Marriage Equality

The Ninth Circuit Court today upheld a lower court ruling which found Proposition 8, which overturned marriage equality in California, unconstitutional. Religious Right activists immediately denounced the ruling and used the decision to attack gays and lesbians, judges, Hollywood and San Francisco.

The National Organization for Marriage president Brian Brown emailed members with a warning that the case will end up with an “all-or-nothing showdown at the United States Supreme Court” and told members that donations are needed to deny “same-sex marriage radicals” a legal victory:

Moments ago, the United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit handed down a sweeping ruling striking down California’s Proposition 8 and—for the first time ever—finding a "right" to same-sex marriage in the United States Constitution!

This sets up an all-or-nothing showdown at the United States Supreme Court.

…

A Supreme Court victory would preserve the marriage laws of 44 states, denying same-sex marriage radicals in their campaign to force gay marriage on the entire nation in one fell swoop. But if we lose at the Supreme Court, marriage will be jeopardized not just in California, but in all 50 states.

NOM also posted additional statements from Brown and board chairman John Eastman, who called it an “absurd ruling”:

“As sweeping and wrong-headed as this decision is, it nonetheless was as predictable as the outcome of a Harlem Globetrotters exhibition game,” said Brian Brown, NOM’s president. “We have anticipated this outcome since the moment San Francisco Judge Vaughn Walker’s first hearing in the case. Now we have the field cleared to take this issue to the US Supreme Court, where we have every confidence we will prevail.”

…

“Never before has a federal appeals court – or any federal court for that matter – found a right to gay marriage under the US Constitution,” said constitutional scholar John Eastman, who is chairman of NOM. “The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is the most overturned circuit in the country, and Judge Stephen Reinhardt, the author of today’s absurd ruling is the most overturned federal judge in America. Today’s ruling is a perfect setup for this case to be taken by the US Supreme Court, where I am confident it will be reversed. This issue is the Roe v Wade of the current generation, and I sincerely doubt the Court has the stomach for preempting the policy judgments of the states on such a contentious matter, knowing the lingering harm it caused by that ruling.”

The Alliance Defense Fund senior counsel Brian Raum dubbed the ruling a “Hollywood-orchestrated attack on marriage”:

No court should presume to redefine marriage. No court should undercut the democratic process by taking the power to preserve marriage out of the hands of the people. Americans overwhelmingly reject the idea of changing the definition of marriage. Sixty-three million Americans in 31 state elections have voted on marriage, and 63 percent voted to preserve marriage as the timeless, universal, unique union between husband and wife.

We are not surprised that this Hollywood-orchestrated attack on marriage–tried in San Francisco–turned out this way. But we are confident that the expressed will of the American people in favor of marriage will be upheld at the Supreme Court. Every pro-marriage American should be pleased that this case can finally go to the U.S. Supreme Court. The ProtectMarriage.com legal team’s arguments align with every other federal appellate and Supreme Court decision on marriage in American history.

Catholics for the Common Good president William May derided the court for failing to “to protect the centrality and integrity of marriage for children and society”:

"It is outrageous that judges continue to disregard the will of 7 million voters who voted to protect the centrality and integrity of marriage for children and society," May said.

Federal District Chief Judge Vaughn Walker presided over a show trial about marriage in which plaintiff's counsel trotted out witness after witness with emotional arguments in a PR attempt to re-argue Proposition 8.

"Failing to disclose that the judge himself was similarly situated as the plaintiffs (in a long-term committed relationship with a same-sex partner), Walker could find no rational reason for the voters to define marriage between a man and a woman and concluded they were bigoted and discriminatory," said May.

"To reach his judgment about the voters and his decision to strike down Prop 8, he created a new definition of marriage as merely the public recognition of a committed relationship for the benefit of adults. However, the voters of California know that marriage is much more than that. It is the reality that unites a man and a woman with each other and any children born from their union. This is what marriage is; that is what it does. It is a reality that can only be recognized by law and never changed."

Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council accused the court of “judicial tyranny” and trying to “impose San Francisco values on the entire country”:

"Today's decision was disappointing but not surprising, coming from the most liberal Circuit Court in the country. This Hollywood-funded lawsuit, which seeks to impose San Francisco values on the entire country, may eventually reach the Supreme Court. This is not about constitutional governance but the insistence of a group of activists to force their will on their fellow citizens.

