Friday, May 29, 2009

New Federal Lawsuit Challenging Prop 8

As you may have heard, immediately after our victory in the California Supreme Court upholding Proposition 8, a new lawsuit – this time in federal court – was filed claiming that Prop 8 violates the U.S. Constitution. While the case is based on highly questionable grounds (there is no federal right to same-sex marriage under the U.S. Constitution), it does benefit from two high-powered attorneys: Ted Olson and David Boies. Olson is a Republican and former lawyer for George Bush; Boies is a Democrat and former lawyer for Al Gore.  We are treating this case seriously. 

In order to make sure that Prop 8 and the will of the people is fully defended, we are immediately filing a motion to intervene in the litigation, just as we did in the California Supreme Court.  Without our intervention, the entire legal defense of Prop 8 in the federal court will fall upon the California Attorney General, a troubling prospect since he has stated firmly that he believes that Prop 8 is unconstitutional and should be invalidated. We are optimistic that the federal court will allow us to intervene and provide a legal defense for Prop 8.  An initial hearing in this case will be held in July.

We will keep you informed as this dangerous case unfolds.  If you wish to contribute to the legal defense of Prop 8, please donate here to the Prop 8 Legal Defense Fund.  Your gift is tax deductible as allowed by law.  Thank you for your loyal and continued support for traditional marriage.


Andy Pugno
General Counsel,

Redoubling Our Commitment to Defend Marriage

On Tuesday – less than three months after Kenneth W. Starr and I appeared in the California Supreme Court on behalf of our Campaign to defend Prop 8 – the Court finally issued its decision… all 185 pages of it!

By a 6 to 1 vote, a nearly-unanimous majority of the Supreme Court upheld the vote of the people by which Prop 8 was passed into law to protect traditional marriage in our State Constitution.  You canread the decision here as it appears on the Court’s website.

While there were no real surprises in the decision, and it looks very much like we anticipated after seeing how the Court was leaning at the March hearing, I wanted to take a moment to share a few important thoughts with you:

First, it is important to pause and fully appreciate the enormous odds we overcame in this case.  We, the people, were up against all the major national gay rights organizations, the State Attorney General, numerous cities and counties, labor unions, law professors, legislators, corporations with deep pockets --- basically the entire political establishment ---- as well as literally hundreds of lawyers working hard to overturn Prop 8.  Under those conditions it is even more amazing that we ultimately prevailed in winning this case to uphold the will of the voters.  We have much to be thankful for.

Second, the Court’s decision to continue recognizing those same-sex couples who obtained marriage licenses prior to the passage of Prop 8 should be kept in perspective.  Remember that a large number of the marriage licenses issued to same-sex couples were for out-of-state residents travelling to California --- which will not be recognized anyway in the vast majority of their home states.  Moreover, if California goes as Massachusetts did after legalizing gay marriage, a substantial portion of the still-recognized gay marriages will be dissolved by divorce within a few years.  In the end, only a tiny number of gay marriages will continue to be recognized.  What really matters is that the vast majority of what was at stake in this case --- the right of the voters to amend the state constitution to restore traditional marriage going forward --- ultimately proved to be a complete victory for us!

Last, even as we celebrated our victory for the more than 7 million voters who approved Prop 8 at the polls, our opponents were already announcing today their intention to bring another measure to reverse Prop 8 in a future election, and to conduct a grassroots campaign in the mean time to change the hearts and minds of California voters to favor gay marriage.  Also, we just learned that another challenge (this time in federal court) has been filed against Prop 8.  In other words, although today was a major victory of epic proportions, the war is not over.  We must remain committed to defending traditional marriage on every front. 

Thank you again for everything you have done to help us protect marriage in California.  This great decision upholding the will of the voters should be encouragement to us all, to stay in the fight and redouble our commitment to defend marriage. 


Andy Pugno
Chief Legal Counsel

California Supreme Court Upholds Proposition 8!

Our hard work has paid off – the California Supreme Court just upheld Proposition 8! Marriage in California has been validated by our highest Court as being only between a man and a woman. Our prayers have been answered!

We owe a great debt of gratitude to you and our army of supporters. Without your help, this victory could not have been possible. You gave generously of your time and resources, and this victory is yours!

We also owe a great debt of gratitude to our outstanding attorneys who worked tirelessly preparing our briefs and argument before the California Supreme Court. Kenneth W. Starr and Andrew Pugno were our lead attorneys, and organized a strong contingent of attorneys who worked with them behind the scenes. They did a masterful job.

The Court’s decision is very long and complex. We will be analyzing it throughout the day and reacting publicly via a press conference at noon and likely dozens of interviews thereafter.  Andrew Pugno will be writing a detailed analysis of the opinion, which we will get to you as soon as possible.

Now we must turn our attention to protecting this victory. We can expect angry protests by homosexual activists, just as they protested the people’s vote last November. Take heart that this activity actually backfires for them. Support for gay marriage has declined since the election, and support for traditional marriage increased, partly because of the protests the gay community has launched.

Still, we must move forward into a new phase of this battle. Our opponents have vowed to qualify a new measure to the 2010 ballot to overturn Prop 8. is moving forward with efforts to fund education and outreach to citizens on the importance of traditional marriage. We begin this effort from scratch and must raise several million dollars to get our message out.

Your contributions sustained us during this long, hard fight to win approval of Proposition 8. We’re in a new phase now and ask for your continued support. Please click here to make a contribution to the Action Fund to preserve our Prop 8 victory.

Again, thank you for your work. You’ve won a great victory!


Ron Prentice, Chairman

Church of Scotland abandons Bible - allows gay pastor

LONDON - The Church of Scotland has approved the appointment of an openly homosexual minister - the latest case of tensions over sexuality to prompt division in the Anglican Communion.


The church's ruling body voted Saturday by 326 to 267 to support the appointment of the Rev. Scott Rennie, 37, who was previously married to a woman and is now in a relationship with a man.


