If you don't want to miss anything posted on the Americans For Truth website, sign up for our "Feedblitz" service that gives you a daily email of every new article that we post. (This service DOES NOT replace the regular email list.) To sign up for the Feedblitz service, click here.
C-SPAN helped homosexual Episcopal Bishop of New Hampshire Vicky Gene Robinson — he was named such because his parents wanted a girl — plead his heretical case to America by airing his speech twice on Christmas Eve night. In the speech, Robinson discussed his plan to enter into a “civil union” with his homosexual lover, saying he always wanted to be a “June bride.” The bishop claimed (against all evidence in Scripture) that the Holy Spirit is involved in the crusade for more open homosexuals like him in the clergy. Write C-SPAN CEO Brian Lamb (viewer@c-span.org) or call him (202-737-3220) to protest this holiday programming choice that was deeply offensive to Bible-believing Christians. Urge C-SPAN to balance Robinson’s lecture by covering a presentation by evangelical Dr. Michael Brown in Charlotte, North Carolina next month titled, “Can you be gay and Christian?” Photo by C-SPAN.
By Peter LaBarbera
TAKE ACTION: Write (viewer@c-span.org) or call C-SPAN (202-737-3220) CEO Brian Lamb today or tomorrow to object to their airing of a speech by a controversial homosexual-clergy activist and Episcopal Bishop of New Hampshire, Vicky Gene Robinson, twice on Christmas Eve. Politely urge C-SPAN to compensate for this offensive, pro-homosexual coverage by sending their cameras to cover evangelical apologist Dr. Michael Brown and his upcoming conference, “Can you be gay and Christian?” to be held Feb. 11-15 in Charlotte, N.C.
________________________
I’m wondering why C-SPAN chose to re-air a long speech by homosexual activist and Episcopal Bishop Vicky Gene Robinson on Christmas Eve, one of the most sacred days on the Christian calendar. In his speech Nov. 27 at Nova Southeastern University in Ft. Lauderdale, “How Morality Plays a Role in Legal Rights, Especially for the Gay Community,” which had already been aired on Dec. 8, Robinson claimed that the Holy Spirit was involved in the crusade for homosexual “inclusion” in the clergy.
First things first: did you know that the infamously “gay” bishop’s first name is “Vicky” (as you can see above, C-SPAN only put “Gene Robinson” on the screen). Apparently his parents really wanted a girl and — when they doubted their sickly newborn would even live — they named him accordingly: Vicky Imogene (middle name after the mother) Robinson. In 2003, the Concord Monitor reported matter-of-factly (as only the agnostic media can) on the birth of the baby who would become Episcopal “Rev. V. Gene Robinson” as follows:
Robinson was born in Lexington, Ky., in 1947, in a delivery that went so wrong the doctor told his father he needed a name for the baby’s birth and death certificates. Charles and Imogene Robinson had counted on a girl, so Robinson’s father named the baby Vicky Imogene Robinson.
Now, common sense dictates that if you do not want your boy to struggle with masculinity or gender issues, perhaps it is not a good idea to name him “Vicky,” or Susan, or Linda. In this BBC video interview, Robinson calls his father’s decision to give him a girl’s name “a terrible thing to do to a boy child.”
Homosexual “conservative” pundit Andrew Sullivan wrote sympathetically aboug “gay” male couples’ ‘understanding of the need for extramarital [sexual] outlets” and suggested such “honesty” and “flexibility” could “undoubtedly help strengthen and inform many heterosexual bonds.”
____________________________
Emphasis in bold is added to all quotations below:
‘Extramarital Outlets’ and Homosexual ‘Monogamy’
“The mutual nurturing and sexual expressiveness of many lesbian relationships, the solidity and space of many adult gay male relationships, are qualities sometimes lacking in more rote, heterosexual couplings.”
–Andrew Sullivan, Virtually Normal: An Argument about Homosexuality, p. 202, (1995)
“Some of this is unavailable to the male-female union: there is more likely to be greater understanding of the need for extramarital outlets between two men than between a man and a woman; and again, the lack of children gives gay couples greater freedom. Their failures entail fewer consequences for others. But something of the gay’s relationship’s necessary honesty, its flexibility, and its equality could undoubtedly help strengthen and inform many heterosexual bonds.”
