No, Linda Harvey, Marriage Equality Will Not Make Jesus Get Gay Married

Linda Harvey is not happy with the recent vote in Washington state in favor of marriage equality and she is even less happy with the decision by the state to revise its marriage licenses to add an option for "spouse," in addition to "bride" and "groom," allowing those who are getting married to choose which they prefer. 

In Harvey's eyes, this change undermines the "legitimacy of man-woman marriage" and, even worse, creates confusion about the Christian imagery in which Jesus one day returns to earth to marry his "bride": the church.

Well now, even though truth has not changed; marriage is still, in reality, one man and one woman, the voters' decision prompted health department officials to propose a change in language until enough people objected.  The words "bride" and "groom" were going to be replaced with "spouse A" and "spouse B" or "person A" and "person B" on marriage licenses, according to the original proposal.

That's right; on official marriage documents, the words "bride" and "groom" were going to disappear.  When advocates of homosexual marriage say how would two men or two women being allowed to marry change your marriage, here's one way.  Nonsense like this starts showing up and the legitimacy of man-woman marriage is automatically on defense against pretenders to the throne.

...

Homosexuality, far from being marriage, is always a grave sin in Scripture.

Then, speaking of brides and grooms, there's another Christian concept that illustrates the unchanging standard of man and woman as the model for marriage: in the New Testament, Jesus is referred to several times as the "bridegroom." And when he returns, he will return as a bridegroom seeking his bride: the church, which is the body of all believers, also called the Bride of Christ.  It's a beautiful analogy.

What happens to such a concept in a same-sex marriage?  Does Jesus as bridegroom seek another groom?  No, that would be a twisted and frankly offensive spin on a profound and marvelous concept.

As Christians, we must never accept the idea of same-sex marriage.  It certainly doesn't work as sound Christian doctrine and it will be shown before long not to work as revolutionary secular law either.

Justice Scalia’s 7 Worst Anti-Gay Statements

On Friday, the Supreme Court agreed to hear two landmark cases on marriage equality. Yesterday, Justice Antonin Scalia reminded us again why gay rights advocates, to put it mildly, aren’t counting on his vote.

Scalia is the Supreme Court’s most outspoken opponent of gay rights. He led the dissent to the two major gay rights decisions of his tenure on the Court, the decisions to strike down Texas’ criminal sodomy law and to overturn Colorado’s ban on local anti-discrimination measures. And in his spare time, he minces no words about his uncompromising opposition to gay rights. Here are seven of his most egregious anti-gay statements:

  • Compares bans on homosexuality to bans on murder: Yesterday, Scalia asked a gay law student, “If we cannot have moral feelings against homosexuality, can we have it against murder? Can we have it against other things?”
  •  …and to bans on polygamy and animal cruelty: In his dissent to the Colorado case, Romer v. Evans, Scalia wrote, “But I had thought that one could consider certain conduct reprehensible--murder, for example, or polygamy, or cruelty to animals--and could exhibit even 'animus' toward such conduct. Surely that is the only sort of ‘animus’ at issue here: moral disapproval of homosexual conduct, the same sort of moral disapproval that produced the centuries old criminal laws that we held constitutional in Bowers.”
  • Defends employment and housing discrimination: In his dissent to Lawrence, the decision that overturned Texas’ criminal sodomy law, Scalia went even further, justifying all kinds of discrimination against gays and lesbians: “Many Americans do not want persons who openly engage in homosexual conduct as partners in their business, as scoutmasters for their children, as teachers in their children’s schools, or as boarders in their home. They view this as protecting themselves and their families from a lifestyle that they believe to be immoral and destructive. The Court views it as ‘discrimination’ which it is the function of our judgments to deter.”
  • Says decision on “homosexual sodomy” was “easy” because it's justified by long history of anti-gay discrimination: In a talk at the American Enterprise Institute earlier this year, Scalia dismissed decisions on abortion, the death penalty and “homosexual sodomy” as “easy”: “The death penalty? Give me a break. It’s easy. Abortion? Absolutely easy. Nobody ever thought the Constitution prevented restrictions on abortion,” he said. “Homosexual sodomy? Come on. For 200 years, it was criminal in every state.”
  • Says domestic partners have no more rights than “long time roommates”:  In his dissent in Romer, Scalia dismissed the idea that a law banning benefits for same-sex domestic partners would be discriminatory, saying the law “would prevent the State or any municipality from making death benefit payments to the ‘life partner’ of a homosexual when it does not make such payments to the long time roommate of a nonhomosexual employee.”
  • Says gay rights are a concern of “the elite”: In his Romer dissent, Scalia lashes out at the majority that has upheld gay rights: “This Court has no business imposing upon all Americans the resolution favored by the elite class from which the Members of this institution are selected, pronouncing that 'animosity' toward homosexuality is evil. “
  • Accuses those who disagree with him of supporting the “homosexual agenda”: Lifting a talking point straight from the far right, Scalia accused the majority in Lawrence of being in the thrall of the “homosexual agenda”: “Today’s opinion is the product of a Court, which is the product of a law-profession culture, that has largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda, by which I mean the agenda promoted by some homosexual activists directed at eliminating the moral opprobrium that has traditionally attached to homosexual conduct.”

