Mr. Swank says it well:

…The divine revelation is eternal ethic and thereby will not condone homosexual practice. Those running counter to this revelation will answer to God’s wrath in this life and at death at the Judgment Seat of Christ.

TAKE ACTION — You may send a note of support to Ron Warren, who rightfully recommends removing Bradley Schmeling from his position of authority.

——————————

Excerpted from Homosexual Lutheran Pastor Charged, by Grant Swank, published Jan 20, 2007, by The Conservative Voice:

The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America concluded at its 2005 conclave that sex was to be practiced within marriage. Also, such sex was not open to homosexual lifestyles. All this is because the Bible ethic is against sex outside of marriage and prohibits homosexual activities.

Bradley Schmeling, pastor, St. John’s ECLA, Atlanta, makes known that he is homosexual and now has a partner. The congregation agrees that he should continue as minister. In fact, the parishioners had a party celebrating his formal announcement of partnership with a “lifelong companion.”

Bishop Ronald Warren, Southeastern Synod, told Schmeling to resign. Schmeling said he would not resign. “Disciplinary proceedings against him for violating church rules barring sex outside of marriage” have begun. That means Schmeling confronts a hearing composed of a dozen ELCA members deciding his fate…

If the committee concludes him to be defrocked, he would no longer be “recognized as an ordained minister in the ELCA,” per AP. If the congregation still calls him their spiritual leader, the church then could be disciplined…

Throughout the divine revelation right and wrong are set forth by God Himself. Consequently, for those espousing homosexual lifestyles as divinely blessed is to expose their biblical ignorance and theological liberalism, the latter basically given to writing one’s own religion.

Other denominations dealing with this matter include the Presbyterian Church, United Methodist Church, American Baptist Convention and segments within the Mennonite framework. Denominations which accept homosexuality as ethically legitimate include the Unitarian Society, United Church of Christ (Congregational), and the Episcopal Church of America.

Continue reading at The Conservative Voice…

The New York Times is clearly embracing this position in the culture war, using their packages of newsprint and ink multiplied by the millions to boldly state that marriage requires no gender distinctions; to reject the supremacy of the natural combination of male and female strengths in marriage; and to thumb its nose at apparently quaint notions of God’s judgment and sacred scriptures as if they were yesterday’s bird-cage liners.

— From Announcing Equality, read All the Sin That’s Fit to Print, by Brent Bozell, published Aug 30, 2002, by Townhall

Excerpted from Many U.S. Newspapers Print Gay Unions Announcements, published Jan 17, 2007, by the pro-homosexuality EDGE Boston:

Almost 60 percent of all daily U.S. newspapers now accept wedding and commitment ceremony announcements for gay and lesbian couples.

The number of papers running such announcements–883–represents a 584 percent increase since it was first measured in 2002, when only 129 newspapers said they would print such announcements.

The Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation announced the figures Jan. 16 in relaunching and expanding its Announcing Equality campaign…

As part of the expansion of the Announcing Equality campaign, GLAAD is urging local GLBT community members and their friends and families to reach out to newspapers that currently reject or do not accept wedding announcements for gay and lesbian couples.

Only a small handful of major metropolitan newspapers do not yet have inclusive announcement policies, among them: Kansas City Star, Fort Worth Star Telegram, Virginian-Pilot, Omaha World Herald, Oklahoman, and Richmond Times-Dispatch.

GLAAD is also expanding the scope of the Announcing Equality campaign to encompass other kinds of announcements, from birth announcements and baptisms to anniversaries and graduations, as well as other forms of media. Community members are now encouraged to announce their celebrations and share their stories in office newsletters, union periodicals, church bulletins and other publications.

Continue reading at EDGE Boston…

Excerpted from After Breathing Madison’s Air Too Long, City Council Has Endorsed Oath Breaking Because It Doesn’t Like the Definition of Marriage, by Rick Eisenberg, published Jan 17, 2007, by Constitutionally Correct (a resource of Alliance Defense Fund):

They did it – and by a landslide. The Madison City Council voted overwhelmingly to allow city officials to take a special oath of office…

By a vote of 14-4, the Madison city alders (as one local blogger calls them) voted to allow those assuming office to add to the official oath a statement that they took it under protest and promise to “work to eliminate [the state’s marriage amendment]” and work to prevent any discriminatory impact from its applications.

Continue reading at Constitutionally Correct…

According to the Wisconsin State Journal article cited above, the following aldermen sponsored the “special oath”: Alds. Brian Benford, 12th District: Ken Golden, 10th District; Judy Olson, 6th District; Robbie Webber, 5th District; Austin King, 8th District; Brenda Konkel, 2nd District; Mike Verveer, 4th District; Zach Brandon, 7th District; and Mayor Dave Cieslewicz.

