behavior is inherently disrespectful. Are we to stop speaking about all wrong conduct? Should we stop confronting lying, stealing, or murder? Such a suggestion would be ludicrous.

All humans are worthy of respect as humans, period. But it is utter folly to imagine that behaviors people engage in are automatically respectable simply because a certain number of people are involved in them. Sad to say, many things we human beings do are not only unworthy of respect, but are destructive and dangerous. There is a reason why no one writes in any detail, in public, regarding the activities of homosexuals. And there is a reason why homosexuals have significantly shorter than average life expectancies. There is not a newspaper in the country that would detail their private conduct, and most of our stomachs could not handle it. Yet, we are told we MUST accept such conduct as perfectly normal. Get out your Websters and look up "normal." Homosexuality in no way fits the definition of "normal." And, it requires no special genius to understand that!

No doubt many practitioners have found themselves harassed or worse by those who don't respect homosexuals and have taken it upon themselves to mock or injure them. Such actions are wrong. It is legitimate to demand respect as people, but it is absolutely illegitimate to demand respect for conduct that is simply disgusting on its face. And, consider the homosexual's attitude toward such virtues of fidelity and loyalty. No self-respecting woman would tolerate infidelity in her husband, but in the homosexual community, infidelity is not only allowed, it is a given. It is ironic that homosexuals demand such respect from the general community when they quite obviously have little respect for themselves or one another. Such proclivities reveal that, in fact, the homosexual lifestyle really is much less about deep abiding relationships than satisfying inappropriate sexual desires.

Let us be clear about something: Christian conservatives oppose the wanton satisfying of inappropriate sexual desires in anyone whether straight or homosexual. Those of us who disagree with homosexual conduct based upon the principles of the Bible and nature can do nothing to stop homosexuals from practicing their chosen lifestyle. But it is an egregious violation of our freedoms, principles, and character to demand that we accept it as normal.

Thorin Anderson is a member of the Pastor Advisory Council to Illinois Family Institute and the pastor of Parkwood Baptist Church on the south side of Chicago. Pastor Anderson is also the President of Men for Christ, an association that organizes annual weekend men's rallies in Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, and Illinois on a rotating basis.



HT: PFOX email

Stop Making Biblical Judgments?

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

In Defense of Marriage

In Defense of Marriage - Part I

Excerpt:

Marriage is far more profound than our contemporary culture would lead us to believe. It is a lifelong commitment that restrains self-centeredness, self-indulgence, and self-gratification. It is the one relationship that effectively prepares and conditions us for living in community with others. By restraining self-centeredness and promoting love of another, marriage then becomes the foundation for social order. When this commitment labeled marriage is reduced to nothing more than a mere contract between two consenting persons, one option among many, or redefined to accommodate any type of participants [or number], it ceases to provide the same societal benefits.

[Note: Click on title link to continue reading.]

In Defense of Marriage - Part II

Excerpt:

Attempting to promote monogamy among homosexual couples by rearranging marriage ignores the fact that homosexual acts are patently obvious distortions of the human biological design. We are born biologically male or female and as such we are sexually dissimilar but in complimentary ways. The male/female sexual union works, in other words. This is true of every species on earth. Every living organism has a particular way of reproducing and rearing offspring; its anatomy is biologically designed to support that way. If one believes we are products of an evolutionary process, then homosexual acts are a deviation from the procreative design and homosexuality is therefore a genetic defect because it fails to propagate the species. If one holds to the belief that we are created, then it defies the design and intent of the Creator. Either way homosexuality violates the given design.

In Defense of Marriage - Part III

Excerpt:

Now let’s examine the historical findings relative to those cultures that once held to a strong sexual ethic—in which monogamy is strictly reinforced through marriage—but later compromised that ethic, as we are now doing. According to Unwin’s thorough survey of history, any and every culture that embraces a philosophy of sexual freedom for a period of at least three generations will inevitably experience cultural decline (Unwin, Sexual Regulations and Cultural Behavior, 1935).

