Gay Activist Lunacy & Selfishness

Gay activists and their heterosexual supporters in California remind me of the screaming and crying types of little children who throw a tantrum every time they don't get their way. I'm referring to the type of child who obviously has little or no adult supervision at home and therefore, totally lacks any semblance or form of discipline. These are the types of children at school who would stamp their feet, pound the table, and call the lunch room monitor and yell bloody murder just because they didn't get their way about something.

Here's a silly analogy. Four children are sitting at a lunch table at school. They were given the privilege of having 4 cupcakes placed in the middle of a table. Along comes a fifth child, who decides to bully the rest because he/she wasn't given a cupcake. So, he/she would rather throw the 4 treats on the floor, trample on them, and see the destruction of a privilege that was already given to the other four children - just because he/she can't have one too.

Are there no bounds to their selfishness?

Over at Maggie's Notebook, I read a post that, at first, I didn't even want to re-post here. However, I decided that spreading the knowledge of gay and lesbian activist lunacy here in California is a must; in order for others to be forewarned.

California To Get Rid of Marriage.

Here's a copy of what is written at that link:

Quote:

Why is it that I am not surprised at the tactics that Gays and Lesbians will go to force the idea of Gay marriage on the nation. On November 4, 2008 the voters of California passed Proposition 8 which states:


Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.
This passed 52.3% to 47.7%. Thus the voters of California spoke saying no to Gay marriage.

This is not the end of the argument. The supporters of Gay marriage are not going to take that lying down. They have a new tactic. Get rid of marriage. No I am not joking.

California's top election official says supporters can start collecting signatures for a proposed ballot measure to strike the word "marriage" from all state laws.

Supporters of this ballot measure want to replace it with the term "domestic partnership," while keeping all the rights of marriage in place.

Read the full story here.

Domestic Partnership is not the same as Marriage. In a partnership, one can just leave the partnership without legal recourse. In a Marriage it takes a divorce to dissolve it. One can have multiple partners in a Domestic Partnership. In a Marriage a person can have only one spouse at a time.

Forcing all people in California to give up Marriage in favor of Domestic Partnership is wrong. But knowing the liberals, idiots, nincompoops in California they will now pass this idea overwhelmingly and sound the death knoll of the American Family.

If this measure passes how long do you think it will be before it is brought to every state in the US?

Marriage is not a right, it is a privilege. If it was a right the government would have to supply each and every person in the nation with a spouse. They don't. And a couple planning on marrying should not have to go and get a Domestic Partnership license but a Marriage license.

Changing the name of Marriage to Domestic Partnership is just a bad idea. /quote

Hat tip:

Maggies Notebook

Shameful Sean

Know what? I am discovering that it takes a rabid, radical pro-gay bigot to turn the term "shameful" upon its head! Did you catch what Sean Penn said during the Oscars the other night?

The following is a portion of an email letter from ProtectMarriage.com about this incident with Penn:

QUOTE:
February 24, 2009

This just in from Hollywood:

“I think it is a good time for those who voted for the ban against gay marriage to sit and reflect and anticipate their great shame and the shame in their grandchildren’s eyes if they continue that way of support. We’ve got to have equal rights.”
Sean Penn, accepting the Oscar for Best Actor
February 22, 2009

This is the message that was communicated throughout the world on Sunday night during the Academy Award show by Hollywood liberals, including their “best actor” Sean Penn.

In fact, viewers weren’t two categories into the awards show when a gay screen writer bashed the Mormon Church, as much as said that supporters of Prop 8 are hateful bigots and promised that, soon, gays would have the right to marry. He even promised that the Obama Administration would make sure gays could marry “federally.” That brought a big round of applause.

It is perhaps not surprising that Hollywood liberals would use their “awards” show to campaign in favor of gay marriage. After all, many of these same liberals donated or raised millions of dollars to attempt to defeat Proposition 8.

What is perhaps surprising is their brazen attempt to influence public opinion against traditional marriage by manipulating people into thinking that this is a “human rights” issue, or a “civil rights” issue, or even an “equal rights” issue. What they don’t tell people is that gay couples in domestic partnerships in California already have equal rights! Gay domestic partners in California enjoy the same legal rights as married spouses.

Liberal Hollywood activists like Sean Penn know a thing or two about reaching audiences. They make millions – tens of millions – learning how to connect with an audience. One audience they no doubt hoped to influence on Sunday night was the California Supreme Court, which is hearing challenges to invalidate Prop 8 in just ten days. Another audience probably watched the show from the upstairs of the White House in Washington. Still another audience is made up of voters here in California, enough of the 7 million of whom they hope to shame into repudiating their votes cast in favor of traditional marriage the next time the issue is on the ballot. Traditional marriage has served society well, and there are many sound reasons why people support one man, one woman marriage – including continuing the best institution to give children both a mother and a father. Prop 8 wasn’t an attack on gay couples, it was an affirmation of traditional marriage – but you didn’t hear that at the Academy Awards.

ProtectMarriage.com has made very powerful, legally sound arguments in our briefs filed with the Supreme Court. Our attorneys, including former Solicitor General Kenneth Starr, are working hard to prepare to present these arguments directly to the justices on March 5 when the challenges to Prop 8 will be heard. We think that attempts to campaign to get the attention of judges, like we saw from Hollywood the other night, will fall on deaf ears. We are confident that the Court will decide the Prop 8 cases strictly on the law, and we have the law on our side.

However, we must also be mindful of the incessant effort from Hollywood and gay activists to portray our support of Prop 8 in hateful, negative terms. From the protests that have been orchestrated against Proposition 8, to the “outing” of countless donors to our campaign, to the violence and vandalism of our churches, supporters of traditional marriage have been subjected to a carefully orchestrated attempt to erode public support and intimidate our donors and volunteers. It’s time that we fought back, and ProtectMarriage.com intends to do just that! /QUOTE

*******

As I stated in a reply to an anonymous commenter in a previous comment thread - FIND YOUR OWN NAME for gay unions! Hey - THAT'S IT! Call them "gay unions" and stop all of this nonsense and attempts to re-define marriage for everyone else! Just because YOU want it re-defined DOESN'T MEAN IT SHOULD BE!

Conscience Collides With Political Correctness

How many readers of this blog recall the signs that used to appear in restaurants and bars that said, "We reserve the right to not serve anyone?" At least I think that is how it was worded.

Today, we often find signs that state, "No shirt, no service." or "No shoes, no service."

What was the message behind such signs? The owner of the business had free speech rights to serve, or not serve a person based on their particular behavior.

