If you don't want to miss anything posted on the Americans For Truth website, sign up for our "Feedblitz" service that gives you a daily email of every new article that we post. (This service DOES NOT replace the regular email list.) To sign up for the Feedblitz service, click here.
Join Pro-Life and Pro-Family activists at the Defense of the Texas Marriage Amendment Rally
WHEN & WHERE: Monday, March 23rd at 1:00 PM on the south steps of the State Capitol in Austin. Below is a video and letter by Dr. Steven Hotze, president of Conservative Republicans of Texas:
It’s time for Christians and conservatives to rise up and take a stand for God’s truth about marriage! We must draw a line in the sand.
This is a call to action. I am asking you to make whatever sacrifices necessary to attend the Defense of Texas Marriage Amendment Rally scheduled for Monday, March 23rd at 1:00 pm on the south steps of the Texas Capitol. Please encourage your family, friends and fellow church members to attend. You might consider taking busloads of people to the rally.
We have over 100 elected State Officials who are sponsoring this event. They are coming under attack by militant homosexuals. That is why Christians and conservatives must have a show of force to let these legislators know that we support them.
Marriage is a God ordained institution between a man and a woman and it is the fundamental foundation of families and of ordered societies: “For this cause a man shall leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and they shall become one flesh” (Gen. 2:24, Matt. 19:5).
In the November 8, 2005 General Election, the citizens of Texas passed, by an overwhelming margin of 76% to 24%, a Marriage Amendment to the Texas Constitution, Article 1, Section 32, which provides that “Marriage in this state shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman.”
A fierce battle for the soul of Texas has begun.The liberals and their pro-homosexual allies want to force Texans to redefine marriage and accept ‘homosexual mirage’ as morally right.
Obama was “chomping at the bit” to support homosexuality-based “marriage,” says key adviser
By Peter LaBarbera
Obama adviser and powerful Chicago Democratic political strategist David Axelrod confirms in his new book “Believer” what many Americans have long suspected: Barack Obama “bulsh*tted” America on “gay marriage” to help win his bid for the White House in 2008. [See the 2013 AFTAH piece, “Was Obama Lying When He Piously Professed His Belief in Natural Marriage?”]
“I had no doubt that this [a 1996 campaign pledge by Obama to support same-sex “marriage” legislation while running for Illinois state senator] was his heartfelt belief.”
Candidate and then-Sen. Obama “grudgingly accepted the cousel of more pragmatic folks like me, and modified his position to support civil unions rather than [homosexual ‘marriage’].”
Obama “never felt comfortable with the compromise, and told Axelrod after one “awkward” public exchange defending his calculated compromise position: “I’m just not very good at [bullsh*tting].”
In 2010, “the president was chomping at the bit to support the right of gays and lesbians to wed–and having watched him struggle with this issue for years, I was ready, too.”
I heartily agree with Boyce College Professor of Biblical Studies Denny Burk‘s take on this:
“If Axelrod’s report is accurate, this is the worst kind of hypocrisy and cynicism. It would mean this: Not only did President Obama lie in order to get elected, but he also used his Christian faith as a pretense. He pretended to believe Christian teaching in order to make the lie credible.”
Obama himself is pushing back against Axelrod’s claim–see this Politico story: “Obama: I didn’t lie about same-sex marriage.” “I think David is mixing up my personal feelings with my position on the issue,” Obama told Buzzfeed.
But like so much of what the president has said over the years, his denial is not very plausible–just watch again the video below of Obama’s infamous “God is in the mix” pledge to 2008 debate moderator Pastor Rick Warren in support of natural marriage. (One could argue that as much as Obama may have “hated BS’ing” the country on sodomy-based “marriage,” he was pretty darned good at it–maybe a career in Hollywood awaits him after he leaves the Oval Office.)