"This ruling substitute's judicial tyranny for the will of the people, who in the majority of states have amended their constitutions, as California did, to preserve marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

"However, we remain confident that in the end, the Supreme Court will reject the absurd argument that the authors of our Constitution created or even implied a 'right' to homosexual 'marriage,' and will instead uphold the right of the people to govern themselves.

"Voters in 31 states have voted to uphold the historic and natural definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Twenty-nine, a majority of American states, have actually inserted such a definition into the text of their state constitutions," concluded Perkins.

Focus on the Family analyst Bruce Hausknecht called the ruling “yet another instance of social engineering”:

“Opponents of Prop 8 insist on changing the definition of marriage for everyone, including children who deserve the opportunity to grow up in a home with their own married mother and father," Bruce Hausknecht, judicial analyst at Focus on the Family, said in a statement after the ruling.

“But no judge has the right to redefine marriage," he continued. "Doing so redefines parenthood, and offers yet another instance of social engineering based on the desires of adults rather than the interests of children."

Concerned Women for America CEO Penny Young Nance asserted that the judges “undermined the foundations of the family and liberty”:

Once again, the Ninth Circuit lives up to its reputation as the most overturned court in the country. Only this time, they have reached a new low. They not only showed a complete disregard for the Constitution, but also for those principles and values that gave birth to it, and for "we the people" who are supposed to be the ultimate authority.

Californians voted overwhelmingly to support the traditional definition of marriage that has been the foundation of this great nation. Our experiences have shown us, as science proves, that the best environment for children to develop as productive members of our society is in a home where there is a mother and a father who love them and each other unconditionally. Yet with a stroke of the pen these three judges have undermined the foundations of the family and liberty.

Shame on them.

We know this issue will eventually end up at the U.S. Supreme Court and we hope, for the sake of our country's future, that they will show much more respect for the Constitution, our foundations and the people who give them the right to make these rulings in the first place.

UPDATE: The Capitol Resource Institute blasted the ruling as “a stunning assault on democracy”:

"This is a stunning assault on democracy and California's initiative process," explained Karen England, Executive Director of pro-family group Capitol Resource Institute and a key leader in the passage of Proposition 8. "Well over 50% of California voters approved Proposition 8; today their will was overturned by a panel of arrogant judges who want to impose their political agenda on the rest of us."

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals' ruling is not the end of the road for Proposition 8.

"The truth will always prevail and we are confident that the traditional-and true-definition of marriage will be upheld by the Supreme Court," stated England. "The voice of the people must be heard and respected. The future of California and American families depends upon the sanctity of traditional marriage. It's time for the courts to recognize marriages' critical role in society and protect it."

Former NOM head Maggie Gallagher, now with the Culture War Victory Fund, writes on National Review Online that the ruling represents a “breathtaking exercise in ill-natured illogic”:

In a breathtaking exercise in ill-natured illogic, a divided Ninth Circuit ruled 2–1 that because Prop 8 does not take away civil-union benefits for same-sex couples, it’s an unconstitutional exercise in irrational animus towards gay people.

Dishonestly, the court claimed it did not require any heightened scrutiny to reach this result.

Gordon Klingenschmitt said that the “Founding Fathers are turning over in their graves” as a result of the ruling:

The liberal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals announced today that the Founding Fathers wrote homosexual 'marriage' rights into the U.S. Constitution, and overturned California's Proposition 8 traditional marriage law, which had twice been passed by voters. The Founding Fathers are turning over in their graves, since all of them believed sodomy was a crime, and certainly not a Constitutional right.

Liberty Counsel chairman Mat Staver claimed the ruling “undermines the legitimacy of the judicial system” and represents the “unraveling of the actual judiciary”:

"This is a travesty of justice and it undermines the legitimacy of the judiciary," Staver tells OneNewsNow. "When judges find that there is a constitutional right to same-sex marriage, it's absolutely absurd. This is, I think, an illustration of why the judiciary has lost the confidence of the American people."

"If you look at ideology ... pushed by this particular panel, obviously that's what this panel did: they looked at their own ideological bias, their radical positions -- not the Constitution itself. And when they did that, it undermined their own legitimacy -- and I think this is the unraveling of the actual judiciary. It is the very seeds, as Thomas Jefferson said, of tyranny."

