GAY TRUTH

This is not hype or exaggeration. It is a simple, legal truth. With the signing of the “Respect for Marriage Act” into law, if you do not accept or affirm same-sex “marriage,” you are now in the same category as a racist. And you can be assured that this will be used as a weapon against you in the days to come. How can I make such statements? Let me remind you of the exact language of the bill, beginning with the opening words: “This act provides statutory authority for same-sex and interracial marriages.” I have already discussed the reasons why this language was used since, in reality, interracial marriages were no more under potential legal threat in America than apple pie or baseball.  The only reason marriage requires two people is because it requires a man and a woman. In this article, I want to point out how the language is being used to target and demonize those of us who affirm and welcome interracial marriage, which contains the fundamental elements of marriage (a man and a w

Why would 12 Republican senators vote in favor of a bill which “provides statutory authority for same-sex and interracial marriages”? How could almost 25% of all Republican senators agree to back this? The issue, of course, is not their backing of interracial marriages. No major leader with any credibility or respected platform is saying such marriages should not be recognized by law. In fact, it is misleading even to put interracial marriages, which contain the fundamental building blocks of marriage and family, namely a man and a woman, in the same category as same-sex “marriages,” which by definition omit either the man or the woman. Rejection of interracial marriages is a matter of bigotry, not biology. The issue is these Republican leaders offering their names in support of these same-sex unions. What could possibly motivate them? Accepting Obergefell and Thinking This Bill Protects Religious Liberties  In the words of Sen. Mitt Romney, one of the aforementioned 12 and himself a d

While I am disappointed that the “Respect for Marriage Act” (RFMA) passed in the U.S. Congress, I am convinced that this bill will be the undoing of the Supreme Court’s 2015 same-sex marriage opinion in Obergefell v. Hodges. We fought hard to stop HR 8404, and we came very close to killing the bill thanks to so many citizens engaged in preserving religious freedom in America. To them, I would say, “Don’t get discouraged.” Now we move to the next strategy, in which I have a high level of confidence. The advocates of RFMA may celebrate today, but that celebration will not last. Lawmakers and LGBTQ advocates have unwittingly created the perfect scenario to fix the mess the High Court originally created. Obergefell, like Roe v. Wade, has no constitutional foundation. Overturning Obergefell would return the regulation and definition of marriage to the States as it was throughout our history up till the Court issued its flawed opinion in June 2015. Like abortion, many states would return to

Disney’s recent movie Strange World and the summer’s Lightyear both bombed at the box office. The Wall Street Journal recently called this “an unusual record for a company long considered a guaranteed hitmaker in children’s entertainment.” It was more than that. The Wall Street Journal won’t tell you one of the big reasons the two films bombed. It’s the same reason Bros — the movie whose poster showed two men grabbing each other’s buttocks — bombed. Few Americans go to the theatre to see same-sex relationships promoted. And this is why I don’t believe the polls show such a huge shift in support of same-sex marriage in the seven years since Obergefell. The practice has gained support from a solid majority of our political class, as the passage of the Respect for Marriage Act shows. But it doesn’t have so much support from everyone else. What People Don’t Tell Pollsters Don’t get me wrong. I don’t dispute that there has been some shift. And I don’t dispute that large numbers of people te

Christians in Australia who uphold the sanctity of one-man, one-woman marriage are feeling threatened after the country legalized same-sex “marriage” last week. After a volunteer mail-in survey, lawmakers in both houses of Parliament passed a law legalizing homosexual “marriage” last week. But as Pastor Mark Powell put it in  The Spectator Australia , “Let it be known that on the December 7, 2017 – the day in Australian Parliamentary history when "love won" – the hate campaign truly began.” Angry, intolerant Powell was referring to a “deluge” of hate mail and social media posts from homosexual activists directed at traditional marriage supporters, all under the hashtag “Love Wins.” One of the leading supporters of man/woman marriage, Lyle Shelton , received what Powell calls a “ Twitter storm attack.” The posts are not publishable here, but suffice it to say cursing and disease contracted in one of the most disgusting ways is the repeated wish upon Shelton an

The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments today on whether a Christian baker should be forced to go against his religious beliefs and create a same-sex “wedding” cake when asked to. The baker fighting for his right to not celebrate a same-sex “wedding” by creating a cake for it is Jack Phillips of Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, Colorado . In 2012, a same-sex couple asked Phillips to create a cake for their “wedding.” Phillips is a Christian who won’t bake cakes celebrating Halloween, divorce, or bachelor parties. He referred the couple to another baker who was willing to participate in their union. With the help of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) , the couple pursued legal action against Phillips. Phillips and his staff were also ordered to undergo re-education and file quarterly “compliance” reports on their application of Colorado’s Anti-Discrimination Act for two years. In 2013, a lower court ruled that Phillips violated the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act. In 2

Christians are not commanded to simply “tolerate” their neighbors, they are commanded to  love  their neighbors—and love, in the Christian tradition , is not simply a feeling of warmth or affection, it is quite literally to  desire the other’s good .  Progressives, however, do not mean that we should all tolerate  people —they mean that everyone must tolerate  behaviors and lifestyles , regardless of whether some believe those lifestyles and behaviors to be harmful, and thus incompatible with desiring the other’s good. One example of this trend is how Christians in North America are being smeared with the “homophobia” label.  Being labeled “homophobic” today doesn’t actually mean that you fear or hate gay people. What it simply means is that you disagree some parts of the LGBTQ agenda, whether that be gay “marriage” or transgender pronouns or religious liberty. In fact, you can have friends or family members who are members of this community that you know and love, and thi

The angry, foul-mouthed phone calls to Liberal MP Andrew Hastie’s electorate office started soon after the results of the same-sex marriage survey were declared last Wednesday. Then came a deluge of abusive emails, tweets and Facebook messages from victorious same-sex marriage advocates that have shocked the usually unflappable Mr Hastie and his staff — some of whom voted Yes in the survey. Many are furious over Mr Hastie’s controversial decision — flagged months ago — to abstain from voting on the issue in parliament even though his own electorate of Canning, south of Perth, returned a 60 per vote in favour of same-sex marriage. For this he has repeatedly been labelled a “ homophobe ” and a “coward”. One anonymous correspondent emailed Mr Hastie’s office: “Listen you f..king maggot. You are there to carry out the wishes of your electorate & not to enforce your own homophobic & bigoted views. Don’t be a c... Vote for it in parliament.” Even a reporter from a local newspa

Once again, ABC Australia is blaming the church, but more precisely pastors for homosexual poor mental health. As usual the ABC spends time interviewing one Church leader who is bisexual from the Uniting church then another 'progressive' Baptist Pastor who disregards historical biblical interpretation on the sin of homosexuality and personally reinterprets homosexuality as a blessing of God .  The problem with the article written by Sarah Malik is that it shows little understanding of the scriptures, ignores the presence of a Godly conscience, misunderstands the power of sin even the existence of sin, the blindness of sin, the rebellion against God word and lastly the abandonment by God for homosexual behavior as outlined in Romans 1.  All of these actions, are identical to any person who sins intentionally or unintentionally against the will of God. The searing of the conscience comes first, the the withdrawal of God's restraint until God abandons them. This