Excerpted from Howard Dean’s Fruitless Outreach, by David Limbaugh, published Jun 2, 2006, by Townhall:

At least Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean is colorful; you’ve got to give him that much. But he’s not the guy to be leading the charge to reunite the Democratic Party with so-called “values voters.”

The Washington Times’ Greg Pierce reports that Dean was outraged when he heard that Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist intended to call to a vote a proposed constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage.

Dean called opponents of homosexual marriage “bigots.” He said, “At a time when the Republican Party is in trouble with their conservative base, Bill Frist is taking a page straight out of the Karl Rove playbook to distract from the Republican Party’s failed leadership and misplaced priorities by scapegoating LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) families for political gain, using marriage as a wedge issue.” It’s not only morally wrong, it is shameful and reprehensible,” said the enlightened Dean.

Now flashback a week or so and picture Dean on the set of the evil bigot Pat Robertson’s “700 Club.” Dean appeared as part of his effort to reclaim “values voters” for the Democratic Party. On that program Dean reportedly said the party’s platform provides that “marriage is between a man and a woman.” Later, Dean had to apologize to gay rights leaders for incorrectly stating the party’s platform position.

Surely I’m misreading one of these two reports. Which is it, Howard? Or, perhaps I should say, “Which face will you be wearing today: the bigoted or the enlightened one?”

Continue reading at Townhall…

Published Nov 21, 2006:

Mr. Stone importunes Illinoisans in his commentary “Gays Kept Separated” (Nov. 19, 2006) to legalize same-sex marriage, arguing that maintaining sexual complementarity as an essential criterion for marriage represents discrimination and the imposition of faith practices.

My understanding is that the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment was intended to prevent the establishment of a state religion, not to prevent religious values from informing political decisions. Since people from many religious faiths and no religious faith have long agreed upon the essential place of sexual complementarity in the nurturance of the next generation, laws that reflect those convictions hardly seem a violation of the Establishment Clause. One could argue that those who attend houses of worship that support legalized same-sex unions are similarly attempting to enshrine in law their religious beliefs.

The idea of a separation of church and state no longer points to the importance of protecting religious freedom from the intrusive power of the state but instead refers to coercively eradicating religious expression from the public square. Only secularism, a worldview as shaped by myopic, dogmatic, unproved assumptions (as some argue religious views are), will be tolerated.

Mr. Stone expresses concern with what he perceives as discrimination. Illegitimate discrimination refers to unfavorable treatment of others based on ignorance. Discrimination, however, can also refer to discriminating between right and wrong, in which case it is an essential personal and civic activity. Conflating the two meanings of discrimination, or asserting that all negative judgments reflect prejudice, represents demagoguery. Principled opposition to homosexuality no more embodies illegitimate discrimination than does principled opposition to polyamory or adult consensual incest.

The analogy between race and homosexuality is specious at best. Science has in no way proved that homosexual attraction is biologically determined. Even “queer theory” which emerges from the homosexual community denies that sexual orientation is inherent and immutable. But most important, the contribution of biological influences to the development of an impulse is irrelevant to a moral evaluation of consequent conduct.

Clearly, Mr. Stone has no compunction against imposing morality in that he seeks to impose his moral view that gender is irrelevant to marriage, which leaves age, consanguinity, and numbers of partners as the remaining criteria. But why should he or anyone else be allowed to impose those particular moral strictures on all of society? If I love and am attracted to my brother or five people of assorted genders, why should an intolerant, prejudiced society be permitted to impose those moral views on me?

Historically, society has determined that since marriage is fundamental to the health of society, it is the right and responsibility of society collectively to define marriage. That society has made mistakes and included criteria that were not fundamental to marriage (as with anti-miscegenation laws) does not mean that society has been wrong on all criteria. Tradition, sociology, biology, psychology and, yes, religion have held that both men and women are crucial to the fulfillment of children’s needs. The importance of both sexes points to their fundamental differences which even homosexuals acknowledge when they express a preference for their own gender. Since there is almost universal agreement that men and women are fundamentally different, heterosexual unions must be of a different character than homosexual unions. And throughout history, societies have embodied in law the belief that heterosexual unions contribute something essential to civic health unmatched by homosexual unions.

Laurie Higgins
Deerfield, Illinois

Excerpted from Israeli High Court Orders ‘Gay Marriage’ Recognition, by Michael Foust, published Nov 21, 2006, by Baptist Press:

The land where Jesus once walked soon will recognize “gay marriage.”

In a landmark 6-1 decision, Israel’s Supreme Court Nov. 21 ordered the government to begin recognizing “gay marriages” from other countries, such as Canada. Although the decision doesn’t give homosexual couples the ability to “marry” within Israel’s borders, it nonetheless puts Israel at odds with countries such as Great Britain and the United States, neither of which recognizes foreign “gay marriages.” In fact, the U.S. government doesn’t even recognize “gay marriages” that occur within its borders in Massachusetts, the lone state where it is legal.

Four countries — Canada, Spain, Belgium and the Netherlands — have legalized “gay marriage,” and a fifth one, South Africa, is expected to do so within days.