Rennie was first appointed as a minister 10 years ago, but has faced opposition from some critics since he moved to a church in Aberdeen, Scotland, last year.


The case threatens to divide Scottish religious leaders and follows tensions within the worldwide 77 million-member Anglican Communion. About 900 elders and ministers took part in a debate on Rennie's case, but many chose to abstain from casting a vote.


Anglicans have conducted lengthy debate over sexuality issues since the Episcopal Church - the Anglican body in the U.S. - consecrated the first openly gay bishop, V. Gene Robinson of New Hampshire in 2003.


Rennie said he believed religious conservatives were behind attempts to oust him from his post. "The same talk was about when women were ordained and I think that argument suits those that don't want any change," he told Britain's Sky News television on Saturday.


Following the vote to back Rennie, Scotland's Equality and Human Rights Commission said the Church of Scotland had proven itself to be "a modern church for a modern Scotland."


Protesters had lobbied the Kirk - the Church of Scotland's ruling executive - over Rennie's case, saying his appointment was not consistent with the teachings of the Bible.


"We are absolutely opposed to that on the basis of what God has to say about homosexuality in the Bible," one opponent, Pastor Jack Bell of the Zion Baptist Church in Glasgow, Scotland, said.

Saturday, May 16, 2009

When conscience is criminalized

Usually May is the time of the year when students are fitted for the cap and gown, count their credits, pay their school bill and plan the parties. With a firm handshake and a costly piece of paper, they will start their lives in the real world.
That won't be true for Julea Ward, who used to be a graduate student at Eastern Michigan University until she was kicked out for her religious beliefs.


Ms. Ward was enrolled in a graduate program at the school and as part of her education was required to enroll in a counseling practicum. In that practicum, she was assigned a case involving a homosexual who needed help. Ms. Ward did not feel that she could affirm the student's homosexual lifestyle because of her Christian beliefs, so she asked her supervisor what she should do. His advice was to refer the student to a counselor who had no qualms with affirming homosexual behavior. That is what she did, and it was all done before she saw the student. There was no counseling that took place between the two, there was no confrontation between the two, and there was no condemnation of homosexuality -- just an honest confession of her deeply held religious belief. But the story doesn't end there.
Julea was summoned to appear before a disciplinary hearing and told that if she wanted to continue on with her graduate program, she would have to submit to a "remediation" program so that she could see "the error of her ways." She refused to be forced into a re-education program designed to convert her from biblical faith, and as a result, she was kicked out of school. There's your tolerance.
Now, remember, Julea didn't demand that the student be denied help, she didn't get in his face and tell him he's condemned to hell, she didn't even roll her eyes and give a general impression of disgust. She simply told the truth, obeyed what her supervisor told her to do, and carried on with her life.
Does it scare you that the people overseeing her program weren't content with the fact that she acted properly and with integrity? Does is scare you that they wanted her to change not just her actions, but her religious beliefs?
If you have a child in a publicly funded college or university, this should make all kinds of alarms go off in your head. Any parent who takes their faith life seriously, no matter what brand, should be very concerned.
Publicly funded colleges and universities, and even private schools, used to pride themselves on being open forums, encouraging diversity of beliefs and philosophies. They still think that is what they are, but the truth is becoming clear: they are open to some ideas, as long as they are not from an evangelical Christian worldview, and as long as you don't practice what you preach.
Now the government is getting into the act of criminalizing your Christian conscience. Two pieces of legislation heading for Congress are sure to be used to turn what used to be religious principles into a crime. The administration is moving to repeal the "conscience clause" that protects healthcare workers from performing procedures that violate their beliefs, and protects faith-based healthcare facilities (think Catholic hospitals) from being sued for not performing abortions and the like. If the conscience clause is overturned, following your faith-informed conscience will no longer be constitutionally protected, and may well become a criminal act.
The second piece of legislation that attacks Christian faith is the so-called "hate speech" rule (H.R. 1913 / S. 909). Under this proposed law, cloaked in the guise of "protection," it is possible to see courts prosecuting any people of faith from speaking out against homosexuality, abortion, fetal stem-cell experimentation, and a host of other issues not deemed politically correct.
Maybe we need to change our national motto from "In God We Trust" to "Trust in God at Your Own Peril."

Why Do Christians Worship God? Part I

by Phil Weingart

In the world of Christian apologetics, the question “Why do Christians worship God,” comes up usually as a challenge from scornful atheists who view God as a narcissistic megalomaniac who demands attention to feed his weak ego. Of course, their idea is anthropomorphic (it assigns human characteristics to God) and therefore invalid. However, discounting the unwarranted scorn, it’s a fair question, and one that I’ve had difficulty answering in the past, other than to say “Because God says to do it.” So, I examined that part of my life a bit more carefully, and developed a more robust answer.

There are actually several reasons why we worship, all arising out of different parts of our relationship to God. Since our relationship to God changes as we mature, our reasons for worshiping change over time as well. The categories I’ve discovered are:

  • Natural worship, or the natural response to God as creator;
  • Instructional worship, or the required response to God as parent;
  • Battle worship, or the necessary response to God as liberator;
  • Intimate worship, or the voluntary response to God as intimate companion.

The first and last are natural responses of the individual, and are not commanded by God; the second and third are commanded by God, but for our benefit, not His.

Today I’m going to describe Natural Worship. I’ll follow up in the coming days with separate installments explaining what I mean by each of the other three terms.

Natural worship: the response to God as creator

A little after 3 PM on January 15, 2009, US Airways flight 1549 took off from Laguardia airport in New York only to fly through a flock of geese, rendering both engines mostly inoperable. Without enough lift to stay aloft in the wake of the freak incident, pilot Chesley Sullenberger turned the plane around, determined that he would not make it back to Laguardia, and after checking unsuccessfully for alternative runways on which to land, laid the plane gently onto the Hudson River in one piece, at a point within easy reach of three major docks. Because of his level-headedness, preparation, and flying skill, 155 people were rescued unharmed who could easily have been involved in a fatal crash. The nation responded by making “Sully” a hero for a few weeks, and properly so.

