From The Princeton Principles, published May 26, 2006, by the Witherspoon Institute:

The “Ten Principles on Marriage and the Public Good” are the result of scholarly discussions that began in December, 2004 at a meeting in Princeton, New Jersey, sponsored by the Witherspoon Institute. This conference brought together scholars from History, Economics, Psychiatry, Law, Sociology and Philosophy to share with each other the findings of their research on why marriage is in the public interest. A consensus developed for sharing the fruit of their collaboration more widely.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

In recent years, marriage has weakened, with serious negative consequences for society as a whole. Four developments are especially troubling: divorce, illegitimacy, cohabitation, and same-sex marriage.

The purpose of this document is to make a substantial new contribution to the public debate over marriage. Too often, the rational case for marriage is not made at all or not made very well. As scholars, we are persuaded that the case for marriage can be made and won at the level of reason. Marriage protects children, men and women, and the common good. The health of marriage is particularly important in a free society, which depends upon citizens to govern their private lives and rear their children responsibly, so as to limit the scope, size, and power of the state. The nation’s retreat from marriage has been particularly consequential for our society’s most vulnerable communities: minorities and the poor pay a disproportionately heavy price when marriage declines in their communities. Marriage also offers men and women as spouses a good they can have in no other way: a mutual and complete giving of the self. Thus, marriage understood as the enduring union of husband and wife is both a good in itself and also advances the public interest.

We affirm the following ten principles that summarize the value of marriage- a choice that most people want to make, and that society should endorse and support.

• Marriage is a personal union, intended for the whole of life, of husband and wife.
• Marriage is a profound human good, elevating and perfecting our social and sexual nature.
• Ordinarily, both men and women who marry are better off as a result.
• Marriage protects and promotes the wellbeing of children.
• Marriage sustains civil society and promotes the common good.
• Marriage is a wealth-creating institution, increasing human and social capital.
• When marriage weakens, the equality gap widens, as children suffer from the disadvantages of growing up in homes without committed mothers and fathers.
• A functioning marriage culture serves to protect political liberty and foster limited government.
• The laws that govern marriage matter significantly.
• “Civil marriage” and “religious marriage” cannot be rigidly or completely divorced from one another.

This understanding of marriage is not narrowly religious, but the cross-cultural fruit of broad human experience and reflection, and supported by considerable social science evidence. But a marriage culture cannot flourish in a society whose primary institutions-universities, courts, legislatures, religions-not only fail to defend marriage but actually undermine it both conceptually and in practice.

Creating a marriage culture is not the job for government. Families, religious communities, and civic institutions-along with intellectual, moral, religious, and artistic leaders-point the way. But law and public policy will either reinforce and support these goals or undermine them. We call upon our nation’s leaders, and our fellow citizens, to support public policies that strengthen marriage as a social institution including:

• Protect the public understanding of marriage as the union of one man with one woman as husband and wife.
• Investigate divorce law reforms.
• End marriage penalties for low-income Americans.
• Protect and expand pro-child and pro-family provisions in our tax code.
• Protect the interests of children from the fertility industry.

Families, religious communities, community organizations, and public policymakers must work together towards a great goal: strengthening marriage so that each year more children are raised by their own mother and father in loving, lasting marital unions. The future of the American experiment depends on it. And our children deserve nothing less.

Continue reading at Princeton Principles..

We agree with Christopher Leighton, rector at St. Paul’s Church in Darien, who called Smith a ”perpetrator of false teaching” and said his decision defies ”Scripture and worldwide Christianity.”

Excerpted from Episcopal Bishop in Connecticut OK’s Same-sex Blessings, published Oct 24, 2006, in the pro-homosexuality newspaper The Advocate:

Episcopal parishes in Connecticut may bless same-sex couples, the state’s bishop announced over the weekend in Hartford. Bishop Andrew Smith‘s decision does not create an official prayer service for the blessings and does not allow Episcopal clergy to officiate at civil unions. But it allows parishes to acknowledge gay and lesbian couples who have had a civil union granted by the state.

”What I have permitted is a pastoral ministry of blessing, which does not mimic a wedding ceremony,” Smith said Saturday after the diocese’s two-day annual convention ended.

…At the heart of the matter is whether the church will ”bless persons who are homosexual and partnered as cherished and fully accepted members of the body of Christ,” Smith told the convention.

Continue reading in The Advocate…

Please read in its entirety this excellent article by our friend Jan LaRue, Chief Counsel for Concerned Women for America.

From Jesus Is Wedded to Biblical Marriage, by Jan LaRue, published Oct 18, 2006, by CWA and Townhall:

Voters in Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Virginia and Wisconsin will decide November 7 whether traditional marriage will be protected by their state’s constitution. Opponents from homosexual activist organizations such as the Human Rights Campaign are uniting with clergy to convince voters that Jesus approves same-sex “marriage.”

