GAY TRUTH

There appears to be a new trend in academia — invite a guest, bestow an honor and then publicly renege on the honor at the first whiff of controversy. The consequence of this approach is usually public humiliation for the honoree and an even-greater media kerfuffle than caused by announcing the award in the first place. For higher education institutions that pride themselves on “free thought,” it sure increasingly seems that "thought" can be bought by the highest-bidding alumnus who calls to complain. Indeed, the latest instance of higher education’s troubling moral equivocation took place in a rather unexpected locale — the Princeton Theological Seminary. After announcing that the Rev. Timothy Keller would receive the Kuyper Prize for Excellence in Reformed Theology and Public Witness, one of the school's most prestigious lectureships, the seminary received blowback because of Keller’s traditional views on marriage and female ordination. This week, the seminary

Judge Neil Gorsuch is confirmed as the next Supreme Court justice , he would play a decisive role in the demise of immoral sodomy marriage in the United States. The Court held in its 2015 - 1 vote majority -  Obergefell decision that there is a supposed nationwide right of homosexuals couples to marry, by beleiving the constitution is an evolving documents.  But no Supreme Court decision is written in stone. Gorsuch’s statements on the issue in his 2004 Oxford University dissertation for his Doctorate in Philosophy reveal that he thought it obvious that the United States Constitution does not support homosexual marriage. If he still holds this view, he could join forces with other justices to reverse the Court’s protection of this right. This would be a good outcome. In order to understand why Gorsuch’s statements are potentially a great outcome for the dismissing of immoral homosexual marriage we must look closely at the constitution. Gorsuch is critical of this legal doct

The phrases ‘religious liberty’ and ‘religious freedom’ will stand for nothing except hypocrisy so long as they remain code words for discrimination, intolerance, racism, sexism, homophobia, Islamophobia or any form of intolerance. – US Commission on Civil Rights Chairman, Martin Castro. September 19, 2016  (HLI)  — There it is, folks — the official position of an official agency of the federal government , not an LGBT activist group. Actually, it appears that the Commission on Civil Rights is now, in fact, an LGBT activist group. For those paying attention to the assault on life, faith, and family – really on every natural and traditional institution in the nation — the September 7 report from the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights is not so much shocking as it is another chance for people to wake up to how far our nation has fallen. The report from the now-ironically named commission was called  “Peaceful Coexistence: Reconciling Nondiscrimination Principles with Religi

Three mayors, a governor, and several LGBT advocacy groups are targeting North Carolina 's new law protecting the privacy of the state's citizens. Last week, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) , the ACLU of North Carolina, Lambda Legal , and Equality North Carolina sued to overturn the law, which was signed by Governor Pat McCrory on Wednesday. The measure overturned a Charlotte ordinance requiring all businesses and public buildings to allow citizens identifying as transgender to use their preferred bathrooms, locker rooms, and similar facilities. “We’re challenging this extreme and discriminatory measure in order to ensure that everyone who lives in and visits North Carolina is protected under the law,” said Chris Brook, Legal Director of the ACLU of North Carolina, in a statement. “No legislature should be using its power to require cities, counties, or school districts to discriminate against anyone. This law is a targeted and unprecedented attack on the

Have we already forgotten Kim Davis ? “It shows how quickly the news cycles spin things out and leave them in a dust heap in the rearview mirror,” said theologian Don Carson . “A bare six months ago the nation was full of talk about ‘the woman from Kentucky .’” Davis, 50, that “woman from Kentucky,” as some may remember, is county clerk for Rowan County. Her story, said Carson, is worth pulling from the heap and revisiting as an opportunity for believers to think through complex issues of Christian faithfulness in a declining culture. Here’s a brief dust-off. In its historic ruling on Obergefell this summer, in a hotly contested 5–4 decision, the Supreme Court pronounced the right to legal “marriage” is guaranteed to same-sex couples by the U.S. Constitution . Out of conscience, Davis refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, even to her gay friends. “I can’t put my name on a license that doesn’t represent what God ordained marriage to be,” she said at the time. Such

Taking the admonishment of legal scholars to heart that the Supreme Court's marriage ruling in   Obergefell   is illegitimate, several Alabama probate judges   have petitioned the state Supreme Court for a judgement   upholding the state constitution and prohibiting the state from issuing same-sex 'marriage' licenses. The judges acknowledge that the state must "recognize" same-sex 'marriage' licenses issued elsewhere that are valid under the laws of other states, but that the federal government is powerless to force the state to itself issue licenses that violate its state constitution. Saying that the   Obergefell   ruling was "born from a strained interpretation of the US Constitution, the new same-sex marriage license is a child of the federal government, not the State of Alabama...Therefore, the recognition of same-sex marriage as a civil right under the United States Constitution vests the U.S. Congress with the authority and responsibi

An ethics investigation has been launched against an Oregon judge who ordered his staff to recommend same-sex " marriage " requests to other judges, even though he isn't required to perform the ceremonies. On Thursday, Judge Vance Day’s spokesperson, Patrick Korten, confirmed that Day was being investigated by the Oregon Commission on Judicial Fitness because of his opposition to redefining marriage. While Day has never performed a same-sex "marriage" in his four years on the bench, it was only this past spring that he told his staff to recommend other judges to same-sex couples that request him to oversee "marriage" ceremonies. In 2014, Day decided to stop doing weddings at all, except for one in March of this year that had been previously scheduled, according to Korten. "He made a decision nearly a year ago to stop doing weddings altogether, and the principal factor that he weighed was the pressure that one would face to perform a sam

English: Justice Anthony Kennedy, 2009. (Photo credit: Wikipedia ) The U.S. Supreme Court issued its monumental ruling on same-sex “marriage” on Friday, declaring that all 50 states must and are “required ” to legalize “gay marriage” under the U.S. Constitution . “The court now holds that same-sex couples may exercise the fundamental right to marry. No longer may this liberty be denied to them,” Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in the 5-4 decision, with the majority being the liberal justices on the bench: Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg , Justice Elena Kagan , Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Justice Steven Breyer and the aforementioned Justice Kennedy. While the court recognized the longstanding definition of marriage as being “a union between two persons of the opposite sex,” the five justices opined that “the history of marriage is one of both continuity and change.” “That institution—even as confined to opposite-sex relations—has evolved over time,” Kennedy said. “No union is mo

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