Cross-posted from PFAW Blog

Justice Scalia’s 7 Worst Anti-Gay Statements

On Friday, the Supreme Court agreed to hear two landmark cases on marriage equality. Yesterday, Justice Antonin Scalia reminded us again why gay rights advocates, to put it mildly, aren’t counting on his vote.

Scalia is the Supreme Court’s most outspoken opponent of gay rights. He led the dissent to the two major gay rights decisions of his tenure on the Court, the decisions to strike down Texas’ criminal sodomy law and to overturn Colorado’s ban on local anti-discrimination measures. And in his spare time, he minces no words about his uncompromising opposition to gay rights. Here are seven of his most egregious anti-gay statements:

  • Compares bans on homosexuality to bans on murder: Yesterday, Scalia asked a gay law student, “If we cannot have moral feelings against homosexuality, can we have it against murder? Can we have it against other things?”
     
  •  …and to bans on polygamy and animal cruelty: In his dissent to the Colorado case, Romer v. Evans, Scalia wrote, “But I had thought that one could consider certain conduct reprehensible--murder, for example, or polygamy, or cruelty to animals--and could exhibit even 'animus' toward such conduct. Surely that is the only sort of ‘animus’ at issue here: moral disapproval of homosexual conduct, the same sort of moral disapproval that produced the centuries old criminal laws that we held constitutional in Bowers.”
     
  • Defends employment and housing discrimination: In his dissent to Lawrence, the decision that overturned Texas’ criminal sodomy law, Scalia went even further, justifying all kinds of discrimination against gays and lesbians: “Many Americans do not want persons who openly engage in homosexual conduct as partners in their business, as scoutmasters for their children, as teachers in their children’s schools, or as boarders in their home. They view this as protecting themselves and their families from a lifestyle that they believe to be immoral and destructive. The Court views it as ‘discrimination’ which it is the function of our judgments to deter.”
     
  • Says decision on “homosexual sodomy” was “easy” because it's justified by long history of anti-gay discrimination: In a talk at the American Enterprise Institute earlier this year, Scalia dismissed decisions on abortion, the death penalty and “homosexual sodomy” as “easy”: “The death penalty? Give me a break. It’s easy. Abortion? Absolutely easy. Nobody ever thought the Constitution prevented restrictions on abortion,” he said. “Homosexual sodomy? Come on. For 200 years, it was criminal in every state.”
     
  • Says domestic partners have no more rights than “long time roommates”:  In his dissent in Romer, Scalia dismissed the idea that a law banning benefits for same-sex domestic partners would be discriminatory, saying the law “would prevent the State or any municipality from making death benefit payments to the ‘life partner’ of a homosexual when it does not make such payments to the long time roommate of a nonhomosexual employee.”
     
  • Says gay rights are a concern of “the elite”: In his Romer dissent, Scalia lashes out at the majority that has upheld gay rights: “This Court has no business imposing upon all Americans the resolution favored by the elite class from which the Members of this institution are selected, pronouncing that "animosity" toward homosexuality is evil.“
     
  • Accuses those who disagree with him of supporting the “homosexual agenda”: Lifting a talking point straight from the far right, Scalia accused the majority in Lawrence of being in the thrall of the “homosexual agenda”: “Today’s opinion is the product of a Court, which is the product of a law-profession culture, that has largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda, by which I mean the agenda promoted by some homosexual activists directed at eliminating the moral opprobrium that has traditionally attached to homosexual conduct.”
PFAW

Wilson Uses Bogus Story to Warn that Liberals Will Put Pastors in Jail

American Family Association’s Buster Wilson yesterday warned that gays and liberals are trying to “elevate hate speech [laws] above the freedoms of our precious first amendment,” citing a case in Canada where he says a “pastor spent 18 months in jail for a sermon he preached against homosexuality.”

As we think about the basics of Biblical morality, today we will discuss the issue of hate speech and the first amendment’s guarantee of freedom of Speech.

While most Americans refuse to believe anyone could ever be imprisoned simply for something they said, the examples of it actually happening are abundant.