The Rev. Jack Rogers, “professor of theology emeritus at San Francisco Theological Seminary and past moderator of the 213th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.),” says that “supporting same-sex marriage affirms our Christian faith, strengthens our communities and supports children and families.” (Jack Rogers, “Study Changes Pastor’s Mind on Same-Sex Marriage,” The [Charleston, South Carolina] Post and Courier, Oct. 1, 2006, p. H3).

Rogers’ reasons for supporting “same-sex marriage” have a tiny tad more substance than the “silence” argument from another clergyman, Rev. Gordon McBride, the rector of Grace St. Paul’s Episcopal Church in Arizona who opposes Arizona’s marriage amendment: “Jesus never said anything about it (gay marriage), so clearly it didn’t matter to him.” (Stephanie Innes, “Gay-marriage ban pits church vs. church,” Arizona Daily Star, Oct. 13, 2006).

That logic would lead to the absurd assumption that since Jesus never said anything about incest, rape, tofu or terrorism, they also clearly didn’t matter to Him.

Rogers says that “for much of his life” he “opposed same-sex marriage” until he participated “on a task force on homosexuality … in an intense nine-month process of Bible study, prayer and reflection on the issue from all angles.”

One would think that “reflection” on “all angles” about “same-sex marriage” would include the marriage angle. Rogers, however, doesn’t mention any of nearly 700 Bible verses about marriage — not one.

But then, it’s not easy to pronounce Betty and Veronica or Steve and Al together in holy matrimony as husband and wife, man and woman or bridegroom and bride.

Incredibly, Rogers fails to follow his own advice “to read the Bible through the lens of Jesus’ redeeming life and ministry.” He fails to acknowledge that Christ’s lens includes all of Scripture, and what it says about marriage and homosexuality “is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness.” (2 Timothy 3:16)

Excerpted from Deval Patrick: Homosexuals’ Great Black Hope?, by LaShawn Barber, published Oct 23, 2006, by Townhall.com:

…I find it offensive that homosexuals equate black Americans’ struggle to be treated as first class citizens to their “struggle” to normalize perversion, and I’m sure many blacks felt the same way when middle- and upper-class white women co-opted the Civil Rights Movement to pursue their family-destroying agenda in the 1970s.

Civil rights refer to those found in the Bill of Rights and the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments. Blacks were denied these rights, and the Civil Rights Movement extended them to blacks. It did not seek to redefine nor add to these rights. That affluent white homosexuals consider themselves oppressed in the same way because they can’t “marry” is an insult to my grandfathers and their fathers and grandfathers.

They endured the indignity of having to enter a store through the rear “colored” entrance simply because they were black. They were barred from certain jobs and schools because they were black. They were considered second class Americans because they were black.

Homosexuals have the same civil rights as everyone else. The clamor for marriage isn’t about rights; it’s about acceptance of a lifestyle. Shelby Steele, author of The Content of Our Character and fellow at the Hoover Institution, wrote in the Opinion Journal:

“[G]ay marriage is simply not a civil rights issue. It is not a struggle for freedom. It is a struggle of already free people for complete social acceptance and the sense of normalcy that follows thereof–a struggle for the eradication of the homosexual stigma. Marriage is a goal because, once open to gays, it would establish the fundamental innocuousness of homosexuality itself. Marriage can say like nothing else that sexual orientation is an utterly neutral human characteristic, like eye-color. Thus, it can go far in diffusing the homosexual stigma.”

That we actually are discussing so-called marriage between two men is evidence of how far the culture has declined.

Continue reading at Townhall…

Excerpted from Bauer: No Way Around It A Vote Endorses a Partys Values, by Bill Fancher, Jeff Johnson, and Jody Brown, published Oct 19, 2006, by Agape Press:

Democrats’ Plan for Defeating Amendments
In response to the success of those state ballot measures, the Democratic National Committee announced this summer it had adopted a five-point plan for fighting measures defining marriage as between one man and one woman. Parts of that plan include labeling those ballot issues as “divisive” ploys by the Republicans and others to deflect voter attention from other important issues, and working with the National Stonewall Democrats — a pro-homosexual element within the party — to develop “strategy and talking points” to combat the proposed amendments.

On Election Day 2006, voters in Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Virginia, and Wisconsin will consider constitutional amendments declaring marriage to be only the union of one man and one woman. The president of the group Americans for Truth believes the amendments should pass with little difficulty in five of those eight states.

“Arizona and Wisconsin are more of a battleground,” Peter LaBarbera asserts, “and then there’s a special situation in Colorado where there’s a pro-domestic partner initiative that was very smartly, by the way, put up by homosexual activists. So those are the three states to watch. I think the rest of the states will pass handily.”

