Published Oct 27, 2006, in West Salem Coulee News:

Soon citizens of Wisconsin will have an opportunity to vote for a constitutional amendment which will ensure that our great state will not have the immoral, illogical, and unnatural absurdity of “same-sex marriage” foisted upon her by activist, unconstitutional judges.

Yes, homosexual “marriage” is all of that and, like homosexuality, is an act of open defiance against Almighty God Himself who “made them male and female” and ordained marriage (Matthew 19:4-6).

The marriage amendment was of necessity proposed in response to a relentless campaign to force homosexual marriage on America, state by state, as has already been done in Massachusetts. National organizations such as the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force have poured resources into Wisconsin with the hope that our state will suffer the infamy and harm of being the first in which an amendment protecting the legal definition of marriage is defeated.

The campaign against the marriage amendment has been nothing less than a theater of the absurd, featuring all manner of nonsensical claims regarding such things as inheritance rights, hospital visitation, and power of attorney.

The legal reality is that a citizen of Wisconsin can bequeath his property to anyone he wishes. He can delegate to any consenting adult medical or financial power of attorney. Likewise, a citizen can designate who should or should not be at his side in a health care crisis.

The most wicked absurdity that has been peddled by the amendment opponents is the audacious claim that God’s Word gives license to homosexual acts and homosexual “marriage.” Nothing could be further from the truth, no matter how some wrest the Scriptures unto their own destruction (2 Peter 3:16).

As a minister of the gospel, I state with no hesitation whatsoever that voting against the marriage amendment would be a sin against God.

Ralph Ovadal is pastor at Pilgrims Covenant Church in Monroe, Wisconsin.

Measures on 5 state ballots likely to pass despite survey results

Excerpted from Polls Undercount Support for Same-Sex Marriage Ban, by Wyatt Buchanon, published Oct 27, 2006, by San Francisco Chronicle:

…Bans are expected to pass Nov. 7 in Idaho, Virginia, South Carolina, South Dakota and Tennessee. The races still appear close in Colorado, Arizona and Wisconsin.

Polls have been published on the proposed constitutional amendments in six of those states, and in all six, the most recent survey showed the bans passing – in Arizona by a margin of 9 percentage points, and in Tennessee by 53 percentage points…

“We’ve seen it, I think, in every single case, that it is underpolled every single time,” said Tom McClusky, vice president of government affairs at the conservative Family Research Council. “I’ve seen higher, but normally we would add 5 to 10 percentage points to any polling.”

Gay rights supporters blame people’s unwillingness to express an anti-gay opinion to a pollster for the discrepancy between polls and the ballot box, and McClusky agrees.

Continue reading in San Francisco Chronicle…

By J. Matt Barber, General Counsel for Americans for Truth
Published Oct 28, 2006, by WorldNet Daily

You can put a pig in a mini-skirt, high heels and lipstick and call him Angelina Jolie, but he’s still a pig just the same. That’s just what pro-homosexual activists are trying to do this election season in Colorado. No, they haven’t partnered with PETA to raise awareness about the systematic discrimination of “transgendered” farm animals; but what they have done is enter into a clever and disingenuous game of political semantics relative to the so-called “gay-marriage” debate.

On Nov. 7, Coloradans will vote on Referendum I.

What is Referendum I? Well, opponents say that it’s a clear attempt by homosexual activists to circumvent Colorado’s marriage protection laws and legalize “gay marriage” through sleight of hand, while calling it something else. They assert that it’s a not so thinly veiled attempt to pass off counterfeit marriage beneath that innocuous pseudonym we’ve all come to know – “Domestic Partnerships.” (The bill associated with the referendum is the “Colorado Domestic Partnership Benefits and Responsibilities Act.”)

Proponents claim that the referendum doesn’t codify “gay marriage,” but rather, simply grants certain legal protections to homosexual couples that they cannot otherwise obtain.

So, who’s lying?

One can derive the answer by looking at the unequivocal language of the referendum itself: The Colorado Legislative Council’s “Blue Book” analysis of the ballot initiative states that Referendum I

“creates a new legal relationship, called a domestic partnership, providing same-sex couples the opportunity to obtain the legal protections and responsibilities granted to married couples by Colorado law.”

The text of the Referendum indicates the bill’s intent

“to extend to same-sex couples in a Domestic Partnership the benefits, protections and responsibilities that are granted by Colorado law to spouses.”

So the verdict’s in, and the jury wasn’t out long – guilty as charged. “Domestic Partnerships” as defined under Referendum I, are very simply “gay marriages” by another name.

So, why all the fuss?

We’ve all heard the old adage “give ’em an inch and they’ll take a mile.” Well, in this case, If Coloradans pass Referendum I, it will be the first time that “domestic partnerships” will have been approved by the voters of a state, and it will require thousands of changes to existing Colorado state law, at a high cost to the taxpayer.

Excerpted from Media Downplay New Jersey’s Gay Marriage Ruling as Election Day Approaches, by Robert Knight, published Oct , 2006, by Townhall:

The major media are soft-selling the New Jersey Supreme Court’s Wednesday decision ordering “gay marriage” or its equivalent, lest the ruling become a fire bell in the night for social conservatives two weeks before the election.

CBS Evening News anchor Katie Couric gave the story 21 seconds, talking about “committed same-sex couples” over footage of a cute lesbian couple with cute children, and two distinguished-looking older men standing on a woodsy balcony. She even managed to throw in a bit of sympathetic verbiage about “committed same-sex couples”.

Important questions were left unasked: What gives the court the authority to order legislators to change the law? What if the legislators don’t do so? And, what about those recent court decisions upholding marriage laws in New York, California, Washington and Georgia?