If a person came into a restaurant without wearing a shirt or shoes, the restaurant owner had the right to refuse service. If a person came into a bar and was boisterous, obnoxious, cursing or - clearly already drunk - the bar tender had the absolute right to not serve that person any alcohol. What's more, the bouncer had the right (as per the instructions of the owner) to escort such a person off the premises!

Our First Amendment rights not only include freedom of speech and freedom of religion; but also freedom of association.

Today, because of ultra-tolerance and political correctness and "hate speech" inferences, the refusal for service by any business owner is often misconstrued as "bigotry," "hatred," "intolerance," etc. etc. etc. ad nauseum. The following link is a case in point:

ADF Truth and Triumph: Point & Shoot
What happens when a photographer's conscience collides with political correctness.

When you read the article, you will see that this Christian woman was CLEARLY TARGETED by the lesbian couple who wanted to punish her for her refusal to photograph their "commitment ceremony." There were PLENTY of other photographers willing to take the job. So, why did they sue this one person?


Gotta run out. Will return to finish this post later.

Why DOMA Matters!

In the following commentary, Niger Innis states EXACTLY why DOMA MATTERS and MUST BE PROTECTED! The following paragraph from the commentary tells us the utmost importance of DOMA:

In the absence of the federal Marriage Protection Amendment, DOMA provides federal statutory protection to states against activists vowing to use the federal courts to force the destructive decisions of judges in Connecticut and Massachusetts on other states.

Mr. Innis goes on and describes how California has now become a "case study" regarding how radical homosexual activists will attempt to use the courts to overcome the passage of the "YES ON PROPOSITION 8" results that came about as a result of millions of voters in California. Why? Because they don't like the results! Well....TOO BAD! I don't like the results of Roe. v. Wade....oh WAIT! BAD EXAMPLE! Roe v. Wade WAS NEVER VOTED ON BY THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA! So, over 70 million aborted babies later, we see the devastating results of an over-reaching judiciary - DON'T WE!!??!!

Let's not let the same thing happen to marriage.

Christine

*******

Here's a copy of the complete article:

Wednesday, February 4, 2009
NIGER INNIS:
Gay marriage harms kids
and democracy
COMMENTARY


President Barack Obama's personal triumph over the generational legacy of a broken home has the power by virtue of example to heal and to strengthen marriage in America for the future of our children and grandchildren.

But we hope that the nation's first black president will not allow great harm to be inflicted upon the future of marriage by aligning himself with those who falsely invoke the legacy of "Civil Rights" for the purposes of radically changing the definition of marriage.

Now an emboldened, radical Democrat Congress and its allies in the media are pushing President Obama to repeal the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), the legal underpinning of state marriage amendments approved by voters in 30 states.


In the absence of the federal Marriage Protection Amendment, DOMA provides federal statutory protection to states against activists vowing to use the federal courts to force the destructive decisions of judges in Connecticut and Massachusetts on other states.

This statutory protection is now more important than ever, as witnessed by the rapacious lawsuits of radical activists in California. If federal DOMA falls, every state marriage amendment stands to be overturned by activists in federal court.

To truly appreciate the intense level of legal Armageddon certain to be unleashed if DOMA falls in Congress, one only needs to look to California.

In May 2008, in the name of civil rights, the California Supreme Court voided the 4.6 million votes of California voters who in 2000 democratically approved Proposition 22 - the California Defense of Marriage Act.

In response to this egregious act by four judges, California voters rallied again to place on the 2008 Election Day ballot a constitutional amendment to protect marriage. The amendment, known as Proposition 8, passed with over 70 percent of the African-American community voting "Yes" to define marriage as a man and a woman.


But like "Groundhog Day," the very same four judges who voided the democratic votes of Californians voters last May are now deciding the same fate for Proposition 8. A court ruling voiding a second democratic vote on marriage in the nation's most populous state would mark the beginning of the end for democracy in America.


The Congress of Racial Equality (CORE), one of the "Big Four" historic civil rights groups in America, believes the most important fundamental freedom for all people is the right to govern themselves. Once this simple ideal is realized, other necessary freedoms will automatically follow.

The abolition of the right of the people to govern themselves - or vote - is only a first step in the taking away of civil rights. Because wherever marriage has been redefined, the freedom of religion, association and conscience have been trampled upon in the name of a brave new social, cultural and legal norm that denies the importance of mothers and fathers for children.

When a Massachusetts court created "same-sex" marriage, Catholic Charities in Boston was forced to shut down its adoption services program because it refused to alter the program's 100-year-old mission of placing children in homes with a home with a mother and a father. What happened in Massachusetts is simply a foretaste of what is to come to every state from California to Missouri to Virginia - with or without state constitutional amendments - if federal DOMA falls. That's why the Congress of Racial Equality has partnered with the Alliance for Marriage to launch ProtectDOMA.org, to protect marriage for the future of our children and grandchildren.

While the battle over the repeal of federal DOMA may largely go unnoticed among a financially battered and worried general public, its outcome will undoubtedly leave a legacy for future generations well beyond the nation's financial meltdown.


Western Europe's wholesale embrace of a radical cultural chic and simultaneous rejection of traditional marriage has led to the demographic crisis in which it is currently embroiled. Europe's population is expected to decrease from 728 million now to 658 million by 2050, due to declining birthrates. This phenomenon will put an overwhelming strain on the largess of Europe's social welfare system and economy.


President Obama truly stands at a crossroads. Rather than destroy marriage, he can in fact be its great protector. It is America's job to convince him.

Niger Innis is an advisory board member of Alliance for Marriage and National spokesperson for the Congress of Racial Equality


Hat Tip: www.afmusa.org

Cartoon of Liberal Hypocrisy

While visiting a blog called Kevin's Korner I found this great cartoon of liberal leftist hypocrisy. Could not resist posting it here!




Hat Tips:

Kevin's Korner

World Magazine

More Reasons to Protect Marriage!

Occasionally, there are posts over at my main blog - Talk Wisdom - that deserve to be cross-posted over here. My latest essay is entitled, Inaugural Malignant Narcissism. I hope that you will have time to read all of the links provided. It will give you even more reasons for continuing the effort to protect biblical marriage.

Suit Filed to Prevent Harassment - Prop. 8 YES Voters

It's certainly about time for this!!! Should have been done a long time ago! The homosexual agenda radicals have been thoroughly abusive in so many ways. They have shown their true colors when they lose: NO TOLERANCE. At least this is a step in the right direction to correct their illegal harassment of voters with whom they disagree.