Why is it, do you suppose, that we all automatically praise excellent performance, as we did Captain Sullenberger’s? This is clearly a human characteristic, not a cultural trait; every culture on the planet has some form of recognition for jobs done well, as they count jobs done well, and for the people who do them. It’s so much a part of us that we never wonder about it. Of course we praise those who do well. Doesn’t everybody? This is as natural a part of being human as are eating and sleeping.

Every one of us has experienced the same feeling while looking at a sunset, or at a vista of enormous mountains, or at a storm on the horizon over the ocean. The power of nature is awesome, and the recognition of it is a common human theme, a stock topic for poetry and song. I submit to you that this is the same impulse as the impulse to praise those who have done well; we recognize what is excellent, and we respond by first feeling, then expressing its excellence. The only question is, whom or what are we praising?

Praising nature itself is like praising a remarkable feat itself without knowing who performed it. When we see something remarkable take place, we naturally want to know who, what, and why. While the feat is remarkable, it’s the person who performed it that deserves the praise. And by the same token, Scientific Materialists speak of praising the excellence of nature as an end in itself, but the Christian does them one better; the Materialist can feel awe at the creation, but the Christian feeling the same awe knows Whom to commend. It’s great to enjoy a work of inspired engineering; how much better, to enjoy close friendship with the Engineer?

I’ve been taught at various Christian meetings that praise is commanded, with reference to the Psalms, vis: “Praise God in His sanctuary! Praise Him in the power of His creation!” (Psalm 150) I think the ministers who teach this are misreading the Psalms. This is no more a command to praise than a dinner bell is a command to eat. This sort of praise is not commanded because it does not have to be. It’s a natural response. When one sees greatness, one praises it.

The only part of natural worship that requires anything approaching a command is the exhortation to notice. Allow me to illustrate: I find that I enjoy road trips, driving excursions that require me to drive on the interstate highways in the US, particularly on clear days when the traffic is not too heavy. I enjoy it because it’s an occasion where I get to view the horizon. During ordinary days when I’m not driving, my focus is on a computer screen, on my lawn, on cooking utensils, and so forth; it takes a special occasion, like a road trip, to force me to look at the horizon and remember the exquisite world I live in. In the same manner, the Psalmist encourages us to look up and notice; and once we notice, praise comes naturally.

What I’m calling “natural worship” progresses as the Christian gains maturity. It begins by recognition of nature, but as the Christian grows, his or her awareness of God’s acts grows as well, and praise naturally follows. Thus Christians with a little more experience will find themselves praising God because, for example, a check arrived in the mail at a moment when it was particularly needed. The natural response to good fortune (”sweet!”) converts into gratitude (”Thanks, Jesus”), and with gratitude comes recognition of God’s sovereignty (”God is amazing.”) And then, as the Christian matures even more and this sort of interaction becomes the norm, comes a sort of intimacy with God that I will discuss later in this series as intimate worship. Natural worship grows in proportion the Christian’s awareness of the work of God in his or her ordinary life; it never needs to be commanded.

It appears that this sort of praise is designed into us for the purpose of identifying and recognizing God. If that’s true, then atheists’ questions on the order of “If God exists, where is He?” are at least partially answered by nature.

We can infer from the design, from the natural impulse to praise and from the naturally-occurring objects that evoke praise, that God recognized that we humans would be plagued by what I call the “Fish Problem.” The “Fish Problem” arises when one considers how difficult it would be to explain to a fish in the ocean that there exists such a thing as an ocean. The fish has a problem understanding (suspending such obvious problems as language and intelligence, of course) not because it cannot see the ocean, but because it has never experienced anything but the ocean. There’s no background against which the ocean appears in the foreground. By the same token, humans cannot see God in our universe because there’s no part of the universe that is not an active, ongoing work of God. God is never the foreground in our universe because everywhere, God Himself is the background. It’s not that God is nature (that would be Pantheism,) nor is it that God started nature and then stepped away (that would be Deism,) but it’s more that God wearsnature, like a glove on His hand (this is an analogy; God is not a spatial being). Every event in nature that is not touched by human will is an act of God in some sense.

Thus, the literally correct answer to “Where is God?” is “Where isn’t God?” But because we have this foreground/background problem, God designed into us and into our world both the impulse to worship naturally, and the natural object of that worship; looking up, noticing, and offering praise to the creator of what we see is a natural response, as natural as eating or sleeping. So the correct answer to the atheist who asks “Where is God?” should be, “Look up and take notice,” because the atheist is someone who has somehow lost the natural ability to wonder at the immensity of nature and praise Whomever made it.

Why Evolutionary Theory is Wrong about Sex

Modern evolutionary theory is based upon the idea that human beings are “designed” (their term) to be promiscuous. The basic idea is that women have sex with multiple men until they find one with the best genes. And men have sex with various women until one chooses him to father her child. Men are seen as being driven by the desire to pass their genes on to the next generation, so they search out women who will give them the greatest opportunity for success.

A recent book by the founder of the Medical Institute for Sexual Health, Dr. Joe McIlhaney and his co-author Dr. Freda McKissic Bush, calls this theory into question. Their book Hooked: New Science on How Casual Sex is Affecting our Children shows that just the opposite is the case. Rather than being “designed” for promiscuity, human beings are actually designed to be sexually monogamous with one mate for life.

What lead them to this conclusion? The primary reason is the recent data that has come to light regarding the inner-workings of the brain. The authors conclude: “But now, with the aid of modern neuroscience and a wealth of research, it is evident that humans are the healthiest and happiest when they engage in sex only with the one who is their mate for a lifetime” (p. 136). So, what specifically has brain research revealed?

The most important sex organ is the brain. It is the most complex physical structure in the known universe. Despite common misperceptions, the brain is not fully mature until around age 25. Thus, our decisions, behavior, and thoughts actually form the physical structures of our brains as we develop. The brain is composed of neurons (the primary cell of the brain), support cells (that strengthen the neurons), synapses (which generate communication between neurons), and neurochemicals. Thus, premarital sex and activities such as viewing porn short-circuit the proper functioning of the brain, and can damage to proper human development.

