Author David Blankenhorn

By Peter LaBarbera 

David Blankenhorn of the Institute for American Values — who has done tremendous work in defending the institution of marriage and in making the case against “same-sex marriage” — has now proclaimed the “equal dignity of homosexual love.” This has earned him high praise from a leading homosexual “same-sex marriage” advocate, Jonathan Rauch. Watch their 3-minute video debate segment on “Bloggingheads.tv,” “Does opposing gay marriage make you a homophobe?” online here: http://bloggingheads.tv/video.php?id=386&cid=2311.

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.

Few pro-family activists work harder than James Hartline, a former homosexual turned Christian advocate who lives and works in the heart of San Diego’s homosexual neighborhood. Kudos to James for leading this charge against homosexual special interest politicking. And enough already with homosexual politicians wasting taxpayers’ valuable money and time promoting an agenda that is motivated, at least in part, by a desire to build public acceptance for their own immoral (and changeable) behavior.

Here is Hartline’s release: — Peter LaBarbera

CALIFORNIA CHRISTIAN NEWS & THE JAMES HARTLINE REPORT
BREAKING NEWS!  HISTORIC VICTORY FOR SAN DIEGO CHRISTIANS
September 4, 2007, 4:30pm.pst
 
REQUEST FOR SAN DIEGO CITY COUNCIL TO ENDORSE GAY MARRIAGE LEGAL CASE IS STOPPED AFTER SAN DIEGO CHRISTIANS MAKE BIG STAND DURING ALL DAY CITY COUNCIL BATTLE.
www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/20070904-1521-nogay.html
 
Approximately 40 Christians appeared at the San Diego City Council on Tuesday, September 4, 2007 to oppose an attempt by lesbian San Diego City Councilwoman Toni Atkins to get the city council to issue a legal brief in support of gay marriage.  The issuance of a legal brief in support of a “gay marriage” case currently being heard by the California Supreme Court would have been catastrophic for Christian values in California’s second largest city.
 
James Hartline, a well-known San Diego Christian activist and a candidate, himself, for the city council seat being vacated by termed-out Councilwoman Atkins, led the campaign to oppose the “gay marriage” legal brief.
 
Supporters for the “gay marriage” legal brief even had the city attorney for the City of San Francisco come down to San Diego to plead with the council to approve of the issuance of the legal brief.
 
Hartline gave a powerful and informative presentation on behalf of the thousands of Christians in San Diego who are opposed to redefining marriage to include couples engaged in homosexuality and lesbianism. 
 
After a contentious and sometimes, hostile hearing, the request to approve the gay marriage legal brief failed on a 4-4 vote.  A 5-3 vote was required for the item to be approved.  When the smoke had cleared, some Christians in attendance declared that a real miracle had happened in the city council chambers.
 
Those who voted with the Christians in opposing the “gay marriage” legal brief were:

Councilman Kevin Faulconer, Republican, District 2
Councilman Brian Maienschein, Republican,  District 5
Councilman Anthony Young, Democrat, District 4
Councilwoman Donna Frye, Democrat, District 6
 
Those who voted for the homosexual “marriage” legal brief were:

Councilman Scott Peters, Democrat, District 1
Councilwoman Toni Atkins, Democrat, District 3
Councilman Jim Madaffer, Republican, District 7
Councilman Ben Hueso, Democrat, District 8
 
There will be a more in depth look at the events surrounding this historic victory for San Diego Christians in an upcoming James Hartline Report exclusive.
 
This has been a breaking news story from California Christian News and the James Hartline Report: 619-255-9378

www.californiachristian.org
www.JamesHartlineReport.blogspot.com

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

August 31, 2007

FOR MORE INFORMATION: SARAH RODE: (202) 488-7000 ext. 127

Homosexual couples begin applying for marriage licenses

Washington, DC – Polk County Judge Robert Hanson (not to be confused with convicted spy Robert Hanssen) has miraculously divined that the framers of the Iowa constitution really intended that Iowans of the same sex must be allowed to “marry” one another.  The unelected Hanson struck down Iowa’s Defense of Marriage Act on Thursday ruling that, “Couples, such as Plaintiffs, who are otherwise qualified to marry one another may not be denied licenses to marry or certificates of marriage or in any other way prevented from entering into a civil marriage pursuant to Iowa Code Chapter 595 by reason of the fact that both persons compromising such a couple are of the same sex.”   

Within two hours of the ruling homosexual couples began applying for marriage licenses. 

Addressing the decision, Matt Barber, Policy Director for Cultural Issues with Concerned Women for America (CWA) said, “Through his actions, Judge Hanson has arrogantly ignored the will of the people by cavalierly disregarding a law constitutionally enacted by Iowa citizens through their elected representatives in 1998.