"They're not only saying that the voters don't have the right to amend their own constitution and define marriage, they're also saying that there is a constitutional, guaranteed right to same-sex marriage in the United States Constitution itself. That's absolutely absurd. It is insane to suggest that there is such a right in the United States Constitution."

The Family Leader dubbed the court a “friend of the radical homosexual agenda” and referred to the ruling as a case of bullying:

Today's decision by the liberal 9th Circut Court, while expected, is sad and outrageous on many levels. Not least of which is "we the people" get bullied again by a few "robed masters." It's also evidence that when executives go wobbly on fighting the left's agenda and not appointing ONLY strict constructionist judges, who take the Constitution and due process seriously, we continue to lose these battles. However, the 9th Circuit's opinon is no surprise; they have been a friend of the radical homosexual agenda for years. As for us; we have only begun to and will continue to be in the fight! Join us!

Gary Bauer of American Values chided the “Circus” Court for attempting to “force its radical agenda down our throats” and “threatening religious liberty”:

The Ninth “Circus” Court of Appeals has struck again. Today, a divided three-judge panel overruled the majority of California voters and struck down Proposition 8 — the state’s constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

The court’s majority ruled that traditional marriage “fails to advance any rational basis.” So in spite of thousands of years of recorded history, in spite of the values held by every major faith, in spite of basic biology and common sense and in spite of the will of the people, these left-wing judicial ideologues believe that normal marriage is irrational.

Here’s the bottom line: The culture war is real. The left does not intend to allow these issues to be decided by the people in their respective states. It will use the courts to force its radical agenda down our throats.

This is why it is so important for men and women of faith to be informed and active in the public policy debates of our time. These decisions are redefining our cherished values and threatening religious liberty.

In his daily radio bulletin, Family Research Council president Tony Perkins used a series of puns to express his outrage at Starbucks over the company’s support for legislation in Washington state to legalize same-sex marriage. The National Organization for Marriage and Liberty Counsel have also attacked the coffee company for supporting gay rights, and one pastor even said that the decision is proof that “Starbucks Hates God.” Perkins lashed out at Starbucks’ “attack on marriage” and “radical agenda,” warning “if Starbucks wants to focus on politics, then its profits are on dangerous grounds”:

Perkins: There's more than coffee brewing at Starbucks. There's controversy too. Hello, I'm Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council in Washington, D.C. Starbucks is stirring the pot all right, but with a liberal agenda that's got customers shaking their heads. In the fight over marriage in Washington State, the Seattle company is picking sides. Last week, the chain announced it'll join the attack on marriage and endorse homosexual unions. Spokesman Karen Holmes said, "This important legislation is aligned with Starbucks business practices... It is core to who we are and what we value as a company." Well, it may be at the core of who Starbucks is, but it's not at the core of who America is. Voters overwhelmingly believe in man-woman marriage--and they've passed 30 straight amendments to prove it. If Starbucks thinks people like their radical agenda, I hate to spill the beans. But people can get their caffeine fix anywhere. So if Starbucks wants to focus on politics, then its profits are on dangerous grounds.

On a conference call last night with Ralph Reed’s Faith and Freedom Coalition, Mitt Romney laced into President Obama, arguing that he is leading an “assault on life,” an “assault on religion” and an “assault on marriage” as part of a larger “assault on American values.” With Gingrich quickly moving up the polls in Florida with the support of more conservative, evangelical voters, Romney used the conference call to pick up the same rhetoric used by unsuccessful candidates like Rick Perry and Michele Bachmann and dish out red meat to Religious Right voters.

Romney, once a stalwart defender of Roe v. Wade, said President Obama shows a “disregard for the sanctity of human life [that] is absolutely appalling” and is leading an “assault on life” by rescinding the Mexico City Gag Rule, which bars the government from funding NGOs that use their own finances for family planning which include abortion services or referrals. Romney also distorted Obama’s statement marking the anniversary of Roe v. Wade, claiming that the President thinks pregnant women “can get rid of the child and therefore have an equal opportunity,” when actually Obama concluded his statement by saying that “we must also continue our efforts to ensure that our daughters have the same rights, freedoms, and opportunities as our sons to fulfill their dreams.”