For example, one of the key neurochemicals in males is vasopressin, known as the “monogamy molecule.” Vasopressin has two primary functions in relationships—bonding to the spouse and attachment to the offspring (p. 41). Vasopressin is the primary cause of bonding between a man and another woman of whom he is in close contact. It has been studied in prairie voles (small mammals that live in the grasslands of the Midwest and are amazingly monogamous). Studies have shown that when the flow of vasopressin is blocked, male voles did not bond to females with whom they were sexually active. However, when the brain is flooded with vasopressin, as is supposed to happen in mating, the male vole shows increased attention and attachment to the young (p. 42). Vasopressin is the neurochemical that generates bonding, attachment, and commitment between a male and his mate. Multiple sex partners (as well as pornography viewing) short circuits the proper release of vasopressin and leads to the inability to bond with one spouse. Those who have multiple sex partners, says Hooked, “risk damaging a vital, innate ability to develop the long-term emotional attachment that results from sex with the same person over and over” (43).

Rather than being “designed” by nature for promiscuity, it seems that the brain is actually intelligently designed for sexual monogamy. Hooked clearly demonstrates that the further individuals deviate from this behavior, the more problems they encounter, whether STDs, nonmarital pregnancy, and emotional problems including damaged ability to develop healthy connectedness with others, including future spouses.

Sex is not the accidental by-product of evolution that helps us pass on our genes to the next generation. It is the purposeful creation of a loving God who has set out the guidelines through which it is best experienced.

Chuck Colson on Breakpoint Audio: Religious Freedom and the Homosexual Agenda

Chuck Colson has recorded this audio on Breakpoint discussing religious freedom and the homosexual agenda. ADF is recommended along with other groups and resources near the end of the broadcast.

The mp3 runs just four minutes.

Lawsuit bashes back at ‘Bash Back’: Homosexuals who violated church sued for federal violations

WorldNetDaily: “The use of violent threats and criminal behavior to make a political point should never be acceptable in America,” said Gary McCaleb, ADF senior counsel. “Bash Back! revealed how dangerous the homosexual agenda is to our first liberty, religious freedom. ADF filed this suit to stop Bash Back! and other activist groups from invading churches, disrupting worship, silencing pastors, and terrifying adults and children who attend religious services.”

NH: Some Say Changes In Same-Sex Marriage Bill Won’t Be Enough “But in the civil marriage provision, there are no protections for officials or businesses that refuse to take part based on their personal or religious beliefs. Opposing lawmakers said it’s an example of legislation that was put on rush. ‘It’s certainly a flaw, and it’s something that came as a result of the last-minute nature of what came before the Senate, and then, last week, last-minute fixes,’ said Sen. Peter Bragdon, R-Milford. ‘Now, we have a last-minute thing to fix something else.’”

‘Harvey Milk Day’ exposes children in schools to ‘gay’ activist agenda, critics say

Baptist Press: “California lawmakers are discussing the possibility of setting aside May 22 each year as a ‘day of special significance’ honoring Harvey Milk, an openly homosexual San Francisco alderman whose murder in 1978 made him an icon of the ‘gay rights’ movement.”

Thursday, May 14, 2009

APA revises 'gay gene' theory

The attempt to prove that homosexuality is determined biologically has been dealt a knockout punch. An American Psychological Association publication includes an admission that there's no homosexual "gene" -- meaning it's not likely that homosexuals are born that way.


For decades, the APA has not considered homosexuality a psychological disorder, while other professionals in the field consider it to be a "gender-identity" problem. But the new statement, which appears in a brochure called "Answers to Your Questions for a Better Understanding of Sexual Orientation & Homosexuality," states the following:

"There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles...."

That contrasts with the APA's statement in 1998: "There is considerable recent evidence to suggest that biology, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a significant role in a person's sexuality."
Peter LaBarbera, who heads Americans for Truth About Homosexuality, believes the more recent statement is an important admission because it undermines a popular theory.
"People need to understand that the 'gay gene' theory has been one of the biggest propaganda boons of the homosexual movement over the last 10 [or] 15 years," he points out. "Studies show that if people think that people are born homosexual they're much less likely to resist the gay agenda."
Matt Barber with Liberty Counsel feels the pronouncement may have something to do with saving face. "Well, I think here the American Psychological Association is finally trying to restore some credibility that they've lost over the years by having become a clearly political organization as opposed to an objective, scientific organization," he states. (Hear audio report)
With the new information from the APA, Barber wonders if the organization will admit that homosexuals who want to change can change.
"It's irrefutable from a medical standpoint that people can leave the homosexual lifestyle," he argues. "Homosexuality is defined by behavior. Untold thousands of people have found freedom from that lifestyle through either reparative therapy or through -- frankly, most effectively -- a relationship with Jesus Christ."
LaBarbera agrees. "Change through Christ is possible -- and it's one of the most heartwarming aspects of the whole gay debate," he shares. "Many men and women have come out of homosexuality, mostly through a relationship with Jesus Christ. The fact that these professional organizations will not study that, will not acknowledge that, shows how 'in the tank' they are for the homosexual movement."
LaBarbera stresses that even though elites will not recognize the change, that does not mean the change does not exist. In fact, both Barber and LaBarbera believe that God changes people through Christ -- regardless of the sin.

NY State Assembly approves marriage redefinition; fate rests with Senate

NY Daily News: “The state Assembly gave its approval to same-sex marriage Tuesday night but the issue’s fate in New York remains uncertain.”

Reuters: “The measure, introduced last month by Governor David Paterson, passed by a margin of 89 to 52 in the state’s lower house, where Democrats have a comfortable majority.”

NY Times: “Conservative religious organizations were mobilizing as well. In the hours leading up to the Assembly vote, lobbyists for New Yorkers for Constitutional Freedoms and the Alliance Defense Fund, an Arizona-based group that has sued the state for recognizing same-sex marriages performed elsewhere, were holding meetings with lawmakers.”