“Once again we have another renegade judge abusing the authority he’s been granted and arbitrarily legislating from the bench.  Hanson is a judicial activist.  He’s just one man – a county judge – who has haughtily trampled on the concept of separation of powers, the elected state legislature and the people of Iowa in order to push his own radical agenda. 

“It’s preposterous to think that the framers of the Iowa constitution could have even imagined that the document they were drafting would someday be distorted in such a way as to force “‘gay’ marriage” upon Iowa. 

“This case proves once again that the only way to assure that the institution of marriage is protected – and not radically redefined into oblivion – is to pass a federal marriage amendment,” concluded Barber.

The case is expected to be appealed to the Iowa Supreme Court. 

Concerned Women for America is the nation’s largest public policy women’s organization.

From Focus on the Family’s Citizenlink: 

County Judge Robert Hanson decided Thursday that he will make the laws for Iowa. He struck down the state’s 1998 Defense of Marriage Act as unconstitutional and ordered Polk County to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

Roger J. Kuhle, an assistant county attorney, argued the issue is not for a judge to decide. The county, home to state capital Des Moines, is expected to appeal the ruling to the Iowa Supreme Court.

Dr. James C. Dobson, founder and chairman of Focus on the Family Action, called it another example of a judge legislating from the bench.

“Once again, we see an activist judge handing liberal activists what they have not been able to achieve legislatively or at the ballot box: government sanctioning of same-sex marriage,” he said. “This purely political ruling proves yet again that nothing short of a federal marriage-protection amendment is sufficient to preserve one-man, one-woman marriage in our nation.

“By striking down Iowa’s DOMA, Judge Robert Hanson has shown he believes the desires of adults should trump what’s best for children. His ruling represents social engineering at its worst.”

Click HERE to read the whole Citizenlink article

Randy Thomasson of the VoteYesMarriage.com in California coalition writes:

Please forward today to your pro-family friends:

Dear friends, the following news is appalling. Please help place rock-solid marriage protection into the California Constitution by donating right now to VoteYesMarriage.com or by calling 916-265-5643 to discuss making a major gift. We need to raise $1 million in the next two weeks in order to qualify for California’s June 2008 ballot. Any U.S. citizen or legal resident may donate. Thank you.

Here is the media release issued Monday by the VoteYesMarriage.com coalition:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
August 27, 2007
 
California Governor and Attorney General
Say Marriage can be Eliminated in Future

Arnold Schwarzenegger and Jerry Brown file legal briefs saying the California Legislature can eliminate marriage rights and get rid of marriage

Sacramento, California — In legal briefs submitted to the California Supreme Court, which is considering whether to license “same-sex marriages” next year, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Jerry Brown both stated that a future Legislature could abolish marriage and yank marriage rights from a married husband and wife.

It was revealed today that Attorney General Jerry Brown [see PDF of AG Jerry Brown’s 8/17 brief] and Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger [See PDF of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s 8/17 brief ] said the following in their August 17 supplemental briefs responding to questions from the California Supreme Court:

Marriage can be abolished in the future by the California Legislature

BROWN: …the words “marry” and “marriage” have no essential constitutional significance under the California Constitution. Thus, the Legislature could change the name of the legal relationship now known as “marriage” to some other name without any constitutional impediment.

SCHWARZENEGGER: …The Administration submits that use of the words “marry” and “marriage” is not required by the California Constitution. Thus, the name of the legal relationship now known as “marriage” could be changed.

Marriage rights and marriage benefits for a husband and wife can be eliminated by the California Legislature

BROWN: …except for this essential ability to choose and declare one’s life partner in a reciprocal and binding contractual commitment of mutual support, any of the statutory rights and obligations that are afforded exclusively to married couples in California could be abrogated or eliminated by the Legislature or the electorate for any rational legislative purpose.

SCHWARZENEGGER: …except for the ability to choose and declare one’s life partner in a reciprocal commitment of mutual support, any of the statutory rights and obligations that are afforded to married couples in California could be abrogated or eliminated by the Legislature or the electorate for any rational legislative purpose.

“This is proof positive that the VoteYesMarriage.com initiative, which will prevent marriage from being abolished and prevent marriage rights from being eliminated, is absolutely needed to protect the sacred institution of marriage from activist judges and liberal politicians,” said Randy Thomasson, an organizer of the VoteYesMarriage.com California Marriage Amendment, which is aiming for the 2008 ballot.

“Protecting the word ‘marriage’ in the state constitution is useless if the politicians can still get rid of marriage and marriage rights for a man and a woman,” concluded Thomasson. “Clearly, the VoteYesMarriage.com amendment, which will override the judges and politicians and preserve everything about marriage for one man and one woman, is the only way to protect this special institution for future generations to respect and enjoy.”