–Andrew Sullivan, Virtually Normal, pp. 202-03.
Radically Alter an ‘Archaic Institution’
“A middle ground might be to fight for same-sex marriage and its benefits and then, once granted, redefine the institution of marriage completely, to demand the right to marry not as a way of adhering to society’s moral codes but rather to debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution.”
–Michelangelo Signorile, “Bridal Wave,” OUT magazine, December/January 1994, p. 161.
Ending Marriage’s ‘Sexist Trappings’
“[E]nlarging the [marital] concept to embrace same-sex couples would necessarily transform it into something new….Extending the right to marry to gay people — that is, abolishing the traditional gender requirements of marriage — can be one of the means, perhaps the principal one, through which the institution divests itself of the sexist trappings of the past.”
–the late homosexual activist Tom Stoddard, quoted in Roberta Achtenberg, et al, “Approaching 2000: Meeting the Challenges to San Francisco’s Families,” The Final Report of the Mayor’s Task Force on Family Policy, City and County of San Francisco, June 13, 1990, p.1.
Transform the Definition of Family
“[Legalizing “same-sex marriage”] is also a chance to wholly transform the definition of family in American culture. It is the final tool with which to dismantle all sodomy statutes, get education about homosexuality and AIDS into public schools, and, in short, usher in a sea change in how society views and treats us.”
–Michelangelo Signorile, “I Do, I Do, I Do, I Do, I Do,” OUT magazine, May 1996, p. 30.
‘Being Queer Means Transforming the Very Fabric of Society’
“Being queer is more than setting up house, sleeping with a person of the same gender, and seeking state approval for doing so. … Being queer means pushing the parameters of sex, sexuality, and family, and in the process, transforming the very fabric of society. … As a lesbian, I am fundamentally different from non-lesbian women. …In arguing for the right to legal marriage, lesbians and gay men would be forced to claim that we are just like heterosexual couples, have the same goals and purposes, and vow to structure our lives similarly. … We must keep our eyes on the goals of providing true alternatives to marriage and of radically reordering society’s view of reality.”
–Paula Ettelbrick, “Since When Is Marriage a Path to Liberation?” in William Rubenstein, ed., Lesbians, Gay Men and the Law (New York: The New Press, 1993), pp. 401-405.
New Gay Model:Monogamy Not Essential for Marriage
“Gay life, like black culture, might even provide models and materials for rethinking family life and improving family law. I will now chart some ways in which this might be so — in particular drawing on the distinctive experience and ideals of gay male couples.
“Take sex. Traditionally, a commitment to monogamy — to the extent that it was not simply an adjunct of property law, a vehicle for guaranteeing property rights and succession — was the chief mode of sacrifice imposed upon or adopted by married couples as a means of showing their sacred valuing of their relation. But gay men have realized that while couples may choose to restrict sexual activity in order to show their love for each other, it is not necessary for this purpose; there are many other ways to manifest and ritualize commitment. And so monogamy (it appears) is not an essential component of love and marriage. The authors of “The Male Couple” found that:
[T]he majority of [gay male] couples, and all of the couples together for longer than five years, were not continuously sexually exclusive with each other. Although many had long periods of sexual exclusivity, it was not the ongoing expectation for most. We found that gay men expect mutual emotional dependability with their partners [but also believe] that relationship fidelity transcends concerns about sexuality and exclusivity.
Both because marital sacrifices must be voluntary to be meaningful and because sexual exclusivity is not essential to marital commitment, the law should not impose monogamy on married couples. And indeed, half the states have decriminalized adultery.
–Homosexual academic Richard D. Mohr, The Case for Gay Marriage, 9 NOTRE DAME J.L. ETHICS & PUB. POLICY 215, 233 (1995)
Churches: Homophobic, Antiquated Backwaters
“We can undermine the moral authority of homophobic churches by portraying them as antiquated backwaters, badly out of step with the times and with the latest findings in psychology. Against the mighty pull of institutional religion, one must set up the mightier draw of science and public opinion…. Such an unholy alliance has worked well against churches before, on such topics as divorce and abortion.”
–Marshall K. Kirk and Erastes Pill, “The Overhauling of Straight America,” homosexual magazine The Guide, November 1987.
Make Anti-Gays Look Nasty
“We intend to make the anti-gays look so nasty that average Americans will want to disassociate themselves from such types.”