Voting against the addition (upholding their oaths of office and respecting the 59% of Wisconsin residents who voted in favor of the marriage amendment) were Alds. Cindy Thomas, 20th District; Jed Sanborn, 1st District; Judy Compton, 16th District; and Noel Radomski, 19th District.

In the words of a university blogger:

You gotta love Howard Schweber. He says exactly what I expect him to in regards to this ridiculous proposal. Madison wants to allow office-holders to basically say they aren’t really going to uphold the constitution when they take their oath of office because of the gay marriage ban…

There’s something entirely disingenuous about swearing to uphold the Constitution of the United States and Wisconsin…except for that one part. And that one, I don’t really like that one either.

And:

…Only a few alders seem to understand what upholding the constitution means, what their oath of office entails. Most other alders displayed a complete lack of knowledge about even basic things, like the difference between state and federal constitutions, their role as elected officials, and the role of an oath. Although I shouldn’t be surprised, I’m still incredibly disappointed.

The other thing I noticed tonight was the incredibly disrespect and open resentment towards Cindy Thomas. It is one thing to disagree with what she says, but to smirk and make snide remarks while she addresses the council is completely out of line. Kudos to her for putting up with it for all these years, and still having the courage to speak up.

UPDATE — Also see Newsday story published Feb 25, 2007.

Excerpted from Millions At Stake In Gay Adult Adoption Case, published Jan 15, 2007, by the pro-homosexuality 365Gay:

…In 1991 Olive F. Watson used [a Maine adult adoption] law to adopt her partner of 14 years, Patricia A. Spado. Even though the couple lived in Connecticut Watson owned a summer home in Maine.

Watson was the daughter of former IBM executive Thomas J. Watson Jr., who was the CEO of the company from 1956 to 1971…

When Watson adopted Spado there were no same-sex partnership agreements in the country and Watson believed it would provide Spado with security if anything happened to her.

But a year later the couple broke up.

When Thomas Watson’s widow died in 2004 his fortune went into a trust and her 18 grandchildren became eligible to receive income from two trusts until they turned 35, at which time they would receive the principal outright.

Several months later a lawyer representing Spado notified the trust that there was a 19th grandchild, Spado, and that she also was entitled to a share of the trust.

Continue reading at 365Gay…

A press release from Christian Civic League of Maine, published Jan 9, 2007:

Before the 2006 elections, Maine’s foremost civil and religious rights group, the Christian Civic League of Maine, filed suit in federal court to allow the League to run a grass-roots lobbying ad, urging Maine’s two Senators to vote for the federal marriage amendment. The suit was necessary because the League was prohibited by a law sponsored in Congress by Senator Olympia Snowe which prohibited citizens groups from running broadcast ads before an election which mention the name of a federal candidate.

The suit was ultimately dismissed by a federal court and is now on appeal to the United States Supreme Court.

However, this same law has now been declared unconstitutional by another federal court. In a case brought by Wisconsin Right to Life, a federal court has declared that Snowe’s law is unconstitutional as applied to grass- roots lobbying. The League’s attorney, James Bopp, Jr., is quoted in the Kennebec Journal saying that the ruling is a vindication for the League.

The League also defended free speech in the early 1990s. “Gay” activists wanted to keep their issue from being voted on. The result of that two year long legal ordeal was a strong affirmation of the League’s position. The judge even forced the state to pay the League’s legal fees.

Friends, we have a relentless opponent. Are you as tenacious as they are?

Excerpted from Same-Sex ‘Marriage’ Bill Re-Introduced in California Legislature, by Gudrun Schultz, published Dec 5, 2006, by LifeSite News:

Bill nearly identical to legislation Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed in 2005

The new California legislature reintroduced a measure to permit homosexual “marriage” after the swearing-in on Monday, the Associated Press reported.

The Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Protection Act was introduced by Assemblyman Mark Leno. The bill is nearly identical to legislation allowing homosexual marriage that Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed in 2005, after the measure narrowly passed both the Assembly and the Senate.

The measure would change the wording of the Family Code to remove the current definition of marriage as a civil contract between a man and a woman, replacing it with a definition of marriage as a civil contract between two persons.

The bill would also establish the right of religious institutions to refuse to solemnize homosexual unions if it would violate their fundamental beliefs.

Continue reading at LifeSite News…

“[E]nlarging the 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.”

— Homosexual activist Tom Stoddard of Lambda Legal

“It 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 in I Do, I Do, I Do, I Do, I Do,
published May 1996 by OUT magazine (page 30)
(cited by Robert Knight at Talking Points on Marriage)