In our neighbor to the north, Canada, a local pastor spent 18 months in jail for a sermon he preached about homosexuality. A member complained to the hate speech council and he was found guilty and jailed.

Now for certain, that’s in Canada. But the hate speecher’s in this country are modeling their efforts on those successful hate speech laws in Canada.

The left wants to control the speech of the right, and if left to themselves, they will find a way to elevate hate speech above the freedoms of our precious first amendment!

If a pastor was sentenced to jail for eighteen months in Canada, don’t you think there would be a single news story about it?

We couldn’t find a single one, but Wilson seems to be citing a decision by the Alberta Human Rights Commission which fined a pastor over an anti-gay letter to the editor which preceded an attack on a gay youth. But the ruling was overturned because it violated Canada’s constitutional protection of free speech. Even Canadian Baptist leaders have rebuffed claims that pastors in their country can go to jail over their stance on homosexuality.

So basically, a Canadian judge tosses out a fine against a pastor and reaffirms his free speech rights, but Wilson claims that he “spent 18 months in jail” and therefore hate speech laws are coming to the U.S.!

Barber: Almost Half of Gay Men Were Sexually Assaulted by Pedophiles as Children

When not fighting the "war on Christmas," Mat Staver and Matt Barber continue to fight the California law that bans the use of sexual orientation conversion therapy on minors, which they have now taken to calling "Jerry Sandusky laws" on the grounds that children who are sexually abused will now become gay because they will not be allowed to get therapy to help them deal with the abuse. 

In fact, Barber falsely claimed that almost half of all gay men "were sexually assaulted by a homosexual pedophile" and that abuse is what pushed them into a lifestyle filled with disease, depression, and alcoholism. 

For Staver, the basic goal of laws seeking to ban the use of conversion therapy is simply to force people to accept homosexuality "as good and normal, when it is not":

Right Wing Round-Up - 12/10/12

Right Wing Leftovers - 12/10/12

  • Matt Barber lovingly tells women who have had an abortion that they have "committed a sin most grave" but their "blood-covered hands can be washed clean by the blood-covered hands of Christ the Savior."
  • Phyllis Schlafly thinks that early voting helped President Obama win re-election, which is just another reason to get rid of early voting.
  • Gary Cass needs your help to help decide the "10 most egregious acts of anti-Christian defamation, discrimination and persecution in America" for 2012.
  • Peter LaBarbera is pretty sure that transgender activists are really just working to make "taxpayers, ultimately to pay for these awful operations where people's healthy sex organs are amputated or altered."
  • Finally, Scott Lively says the explosion that destroyed a strip club in Springfield, MA was a message from God not to try to build a casino in the city.

Young Earth Creationists Still Unhappy with Pat Robertson

Last week, young earth Creationist leader Ken Ham lashed out at Pat Robertson for disputing the belief that Earth is approximately 6,000 years old. Now the American Family Association’s news arm OneNewsNow is out with a story, “Christian Broadcaster Straying From Scripture?” The AFA quotes a member of Ham’s Answers in Genesis skewering Robertson for insisting that humans did not live side-by-side with the dinosaurs:

Dr. Terry Mortenson of Answers in Genesis (AIG), who disagrees with Robertson, notes that the television show host challenges James Ussher, the renowned former archbishop of Ireland who traced the earth's creation based on the Bible and took the Bible as the Word of God.

"[Ussher] came up with a date of 4004 [B.C.] for creation by taking the genealogies in Genesis 5 and 11 as complete chronologies with no missing names, which is the way the church took those genealogies for 1,800 years," Dr. Mortenson explains. "So, he was just being a very, very careful student of the Scriptures and the chronological information given in Scripture."

Moreover, the AIG researcher notes that Robertson's claim that dinosaurs existed before biblical times is illogical, because there is no pre-biblical time; the Bible starts with the creation of the world.

Robertson also mentioned science's reliance on carbon dating, which Dr. Mortenson says reveals Robertson's ignorance on the subject.

"Carbon-14 is never used to date rocks or dinosaur bones; it's other dating methods which have much longer half-lives," Mortenson reports. "The maximum age you could date anything with radio carbon dating is about 80,000 or 100,000 years at the max, and dinosaurs supposedly lived 65 million to 245 million years ago. So he's really not informed on the dating methods."

AIG maintains that the Bible remains the true and final authority on the subject.

Cathie Adams: Obama Needs a Teleprompter 'Because He Fried His Brain on Drugs'

A little over a week before the election, Texas Eagle Forum president Cathie Adams, delivered a presentation at a Grassroots America We The People "Call To Action" meeting where she spoke alongside then-candidate Ted Cruz. 