–Marshall K. Kirk and Erastes Pill, “The Overhauling of Straight America,” The Guide (homosexual) magazine, November 1987.
I was greatly encouraged by the many letters AFTAH received responding to 14-year-old “Joe,” who wrote via our website explaining that he is a gay atheist who hates Americans For Truth. I will be passing on all the notes to Joe, and publishing a few, including this from suburban Chicago writer Laurie Higgins (emphasis added)–Peter L.: _________________________________________________________________________
Dear Joe,
What you have said, what you feel, and what you think break my heart. All reveal the deception that our culture has taught our children. Mr. LaBarbera doesn’t hate you or homosexuals. And even though I firmly believe that homosexual conduct is not moral, I do not hate you either.
I no more hate you than I hate those who engage in other behaviors that I consider immoral, and those would include me, my husband, and my children. Every single human who has ever lived, save one, engages in immoral behavior. Our task is figuring out what constitutes moral and immoral behavior. You have appropriated one philosophical perspective on what determines right and wrong: you believe that if a behavior doesn’t directly harm another person physically, then it’s moral. But some of the greatest thinkers who have ever lived define morality differently. Defining morality as you have would permit adult consensual incest, lying, selfishness, polyamory, and apotemnophilia.
Neither Mr. LaBarbera nor I believe that homosexuals choose the feelings they have anymore than those who are attracted to adolescents or children or their siblings choose their powerful attractions, or those married men who are attracted to other women choose those attractions, or those who are powerfully drawn toward gambling or alcohol or drugs choose those attractions. We do believe, however, that those who experience same-sex attraction choose how they will respond to their desires, just as I choose how to respond to my selfish, or greedy, or angry, or lustful desires. Some in society tell you that acting on same-sex impulses is legitimate and good. They have lied to you, and it is a cruel lie.
You ask why someone would care about the sexual practices of others. I care that others are teaching children lies. I care that others are teaching kids that homosexual conduct is morally equivalent to heterosexual conduct when it’s not. I care because that lie carries devastating emotional, psychological, physical, and spiritual consequences. I care because I care about truth and its impact on the lives of individuals and on society.
Joe, homosexuals do have the full complement of civil rights. They even have marital rights. Every homosexual can get married; they simply can’t redefine marriage. They can’t eliminate the criterion of complementarity, just as those who “love” children cannot eliminate the minimum age criterion, and those who love relatives cannot eliminate the consanguinity requirement, and those who love multiple partners cannot eliminate the binary requirement. The fact that homosexuals cannot redefine the institution does not mean the institution is unavailable to them.
As to your comment that homosexuals can think logically: You’re absolutely right, Joe; you were created in the image and likeness of God, and, therefore, you possess the gift of reason. It is not just religious traditions that inform us that homosexual conduct is wrong. Natural law tells us that. You are heterosexual, Joe. All humans are. Species cannot procreate homosexually. Our bodies are not designed for homosexual sex. They are exquisitely designed for heterosex. Desires do not define identity. And the male sex drive is so powerful, it can be misdirected to a whole host of inappropriate objects and activities. Don’t allow the unbidden presence of desires, impulses, or attractions define who you are. None of us should.
Please, do not dismiss arguments that emerge from religious tradition. Speaking as one who deeply values logic, evidence, and intellectual argument, I can attest that Christianity holds up intellectually. And remember, atheism too is based on faith. You are no more able to prove the non-existence of God than I am able to prove unequivocally God’s existence. But search out some “apologetics.” I would recommend the website of Ravi Zacharias. And read about the conversions of atheists like Mortimer Adler who was a famous University of Chicago philosopher, or British journalist Malcolm Muggeridge, or more recently the physicist Anthony Flew. And it’s not just the Christian Bible that teaches that homosexuality is wrong; the Old Testament does also, as does the Koran.
By the way, there are no scientific studies that prove that homosexuality is genetic. In fact, most scientists, even those who identify as gay and whose studies are most often cited, believe that at most, biology may play a part in desire, but that environmental influences are significant. In addition, the presence of biological influences tells us precisely nothing about morality.
Joe, there is freedom, truth, beauty, joy, and peace available to you. Seek them relentlessly, and know this, except for a very few fringe wackos, those who hold traditional beliefs do not hate you. On the contrary, they grieve for the lies you’ve been taught and desire nothing but that which is truly good for you.