— end —

VoteYesMarriage.com (ID #1276880) is a 501(c)(4) nonprofit, nonpartisan organization sponsoring The Voters’ Right to Protect Marriage Initiative. Please help us protect marriage once and for all in the California State Constitution by making an instant online donation or sending a generous gift to:

VoteYesMarriage.com
P.O. Box 1978
Sacramento, CA 95812
(916) 265-5643
(916) 290-0114 fax

Donate Online:

* Donations to VoteYesMarriage.com are not tax deductible.
* Please write your occupation and employer on your check, as required by state law

There are many practical, secular-oriented arguments against creating legal rights based on aberrant sex and gender-confused “identity.”  I encourage you to read my friend John Biver’s excellent series, “Bad News for the Gay Rights Movement,” on the Family Taxpayers Network (FTN) website.  John (info@familytaxpayers.net) is FTN’s president, and a very smart guy who is not religious but would risk going to jail to defend my religious freedom to oppose homosexuality.  I’d do the same for him.

We who are religious should understand that you do not have to be a Christian, or a Muslim, or a Jew, to see the absurdity of revolutionizing civil rights law to accommodate historically taboo and destructive sexual behaviors that can be changed.  Please share these articles with your friends. — Peter LaBarbera 

Click on the individual links below for each article:

Bad News for the “Gay Rights” Movement

 

Get over your Moralityphobia

 

Right and Wrong isn’t Dead Yet

 

Privacy v. Revolution

 

Successes, Parades, and Leaven

 

The Broken Window Theory

 

Psychology and Morality

 

The Plight of the TriSexual  (A Parody)

 

Gender Identity Disorder

 

Friends, Family, and Children

 

Health Realities

 

Resetting the Proper Context

 

Morality and the “Gay Rights” Debate

 

The following is excerpted from a column by Matt Barber, “You’re Not My Mommy!” appearing in today’s WorldNetDaily: 

Jesus said, “But from the beginning of the creation, God ‘made them male and female. For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’; so then they are no longer two, but one flesh” (Mark 10: 6-8, NKJV).

Virginia resident Lisa Miller – now a born-again Christian – and her beautiful 5-year-old daughter, Isabella, find themselves immersed in a nightmarish custody battle. But this battle is unlike most others. The person trying to take Isabella away from her mother is entirely unrelated to the little girl and is essentially a total stranger. She’s lesbian Janet Jenkins, a woman with whom Lisa at one time had been homosexually involved.

By her own account, emotional problems brought on by a series of events – including abandonment by her father, abuse by her mentally ill mother and a decade-long struggle with alcoholism now overcome – eventually led Lisa Miller into the lesbian lifestyle. In 1999, Lisa began a homosexual relationship with Jenkins after coming out of a legitimate marriage that ended in divorce.

In 2000, soon after Vermont became the first state to legalize homosexual “civil unions,” Miller and Jenkins made a weekend trek from Virginia to Vermont to enter into such a “union.” They then headed back to Virginia where they lived together.

In 2001, Lisa was artificially inseminated after the two decided to raise a child in an unnatural, deliberately fatherless home environment as self-deluded “wife” and “wife” – mother and “mother.”

In August of 2002, Miller and little Isabella, now just a few months old, moved to Vermont with Jenkins. However, things were unstable, and according to Lisa Miller, Jenkins was physically and emotionally abusive. “It was a troubled relationship from the beginning,” Lisa told World Magazine in a recent interview. “The relationship did not improve, as Jenkins – working as a nightshift security guard – grew increasingly bitter and controlling,” reported World.

About a year later, when Isabella was less than a year and a half old, Lisa ended her lesbian relationship, took her daughter back home to Virginia and filed for dissolution of her homosexual “civil union” back in Vermont.

And that’s when the nightmare really began.

Although Jenkins had no parental connection to Isabella (she was neither an adoptive parent, nor biologically related) she filed papers in Vermont in 2003 to try to take Isabella from her mother. Even though the child was conceived, born and living in Virginia, the Vermont court nonetheless held that it had jurisdiction. The legal battle has continued since that time, and incredibly, the court recently ruled that Jenkins possessed parental rights over Lisa’s daughter. It granted Jenkins regular and very liberal visitation. Isabella is now required to make the several hundred mile roundtrip journey from Virginia to Vermont every other week to visit a total stranger (Jenkins) who, according to reports, outrageously forces the confused and traumatized little girl to call her “momma.”

Click HERE to read the rest of Barber’s column on WorldNetDaily