ADF attorneys file suit to stop harassment of Calif. marriage amendment supporters

ProtectMarriage.com suit challenges campaign finance law’s requirement to publicly disclose identity and employer of donors giving as little as $100


SACRAMENTO, Calif. — Alliance Defense Fund allied attorneys together with ADF attorneys filed a lawsuit Wednesday on behalf of ProtectMarriage.com and the National Organization for Marriage California to prevent harassment of citizens who gave as little as $100 to support Proposition 8. The lawsuit documents incidents of harassment and retaliation by opponents who have targeted Proposition 8 supporters after their identities and employers were made public by the state as required by California campaign finance law.

“Putting the names and employers of the people who supported Proposition 8 on the Internet for anyone to see has caused serious problems. No one should worry about getting a death threat because of the way he or she votes,” said James Bopp, Jr., lead attorney for the supporters of Proposition 8. “This lawsuit will protect the right of all people to help support causes they agree with, without having to worry about harassment or threats.”


In November, over 7 million Californians approved Proposition 8. Under a California law, people who gave money to support Proposition 8 had their names, employers, and other personal information listed on the Web site of the Secretary of State of California.

After Proposition 8 passed, people who did not support Proposition 8 used the list of names to go after people who supported Proposition 8. Some people who supported Proposition 8 had their homes and churches vandalized, were forced to resign their jobs, and were even threatened with violence and death. To stop this harassment and these threats, this lawsuit asks the court to stop the release of the names and personal information of people who gave money to support Proposition 8.


“Our laws should ensure free participation in the democratic process, and not result in compromising the free speech and association rights of guaranteed to all Americans,” said ADF Legal Counsel Tim Chandler, who is serving as local counsel in the case. “Citizens shouldn’t have to choose between being involved in the democratic process and subjecting themselves to acts of vengeance.”

The lawsuit challenges parts of California’s campaign finance laws that require people who donate as little as $100 to have personal information revealed on the Internet as unconstitutional violations of free speech. The lawsuit also challenges parts of the campaign finance laws that require reporting of donations after a proposition has been voted on as unconstitutional.


A copy of the complaint filed with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, Sacramento Division, in the lawsuit ProtectMarriage.com v. Bowen is available at www.telladf.org/UserDocs/ProtectMarriageComplaint.pdf.

ADF is a legal alliance of Christian attorneys and like-minded organizations defending the right of people to freely live out their faith. Launched in 1994, ADF employs a unique combination of strategy, training, funding, and litigation to protect and preserve religious liberty, the sanctity of life, marriage, and the family.

Protect DOMA Website

The rabidly vile and angry protests being waged throughout California by the homosexual activists who are mad that Proposition 8 passed with over 52% of the vote, are not about to give up the fight. In fact, I can still see some of the "no on 8" political signs in my area. They were placed high up on telephone poles so that only someone with a ladder could reach them and tear them down.

The stampedes into churches; the shoving of an 80-yr.-old Christian woman while the huge cross she was carrying was trampled on; the hate-spewing protests in front of Mormon churches - are just a few of the terrible actions being done by rabid homosexual activists.

These people are more than just "sore losers." They are adamant about getting their way and will stop at NOTHING to do so.

I am grateful for organizations like Alliance for Marriage that is already preparing for the next battle. The ProtectDOMA.org website has been launched.

Here is a copy of an email that I received today from Alliance for Marriage:

Gay Activist Press Cites AFM Campaign
as Stumbling Block to Pending Attack
on DOMA in Congress


“Predominantly White” Activists Lament Failure to "Feature People of Color" as AFM’s Diverse Coalition launches ProtectDOMA.org campaign

Last week, the Alliance for Marriage launched one of the most important campaigns in our organization’s history to protect the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in the upcoming 111th Congress.

By launching ProtectDOMA.org -- and immediately commencing our campaign efforts on Capitol Hill -- the Alliance for Marriage Foundation has drawn a line in the sand against radical activists who are determined to export Massachusetts-style “gay marriage” to the entire nation.

AFM’s ProtectDOMA campaign was cited this past week in the gay press:

“The Alliance for Marriage just announced that preserving DOMA - especially by lobbying newly elected members of Congress from people of color communities - is one of their top priorities right now”

– Gay City News, (11/26/08).

But what was most eye-opening about this news story -- which reported on a panel discussion including the Human Rights Commission about same-sex marriage in New York State and the repeal of DOMA nationally -- was a rare window into the activist community and just how absurd their deceptive analogies to America’s civil rights movement have become.

“At a time when the community has been rubbed raw by a debate over the percentage of people of color who voted for Prop 8 and the failure of the No on 8 campaign to feature people of color as spokespeople or to do sufficient outreach to those populations, the New York panel consisted of five white men and one white woman.... The audience was predominately white and male as well….”

For years, AFM has reached out to communities of color - including leaders of the African-American community - to make their voices heard in the historic debate over the future of marriage. Our strategic leadership in building an authentically diverse coalition to protect marriage has been widely recognized in the national media.
“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,” said Niger Innis, an AFM Advisory Board Member and National Spokesperson for the Congress of Racial Equality (CORE), one of the "Big Four" historic civil rights groups. “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.”

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 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.

www.afmusa.org

*******
Technorati Profile

CA Justices Recall Threat

Obviously, an LA Times blog would word such a post differently than I would. My choice of a title would have been, "Traditional marriage supporters threaten to recall California Supreme Court justices." Anyway, here's the post:

Gay marriage foes threaten to recall California Supreme Court justices
11:45 PM, November 19, 2008
Last week, the aggressive tactics of Prop. 8 opponents -- street protests, boycotts of business -- made headlines. This week, it appears that backers of the ban on gay marriage are the ones making threats. Yes on 8 forces are talking about a recall against members of the California Supreme Court if they throw out the measure.

To some, the recall talk marks another increase in the post-election battle and a response to the No on 8 protests:

"This push-back in the last two weeks has actually mobilized the Yes on 8 people," said the Rev. Samuel Rodriguez, president of the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference. If the California Supreme Court were to overturn Proposition 8, "you will see a mobilized group like you have never seen in the state of California." Rodriguez said in an interview Tuesday that some religious leaders are discussing a potential recall of Supreme Court justices. He expects the Supreme Court to overturn Proposition 8, and if that happens, "there are grounds for a recall. We saw that with Gray Davis," he said. "We have an oligarchy, an oligarchy in judges' role in the state of California."