He went on to say that Obama is conducting an “assault on religion” through the administration’s opposition to employment discrimination on religious grounds and attempts to ensure that women cannot be refused birth control coverage in their insurance plans or medical procedures because of loopholes, calling it “an assault on religion unlike anything we have seen.”

Romney concluded his diatribe by attacking a push for equal rights for gays and lesbians as an “assault on marriage,” and pledged to promote the Federal Marriage Amendment and stop Obama from paving “the path to same-sex marriage.”

Listen:

Romney: I think he is detached from reality when he says that he wants to ‘reclaim American values.’ There has been in my view an assault on American values since the beginning of his administration. Clearly from the beginning the assault on life with his abandonment of the Mexico City Policy and with the Vice President being sent to China and saying we understand the one-child policy there and of course the abuses associated with that policy are alarming and disturbing, and then on the anniversary of Roe v. Wade just a couple of days ago he said that the wonderful thing about Roe v. Wade is that it provides an equal opportunity for girls to equal boys, meaning that they don’t have to have a child anymore, if they become pregnant they can get rid of the child and therefore have an equal opportunity. The disregard for the sanctity of human life is absolutely appalling.

Then of course there’s the assault on religion. I think a lot of people were surprised that he felt that the government should be able to determine who is and who is not a minister and fortunately the Supreme Court disagreed with him on that, but now he’s gone forward and said that religious institutions, universities, hospitals and so forth, religious institutions have to provide free contraceptives to all their employees, even if that religious institution is opposed to the use of contraception, as in the case of the Catholic Church. Even in that regard, fighting to eliminate the conscience clause for health care workers who wish not to provide abortion services or contraceptives in their workplace, in their hospital for instance. It’s an assault on religion unlike anything we have seen.

There’s been an assault on marriage. I think he is very aggressively trying to pave the path to same-sex marriage. I would unlike this president defend the Defense of Marriage Act. I would also propose and promote once again an amendment to the constitution to define marriage as a relationship between a man and a woman.

Yesterday, Family Research Council president Tony Perkins appeared downcast when discussing the likely passage of a marriage equality bill in Washington state, arguing that gays and lesbians “don’t want marriage” and will never “feel content” because there is an “emptiness within them.” Today, FRC’s National Prayer Director Pierre Bynum, who recently joined with Cindy Jacobs and Harry Jackson in intense prayer against marriage equality in Maryland, asked members to pray for God’s intervention to prevent the legalization of same-sex marriage in Washington, Maryland and New Jersey. Bynum praised New Jersey’s governor Chris Christie for promising to veto the marriage equality bill and called for God to “strengthen and reinforce the pro-family groups that are leading the fights to preserve natural marriage and to prevent same ‘sex-marriage.’”

State Marriage Fights Intense - Unless God intervenes, Governor Chris Gregoire will succeed in her effort to legalize same-sex "marriage" in Washington State. Sen. Mary Margaret Haugen (D) announced Monday that she will support the bill, making her's the 25th vote necessary for passage. "You are saying...you know better than God," said Pastor Ken Hutcherson of the Antioch Bible Church. The House is expected to pass the measure easily. Meanwhile, pro-family advocates in New Jersey are pleading for prayer from across the nation. Same-sex "marriage" advocates at the State House in Trenton outnumber those defending traditional marriage. Thankfully, Governor Christie has promised to veto legislation, but the legislature may well pass it with a veto-proof majority. In Maryland, a citizen rally to protest the legalization of homosexual "marriage" will be held outside the State House the evening of January 30th; the Senate Hearing will be on the 31st. May God strengthen and reinforce the pro-family groups that are leading the fights to preserve natural marriage and to prevent same-sex "marriage." May the people of each state rally to support God-given marriage and may God give supernatural assistance where it is needed! (Jdg 4:14-15; 5:12-15a; Neh 6:9; Ps 110:3; Is 41:10; Mt 19:6; Mk 10:9)

Citing Judges 4:14-15, Bynum likened their opposition to marriage equality to Barak’s fight against the Canaanite armies led by Sisera:

Then Deborah said to Barak, ‘Up! For this is the day on which the LORDhas given Sisera into your hand. The LORD is indeed going out before you.’ So Barak went down from Mount Tabor with ten thousand warriors following him. And the LORD threw Sisera and all his chariots and all his army into a panic before Barak; Sisera got down from his chariot and fled away on foot.