There is not one single example in all of human history where this cultural pattern appears and there does not follow cultural demise consistent with Unwin’s conclusions. (I would estimate that we are in the latter stages of the second generation.)

History is replete with examples that testify to this fact. The Greek, Roman, Babylonian, and Sumerian empires are just a few examples of cultures that began with a strong marriage-centered monogamy and later degenerated into liberal sexual practices (including homosexuality), which, according to the sociological and anthropological evidence, was central to their downfall. Of course, our own culture has suffered enormously in the wake of the American sexual revolution; the societal costs of paternal absence, divorce, and out-of-wedlock births have been staggering.

[It] is the height of arrogance, ignorance, or both that argues against the unique nature of marriage and its necessity to social stability and well-being. However, with more than four decades following the American sexual revolution, this should not be surprising because, as Sorokin pointed out, “in the conditions of spiritual, moral, and mental anarchy … it is difficult to maintain sexual sanity” (Sorokin, p. 55).

In Defense of Marriage - Part IV

Excerpt:

Abuse within male homosexual relationships is as high as 46 percent (“Domestic Violence in Gay and Lesbian Couples,” www.psychpage.com/gay/library/gay_lesbian_violence). Among lesbian couples, some research shows that the lifetime prevalence of physical assault among women living with female partners was 35.4 percent. Given that same-sex “marriage” would exist in name only without its essential defining elements, its application to homosexual couples would, most likely, not serve to arrest the high rates of domestic abuse among gays.

[In] regards to homosexual couples, the concept of fidelity is a popular myth. In the book The Male Couple, the author reports that in a study of 156 males in homosexual relationships lasting from one to thirty-seven years, “Only seven couples have a totally exclusive sexual relationship, and these men all have been together for less than five years. Stated another way, all couples with a relationship lasting more than five years have incorporated some provision for outside sexual activity in their relationships” (McWhirter, The Male Couple [Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall] 252, 253).

[In]short, marriage and the natural family function as the cornerstone of civilization; even the slightest deviation from this absolute definition destabilizes this vital institution and begins to produce a series of deleterious effects. Do we really believe that redefining marriage in even more radical terms will somehow improve the situation?

HT: Center for Christ and Culture: The teaching ministry of S. Michael Craven

A Fool's Wager

A must read!

A Fool's Wager – Does the Bible Condemn Homosexual Marriage?

by Gary DeMar

HT: The American Vision

Black Leaders Reject Same-sex "Marriage Rights"

Update @ 7:46 a.m. PT

Just received the following email:

Black Leaders Reject Gay "Marriage Rights" on Air in San Francisco

Activist groups determined to destroy marriage have always hidden their anti-democratic agenda behind false analogies to civil rights. By invoking the great legacy of America's civil rights movement, radical activists hope to convince America to let them force their view of marriage and their family upon our children and grandchildren.

California is the latest state to be saturated with claims that marriage is a form of bigotry and legal segregation - in anticipation of the California marriage amendment vote in the fall. This false "civil rights" logic was the basis for the California courts recent decision to strike down marriage in our nation's most populous state.

There is absolutely no legal, social or historical logic behind the claim that marriage is an expression of bigotry on a par with racism. But that has not stopped many in the national media from heralding California-style "gay marriage" as part of the historic progression of civil rights in America. Given this media bias, pro-family groups are often outmaneuvered because they are not able to mobilize communities that can effectively challenge the core argument of marriage opponents.

But the authentic civil rights leaders who are part of the Alliance for Marriage are able to challenge the "civil rights" deception - and to do so in places where support for this deception are strongest.

In a radio advertisement to begin airing in the San Francisco area on Catholic Radio - and soon on Catholic Radio nationally -- Niger Innis of the Congress of Racial Equality, one of the nation's "Big Four" historic civil rights groups, takes head-on the false civil rights analogies foisted by the radical activists.

