GAY TRUTH

After promising to approve a pro-life flag to fly in front of city hall, the mayor now says it needs to be replaced by something less divisive. According to Val Hettrick, past president of Prince Albert Right to Life , Mayor Greg Dionne initially said he would stand by his decision to fly the flag featuring Umbert the Unborn cartoon figure despite an outcry from abortion supporters. “I give Mayor Dionne credit for standing up for free speech in the past,” Hettrick told LifeSiteNews. “But now he says we have to change the sign and the reasons keep changing. It’s smoke and mirrors.” Dionne proclaimed Celebrate Life Week last year and says he will do so again this year, at a Monday ceremony in front of City Hall to mark the May 11 March for Life in Ottawa . However, this year for the first time in more than 20 years, there will be no flag flying on the courtesy pole in front of city hall. For the past 10 years, the flag has featured an image of “Umbert the Unborn,” the wi

U.S. Supreme Court building. (Photo credit: Wikipedia ) As I write this, the Supreme Court has handed down what will be the “ Roe v. Wade ” of marriage, redefining marriage in all 50 states. This is a sober moment, and I am a conscientious dissenter from this ruling. The Court now has disregarded thousands of years of definition of the most foundational unit of society, and the cultural changes here will be broad and deep. So how should the church respond? First of all, the church should not panic. The Supreme Court can do many things, but the Supreme Court cannot get Jesus back in that tomb. Jesus of Nazareth is still alive. He is still calling the universe toward his kingdom. Moreover, while this decision will, I believe, ultimately hurt many people and families and civilization itself, the gospel doesn’t need “family values” to flourish. In fact, the church often thrives when it is in sharp contrast to the cultures around it. That was the case in Ephesus and Philippi and Cor

English: Anthony Kennedy, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States (Photo credit: Wikipedia ) As many expected, the Supreme Court , by a 5-4 vote, ruled that under the Constitution, “ same-sex couples may exercise the fundamental right to marry .” Brushing aside arguments about history and the purpose of marriage, Justice Kennedy , writing for the majority, wrote “No longer may this liberty be denied to them.” This ruling is no surprise. All along, court-watchers knew that it would all come down to what Justice Kennedy thought about the issue. The votes of the other eight justices were never really in doubt. And it was obvious that Justice Kennedy, as the author of Planned Parenthood ’s infamous “mystery passage,” would have trouble excluding same-sex marriage from “the right to define one’s own concept of existence.” Justice Kennedy’s opinion, along with the four dissenting opinions, will be dissected and analyzed for some time. For now, though, I’d like to ta

Last week, the Supreme Court agreed to hear a case that could do for same-sex marriage what  Roe v. Wade  did for abortion-on-demand. What concerns me, besides the obvious prospect of having marriage permanently redefined in American law , is the impact of such a ruling on religious freedom . As you know from listening to BreakPoint, there is ample reason for concern on that score. Recent events have demonstrated that the clash between gay rights and religious freedom is a zero-sum game . That’s why a recent column by Frank Bruni of the New York Times concerned me so profoundly. From the start, Bruni, who is himself gay, demonstrates that he does not, or perhaps cannot, understand this issue. He begins by telling readers that he “chafes” at being called “a threat to your religious liberty.” He then goes on to dispute the idea that allowing “men who have romantic relationships with other men and maybe want to marry them” will somehow run roughshod over someone’s creed. In f

Pro and anti-Proposition 8 protesters rally in front of the San Francisco City Hall as the California Supreme Court holds a session in the to determine the definition of marriage (Strauss v. Horton cases). (Photo credit: Wikipedia ) This year, the Supreme Court will render judgment on the  institution of marriage . Though most of us don’t realize it, the Court first did so forty-one years ago in  Eisenstadt  v.  Baird , a decision that gravely wounded marriage and set the nation on a course of gradual debilitation by ruling that states could not restrict the sale of contraceptives to unmarried people. In its forthcoming decision, the Court may give marriage the  legal  coup de grace . Or it may surprise us, redeem itself, and use the occasion to correct the drift of legal thought on sexuality, marriage, and the rights of children . All three are inextricably linked. In  Eisenstadt,  the Court overturned Massachusetts state law and pulled new sexual rights for singles out

Why is it that so many people who support abortion also support the right of baby animals to live?  I personally believe that people are created in the Image of God and, therefore, their lives are the most important to protect.  (I also believe we shouldn’t needlessly kill animals.)  However, I get how people who believe in evolution and think that we are all animals could equate killing an animal baby to killing a human baby.  But what I don’t understand is how one can be so wrong and the other so right… For example, I was at a hearing recently where legal advisors for the pro-life side and the abortion industry were discussing their positions on the proposed Colorado Personhood Amendment.  The abortion advocate’s attorney, Lila Bateman, attempted to answer a hypothetical question. Currently the law provides far more protection to the turtle egg than the unborn human being. If, instead of the Personhood Amendment being about giving the full protections of life to the unborn, it was