If you would like to talk more, and your parents are agreeable to us talking, I would love nothing more. You can contact me through AFTAH.
The following is House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s (D-CA) speech to the homosexual activist group Human Rights Campaign, at HRC’s annual dinner in Washington, D.C., on October 6, 2007. Speaker Pelosi was awarded the 2007 National Equality Award by HRC, which is the largest homosexual activist group in the world. Under the video screen are some excerpts of Pelosi’s speech, taken from homosexual activist John Aravosis’ Americablog. Aravosis’ transcript is not wholly accurate; we will work on providing an exact transcript of the speech:
Excerpts from Pelosi speech at Human Rights Campaign (HRC) banquet:
“It is a special honor to receive this recognition from HRC and a personal joy to receive it from Jim Hormel.
“Thank you as well to Joe Solmonese for leading the way and defending the rights of the entire GLBT community. I will display this award with great pride so that everyone knows that HRC and all of you have a friend in the Speaker’s office. …
[Salute to HRC]
“Tonight, we join together in our nation’s capital to celebrate the accomplishments and the courage of the Human Rights Campaign.
“More than 700,000 voices strong, HRC is the prime mover for GLBT rights across America and an inspiration for millions more.
“When Jim Hormel and many other courageous Americans built the foundations of what would become HRC, our struggle for justice was in its early stages. But our cause for justice would not be denied.
“For being a powerful and positive counterbalance to the voices of hate – and for being the hope and salvation of millions of Americans – thank you, HRC.
[Condemns Federal Marriage Amendment]
“As we strive to work in a bipartisan way, we must also recognize the difference a Democratic Congress makes.
“In the previous Congress, we fought back cynical attempts to enshrine discrimination into the Constitution and defeated the Federal Marriage Amendment.
“In a Democratic Congress, unlike previous Congresses, malicious measures intended to divide the American people or to undermine the rights of the GLBT community are off the table.
…
“Instead, our Democratic Congress has a positive agenda.
[Transgender-Inclusive Hate Crimes Bill]
…
“This past May, the House passed Chairman John Conyers’ legislation protecting Americans against violence based on sexual orientation, race, religion, gender, national origin, disability, or gender identity.
“Some doubted that we could pass a hate crime bill if it included protections for transgender Americans.
“But [lesbian Democrat] Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin would not be denied.
“Representatives Baldwin and [homosexual Massachusetts Democrat] Barney Frank fought for a fully inclusive bill. HRC rallied support. And with 237 votes, the House passed hate crimes legislation.
“Just last week, the Senate followed suit with a strong bipartisan vote. Thank you, Harry Reid.
“After 15 long years, we will – for the first time – put this bipartisan hate crimes legislation on the President’s desk. …
[Wants Transgender-Inclusive ENDA]
“As members and supporters of HRC, you understand that it is truly historic that the House of Representatives will soon pass the Employment Non-Discrimination Act.
“The tremendous progress we have would not have been possible without the great leadership of Chairman Barney Frank of Massachusetts [D]. With his brilliance, his wit and legislative skill, he persevered in bringing ENDA before the Congress.
“America is a great and wealthy country, but we cannot afford to squander the talents of any of our citizens, nor should we.
“We all benefit if everyone gets a chance to work hard, and support their families.
“Yet today, in more than 30 states you can be fired for being gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender.
“That is wrong. Federal action is needed, and it is long overdue.
“I strongly believe that transgender individuals deserve the same rights and the same protections as any other Americans and will work to see that ENDA also protects their rights.
“In a few weeks, the House will be voting on ENDA. And those who oppose us will be lobbying on the Hill and working to defeat any version of ENDA. We cannot allow the forces of discrimination succeed.
“Barney Frank, Tammy Baldwin and others will do the inside maneuvering. But we cannot succeed without outside mobilization. Working together, we will mobilize, and educate. Each and every one of us must take personal responsibility for passing the strongest possible ENDA – one vote at a time.
“History teaches us that progress on civil rights is never easy. But justice is inevitable. It’s about time.
“Many saw the 1957 Civil Rights Act as not having done enough, but it helped lay the groundwork for the great Civil Rights Act that followed.