Here is an excerpt from the ad which should encourage you:

"In the 1960s, CORE organized the Freedom Rides, co-sponsored the historic March on Washington with Martin Luther King, Jr., and participated in the Freedom Summer project in Mississippi, where three CORE civil rights workers were murdered.

But today in California, an elite, well-funded group of activists have hijacked the proud, historic legacy of America's civil rights movement to advance their own radical social cause - "same-sex" marriage.

Same-sex marriage is NOT a civil right.

As the community that endured both slavery and segregation, African-Americans will always reject the lie that radical activists have a "civil right" to redefine marriage. That's because my community - perhaps more than any other - understands in very real terms the consequences of family breakdown. When marriage declines, children and society both suffer.

Gays and lesbians are free to live as they choose, but they don't have a civil right to redefine marriage for our entire society."

The Alliance for Marriage is proud that our national coalition has - from its very founding - been lead by civil rights leaders with the courage and conviction of Niger Innis. Too often, Americans of goodwill are intimidated by the threat of being labeled as bigots for believing what the vast majority of people - of every creed and color - regard as common sense. But the African-American leaders in the AFM coalition have always proclaimed the widespread view in their community that there is no civil "right" to redefine marriage for all of society.

Thank you for helping us to make their voices heard - in San Francisco and across the nation. Thank you also for your friendship and partnership in our efforts to ensure that more children in America are raised in a home with a mother and a father.



Matt Daniels, J.D., Ph.D.
Founder and President


HT: Matt Daniels of Alliance For Marriage

The Cash Infusion Battle

The following two "cash infusion" articles clearly demonstrates the huge battle that we are in and what those of us who want to follow God's mandate in protecting the sanctity of Biblical marriage are up against.

The fact is, one homosexual activist (from another state!) has the power and funds to donate one million dollars to help defeat Proposition 8 on the California ballot; whereas, a traditional family advocacy group has sacrificially donated half a million dollars (money from donations that have been saved up over the course of several years) in the effort to get the message out there for Christians to come out to the polls in droves and vote for Proposition 8.

Utah millionaire donates money to fight California's anti-gay marriage amendment

Don't you love the spin in that title? It's not an "anti-gay" marriage amendment. It is an amendment to CORRECT the ideologically driven OPINIONS of four rogue judges who took it upon themselves to re-define the term "marriage" while creating a "right" to same sex "marriage" out of thin air.

The same thing is always done on the topic of abortion. Pro-life advocates are called "anti-choice." That is NOT factually correct either! I'm pro-life and I'm all for choice - specifically, the choice for the BABY TO BE ABLE TO BE BORN AND LIVE!

Choose life! Your mother did!

The verbal propaganda of the homosexual activists is already out there. Unfortunately, they will have the press and MSM on their side. Such propaganda is only going to be ratcheted up the closer we get to Election Day.

I would urge all Christians to become totally familiar with the proper talking points in order to turn away the spin that our opponents will undoubtedly place on this issue. We need to point out and emphasize, every chance we get, to proclaim the REAL AND GENUINE point of this issue:

The fact that 61% of Californias VOTED for Proposition 22 back in the year 2000 which stated that, "only marriage between a man and a woman is legal and recognized in California." And, four rogue judges seem to think that their 4 measly ideologically driven opinions and votes should trump the over 4 million votes that were cast when Proposition 22 passed in 2000. THAT'S the TRUTH of the matter.

Cash Infusion for 'Protect Marriage' Group

Excerpt:

"The battle for marriage in California is very important," the American Family Association said in its email message.

"If California defeats Proposition 8, it will open the floodgates for same-sex marriage in all the other states. The battle in California isn’t simply about California. It will affect every state, yours included. The homosexual groups have already raised millions, and are expected to spend nearly $20 million to destroy marriage as it has existed for thousands of years."

The American Family Association said the group fighting to defend marriage in California needs financial support. "Your gifts over the years allowed us to provide some help. We thank you," the message concluded.