Roll call and text of the bill: A07732

This opposing measure is pending in the Assembly: A03000   Makes a marriage absolutely void if contracted by two persons of the same sex.

ADF files suit against radical group that invaded Mich. church

Group that openly advocates ‘riots,’ ‘crime,’ ‘insurrection’ targeted church for its views

EAST LANSING, Mich. Alliance Defense Fund attorneys filed suit in federal court Wednesday against a radical anarchist group that openly advocates the use of riots and crime to further its views in favor of homosexual behavior.  ADF attorneys filed the suit on behalf of Delta Township’s Mount Hope Church against the group “Bash Back!,” which invaded the church’s building during a worship service on Nov. 9 of last year.

“The use of violent threats and criminal behavior to make a political point should never be acceptable in America,” said ADF Senior Counsel Gary McCaleb.  “Bash Back! revealed how dangerous the homosexual agenda is to our First Liberty, religious freedom.  ADF filed this suit to stop Bash Back! and other activist groups from invading churches, disrupting worship, silencing pastors, and terrifying adults and children who attend religious services.”

The Bash Back! Web site, which features a banner photo of members dressed in terrorist-like garb and wielding various objects as weapons, states on one page of the site that the group’s activities include “Riots, Sex Work, Crime, Insurrection, you know the fun stuff we do.”  The Lansing chapter of the group targeted Mount Hope Church because of the church’s well-known Christian views on marriage and homosexual behavior.  Through another page of its Web site, the group covertly recruited participants for its plans on Nov. 9, seeking some who would be willing to maintain “a more ‘militant’-looking presence out side [sic] of the building.”

“I can tell you that we are targeting a well-known anti-queer, anti-choice radical right wing establishment,” the page said.  “However, we cant [sic] give you really any detailed information due to the cop who’s [sic] ridiculous job it is to do surveillance over this blog….  ‘ONLY ONE DIRECTION!  TRANS AND QUEER INSURRECTION!’  - Bash Back! Lansing”

On Nov. 9, members of the group dressed in militant garb staged a protest outside the church during a worship service to distract security personnel, blocking access to the building and parking lot at various times.  Other members of the group dressed in plain clothes then deceptively entered the building.  At a coordinated time, they sprang up to disrupt the service, terrifying many attendees.  The group shouted religious slurs, unfurled a sign, and threw fliers around the sanctuary while two women began kissing near the podium.  The group pulled fire alarms as they ran out of the building.  After the incident, the group bragged about its activities on its Web site and, on a separate page, explained its choice of Mount Hope:  “This church is nothing short of a disease in the community, and in the minds of those who attend.”

Federal law imposes penalties upon anyone who “by force or threat of force or by physical obstruction, intentionally injures, intimidates or interferes with or attempts to injure, intimidate or interfere with any person lawfully exercising or seeking to exercise the First Amendment right of religious freedom at a place of religious worship.”


  • Sample of images from Bash Back!  (WARNING: Content may be considered highly offensive)
  • Complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan in Mount Hope Church v. Bash Back!

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.

Tuesday, May 12, 2009

Democrats not expected to allow vote on the D.C. recognition of same-sex marriage

Move would make homosexual marriage bill law without members of Congress having to vote

The District of Columbia Council has voted 12-1 to recognize homosexual "marriages" from states where homosexual marriage is now legal - Massachusetts, Iowa, Vermont and Connecticut.

The bill now goes to the U.S. House and U.S. Senate for their approval. If approved by both, it will then go to the president for his signature. If Congress does not act on the bill by June 6, it automatically becomes law.

It appears that Democrats will not allow a vote on the bill. By doing this, they will keep their members from having to go on record as being for or against recognition of homosexual marriage. All Democratic members of Congress can then go back to their districts and tell their constituents that they would have voted against the bill if they had been allowed to vote.

Take Action - Time is Short

Take Action!

1. Send an E-mail your representative and two senators today and tell them you want a recorded vote on the D.C. homosexual marriage bill. Tell them if no vote is allowed, then it is clear the Democratic Party is promoting homosexual marriage despite President Obama's public announcement that he is opposed to homosexual marriage.
2. After you have sent your e-mail, make a phone call to your representative and senators to tell them that you want a recorded vote. The number to call is 202-224-3121.
3. Please forward this to all your friends and family!
 Time is short so please act today!

Sunday, May 10, 2009

Gay marriage effort stalls in heavily Catholic RI

Gay marriage could soon become the law of the land across New England--except in Rhode Island. Last week Maine became the fourth state in New England to legalize same-sex marriage, and New Hampshire's governor is deciding whether to sign similar legislation. Vermont lawmakers established gay marriage last month, following a path already set by Massachusetts and Connecticut.


The pace remains slower in Rhode Island, the nation's most heavily Roman Catholic state. Gay marriage bills have been introduced in the Statehouse for a decade, but none have advanced. State courts also seem unlikely to legalize gay marriage. A court refused in 2007 to grant a divorce to a lesbian couple married in Massachusetts.

School sued over lesbian lecturer

The Pacific Justice Institute is suing a California school district after students were addressed by a lesbian pastor.


Brad Dacus, founder of the Pacific Justice Institute, tells OneNewsNow a lesbian minister visited Castro Valley High School and gave a presentation called "Out for Good." The parents found out about the incident after the fact.
"A lesbian minister was invited to guest lecture for math and science classes," he explains. "At that time, she shared her personal views on homosexuality, including a discussion of her lesbian wedding, the homosexual prom, and other such events and things that many parents were very concerned about once they heard this had taken place."
Parents requested information on what her teaching entailed, and the high school and district refused to share the information.
"So we at the Pacific Justice Institute have filed a lawsuit against that school district on behalf of the parents to defend their rights under the Ppublic Records Act to have access to that information as to exactly what the teacher said, what did she do, and how the students responded," Dacus says.
Dacus also contends the district ought to develop a written policy to make sure parents are informed in advance so they can opt to have their children removed from the environment.