That has been the case in all of the 20 states where a marriage amendment has been adopted by voters. The average approval rating has been 68 percent (see chart). But LaBarbera warns that if the so-called “civil union” amendment passes in Colorado, voters can expect homosexual activists to employ the same strategy in the future when other states are considering constitutional amendments defending traditional marriage.

Continue reading at Agape Press…

Excerpted from Bishop Tobin Says Same-Sex Marriage Is ‘Spiritually Harmful’, published Oct 18, 2006, by Catholic News Agency:

Same-sex marriage is not an issue of civil rights, said Bishop Thomas Tobin of Providence in a recent letter to the editor.

“There’s never a right to do something wrong,” he said. “Human freedom is not unbridled license; it must be grounded in truth.”

The bishop’s letter was published Oct. 14 in the Providence Journal, Rhode Island’s largest daily newspaper, after a Rhode Island lesbian couple — Wendy Becker and Mary Norton — was legally married in Massachusetts on Oct. 8, reported NBC 10.

In the letter, the bishop said same-sex marriage is “spiritually harmful to individuals and families and erodes the foundation of society”.

“Homosexual acts are contrary to the law of nature and gravely immoral,” the bishop wrote. “The state has no business encouraging immoral behavior or ratifying illicit unions.”

Censured Democrat Congressman would get boys drunk, take them to his apartment, then make his move

“In his deposition, the male page who had allegedly traveled to Europe with Representative Studds, testified that…they engaged in sexual activity every two or three days during this trip.”

Q. After you met Congressman Studds, did you and he get together again after that?
A. Yes. Shortly thereafter … I was invited to go out to dinner with him and I did. The dinner took place at his apartment in Georgetown…..
Q. …[W]hat happened at that dinner?
A. Well, we sat around and talked about abstract and general questions, all types and descriptions, until four in the morning, drinking vodka and cranberry juice, at which time I was told by the Congressman that he was too drunk to give me a ride home and so he said, ‘Why don’t you sleep here?’ and I did.

AN Americans For Truth SPECIAL REPORT
By Peter LaBarbera

The death Saturday of former Massachusetts Rep. Gerry Studds (D) is an untimely one for Democrats hoping to use the Mark Foley scandal to dethrone Republicans in the House of Representatives. While the prospects of political rehabilitation are bleak for Foley, Studds was re-elected six times after it was revealed that he had sex with a 16- to 17-year-old page—and tried to seduce two other minor boys—as a Congressman in 1973 (Studds was 36 at the time).

News stories on Studds’ death at age 69 report on his censure by Congress in 1983 for having a “consensual” sexual “relationship” with the underage boy, but this begs the question: is it a “consensual relationship” when the adult predator plies his underage targets with alcohol or abuses his authority by taking one on a trip to Europe—both of which Studds did?

The sad truth is that Studds, although brilliant and talented in other areas of his life, was a pervert who never apologized for his predations on innocent and impressionable boys. In fact, once discovered, Studds manipulated the scandal as way to gain sympathy as a supposedly aggrieved “gay” man. In other words, in his own mind Studds was the victim, not the corrupted boys.

Of course, the media are mostly buying it. Press stories have highlighted the alleged injustice of Studds’ male “husband” not receiving pension benefits because the federal government does not recognize their Massachusetts “marriage.” (The federal Defense of Marriage Act, which defines spouse and marriage in federal law as between a man and a woman, may have saved the taxpayers more than $114,000 in this case; Studds’ estimated annual congressional pension is reportedly $114,337.)

CONTINUE READING THIS AFT SPECIAL REPORT

Call the State Dept. main switchboard at 202-647-4000 and ask to be connected to Condoleeza Rice’s office to leave your comments about her pro-homosexual remarks during the swearing-in of openly homosexual Mark Dybul as global AIDS ambassador.

The following is excerpted from Rice’s Approving ‘Gay’ Remarks Rankle GOP Base, published Oct 16, 2006, by WorldNet Daily:

…Rice and first lady Laura Bush spoke for the administration at the Oct. 10 swearing-in at the State Department where Dybul was accompanied by his male partner, Jason Claire. Rice, during her comments, referred to the presence of Claire’s mother and called her Dybul’s “mother-in-law.”

According to the State Department transcript, Rice said:

Thank you. Thank you very much. I am truly honored and delighted to have the opportunity to swear in Mark Dybul as our next Global AIDS Coordinator. I am pleased to do that in the presence of Mark’s parents, Claire and Richard; his partner, Jason; and his mother-in-law, Marilyn. You have wonderful family to support you, Mark, and I know that’s always important to us. Welcome.

The use of a term normally reserved for legally married heterosexual families rankled Peter Sprigg, vice president for policy at the Family Research Council, who called Rice’s comments “profoundly offensive,” according to Agape Press.

The secretary’s remarks, he said, fly in the face of the Bush administration’s endorsement of a federal marriage protection amendment.

Continue reading at WorldNet Daily…