Remember the Gray Davis recall? Well, one of the figures behind it thinks a Prop. 8 recall effort if the justices toss the measure out is a real possibility. According to the San Diego Union-Tribune:

If that happens, watch out for a "barn-burner of an election -- the biggest thing this state has ever seen," says recall election guru Ted Costa. Costa says he's already been contacted by some of the folks who would seek to recall Ronald George, Joyce Kennard, Kathryn Werdegar and Carlos Moreno if Prop. 8 is scrapped. He thinks it's premature and risky because talk of a recall "would just (bleep) off the judges." Costa also doesn't sound like he's too thrilled about such a recall, saying it wouldn't be "healthy." Citing all the financial turmoil in California, he said, "If someone's going to do some recalling, that should be the focus."

When it comes to judicial recalls, one woman's name says it all. And Jon Fleischman utters it: "No government official is immune from the voters’ will, whether they be in the executive, legislative or, yes, even in the judicial branch. Remember Rose Bird?"

-- Shelby Grad

HT: LA Times Blogs

Battle for Marriage Continues

The Battle for Marriage Has Just Begun

November 4th was a pivotal moment in America's history: Californians held their government accountable by passing Proposition 8. For the second time in eight years, Californians decided that the government may not redefine marriage for its citizens. However, despite our convincing victory, 52% to 48%, radical homosexual activists have reacted with anger and renewed determination. In the last week since the election, several cities have seen protests by opponents of Proposition 8. Churches have been vandalized, church goers have been bullied.


This type of furry-fueled protestation only hurts their cause as average citizens are alarmed at the sight of church vandalism and intimidation of the religious community. In fact, this response proves the point that their political agenda will be imposed against the public's will-using the government as their tool to achieve their goals.

And now government officials are aligning against the very people they were elected to represent and serve.


Although Governor Schwarzenegger publicly opposed Proposition 8 from the beginning, he is now encouraging the California Supreme Court to overturn Proposition 8, just as they overturned Proposition 22.

This position is in direct contradiction to his previous position on this issue. Both times same-sex marriage legislation has come to his desk, he has vetoed it. In 2005, he vetoed the bill "out of respect for the will of the people" expressed through Proposition 22's passage. In fact, his spokesperson explained that "The governor believes the matter should be determined not by legislative action - which would be unconstitutional - but by court decision or another vote of the people of our state." Well, the court overturned Proposition 22 and then the people overrode the court. Californians have clearly decided in favor of preserving traditional marriage.


Now state lawmakers are also trying to overturn the will of the people by submitting amicus briefs in homosexual lawsuits against Proposition 8.

Assembly Speaker Karen Bass, Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg announced this week that they and 44 other state lawmakers sent a friend-of-the-court brief expressing their support for overturning Proposition 8. Another lawsuit was brought ealrier this year to prevent Proposition 8 from appearing on the ballot, but it was denied by the court. In 2005, Governor Schwarzenegger stated his position on legislative meddling with Proposition 22: "We cannot have a system where the people vote and the Legislature derails that vote." Yet the legislature and the governor are trying to derail the will of the people.


Governor Schwarzenegger owes the people of California an apology for his duplicitous positions on such an important issue as preserving marriage. State lawmakers must be held accountable for their willful attempts to subvert the will of the people.

Citizens should call Governor Schwarzenegger and lawmakers to express their outrage over this blatant assault on the initiative process.

Less than a week after the election, government officials are trying undo it.


Although past court decisions seem to favor our case, we cannot trust the same judicial system that overturned Proposition 22 to protect our Election Day decision.

We must remain active and hold our government officials accountable. This battle is far from over. Join us as we continue to push forward in our defense of marriage!


PS
In addition to calling the governor and lawmakers to remind them that we the people are their bosses-not vice versa-there is another action item. California Musical Theater official Scott Eckern is on the verge of losing this job because he donated money to the Yes on Proposition 8 campaign. Homosexual activists are demanding his termination for making a financial contribution to a cause he morally supports. What is truly outrageous is that this man could lose his job for expressing his religious and moral beliefs. To try and counter the negative publicity, Eckern has given an equal donation to the radical homosexual group Human Rights Campaign. Please contact the California Musical Theater about Mr. Eckern's ability to express his political beliefs without being punished.



HT: Email From Karen England of Yes on Proposition 8.com

Crazed Homosexual Activists Attack Woman & Trample Cross

The anchors of the news show got one thing wrong. They claimed that there was a "lot of hate on both sides."

Nope!

A lot of hate from the rabid, homosexual activists - yes.

If you look closely at one point in the video, the 80-yr.-old woman can be seen mouthing the words to those who were attacking her, "I love you." Of course, it was so noisy because of the rabid hate being spewed by the demonstrators, no one could hear her words.

Crazie Lefties Attack Old Lady At "No on 8" Protest

She is certainly a brave woman to show up there and try to minister the love of Jesus Christ and what He did for ALL sinners at the cross.

We are witnessing Biblical prophecy right before our very eyes!

Jesus told us to watch for the signs of his return. In Scripture, he said that the world would be, "as in the Days of Noah, and, as in the Days of Lot."



HT: SFSU College Republicans

More Evidence of Gay Tolerance /sarc off

It's sad, ironic and true. There is absolutely NO TOLERANCE from the homosexual activists towards those who wish to preserve the original definition of marriage.

NO RIGHTS were taken away from them! The wrong ruling of four rogue judges who took it upon themselves to overturn 4.1 million votes when Proposition 22 was passed years ago, have now been corrected by voters...AGAIN!

I ask...WHERE'S THE TOLERANCE FROM THE OTHER SIDE??? They are all about tolerance when things are going their way. However, when voters decide an issue - the gays curse at us and threaten to burn down Christian churches!

Awful...

Absolutely despicable!!

I have no respect for them anymore. I'm done.

P.S. BTW, I noticed a hand-made "No on Prop 8" sign posted on a telephone pole a few blocks down from my street. It said, "Don't be like Hitler - vote no on Prop. 8."

Yep...a real tolerant bunch...aren't they? /sarc off - again.

*******
Additional articles:



Headlines - Thursday, November 6, 2008

Cal. AG to defend marriage from redefinition while defending its redefinition
November 6, 2008

Statement by Andrew Pugno, General Counsel of ProtectMarriage.com - Yes on 8
November 6, 2008

New legislatures expected to take up marriage redefinition bills in 5 states November 6, 2008

Fighting Over Voter-Approved Marriage Amendment Puts “Squeeze on California’s Chief Justice”
November 6, 2008

Margin of Prop. 8 victory requires vigilance and ongoing efforts by churches and pro-family groups
November 6, 2008

Pretense of tolerance is over: Prop. 8 opponents attempt to defy voters
November 5, 2008

“Lawsuit Against Gay Marriage Ban Irks Christians”
November 6, 2008

Back to court … again: Californians voted for traditional marriage Tuesday, but opponents file lawsuits
November 6, 2008

“Contempt for the will of the people”: Same-sex marriage proponents won’t concede election, ask court to nullify Proposition 8
November 6, 2008

Jordan Lorence: Marriage battle is not over, its just heating up
November 6, 2008

Mike Johnson on Don Kroah Show: State Marriage Amendment victories

Restoring Marriage in California!