Motivated by "fear and hate"

As Californians wait for a decision from their Supreme Court upholding traditional marriage’s definition in our Constitution (expected in the next couple of weeks), homosexual marriage activists are ramping up their rhetoric to portray anyone who voted for Proposition 8 as hateful bigots.  Yesterday, Equality California released an email that referred to us as being “motivated by fear and hate.”  The ostensible subject of the email was their push for the state of California to recognize Harvey Milk Day as a statewide “day of significance,” thereby commemorating Milk in public schools across the state.

Ironically, this same group of same-sex proponents fraudulently argued several months ago that public school curriculum would never  promote same-sex marriage!  Yet now they are pushing a bill that would require schools to hold ceremonies on campus to honor a man for his sexual identity. We don’t have to imagine what they would require if gay marriage was legal in California. Attorneys representing gay marriage in Massachusetts argued that parents should never have the right to shield their children from homosexual marriage curricula!

A couple of weeks ago, an official with the Human Rights Campaign said on a national television program that supporters of traditional marriage are “outright bigots” who can only prevail through “lying and misrepresenting the facts.”

You can see the strategy that is being used: anyone who disagrees with the aggressive homosexual agenda is a hateful bigot, and any argument against it is based on lies and misrepresentations. Worse still, the media never challenges this characterization by gay activists. 

But don’t lose heart!  When those who oppose you can provide nothing more than insults, you’re on the right track!  The reasons for the protection of traditional marriage come from sound public policy, and people of good will and clear conscience can stand tall for marriage and children. Forms New Educational and Advocacy Arms

As we’ve promised, has formed a 501(c)(3) organization called Educational Foundation. The foundation’s charter is to educate the public about the importance of maintaining the historic purpose and meaning of marriage. We will be working with faith communities, ethnic constituencies and citizens across California to advance a pro-marriage, pro-family discussion. We also have established a 501(c)(4) advocacy group, Action Fund, to promote pro-marriage positions in the Legislature and court of public opinion. 

We’re now in the process of finalizing our implementation plans for both groups. The challenge ahead is significant. We will be hiring staff and field organizers across the state. We will be conducting polling and focus groups to refine messages. We will be working with scholars and academic experts on the importance of marriage. And we will be recruiting volunteer leaders in communities across the state to work with us.

This new effort from Action Fund could not come at a better time. Equality California has just launched a new series of television ads promoting their idea of family. One ad features two gay men and their sons. Another features two lesbians and a teenaged daughter. The children don’t have a mom and a dad, but two “dads” or two “moms.” That is exactly what gay marriage does – it intentionally denies a child either a mother or a father.

Note the positioning here: supporters of traditional marriage are hateful and bigoted, and our opposition’s ads promote themselves as loving couples who are being denied their “rightful” desire to marry (by these hateful bigots).  

During the Prop 8 campaign, we never once allowed gay marriage advocates to go unchallenged when they stated, “Gay marriage is not about children.” To the contrary, marriage has everything to do with children! And we cannot allow the accusations and insults to go unanswered, as they could begin to have an impact on people. Action Fund and Educational Foundation will be the organizations that lead the defense of marriage in California. We need your help. Will you please make a contribution of $1,000, $500, $250 or $100 to the Action Fund to support our work? Of course, every dollar counts, and we will appreciate gifts of any size. We need to pay for polling and focus groups, hire staff and consultants and retain academic experts. Our opponents plan to hire 25 field organizers in the next few weeks and have already launched new television ads. We must implement our plan now! You can make a secure donation by clicking here. As a 501(c)(4), contributions to the Action Fund are not tax deductible, but contributions are protected from public disclosure.

Several news organizations reported today that our opponents are getting ready to take this issue to voters in 2010. The work that we do together now could make all the difference in whether the institution of marriage as we have known and loved it survives.  Please help us defend marriage by making a contribution today.

PepsiCo sponsors the 2009 New York City Gay Pride Parade

Desiring to take a high visibility position in the promotion of the homosexual agenda, including same-sex marriage, PepsiCo has agreed to sponsor the New York Gay Pride Parade June 27. AFA has asked PepsiCo to be neutral in the culture war regarding the homosexual agenda and the legalization of homosexual marriage, but PepsiCo has adamantly refused to do so.

PepsiCo has given homosexual groups more than a million dollars in the last two years. It has refused to give one penny to organizations such as Parents and Friends of Ex-Gay and Gays (PFOX) that work to help individuals change their sexual behavior.

Click here to see the kind of parade PepsiCo is sponsoring.

In addition to sponsoring the New York Gay Pride Parade, PepsiCo’s shareholders recently voted down a shareholder proposal seeking to make public how much money Pepsi is giving to homosexual groups. However, the proposal did gain 5% of the vote, surpassing the 3% needed to bring the resolution up again next year. All total, 75 million individual shares voted to make Pepsi justify their donations to activist homosexual groups.

Take Action!

• Sign the Boycott Pepsi Pledge. After signing the pledge, please call Pepsi (914-253-2000 or 1-800-433-2652) and tell the company you will boycott its products until it stops promoting the homosexual agenda. 
• Call the Pepsi bottler nearest you and ask it to stop supporting the homosexual agenda. 
• Pepsi’s products include Pepsi soft drinks, Frito-Lay chips and snacks (800-352-4477), Quaker Oats (800-367-6287), Tropicana (800-237-7799) and Gatorade (800-884-2867). 
• Print the Boycott Pepsi Pledge and distribute it. 
• Forward this e-mail to your friends and family so they will know about Pepsi’s support of the homosexual agenda. Millions of people are not aware of Pepsi’s support of homosexual organizations.


Wednesday, April 22, 2009

Beauty contestant chooses biblically correct over PC

The first runner-up for Miss USA tells Fox News Channel that she may have lost her chance at the crown because of her answer to a question about same-sex "marriage." However, she says she had to stand on biblical truth.