This is how important and crucial Proposition 8 will be to our society, our state, and our nation.

We need to bathe this situation in prayer every day - from this moment until the close of the polls on November 4, 2008.

Will you choose to join me in being a Christian Culture Warrior on this extremely important issue?

I noticed that the homosexual activist/supporter who gave one million dollars to groups active in trying to defeat this ballot measure said the following:

"Bastion said, "I'm just not going to sit quietly by and let them do it. I just don't believe it's right. I don't believe it's fair. I don't believe it's what Jesus would do."

He doesn't believe "it's what Jesus would do??"

Don't you just love it when non-Christian people use the name of Jesus while trying to make a political point that CLEARLY goes against what the Bible teaches?

This man may make millions at his job, but he certainly does not know the REAL Jesus. He doesn't have a clue about what Paul describes and teaches in the epistles that we are to have "the mind of Christ." Yet, this guy is arrogant enough to tell millions of Christian believers what he thinks Jesus would not do?

People, the onslaught is only just beginning.

PLEASE do not give in to the homosexual activists.

PLEASE do not give up on this issue.

PLEASE do all that you can - prayerfully, action-oriented, and financially in the effort to get Christian voters to the polls and VOTE FOR PROPOSITION 8 on November 4th!

Sincerely & In Christ's service,
Christine

2Ti 1:7 For God has not given us a spirit of fear, but of power and of love and of a sound mind.

2Ti 1:8 Therefore do not be ashamed of the testimony of our Lord, nor of me His prisoner, but share with me in the sufferings for the gospel according to the power of God,

2Ti 1:9 who has saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace which was given to us in Christ Jesus before time began,

2Ti 1:10 but has now been revealed by the appearing of our Savior Jesus Christ, who has abolished death and brought life and immortality to light through the gospel,

2Ti 1:11 to which I was appointed a preacher, an apostle, and a teacher of the Gentiles.[fn2]

2Ti 1:12 For this reason I also suffer these things; nevertheless I am not ashamed, for I know whom I have believed and am persuaded that He is able to keep what I have committed to Him until that Day.

2Ti 1:13 Hold fast the pattern of sound words which you have heard from me, in faith and love which are in Christ Jesus.

2Ti 1:14 That good thing which was committed to you, keep by the Holy Spirit who dwells in us.


HT: ABC4.com

Alliance Defense Fund

CNS News

Seven Frequently Asked Questions

SEVEN FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS REGARDING MARRIAGE IN CALIFORNIA AFTER THE IN RE MARRIAGE CASES DECISION AND THE QUALIFICATION OF PROPOSITION 8 FOR THE
NOVEMBER 2008 BALLOT

QUESTION 1: DO PASTORS HAVE TO PERFORM SAME-SEX UNIONS?

No, pastors are not required by law to perform ceremonies for same-sex couples.

A. State Law Protections

In the California Supreme Court decision In re Marriage Cases, the court said that no religion will be required to change its policies or practices pertaining to same-sex couples, and no clergy or pastor will be required to solemnize a same-sex marriage if it contradicts his or her beliefs. The decision itself essentially exempts clergy from being required to perform the ceremonies for the time being.

To support this proposition, the court looked to the California Constitution, which protects the free exercise and enjoyment of religion as well as liberty of conscience.

B. Federal Constitutional Law Protections

Under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the following well established legal principles permit pastors to decline to perform same sex unions:

(1) the Free Exercise of Religion
(2) the Freedom of Conscience
(3) the Freedom of Speech

QUESTION 2: CAN OTHER STATES BE FORCED TO RECOGNIZE SAME-SEX UNIONS PERFORMED IN CALIFORNIA?

No, other states cannot be forced to recognize same-sex unions performed in California.

Federal law, specifically the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), clearly indicates that states are not required to recognize same-sex unions performed in other jurisdictions.

However, states may chose to recognize same-sex unions performed in other jurisdictions, which California and other states have elected to do. This choice is a matter of state law.