Adams' presentation was largely based on Mark Levin's book "Ameritopia" as she set out to explain exactly how "Barack Hussein Obama," as she repeatedly referred to him, was using the so-called "green agenda" as cover to implement Marxism in America.  As Adams saw it, talk of "sustainable development" or "social justice" are just code words for Marxism, leading to an odd claim that the conflicts that plague the continent of Africa would end when the people of Africa learn to "turn their hearts toward their creator."

Adams then wondered why people are unwilling to admit that there "is a Marxist in our White House" before declaring that when she saw "someone who thinks so narcissisticly as Barack Hussein Obama [glare] at Mitt Romney in that last debate," it made her "want to go up and just smack his face!"

Finally, Adams warned her audience against thinking that they cannot impose their values on the nation because failing to do so will have dire consequences, saying that the initiative on the ballot in Colorado that legalized marijuana would only make matters worse "because I'm telling you, Barack Hussein Obama has got to have a teleprompter because he fried his brain on drugs":

At last count, I think there were fifteen wars that were on-going in Africa. And yet, the United Nations has been for years, as well has been the UK and I remember much of the American foreign policy being focused on Africa; "we've got to meet the needs of the people in Africa and then there will be no more war." Folks, fifteen wars the last time I counted. The way that they are going to get out of a warring situation is to turn their hearts towards their creator, it is not going to be by having their needs met by any government.

Who is a Marxist in our White House?  Of course, it's Barack Hussein Obama.  And I don't know why we're not calling him what he is as a Marxist.  It's as if, when the wall fell that communism died; it didn't.  Today, it is green on the outside and red on the inside. It is as red as ever and Barack Obama is implementing his green agenda, which is Marxism, and that is exactly why our economy is hurting as badly as it is and why twenty three million people are still out of work. That is exactly what is happening.

So for us to elect a US Senator or elect a President who thinks more of himself than he ought, who thinks so narcissisticly, as Barack Hussein Obama glared at Mitt Romney in that last debate, I was so offended I wanted to go up and just smack his face.

And folks we've got to be very careful about saying "well, that's not for me but you can do whatever you want." Folks, we have a rule of law, we have a Constitution and those things must be upheld.  We cannot think that, well, if what their trying to do, for example, right now on a ballot in Colorado is legalize marijuana.  And if we legalize it, will we empty out our jails and will we be safe for ever more?  No.  I'm telling you, Barack Hussein Obama has got to have a teleprompter because he fried his brain on drugs.

Harvey: Gay Rights Advocates Pushing a 'Lie from the Pit of Hell' and 'Killing our Children'

Anti-gay activist Linda Harvey of Mission America on her radio show this weekend decried a recent LGBT youth conference, PrideWorks, in Westchester, New York, which she said is part of an effort to corrupt children with “pro-homosexual, graphic, explicit, distorted and bizarre information.” “It’s a huge lie from the pit of hell,” Harvey said, insisting that it is “heartbreaking” about how gay rights supporters “are leading our children into sin” and effectively “killing our children.”

The homosexual movement is pitching their movement to our kids. They for some reason are very anxious to sell our children on this. I think part of it is they believe this is the future of their movement if they sell people with misinformation, which is what it largely is at this point, and put conservative values on the defensive, then they will turn a whole generation around. And they are doing it because the hearts of the fathers are not where they need to be, we need to be getting in there and fighting for the truth for our kids. We need to be horrified that busloads of middle schoolers, for instance, are taken to an all-day program in Westchester County, New York sponsored by the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network and hear an entire day that they take off school and the school sponsors this of pro-homosexual, graphic, explicit, distorted and bizarre information and it’s government sponsored now.



It’s a huge lie from the pit of hell, folks. We need to tell our children the truth, all of our children, the ones who are so sadly distorting themselves at this point in their lives; they’ve listened to these lies. They are not being told anything about another side, another beautiful, positive, life-enhancing, life-prolonging side and that’s traditional values. It’s not hateful; it is being misportrayed by those who are desperate to hang on to their sin and want to drag children, contrary to what Jesus wanted people to do with children, to drag children into it with them.



We are killing our children, we’re killing their hearts, their spirits, their sensitivity to other people, we are giving them the tools to make it highly likely they will never have a happy, productive marriage in the future if they are already so hardened in their hearts to the beautiful, God-designed function of their bodies. This is heartbreaking, this is absolutely heartbreaking, I get choked up every time I think about how we are leading our children into sin. Jesus said do not lead little ones into sin, and why are we doing this? Why are we not out there fighting for our kids? I urge you to search your hearts and find a way to find it in your time to make a call, make a call on the Heartbeat Bill, make a call to your school and your school board president and make sure they are not allowing pro-homosexual programs in their schools.
Share this page: Facebook Twitter Digg SU Digg Delicious