During his sermon “Holding our Ground,” Matthew Hagee, son of right-wing televangelist John Hagee, blamed social and governmental ills in America on the Church having “surrendered” itself to secular culture, gay rights, public schools and government “socialism.” Hagee called for a new “generation of believers” who won’t believe “the deception of separation of church and state” and instead fight the “redefinition of the family.” Following in the footsteps of his father who has maintained that God “sent” the AIDS virus, Hagee argued that the Church doesn’t need a compassionate view of people with AIDS since “most of the time it’s a choice” and the “the Bible says that He cured all of our diseases and He by his stripes has healed every one of his children.”

Watch:

In many cases we surrendered our children to the doctrine of secular humanism as we’ve sent them to a school system which teaches them that God does not exist. We’ve surrendered our resources into a system of socialism that will take your money and use it to abort unwanted children and subsidize people who refuse to work. We’ve surrendered our voice in believing the deception of separation of church and state and allowed a dysfunctional government to silence the redeemed of the Lord that God has declared should say so. The problem is this: we’re not holding our ground, we’re giving up ground.

…

It is my prayer that this generation of believers be marked as the generation that chose not to give up one more inch of ground. To be believers to be willing to take a stand, to draw a line and say no more: there will be no more redefinition of the family, the family is one man married to one woman and those two people living in honor to God their Father, there will be no more.

…

The time has come for us to start answering questions in straightforward answers. People say, ‘well what’s the church’s position on AIDS’? AIDS is an incurable disease according to medical science but the Bible says that He cured all of our diseases and He by his stripes has healed every one of his children. Here’s the truth about diseases like AIDS, there are people who do contact this dreaded disease by some form of innocent contact, but most of the time it’s a choice. You know what the church’s position is and should be on AIDS: thou shalt not commit adultery. You start living that way and the AIDS problem in America will go down.

Eagle Forum president Phyllis Schlafly today applauded a Canadian court for ruling that the government does not have to recognize polygamous marriages, which she used to make an argument against marriage equality for gays and lesbians:

The Canadian courts have legalized same-sex marriage. Will they legalize polygamy, too? After all, if consenting adults should be able to marry anybody they like, then why should same-sex marriage be allowed but not polygamy?

Many libertarians now insist that government should get out of the business of marriage, and not prohibit same-sex marriage. But if government lets everyone do what they like, then that would presumably include allowing polygamy. This issue was presented to an appellate court in British Columbia, a province of Canada. And it delivered a resoundingly pro-marriage decision, and upheld Canada’s 121-year ban on polygamy.

The Court held that “the institution of monogamous marriage [is] a fundamental value in Western society from the earliest of times.” Its 335-page opinion cited numerous ways in which polygamy causes harm to society, from higher rates of abuse to greater emotional problems, to underachievement by the children in schools. The Court traced the history of monogamous marriage between one man and one woman back to the ancient world, observing that from 600 B.C. to the 500s A.D. “marriage was understood as a union between a man and a woman presumptively for life” and that “by the ninth century, Byzantine emperors had decreed polygamy a capital offence.”

The Court pointed out that in the United States, in the mid-1800s, “Polygamy and slavery were considered to be among the ‘twin relics of barbarism,’” and that the American “Congress has ‘the right and the duty to prohibit’ this ‘odious institution.’” Those principles were established by the Republican Party platform of 1856. An appeal of this recent polygamy decision is expected eventually to reach the Supreme Court of Canada. That court previously established a constitutional right to same-sex marriage so no one knows what it will do.

But the decision Schlafly just praised actually makes the case why the legalization of same-sex marriage does not lead to polygamy.

In the ruling, the judge answers Schlafly’s question “why should same-sex marriage be allowed but not polygamy?” He argues that monogamous same-sex marriage does not lead to polygamy “because committed same-sex relationships celebrate all of the values we seek to preserve and advance in monogamous marriage” and dismisses Schlafly’s claim as an “alarmist view” that “misses the whole point,” as “the doctrinal underpinnings of monogamous same-sex marriage are indistinguishable from those of heterosexual marriage”:

[M]ore importantly, this line reflects, again, the pre-eminent place that the institution of monogamous marriage takes in Western culture and, as we have seen, Western heritage over the millennia. When all is said, I suggest that the prohibition in s. 293 is directed in part at protecting the institution of monogamous marriage. And let me here recognize that we have come, in this century and in this country, to accept same-sex marriage as part of that institution. That is so, in part, because committed same-sex relationships celebrate all of the values we seek to preserve and advance in monogamous marriage.