For example, at present California has elected to recognize same-sex unions and marriages formed in other states. There are two requirements for recognition under current California law: (1) the rights and responsibilities of the partners must be similar to those of California’s domestic partnership law, and (2) the union must also be valid under the laws of the jurisdiction where the legal agreement was formed. However, if Proposition 8 passes in November, only marriage between a man and a woman will be valid or recognized in California.

For individual state laws and constitutional amendments see the DOMA watch website run by the Alliance Defense Fund at DOMA Watch.

QUESTION 3: IF PASSED, WHEN WOULD PROPOSITION 8, THE CALIFORNIA MARRIAGE PROTECTION ACT, GO INTO EFFECT?

Pursuant to the California State Constitution article II section 10(a), if passed, Prop. 8 will go into effect the day after the election.
However, it is possible that a lawsuit could be filed that would delay the proposition’s implementation. For example, the recent lawsuit filed by the ACLU, Equality California, Lambda Legal, and the National Center for Lesbian Rights, Bennett v. Bowen, tried to prevent Proposition 8 from even being put on the ballot by claiming the proposition was a constitutional revision instead of an amendment. A similar suit could be filed after the proposition passes. If, in the future, the court deems the amendment a revision, the court could declare the amendment invalid and require the proposition to go through the process required to pass a constitutional revision. In that situation, the proposition would have to be approved by both houses of the legislature and then be voted on by the people.

QUESTION 4: IF PROPOSITION 8, THE CALIFORNIA MARRIAGE PROTECTION ACT, PASSES, WHAT HAPPENS TO THE PEOPLE WHO “MARRY” WHILE IT IS LEGAL?

If the proposition passes, the validity of the unions is uncertain and open to debate because there is no clear historical model to follow. The general consensus is that the marriages would not be void automatically. A lawsuit could be brought to have the marriages performed from June 16th through November 4th nullified. Essentially the constitutional amendment makes the marriages voidable, but not automatically void.
An example of when the state has taken away a person’s married status is when the California Supreme Court voided all of the same-sex marriage licenses issued by San Francisco in 2004. Those unions never had a solid legal foundation or clear judicial support in contrast to the unions being entered into at present.

Since California recognizes marriages performed in other states if they are valid in the state where the couple was married, it is likely California would continue to recognize the same-sex unions even if the constitutional amendment passed. A court could adapt California’s general rule and apply it to the unions performed between June and November. The analysis would essentially be: “We recognize marriages if valid where contracted.” As a result, the Court could determine that the marriages will remain valid because they were valid when performed, even if they can no longer be performed after the Amendment passes.

QUESTION 5: CAN SAME-SEX COUPLES GET “MARRIED” AFTER PROPOSITION 8, THE CALIFORNIA MARRIAGE PROTECTION ACT, PASSES?

The language of Proposition 8 is: “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” If the proposition passed, the California state constitution and the case law of the California Supreme Court would conflict. Even though the ceremonies could theoretically be performed, they would have no legal effect and the state government would not recognize them as legitimate. This results from the fact that the state constitution is higher law than a statute and the California Supreme Court must follow the constitution. The Court has confirmed this when they ruled in a 1984 case that:

“It has long been acknowledged that our state Constitution is the highest expression of the will of the people acting in their sovereign capacity as to matters of state law. When the Constitution speaks plainly on a particular matter, it must be given effect as the paramount law of the state.”

However, homosexual legal activists will almost certainly continue to attempt to obtain the right to same-sex marriage through other means, such as arguing that homosexual individuals can self identify their sex (for example one of the male partners may declare himself the woman in the relationship in spite of genetics) as is already occurring via SB 777 in the public schools.

QUESTION 6: THE ACLU FILED A SUIT TO TRY TO STOP PROPOSITION 8, THE CALIFORNIA MARRIAGE PROTECTION ACT, FROM BEING PUT ON THE BALLOT IN NOVEMBER. WHAT IS THE STATUS OF THAT SUIT?