“On the occasion of receiving the HRC Equality Award, I give you my commitment as Speaker of the House that I will fight for the most inclusive ENDA possible so that our nation’s laws are in harmony with our nation’s ideals.
[Praises San Francisco’s ‘Tolerance’]
“I accept this honor tonight on behalf of the many members of Congress who stand with HRC, not because it is popular in their districts, but because it is right.
“I also accept this award on behalf of my constituents in San Francisco.
“People always say it is easy for me to take these votes and be for these issues because San Francisco is so tolerant.
“It is not about tolerance. It is about the respect we have for each other. It is about the pride we take in our community.
“That sentiment is now spreading across America. And it is happening thanks to the work of the Human Rights Campaign – and each and every one of you. …
“May God Bless you, and May God Bless the America.”
The item at bottom was sent out Nov. 18 as a part of Family Research Council President Tony Perkins’ “Washington Update.” We agree with the sentiments, with a caveat regarding this line: “…force the state back into a bitter debate that many believed was solved by the legislature earlier this year.” This apparently refers to the New Jersey legislature’s 2006 vote for homosexual “civil unions,” which was signed into law by Gov. John Corzine (D) last December and went into effect in February.
We are sure that by using the word “solved” Mr. Perkins does not mean to condone “civil unions” — which is merely “same-sex marriage” by another name. However, it is unfortunately the case that a significant minority of “conservatives,” including pro-life and pro-family advocates, now see “civil unions” as a way out of the homosexual “marriage” mess.
The gap between traditional marriage (i.e., normalcy) and “civil unions” is far wider than that between “civil unions” and “same-sex marriage” — a strategic reality of which the more savvy homosexual activists are well aware (even as the Gay Whining Machine complains about a lack of marital “equality”).
In fact, New Jersey’s “civil unions” law recognizes out-of-state “gay marriages.” It “seeks to give gay couples the same rights in the state as married couples,” reports the USA Today. How much clearer can you get than that on the effect of this “compromise”?
Larry Cirignano (right) in courtroom with Michael Gilleran, the attorney who helped him beat bogus charges by ACLU activist Sarah Loy that he assaulted her after she disupted his pro-marriage rally. Click HERE for more on the case, and HERE to read about a Worcester, Mass. reporter who helped smear Cirignano but who refuses to recant his discredited story. For MassResistance’s comprehensive account of Cirignano’s trial and Sarah Loy’s fraud, click HERE.
By Larry Cirignano
This week we celebrate All Saints Day and All Souls Day. The Catholic Church venerates saints as role models for all of us to emulate, and to encourage us to strive to defend our faith and principles as they did, despite each of them being a sinner.
In early American history, back in 1597, five Franciscan friars were martyred, in what is now Georgia, for standing up against polygamy and defending marriage.
In early church history St John the Baptist, St John Fisher and St Thomas More were all beheaded for standing up for marriage.
If we are going to continue as a society, we need to stand up for marriage as these brave saints did, by promoting families raising children, and by protecting our children as our most precious resource.
The family is an essential building block for society. Families are the first protectors of children as the first providers of food, shelter, health care and education. The home is the domestic church and serves as the first hospital, school and restaurant that most kids will know.
From my good friend Robert Knight, director of the Culture & Media Institute, a division of the Media Research Center that examines how media bias undermines faith and traditional American values–PL:
Most liberal media outlets reacted in similar fashion to Tuesday’s major Maryland Court of Appeals ruling, which upholds the state’s law defining marriage as one man-one woman. They presented it through the lavender lens of homosexual activism.
CBS News’ Web site ran this headline: Maryland Court Upholds Gay Marriage Ban
Calling the law a “gay marriage ban” is as misleading as describing it as a “ban on polygamous marriage,” or a “ban on incestuous marriage” or perhaps a “ban on interspecies marriage.” For the record, the Court in Conaway vs. Deane notes that neither the 1973 law nor the legislative debate at the time address “sexual orientation” nor any “gay” issue. All the law does is reiterate the fundamental nature of marriage for legal purposes.
To liberal journalists, however, a law merely acknowledging the timeless definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman is unacceptable. Such a law must be depicted only as a negative, as a ban rather than an affirmation.
The CBS article itself was straightforward at the top, but devolved into passages like this:
Many of the plaintiffs have children, and they argue that their families are being denied the stability and legal protection that comes from having married parents.