The alarmist view expressed by some that the recognition of the legitimacy of same-sex marriage will lead to the legitimization of polygamy misses the whole point. As Maura Strassberg, Professor of Law at Duke University Law School, points out in “Distinctions of Form or Substance: Monogamy, Polygamy and Same-Sex Marriage” (1997) North Carolina L.R. 1501 at 1594, the doctrinal underpinnings of monogamous same-sex marriage are indistinguishable from those of heterosexual marriage as revised to conform to modern norms of gender equality. This counters, as well, the argument advanced by many, that “in this day and age” when we have adopted expansive views of acceptable marriage units and common law living arrangements, the acceptance of polygamy, or at least the abandonment of its criminal prohibition, is the next logical step. This is said in the context of the sentiment often expressed that the “State has no business in the bedrooms of the Nation”. Here, I say it does when in defence of what it views is a critical institution - monogamous marriage - from attack by an institution - polygamy - which is said to be inevitably associated with serious harms.

In 2010, Right Wing Watch reported that the National Organization for Marriage was pouring tens of thousands of dollars into D.C.’s Ward 5 city council race in an effort to punish one of the proponents of the District’s 2009 marriage equality law. The beneficiary of NOM’s largesse was Delano Hunter, a candidate who supported putting a referendum to undo the new marriage equality bill on the ballot. Despite NOM’s efforts, Hunter lost fairly badly to incumbent Harry Thomas.

Now, Thomas has been forced to resign after being charged with embezzling more than $350,000 in city funds, and Hunter is again angling for the Ward 5 seat. But, perhaps recognizing that opposition to gay rights is not a winning issue, Hunter has changed his tune on marriage equality, saying he would leave DC’s marriage law as it is, reports Lou Chibbaro of The Washington Blade:

An outspoken advocate for placing D.C.’s same-sex marriage law on the ballot in a voter referendum in 2010 says he no longer holds that view and will express “respect” for the law as a candidate for the City Council in a special election this spring.

Civic activist Delano Hunter has announced plans to run for the Ward 5 Council seat that became vacant last week when incumbent Harry Thomas, a Democrat, resigned after pleading guilty to federal theft and tax evasion charges.

“I do not seek to overturn the Marriage Equality Act when elected,” Hunter told the Blade in a statement released on Tuesday.

“I will, however, continue to establish working relationships within the LGBT community to focus on issues that affect the quality of life for all residents of the District of Columbia,” he said.

As Kyle and Brian have reported, the Family Research Council is teaming up with "apostle" Cindy Jacobs' Generals International in a major push to influence the 2012 elections. In Washington, DC, last night, the FRC, Jacobs and other “apostles” affiliated with the New Apostolic Reformation launched “Fast Forward,” a year-long “prayer and action” campaign designed to influence the GOP caucuses and primaries as well as the November presidential election.  The launch event, “A Gathering of Eagles,” was held at a Baptist church in northwest Washington. It featured plenty of prophecy and lots of rhetoric about the 2012 elections as war – a spiritual battleground against demons, marriage equality, and the Obama administration.  

We are sorting through video and will be posting highlights and analysis over the next couple of days, but the entire three-plus hours should be required viewing for any reporter or pundit who has downplayed the goals or influence of Christian dominionists in American politics.  Jacobs said the Lord had told her that 2012 is the “do or die” year for bringing America back to a “biblical worldview.”  She “decreed” that separation of church and state would be pulled down.  Jacobs was joined by the Family Research Council’s Pierre Bynum, who spoke wistfully about a time in America when you couldn’t hold public office without believing in Jesus Christ, heaven, and hell.   

It featured Jacobs and others demanding that angels deliver Bishop Harry Jackson the half-million dollars he said he needs to defeat marriage equality in Maryland.  But the evening was dominated by Dutch Sheets, another NAR apostle, whose presentation focused on the need for Christians to get away from a sheep-like focus on pastoral care, and start becoming an army of warriors prepared to take their rightful dominion and rule the earthly part of God’s kingdom.

Just a taste – more to come.