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

Excerpted from Girls’ Room His, Too, by Pete Donohue, published Oct 24, 2006, by New York Daily News:

…The Metropolitan Transportation Authority agreed to allow riders to use MTA rest rooms “consistent with their gender expression,” the Transgender Legal Defense and Education Fund announced yesterday.

The group filed a complaint against the MTA on behalf of a 70-year-old telephone repair technician who was arrested for using the women’s room at Grand Central Terminal.

The technician, who is assigned to the terminal by Verizon, was born Henry McGuinness but now goes by Helena Stone.

“I’m a 24-hour woman,” Stone declared proudly. “I just feel like a woman and I like to wear women’s clothes.”

The MTA would not comment on the settlement but Stone’s lawyer said it also includes mandatory transgender sensitivity training for MTA employees and a $2,000 payment to the technician for legal fees…

[Note from Americans for Truth: Note the shift in moral compass from generation to generation as demonstrated in the following quotes…]

“I would not like that,” said Gloria David, a retiree from Connecticut. “I have nothing against gay men or drag queens, but they can use the men’s room. I just don’t want to go to the bathroom next to a man.”

One rider feared predators might dress as women and lurk in the women’s room.

But Rena Gantz, 23, a college student, shrugged off the settlement.

“It doesn’t bother me because it is a reality,” she said. “If they believe they are women, they should be treated as one.”

Continue reading in New York Daily News…

From LifeLeague (UK):

The Advertising Standards Agency have investigated and upheld LifeLeague’s complaints against the Gay Police Association for their disgusting advert (below) that appeared in The Independent, 29.09.06.

(Click on image to enlarge and read the ad.)

The advert violated ASA guidelines on the grounds of decency, truthfulness and substantiation.

They declared that The Gay Police Association had:

[1] admitted the advert’s wording was structured in such a way as to represent non-criminal behaviour as ‘homophobic incidents’;

[2] failed to substantiate their claims about homophobic incidents;

[3] wrongly implied that Christians perpetrated the reported incidents;

[4] wrongly suggested that all of the reported incidents involved physical injury.

The Gay Police Association subsequently announced that they do not intend to use this ad again – yet they still remain unapologetic. The Independent however, did apologise for ‘offence caused’.

Continue reading at Pro-Life E-Newsletter…

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 For Gill, It’s Not About the Money, by Myung Oak Kim And Burt Hubbard, published Oct 23, 2006, in Rocky Mountain News:

…Tim Gill, the 53-year-old founder of the desktop software firm Quark, became a force in Colorado politics two years ago when he and three other wealthy residents spent $2 million to help install a Democratic majority in both houses of the state legislature for the first time in decades.

This year, Gill has dropped almost $5 million so far on state election campaigns – more than any other individual in Colorado.

…”I have never seen in Colorado politics in the 30-some odd years where I’ve been active . . . any individual involved to the degree that Tim Gill is,” said political consultant Katy Atkinson, a registered Republican who works with both sides of the aisle on ballot measures.

“Should he choose to, he can shape any part of Colorado public policy he wants to.”

Gill also is a player on the national stage, funneling more than $2 million into mostly Democratic causes, including the Democracy Alliance, a new group made up of dozens of the country’s wealthiest donors who are lavishing money on think tanks and organizations to counter similar groups established years ago by conservatives.

All of this is on top of Gill’s considerable philanthropy. Gill and his 12-year-old Gill Foundation have spent more than $80 million on gay and lesbian causes and on other organizations friendly to their gay workers, including the Pikes Peak Library Foundation, the Colorado Springs Fine Arts Center and Public Broadcasting of Colorado.

And all of this is just the beginning, according to Gill’s political adviser Ted Trimpa.

“Tim is in it for the long haul,” said Trimpa, a partner at the high-profile law firm Brownstein Hyatt & Farber. “What we’re talking about is strategic philanthropy and strategic politics.”…

Part One of Two on the Growing ‘Gay’ Threat to Freedom

It’s still a free country…well, at least mostly free (for those fortunate enough to make it out of their mother’s womb alive or who don’t live in strong “gay agenda” states like California). Houston-area small business owners Todd and Sabrina Farber are free not to do work for a couple of men who proudly embrace homosexual behavior, which the Farbers regard as sinful and deeply offensive. And homosexuals like Michael Lord are free not to do business with the Farbers, and to tell others not to as well.

But notice how that’s not good enough for some pro-“gay” activists; they think what the Farbers did by exercising their freedoms should be illegal. The truth is, many homosexual and “transgender” advocates are quite willing to place their “rights” (read: demands for government-enforced acceptance of their lifestyle) above the freedoms of religion, association and conscience of others.

There can be no doubt that the expansion of “sexual orientation” (pro-homosexuality) laws will result in the steady loss of freedom for those committed to defending healthy, Biblical sexual mores. As with the struggle over abortion, this Titanic battle between competing rights will not go away. Any American who is committed to preserving religious freedom in this great nation should understand the need for repealing all “sexual orientation” laws, lest we face a future like Britain’s where the state is arresting Christians for alleged “homophobic” behavior, which includes passing out Biblical tracts at a “gay” festival.

If such an Orwellian nightmare can happen in the land that gave Western Civilization the Magna Carta, it could happen in the good ol’ USA.

The First Amendment states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

What part of not “prohibiting the free exercise” of religion do pro-homosexual advocates and lawyers not understand? Tomorrow we will discuss a Michigan case in which a radical homosexual activist says it should have been illegal for a Catholic girls school to dismiss an employee who proudly revealed her lesbian relationship in defiance of ancient Catholic teachings.

Stay vigilant. We will not sit back and allow the (In)Tolerance Brigade to steal away our God-given American freedoms in the name of “gay rights.” –Peter LaBarbera, AFT

The following is excerpted from Christian Landscaper Won’t Soil Hands with Work for ‘Gay’ Clients, published Oct 21, 2006, by WorldNet Daily:

…Todd and Sabrina Farber have owned and operated The Garden Guy since 1991 and, like other landscape contractors, use the Internet to show the quality of their past work and to solicit future business.

The Garden Guy was just one of the landscaping businesses Michael Lord and Gary Lackey, a homosexual couple who has been together for nine years, requested bids from earlier this week for the new home they’re building in Houston Heights. Lord said he found The Garden Guy through an Internet search and liked the “before and after” pictures on the website.

“We sent e-mails to several local landscaping companies asking for quotes. Garden Guy called Michael back saying they would like to bid,” Lackey told the Houston Voice. Lord called the company Wednesday morning to set up an appointment.

“Michael was asked if ‘his wife would be home’ when the consultation would take place. He brushed it off, but when he was asked again if his wife would be joining, Michael said, ‘No, but my partner Gary will be.’

“Michael set up the appointment, but a few minutes later we got the e-mail.”

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..