Lisa Kebreau, 39, and her partner, Mikki Mozelle, 31, who live in Riverdale, have three children – ages 17, 2 and 20 months.
“We really wanted them to understand how normal and good their family is – that their family is just like any other family,” Kebreau said.
CBS quoted no pro-marriage spokesman in response who might have argued that kids deserve to have both a mother and a father. The story also did not explain the court’s key finding that “sexual orientation” is not a civil rights class such as sex, race and ethnicity.
The Baltimore Sun ran this headline: Court Upholds Md. Gay Marriage Ban
The story, a cardinal example of advocacy journalism, was devoted to homosexual activists and liberal jurists complaining about the ruling or vowing to create “gay marriage” by other means. Not a single pro-marriage spokesperson was quoted.
The Washington Post’s article gave a more balanced account, but spent most of its ink criticizing the decision and discussing how to circumvent it. The opening sentence reflects the Post’s bias, describing Maryland’s marriage law as “the state’s ban on gay marriage” and “the controversial law.”
In fact, the marriage law is not controversial, at least outside homosexual activist and liberal media circles. All 50 states have laws defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman (even Massachusetts, which still has no business issuing same-sex marriage licenses without a change in the law).
What is controversial is Baltimore Circuit Court Judge M. Brooke Murdock’s nutso January ruling striking the law down. Murdock wrote that the law violates a state constitutional provision guaranteeing equal rights. By her reasoning, any specific definition of a relationship or status could violate the rights of somebody who does not qualify. Perhaps we should all be considered “doctors,” not just those folks who graduated from medical school.
How utterly tragic is this pronouncement by one of the world’s leading marriage advocates — who should know better than to go out on limb on the homosexual issue, apparently in solidarity with his homosexual friends and associates. (Click HERE to read Princeton professor Robbie George’s review of Blankenhorn’s latest book, The Future of Marriage, in National Review.)
On what basis and authority does Blankenhorn make this astounding claim about homosexuality? He is part of a growing trend of prominent “conservatives” (a label which Blankenhorn rejects) and self-professed Christians who have decided that they disagree with what the Bible says about homosexuality.
At least Blankenhorn is honest enough to state openly that he disagrees with the Word of God — most people at his level are not, preferring to play a double-game of proclaiming their fealty to Biblical truth, reason and tradition while actually undermining them all. On page 210 of The Future of Marriage, Blankenhorn writes:
“I am a Christian, I take the Bible seriously, and I know what the Bible says about homosexuality. I disagree with the Bible on this point. Or if you’ll permit me, I believe that Jesus’ teachings are inconsistent with the idea that today in the United States we should judge people as blameworthy just for being gay or lesbian.”
That puts Blankenhorn’s latest statements on homosexual “love” in perspective. Let’s hope and pray that he returns to truth on this issue, and that his friend Jonathan Rausch leaves homosexuality behind.
C-SPAN helped homosexual Episcopal Bishop of New Hampshire Vicky Gene Robinson — he was named such because his parents wanted a girl — plead his heretical case to America by airing his speech twice on Christmas Eve night. In the speech, Robinson discussed his plan to enter into a “civil union” with his homosexual lover, saying he always wanted to be a “June bride.” The bishop claimed (against all evidence in Scripture) that the Holy Spirit is involved in the crusade for more open homosexuals like him in the clergy. Write C-SPAN CEO Brian Lamb (viewer@c-span.org) or call him (202-737-3220) to protest this holiday programming choice that was deeply offensive to Bible-believing Christians. Urge C-SPAN to balance Robinson’s lecture by covering a presentation by evangelical Dr. Michael Brown in Charlotte, North Carolina next month titled, “Can you be gay and Christian?” Photo by C-SPAN.
Homosexual “conservative” pundit Andrew Sullivan wrote sympathetically aboug “gay” male couples’ ‘understanding of the need for extramarital [sexual] outlets” and suggested such “honesty” and “flexibility” could “undoubtedly help strengthen and inform many heterosexual bonds.”
Larry Cirignano (right) in courtroom with Michael Gilleran, the attorney who helped him beat bogus charges by ACLU activist Sarah Loy that he assaulted her after she disupted his pro-marriage rally. Click 
Author David Blankenhorn