On Sunday, Miss California Carrie Prejean, 21, was asked by blogger Perez Hilton, an open homosexual and one of the pageant's judges, about her stance on same-sex marriage. Responding, Prejean said she personally believed marriage should be between a man and a woman.
Carrie Prejean (1st runner-up, Miss USA 2009)"We live in a land that you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite marriage. And you know what, in my country and in my family, I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman," she said. "No offense to anybody out there, but that's how I was raised. I think that it should be between a man and a woman." (See YouTube video)
Although Miss North Carolina, Kristen Dalton, won the title, Prejean has made the rounds of television news and talk shows, addressing the controversy that her answer may have cost her the Miss USA crown. Prior to the interview segment of the pageant, Prejean reportedly was the hands-down favorite to win.


Story continues below ...

Did Carrie Prejean do the right thing in defending traditional marriage,

even though it may have cost her the crown?

Vote in our poll

Appearing on Your World with Neal Cavuto on Tuesday, Prejean said she had "no regrets" about her answer.

Cavuto: "In this day and age, these kinds of views, we're told, are not politically correct -- [that] these are not the modern views." 

Prejean: "Right -- and that's the thing I really need to think about: am I trying to be politically correct, or do I want to be biblically correct? And I think that I want to be biblically correct. All I could think about when I was standing there, answering that question was, 'Carrie, what are your beliefs?'"

The pageant contestant says she knew afterwards that she was not going to win because of her answer because she "had spoken from my heart, for my beliefs, and for my God..."
Prejean has shared that she is praying for Perez Hilton and has no animosity toward him -- despite his profanity-laced rant against her that he posted on his website following the pageant.
"I can only say to him that I will be praying for him," she told the Today show on Tuesday morning. "I feel sorry for him, I really do. I think he's angry, I think he's hurt. Everybody is entitled to their own opinion. He asked me specifically what my opinion was on that subject, and I gave him an honest answer."
Prejean, a native of San Diego, is a junior at San Diego Christian College.

Tuesday, April 21, 2009

Monday, April 20, 2009

Thank You Miss California!

It seems that there is no place left where gay activists won’t attempt to force their agenda onto the rest of society. Same-sex marriage, of course, is at the top of their list.

Last night during the Miss USA contest, one of the contest judges, gay gossip blogger Perez Hilton, asked Miss California Carrie Prejean that since Vermont has now legalized gay marriage shouldn’t every state follow suit? Ms. Prejean had the courage to express her views and said, “Well, I think it’s great that Americans are able to choose one or the other. We live in a land where you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite marriage. And you know what, in my country, in my family, I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anybody out there, but that’s how I was raised and that’s how I think it should be between a man and a woman. Thank you very much.”

Ms. Prejean’s comments were cheered by the crowd, but a smattering of jeers could be heard in the background by a few who were incensed at her answer. According to, arguments broke out in the lobby of the theater, with one gay man shouting, "I think it's ridiculous that she got first runner-up. That is not the value of 95 percent of the people in this audience. Look around this audience and tell me how many gay men there are."  Is there an unwritten rule that Miss USA contestants must hold values in agreement with homosexual activists?

For his own part, Hilton immediately cut a video blog where he ripped Ms. Prejean, calling her a “stupid b***h” and referring to her in language so vile that it can’t even be hinted at by its first letter.

Ms. Prejean was named runner-up in the contest and today there was considerable discussion in the blogosphere about whether her answer might have cost her the title. Prejean told that she had “no regrets” and was happy with the answer she gave.

We’re very proud of Ms. Prejean for speaking her mind in support of traditional marriage. She represented the silent majority in America and expressed a point of view that over 7 million California voters also expressed just last November. In fact, in the history of this issue every single state that has voted on it has voted to affirm traditional marriage.

The outcry from some activists in the gay community over Ms. Prejean’s comments are indicative of how far they will go to force their same-sex marriage agenda on society. Miss California is vilified by Perez Hilton in a video blog for respectfully answering his question, and gay men are shouting against her in the theater lobby. Yet we are supposed to take homosexual leaders at face value that if same-sex marriage were legalized they would never force this teaching onto children in the schools.

Thank you, Miss California, for knowing the truth about marriage and standing up for it, even when you knew that your honest answer may hinder your chances for the crown of Miss USA. 


Ron Prentice
Chairman – Yes on 8

Saturday, April 18, 2009


By B. Miller

There is a huge misconception that those who oppose gay marriage and the “homosexual lifestyle” are nothing more than bigots and racist. This misconception has of course been planted not only by homosexuals but also by the extreme left (which includes much of the media such as CNN). I’m here to tell you that a majority of us who oppose homosexuality are in fact not racist in the least. 

I have always supported civil rights (even before I knew what “civil rights” were). Growing up and to this very day I have never seen race as an issue. I believe strongly that all people are created equal. The colour of a person’s skin does not define who they are; rather, they themselves determine the kind of person they will become. Every race has good people and bad people. The fact of the matter is that homosexuality does not even remotely have anything to do with race.

Homosexuals claim that those of us who do not support their cause are racists, bigots and any other word they can come up with to that would paint a person as a racist. What makes this so ironic is the fact that the gay population was so quick to blame African Americans for Prop 8’s passage. Here’s a prime example: 

“Geoffrey, a student at UCLA and regular Rod 2.0 reader, joined the massive protest outside the Temple of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Westwood. Geoffrey was called the n-word at least twice.

"It was like being at a klan rally except the klansmen were wearing Abercrombie polos and Birkenstocks. YOU NIGGER, one man shouted at men. If your people want to call me a FAGGOT, I will call you a nigger. Someone else said same thing to me on the next block near the and my friend were walking, he is also gay but Korean, and a young WeHo clone said after last night the niggers better not come to West Hollywood if they knew what was BEST for them."

Los Angeles resident and Rod 2.0 reader A. Ronald says he and his boyfriend, who are both black, were carrying NO ON PROP 8 signs and still subjected to racial abuse.