Praise God for the victory of restoring marriage in California as being as He intends, and has stated in His Word: the union of one man and one woman!

Fox News has reported that California voters passed Proposition 8, overturning a state Supreme Court decision that granted gay couples the right to wed months ago.

Of course, the war of good against evil continues.

Within moments of the announcement that YES on Proposition 8 passed here in California, The San Francisco City Attorney's office says he plans to challenge the validity of the ballot measure that would change the state constitution to ban gay marriage.

Although the presidential election results lead me to mourn for this nation, I praise God that He is still on the throne of heaven. Through prayer, fasting and work, thousands of the faithful in Jesus Christ had their pleadings and prayers to restore marriage here in California answered!

This decision will stave off what would have been a tsunami of liberal judge rulings across our nation to force same-sex marriage upon an electorate that does not want the definition of marriage changed by judicial fiat!

Praise Jesus!

Christine

P.S. - Just a note to anyone who happens to visit here and is mourning this decision. You will not have your right to have a CIVIL UNION with your same-sex partner as a result of this decision. It will just have to be called something else - not marriage.

Those who tried to call our position "hate" - listen up. This was NOT done to hurt you or your partners. I have attended many church functions that spelled out the necessity of preserving biblical marriage.

Christians who believe and follow God's Word rose up in droves to say, "homosexual activists and your supporters (including radical liberal rogue judges) - you have gone to far."

I am asking each of you for tolerance and respect towards those who have voted to restore the traditional, thousands-of-years-old, definition and meaning of marriage here in California. Tolerance is not a one-way street - although the homosexual lobby wants to make it seem that way.

One last point. Those who voted YES ON PROPOSITION 8 are not "bigots." The Christians who follow God's Word know this. It is time that the public realizes this, too.

To those who refuse to show tolerance and respect for the decision rendered by voters here in California - and wish to continue their vitriole of labeling us "bigots" - here is what BIGOT means for me:

Bible
Is
God's
Only
Truth

More Evidence For YES ON PROP 8!

Neil over at Eternity Matters has a post up that shows how VERY IMPORTANT it is for California to VOTE YES ON PROPOSITION 8 on Election Day, Tuesday, November 4, 2008!!

Gay Pledge Cards Given to Kindergartners

Neil writes:

As I mentioned in We told you so, even while the GLBT lobby is on their best behavior pending the vote on Proposition 8, we see more and more examples of their supporters doing the opposite of what they claimed would happen: Aggressive indoctrination of youth as young as kindergarten.

During a celebration of National Ally Week, Tara Miller, a teacher at the Faith Ringgold School of Arts and Science in Hayward, Calif., passed out cards produced by the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network to her class of kindergartners.

The cards asked signers to be “an ally” and to pledge to “not use anti-LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) language or slurs; intervene, when I feel I can, in situations where others are using anti-LGBT language or harassing other students and actively support safer schools efforts.”

More here.

My comment at Neil's blog:

The battle over this issue is getting SO NASTY! Signs stolen from yards, cars damaged because they have a YES ON PROPOSITION 8 sticker on them. I could go on and on.

What bothers me the most, though, is the unashamed LYING from the “No on Prop 8″ people! There is a commercial where a superintendent of schools claims that “marriage” isn’t taught in public schools! THAT is a bold faced LIE! It is written directly in the Education code! If gay “marriage” stays legal in CA, then it WILL be taught in schools! There is no doubt about it!

I have to search for it, but there is an entire curriculum drawn up already which will be used to further indoctrinate children. Plus, they want to change all the textbooks to include gay “history” in EVERY SUBJECT! After church today, I will look for the info and share it here.

Please keep the YES ON PROPOSITION 8 ballot measure in your prayers! We need God to move throughout CA to bring hearts more in line with what He designed for marriage - the union of one man and one woman!


HT's:
Eternity Matters

Fox News

Commentary: Hate in the Name of Love

Commentary: Hate in the Name of Love
by Dennis Prager, guest columnist

'It is the proponents of same-sex marriage who express nearly all the hate.'

Note: This column first appeared on Townhall.com on Oct. 21, 2008. It is used with permission.

Next to the presidential election, California's Proposition 8 is the most important vote in America.

It will determine the definition of marriage for the largest state in America, and it will determine whether judges or society will decide on social-moral issues.

In 2000, 61 percent of the voters in California, one the most liberal states in America, voted to retain the only definition of marriage civilization has ever had — the union of a man and woman (the number of spouses allowed has changed over time but never the sexes of the spouses). But in May 2008, four out of seven California justices decided that they would use their power to make a new definition: Gender will now be irrelevant to marriage.

As a result of this judicial act, the only way to ensure that we continue to define marriage the way every religious and secular society in recorded history has defined marriage — as between men and women — is to amend the California Constitution. It is the only way to prevent the vote of one judge from redefining marriage, as was also done in Massachusetts and Connecticut.
Which is why Proposition 8 exists.

But even though California voters decided by a large margin to retain the man-woman definition of marriage, passing Proposition 8 will be a challenge.
First, the attorney general of California, Jerry Brown, unilaterally renamed the proposition as it appears on California ballots. It had been listed as "Amends the California Constitution to provide that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." Brown, a liberal Democrat, changed the proposition's wording to: "Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry. Initiative Constitutional Amendment."

The reason for this change is obvious — to make the proposition appear as a denial of a basic human and civil right.

Marriage has never been regarded as a universal human or civil right. Loving and living with anyone one wants to live with are basic human rights. But marriage is actually a privilege that society bestows on whom it chooses. And even those who believe that any two unmarried people who want to get married should be given a marriage license should regard as wrong an attorney general changing a ballot proposition's language to favor his own social views. What Brown did was attempt to manipulate people who lean toward preserving the definition of the most important social institution in society — people who have no desire whatsoever to hurt gays — to now think of themselves as bigots.

According to Sacramento Bee columnist Margaret A. Bengs, "a recent Field Poll analysis found" that the new wording by Brown "had a 'striking' impact on those newly familiar with the measure, with a 23-point swing against it."