Below are photos of the pages 446-7 from Axelrod’s book containing the key revelation that candidate Obama knew all along that he was “bullsh*tting” the public on this critical moral issue, followed by the 2008 Saddleback presidential debate footage (note Obama’s feigned piety). Oh, and one more thing: NEVER should Rick Warren moderate another presidential debate–he blew a big opportunity to call out Obama on his charade, which should have been evident to everyone since then-candidate Obama gave rhetorical sustenance to the very aggressive LGBT push for same-sex “marriage”–e.g., condemning state amendments to preserve the traditional definition of marriage–even as he formally opposed legalizing it:
Here is then-candidate Obama’s profession of support for natural marriage (one-man, one-woman) at the Rick Warren’s Saddleback Church debate in 2008:
Jeb Bush: GOP Too “Anti-Gay”: Former Florida Governor Jeb Bush worries that Republicans come off as being too “anti-gay.” He said Floridians need to “respect the rule of law” after a Clinton-appointed judge struck down the state’s marriage-protection amendment, passed by 62 percent of the Sunshine State’s voters in 2008.
It is becoming apparent that Jeb Bush is the favorite Republican Party presidential contender of the Washington Blade—D.C.’s “gay news source”–due to his politically-correct evolution on homosexuality and same-sex “marriage.”
The Blade and other liberal media report favorably every time the former Florida governor moves away from the conservative, pro-family, Republican platform defending marriage as between man and woman.
On January 5, the “gay” Blade happily reported that Bush “struck a softer tone” with his nuanced response to District Judge Robert Hinkle’s overthrow of Florida’s pro-natural-marriage amendment, which had passed with 62 percent of the vote in 2008. Here is Bush’s wishy-washy reaction to the Clinton-appointed judge’s outrageous overreach:
“We live in a democracy, and regardless of our disagreements, we have to respect the rule of law…I hope that we can show respect for the good people on all sides of the gay and lesbian marriage issue – including couples making lifetime commitments to each other who are seeking greater legal protections and those of us who believe marriage is a sacrament and want to safeguard religious liberty.”
Rule of law? What rule of law?! Perhaps a few hundred thousand Republicans–of the 4,890,883 Florida voters who cast ballots to preserve the common-sense definition marriage–might demand an answer from Bush to this question:
“Why should we respect a judge’s ‘evolving-Constitution’ interpretation of the law when the same judge shows zero respect for We the People—as he arrogantly casts aside the people’s clearly expressed will against legalizing homosexuality-based ‘marriage’?”
Of course, such trivialities as rendering nearly five million Florida votes meaningless matter little to the “gay” Blade, whose reporter cooed:
“While [Bush’s] remarks don’t signal support for the right of same-sex couples to marry, they’re a shift in tone from comments the former Florida governor made to The Miami Herald in which he said states should decide the marriage issue. [Bush said:} ‘It ought to be a…state decision…The people of the state decided. But it’s been overturned by the courts, I guess.’”
A few weeks earlier, under the gushy headline, “Is Jeb a kindler, more gay-friendly Bush?” the Bladereported excitedly Bush’s complaint that Republicans come off as being too “anti-gay” (and anti-immigrant, etc.).
The year 2014 in America saw an unprecedented overreach by the judiciary, with federal judges–contemptuous or at least dismissive of the people’s clearly-expressed will–striking down as “unconstitutional” popular state ballot measures preserving the age-old definition of marriage as between husband and wife.
Only an “evolving Constitution” could countenance so-called rights and “marriage” based on sexual deviancy. Legislators, not courts, change the law, and well into the 20th Century most states had laws on their books banning homosexual sodomy—once known as the infamous “crime against Nature.” To this day homosexual acts remain “against Nature,” hence their disproportionate association with sexual diseases like HIV and syphilis—which is why MSM (men having sex with men) is a red flag for blood donations.
Today’s judicial supremacists—with media sycophants in tow—don’t care that the United States Supreme Court has already established precedent in 1972 against using the Fourteen Amendment–designed to combat institutionalized racism left over from slavery–to legalize homosexuality-based “marriage.” The Supreme Court dismissed in an appeal of the Minnesota Supreme Court decision Baker vs. Nelson in which the majority wrote:
“[I]n commonsense and in a constitutional sense, there is a clear distinction between a marital restriction based merely upon race and one based upon the fundamental difference in sex.”
The 2014 judicial avalanche in favor of radically redefining marriage to accommodate homosexual behavior exposes a key contradiction of the Left: on the one hand progressives bemoan voter-ID laws, arguing that these laws are purposely designed to make it harder for African-Americans and likely Democratic voters to cast a ballot.