"Three older men accosted my friend and shouted, "Black people did this, I hope you people are happy!" A young lesbian couple with mohawks and Obama buttons joined the shouting and said there were "very disappointed with black people" and "how could we" after the Obama victory. This was stupid for them to single us out because we were carrying those blue NO ON PROP 8 signs! I pointed that out and the one of the older men said it didn't matter because "most black people hated gays" and he was "wrong" to think we had compassion. That was the most insulting thing I had ever heard. I guess he never thought we were gay."

Keep in mind that the above people were in fact gay... yet these mobs who have been violently hounding people and attacking churches, the very same people who preach tolerance have turned out to be the most intolerant of all. Wow… what a surprise.


Friday, April 17, 2009

Students stand up against gay movement

Originally Posted on Apr 16, 2009 | by Michael Foust

NASHVILLE, Tenn. (BP)--"Gay rights" may be on the march nationwide, but thousands of Christian students from coast to coast will express a counter-cultural message in the coming days regarding homosexuality.

On Friday, students will participate in the second-annual Golden Rule Pledge, and on Monday in the fifth-annual Day of Truth. The separate events, sponsored by conservative Christian organizers, were established to give students an option to the Day of Silence, a yearly event backed by the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN) that is promoted as an anti-bullying event but is seen by many as supporting the entire homosexual agenda and giving a one-sided view of the debate over homosexuality.

This year's Day of Silence will take place on Friday, and GLSEN claims that hundreds of thousands of students from more than 8,000 schools participated last year. As part of the Day of Silence -- which was launched nationally in 1997 -- students take some form of a vow of silence to draw attention to bullying and name-calling toward homosexual students. The idea may sound innocent, but the group behind it is not, critics say. GLSEN is one of the nation's leading organizations attempting to get homosexuality-friendly curriculum in classrooms, including "age-appropriate" information for kindergarteners. GLSEN also is the supporter of gay-straight alliances in schools nationwide.

As part of Monday's Day of Truth students will pass out cards during non-class time with a message, which says in part, "It's time for an honest conversation about homosexuality. There's freedom to change if you want to." Participants in Friday's Golden Rule Pledge will hand out cards saying, "This is what I am going to do. I pledge to treat others the way I want to be treated. 'Do to others as you would have them do to you' (Luke 6:31.)" Although the Golden Rule Pledge may appear non-controversial, the mere fact that a student would refuse to take part in the Day of Silence could be counter-cultural in some schools.

The cards are significant because Day of Silence participants pass out cards, too.

Alan Chambers, president of Exodus International -- a Day of Truth sponsor -- said the Day of Silence leads to a slanted discussion about homosexuality. That problem is compounded when faculty and staff participate, which is common. Exodus International is a Christian ministry that, according to its website, promotes "freedom from homosexuality through the power of Jesus Christ."

"I think the Day of Truth is really important, and certainly increasingly so, because students are being bombarded from every side on the issue of homosexuality," Chambers told Baptist Press. "And, seemingly the only voices that are allowed or respected in the public school system are those from a pro-gay side. It's important for everyone to have a voice on this issue and for every opinion to be expressed. If one side is going to be expressed, then the other should be as well."

Bob Stith, the Southern Baptist Convention's national strategist for gender issues, has endorsed the Golden Rule Pledge but encourages participation in the Day of Truth, too. The Golden Rule Pledge was launched partly in reaction to calls on the part of some pro-family groups to pull their children out of school during the Day of Silence. The pledge gives Christian students a way to be involved in something on that particular day, being that the Day of Truth always is held on the next school day following the Day of Silence.

"Apart from God sending a sovereign move of revival -- I don't see this issue of homosexuality going away anytime soon, so we've really got to prepare our kids for the world in which they find themselves," he told BP.

For years, Stith has called the issue of homosexuality the "watershed issue" for the modern-day evangelical church. With "gay marriage" being legalized and pushed at a rapid pace, he believes the issue is more important now than ever, particularly regarding religious freedom and the impact of the Gospel.

"If you disagree with homosexuality you're called a bigot, you're anti-homosexual, you're homophobic," he said. "... Consequently, what it does to the culture at large when they hear that, it tends to cause them to dismiss the Christian voice altogether. It's affecting our ability to speak evangelistically to the culture."

Parents, Chambers said, should not assume that their school is not participating in the Day of Silence. "It's unbelievable how widely supported it is," he said.

In some instances, Christian students who speak up have been punished. In perhaps the most famous case, Chase Harper, sophomore in 2004 at Poway (Calif.) High School, protested his school's involvement in the Day of Silence by wearing a T-shirt that on the front read, "Be Ashamed, Our School Embraced What God Has Condemned," and on the back read, "Homosexuality Is Shameful, Romans 1:27." He was pulled out of class and told not to wear a similar shirt again. The Christian legal firm Alliance Defense Fund launched the Day of Truth the very next year, and more than 13,000 students since have participated. ADF and Exodus are co-sponsoring it this year, and ADF offers free legal representation to students who are not allowed to participate in the Day of Truth.

But the Day of Silence is not just being promoted in California, said Alliance Defense Fund attorney David Cortman.

"It's not limited to any geographic region," he said. " ... We've seen where teachers actively promote the Day of Silence, where they permit the distribution of Day of Silence flyers in homeroom class, where they actively participate in the Day of Silence. And at the same time and in the same schools, when the students attempt to participate in the Day of Truth, they have been censored."

But if a school allows one event to take place, Cortman said, then it must allow the other one, too.

For Chambers, the Day of Truth is personal. He struggled with and overcame unwanted homosexual attractions as a teenager and young adult. He is now married, and he and his wife and have two children.

"Many people don't know that change is possible or that there's any alternative out there for people," he said. "... There was a time when I was trying to fit that with my life, trying to marry my homosexuality and my Christianity and trying to see if I could be a good gay Christian. It didn't work."


Michael Foust is an assistant editor of Baptist Press. For information about the Day of Truth, visit For information about the Golden Rule Pledge, visit For information about Exodus International, visit

Original Source: