This past weekend, two bricks containing vulgar and threatening messages were thrown through the window of a private Christian school in the Chicago area because it had the audacity to host events where the Biblical standards of sexuality and marriage are discussed. The day after the incident, a group supporting rights based on homosexual conduct took credit for the incident and stated:
“These chunks of concrete were thrown through these windows and doors for two reasons: to show that there is a consequence for hatred and homophobia in our community and to directly cause this event to be shut down. If this event is not shut down, and the homophobic day trainings do not end, the Christian liberty academy will continue to be under constant attack.”
I’ve spoken at the Christian Liberty Academy for one of the alleged “hate conferences.” Although our message was one of hope and redemption for those struggling with same-sex attractions, the protestors outside the event two years ago when I spoke there were anything but civil or friendly. This latest crime has to be a wake up call to those who still deny that the “tolerance” movement actually seeks peace and tolerance. They are tolerant of anything except those who desire to proclaim that Truth — that there is a Creator God who ultimately has set absolute standards of right and wrong that we all will be judged by whether we believe in God or not.
Honestly, the bricks through the window of a private Christian school wasn’t really shocking to me. The audacity of a group to publicly take responsibility for the brick throwing and then to threaten further attacks is a little startling. It’s entirely consistent, however, with othe recent events in our country where the activist organizations seeking to normalize sinful sexual lifestyles are demanding full acceptance of their agenda.
For example, two different teachers recently have made national news because they made statements on Facebook against homosexual relationships and in favor of God’s design for marriage. Why are they in the news? Because somehow speaking out against same-sex marriage and relationships makes them intolerant and therefore unsuitable to teach children in public schools. This is where you must stop and ask yourself — if the situation were reversed and the teacher spoke out against God’s design for marriage — showing support for same-sex relationships, would there even be a second thought given to whether the teacher should be sanctioned? (This is where I’ll insert an “absolutely not” to what was really a rhetorical question).
The goal of the activist homosexual agenda is to completely silence or eradicate those who speak and stand for Truth. That’s why we’ve seen the following happen:
Homosexual activists file suit against a photographer who refuses to take photos at a same-sex marriage or civil union commitment ceremony (it’s not as though the couple couldn’t open the phonebook or search the internet on the latest high-tech phone to identify one of hundreds of other photographers who would love to take the couple’s money to photograph the ceremony);
A school teacher in San Francisco deemed it a great field trip to take FIRST graders to see a same-sex wedding of one of their teachers;
Religiously-based adoption agencies are forced to shut their doors when they refuse to place children into homes of same-sex couples (as if there aren’t other agencies and ways for same-sex couples to adopt in Massachusetts, Illinois, and Washington, D.C.); or
Teachers at a private school for AUTISTIC children in New York City decided that the best musical they could have their students participate in would be La Cage Aux Folles where autistic boys were dressing up as girls without their parents’ knowledge to parade around the stage as “showgirls.”
I’ve been blessed during the past few weeks to do several radio interviews about these issues in the context of discussing my book, “Only One Mommy.” As I’ve discussed Lisa Miller’s story, including her traumatic childhood and the six year custody battle for her biological daughter that ultimately “ended” with a Vermont court declaring the factually impossible — that Lisa’s biological child someone had a second mommy — and ordering Lisa to turn HER child over to Lisa’s former same-sex partner, my heart grieves over the fact that not enough people are taking seriously the grave moral state of our nation. When will more people take notice and do something? Perhaps when the brick of tolerance comes through their window?
I’d like to close with a quote from an e-mail Lisa wrote me in September 2008. The quote is in the book, “Only One Mommy.”
“Too many people are apathetic, asking themselves ‘what can I do,’ offering excuses such as ‘I am only one peron, I don’t have time, I can’t take a stand now,’ or telling themselves and others that the whole thing is in ‘God’s hands.’ Although God is definitely in control of our lives, we are called to act. We are the disciples for this moment; we are to go and do. We are to go and gather others as the disciples did in order to do God’s work. I believe we are called to tell the people about the activist judges and warn them about the threats to our freedoms. . . . I am at a loss of words on why people are choosing to remain silent. All I know is that one day I am going to see Jesus and He is going to ask me what I did for Him. I want to tell Him that I did my best and that I exhausted all of my resources for Him.”
Given the number of depressingly absurd stories I heard today related to transsexuals, someone must have forgotten to inform me that it was national transgender day. Well, it wasn’t actually national transgender awareness day, but it sure felt that way. Actually, it felt more like I was in a really bad twilight zone episode where everything that should be called wrong was suddenly heralded as great. That’s how I feel about the following two stories I read today.
First, the New York Post reported that a state panel is advising NY Governor Cuomo to require the state’s Medicaid program (which is already the costliest in the nation) to foot the bill for sex reassignment surgery. Yep, you heard it right — taxpayer funded self-mutilation. Not to be too vivid, but for a male to “become” a female, the person must ingest a continual diet of hormones and chop off a body part. The panel, as well Empire State Pride Agenda is calling the surgery a “medical necessity” for those with gender identity disorder. Well, as the name suggests, gender identity disorder is indeed still classified as a mental disorder (although for how long no one really knows given the political winds at the APA). So, shouldn’t the recommended course of treatment be mental health counseling to get the patient to accept his or her sex rather than to go through costly, extensive, and risky medical procedures to accommodate something that is not based in reality. Even more so, to go through such a procedure that has NOT proven effective in eliminating underlying health issues. In fact, John Hopkins, which was one of the first hospitals to perform sex reassignment surgeries years ago, stopped for that very reason — it wasn’t shown to actually improve the long term mental health of the patient.
The second article is from the United Kingdom where an eleven year old boy who has been raised by two women in a same-sex relationship, is now taking drugs to suppress male hormones because he believes he wants to be a girl. In fact, he has been dressing as a girl for the past three years. The couple says that they didn’t force him to do this, but you’ve got to at least ask yourself the impact it has had on this boy NOT to have a father figure because these two women intentionally deprived him of having a father — buying into the idea, of course, that having two mommies is just as good as a mom and a dad.
I know I’ve mentioned this before, but the established protocols by those hospitals willing to perform these surgeries are ridiculous. Think about it — someone is so distressed with his birth sex that he engages in crude attempts to cut off genitalia without the aid of a doctor. That then is used as evidence that the person is a good candidate for sex reassignment — stated differently — if a person is so distressed over his current life situation that he simply cannot cope, resorting to self-mutilation, then he is diagnosed with gender identity disorder and can begin the process of having medical professionals help him to mutilate his body. Mental health professionals should be helping people to overcome the feelings of distress about what is reality – birth sex. If someone denies that reality or can’t cope with it — we need to help him come to grips with reality, not foster the delusion that somehow he was born the wrong sex and istrapped in the wrong body.
Please pray that people who feel this way will come into contact with a mental health professional who can help them to begin the process of healing in order to appreciate their birth sex.
I heard a great sermon today by Pastor Clayton King. He was speaking at convocation for Liberty University’s Spiritual Emphasis week. Each time I’ve heard Clayton King preach, I’ve been moved by his sermons. He’s real and makes you examine where you are at in your relationship with the Lord. Today was no different when he discussed that there are three different ways we can believe in Jesus Christ — only one of which makes you a Christian.
The first way to believe in Jesus Christ, which doesn’t offer you the gift of salvation, is inherited belief. Essentially, it’s the person who calls himself a Christian because he was raised in a Christian household, attended church all his life, and generally tries to live a good life. I like the way Clayton King put it — God doesn’t have grandchildren, only sons and daughters. In other words, you aren’t a Christian because your mom was a Christian or your dad the pastor. Becoming a Christian is an individual decision and commitment.
The second way to believe is intellectually, which also doesn’t offer you the gift of salvation. As he pointed out, 90+% of Americans still state that they believe in God, but that doesn’t make them Christians. In fact, if believing in Jesus Christ (meaning that we acknowledge the fact that He is God, He died on the cross, and He rose again) is enough to be considered a Christian, then Satan is a Christian because the Bible is quite clear that Satan believes in Jesus Christ and knows exactly who Christ is. That, however, is not enough.
So what does it take? It means really believing. The type of belief that caused Peter to step out of the boat onto raging waters, risking actual death, because his Lord told him to step out. It’s the type of faith that causes people across the world today to die for their faith in order to fulfill the Great Commission. It’s the type of faith that caused David to defy the king’s order by praying to God, knowing the king would throw David into the lion’s den. It’s the kind of faith that should cause us to turn over absolutely every area and every minute of our life to Him, willingly making any sacrifice necessary to do that which He has called us to do. It can be easy to say, but really making that commitment is an entirely different thing.
As we approach the anniversary of 9/11, I can’t help but think that thousands of Americans lost their lives because there were people so committed to their “god” that they believed that by crashing planes into prominent buildings they would earn their way into heaven. That’s believing. Of course, that brings up a topic for another day — you have to properly choose what to believe. Please don’t get me wrong, I’m not calling for Christians to do anything like those terrorists did that day — the primary reason being that the God of the Bible calls us to take the Gospel to the unsaved, not to kill in His name. Additionally, as someone who was in NYC on 9/11 and watched from my office window as the second plane hit and each of the towers crumbled, I couldn’t wish that kind of evil or pain on anyone. But I do pray that more Christians would be willing to make a commitment to stand for Truth, regardless of the personal consequences. If we were to have that kind of belief in Jesus Christ, lives would be truly transformed. If the hearts of the people in this country were transformed, so too would our culture. While our laws can help keep people from making poor choices, only Christ transforms lives. If we aren’t willing to stand for Christ in a culture that wants to silence Truth, who will?
There is a battle raging all around us and each of us are a part of it regardless of whether we want to be — the only question is whether you are going to sit on the sidelines or be a warrior for Christ. Please consider how it is that each of us can take a bolder stance for Truth and be salt and light to those around us.
Knowing that Alabama isn’t quite ready for the idea of using police officials to tear an eight year old child from the arms of his biological mother to then turn him over to his mom’s former same-sex partner, news accounts fail to even mention that the other “parent” in this case is the former same-sex partner. See the news account here:
The whole case stems from a Delaware court’s decision to declare the former partner a “de facto parent” and therefore treat her on the same playing field as the child’s fit, biological parent. Some of you might be wondering — what’s a “de facto” parent. Well, that’s when judges decide to play God and redesign the family structure to state what is factually and physically impossible — a child having two moms. That’s what happened here, despite allegations that the child had been abused by an older child of the former partner’s.
Not only is this case news for the heart-wrenching separation that has taken place between mom and son, but also because Alabama officials got involved in arresting this woman. Alabama’s law is very clear that it does not treat same-sex relationships the same as opposite-sex relationships. In fact, the Alabama Supreme Court recently indicated in another case that Alabama law might preclude enforcement of orders from other states declaring a former same-sex partner to be a parent to another person’s biological child.
Needless to say, this will be an interesting case to follow. I hope Alabama stands strong on its marriage laws and refuses to enforce this foreign custody order. I also hope that people hold the media accountable for failing to be forthright in what this case is really about. When you read the news article, you’d think mom abducted child from biological dad — not that an activist court declared child to have two moms and biological mom found herself in a state that refused to protect her right to raise her child.
If this topic interests you, I urge you to pick up a copy of Only One Mommy where one of the chapters discusses other similar cases in detail. You can get it here: http://www.amazon.com/Only-One-Mommy-Daughter-Freedom/dp/1937102017/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1313629797&sr=8-1
As some of you already know, this past week marked a major life event for me — my first book was published. It’s title gives you a good idea of its content: “Only One Mommy: A Woman’s Battle for Her Life, Her Daughter, and Her Freedom — The Lisa Miller Story.”
I hope to accomplish three things with the book. First, using the life story of Lisa Miller, including a series of addictions that started in middle school, her marriage to a man, and then her years involved in homosexual conduct, the book provides a glimpse into one woman’s journey into and out of homosexuality. By telling Lisa’s story, with details provided to me by Lisa in 2008, I hope to help people understand what “causes” some people to get involved in a same-sex relationship.
Second, the book encourages churches to reach out to those struggling with same-sex attractions, helping Christians to understand a bit more about what to do, and not to do, in ministering to those struggling with same-sex attractions.
Third, the book provides a detailed account of the pervasive homosexual agenda in America. In that section, I also try to answer many questions that have been asked over the years about the six year interstate custody battle for Isabella.
Today, I’d like to spend a little bit of time touching on the middle half of the book — the two chapters targeted to the Church. Here’s an excerpt from Chapter six:
“Unknowingly, I too had fallen into the mindset that there was something different about helping people struggling with same-sex attractions and that I needed to leave that to the ‘professionals’ or to others who had struggled with same-sex attractions. I hope that by sharing from Lisa’s experience you will understand, as I do now, that regardless of our sin issue, we all have much more in common than perhaps we had thought in the past. And regardless of the sin issue, God’s grace truly is sufficient to transform lives.”
What I mean by that is that all of our sin issues (whether it’s drinking, pornography, pride, uncontrolled tongue, extra marital or pre-marital sexual relationships, gambling, or homosexual conduct) stem from a wrong relationship (or no relationship) with our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. People turn to these sin issues when they fail to depend on Christ moment by moment and day by day. We are born with a sin nature and Romans 1 is quite clear as to what happens when we are blinded to the truth and pursue our own self interests – what WE think will make us happy.
What I learned over the past two decades, but particularly during the seven years representing Lisa, is that we are all equipped to minister to those struggling with same-sex attractions because we’ve all struggled with some of the same root causes that ultimately lead someone to get involved in homosexual conduct: loneliness, abuse, poor self esteem, emptiness, earning for something outside of us, desire to love and be loved.
When I think about the fact that all too often the Church is insensitive to those struggling with same-sex attractions and sometimes fails to show them Christ’s love, I am saddened. I’ve spoken to so many people who’ve realized that God had something better in store for them and wished that someone had loved them enough to tell them the truth, in love, sooner. We live in a culture that tells people that they are born gay, can’t change, and that this is the best it will ever be. By refusing to reach out to them, we encourage them to stay in relationships that are personally, physically, and mentally harmful. “We intentionally create a socity where we encourage people to pursue a pat of self-destruction rather than true fulfillment and happiness.”
If you want to be a catalyst for change, to know more about Lisa’s story, or to learn more about the variety of ways that marriage and family are being redefined every day, pick up a copy of the book. It’s available online at Amazon and Barnes and Noble. If you read it and agree that it contains a message that others need to hear, please tell others about it as well. Over the years of litigation, Lisa always hoped and prayed that God would use her life story for something bigger — to help others make the decision to leave the homosexual lifestyle, to help churches do more for those struggling with this particular sin issue, and to motivate everyone to do something to stop the radical attempts to destroy God’s design for marriage, family, and sexuality.
A petition on Change.org urges PBS to have Bert & Ernie marry and to add a transgender character. Other than to push the idea that perversion is normal, what purpose does this serve?
Let’s stop for a second to ponder that we are talking about puppets. If you’ve not been around too many puppets, let me share a little secret — they generally aren’t anatomically correct. Sesame Street states that the puppets were originally created to teach preschoolers that people can be good friends who are very different; for those of my generation or older — it’s sort of like The Odd Couple for kids. So, the only reason to push a marriage between two boy puppets in a show for preschoolers is to pervert kids’ understanding of God’s design for sexuality and marriage.
As if that weren’t bad enough, the petition also asks that Sesame Street add a transgender character. Perhaps it would look something like this: Bert & Ernie marry, then Ernie realizes that he’s a woman trapped in a man’s body, and thus he starts to wear dresses, high heels, and nail polish. Now that you’ve got that mental picture, keep in mind that gender identity disorder is just as it’s name suggests — a mental disorder. Mentally healthy people don’t believe that they are one sex trapped in the other sex’s body. So,why would we encourage children to accept as normal something that’s a disorder?
While the petition might seem as though it isn’t worth the time of day, keep in mind that in the less than 12 hours since Fox News reported the story, petition signatures have increased from 900 to more than 3,000. In the meantime, another petition on the site has been started to “Out Bert and Ernie as Gay.” The petition’s very existence, and the fact that 3,000 have signed it, demonstrates the level of depravity to which our nation is sinking.
Folks, when I read stories like this one, I can’t help but wonder what it will take to wake America up. If you want to take action, I guess you could sign the petition to Stop Bert and Ernie from getting married. Even better, let’s teach people in our churches that this kind of “subtle” indoctrination cannot be tolerated – it’s corrupting our children and adding to a mentality that God’s word is NOT the authority over all of life.
It’s been a few weeks since my last post, but, sadly, it’s not because there hasn’t been a number of topics to choose from. In my last post, I wrote about the New York legislature’s decision to legalize same-sex “marriage.” I also explained, to no-one’s surprise, that just prior to the vote, some already were bemoaning how same-sex “marriage” would be too restrictive because of society’s expectations of monogamy in marriage. Just days later, attorney Jonathan Turley (a law professor at George Washington University School of Law) filed a lawsuit challenging Utah’s law that makes it a crime to knowingly have a spouse and to marry or live with a third person.
The complaint is filed on behalf of the Brown family, who were featured on a TLC reality TV show about polygamy – Sister Wives. In the complaint, Mr. Turley explains that the law “wrongfully” prevents all forms of polygamy, which he describes as including “polygyny, polyandry, and other forms of ‘group marriages.’” To make sure we all are on the same page, he defines each term: polygamy refers to any and all forms of plural marriages; polygyny refers more specifically to a plural marriage of a man and more than one wife; polyandry refers to a plural marriage of a woman with more than one husband; and group marriage refers to a “family” consisting of multiple husbands and wives. Finally, he explains that there is yet another category that is distinct from polygamy — “polyamory.” He defines polyamory as “consensual relationships where participants have more than one sexual partner, including long term commitments to multiple adult partners.” All of these have one common feature, according to the complaint, they “believe that monogamous unions are artificially restrictive and run counter to the biological and emotional needs of human beings.” Yes, he’s arguing that people can’t help but have more than one sex partner so the government should just go ahead and condone it. According to Turley and the Brown plaintiffs, the state has no business in criminalizing these various sexual relationships.
How does he justify his argument? He relies on the US Supreme Court decision in Lawrence v. Texas, a court decision from one province in Canada to protect polygamy, the fact that we permit single people to live, and have children together, and, most offensively, the Bible. The first two reasons require very little discussion. Lawrence is argued by anyone seeking government recognition of sexual sin. What else would you expect from a court decision that proclaimed that the constitutional guarantee of liberty “extends beyond spatial bounds” and “presumes an autonomy of self” both “in its spatial and more transcendent dimensions.” Assuming anyone knows what that means, it certainly leaves the door open for people to argue everything (including, for example, pedophilia) is protected by the constitution.
The two arguments that merit more attention are the Bible and societal-based arguments. The complaint properly points out that in America today, we no longer criminalize (or even socially stigmatize) unmarried cohabitation, fornication, or adultery. If we don’t take these sexual sins seriously, so the argument goes, what basis do we have for saying that polygamy (or same-sex marriage) is wrong. I understand the argument, but don’t agree in the conclusion. Frankly, I think we should take more seriously all forms of sexual sin and take steps to legally discourage the conduct. The solution is not, however, to simply make it a free for all for all types of sexual sin. And the church needs to take the lead on strengthening its commitment to marriage.
Finally, let’s turn to the Biblical argument. I believe this argument demonstrates the worldview conflict that is at the foundation of the current legal battles to legalize same-sex marriage, and, now, polygamy. In the complaint, Mr. Turley makes the argument that polygamy is a longstanding religious practice and is condoned by the Bible. First, he explains that many of the Old Testament heroes were polygamists (referring to Abraham, Moses, and Davis) and “chosen by God to lead His chosen people.” Based on this, he argues, the Bible approves of polygamy. Of course, not being familiar with the Bible, Mr. Turley overlooks the fact that the Bible makes clear that marriage is a union between one man and one woman and that God did not condone of polygamy. What makes his argument even more ironic is that after using the Bible to make his point that polygamy is a longstanding religious practice, he then goes on to essentially say that most people don’t actually take the Bible as the literal word of God. Well, you can’t have it both ways – citing the Bible as fact, and then questioning that it is fact.
Hopefully, with this case, people will finally realize that the overall goal is to absolutely destroy marriage and eradicate any societal reliance on traditional moral values.
I realize I’m a little late to the table in discussing the decision of New York to legalize same-sex marriage, but it’s taken me a while to figure out exactly what to think about it all. So, I took some time tonight to read over several articles written just days before and after the vote. What are my thoughts after reading these articles, two of which are New York Times articles? Honestly, a part of me wants to take out a big billboard ad stating “told you so.” For years, we have argued in court that same-sex couples don’t actually want the “right to marry,” but want to be given access to the institution of male-female marriage in order to radically redefine it and ultimately destroy it. And for years, our arguments have been rejected and scoffed by courts and same-sex “marriage” advocates. Well, on the eve of the NY vote to legalize same-sex “marriage,” the tone was a little different.
On June 23 (one day before the vote), Katherine Franke (self-proclaimed lesbian and Director of the Center for Gender and Sexuality Law at Columbia Law School) wrote an article in the NT Times entitled “Marriage is a Mixed Blessing.” The entire point of her article is that while she applauds those same-sex couples who have obtained “victory” in their quest for “marriage equality,” she doesn’t think people should be forced into the marriage model. “‘Winning’ the right to marry may mean ‘losing’ the rights we have now as domestic partners, as we’ll be folded into the all-or-nothing world of marriage.” She takes the position that people should be offered the opportunity to order their lives in ways that give them “greater freedom than can be found in the one-size-fits-all rules of marriage.”
In case that leaves you wondering, an article in today’s NY Times written by Mark Oppenheimer about Dan Savage removes any ambiguities in the type of freedom same-sex couples seem to want. In a piece entitled “Married, With Infidelities,” which goes on for six, single-spaced pages, the author presents Dan Savage’s view of marriage for the world to consider. I do need to point out that the author of the piece, who identifies himself as in a monogamous relationship with his wife, doesn’t necessarily agree with Savage’s views.
So, Dan Savage asserts that we need to work harder as a society that includes a sexual ethic that honors reality, rather than the fiction of monogamy. Savage believes that “some people need more than one partner” and some people “need” to engage in various fetishes that I simply will not repeat on this blog for fear that some young folks might be reading this. He says that men historically were not expected to be monogamous and that it’s unrealistic to expect them to be. Thus, marriages should be open to relationships on the side. This NY Times article cites a 2010 study that found 50 percent of homosexual male couples in San Francisco who were in a relationship had sexual relations with someone else with their partner’s knowledge and approval. Savage takes the position that “what integrity means for me is we shouldn’t impose a single vow of monogamy as a superior standard for all relationships.”
So, let’s re-cap thus far. The day before the historic NY vote allowing same-sex couples to “marry,” a piece in a leading newspaper makes the case that everyone shouldn’t be forced into the marriage model, despite the long-fought battle to supposedly be given access to that marriage model. Then, just six days after the vote, a lengthy piece details Dan Savage’s view that the marriage model should itself be redefined to exclude the expectation of monogamy. I have to ask — just what was so ridiculous about our arguments in court that same-sex couples didn’t truly want the “right” to enter into the traditional model of marriage? Here it is, in black and white, as they are gaining the “right” to marry they are simultaneously seeking to destroy it.
They are also seeking to destroy America. As if ripping at the moral foundation of America weren’t enough damage, an article by the Associated Press the day after the NY vote lays out for all of America to see that the key feature of our US Constitution — separation of powers — which is designed to prevent tyrannical accumulation of powers, means nothing to those bent on destroying marriage.
The June 25 piece starts with this sentence: “Many obstacles still lie ahead for supporters of same-sex marriage, and eventually they will need Congress or the Supreme Court to embrace their goal.” Stop . . . read that again if you missed it. Under our Constitution, Congress and the Supreme Court have been delegated very different responsibilities that do not overlap. Congress is to make laws and the Supreme Court is to ensure that Congress and the President do not exceed the limited, enumerated powers granted to them. This one sentence calls for judicial activism — asking the Court to rule on a moral and policy decision. Their goal is clear — just as the Supreme Court stepped into the moral question of killing unborn babies in declaring in 1973 in Roe that states could not prohibit abortion, same-sex marriage advocates hope the Supreme Court will, with one decision, strike down statutes and constitutional amendments in the 44 states that define marriage as the union of one man and one woman. The court simply does not have the power, although we seem to have ceded such power to it.
So where do we go from here. Well, in a June 27 article, the Associated Press discussed a new school in Stockholm, Sweden where the staff seek to eradicate all gender differences throughout their curriculum and interactions. Thus, students are not referred to as him or her, but, rather, as friends. The school has a “gender pedagogue” to help staff identify language and behavior that reinforces any perceived stereotypes of what boys and girls should do or look like. “Nearly all the children’s books deal with homosexual couples, single parents or adopted children.” The teachers view their roles as helping students discover new ideas when they play. For example, when students are playing house and “‘the role of mom already is taken and they start to squabble,’ she says, ‘then we suggest two moms or three moms and so on.’”
I can’t say that the NY vote surprises me. As those who care about God’s design for marriage, we have to equip ourselves with an ability to communicate to the rest of the world why it is that marriage is important. Most churches aren’t taking that responsibility seriously. We need to be able to articulate why it isn’t discrimination to tell a same-sex couple that they simply do not meet the requirements for marriage. God’s standard is clear; so too, therefore, should be our message and action plan.
You can see the articles here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/24/opinion/24franke.html (Marriage is a Mixed Blessing)
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/03/magazine/infidelity-will-keep-us-together.html (Married, With Infidelities)