What we have here is truly manipulative. Four justices create a right, and then a sympathetic attorney general renames a proposition so as to protect a 4-month-old right that no one had ever voted to create.

And the left accuses the right of imposing its values on society.

The second hurdle for Proposition 8 is even greater: the multimillion-dollar campaign to label proponents of Proposition 8 "haters" and to label the man-woman definition of marriage as "hate." Or as they put it: "Prop 8 = Prop Hate."

It is apparently inconceivable to many of those who wish to change the definition of marriage that a decent person can want to retain the man-woman definition. From newspaper editorials to gay and other activist groups, the theme is universal — proponents of traditional marriage are haters, the moral equivalents of those who opposed racial equality. As The New York Times editorial on the subject put it, Proposition 8 is "mean-spirited."

But it is the charge of hate (along with bigotry, homophobia and intolerance) that is the primary charge leveled against supporters of Proposition 8. That's why one major anti-Proposition 8 group is "Californians Against Hate."

Any honest outsider would see that virtually all the hate expressed concerning Proposition 8 comes from opponents of the proposition. While there are a few sick individuals who hate gay people, I have neither seen nor heard any hatred of gays expressed by proponents of Proposition 8. Not in my private life, not in my e-mail, not from callers on my radio show.

It is the proponents of same-sex marriage who express nearly all the hate — because in fact many of them do hate, loudly and continuously. But hate in the name of love has a long pedigree. Why should our generation be different?

These charges of "hate" against proponents of retaining the man-woman definition of marriage do not speak well for those who make them. I, for one, find it easy to believe that most opponents and most proponents of Proposition 8 are decent people. There are millions of decent people who think marriage should be redefined. I think they are wrong, but I do not question their decency.

Why won't those who favor redefining marriage accord the same respect to the millions of us who still want marriage to remain man-woman?

Dennis Prager is a radio show host, contributing columnist for Townhall.com, and author of four books



HT: CitizenLink

What Same-Sex "Marriage" Has Done To Massachusetts

What same-sex "marriage" has done to Massachusetts
It's far worse than most people realize
October 20, 2008
by Brian Camenker

Anyone who thinks that same-sex “marriage” is a benign eccentricity which won’t affect the average person should consider what it has done in Massachusetts. It’s become a hammer to force the acceptance and normalization of homosexuality on everyone. And this train is moving fast. What has happened so far is only the beginning.

On November 18, 2003, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court announced its Goodridge opinion, ruling that it was unconstitutional not to allow same-sex “marriage.” Six months later, homosexual marriages began to be performed.

The public schools
The homosexual “marriage” onslaught in public schools across the state started soon after the November 2003, court decision.

At my own children's high school there was a school-wide assembly to celebrate same-sex “marriage” in early December, 2003. It featured an array of speakers, including teachers at the school who announced that they would be “marrying” their same-sex partners and starting families either through adoption or artificial insemination. Literature on same-sex marriage – how it is now a normal part of society – was handed out to the students.

Within months it was brought into the middle schools. In September, 2004, an 8th-grade teacher in Brookline, MA, told National Public Radio that the marriage ruling had opened up the floodgates for teaching homosexuality. “In my mind, I know that, `OK, this is legal now.' If somebody wants to challenge me, I'll say, `Give me a break. It's legal now,'” she told NPR. She added that she now discusses gay sex with her students as explicitly as she desires. For example, she said she tells the kids that lesbians can have vaginal intercourse using sex toys.

By the following year it was in elementary school curricula. Kindergartners were given picture books telling them that same-sex couples are just another kind of family, like their own parents. In 2005, when David Parker of Lexington, MA – a parent of a kindergartner – strongly insisted on being notified when teachers were discussing homosexuality or transgenderism with his son, the school had him arrested and put in jail overnight.

Second graders at the same school were read a book, “King and King”, about two men who have a romance and marry each other, with a picture of them kissing. When parents Rob and Robin Wirthlin complained, they were told that the school had no obligation to notify them or allow them to opt-out their child.

In 2006 the Parkers and Wirthlins filed a federal Civil Rights lawsuit to force the schools to notify parents and allow them to opt-out their elementary-school children when homosexual-related subjects were taught. The federal judges dismissed the case. The judges ruled that because same-sex marriage is legal in Massachusetts, the school actually had a duty to normalize homosexual relationships to children, and that schools have no obligation to notify parents or let them opt-out their children! Acceptance of homosexuality had become a matter of good citizenship!

Think about that: Because same-sex marriage is “legal”, a federal judge has ruled that the schools now have a duty to portray homosexual relationships as normal to children, despite what parents think or believe!

In 2006, in the elementary school where my daughter went to Kindergarten, the parents of a third-grader were forced to take their child out of school because a man undergoing a sex-change operation and cross-dressing was being brought into class to teach the children that there are now “different kinds of families.” School officials told the mother that her complaints to the principal were considered “inappropriate behavior.”

Libraries have also radically changed. School libraries across the state, from elementary school to high school, now have shelves of books to normalize homosexual behavior and the lifestyle in the minds of kids, some of them quite explicit and even pornographic. Parents complaints are ignored or met with hostility.

Over the past year, homosexual groups have been using taxpayer money to distribute a large, slick hardcover book celebrating homosexual marriage titled “Courting Equality” into every school library in the state.

It’s become commonplace in Massachusetts schools for teachers to prominently display photos of their same-sex “spouses” and occasionally bring them to school functions. Both high schools in my own town now have principals who are “married” to their same-sex partners, whom they bring to school and introduce to the students.

“Gay days” in schools are considered necessary to fight “intolerance” which may exist against same-sex relationships. Hundreds of high schools and even middle schools across the state now hold “gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender appreciation days”. They “celebrate” homosexual marriage and move forward to other behaviors such as cross-dressing and transsexuality. In my own town, a school committee member recently announced that combating “homophobia” is now a top priority.

Once homosexuality has been normalized, all boundaries will come down. The schools are already moving on to normalizing transgenderism (including cross-dressing and sex changes). The state-funded Commission on Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender Youth includes leaders who are transsexuals.

Public health
The Commissioner of the Massachusetts Department of Public Health is “married” to another man. In 2007 he told a crowd of kids at a state-sponsored youth event that it’s “wonderful being gay” and he wants to make sure there’s enough HIV testing available for all of them.

Since homosexual marriage became “legal” the rates of HIV / AIDS have gone up considerably in Massachusetts. This year public funding to deal with HIV/AIDS has risen by $500,000.

Citing “the right to marry” as one of the “important challenges” in a place where “it’s a great time to be gay”, the Massachusetts Department of Public Health helped produce The Little Black Book, Queer in the 21st Century, a hideous work of obscene pornography which was given to kids at Brookline High School on April 30, 2005. Among other things, it gives “tips” to boys on how to perform oral sex on other males, masturbate other males, and how to “safely” have someone urinate on you for sexual pleasure. It also included a directory of bars in Boston where young men meet for anonymous sex.

Domestic violence
Given the extreme dysfunctional nature of homosexual relationships, the Massachusetts Legislature has felt the need to spend more money every year to deal with skyrocketing homosexual domestic violence. This year $350,000 was budgeted, up $100,000 from last year.

Business
All insurance in Massachusetts must now recognize same-sex “married” couples in their coverage. This includes auto insurance, health insurance, life insurance, etc.

Businesses must recognize same-sex “married” couples in all their benefits, activities, etc., regarding both employees and customers.

The wedding industry is required serve the homosexual community if requested. Wedding photographers, halls, caterers, etc., must do same-sex marriages or be arrested for discrimination.

Businesses are often “tested” for tolerance by homosexual activists. Groups of homosexual activists often go into restaurants or bars and publicly kiss and fondle each other to test whether the establishment demonstrates sufficient “equality” — now that homosexual marriage is “legal”. In fact, more and more overt displays of homosexual affection are seen in public places across the state to reinforce "marriage equality".

Legal profession
The Massachusetts Bar Exam now tests lawyers on their knowledge of same-sex "marriage" issues. In 2007, a Boston man, Stephen Dunne, failed the Massachusetts bar exam because he refused to answer the questions in it about homosexual marriage.

Issues regarding homosexual “families” are now firmly entrenched in the Massachusetts legal system. In many firms, lawyers in Massachusetts practicing family law must now attend seminars on homosexual "marriage". There are also now several homosexual judges overseeing the Massachusetts family courts.

Adoption of children to homosexual “married” couples
Homosexual “married” couples can now demand to be able to adopt children the same as normal couples. Catholic Charities decided to abandon handling adoptions rather submit to regulations requiring them to allow homosexuals to adopt the children in their care.

In 2006 the Massachusetts Department of Social Services (DSS) honored two men “married” to each other as their “Parents of the Year”. The men already adopted a baby through DSS (against the wishes of the baby’s birth parents). According to news reports, the day after that adoption was final DSS approached the men about adopting a second child. Homosexuals now appear to be put in line for adopting children ahead of heterosexual parents by state agencies in Massachusetts.

Government mandates
In 2004, Governor Mitt Romney ordered Justices of the Peace to perform homosexual marriages when requested or be fired. At least one Justice of the Peace decided to resign.

Also thanks to Gov. Romney, marriage licenses in Massachusetts now have “Party A and Party B” instead of “husband and wife.” Romney did not have a legal requirement to do this; he did it on his own. (See more on this below.)

Since homosexual relationships are now officially “normal”, the Legislature now gives enormous tax money to homosexual activist groups. In particular, the Massachusetts Commission on Gay Lesbian Bisexual and Transgender Youth is made up of the most radical and militant homosexual groups which target children in the schools. This year they are getting $700,000 of taxpayer money to go into the public schools.

In 2008 Massachusetts changed the state Medicare laws to include homosexual “married” couples in the coverage.

The public square
Since gay “marriage”, annual gay pride parades have become more prominent. There are more politicians and corporations participating, and even police organizations take part. And the envelope gets pushed further and further. There is now a profane “Dyke March” through downtown Boston, and recently a “transgender” parade in Northampton that included bare-chested women who have had their breasts surgically removed so they could “become” men. Governor Patrick even marched with his “out lesbian” 17-year old daughter in the 2008 Boston Pride event, right behind a “leather” group brandishing a black & blue flag, whips and chains!

The media
Boston media, particularly the Boston Globe newspaper, regularly does feature stories and news stories portraying homosexual “married” couples where regular married couples would normally be used. It’s “equal”, they insist, so there must be no difference in the coverage. Also, the newspaper advice columns now deal with homosexual "marriage" issues, and how to properly accept it.

A growing number of news reporters and TV anchors are openly “married” homosexuals who march in the “gay pride” parades.

Is gay marriage actually legal in Massachusetts?
Like everywhere else in America, the imposition of same-sex marriage on the people of Massachusetts was a combination of radical, arrogant judges and pitifully cowardly politicians.

The Goodridge ruling resulted in a complete cave-in by politicians of both parties on this issue. Same-sex “marriage” is still illegal in Massachusetts. On November 18, 2003 the court merely ruled that it was unconstitutional not to allow it, and gave the Legislature six months to “take such action as it may deem appropriate.” Note that the Massachusetts Constitution strongly denies courts the power to make or change laws, or from ordering the other branches to take any action. The constitution effectively bans “judicial review” – a court changing or nullifying a law. Thus, the court did not order anything to happen; it simply rendered an opinion on that specific case. And the Legislature did nothing. The marriage statutes were never changed. However, against the advice of many, Gov. Romney took it upon himself to alter the state's marriage licenses to say "Party A and Party B" and order officials to perform same-sex "weddings" if asked, though he had no legal obligation to do so. Technically, same-sex marriages are still illegal in Massachusetts.

Nevertheless, we are having to live with it. And furthermore, this abdication of their proper constitutional roles by the Legislature and Governor has caused a domino effect as "copycat" rulings have been issued in California and Connecticut, with other states fearful it will happen there.

In conclusion
Homosexual “marriage” hangs over society like a hammer with the force of law. And it’s only just begun.

It’s pretty clear that the homosexual movement’s obsession with marriage is not because large numbers of them actually want to marry each other. Research shows that homosexual relationships are fundamentally dysfunctional on many levels, and “marriage” as we know it isn’t something they can achieve, or even desire. (In fact, over the last three months, the Sunday Boston Globe’s marriage section hasn’t had any photos of homosexual marriages. In the beginning it was full of them.) This is about putting the legal stamp of approval on homosexuality and imposing it with force throughout the various social and political institutions of a society that would never accept it otherwise. To the rest of America: You've been forewarned.

HT: Mass Resistance

Welcome News for Biblical Marriage!

AFM Welcomes Viva La Familia of CA as the Newest Voice for Latinos on Marriage

California’s Latino community was empowered to protect marriage today in the nation’s most populous state by a new advocacy group that is launching a statewide media blitz over Spanish-language media. The ads feature a Latino superstar urging Latinos to vote “Yes” on Prop 8. The Latino leadership of Viva La Familia will urge Latino voters to support Proposition 8.




The Alliance for Marriage Foundation – the coalition that blazed the path to bring America’s Latino community to the forefront in support of marriage -- welcomes Viva La Familia to the historic battle to protect the future of marriage for our children and grandchildren.

The formation of Viva La Familia is particularly important in California, because any move to protect marriage and advance the interest of families in California – and across the country -- must include the massive and fast-growing Latino community.

“The white Christian evangelic movement needs to understand that they can’t win this battle alone,” said Rev. Samuel Rodriguez, a board member of Viva La Familia, and President of the Sacramento-based National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference. “They simply don’t have the sheer numbers necessary to win.”

The movement to protect marriage is often characterized in the media as a project of the conservative Christian subculture. “The Viva La Familia ad campaign is an effort to build the numbers necessary to win,” added Rodriguez.

Mexican movie star Eduardo Verastegui is featured in the ad campaign launched statewide, which encourages Latinos to vote “Yes” on Proposition 8, a measure on the November ballot that would amend the state constitution to define marriage as one man and one woman. The ads will air on Spanish-language radio and appear in print.

Verastegui, who is prominently featured in the ads, is best known in America as the leading actor and producer of the award-winning movie “Bella.” But he has deep “pop-culture” roots in the Latino community, having starred in several hit “soap operas” on Televisa and even named one of 50 Most Beautiful People by People En Español. He’s been called by the some “the Brad Pitt of Latin America.”

Viva La Familia, an advocacy organization that includes Latino leaders such as Rev. Samuel Rodriguez, Jr., Dr. Jessie Miranda, and Gilbert Montelongo, was formed to reach out to the Latino community in California on public policy issues of marriage and family.

The Alliance for Marriage Foundation has been at the forefront of the battle to protect marriage all across America. In California, the Alliance sponsors Californians for Marriage, Yes on Proposition 8, an organization that helped to qualify the marriage protection initiative for the California ballot. In Denver, the Alliance for Marriage Foundation recently organized a rally for over 5,000 Latinos working together with the Archdiocese of Denver.

Thank you 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 - Alliance for Marriage

YES Prop 8 Signs Stolen

So, you don't really think that the homosexual activists who are pushing gay "marriage" upon us here in California aren't out to silence Christians, conservatives, and traditional marriage advocates?

The evidence OF THIS FACT is already clear:

Was your Proposition 8 sign stolen?

There are reports from all across the state of voters' Yes on Proposition 8 signs being stolen or vandalized. If you are the victim of this intolerance and bigotry, please send the following information to LaTanya Wright: Name, Address, Zip and Phone Number.

We will make sure your sign is replaced as soon as possible. Email LaTanya at: ltgwright@gmail.com.

300 signs supporting Proposition 8 stolen from Chino Hills church

There was a sign on a neighbor's lawn on my block which was displayed in support of the VOTE YES ON PROPOSITION 8 ballot measure. Two days later, it was stolen!

See? The silencing of those who disagree with homosexual activists is happening already!

Don't let what has happened in Massachusetts happen in California!

VOTE YES ON PROPOSITION 8 ON ELECTION DAY - NOVEMBER 8, 2008!!!

How Ironic Is This?

Same-sex marriage advocates in Florida, Arizona, and California may face their toughest opponents in the wave of new, minority voters set to hit the polls next month.


Initiatives on those states’ Nov. 4 ballots would define marriage as being between one man and one woman, thereby prohibiting same-sex marriage.


Gay-rights supporters worry not only that Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama has pledged to oppose such efforts but also that his candidacy will bring out record numbers of blacks and Hispanics to vote for him. Those two groups vote mostly for Democratic candidates but often are cultural and religious conservatives who tend to oppose same-sex unions.


About 6 percent of California voters are black, and 15 percent are Hispanic.


“It’s a Catch-22,” Andrea Shorter, campaign director of California’s gay and civil rights coalition And Marriage for All, told The New York Times.

Continue reading:

Obama Voters May Scuttle Same-Sex Marriage Efforts

HT: NewsMax

"Fine Line" Event

My blogging friend Carlotta - over at Christocentric - has done a great job of providing some details about the "Fine Line" event which was simulcast to hundreds of churches and seen live on the Internet via iProtectMarriage.com.

Here is a link to her post. Lots of great comments there, too.

The following comment is still awaiting moderation. But I wanted to bring it over here because I think that it brings home the point about true salvation verses following false prophets (which Jesus warned us would happen the closer we get to the last days).

The book of Jude contains similar warnings. It's placement - just before the book of Revelation - shows how important proper discernment will be (is!) in our day.

My comment (below) was in response to a blogger named Andrew. Here is what he wrote:

One could say that there are two fundamental components to the kingdom of God - salvation (I am forgiven and am going to heaven) and then sanctification (I am becoming more and more like Christ). It starts with salvation, and salvation here is salvation from the penalty of sins. But before one can be saved, a person has to come to the realization that they are a sinner and need saving.

Jesus said, “Go and learn what this means: ‘I want mercy and not sacrifice,’ because I did not come to call righteous people, but sinners.” If by calling homosexuality a sin will help but a single soul to realize their need for a savior and cause them to repent and turn to Christ for forgiveness and salvation all the effort and criticism should be worth it. “In the same way, I tell you that there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous people who don’t need to repent.”

Saving marriages in this world is indeed important but saving souls for heaven is most important. “For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage”.

My response:

You have made some really good points, Andrew.

I think that we now need to ask people who call themselves Christians, whether or not they have been born again. Jesus told us in Scripture, “you must be born again.” It is NOT an option. It is not a “denominational” difference. It is a fact.

The liberal side never seems to want to talk about repentance. Why is that? They also don’t like talking about the cross of Christ.

When Jesus walked the earth, he began his ministry by proclaiming, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is near.”

What you wrote regarding the joy of celebration (both in heaven and on earth) when even just one sinner being called to repent is born again in Christ as a result of their repentance, goes to show how important both repentance and being born again in Jesus really is! They go hand in hand. Can’t have one without the other.

I agree that the sanctification process takes time -perhaps our entire lifetime and beyond. A person who has truly given their life over to the Lordship of Jesus Christ is a changed life. It is no longer the bondage of the flesh that rules them. They are set free in Jesus Christ. Their desire is towards holiness and righteousness. No one (on this side of heaven) ever completely “arrives,” but Scripture tells us “by their fruits you shall know them.”

A telltale sign of true repentance, salvation, and agape love for Jesus is our obedience to him and His Word. Jesus did tell us, “if you love me, keep my commandments.”