The California Supreme Court rejected the suit without an opinion, and Proposition 8 will be put on the ballot absent any other last minute attempts to prevent the voters from deciding the issue.

The case name is Bennett v. Bowen, docket number S164520. The denial has yet to be posted on the court’s website.

For an Associated Press article visit:

Associated Press article.

For the ADF update visit: ADF Alliance Alert.


QUESTION 7: CAN THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT DECLARE PROPOSITION 8, THE CALIFORNIA MARRIAGE PROTECTION ACT UNCONSTITUTIONAL?

No. The California Supreme Court must follow the state constitution. The state constitution is second in authority to only the U.S. Constitution. Once the California Constitution is amended, the California Supreme Court must follow it. The California Supreme Court has held that the state Constitution is the highest expression of the will of the people acting in their sovereign capacity as to matters of state law. When the Constitution speaks plainly on a particular matter, it must be given effect as the paramount law of the state. As a result, the California voters will be given the opportunity to have the final say on the definition of marriage in California by voting to amend the state constitution by way of Proposition 8.


HT: The Western Center for Law and Policy

Ten Declarations For Protecting Biblical Marriage

The Ten Declarations For Protecting Biblical Marriage

Principles to Unite, Focus and Ground Us During This Precarious Season 25th of June in the Year of Our Lord 2008

1. God loves all people, therefore we love all people, and we will do so regardless of how some view or define themselves sexually. We choose to love those who, for whatever reason, have chosen to involve themselves in homosexual or other un-biblical sexual activity. Authentic inclusivity means loving all persons, without the need to compromise biblical integrity. We openly welcome into our lives as friends and into our churches those who are struggling with same-sex attraction or who are entrenched in that lifestyle, with a sincere hope that they might turn to Christ and be transformed, and join with all of us in the process of being ever more conformed to the truth of the Bible. Genuine, biblically-founded tolerance means not only that we must love those who are actively involved in the homosexual lifestyle, but would include them loving us, without placing demands upon us to renounce our biblical convictions. We are open to meaningful, loving, non-inflammatory dialogue.

Our primary question to the homosexual agenda advocates is “will you coach us on how to talk with you in a non-condescending way which both values you and allows us not to violate our biblical convictions?”

2. The Bible defines marriage as a covenantal union of one male and one female, which provides the foundation for healthy, whole family life. God’s Word is unabashedly resolute regarding this.

We will avoid unproductive arguments with those who, through the use of casuistry and rationalization, revise biblical passages in order to condone the practice of homosexuality or other sexual sins. Biblical texts assert, and contemporary sociological research confirms, that maximal sexual fulfillment occurs within one man-one woman monogamous, covenantal relationships. Biblical texts assert, and biology confirms that procreation, the sustaining of the human race, occurs exclusively within the male-female union. Furthermore, boys and girls need and deserve to have a daddy and a mommy who love each other and who are committed to each other in marriage. God established marriage between Adam, a male, and Eve, a female, as the pattern for all time. Marriage of a man and woman was established by God at the beginning of creation. Jesus assumed and positively affirmed this standard. Historic, orthodox Christianity has affirmed this for two millennia.

3. While the Bible may not address sexual orientation, it does, however, clearly address sexual actions. We are not surprised by, nor unsympathetic toward those who are confused and/or struggling with their sexuality. We all live in a fallen world and the effects of sin are multifaceted. But sexual actions, choices and practices are to be holy and pure before God. Biblically understood and God-honoring sexual expression is reserved for one man and one woman in a monogamous, covenantal,life-long marriage. We will not expend endless energy debating what people claim they “are”(homosexual). We focus instead on what persons choose to “do” (homosexual acts). With that established, it is inappropriate to compare homosexual marriage to interracial marriages. Race is a fact of birth. A homosexual act is that – an act. Acts involve choices.

4. We choose to be Christ-like even when we are falsely accused and slandered. When accused by those who reject God’s truth, we will, by God’s grace, boldly continue to work diligently and faithfully for the Bible’s definition of marriage, while responding truthfully in love to those who choose to criticize. “A gentle answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger” (Prov. 15:1). With Christ’s patient help, we shall attempt to evidence “a gentle answer” to all.

Page 2

5. As the Church, we repent of our nation’s moral condition. Blame shifting is not allowed on the part of Bible believing Christians. The reason for our present dilemma is not ultimately assertive and demanding homosexuals, or biblically ignorant judges, or even a scripturally devoid electorate. It is ultimately a spiritually impotent church, which through failure to adequately teach and model authentic Christianity, allowed and caused ungodly persons to be elected, who in turn selected unbiblical judges. We repent of our apathy, our lethargy and our spiritual ineffectiveness. Our coming together is, in part, a statement of repentance regarding our competitiveness and disunity. We declare our unity in Christ. Each of us must leave our ego and logo “at the door.”

6. Ultimately, we cry out for spiritual renewal in our state, nation and world. Winning a defense of marriage vote is of prime importance in the short term. But long term spiritual renewal, revival and evangelism are ultimately the answer, and are the reason for which we band together. While the church is the force for righteousness in the culture, its ultimate purpose is to glorify God by bringing persons into relationship with the Father.

7. We refuse the false choice between spiritual and temporal means, since both are used to advance Christ’s Kingdom. While we will diligently urge persons who understand truth to register and vote, we give ourselves to teaching the Word (including the topic of marriage), the sacraments, prayer, fasting, intercession, personal holy living, and the standard Christian disciplines. We may vote Republican, Democrat or Independent, but ultimately we belong to the “Jesus Party.” We function within existing political parties for the exclusive reason of having the greatest biblical impact on the culture as possible.

8. We repent of our failure to adequately and effectively protect biblical, heterosexual marriage. The divorce rate is an abomination to God, a curse on the world and nation, and is an anathema to us. We repent of our failure to adequately sanctify marriages in a way that would cause them to endure the pressures of daily temptations and duress.

9. Being approved by persons is not to be valued over the conformity to God’s will, ways and Word. Succinctly stated, we will not be people pleasers. We choose to be bold, yet loving; firm, yet compassionate. We will not be intimidated by the attacks of those who oppose biblical marriage, whether they are the government, the media or those who violate biblical, sexual purity. We understand that political correctness and biblical integrity are incompatible. While we cannot attend or participate in so-called homosexual “marriage” ceremonies, we do and can affirm the value of all persons, and we fully understand the difference. We unashamedly distinguish between that which might be called “marriage” by civil authorities, and that which was established as marriage by God in his Word. In terms of historical sequence, God established marriage, under his Sovereign direction,long before matrimony was recognized by the state.

10. By God’s strength and grace, we will be faithful… to the end. With Christ’s abiding presence and by the Spirit’s enabling power, we will walk in faithfulness and unity, while demonstrating endurance that will be pleasing to God. We envision victory in reestablishing the sanctity of one man - one woman marriage in our world. If, in the process, we are persecuted for remaining true to God’s Word, we will endure. We will never abandon His Word. We will never capitulate or compromise. If we are harassed, jailed, imprisoned, driven underground or even killed, we will be found worthy of joining the saints and martyrs who have gone before us. Whether here or in the world to come, due to our unswerving dedication to our heavenly Father, His Word, and to our King and Savior Jesus, we shall overcome.

Our Solemn Agreement, June 25, 2008 © James L. Garlow
Permission is granted for this to be copied and circulated, providing proper credit is given.

HT: James L. Garlow, Skyline Church Resources

Protecting Biblical Marriage

Starting today, it is my plan to share several resources with Talk Wisdom readers that are designed to help raise awareness regarding the important need for Christians to protect Biblical marriage. It is my hope that sharing these articles, websites, resources and political action plans will help bring about support for protecting and preserving marriage in California as the union of a man and woman.