The ruling by the High Court of Justice — the name for Israel’s highest court — gives homosexual couples the same legal benefits as traditional couples, including tax breaks and the ability to adopt, The Jerusalem Post reported. The decision forces the government to register the “marriages” like it does any other marriages.

“We don’t have a Jewish state here. We have Sodom and Gomorrah here,” lawmaker Moshe Gafni told Israel’s Army Radio, according to the Associated Press. “I assume that every sane person in the state of Israel, possibly the entire Jewish world, is shocked, because the significance is … the destruction of the family unit in the state of Israel.”

Radical homosexual activists hate biblical marriage, because to achieve its benefits and blessings they must first conform to God’s plan for sexuality…

Excerpted from Why Homosexuals Despise Marriage, by Kevin McCullough, published Oct, 2006, by WorldNet Daily:

…With utter contempt for God and for the voters of their state, the New Jersey seven unanimously said that all who live in the confines of its borders must fundamentally agree to the moral premise that what the Bible terms perversion the voters should call healthy.

But why? What’s the real goal of the activists, the judges and the radicals who seek to subvert a moral worldview?

The answer is simple: No longer satisfied with practicing the unspeakable perverse sexual pleasures that their hearts seek in private bedrooms, they wish to be able to do so in public. They are also suffering from such immense guilt over their sexual behaviors, because they know inherently that the actions they perform are in fact unhealthy, that they will go to any means necessary to try and shut down the voices in their heads that tell them it is wrong.

They wrongfully believe that the guilty voice within them is an echo of a prudish state that seeks to limit their freedoms. They wrongfully believe that the judgment they feel is emanating from “Bible thumpers.” And what they fail to admit is that the voice that condemns them the loudest is never a human voice – but in fact the voice of their own conscience informed by the truth of the God who created them.

There are attributes of marriage that same-sex couples will never achieve.

Can someone explain why a man with two sets of broken marriage vows and who admitted to covert homosexuality and adultery should have a public voice in this debate? What does James McGreevey, a man who is not even divorced yet but is living with his homosexual lover, know about real love (seeking the other person’s highest good) or commitment (unselfish devotion)? – Sonja Dalton

Excerpted from McGreevey Prods NJ Lawmakers To Pass Gay Marriage Bill, published Oct 30, 2006, by the pro-homosexuality 365Gay:

Former New Jersey Gov. James McGreevey called on state lawmakers Monday to pass legislation legalizing same-sex marriage.

“I hope the Legislature and the government does what’s right and embraces the idea of marriage for two loving and committed individuals,” McGreevey told WNBC television.

McGreevey became the nation’s first gay governor when he announced on Aug. 12, 2004 that he was “a gay American”. The married governor, standing beside his wife then said that he had been involved in an affair with a man and would resign.

The McGreeveys separated shortly after and the governor currently lives with his same-sex domestic partner.

Continue reading at 365Gay…

From Cathi Herrod of Protect Marriage Arizona Coalition:

Today, we acknowledge that proposition 107 failed to pass on November 7.

The struggle to protect marriage between one man and one woman is far from over. Proposition 107’s defeat is but one skirmish in the battle to preserve and protect marriage as the union of one man and one woman. It’s a token win for the opposition.

Make no mistake: the defeat of proposition 107 had nothing to do with whether Arizonans believe same sex marriage should be legalized or not.

Arizona voters were bombarded with misinformation about Prop 107 by our opposition. We were outspent about 4 to 1.

Our opponents were able to focus the debate on what Proposition 107 was not about: benefits for unmarried individuals. Our opponents were able to scare seniors into believing they would lose their social security benefits if prop 107 passed. Our coalition simply did not have the funds to respond to opponents’ attacks and distortions about the true intent of Prop 107.

Excerpted from March Divides Followers of Martin Luther King, published Dec 11, 2004, by Atlanta Journal-Constitution:

…Saturday’s march [led by New Birth Missionary Church] advocated “a constitutional amendment to fully protect marriage between one man and one woman.”

…Bernice King, the Kings’ youngest daughter, expressed how she felt her father would have responded while speaking at a church in Auckland, New Zealand, in October:

“I know deep down in my sanctified soul that he did not take a bullet for same-sex unions.”

Excerpted from Marriage Protection Ballot Measure Passes Easily in Cartwright Township, Would Pass Statewide in Illinois if Given the Chance Says IFI, a press release from Illinois Family Institute, published Nov 9, 2006:

…Peter LaBarbera, Protect Marriage Illinois board member and president of the Naperville-based Americans for Truth, said Wisconsin voters’ 59 to 41 passage of a Marriage Protection Amendment — which also clearly precludes “civil unions” — has lessons for Illinois.

“Pro-marriage forces were outspent 10 to one in blue state Wisconsin, yet the Marriage Protection Amendment there passed in a landslide,” LaBarbera said. “Here in Illinois, gay activist Rick Garcia has paid for some biased polls to cast doubt on the prospects of a Marriage Protection initiative here. But Illinois citizens should not believe those polls. With hard work and a strong grassroots push, Illinois will join the list of states providing the maximum protection to marriage. We must do so to prevent judges from usurping the power by radically redefining marriage, as occurred in New Jersey, Massachusetts and Vermont.”

Continue reading at US Newswire…