Continue reading at Townhall…

Excerpted from On Equal Terms, by Dr. Albert Mohler, published Oct 26, 2006:

…One of the most striking aspects of the New Jersey decision is the fact that not a single justice held marriage to be an essentially heterosexual institution that deserves a privileged status as recognized in law. This points to a basic social revolution that is sweeping through the nation’s elites — especially on college and university campuses, and law schools, and in the media.

We are living in an age of ambitious and open revolt against civilization’s most central institution. The headlines of the newspapers will indicate that the New Jersey decision is significant. Only a relative few seem to understand that this amounts to a redefinition of human society. The social regulation of sexuality and the legal recognition of marriage are fundamental to our civilization and way of life. We are witnessing the destruction of an institution fundamental to human happiness and well-being — and all in the name of a radical conception of human rights.

Note this: These plaintiffs did not charge that their rights to marry were violated by the U.S. Constitution — but that charge is surely coming. In short order a case like this will arrive at the US Supreme Court. This is why the Marriage Protection Amendment is so urgently needed and why the battle must be fought in every state.

We are reminded once again that we face a stark set of alternatives: Either we will define marriage for the judges, or the judges will define marriage for us.

Continue reading…

“Our decision today significantly advances the civil rights of gays and lesbians. We have decided that our state constitution guarantees that every statutory right and benefit conferred the heterosexual couples from civil marriage must be made available to committed same-sex couples.

“Now the legislature must determine whether to alter the long accepted definition of marriage. The great engine for social change in this country has always been the democratic process. Although courts can ensure equal treatment, they cannot guarantee social acceptance, which must come through the evolving ethos of a maturing society. Plaintiffs request does not end here. Their next appeal must be to their fellow citizens, whose voices are heard through their popularly elected representatives.”

In the back row, left to right:

• Justice John E. Wallace (joined the majority opinion), nominated by secretly homosexual Governor James E. McGreevey
• Justice James R. Zazzali (joined the minority opinion), nominated by Governor Christine Todd Whitman
• Justice Barry T. Albin (joined the majority opinion), nominated by secretly homosexual Governor James E. McGreevey
• Justice Roberto A. Rivera-Soto (joined the majority opinion), nominated by secretly homosexual Governor James E. McGreevey

In the front row, left to right:

• Justice Virginia Long (joined the minority opinion), nominated to serve on the Supreme Court by Governor Christine Todd Whitman
• Chief Justice Deborah T. Poritz (joined the minority opinion), nominated by Governor Christine Todd Whitman and re-nominated to Chief Justice by secretly homosexual Governor James McGreevey; she retired the day after this decision
• Justice Jaynee LaVecchia (joined the majority opinion), nominated by Governor Christine Todd Whitman

Excerpt from New Jersy Supreme Court syllabus:

“Denying committed same-sex couples the financial and social benefits and privileges given to their married heterosexual counterparts bears no substantial relationship to a legitimate governmental purpose. The Court holds that under the equal protection guarantee of Article I, Paragraph 1 of the New Jersey Constitution, committed same-sex couples must be afforded on equal terms the same rights and benefits enjoyed by opposite-sex couples under the civil marriage statutes. The name to be given to the statutory scheme that provides full rights and benefits to same-sex couples whether marriage or some other term, is a matter left to the democratic process.”

Four justices joined the majority opinion. Take no heart, because the other three justices joined the minority opinion calling for FULL homosexual “marriage.” That’s 7-0 for marriage as God ordained it.

New Jersey’s highest court has ordered legislators to institute state-honored homosexual “marriage” or “civil union” within 180 days.

Righteousness exalts a nation,
but sin is a disgrace to any people.
— Proverbs 14:34

Indeed, today’s decision is a disgrace to our nation.

From Senior Counsel Glen Lavy at Alliance Defense Fund:

“If marriage can mean anything, then marriage means nothing. This is a wake-up call for people who believe that marriage doesn’t need constitutional protection. The court was right to conclude there is no fundamental right to same-sex ‘marriage,’ but to characterize marriage as just another option along with other ‘unions’ makes marriage meaningless. It’s critical that people vote for marriage amendments like those in Arizona, Virginia, and Wisconsin, which prevent a court from giving same-sex couples marriage in everything but name only.”

Excerpted from Cargill Firing Energizes Lawmakers, by Jeff Mellott, published Oct 5, 2006, in Daily News Record:

…The company fired Padilla earlier this month after it had received complaints about a sign on his personal pickup truck. The sign asked voters to support a constitutional amendment on marriage that defines the institution as a union between one man and one woman. Voters will take up the amendment on Nov. 7.

Cargill representatives said this week that Padilla, who was a human resources clerk, lost his job because of insubordination.But Padilla believes he was fired because of the sign on his pickup truck.

The company ordered Padilla to remove the sign after receiving complaints about it.

…Padilla’s actions violated company policies on intolerance, the company attorney said in a response dated Oct. 17 to Rita Dunaway of the Valley Family Forum. The attorney added that Padilla had been insubordinate.

The sign Cargill ordered Padilla to remove, the attorney said in the letter, contained a message that other employees could have “reasonably construed as a show of hostility and intolerance toward homosexuals.”

Virginia Attorney General Bob McDonnell] said, “When people start to see the overreach of the homosexual supporters, they are going to start thinking, ‘There’s an agenda out there.’”

…The amendment, [Sen. Mark Obenshain, R-Harrisonburg] said, reflects a constitutional codification of state law.

The Padilla case demonstrates that somebody is suggesting that current state law is offensive and discriminatory, he said.

And, Obenshain continued, somebody also is suggesting that someone who expresses support for current state law ought to be fired.

“To me,” he said, “that’s absurd.”

Continue reading in Daily News Record…

Also read Pro-Marriage Message at Root of Employee’s Dismissal, by Jim Brown and Jody Brown, published Oct 20, 2006, by Agape Press.