On the other hand, “progressives” like those inhabiting the offices of the ACLU overwhelmingly support judicial negation of successful state constitutional amendments preserving marriage as between one man and one woman—in states like Utah, Michigan, Missouri, Oklahoma and Florida. Each of these court rulings imposing “gay marriage” disenfranchises millions of Americans on the issue.
Moreover, polls show that Black Americans are a strong demographic in support of traditional marriage. So effectively, to use Twitter-ese, liberals are saying that #BlackVotesMatter–except when it comes to popular state amendments rejecting homosexuality-based “marriage,” for which (millions of) #BlackVotesDoNotCount.
Sexual revolutionaries have cunningly have mastered the art of using government power through the manipulation of the law to legitimize their sin, in this case homosexual behavior–which God calls an abomination (“detestable”; see Leviticus 20:13) and a sin that can be overcome through Jesus Christ (1 Corinthians 6:9-11). So naturally the Left has exulted in the tendency of most courts to reject overwhelmingly popular ballot measures designed to protect the historic definition of marriage.
Judge Jeffrey Sutton. Read his decision upholding defense-of-marriage laws HERE.
The following release was put out yesterday by CCV Action, the legislative action arm of Citizens for Community Values. Finally, some good sense and humility out of a federal court on the same-sex “marriage” issue! [Read the full decision HERE.] We reprint Judge Jeffrey Sutton’s words below because they represent such a stark contrast to those of other federal judges who, like so many “progressives” and judicial elitists, relish “making history” on homosexuality-based “marriage” even if it means invalidating millions of votes and disenfranchising millions of American citizens on this critical moral and social issue.
Judge Sutton said:
“Of all the ways to resolve this question, one option is not available: a poll of the three judges on this panel, or for that matter all federal judges, about whether gay marriage is a good idea. Our judicial commissions did not come with such a sweeping grant of authority, one that would allow just three of us—just two of us in truth—to make such a vital policy call for the thirty-two million citizens who live within the four States of the Sixth Circuit: Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee.”
The 2-1 majority decision continues:
“This case ultimately presents two ways to think about change. One is whether the Supreme Court will constitutionalize a new definition of marriage to meet new policy views about the issue. The other is whether the Court will begin to undertake a different form of change—change in the way we as a country optimize the handling of efforts to address requests for new civil liberties.
“If the Court takes the first approach, it may resolve the issue for good and give the plaintiffs and many others relief. But we will never know what might have been. If the Court takes the second approach, is it not possible that the traditional arbiters of change—the people—will meet today’s challenge admirably and settle the issue in a productive way?”
What a concept: let ‘We the People’ have our say on one of the most controversial issues of our time–rather than imposing a “solution” through the dubious application of laws and amendments intended to correct societal racism to reinventing marriage itself.
Congratulations to Phil Burress and CCV–and pro-family advocates in the other states–for all their hard work in defending marriage as what it is: a sacred union between one man and one woman. — Peter LaBarbera, AFTAH
By a 2-1 vote, the U.S. Sixth Circuit Court has ruled that the marriage laws of Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky, and Tennessee do not violate the federal Constitution. Judge Jeffrey Sutton, joined by Judge Deborah Cook, wrote the majority opinion.
Author of key “gay marriage” ruling espouses unproven “born gay” theory
UNINFORMED:Judge Richard Posner needs to meet some EX-“gays.”
By Peter LaBarbera
It is no small thing to accuse renowned legal scholar Richard Posner, Chief Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, and author of a recent controversial ruling in favor of homosexual “marriage,” of being ignorant—but it appears that is the case when it comes to Posner’s assertion that homosexuality is “immutable.”
It has been said of the prolific Posner, author of nearly 40 books, that he ”writes the way other men breathe,” but apparently the judge has never breathed in the wonderful reality that many men and women have overcome the destructive pull of homosexuality in their lives. Posner writes in the Appeals Court decision September 4 striking down Wisconsin’s and Indiana’s pro-traditional marriage laws:
“The challenged laws discriminate against a minority defined by an immutable characteristic…And there is little doubt that sexual orientation, the ground of the [anti-“gay marriage”] discrimination, is an immutable (and probably an innate, in the sense of in-born) characteristic rather than a choice” [pages 7, 9]
Such simplistic and unproven assertions cover over a multitude of politically incorrect facts and nuances that contradict the “gay” activist claim that “sexual orientation”–itself a tendentious social construct–is inborn, innocuous and unchangeable. This false narrative conveniently serves homosexual activists who insist theirs is a “civil rights” movement akin to Black Americans’ noble struggle for equality.
Thomas More Law Center promises “game changer” in new “national strategy to defend traditional marriage”
SEXUAL IMMORALITY IS NOT A “CIVIL RIGHT”:Pastor Emery Moss (L.), Pastor Danny Holliday, and Evangelist Janet Boynes (a former lesbian) listen during Thomas More press conference announcing national strategy to defend marriage. Said Holliday: “We all know that the 14th Amendment was made because Black folk were considered as property. Gays have never been considered as property.”
The Thomas More Law Center (TMLC), a national, nonprofit public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, MI held a press conference yesterday to reveal its national legal strategy to combat the slew of recent federal court rulings which have overturned state laws defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman.
_______________________
A Game Changer—Thomas More Law Center Reveals National Strategy to Defend Traditional Marriage
Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, disclosed that a legal team has been formed to file friend-of-the-court briefs (amicus briefs) on behalf of a Coalition of African-American pastors and Christian leaders. The legal team consists of the Law Center’s senior trial counsel, Erin Mersino, and co-counsels William R. Wagner and John S. Kane of Lansing, MI.
Thompson explained, “In its briefs, the Law Center reflects the voice of a majority of African-Americans that discrimination because of one’s sexual preference is not the same thing as racial discrimination and that tradition and morality should not be discarded as a basis of the law; as the pro-homosexual judges have done in their opinions.”
Several pastors representing the African-American community spoke at the press conference, including Bishop Samuel Smith, and Pastors Danny Holliday and Emery Moss. Evangelist Janet Boynes, a former lesbian and a member of the group, also spoke. In eloquent and at times fiery words, they all defended the definition of marriage as the union of a man and a woman.
Here is a new survey that cuts through the media-manufactured hype that the battle over homosexual “marriage” is over and that legalized same-sex “marriage” with popular support is “inevitable” across the United States.–Peter LaBarbera, AFTAH
___________________________________
Citizens for Community Values Action (CCVA)
PRESS RELEASE
April 14, 2014
Contact: Phil Burress, Chairman, Citizens for Community Values Action (CCVA)
New Poll Shows Decline in Support for Same-Sex Marriage
A new independent poll of 405 registered Ohio voters confirms a decline in support for same-sex marriage in Ohio. The poll was commissioned by Citizens for Community Values Action (CCVA) and conducted during the week of March 31 – April 3.
Highlights of the poll show:
1) Only 33% of respondents are certain they would vote to allow marriage between two people of the same sex. Correspondingly, 52% of people are certain to vote to keep marriage as only between one man and one woman.
2) 55% do not think it is necessary to have another vote this year on homosexual marriage
3) On the question, “Do you personally agree or disagree that marriage should only be between a man and a woman?” 56% agreed and 34% disagreed, with 9% don’t know/no response.
4) 89% of those polled are either absolutely (66%) or very likely (23%) to vote.
“These are the kind of numbers we saw prior to the 2004 vote when Ohioans passed Issue 1, the Marriage Amendment, with nearly 62% of the vote,” said Phil Burress, CCVA Chairman. “I believe this return to pre-2004 polling numbers is a direct result of the open hostility and bullying being experienced by citizens and people of faith who hold a natural or traditional view of marriage.”
“Like Ohio, voters in 31 out of 34 states have voted with margins as high as 60-80% to recognize marriage as only between one man and one woman,” Burress stated. “The shockingly intolerant decision by Federal Judge Black to invalidate the clear will of more than 3.3 million Ohio voters is egregious. It’s another example of homosexual activists using sympathetic judges and the courts as a blunt instrument to force a redefinition of marriage and family on the people of Ohio. It seems clear that when advocates of ‘marriage equality’ cannot convince the people and win at the ballot box, they resort to the courts and judicial fiat. But it’s also clear that most Ohioans still understand that natural marriage has no equal.”
“We believe Judge Black’s decision will be overturned – as it should be – by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit,” Burress concluded.