First, I would like to encourage you to start with prayer:

Prayer Power

Please commit to pray daily for Prop 8's success in November. Ask for protection from the schemes of the enemy and for God's favor over legal issues, future events and all who will carry the message of protecting His design for marriage. Pray that all financial needs will be met.

And my God shall supply all your need according to His riches in glory by Christ Jesus. (Philippians 4:19)

Second, I would like to add a quote of wisdom from our country's Founders:

Our Founders' Wisdom
If we abide by the principles taught in the Bible, our country will go on prospering and to prosper; but if we and our posterity neglect its instruction and authority, no man can tell how sudden a catastrophe may overwhelm us and bury all our glory in profound obscurity.
~ Daniel Webster

California Christians - This is not the time to drop the ball and lose heart. We are in the spiritual battle of our lifetime regarding this issue and every effort we take to get fellow believers to the polls in November to vote for Proposition 8 here in California will help us to win this battle.

Excerpt from Concerned Women for America Newsletter:

Pastors Strategize for Tri-State Triumph

A second large-scale conference call supporting marriage amendments connected nearly 3,000 pastors and key leaders at more than 200 sites in three states on July 30. Like California, Arizona and Florida will have constitutional amendments defining marriage on their ballots this November. While the California and Arizona measures need a simple majority to pass, Florida's amendment must garner 60 percent of the vote.

The call included a wide array of local, state and national leaders who discussed challenges, strategies and coming events while exhorting and encouraging pastors to equip, energize and mobilize their churches and communities. Pastor Jack Hibbs (Calvary Chapel Chino Hills) called for pastors to lead the charge to pass Prop 8 saying they are "the conscience of the nation."

Prayer was interspersed throughout the event, acknowledging that this is a spiritual battle. And this is no skirmish that will allow even a few to sit idly by. Chuck Colson reiterated his view that the "battle over marriage is shaping up as the Armageddon of the culture war."

Another conference call will be held on August 27. Please encourage pastors and Christian leaders in your area to sign up for meeting notifications by e-mailing a request to Protect Marriage.com.

Action: This is no time to sit on the sidelines. Get in the game. Please take time right now to visit Protect Marriage.com and sign up to do what you can to help pass Proposition 8. Tell your friends, co-workers, family and neighbors that this is a winnable war, but we must all be engaged. Resources will be available online very soon. Print enough to have at home and in your car. The impact you make through personal contacts far outweighs ads and other media.

Brown's Biased Summary Heads to Court

The celebration over last month's good news that the California Supreme Court had rebuffed attempts by same-sex "marriage" proponents to remove Prop 8 from the November ballot was quickly replaced with consternation when California's Attorney General Jerry Brown suddenly changed the ballot summary wording. The over 1.2 million Californians who signed California Marriage Protection Act petitions agreed to the summary, "Amends the California Constitution to provide that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."

Brown's new language states, "Changes California Constitution to eliminate right of same-sex couples to marry. Provides that only a marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." The summary goes even further, declaring potential losses of sales tax revenue, presumably from halting the new "gay marriage" tourism such as the San Diego Visitors Bureau's new "San Diego Gay to Z" that boasts a "Here Comes the Pride" contest.

Given Attorney General Brown's lackluster defense of marriage before the California Supreme Court and his refusal to support the request to stay the ruling until after the election, his action is not surprising, but Brown's duty is to assign a fair and impartial title and summary for ballot measures. What he has now proposed is clearly prejudicial. Prop 8 proponents have asked the Court to return the summary to its original form. Dan Walters of the Sacramento Bee put it this way, "Brown's action faces a legal challenge whose outcome is uncertain, but regardless of how that fares, it's a pretty cynical act. A referee shouldn't misuse the rules of the game to favor one side over the other. If he does, the outcome will carry an asterisk of illegitimacy."

A hearing will be held in early August.

HT: Concerned Women for America

Protect Marriage.com